The following is an excerpt from: 2024 UCA Field School at Davidsonville Historic State Park (3RA40): Resistivity Survey in the Town Square and Preliminary Excavations in Block A, Lots 4 and F. Report submitted to Arkansas State Parks and the Arkansas Archeological Survey.
This report summarizes results of survey and excavations undertaken at Davidsonville Historic State Park (3RA40) from May 12 through 24, 2024. Field work was undertaken as part of the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) Field Archaeology (ANTH 4490) course offered by the Department of Sociology, Criminology, and Anthropology with assistance from the Jamie C. Brandon Center for Archaeological Research (JCB Center). Nine UCA students participated in the course and were instructed by Dr. Duncan McKinnon (UCA) and Lynita Langley-Ware (Faulkner County Museum). Students, staff, and faculty camped at Davidsonville and were able to utilize the Education Center for evening lab work and guest lectures.
Prior to the UCA fieldwork, the Arkansas Archeological Survey (ARAS) had conducted multi-year excavations at Davidsonville, which were largely focused within the public square and adjacent lots (see Cande 2005, 2006; Cande et al. 2007). Results identified the Post Office (Block C), the Court House (Public Square), and Public House (Block F).
The area of focus for the UCA field school sought to expand upon the ARAS fieldwork and was situated within two primary areas (Figure 1). First, students collected electrical resistivity data within the southern periphery of the public square to add to survey areas already collected by the ARAS (see Cande 2005). Over the course of two weeks, eight 20 x 20-meter grids were collected totaling 3200 hectares of new resistivity data (0.80 acres).
Second, targeted excavation units were established within areas to the south of the public square within a heavily wooded area. Four units were opened within Block A, Lots 4 and 5 in hopes of identifying evidence of the location of the former cotton gin, bale press, or caretaker quarters. Excavation units were established in two localities based on selected topographic depressions and a large cluster of daffodils located on a slightly elevated area. Units 24, 25, and 26 were established on the elevated area among the daffodils, whereas Unit 27 was established proximate to a large depression interpreted as the possible cotton press location. Also, within this area, a systematic metal detecting survey was undertaken to evaluate subsurface distribution of metal objects and overall density, type, and integrity of buried objects. Data collected during the 2024 field school is intended to assist Davidsonville Historic State Park in their long-term planning and development of interpretive materials associated with the original town landscape.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY SURVEY
The use of terrestrial-based remote sensing methods in archaeology (archaeogeophysics) has developed into an applied discipline with the use of data to interpret landform changes, guide excavation, and establish subsurface distribution maps of cultural and natural features (see McKinnon and Haley 2017). Several methods are utilized, which include magnetic gradiometry, electrical resistance, ground-penetrating radar, and magnetic susceptibility (see Johnson 2006). For the 2024 field work, an electrical resistance survey was undertaken.
Electrical resistance surveys measure the level of resistance (R) in the subsurface by injecting a current (I) into the ground using a low voltage (V) resistance meter. The ratio of current to voltage defines resistance and is expressed by Ohm’s Law, mathematically stating that R=I/V. While resistance is an electrical quality, resistivity is the actual specific property of the material. Its conversion allows for the “resistance of different materials to be compared in a standardized way” (Clark 1996:27). Electrical resistivity is measured in ohm-meters.
Variations in resistance measurements are based on the principle that geological features hold different materials and amounts of moisture. Both exhibit varying levels of resistance to an electrical current, and the latter has a particularly large effect in archaeological sites. As a general principle, these varying levels of high resistance (low conductivity) might represent a shallow subsurface of compressed soil matrix, such as a compacted buried surface where porosity is decreased, and evaporation is elevated. In contrast, a measurement of low resistance (high conductivity) might represent a pit or depression where moisture has accumulated into a more porous soil matrix (void) and is less likely to evaporate–or at least evaporate at a slower rate.
At Davidsonville, eight 20 x 20-meter grids were established south of the area previously collected by the Arkansas Archeological Survey and within portions of the Public Square (see Figure 1). Electrical resistivity was collected with spacing between transects (Y) and along the baselines (X) each set to half-meter spacing. Current (I) ranges were set to 1 mA at an output voltage (V) of 40 V allowing for a resolution of 0.0005 ohms. Data were collected by zigzag (collecting while walking back and forth) using an RM Frobisher TAR-3 resistance meter (Figure 2a).
When added to the survey area previously collected by the Arkansas Archeological Survey in March 2004, several patterns are realized (Figure 3). Drainage channels (blue) continue into the added survey area as they move downslope, and the septic field lateral lines also extend into the northeast corner of the added area. These are related to a former bathhouse that was associated with a recent camping area in this part of the park. Of note is the termination of the clearly defined rock, visqueen, and mulch pathway identified in the 2024 survey (and visible on the surface) running along the former Richie Street. In 2004, road markers consisted of railroad ties resting on the surface, whereas since that time, a series of walking paths have been added to the site.
Additional survey is planned for future field work to include the un-surveyed areas within the Public Square, as well as Lots 46 and 48 to the west, and Lots 8 and 9 to the south. With a larger survey area, patterns and anomalies that might initially seem isolated are more readily visualized, which defines a landscape approach to understanding a more continuous and related culturally modified space (Kvamme 2003).
TARGETED EXCAVATIONS
Four targeted excavation units represent the extent of excavation locations in two Areas. Three units (U24, U25, U26) were placed on a low rise covered with daffodil plants. Daffodils regularly represent ornamental vegetation that was planted in proximity to a structure or landscape modification and often “indicate the presence of a historic home and/or cemetery” (Dunn 2012). Unit numbers were assigned following the last unit number recorded by the Arkansas Archeological Survey (see Cande 2005, 2006; Cande et al. 2007). A single unit (U27) was placed downslope to the south on the eastern edge of a large depression, initially proposed as a possible location of a cotton press. Each unit was excavated using arbitrary 10 cm levels associated with a common elevation datum. No architectural features related to the Davidsonville occupation were identified.
METAL DETECTING SURVEY
A systematic metal detecting survey was conducted between excavation areas to determine the extent, type, and distribution of subsurface metal objects. The area was first surveyed using a standard metal detector and ‘hits’ were marked with a pin flag. Each pin flag was excavated, artifact collected, and location mapped using a total station. Results demonstrate a dense and regular distribution of artifacts in the area surveyed (Figure 4). Metal artifacts include nails (n = 67, 325.2 g), wire (n = 74, 318.0 g), staples (n = 3, 31.4 g), and a single bent hook (9 g). Nails are spread throughout the survey area whereas wires are concentrated to the west and east and likely represent the remains of a barbed wire fence. Additional historic metal items of note include a buckle (17.5 g), possible musket ball (15.6 g), sewing needle (9.1 g), and sewing thimble (1.1 g; see Figure 9). While these items may date to the early nineteenth century and the Davidsonville town occupation, further analysis is necessary to ensure they are not the result of a history of reenactments and “living history” programs undertaken at the site.
HISTORIC CERAMICS
Numerous ceramic sherds were recovered that date to the occupation of the Davidsonville townsite. Most are small sherds (and sherdlets) where form cannot be determined, but the style and design can be assigned to a date range that falls within the Davidsonville occupation period. Units 24, 25, and 26 contained various amounts of pearlware sherds that range in date from 1780 – 1840. Several are undecorated, although undecorated pearlware vessels were considerably less common than decorated varieties (Figure 5a, b). As such, many of sherds without decoration are likely fragments from decorated wares (Miller 1991; Noel Hume 1970; Sussman 1977).
A small number of decorated pearlware fragments were recovered in Area A. These include hand-painted polychrome (Figure 6a), which usually contain delicately painted floral wreath designs in olive green, brown, blue, and mustard yellow. Hand-painted polychrome pearlware has been recovered from Davidsonville. The fragments found in Area A are likely from the same types of tableware forms, such as the teacups recovered from Feature 1 during excavations by the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2004 (Cande 2006; Figure 6b).
Three small fragments (sherdlets) of blue transfer-printed pearlware were also recovered (Figure 7a). While the fragments are too small to fully realize the type of scene represented, they likely represent components of floral scenes. Motifs before about 1815 are predominantly Chinese-inspired and between about 1815 and 1830 landscapes and historical scenes were popular (Miller 1991; Noel Hume 1970; Samford 1997; Sussman 1977). Blue transfer-print pearlware has been recovered from Davidsonville. The fragments found in Area A are likely from the same types of tableware forms, such as the plates recovered from Feature 1 during excavations by the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2004 (Cande 2006; Figure 7b).
CONCLUSION
As outlined, four excavation units were opened within the Lot 4 and 5 area, along with a systematic metal detecting survey. Electrical resistance survey was conducted in grids along the southern extent of the public square and served to build upon data collection conducted by the Arkansas Archeological Survey (Cande 2005). Historic ceramics date to the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries during the time of the Davidsonville occupation. Pearlware ceramics with a date range of 1780 – 1840 nicely align with the Davidsonville period of 1815-1830. The presence of nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries within the test area provides confirmation of landscape use and the need for additional testing within Lots 4 and 5.
In terms of research questions and the identification of the former cotton gin, or related features, excavation results do not document the remains of architectural features. They remain elusive. However, an abundance of nails suggest buildings or constructed features (fencing, perhaps) were present in the area tested. An analysis of nails was not conducted as part of this report, which could further define the temporal aspect in Lots 4 and 5 (see Adams 2002; Wells 1998). In short, items recovered provide a simple confirmation that the Lots 4 and 5 landscape was utilized in the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries. Only a single artifact sheds light on the types of past activities undertaken in the tested area. Within Unit 26 a metal curry comb (2024-100-14-07) was recovered from Level II (Figure 8). The comb resembles a James Carpenter “333” pattern which dates to the late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries (Knopp 2011). During the occupation of Davidsonville, cotton production required the use of horse drawn power to operate both the cotton gin as well as the cotton press (Aiken 1973; Bennett 1960).
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, William Hampton
2002 Machine Cut Nails and Wire Nails: American Production and Use for Dating 19th-Century and Early-20th-Century Sites. Historical Archaeology 36(4):66-88.
Aiken, Charles S.
1973 The Evolution of Cotton Ginning in the Southeastern United States. Geographical Review 63(2);196-224.
Bennett, Charles A.
1960 Saw and Toothed: Cotton Ginning Developments. Agricultural Engineering Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
Cande, Kathleen H.
2005 Davidsonville: The Search for Arkansas’ Oldest County Seat Town, Randolph County, Arkansas. Final Report, Arkansas Archeological Survey. Project 04-07. AMASDA No. 4796.
Cande, Kathleen H.
2006 Expanding Public Interpretation at Old Davidsonville State Park. Year 1 Report, Arkansas Archeological Survey. Project 05-01. ANCRC Project 05-006. AMASDA No. 5288.
Cande, Kathleen H., Jared S. Pebworth, Aden Jenkins, and Michael M. Evans
2007 “A Public House of Entertainment”: Expanding Public Interpretation at Old Davidsonville State Park, Randolph County, Arkansas. Year 2 Report, Arkansas Archeological Survey. Project 06-01. ANCRC Project 06-005. AMASDA No. 5124.
Clark, Anthony
1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. B. T. Batsford Ltd., London.
Dunn, Shannon
2012 Environmental Indicators for Archaeological Sites. Technical Note for In-Service Use. Cultural Resources FL-3, United States Department of Agriculture.
Johnson, Jay K. (editor)
2006 Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Knopp, Ken R.
2011 American Curry Combs: History & Identification. North South Trader’s Civil War, January/February.
Kvamme, Kenneth
2003 Geophysical Survey as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(3):435-457.
McKinnon, Duncan P., and Bryan S. Haley (editors)
2017 Archaeological Remote Sensing in North America: Innovative Techniques for Anthropological Applications. University of Alabama Press.
Miller, George L.
1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1): 1-25.
Noël Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf Publishing, New York.
Samford, Patricia M.
1997 Response to a Market: Dating English Underglaze Transfer-Printed Wares. Historical Archaeology 31(2):1-19.
Sussman, Lynne
1977 Changes in Pearlware Dinnerware, 1780-1830. Historical Archaeology 11:105-11.
Wells, Tom
1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical Archaeology 32(2):78-99.