ML20081A194

Historical & Archaeological Investigation of Ruins of Nineteenth Century Sugar Mill (16WF-36) in West Feliciana Parish,La

ML20081A194
Person / Time
Site:	River Bend
Issue date:	02/10/1984
From:	Orser C, Shuman M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, LOUISIANA STATE UNIV., BATON ROUGE, LA
To:
Shared Package
ML20081A190	List: ML20081A194 RBG-17169, Forwards Historical & Archaeological Investigation of Ruins of Nineteenth Century Sugar Mill (16WF-36) in West Feliciana Parish,La. Determination Re Natl Register Eligibility Requested
References
NUDOCS 8403050081
Download: ML20081A194 (56)

Text

.

ATTACHMENT 1 Historical and Archaeological Investigation of the Ruins of a Nineteenth Century Sugar Mill (16WF-36)

- in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana by Malcolm K. Shuman, Ph.D.

2568 Hundred Oaks Baton Rouge, LA 70808 (504) 346-8072 and Charles E. Orser, Ph.D.

Dept. of Geography & Anthropology Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Baton Rouge, LA 70803 (504) 388-6132 for Gulf States Utilities Co.

P.O. Box 2951 Beaumont, TX 77704 February 10, 1984

^

G403050001 840301 PDR ADDCK 05000450 A PDR

n.

o Shuman/Orser 3

5 ACKNOLWEDGMENTS C

The authors wish to acknowledge the help of the following persons: Mr. Steven D. Smith of the State 2 Archaeologist's Office, who furnished us with his original sitt stes and provided help on numerous occasions; Mrs.

Stephen P. Dart, of the West Feliciana Historical Society, 1 who graciously provided advice and certain otherwise difficult to obtain source materials; and Mr. Tom Phillips, of Taylor, Porter, Brooks and Phillips, who gave much of U one afternoon to locating the original abstract file and going through it with the senior author.

C' 9

3

. . . . _ .. L..;

1 I

Shuman/Orser i

s 3

Contents n

Abstract 2

! Introduction 3 Natural Setting 4

! History 6 Archival Investigation 15 Site Description 24

. Archaeological Methods 26 Findings of Archaeological Investigation 28

]

Interpretations of Archaeological Investigation 32 General Conclusions and Recommendations 33 Bibliography 35 Appendix A: Biographical Data of Investigators 40 f

4 1- ,

m

? e +r ghwy gayy, , .w 9m=y y -

w---m y+ .- .%%ryw--t--w& r -p-- '

Shuman/Orser Abstract This report describes the investigation of a nineteenth century sugar mill ruin (16WF-36) located on the grounds of the River Bend Station of Gulf States Utilities Company in St. Francisville, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. The investigation was undertaken with the objective of determining whether the site would be eligible for inclusion on the National. To this end, archival records were examined and archaeological test excavations were performed in December, 1983. The results of the investigation led to the conclusion that this site, while of a certain local interest, did not meet the criteria for inclusion on the Register and no further work was recommended.

Shuman/Orser Introduction In December of 1982 personnel from Gulf States Utilities Company, a private utility, informed the State Archaeologist's office of the existence of a sugar mill ruin located on the grounds of the River Bend Station near St. Francisville, West. Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. The site was visited by Mr. Steven Smith, of the State Archaeologist's Office, who was accompanied by Mr. James Cook, Lead Environmental Analyst for Gulf States, and Mr.

Michael Harrington, also of Gulf States. Smith's initial examination revealed two standing brick walls and he recommended more extensive testing to determine whether this- site, which was given the designation 16WF-36, might be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. It was his recommendation that the ruins be preserved intact until this further work could be done. As events would have it, another year passed before this work could be undertaken.

In December of 1983, however, the authors were commissioned by Gulf States to carry out the investigation Smith had suggested. What follows is their report of this

_= - - _ . _ _ _ _ __ _

Shuman/orser 1

work, including their recommendations, l

i

~

Natural Setting t

River Bend Station, an area of some 3,342 acres, lies

! in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana (8th Congressional District), about 3 miles (4.8 km) south of St. Francisville

and about three miles northeast of the Bayou Sara bend of 4

the Mississippi River. The- site in question, 16WF-36, consists of between one 'and two acres and is about .25 miles west of the nuclear reactor itself, and lies in the 4

NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 58, T3 S, R2 W (St.

Francisville 15' Quad and Elm Park 7 1/2' Quad. UTM coordinates are as follow: Zone 15, NE corner: Easting 56715 , .Northing 340360 ; NW corner: Easting 56710 ,

l Northing- 340360 , SE corner: Easting 56715 , Northing

)

340355 ; .SW corner: Easting 56710 . Northing 340355 .

Elevation is about 100' and the geological formation is Pleistocene Mississippi Terrace (Newton 1972:32), the

. geomorphology . consisting of rolling hills. Soils pertain to the Memphis-Loring association,. the surface being a dark brown silt loam with a silty clay loam subsoil'(USDA 1975).

7

[- .

, . .. ,, , , , , . , _ , .,_ -,_ ,-,--...,_m . - . . - . . . , . . , , _ ...._. ,, .,--

.7 r.

,l

,f '

I '

( .~-.. ~

'u  % .

'n,; .. ,

l

., > % ' h' .,  %

e < h. '

.f' '

, 'e 1I '

~\. ,, ,

!.. 1.' (fs, . I

\ d \'Q ' <

,f,;

~

' l jt ,

,, 'I 's 'b ...' ' y e

. l w (3 '\ [*/l,f,/"-

j ;i ( #

e',

'I l

t (4.. y

,'% .4 ) ' ' '

(lj f

,, y ;. .

u.. t, ,[y .' ,

. .n n

+ q ,* ,u;';/>fur j

bl- }#, o fN ,

'j.

d{l'- ,

&. '&u i "t *

' A , N "' - " -- - - ,)_. ;l% i J%

} 6

s. ) r ,'Li{ ,'h ' $c'~

w

.s > 1

, .3 i,f, . ( 5 1,, l

\.\ .

yf\,1 )). . ,>. / ,

k.

I.u .. \ r. ,

s k\ s

}. Y, f L .mA> i jf N.. 1  ;'t , g

- J,

.k O ' '(

j,; 62 f [ gg f,31990000 FEET R. 2 w.

558

'59 20'

} ,

840 lished by the Geological Survey alth State of Loulslana - ,.,,

3rks L'"' . --

wp 7

MAP I: Incation of Pfar:nolia Sur:ar L1111 sito (1GWF-3G) in Elm Park 7.5" Qmd

s

3 human /Orser In terms of natural vegetation, this alluvial upland region is one of upland hardwoods, the dominant trees being sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata var. pagodae-folia), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and winged elm (Ulmus alata). Other flora are rich and varied, and include broomsedges, briars and rosebushes (Gulf States 1983),

Animal life is likewise diverse, and the environmental impact statement for this project notes that forty-four of the 62 mammal species found in Louisiana are likely to occur within the confines of River Bend. These include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black bear (Euarctos americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustel vison), beave r (Castor canadensis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and red fox (Vulpes Zalva).

Birds include such predators as the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), barred owl (Strix varia), barn owl (Tyto alba), broad-winged hawk (Buteo pla typte rus ) , marsh hawk (Circus cyaneus), and many others. Nonpredatory types Shuman/orser include woodcocks (Philohela minor), wood ducks (Aix sponsa), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginiaus), and mourning doves (Zenaidura macroura). In fact, the 1983 supplement to the original environmental impact statement notes that 177 of the 411 avian species located on the Mississippi River flyway might be found on the site in question. Reptile life is particularly diverse, owing to the heterogeneous nature of the habitat. Included are alligators (Alligator missis-sipiensis); 29 species of snakes, the most prevalent being the water snakes; seven species of lizards; and 13 species of turtles. Amphibians present include eleven salamander species, and 13 species of frogs and toads (Gulf States 1983).

History This area was clearly inhabited by Native American groups, probably from the earliest times. An archaeological survey by Robert Neuman prior to the beginning of construction on River Bend turned up three campsite areas around Site- 5 within the River Bend property, but there were no artifacts that indicated long-term village Shuman/Orser occupation (Gulf States 1983). However, a consideration of prehistory is beyond the scope of this inquiry and the interested reader is referred to Neuman and Hawkins 1982; Haag 1971; and Swanton 1946 for information on the prehistoric and historic Native Americans of this area.

The initial European settlement of this area occurred during the Spanish domination of Florida, beginning with the voyage of Ponce de Leon in 1519. In 1763, at the end of the French and Indian War, however, the Treaty of Paris ceded Florida to Great Britain. This cession included the present state of Florida and also West Florida, or those lands lying between the Mississippi, on the west, and the Chatahoochee River, on the east. At this time large numbers of English and Scottish settlers arrived and took up residence in the area. During the American Revolution, however, the Spanish, allied with the revolutionists, attacked the British in West Florida, with forces under General Galvez taking the British surrender of West Floride on May 10, 1781. In 1795, after the independence of the American colonies had been obtained, the United States and Spain signed a treaty fixing the northern boundary of the Florida Parishes.

By the year 1803, the remainder of Louisiana had

Shuman/Orser changed hands twice, going from Spain to France to the United States. West Florida, however, had remained in Spanish hands, which led to a unique event known as the Florida Revolution of 1810. In this uprising, the West Floridians, who by now were mainly of American and British descent, wanting a more democratic government than that offered by the authoritarian Spanish, revolted, captured the Spanish Fort at Baton Rouge, and proclaimed a republic.

The new Free State of West Florida, however, endured only a few weeks, for af ter December the area became part of the United States, and an Act of Congress in April, 1812, joined West Florida to the rest of Louisiana, which became a state in the same year (Davis 1975).

It is unclear when St. Francisville, itself, was founded, for its early records have been lost, but its sister settlement, Bayou Sara, lying at the foot of the hill on which St. Francisville sits, was founded in 1790, and it may be assumed that St. Francisville was settled at about the same time (Anonymous 1950:30). West Feliciana Parish was created in 1824, by dividing the original Feliciana Parish into East and West portions. The area soon accentuated its desire to extend the commercial life of the region when, on March 21, 1831, the West Feliciana Railroad

Shuman/Orser Company was chartered by the state--this at a time when there were fewer than 50 miles of railroads in America. l l

Service be tween Woodville, Mississippi, and St. i Francisville, Louisiana, began in 1836 (Anonymous 1931:3-4). In 1873, St. Francisville was incorporated and at that time the parish embraced a river frontage of 13 l l

miles, with 12 miles of public roads and 25 plantations (Anonymous 1950:3). The main crop of these great plantations was cotton, with sugar cane a distant second l l

(Frazier 1969:28).

1 Sugar cane, a perennial grass of the genus Saccharum, had been introduced to the New World by Columbus, in 1493, when, during his second voyage, he brought it to the island of Santo Domingo. However, it was not introduced to Louisiana until the year 1751, and, although this initial attempt was a failure, 1762 saw several rich planters successfully cultivating it and erecting mills to press it.

It is probable that these early mills were simple animal i powered engines with iron shells fitted over wooden drums, which serve as presses (Deerr 1949:248, 1950:537), The most x

important impetus to the Louisiana sugar industry occurred in 1794, however, when Etienne de Bore began planting sugar cane on his plantation near what is now Audubon Park, in l

. . . - . _ . , , . , . - . . - - _ \

Shuman/Orser New Orleans. According to Davis (1975:94), the problem with earlier attempts at cane cultivation was that the sugar derived could not be made to granulate. Despite the skepticism of his neighbors, de Bore persisted and the following year his sugar did, indeed, granulate and he made a profit of $12,000. Thus began the Louisiana sugar industry.

By the 1820's, a combination of factors stimulated the industry. These factors were the introduction of cold resistant cane varieties and the adoption of steam powered mills. "Moreover," writes Sitterson (1953:28), "the protection afforded domestic sugar by the tariffs of 1816 and 1828 were sufficient inducements to lead hundreds of planters into cane culture." As a consequence, in the six years from 1824 to 1830, Louisiana's sugar plantations went from 193 in number to 691.

( Another impetus occurred in 1842, when import duties on foreign sugars increased at the same time that the

. cotton market entered a depression. Planters quickly abandoned cotton for cane, and this trend was especially 1 - 4 marked in Point Coupee, Avoyelles, Rapides, and East and

- West Feliciana parishes (Sitterson 1953:27, 30).

With the success of sugar, the slave trade in Africans L1

Shuman/Orser , ,

/

r also flourished. By 1830, there were ~691 ~ plantations in Louisiana, employing 36,000 slaves, or'an average of 52 per plantation. By 1840, this num$er Nad risen to 50,670, or 73 pdt estate. And by the mid-century mark the total number of slaves had climbed to 244,895 (D5ebr 1949:248). At the same time, tonnage of sugar produced had' risen from 27 i288, in 1830, to 49,460 in 1840, and to 255,441 in 1853, the surge no doubt being at least partly'due to the .' replacement of the older, animal driven mill by the-steam unit, of which there were 301 in the state by 1843 (Deerr 1949:249).

During the Civil War, however, the sdgar industry almost vanished, with production falling to 5,400- tons in 1864.

Therafter, the industry recovered, with a setback occurring in the years 1922-26, due to the mo'saic disease. However, the introduction of varieties immune./.to the disease soon caused the industry to rebound, so th'at it - became more prosperous than ever before (Deerr ,I', 1949:250).

West Feliciana was never one of the major sugar cane producing parishes, although l-the crop,. after its introduction to the parish in 1825, became the second most m

important cultigen after cotton in the antebellum era (Frazier 1969:28). This " cane experiment" took place, for practical purposes, at the mid-century mark. Sitterson r: -

1

[

/

Shuman/Orser_

(1953:28) writes that "In 1829 there were ...(no) sugar plantations in East or West Feliciana," and even by 1844 Champomier (1845) did not even list the Felicianas in his catalogue of sugar producing parishes. The following year, he listed- two planters for We st Feliciana, William R.

Barrow and Isaac Franklin. Each had a single steam-powered sugar house, though neither produced enough sugar to list in that year (Ch.mpomier 1846). However, by 1850, there were 20 sugar producers in the parish, whose output was 4,264 hogsheads, and only two had --old-fashioned, horse powered mills (Champomier 1851). Iloweve r , Frazier observes that this 1850 ' census shows only three of 152 small and seven of 81 large plantations cultivating cane in West Feliciana, and the figures did not change substantially in the ensuing decade. Sugar production remained largely in the hands of the large planters, who produced 5,343 of the total number of 6,059 hogsheads of sugar potted in 1860. In point of fact, in that year less than one percent of the plantations produced 88 per cent of the entire sugar crop (Frazier 1969:28). In the year 1861, the total had risen to 5,712 hog'sheads (Bouchereau 1878).

One of the most successful of the West Feliciana planters.was William Ruffin Barrow, whose family owned more

, n -

N j T

t

Shuman/orser than fifteen plantations in the parish. Greenwood, his largest holding, contained 12,000 acres and was worked with the help of 427 slaves. However, other important planters were Bennett H. Barrow, who had a small sugar cane acreage as early as 3838 (Davis 1943:30); Dr. Whitman Wilcox, who, around 1848, switched from cotton to sugar cane, and William J. Fort, who owned three large plantations (Frazier 1969:30). One of these was Magnolia and it may have been visited by Solon Robinson in 1848, for Robinson noted that Fort made two hogsheads of sugar per acre on land that had previously produced but half a bale of cotton (Kellar 1936:146-9, as cited by Frazier, 1969:30).

Cane, however, was essentially an antebellum crop for the Felicianas, an experiment that failed partly because of the colder temperatures in that region, but also due to the Civil War. By Reconstruction the sugar experiment had ended; in 1877, West Feliciana yielded but 32 hogsheads and East Feliciana had vanished from the sugar list entirely (Bouchereau 1878).

However, for the brief period that it was important in th Felicianas, cane was a focus of much of the day to day life of the plantations, as may be gathered by an examination of the cultivation cycle. Frazier gives a

m Shuman/Orser detailed account'of this process of planting and harvesting sugar cane, and the procedure for refining the sugar. The planting took place from January to March, followed by a period of cultivation, during which the slaves " barred off, scraped, and moulded the cane; then every ten days they hoed and. plowed it to fight grass and weeds (Frazier 1969:32)." This period of intense work lasted until July or August. After this, two or three months were spent in preparation for the grinding season. There were many tasks to occupy the slaves, including brick making, repairing the sugar house, resetting machinery, and gathering wood for the sugar mill. Grinding began in mid October and lasted 4

until late December or even February. This was the most demanding time, for it involved work from dawn till dusk and almost continual operation of the sugar' mill (Frazier 1969:34).

The process of sugar making was complicated. In Frazier's words, " Basically,. cylinder rollers expressed the juice from the stalk. Then the juice went into large open kettles, or'sometimes vacuum pans, where heating raised it to the temperature necessary for crystallization. After crystallization the workers put it into hogsheads with boreG -holes in the bott :<Ta ' con which the molasses dripped

._14-

Shuman/Orser into cistern vats. Finally, they put both the molasses and the sugar into new containers and sent them to market (Frazier 1969:34-35)." The sugar mill could be fueled by either wood, evidently the most common material, or bagasse.

We must assume that the sugar house in question was central to the process detailed above, and it is to this site that we now turn. The following sections, dealing with the archival and archaeological investigations, will consider the specifics of the site (16WF-6) in question.

The archival work was performed by the senior author and the archaeological investigation was performed by both junior and senior authors, but written by the junior author.

Archival Investigatior.

The purposes of the archival phase of this investigation were to (1) identify the holding upon which

.~

the brick ruin was located; (2) place this holding in a proper cultural, historic and economic perspective as regards the period; and (3) derive such supplementary data

/ h 4 e E

• g&

8

. r, f Y

s'r t s , , .;.* ?"

• gt .

.:? e,

. /.+l' ~ '-hI',k -f. *

=

R Z o t;. g

' ** ;** ' . : ; .:. g. ; "G$

. y.,

n , er ..

?<

\

. ':;. .u.s f, . *:.> ' 1.lIk*p'. *

+ 7 gg.II*rf*,,, .

,; *~

• s.'n: ,

j' \ .

• ** ~ * .o.

f// *J. -

2s gogo,1 .

P' ya\

ffh ss I. . -

i %y,l i .

.l / l

• < t

'l y9

~ ,

' e +,

\

< sb  ;

<

• s

./ ~~,. : '*'

@B:

v,, a 0 g .

/.

un a g h f v

ee **ag ':-

,T g .,

^' O i

f' ~c=-

uTa. . s

@ / et UR? d.;re~ '.

" < ,,,...\,  %

s b,

1..$7 P., %yY' ' ; . . ,,,

i f ,.o.--

>.jo l- ] 9 M-

$$$Iii!k,idN.'$

r ,

~ ' '

h  % .-

%Qg + s f 4t

'l$g,

~

< a. - s

~;.a:.y + 3 5' K ' *Nv

" J.

o:g.

Q .,s y .$ * ,%  ?!lEb x'%le 'C}'s \ s. , .. .. ,.

j b"h

- ~ 7g. 'r!,72}td

,pr qig;. ~

k.y E ~'"

Q . .

• I ~p c .,r.

ort 115' e

(

O .-

3.A.1*' oste g.s.sw'"

-- ~'k -

,8 gp .1 u,,q

gfs... ~ jn""*

- =

Shuman/Orser as would guide-the archaeological phase of the undertaking.

Sources utilized are (1) sugar censuses of the period (2) synthetic works on the history of sugar and/or the history of the Felicianas; and (3) photocopies of original maps, acts of sale, and successions. The items cited in (1) above were found in the Middleton Library of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. The items cited in (2) were found both in the Middleton Library and in the possession of Mrs. Stephen P. Dart of St. Francisville. The items cited in (3) were photocopies of original documents in the abstract file of the law firm of Taylor, Porter, Brooks, and Phillips, of Baton Rouge, who did the original title search for Gulf States, and other copies of court records furnished by Mrs. Stephen P. Dart. These documents are cited as Anonymous N.D. Originals may be obtained from the Clerk of Court in St. Francisville, Louisiana.

From these sources, it is clear that at the time of

operation of the sugar mill (c. 1850-1862) this land was a part of the Magnolia Plantation, owned by William Johnston

-Fort. This is substantiated by the Persac map of 1858, which shows the plantations along the Mississippi River (Persac 1867); by the succession of Sallie J. Fort, William

. Fort's widow; and by a donation of 1870, whereby Fort's

w.e. . a - . . , n . . > . ,. .

Shuman/Orser.

mother-in-law passed the land to Fort's widow. Preliminary investigation by Steven Smith, of the State Archaeologist's Office, suggests that_ in 1774, the area might have belonged

-t6 Alexandria McIntock or to . William Chadwick (Smith 1982).

This, however, is unsubstantiated by the current research; of 1821 sho.sT that in i

a U.'S. Dep t . of the Interior Platt 1813 Section 58 was confirmed by patent to " Frederick Kimball "under Green" (Anonymous N.D.). Whether Kimball was acting for this Green, or, indeed, what role this Green played, is not clear. What is highly probable, though the precise date- is not available, is that shortly thereafter l the land was acquired by William Fort, the father of t-William Johnston Fort..

The Fort saga, to a large extent, is the saga of anglo settlement in the Felicianas. The brothers William, John and Frederick Fort, all born in North Carolina in the latter part of the eighteenth century, of the union of John Fort (d. 1780) and Anna Barrow, moved to the Felicianas in

~

-about 1800, along with their Barrow-relatives. According to Floyd (1963:79), in his history of the Barrow family, "It appears that none of the Fort brothers were married at the time of their-arrival'in the Felicianas, but the details of-their lives have been obliterated by the passing of the L

Shuman/Orser years." Thie author goes on to mention a tradition to the effect that their first house was a two-story brick structure on Magnolia, but, the writer goes on to say, the structure is no longer standing. Local historian Mrs.

Stephen (Libby) Dart reports that she finds "nothing to suggest a notable residence on Magnolia, though in the early days (1819-30) an overseer lived there (Dart 1984)".

It is somewhat more certain that William Fort (Sr.) began building the original Catalpa Plantation home around 1800, and Floyd (1963:79) goes on to state that "it is a matter of record...that John and Frederick Fort were buying property in Feliciana during the first decade of the twentieth century." There is no record of the land purchased by William, but it seems very likely that it included Magnolia and, hence, the section in . question, though it is also just possible that the land was purchased af ter William's death, by another member of the family.

Willjam Fort died in early 1820, six weeks after the birth of his only son, William Johnston Fort (b. 1819), and William, Sr.'s first cousin, Bennett Barrow, was named the child's guardian (Floyd 1963). Young William grew up on a plantation in nearby Wilkinson County, Mississippi. In 1840, at age 21, he purchased The Grove, a part of Catalpa, Shuman/Orser and thereupon became one of f.he leading planters of the parish. In time he also acquired Magnolia, either by succession or outright purchase from another member of his family. He also acquired Oak Grove, which seems likely to be the Grove previously mentioned, and Catalpa itself, which became one of the parish's most famous plantations.

He married Sallie Jones Stewart of Holly Grove Plantation, Wilkinson County, Mississippi, in 1846, and Floyd (1963:80) writes that " William and Sallie Fort were noted for their gracious hospitality and their original house at Catalpa was one of the most popular social centers in We st Feliciana parish."

In 1850 William Fort owned 235 slaves and his real estate holdings were valued at $210,000. By the end of the decade, his worth had nearly doubled, to .$400,000.

Nevertheless, his success in planting cane seems to have been rather- uneven during this interval. Just when Fort began his investment in cane planting is uncertain, due to l

the paucity of records, but the 1850 sugar census shows that his Magnolia, with a brick sugar house having a s

shingle roof and a steam apparatus, yielded 205 hogsheads, a negligible ~ amount. compared with the 4,264 produced by the other 20 plantations of the parish (Champomier 1851). The

y u  :+

. C , , , . ..

.+ ..,

TABLE I: Louisiana Sugar Production, 1G50-1861

• Entity 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 205 -- -- --

436 340 --

445 437 160 80 440 Magnolia W. Fe1.

4,264 5 894 3,140 8,551 8,493 2,948 660 4,289 6,471 4,933 877 5.712 Louisiana 211,201 236,547 321,934 449,324 346,635 231,427 73,296 279,697 562,296 221,840 228,75]59,419

• Quantities shown are in hogsheads. Sources are Champomier, 1851-61; Bouchereau 1871

N TABLE II: LOUISIANA SUGAR PRODUCTION IN HOGSHEADS DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 4

200,000- 17 a

150,000 .d 213 2 m

100,000- a e

a a

50,000 . o z 76.8 1u.9 18.1 1 41 0 37 7 g

^ ' '

1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1878 Data in this graph taken from Bouchereau 1879

!(:

m e

_M

Shuman/Orser following year, with the parish yield even greater, at 5,894 hogsheads, and 25 estates now planting cane, Magnolia is listed as having no yield at all (Champomier 1852), and this situation lasted for three years. It was not until 1854 that Magnolia again produced sugar, the amount for that year being 436 hogsheads and for the following year 340. In 1856 there was, once more, no yield at all, but from 1857 through 1861 there were mediocre crops (These data are presented in Table I) . The year 1861, however, marked the end of an era. Two years previously Fort had purchased sugar refining machinery from Wheeler and Forestall of New Orleans, and by 1860 he had become insolvent to the extent that the venders sued him for

$12,770.89. Evidently, his health was failing as well as his business, -for in January of 1861, William Fort died.

That his sugar operation suffered greatly seems almost certain, for while there were no records kept in Louisiana for 1862, but, as Table II shows, the Civil War was a time of dicaster-for the state's sugar planters. In 1863 a mere 76,800 hogshead 2 were produced, down from the total of 459,419 in 1861. In 1864, however, the catastrophe was incredible; in that year, the state's sugar houses turned out only 10,387 hogsheads of sugar, only 25% more than West

Shuman/Orser Feliciana--a poor parish for sugar--had produced in its best antebellum year, 1853.

While Fort's succession was not among the documents provided, other records leave little to the imagination: On October 31, 1865, only months after the end of the Civil War, his widow, Sallie Jones Stewart Fort renounced his estate, and on December 13, 1865 a sheriff's sale was held and the Grove and Magnolia were adjudicated to Sarah Stewart, the mother-in-law of the deceased planter. Also mentioned are some 30 hogsheads of sugar, worth $1,800. But

. of especial interest is that part of the sale document that states: "I then offered the following personal property, to wit, a lot of kettles, copper-pipes and machinery being the same sold by Wheeler and Forestal and upon which they claim the vender's privilege..." These items were " adjudicated to Mssrs. Wheeler and Forestall for the sum of $500" (Anonymous N.D.). It is impossible to say if this was the apparatus from Magnolia or froni one of Fort's other two holdings, but inasmuch as the Grove and Magnolia are mentioned in the document, it seems probable that it was from one of the two. Since the Grove, itself (as opposed to Catalpa, from which it seems to have been carved), seems never to have produced sugar to any extent, it is possible J

, _ _ _ _ - - _ ._ _ __ _ _ _ _ . . - . ~ _ . - . - - ___ ._- . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _.

Shuman/Orser that this reference is, indeed, to Magnolia, and that the sugar-making apparatus was removed from the sugar house at that_ time, although Mrs. S. P. Dart cites an addendum to s6it testimony in Septembe r 1865 by Clerk Edward Fry that he had been to Catalpa and had seen the dismantled machinery (Anonymous 1860).

In any event, four years later, on 11 March, 1870, with the creditors evidently at bay, Sallie J. Fort, the widow of William, received Magnolia, then consisting of

~1428 acres; The Grove; and other lands as a donation from her mother (Anonymous N.D.). Sallie J. Fort held the property for the next 44 years, though sugar lists of the Reconstruction Era list it as still belonging to W. J. Fort (probably a reference to her son, William J. Fort III);

more interesting, the same source lists Magnolia's brick and shingle roof sugar house as " dest'yd," or destroyed (Bouchereau 1879).

Sallie J. evidently lived to a quite respectable age, and bore a number of children, for upon her death in 1914, her ectate passed to-her sons and daughters, William J.

Fort (III); Sallie Fort Butler; William Wall Fort; Miss Geraldine Fort; and Jones S. Fort (Anonymous N.D.: Notarial Book 42, Reference 40). The heirs, in turn, sold Magnolia

Shuman/orser to Charles William Mackie in 1915. and it remained in his family for three generations until Gulf States Utilities purchased it from William Charles Mackie III in 1970.1 From the above several things are clear. In the first place, Magnolia represents a microcosm of the 19th century in West Feliciana Parish. It was acquired by some of the first anglo settlers; was developed by the son of one of these lumigrants; prospered (to a degree); and fell with the vicisstitudes of sugar in the antebellum era; and, like many another plantation, was utterly ruined by the Civil War, though this ruin was doubtless helped along by the failure of the sugar experiment in that area. After the owner's death at the outset of the war, it was kept in the family by a series of legal manuevers between his widow and her mother, returning finally into the hands of Fort's widow, who retained it until the second decade of the following century. Then, for whatever reasons, the heirs divested themselves of the family holdings. In this sense, the story of Magnolia and the Fort family is an interesting and even highly romantic tale.

m On the other hand, from the point of view of the sugar mill itself, it would seem that (1) Fort was not the most productive sugar pianter in an area not notable for its

. - -- .. . . . . .- . - - _ --_-~_ .. . ..

1 g-M i

CAPTIONS FOR FIGURES IN MAGNOLIA PLANTATION SUGAR MILL REPORT Figure 1. View of front face and plan of mill ruins.

~I

2. View of front face of mill ruin.

i 4

3. Close view of westernmost archway.

i

4. Map of site showing mill ruins. decressions, mounds, holes, and archaeolocical test units.

5. Soil stratigraphy of test units.

I 6. Brick feature in Test 16. (Trowel points north.)

7. Brick wall feature in Text 21. (Trowel points north.)

! 8. Close view of brickwork on northwest standing wall of mill ruin.

L'

. s f '=

.4 1

4

=1

+

i c

d

s

?

I 4

MAGNOLIA PLANTATION SUGAR MILL (16 WF 36)

+

5 feet I l g i i i g i I I l 1 I I l I I I i l i I l l 1 I I I i I I i i i I I I

I I

Wn ~ w^ I s 1 I 1

' L z 3 I a u E- y i u M I 2 J _A 1 E I .1 I x 1 E1

( if Mg_KK_ET RJ D Y E AT F M_ M X 1 n n E E _m E 11 1 1 K- 17 31 1 ALJ U E EL

_3 s x n E sr m

_A R 11 A W .

r

. mL kr 1 RJ T

~

'g' R R E U R .

L M N R X i.I N A I r N N M I i' I ~'l i I Ed i

& E h l -

E2_." .' l l L... -

i I

l

)

Figure 1: View of Front Face and Plan of Mill Ruins i

l ,i t

4 - - - -e - e -- m- m -,_ . __ _ J, _

W i ' filh44r~*N'

, t

~~

'h

. , J,"

+ v .pr ""; , __ _ . .

'f#%R

.y "

5

.m, '

' . '>g : e ., .

j

• .,- 4

,ij , . I,-

i p

• f .. * '-

c S'gtl' ~

. k h,.  ;

p' i n - .- -

I .. .

4'y,y,iw' .

. e f ,!.y 'f;W.,i a.

E

[ #g

,. q 7;1 irgg

, y .

,, O $ - s ((.) of

,E+- *!~

) ,

J

/, J p.

. h-n

.i%

4%g?

9 2

9 i

,i

_._,2b; ,y, g , ~-

.N

^

.-.. 4,p.<

.. g .-

Q- 4,4 y'r

, 2 y ; j . . ; .,

5 r .:

k', 'q  !

, ~

. y 3

((s'"., J* g

[. .

g

=.>:: ..a... . yn. ::y,7, m..g a}f -

g u

r ~ v -

g .. 1~ Y';i...T . ; h Y ;'. b ,;.__ : , e .

.i)Y o

,y <k s ,;+ @

. /Yg$ ,, .

g v)i.lF .

y

%g e

,<, e+-+<; _' ;k-. g a

g. .  %

_3 '

• O W t . .,~

di -  ;%(..

1. 1. 4 C sT Y a '- : . . ;.. .&Y s g, y ;.

. :wrw  ;-

g4 < -

v g

.9

$F d,'k "~

j 8

[  %$ fR$,}&,. {qrgWT f$1QL..Q .!

$ ,  ?' i

.?

0

4

\ ] 4 5 .I I 3 j 4 . .

19 3 20 3  ;' ii 1 - 1 i r li hole -

, # I E I t t t I wall ; hole f

18 E 16 E iS E e, .

_ m........o

~

r e i t 17 g I- - - depression mound

~ -

. -1

' rubble ,' f

, depression . _

} slump .

- mound 4r ie i i , , , i 13 I depression

'; 9E depression

-d 12 5 -

15  :

8E -

b 2E 13 5 I:

,. 10 E 3E MAGNOLIA PLANTATION 75 SUGAR MILL 45 g 3, g (16 WF 36)

.Ce oE 5 feet i ,

SE +

trail 9

Figure 4: Map of Site Showing Mill Ruins, Depressions, Mounds, Holes, and Archaeological Test Units s

u ',

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 a.

.,-.4..,

=. ---:,

1. m- --

8 9 10 1) 12 13 14 h

i::?.: 591 gg QS)

M $$!)

49h ggg

~ ~

• pg 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 W l" i i i is W

>m

)c., , . .,

y

. . n ',. . +. /. ;

w o:

+:..+o. .!

. 9  :. , c .. --

).o :o; b*.*.. , ='

i voo,

• ... * . . o e topsoil,10 YR 5/3 brown l'.,**.. clay, 5 YR 4J4 reddish brown 7.*. . . . m w* .of

'on mixed soil and brick 10 YR 6'4 N.*... tioy,10 YR 6 6 brownish yellow

, @$_9; light yellowish brown . .*.* *. ' .

osh,10 YR 6 4 light yellowish brown M brick MAGNOLIA PLANTATION tioy,10 YR S 1 gray N roots SUGAR MILL (16 WF 36)

Figure 5: Soil Stratigraphy of Test Units

l i

i .

I r

..  ?]i S.

..v.;

. 0.'y...? r . A

. '. g l f y f.'Y

• l' s

Figure 6: Brick Feature in Test 16 (Trowel Points North)

.s C < m .

1 i

i

% i . . .a. , i' . , .-< f. M' <*. ., lst. - '~

' ^

,f _ '

n V

/ p , , .. ...

. y /. ..e. *;.3y */?.. . qf,*' .'.. . I_ ..... V' ,x y .l/-'.[,,.,J . 'Lg. p.

u s u.

^

a- ~

u .;

_g... g > , s; .g . : -,,.: . z

,,w> '

y ,b gg;c,adg, 1

g i Q i. h A T

• j d ? g ~ e : g t.} Qi[j F T.

^

[yd ~ , , , FNk., '

..a

, ip ,. .

^

5 [M g' d'e, .e "i

'~ '

.',. j ', k 5 7 ;.'L'); ?  :.

h@>Md 4' [@NA'h. g ?? .'&.%kh l . -

. ; n v . -- ' 't 'a. . -

fy,-)-

t i. :. ,. , wy.h .hf' ; ' d'o::a o. . , . .  ;,;

g

..j. '

%->:/;h.m=,.i.mjf'f

. , O R )s f

.[~.'.

g-Q Tpy,.sg  ; .p f ,y

',c.<>,.,-

.A.,\ ?s

< . 'a

,. s. -

p;m y' . .; ;'...

?

.., , ifkw.r> ' S . , n, .,. . .; " ! :,' . y c,x ~, rL.,

.j' '. -. q' , .

\ *Y , , '

- :~ U '

j' ,Y*h: ,

f Figu.'e '/,: Brick Wall Feature in Test 21 (Trowel Points North)

4 m)

]

f '%

l, Q

e. .

_ ~L Q ,

.,_fih qc e.' i g

n T d

s. n

+

- y, s,,::. t

- t a

~h -

i. . _

p Q S

., Q. I- t

f. -

. h

}

s e

w Y _ -

' h

'+ -

t

. _ r

[

o N

g%

n

a. .

-. < . ' k o

% r o

B ..'

- w

~ k

r. k5 '

c in ri Bu

' R f

ol l

wi

_ i eM Vf o

_ L 9 -

e fl ;r / - I

? s.

h J

l.

sl ol la-CW 1 g g r R lr g

! *I.,

y *

). ,

8 e

\

E.5, '. m s _

(

r u

g

]4.r

, o ,

_ i yJ f I.

g F

. Rg% -

4v 'N -

5

$Wf y*,y f( gQ 1

_u

,J !

Shuman/Orser sugar production, and (2) Magnolia was not his best plantation, in terms of average sugar yield. Looked at from another perspective , that of uniqueness, it seems unlikely that there is anything remarkable about the ruin, either architecturally or archaeologically. There are better preserved sugar houses- of that era, and there is relatively little to learn from this one. However, in any such investigation, it is always possible that archaeological excavation will reveal facts that did not come to light during the archival research phase. Such an excavation was conducted in this case and it is to this aspect of the project that we now turn.

Site Description The Magnolia Plantation Sugar Mill site (16WF-36)

consists of an area approximately 38 feet southwest to northeast by 64 feet northwest to southeast. The commanding feature of the site is the partial brick ruin of the mill itself, which occupies the center of the site. The front of s

this ruin is 17 feet 6 inches long, 7 feet 6 inches tall, and contains two arched openings, both 4 feet 7 inches tall (Figures 1 and 2). The western opening is 4 feet 7 inches l

~ ._-.~.. ~ , -

Shuman/orser wide; the eastern opening is 4 feet 8 inches wide (Figure 3). In plan view, this ruin is L-shaped. The northeastern extension, containing the archways, is 5 feet 9 inches thick; the northwestern extension is 4 feet 3 inches thick and 18 inches long. A partially submerged wall, 16 feet 2 inches long, extends parallel to the northwestern wall extension. This wall is 3 feet thick and is placed 5 feet 10 inches southwest of the northern wall extension.

Other distinguishing features of the site are the rubble mounds, shallow depressions, and deeper holes that exist throughout the site (see_ Figure 4). The large mounds, approximately two to three feet high, occur around the ruin on its north, southeast, and southwest sides. Shallow depressions, approximately the same depth as the mounds are high, occur to the east, southwest, and inside the perimeters of the L-shaped ruins. Deeper holes occur both be tween the northwestern extension of the ruins and the individual wall and north of the ruins. These holes and depressions appear to represent post-occupational disturbance of the site, and may relate to the removal of s

equipment at the mill, which probably occurred about 1865 (See preceding section). These possibilities cannot be confirmed because there is no evidence at the site to

Shuman/Orser suggest how the holes and depressions were actually made.

Archaeological Methods Shovel testing was the only subsurface investigative method employed at the Magnolia Plantation Sugar Mill site.

These tests, approximately one foot by one foot in size, were placed at irregular intervals around the mill ruins (Figure 4). The presence of the brick rubble mounds, shallow depressions, and substantial holes around the ruins, however, dictated to some extent where tests could be placed. All shovel tests were terminated when clay was encountered, when the bricks or roots were too substantial to be penetrated through simple shovel testing, or when there was no apparent reason to continue the excavation based on prior archaeological experience and exact knowledge of the site.

Eleven of the shovel tests (numbers 1 through 11) were completed on -December 8, 1983; the rest (numbers 12 through

21) were finished on December 19, 1983. The soil from tests s

12 through 20 was screened through one-quarter inch hardward cloth, but the soil from tests 1 through 11 was not screened. A decision to use a soil screen was made Shuman/Orser because there were no few artifacts recovered: during the first day's testing. However, the use of a screen at the site did not increase artifact recovery, and all of the artifacts found during the testing were found on the first day, when the screen was not employed.

All soil examined during the fieldwork was described following the conventions set forth in the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell Color 1975). Using this scheme, soil colors can be consistently described in terms of Hue--relationship to red, yellow, green, blue, and purple; Value--lightness; and. Chroma--departure from a neutral color of the same lightness. Within this framework, a soi can be described as 10YR 5/3, where the Hue is in the 10YR range, the Value is 5, and the Chroma is 3. One great-advantage of this approach lies in the application of soil color descriptions for each Value and Chroma designation.

For example, the soil described ' above as 10YR 5/3 is also termed " brown" in the color charts. Soils with other designations in the same Hue range are termed ^" light

~

brown," " yellowish brown," '" dark brown," etc. The use of s

these terms, more so than the value and . Chroma designations,' reduces confusion over soil color by providing a less subjective method of soil description.

t a .

1 s

Shuman/Orser Findings S6il stratigraphy.and features The soil stratigraphy at the site was simple, and only six different soil. types were encountered (See Figure 5).

The topsoil, a loose, brown (10YR 5/3) loam, extended from the . surface to a maximum depth of 12 inches below ground.

In most instances, a zone of mixed brick rubble and loose, sandy, light yellowish brown. .(10 YR 6/4) soil was encountered below this- topsoil. This zone was quickly filled with brick rubble, and where penetrated (in Tests 5, 11, 18, and 19) was found to measure between 5 and 14

. inches thick. Clay of various colors was found under this mixed zone. In tests 5 and 11, this clay was gray (10YR 5/1), ~in Test 8 it was reddish brown (5YR 4/4), and in Tests 17 through 20, it was brownish yellow (10YR 6/6).

These clays appeared to represent the noncultural subsurface soils and,. as a result, were not excavated to any great depth. This cequence, then, of dark topsoil over a lighter, mi'xed matrix of brick and sandy soil, followed by clay, appeared to constitute the typical soil 4--4 g-=+y -

Shuman/Orser stratigraphy of the site. Brownish yellow clay was the original subsoil behind, or to the northwest of the standing structure, reddish brown clay was the original subsoil to the west of the ruin, and gray clay was the subsoil in the front, or east, of the standing mill ruins.

There were, however, minor variations in this soil

- sequence. In Test 5, a thin, one to two inch-thick intrusion of gray (10YR 5/1) ash was encountered be tween the topsoil and the clay. This zone contained charcoal flecks, but did not seem to be an extensive or substantial deposit. The brick rubble zone encountered throughout the site was not found in Test 8 where the clay appeared directly under the topsoil. The subsoil could not be determined in Test 12 because of the difficulty of penetrating a.large root mass, and also in Tests 16 and 21 because of the presence of substantial brick features in the top soil zone.

Two laid brick features were encountered during the fieldwork. The first brick feature was located in Test 16, nine inches below ground. This feature consisted of a row s

of three bricks, arranged side by side, extending in an east to west direction. Each brick contained evidence of mortar on its upper surface (Figure 6). A second brick

Shuman/Orser feature was' discovered '7 mediately below. the surface in Test 21. This feature consisted of a substantial number of bricks and appeared to be an extension of the northwestern wall of the ruin (Figure 7).

The presence of subsurface brick walls is to be expected at this site, and their location during testing is hardly surprising. No attempt was made to delineate the full extent of these apparent brick walls because it was felt that to do so would add little to the study of the site.except to document the presence of a brick building at the location, a fact that was obvious prior to the test excavations.

Artifacts.

The artifact ' inventory recovered from the test excavations included only four items. None of these- items provide great information about the site.

A square iron nail and a small fragment of flat glass was recovered- from the -topsoil in Test 1. The glass s

fragment is three-sixteenths by eleven-sixteenths inches in size, one-sixteenth inches . thick, and light green in color.

The nail is. a typical " modern" machine-cut nail f

~30-

• + +

' s O

h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Shuman/Orser manufactured after the 1830s (Nelson 1968:7). It is one-and-fifteen-sixteenths long, has a square head, an unbroken, square point, and a shank that is rectangular in cross-section. The size of this nail suggests that it was a 5 or 6 pennyweight nail that could have been used for many purposes (Fontana and Greenleaf 1962:56-57; Walker 1971:72-74).

A chicken bone, probably from a domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) was discovered within the mixed brick and soil zone in Test 5 above the thin ash lens. This broken bone, probably from a tibia or a femur, was two inches long.

One bottle neck, consisting of five pieces, was recovered from the topsoil in Test 10. The brown-glass neck was of the stopper-type with a collar form that has been variously described as a " broad, sloping collar " (Wilson 1981), or as a " brandy" type collar (Herskovitz 1978:5, Figure 3). The presence of a vertical seam extending up the side of the neck to an applied lip suggests that this bottle was manufactured in a two-piece mold during the period from 1845 to 1870 (Newman 1970:72-73, Figure 1, 2).

Brick samples were not collected from the site because it was felt that this collection would offer little to our F

L i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ l

Shuman/orser knowledge. The whole bricks that were measured during the fieldwork were typically two and one-half inches thick, four and one-quarter inches wide, and eight and one-half inches long. One brick was found in the mixed zone of Test 10 that tapered from four and one-quarter inches wide on one end to three inches wide on the other. A view of the typical brick pattern in the mill ruin appears in Figure 7.

Interpretations l

The artifact sample is too small to provide significant information about the site that cannot be gathered in the historical records. The artifact dates are consistent with the known historical dates for this sugar mill. The soil stratigraphy suggests that the mill ruins were dispersed throughout the site in a fairly random pattern when the building was no longer in use, and that the removal of the machinery or bricks within the L-shaped wall caused the soil to be removed in this area. Evidence for this interpretation is provided by the soil stratigraphy in Test 17 where the subsurf ace clay was very close to the surface.

j

Shuman/Orser Conclusions

- Archaeological and archival investigation has shown that the ruin in question relates to a sugar house or mill that functioned from about 1850 to 1862. Data relative to the owner of this property have been presented and it has been suggested that this mill was fairly typical of the antebellum, steam-powered mill in Louisiana. Its owner was an eminent, second-generation planter who participated in the sugar experiment in the Felicianas. The archaeological findings showed little if any material of interest--two nails, a bit of glass, a broken 19th century bottle, and numerous brickbats, to be specific. The architecture of the site was not remarkable. Therefore, it is impossible to recomatend this site for inclusion in the National Register.

However, it is always possible that further investigation may reveal data that did not surface during this investigation and it is suggested that the site itself be preserved in case future investigators determine to make a more thorough investigation.

It was suggested by Mrs. Stephen P. Dart that the Fort

Shuman/Orser land title was, at least in part, under a cloud due to a situation that occurred in the first decade of

, the 19th century, and that this state of affairs was not rectified until 1897, when land titles were con-firmed by an Act of Congress. The author saw nothing in the Taylor, Porter abstract file alluding to this

- matter, but it is possible that such data may be found in the Clerk of Court's office in St. Francis-ville. However, in view of the time constraints, and because this issue did not seem germaine to the gen-eral . purpose of the investigation, the senior author has not pursued the matter A

b E

t

Shuman/Orser Bibliography Anonymous

~1860 Wheeler __and Forestall vs Fort, Suit # 1380.

Seventh Judicial District, West Feliciana Parish.

Filed May 8, 1860. Original in W. F. Clerk of Court's Office (copy provided by Mrs. S. P. Dart).

1931 " West Feliciana a Century Old." Illinois Central Magazine 19:3-? (From partial copy in West Feli-clana file in Louisiana Room of Middleton Library, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge).

1950 Untitled article. The Register, p. , Nov. 26, 1950 (From partial copy in West Feliciana file in Louisiana Room of Middleton Library, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge).

N.D. Miscellaneous documents in the GSU abstract file of Taylor, Porter, Fuller, Brooks and Phillips, Attorneys. Baton Rouge, LA.

Bouchereau, Alcee 1872 The Louisiana Sugar Report, with an Index, 1871-72.

New Orleans: Pelican Printers.

1878 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in Louisiana in 1877-78, with an Appendix. New Orleans: Pelican-Printers.

1879 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in Louisiana in 1878-79, with an Appendix. New Orleans: Pelican Printers.

1880 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in

- Louisiana in 1879-80, with an Appendix. New Orleans: Pelican Printers.

1881 Statement of.the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in Louisiana in . 1880-81, with an Appendix. New Orleans: Pelican Printers.

1882 Statement of the Sugar and Rice Crops Made in Louisiana in 1881-82, with an Appendix. New Orleans: Pelican Printers.

Shuman/Orser Champomier, P.A.

1845 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1844. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1846 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisisna in 1845. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1851 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1850. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1852 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1851. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1853 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1852. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1854 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1853. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1855 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1854. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1856 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1855. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1857 Statement of Sucar Made in Louisiana in 1856. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1858 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1857. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1859 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1858. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1860 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1859. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

1861 Statement of Sugar Made in Louisiana in 1860. New Orleans: Cook, Young & Co.

Dart, Mrs. Stephen P.

1984 Personal Communication. January 16, 1984.

Davis, Edwin A.

1943 Plantation Life in the Florida Parishes of Louisi-ana, 1836-1846, as reflected in the Diary of Bennet H. Barrow. New York: Columbia University Press.

- Shuman/Orser 1975 Louisiana: The Pelican State (New Edition). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

Deerr, Noel 1949 The History of Sugar, Vol. I. London: Chapman &

- Hall.

1950 The History of Sugar, Vol. II. London: Chapman &

Hall.

Floyd, William Bartow

'1963 The Barrow Family of Old Louisiana. Wm. B. Floyd:

Lexington, KY.

Fontana, Bernard L. and J. Cameron Greenleaf 1962 " Johnny Ward's Ranch: A Study in Historic Archaeol-ogy." The Kiva 28 (1-2): 1-115.

' Frazier, Wattine 1969 The Great Planter in West Feliciana Parish, Louisi-ana, 1850 to 1860. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Dept.

of History, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Gulf States Utilities Company 1983 Final Environmental Statemenk Related to the Pro-posed River Bend Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and

2. Washington, DC: Atomic Energy Commission, Dir-ectorate of Licensing, 1974. Supplements of 1983 related to flora, fauna, geology, archaeology and history.

Haag, William G.

s 1971 " Louisiana in North American Prehistory." Melanges, No. 1. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, Museum of Geoscience.

Herskovits, Robert M.

1978 " Fort Bowie Material Culture." Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 1. Tucson.

Shuman/Orser Kellar, Herbert A. (Ed.)

1936 Solon Robinson: Pioneer and Agriculturist. 2 Vols.

Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Bureau.

Munsell Color 1975 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore: Macbeth.

Nelson, Lee H.

1968 " Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings". American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet 48. Nashville, TN.

Neuman, Robert W. and Nancy W. Hawkins 1982 Louisiana Prehistory. Dept. of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission, Anthropological Study No.

6. Baton Rouge, LA Newman, T. Stell 1970 "A Dating Key for Post Eighteenth Century Bottles."

Historical Archaeology 4:70-77.

Newton, Milton B., Jr.

1972 Atlas of Louisiana: A Guide for Students. Louisiana State University, School of Geoscience Miscellan-eous Publication 72-1. Baton Rouge.

Persac, B.A.

1967 Plantations on the Mississippi River from Natchez to New Orleans in 1858. (Orig. 1851). New Orleans:

Pelican.

Sitterson, J. Carlyle 1953 Sugar Country: The Cane Sugar Industry in the South, 1753-1950. Lexing ton , KY: University of Kentucky Press.

Smith, Steven D.

1982 Memorandum and Site Report of December 14, 1982, on Visit to Sugar Mill at the River Bend Nuclear Plant Site. Documents in the files of the State Archaeologist's Office, Baton Rouge, LA

Shuman/Orser Swanton, John 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States.

Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnol-ogy Bull. No. 137, Washington, D.C.

Walker, John W.

1971 Excavation of the Arkansas Post Branch of the Bank of the State of Arkansas. Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service. Tallahassee, FL.

Wilson, Rex L.

1981 Bottles on the Western Frontier. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

e

I Shuman/Orser APPENDIX A: BIOGRAPHICAL DATA OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS MALCOLM KARL SHUMAN was born in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1941. He received his B.A. in geography and anthropology from Louisiana State University in 1962 and spent three years in the U.S. Army at Sandia Base, New Mexico. He received his M. A. in anthropology from the University of New Mexico in 1969 and went on to Tulane University, which awarded him his doctorate in anthropology in 1974- He has taught at two colleges in Texas; at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge; and has done archaeological work in New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, and France. In January, 1984, he left L.S.U. to become Executive Director of the Louisiana Naval War Memorial Commission.

CHARLES EDWARD ORSER was born in 1950, grew up in Wyandotte, Michigan, and graduated from Eastern Michigan University in 1972, in history. He earned his M.A. in anthropology at Wayne State University in 1975, and in 1980 was awarded his Ph.D. in anthropology, from Southern Illinois University. He has done archaeological work in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, South Dakota, and in several other states. His most notable project to date was the Millwood Plantation excavation in South Carolina and Georgia, from 1980 to 1982.. In 1983 he became Assistant Professor of Geography and Anthropology at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. He currently plans other work in the Felicianas.

~

~'

ATTACHMENT 2 Statement of the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer concerning the eligibility of a property for inclusion in the National Register I understand ~ that the is requesting agency the opinion. of the State Historic Preservation Officer concerning the eligibility of for inclusion property (ies) in the National Register and that my opinion may be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior with a formal request for a determination of eligibility on this property. This statement confirms my consultation as part of the determination of eligibility procedures.

(1) In my opinion, the property is eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

(2) In my opinion, the property is not eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

(3) I have no opinion and prefer to defer to the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior.

Justification and comments:

Signed:

l State Historic Preservation Officer l Date:

__