Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU
Master's Theses
Graduate College
12-2013
“Common Sense” Versus “Good Sense”:
Marginalization in Agriculture
Mark W. Hoock
Western Michigan University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, and the Social and Cultural
Anthropology Commons
Recommended Citation
Hoock, Mark W., "“Common Sense” Versus “Good Sense”: Marginalization in Agriculture" (2013). Master's Theses. Paper 435.
This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access
by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
“COMMON SENSE” VERSUS “GOOD SENSE”: MARGINALIZATION IN
AGRICULTURE
by
Mark W. Hoock
A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Graduate College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts
Department of Anthropology
Western Michigan University
December 2013
Thesis Committee:
LouAnn Wurst, Ph.D.,Chair
Lynne Heasley, Ph.D.
Vincent Lyon-Callo, Ph.D.
“COMMON SENSE” VERSUS “GOOD SENSE”: MARGINALIZATION IN
AGRICULTURE
Mark W. Hoock, M.A.
Western Michigan University, 2013
Scholars have engaged in discussions of when and where capitalism emerged
in agrarian America. These discussions have led to categorizations that placed some
farms outside the discussion of capitalist interrelationships. This separation
homogenized many 19th and early 20th century farms on the Hector Backbone in
Schuyler County New York into a “non-capitalist” category. This thesis aims to
illuminate the real lived conditions of a sample of these farmers through a Marxist
dialectical perspective. Archeological analysis of production strategies, through a
Marxist framework allows for a better understanding of the differences between
individual marginalized farms. Since analysis of a single farm only explicates the
behaviors on that specific farm, the analysis of multiple farms within this context will
bring to light the varied production strategies engaged on the variety of farms.
Furthermore, a comparison of these marginalized to other farms from this immediate
area, though located off the Backbone and not marginalized, will provide a larger
understanding of the real differences between the two ‘groups” and help mitigate the
categorization of one “group” simplistically and perhaps unfairly.
Copyright by
Mark W. Hoock
2013
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members Lynne Heasley and Vincent
Lyon-Callo for their thoughtful contributions throughout the development of this
thesis. I want to thank my peers at Western Michigan University, especially Dustin
Conklin who provided feedback when needed. I would also like to thank Allison
Kohley for her patience during the writing process, as well as my son Frankie, for
facilitating the writing process. Finally, I would like to thank LouAnn Wurst for her
invaluable advisement, comments, patience, and guidance, without which this thesis
would have never have been completed.
Mark W. Hoock
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................
ii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................
v
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................
ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................
1
II. THE AMERICAN AGRAIAN TRANSITION ..........................................
7
Historic Background ............................................................................
16
III. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......
23
The Dialectic and Scale ......................................................................
23
Landscape Analysis ............................................................................
28
Scale 1: Individual Farms ....................................................................
31
Scale 2: The Community Level ...........................................................
37
Scale 3: Town Level ............................................................................
39
IV. FARM PORTRAITS ..................................................................................
41
A. Dunham .........................................................................................
42
A.C. Wickham ....................................................................................
49
Albright ...............................................................................................
57
Ball ......................................................................................................
64
Bell ......................................................................................................
68
iii
Table of Contents—continued
Bement ................................................................................................
75
Creighton ............................................................................................
83
Dunham ...............................................................................................
89
Dusenbury............................................................................................
95
Gardner ................................................................................................ 100
Lee ...................................................................................................... 106
McNetton ............................................................................................ 112
R. Henry .............................................................................................. 116
S. Dunham ........................................................................................... 121
Smith ................................................................................................... 127
Wickham ............................................................................................. 131
Discussion of Farm Portraits ............................................................... 137
V. THE COMMUNITY AND TOWN SCALE............................................... 139
Discussion of Community Scale ......................................................... 160
The Town Level .................................................................................. 162
Discussion of the Town Scale ............................................................. 167
VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 169
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 176
iv
LIST OF TABLES
1. Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the A. Dunham Farm 18701880............................................................................................................47
2. Grains and Potatoes Produced on the A. Dunham Farm in Bushels ..........50
3. Livestock on the A. Dunham Farm ............................................................50
4. Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the A. C. Wickham Farm 18501880............................................................................................................53
5. Grains and Potatoes Produced on the A. C. Wickham Farm in Bushels ...55
6. Livestock on the A.C. Wickham Farm ......................................................56
7. Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Albright Farm 1870-1880 .....61
8. Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Albright Farm in Bushels ...............63
9. Livestock on the Albright Farm .................................................................63
10. The Ball Farm Occupants 1835-1900 ........................................................65
11. Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Ball Farm in Bushels ......................67
12. Livestock on the Ball Farm ........................................................................68
13. Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Bell Farm 1855-1880 ............72
14. Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Bell Farm in Bushels ......................74
15.
Livestock on the Bell Farm ........................................................................75
16.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Bement Farm 1865-1880 ......79
17.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Bement Farm in Bushels ................81
18.
Livestock on the Bement Farm ..................................................................82
19.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Creighton Farm 1850-1880 ..87
20.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Creighton Farm in Bushels ............88
v
List of Tables—continued
21.
Livestock on the Creighton Farm...............................................................88
22.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Dunham Farm 1865-1880.....92
23.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Dunham Farm in Bushels ...............94
24.
Livestock on the Dunham Farm .................................................................95
25.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Dusenbury Farm 1865-1880 .98
26.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Dusenbury Farm in Bushels ...........99
27.
Livestock on the Dusenbury Farm ...........................................................100
28.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Gardner Farm 1870-1880 ...103
29.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Gardner Farm in Bushels .............105
30.
Livestock on the Gardner Farm................................................................105
31.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Lee Farm 1850-1880 ..........110
32.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Lee Farm in Bushels.....................111
33.
Livestock on the Lee Farm .......................................................................111
34.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the McNetton Farm 18701880..........................................................................................................114
35.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the McNetton Farm in Bushels ..........115
36.
Livestock on the McNetton Farm ............................................................115
37.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the R. Henry Farm 1865-1880 ..119
38.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the R. Henry Farm in Bushels ............120
39.
Livestock on the R. Henry Farm ..............................................................121
40.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the S. Dunham Farm 18601880..........................................................................................................125
41.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the S. Dunham Farm in Bushels ........126
vi
List of Tables—continued
42.
Livestock on the S. Dunham Farm...........................................................126
43.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Smith Farm 1850-1880 .......128
44.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Smith Farm in Bushels .................130
45.
Livestock on the Smith Farm ...................................................................131
46.
Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Wickham Farm 1850-1880. 133
47.
Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Wickham Farm in Bushels ...........136
48.
Livestock on the Wickham Farm .............................................................136
49.
Percent of Acres Improved 1870 to 1880 and 1930’s (Based on
Orthoimage) .............................................................................................142
50.
Cordwood Value in Dollars 1870 and 1880 ............................................145
51.
Farms with Barbed Wire ..........................................................................149
52.
Farmstead Additions ................................................................................150
53.
Machine Value .........................................................................................151
54.
Paid Labor on Each Backbone Farm ........................................................152
55.
Variety (and Bushels) of Grains Produced on the Backbone Sample
1865-1880 ................................................................................................153
56.
Variety of Livestock on the Backbone Sample 1865-1880......................153
57.
Pounds of Butter Produced on Hector Backbone Farm Sample ..............154
58.
Egg Production on Hector Backbone Farm Sample ................................154
59.
Pounds of Wool Produced on the Hector Backbone Sample ...................156
60.
Bushels of Barley Produced on the Hector Backbone Sample ................157
61.
Value Per Acre Farms 1870 .....................................................................159
62.
Crops in Hector NY 1865, 1870, 1875, 1880 ..........................................163
vii
List of Tables—continued
63.
Percentage of Various Livestock in Hector New York 1865-1880 .........164
64.
Average Farm Size 1865-1880 ................................................................165
65.
Average Improved Acres Per Farms 1865-1880 ......................................165
66.
Average Farm Values 1865-1880 ............................................................165
67.
Investment and Percentage of Farms with Machinery in Hector .............166
68.
Investment of Labor in Hector New York 1870, 1880 ............................166
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Location of the Finger Lakes National Forrest ...................................................
4
2. Ortho Image of Project Area ...............................................................................
30
3. Wall Category 1 ..................................................................................................
35
4. Wall Category 2 ..................................................................................................
35
5. Wall Category 3 ..................................................................................................
36
6. Wall Category 4 ..................................................................................................
36
7. Wall Category 5 ..................................................................................................
37
8. Main Roads Near the Backbone Sample.............................................................
42
9. A. Dunham Farmstead Location .........................................................................
43
10. A. Dunham Fields and Degree Rise ..................................................................
45
11. A. Dunham Walls and Barbed Wire .................................................................
46
12. A.C. Wickham Domestic Sites, Degree rise, Fields, and Streams ....................
52
13. A.C. Wickham Walls ........................................................................................
53
14. A.C. Wickham Domestic Sites and Roads........................................................
55
15. A.C. Wickham Farm Value 1850 through 1880 ...............................................
57
16. Albright Accessibility .......................................................................................
58
17. Albright Domestic Sites, Degree Rise, Fields, and Barbed Wire .....................
60
18. Albright Walls ...................................................................................................
61
19. Albright Farm Value 1870 through 1880 ..........................................................
63
20. Ball Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields ...........................................................
66
21. Ball Walls..........................................................................................................
67
ix
List of Figures—continued
22. Ball Farm Value 1850 through 1880.................................................................
68
23. Bell Domestic Site, Fields, Degree Rise ...........................................................
70
24. Bell Farm Walls ................................................................................................
71
25. Bell Farm Value 1850 through 1880.................................................................
75
26. Bement Domestic Sites, Degree Rise, Fields, and Access Road ......................
77
27. Bement Walls ....................................................................................................
79
28. Bement Domestic Site Slope ............................................................................
80
29. Bement Farm Value 1865 through 1880 ...........................................................
82
30. Modern Ortho-Image of Creighton Ponds ........................................................
84
31. Creighton Domestic Site, Degree Rise, and Access Road ................................
85
32. Creighton Domestic Sites, Fields, Woodlots ....................................................
86
33. Creighton Walls ................................................................................................
87
34. Creighton Farm Value 1850 through 1880 .......................................................
89
35. Dunham Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots ..................................
91
36. Dunham Walls ..................................................................................................
93
37. Dunham Farm Value .........................................................................................
94
38. Dusenbury Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots ...............................
96
39. Dusenbury Walls ...............................................................................................
98
40. Dusenbury Farm Value ..................................................................................... 100
41. Gardner Domestic Site and Access Road ......................................................... 101
42. Gardner Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots............................................................ 103
43. Gardner Walls ................................................................................................... 104
x
List of Figures—continued
44. Gardner Farm Value.......................................................................................... 105
45. Lee Domestic Sites, Degree Rise, Fields .......................................................... 108
46. Lee Walls .......................................................................................................... 109
47. Lee Farm Value ................................................................................................. 111
48. McNetton Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Woodlot ............................................. 114
49. McNetton Farm Value ...................................................................................... 115
50. R. Henry Domestic Site, Degree rise, Fields, Woodlots ................................... 118
51. R. Henry Walls .................................................................................................. 119
52. R. Henry Farm Value ........................................................................................ 120
53. S. Dunham Domestic Site, Access Road .......................................................... 122
54. S. Dunham Degree rise, Woodlots .................................................................... 123
55. S. Dunham Walls .............................................................................................. 124
56. S. Dunham Farm Value..................................................................................... 126
57. Smith Domestic Sites, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots ..................................... 129
58. Smith Walls....................................................................................................... 130
59. Smith Farm Value ............................................................................................. 131
60. Wickham Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots ................................ 134
61. Wickham Walls................................................................................................. 135
62. Wickham Farm Value ....................................................................................... 136
63. Degree Rise for the Backbone Sample.............................................................. 141
64. Degree Rise in Woodlots .................................................................................. 145
65. Backbone Sample Walls ................................................................................... 146
xi
List of Figures—continued
66. Walls on A.C. Wickham and Bement ............................................................... 148
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Ideas of linear development from semi-subsistence farming to farming based on
the production of fewer marketable commodities dominate discussions of the capitalist
transition period of American agriculture in the 19th century (Redman and Foster 2008,
McMurry 1988, Parkerson 1995). The idea of linear movement became as common and
accepted as Horatio Alger rage-to-riches stories, though in this context the once
subsistence farmer hitches his or her wagon, so-to speak, to a capitalist star, and either
specializes for the market or fades out of existence.
Literature based on the agrarian transition period slots farmers into distinct
categories: subsistence farmers who had little need for an outside market; progressive
farmers who gravitated towards large specialized production; or petty-commodityproducing units that generated a small amount of surplus in addition to what they needed
in order to survive. Through scholarly literature (as well as popular mediums), these
categories become “common sense” and the many farmers who did not produce for the
market are seen as lagging behind those who adopted production based on the growing
capitalist ideology. In fact, in the 1950’s scholars defined 19th century rural populations
as individuals who eagerly accepted capitalism (Hartz, Boorstein, and Hofstadter as cited
in Parkerson, 1995:6). The farmers who did not “accept” capitalism were viewed as
backwards, unwilling, or unable to embrace the dynamics of western capitalism, and are
ultimately marginalized in the literature.
The latter category is especially applicable to hillside farms as they lacked the flat
expanse of acreage necessary to efficiently produce specialized crops. Thinking about the
1
history of agriculture through this linear idea of subsistence to specialized production
homogenizes 19th century farmers based on aggregate data and mixed scales, and
ultimately “naturalizes” capitalism by making it seem an inevitable outcome.
This “naturalization” of capitalism occurred as the idea of its progression became
an accepted “normal” way of viewing history and the modern world, and thus accepted as
the inevitable product of this trajectory. In this way, they become “common sense”
notions of how our society must behave. For purposes of clarification, Gramsci
(1971:322-323) uses this idea of “common sense” to express uncritical assumptions and
understanding of what has become “common” at a specific time and place. “Common
sense” in Gramsci’s estimation (and for the purposes of my studies) is the “normalized”
ideological perceptions of a specific historical social situation. Gramsci contrasts
“common sense” with “good sense.” “Good sense” is the critique of “common sense” and
it exists to confront ideologies. “Good sense” is present within “common sense” since it
arises to analyze “common sense.” “Good sense” can be found when analyzing “common
sense” to critique these “normalized” views and find the truths within the society
(Gramsci 1971:328). “Good sense” for the purposes of my work is an educated critique
of normative views during a specific time and place.
Several archaeologists and historians have addressed these “common sense”
ideas of “natural linear progression” of this transition period and argue that the shift to
capitalism in the countryside was not as cut and dry as thought or one that represents a
wholesale transition from semi-subsistence farming to capitalist market-driven
production (Donahue 2004, Kulikoff 1992, Ridarsky 2006, Ridarsky and Wurst 2003,
Sayers 1999, Worster 1990). Scholars have used archaeological and historical analysis of
2
agriculture in the 19th century to suggest that there are inconsistencies between the
dominant narrative, which saturates historical literature, and the reality of how farmers
actually approached their production. Scholars have suggested that this so-called
transition period was much more complex and multifaceted than a linear “progression”
from independent small farms changing into specialized capitalist farms.
Archaeologists have addressed these more simplistic “common sense” ideas
specifically in the Finger Lakes National Forest of central New York (see Conklin 2010,
Ridarsky 2006, Ridarsky and Wurst 2003, Wurst 2009, 2010). Since its inception in
2000, The Finger Lakes National Forest Farmstead Archaeology Project has provided
rich data from twenty-one domestic contexts on eighteen different farms located on the
Hector Backbone, the hilltop ridge in the Finger Lakes National Forest situated between
Seneca and Cayuga Lakes (Figure 1). The richness of the data about the “Backbone”
provides an ideal opportunity to develop a “good sense” view of the actual nature of
agricultural practices from this era. The intention of this thesis is to examine the
geographic data collected from the “Backbone” in order to discern the actual productive
behavior of these farmers at various spatial levels. The families who once worked and
lived on this ridge are an example of 19th century farmers marginalized in the historical
literature, on which the story of the transition of American agriculture is based. Regional
histories from the early to mid-20th century labeled these farms as not equipped to keep
up with capitalism, with farmers who only wanted to exhaust the land of its resources and
then move on to other locations (Darah 1942; Fippin 1921; Foote, et al 1944; Gates 1969;
Hedrick 1933; Vaughn 1929). These histories maintained and influenced more recent
archaeological work done prior to the Finger Lakes National Forest Archaeological
3
http://www.heimer.com/pe/
Farm Sample
Area
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/greenmountain/htm/fingerlakes/
f_rec.htm
Figure 1 Location of the Finger Lakes National Forrest
Project (Delle, Boyle, and Cuddy 2003; Heaton1998, 2003a, 2003b). Both these historical
and archaeological narratives contribute to a “common sense” which places farms not
seen as capitalist enterprises as unsuccessful therefore maintaining the legacy of
capitalism as normative and inevitable. The goal of this thesis is to understand how these
individual farms were actually producing, because they were homogenized as “noncapitalist” farms effectively written into the margins of society. Furthermore, seeing how
these farms were marginalized I also wanted to see how different their production was
from other farms in the area that were not.
My analysis is geared at assumptions of individual farm behaviors based on
“common sense” ideas of what production should look like. Starting from ideal
production within a capitalist system to categorize individual farms mystifies what these
4
farms were actually doing. Ultimately, this “scale jumping” allows for the
marginalization of certain farms as they are simplistically seen as non-capitalist.
I begin by laying out the historical background addressing scales of analysis
during this period of transition. Conveying how “common sense” approaches have been
used to view farms in the late 19th and early 20th century, which homogenize farmers into
capitalist or non-capitalist categories. I then focus specifically on 19th and early 20th
century farms from the Hector Backbone who were deemed non-capitalist and unable to
keep up with the growing system of capitalism. Seeing how these farms were grouped
together and marginalized in the literature I wanted to see the similarities in productive
strategies and farm layout. Specifically I looked at: farm-building placement, the gradient
or slope of land, farm size, amount of land separated into fields, the investment in
stonewalls or barbed wire to define these fields, the stone walls that formed the
boundaries of the farms, the amount of improved or cultivated land, the amount invested
in labor, tools, and machinery, in addition to products of the farm and how they changed
through the course of the mid to late 19th century.
This nuanced analysis serves to explicate why former studies fall short of getting
close the real life stories of the production in this area because of single scale analysis
that groups farms such as these together as having one similar productive style. In
essence, this requires concrete understandings of what these farmers were really doing by
providing an in depth analysis of each farm in the sample from the Backbone in order to
clarify specifically what they were producing and how that changed as well as how they
utilized the land that was considered so marginal.
5
I follow the analysis of these individual farms with a comparison of the behaviors
on each farm and different characteristics on each farm to each other. This comparison
was done in order to understand how similar or varied the production across the farms
was since there were lumped together into the category of “non-capitalist” farms unable
to maintain success in the growing capitalist structure. Finally, I compare the Backbone
community to the town of Hector in order to see how different the upland farms were
from the farms in town below that were not lumped into the same group. I want to know
whether the Backbone farms produced similarly to the remainder of the farms in Town of
Hector since they were viewed as engaging in different productive behaviors and
ultimately marginalized. This comparison helps evaluate whether the “common sense”
view of these farms marginality has any basis in reality.
I hope to demonstrate that the simple argument that these farmers simply could
not keep up with the ever-expanding capitalist system due to the type of topography they
lived on is untenable. I suggest that a multi-scalar landscape analysis geared towards
identifying variability in production and explaining factors that led to varying productive
strategies will support ideas of a more complex 19th century American agrarian history.
Furthermore, a multi-scalar analysis of landscape data will help explicate a more nuanced
understanding of why this area and the farmers who lived and worked there are ultimately
marginalized.
6
CHAPTER II
THE AMERICAN AGRAIAN TRANSITION
Scholars have long posited the importance of the countryside within discussions
of capitalism (see Clark 1990: Kulikoff 1992: Mann 1990: Wood 2000). The arguments
focus on whether capitalism truly existed in rural America, or if by virtue of agrarian
production itself agriculture existed as a completely separate mode of production, while
capitalism only exists in urban areas. Other arguments attempt to pin point when
capitalism appeared in countryside (Clark 1990: Kulikoff 1992: Merrill 1993). Scholars
have also studied the importance of ecological and social factors that influenced the ways
farmers engaged the land in order, in part, to demystify the schism between agricultural
and industry (Donahue 2004: Hagenstein et al. 2011: Redman and Foster 2008).
Most of these discussions are necessary because of the difficulty in defining what
capitalism is. Definitions of capitalism come from myriad sources and debate. To fully
develop these ideas would be too exhaustive as well as unnecessary for the scope of this
work. However, I will proceed by abstracting a few authors’ ideas of what capitalism
looked like in American agriculture. I then will address how these principles would have
applied to the study of the agrarian transition period of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Where and when capitalism took hold in the countryside has been a topic of
debate for over thirty years with a variety of contending factors pervading the discussion.
Historian James T Lemon argued that early settlers in Pennsylvania focused on material
gain and individual freedom above all else and were involved in two economic systems,
the household and Atlantic market system (Clark 1990: Kulikoff 1992). This position is
akin to the so-called “market historian” which falls more in line with an idea that
7
entrepreneurial farmers progressively integrated themselves into commodity markets, and
colonialists came to America with capitalist intentions in mind. Henretta refuted Lemon’s
work stating that farmers resisted the market and focused on securing estates for their
children (Clark 1990: Henretta 1978: Kulikoff 1992). This notion, more analogous to a
“social historian” perspective, is one where the idea that rural communities, well into the
nineteenth century, worked as a system dominated by use value. This is to say that the
value of the goods produced by farmers was not determined by the market but rather by
the needs of the family which produced them. The “social historian” position maintains
that the process from non-capitalist to capitalist relations was due to conflict between
capitalists, which cumulated in the forced shift from farmers as independent entities to
wage workers (Kulikoff 1992:16). Simplistically, both the “market historian” and “the
social historian” perspective, when boiled down is based upon simple definitions of
capitalism. Defined by the existence of a commodity market, American agriculture has
always been capitalist. Defined by the reliance upon wage labor, it has an origin (Wurst
and Reckner 2012).
Some current scholarship has indeed addressed the terse disconnection between
agriculture and capitalism. Recently archaeologists and historians have approached this
debate expressing that it is more complex than a simple one to one correlation that pits
agriculture against industry, or categorizes farms as capitalist or not. Donahue (2004),
Gregg (2010) Hagenstein et al. (2011) discuss the distortion in viewing the countryside
romantically and unaffected by larger political and economic influences. Worster (1990)
argued that the most important locations that witness the clash of culture and nature can
be seen on the farm. Kulikoff (1992) suggests that capitalism actually made agrarian
8
American as well as destroyed it. Sayers (2003) suggests that material culture, landscape
analysis and archaeological perspectives can help us understand more clearly the
complexities of a changing political economy such as a transition to agrarian capitalism.
Wurst (2009) and Wurst and Reckner (2012) suggest that in order to understand rural
social relations and capitalism we need to look at the relationship between the two. Yet
even though scholarship has been heading in a direction that intersects capitalism and
agriculture, imbued in our “common sense” understandings of agriculture and industry,
as well as our understandings of “capitalist farms” and “non-capitalist farms” are still the
dichotomous separations. Ingrained in our understandings of America’s past is this
separation in part due to older scholarship, which examined farms and farming conditions
as “capitalist,” “non-capitalist,” or in the process of becoming capitalist (Darah 1942;
Fippin 1921; Foote, et al 1944; Gates 1969; Hedrick 1933; Vaughn 1929). Furthering
these ideas are debates scholars have engaged in with aspirations of determining whether
or not American agriculture has always been capitalist (Clark 1990: Merril 1999: Post
2011). While many of these scholars recognize that a simple correlation between
“capitalist” and “non-capitalist” farms is not the most important issue with regard to the
agrarian transition period, the debates themselves are testament to the polarizing nature of
the dichotomy.
The debates over timing of when capitalism evolved in the countryside became
integral to “common sense” ideas of what farms were capitalist. Our Western “common
sense” accepted specific criterion in order to attempt to determine the time when
capitalism came to rural America. These criterions were primarily wage labor, investment
in technologies, and maximization of the land to produce a surplus. Furthermore
9
economic market activity tied together wage labor, technology, and surplus production as
a totality of the social relations of production (Wolf 1982; Mintz 1985).
Wage labor, or the investment of money in economic activities with the intention
of making a profit through the exploitation of those who sell their labor to those who own
the means of production is a primary criterion and a vital feature of capitalism. The
investment of money pertains to raw material and labor purchased in order to produce
surplus. Many systems of production utilize labor and raw materials in order to exist;
however, capitalism is unique in that workers who do not own the means of production
perform the labor (see Marx 1993). Wage labor, and for that matter capitalism, are only
possible because the worker is free to exchange his or her labor for money (Marx 1964).
Therefore, in a capitalist system the wageworker sells his or her labor as a commodity. In
the context of 19th century farmers, wage labor was growing and had an increasingly
important role, though because of the continued use of family labor when possible, the
wageworker role was irregular (Clark 1990). The use of wage labor was essential to how
scholars view the agrarian transition period, since wage labor became important criteria
for defining capitalism (Clark 1990: Kulikoff 1992: Sayers 1999).
In addition to involvement in the market and use of wage labor, contemporaneous
ideas of “progressive” farming and farm layout were also seen as characteristics that
would indicate whether a farm was capitalist. The idea of “progressive” farming was
attributed, in large part to when a centralized agricultural marketplace and specialized
production confronted self-sufficiency, familial labor, and community exchanges (Barron
1997). These behaviors consisted of investment in contemporaneous machinery to
replace the cost of labor and to accelerate profit. Machines were steadily advancing in the
10
late 19th early 20th century, improving farming techniques, extending the scale of
operations and making them more capitalist (Lenin 1915). Investment in technologies
would have aided farmers in the maximization of land use so that there would be more
land cultivated in order to produce a larger surplus. The intensified use of land increased
a farm’s economic ability, increased their output, and thus created more capitalist
relations. Specifically for agriculture, modern machinery as well as scientifically
engineered fertilizers increased the surplus in crops (Groover 2008). This increase in
yield sold at market and the extent of market exchange as a replacement for selfsufficiency became one of the factors that market and social historians have debated in
their discussions of when or if capitalism existed in the countryside (Kulikoff 1992).
Other scholars suggest that agriculture was simply antithetical to capitalism
because of constraints inherent in the nature of farming. The Mann and Dickinson Thesis
(1978:472) laid out these natural constraints as the point in the process of production
where “the unfinished commodity is abandoned to the sway of natural processes without
being at that time in the labor process.” This is exemplified by the time between sowing
and harvesting; long periods of time when labor is not applied. Since only labor produces
surplus value these long “fallow” periods make capitalist agriculture impossible.
The emphasis on “progressive” farming, market engagement, wage labor, as well
as ideas of the nature of agriculture as antithetical to capitalism derived from a model of
capitalism based on an industrial urban trajectory context. Since our “common sense”
sees capitalism in urban factory contexts, farms become a problem, and agriculture is left
outside of the structure. This positioning homogenizes capitalism into a thing with rigid
characteristics, as opposed to a historically situated process defined through sets of
11
relations and the dynamics that are involved in that process. Historians and
archaeologists, through analysis of the agrarian transition period in America, have posited
that many farmers resisted and remained outside of the development of capitalist
production (Clark 1990; Groover 2008; Kulikoff 1992; Post 2011; Sayers 1999). The full
scope of all the discussions on the agrarian transition period would be, and has been the
subject for many books; therefore, I certainly cannot exhaustively cover them in this
thesis. However, I will present some general ideas and arguments here that allowed
researchers to develop categories for individual farmers of this period; either capitalist or
not.
Fundamentally, these views all suggest that there are simple criteria for capitalism
within an agrarian setting. The definitions of capitalism created ideas such as market
engagement is only capitalist if an exploited labor force created the products, and that
wage labor did not affect farms, as agrarian capitalism is a recent development.
Furthermore, some arguments separate the types of production, agriculture, or industry,
due to environmental constraints, as seen in the Mann-Dickinson Thesis (Mann and
Dickinson 1978). While others try to identify a moment where capitalism impacted the
countryside as seen through the debates between the so-called market and social
historians, as seen in the Lemon and Henretta debates (Clark 1990: Kulikoff 1992).
Through questioning the when and where of capitalism development these debates still
mystify the actual behaviors farmers engaged in by dumping them into discrete
categories. In other words, the effort has been on the classification rather than
understanding their actual behavior.
Archaeologists have discussed, and at times applied these simple guidelines, or
12
criteria to determine whether individual 19th and early 20th century farms were capitalist.
Adams (1990:94-99) discussed idealized farm layout and spatial arrangements of 19th
century farmers that were affected by popular trends from journals and books which
provided models of “progressive agricultural movements.” “Progressive” farmers that
focused on production for the marketplace would have taken advice taken from journals
and popular publications of the time (Adams 1990; Barron 1984; McMurry 1988).
Publications such as American Agriculturalist and American Farmer provided farmers
with suggestions leaning towards efficiency in productive strategies that were expressed
in farm layout. Adams (1990) discusses central place theory as recommended in The
Young Farmers Manual from 1860 written by S. Edwards Todd, who suggested that
buildings should be located as near to the middle of the farm as possible, situating the
more intensive activities close to the house leaving less intense activities further away.
Adams ultimately suggests that the landscape, structures, and features of “progressive”
farms would exhibit organized and precise qualities such as the centralized domestic and
secondary structures that would be seen as indicative of efficiency. He proposes that
archaeologists can investigate the extent of which farmers adopted these trends and
ideals.
Several archaeologists have adopted this type of investigation. Sayers (2003)
discusses the use of “progressive” farming techniques derived from popular
contemporaneous journals and publications, which he applied to the Sheppard farm
located in Battle Creek Michigan, operated from 1834 to1860. Sayers (1999, 2003)
argues that although the Sheppards’ adopted certain “progressive” uses of space both in
the farmhouse and on the land that surrounds it, they did not subscribe fully to a true
13
capitalist ideal. Over the time period of his study, the farm did become more
“progressive” in terms of profit-motivated, market-driven production, although the lack
of wage labor on the farm prevent him from calling it a true capitalist farm. However, he
states that the landscape of a changing political economy is complex and it is recognized
that the issue is not simply whether or not capitalism existed in American agriculture.
Groover (2008) analyzes farms from the colonial period up through the mid 20th
century and uses the spatial organization of farm residence and outbuildings to examine
diachronic changes. He (2008:23) employs these analyses to identify “continuity and
change in the domestic landscape and the built environment over time, tracking
architectural change, and examining the standard of living and material conditions
experienced by farm households.” He (2008: 24) introduces two different interpretations
of farm layout: one is “spatially preplanned and systematically organized,” the other as
“haphazardly arranged or strewn.” According to Groover (2008:24), the organized farm
is evidence of progressive ideas relating to maximized efficiency, while the “strewn”
farm is unplanned and void of progressive ideas. Groover’s approach provides an easily
tested model for farm layout that has utility when ascertaining whether individual farms
adhere to “common sense” ideas of “progressive” farming. Groover (2008) does state that
perhaps a multi-scalar perspective utilizing global, national, regional, community and
household contexts should be applied when analyzing farmsteads.
While these studies provide valuable ideas to understand farm transitions within a
growing capitalist context, they all suffer from the same limitations. In each, a single
individual farm is used as an example of larger scale phenomena. This analytical
movement from the individual to capitalist scales leaves out other scales such as local,
14
regional, and national that may help us understand capitalist transitions in the
countryside. While these authors address the ideas of scale and complexity, the criteria to
test whether farms are capitalist still seems to reside at the individual level within their
studies.
These “common sense” criteria have been used to determine whether farms on the
Hector Backbone were keeping up with the growing system of capitalism. Mid 20th
century historians writing about farms in New York such as Darah (1942) Foote, et al
(1944), Gates (1969) Hedrick (1933) argued that these farms were not suitable for
mechanized farming, had poor soil conditions, and simplistically put them into the
category of farms that could not or did not want to keep up with modern ideals. The
simple fact that these farms were located on hillsides, a topographical area seen as
naturally adverse to capitalist production was the factor that these scholars used to
correlate them to non-progressive behaviors. The legacy of these earlier assessments
remained and used as a basis for more recent archaeological studies (see Heaton1998,
2003a, 2003b). Furthermore, placing these farms into simple categories helps facilitate
more recent discussions on the existence and origin of agrarian capitalism as seen in
Clark (1990), Kulikoff (1992). I contend that this label provides no understanding of the
actual productive behavior of these farms. Without an understanding of the actual
productive behaviors, it makes no sense to haphazardly throw these farms into definitive
categories. With this simple categorization, we will never understand what truly was
occurring at the farm level during this agrarian transition period. In order to fully
understand the “common sense” view, in this case which farms went into what category,
and then critique it, requires us to examine what scholars have said about specific
15
farming communities that have been thus categorized. Therefore, what follows is a brief
history of the Hector Backbone and some of the assumptions made about the farmers that
occupied it.
Historic Background
Documentation of the Backbone farms histories has been ongoing since the early
20th century. Historians of New York State such as Darrah, Hedrick, Gates, Fippin, and
Foote argued that the hillsides these farms were located on were not suitable for
mechanized farming, and wrote that they did not keep up with the growing capitalist
system, ultimately contributing to our “common sense” understandings of rural behavior
in New York. Furthermore, scholars have also discussed the exodus of farmers from the
Northeast to more promising farmland out west (Heaton 2003a and b, Hedrick 1933,
Gates 1960, Ridarsky and Wurst 2003).
The specific history of this area was diachronically divided into four different
periods that contribute to the “common sense” ideas of the Backbone farms as nonprogressive, non-capitalist units. Heaton (2003b) called the first period, 1775 to 1800,
“Conquest and Pioneer Settlement.” It was marked by military and legislative actions to
remove the Iroquois peoples from this area. This land, made up of over 1,500,000 acres,
was divided into parcels and promised to Revolutionary War Soldiers from New York.
Although still legally owned by the Iroquois Confederacy, each solider from New York
was promised 600 acres of what was called the “New Military Tract” for payment of their
services.
Heaton (2003b) argues that the farms on the “Backbone” went through a period of
16
rapid growth in the early to mid 19th century, the period he calls “Settlement and
Agricultural Boom” (Heaton 2003b). By 1835, approximately 57% of the land in Hector
was improved or cleared and used for production. Roads were constructed to link the
commercial centers and the upland farms (Heaton 2003b:22-24). However, this period
was followed by an era marked by “Economic and Population Decline” (Heaton 2003b).
Heaton (2003b:25) suggests that the decline in population resulted from the depletion of
the soil, which led to a decrease in agricultural production, as well as westward migration
because of the availability of more productive soil and the improvement in transportation,
which made migration possible. Heaton (2003b:25) also posits that farmers in the
Northeast were reticent to invest too much capital in their lands, and applied short-range
investment strategies, doing little more than just clearing and planting. Because of these
factors, abandonment of the farmland increased in the early 20th century, the population
of the region decreased. Ultimately, the government stepped in to take over this
“marginal” land. This is the period Heaton (2003b) calls the “Rural Abandonment and
Federal Management” era. This abandonment affected local and state governments
leading to regional economic struggle and a decline in tax revenue. (Heaton 2003b:26,
Ridarsky 2006, Wurst 2009).
The Federal Government began to purchase this marginal land with aid from three
federal acts: the National Recovery Act of 1933, the Emergency Relief Act of 1935, and
the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. In the 1940’s the Soil Conservation
Service managed this land, planted conifers to stabilize hillsides and transformed
previously cultivated fields into pastures (Heaton 2003b). In the 1950’s this land fell
17
under the purview of the U.S. Forest Service. Finally in 1985 the land was renamed the
Hector Ranger District, Finger Lakes National Forest System (Heaton 2003b).
Reports written by agricultural historians in the early to mid 20th century
supported many of these assumptions about the economic decline and the subsequent
government buyout. This literature described the farms on the Backbone as adverse to
change, approaching their production as a short-term investment where just clearing and
planting was the only form of capital investment. They assumed that these farmers had no
expectations of remaining there (Gates 1960). Scholars of that era have also discussed the
exodus of farmers from the Northeast to more promising farmland out west (Hedrick
1933, Gates 1960). They suggest that the farmers on the Hector Backbone lacked the
machinery and other technology that would help them produce in a growing capitalist
system (Darrah 1942, Vaughn 1929).
These hillside farms were viewed as unable to make this transition to capitalist
production because of the natural environmental limitations of these areas. The soil
conditions on these farms were deemed poor and therefore it was not worth the effort it
would take to continually cultivate into the 20th century (Gates 1960, Heaton 2003b,
Hedrick 1933). According to Darah (1942) the land was divided into categories or classes
based on perceived on productive potential of the land: land class 1 consisted of idle or
unused land; land class 2 was land used to farm though its ability to produce was deemed
less than that necessary for farmers to make a satisfactory living; land class 3, 4, and 5
consisted of soils that would support commercial agricultural production. The majority of
land on the Hector Backbone was deemed land class 1 or 2, or sub marginal land, not
suited for agriculture (Conklin 2011, Foote et. al. 1944). Allen (1925) stated that hilltop
18
farms were located on poor soil and this poor soil was due to extensive cultivation, which
sapped the soil of its richness. The “common sense” view proposes that due to poor soil
and geographical conditions (being hillside or hilltop farms), these farmers quickly
exhausted their already marginal land and left for better opportunities elsewhere. Those
who stayed were stranded on unproductive hill farms (Darah 1942; Foote, et al 1944;
Gates 1969; Hedrick 1933). Again, the legacy of this literature from the early to mid 20th
century has influenced the way more recent scholarship addressed these farms.
In the late 1990’s archaeologists studied a sample of farms on the Hector
Backbone (Delle, Boyle, and Cuddy 2003). The results of their fieldwork seemed to agree
with the agricultural historians that preceded them. Their analyses suggest that these
farms on the backbone would not have intensified their land for production or invested in
the land for long-term use.
In particular Heaton (2003b:25) suggests that the farmers migrated westward due
to the decreased agricultural production from depletion of soil and lack of ambition to
invest more into the land on the hillside. Smith and Boyle (2003) argue that the farmers
of the Backbone were unable to afford the new technologies of “progressive” farming
that characterize successful farms throughout the remainder of New York State. Using a
sample of twenty-five sites, they examined cellar-hole sizes and determined that these
homes were quite homogenous in size. None of the houses in their sample were centrally
located on the farm. They also found no evidence for structural modifications to any of
the farm buildings except for one three-gable barn. Therefore, they argued that these
farms did not implement any efficient mechanical aids (2003:55). They suggest that the
owners of these farms made little attempt to keep up with “progressive” farming ideas.
19
This abstraction of traditional semi-subsistence farming versus “progressive” capitalist
farming makes it impossible to recognize any specialized production these farmers may
actually have been engaged in, the variability in their strategies, or how these changed
over time.
More recent archaeological and historical research and analysis has demonstrated
that the history of this area was not as cut and dry or as simple as the agricultural history
literature implies. Recent scholarship has shown that there are inconsistencies between
the dominant narrative which saturates the older historical literature and the more recent
historic and archaeological data that has been collected (Conklin 2010; Ridarsky: 2006;
Ridarsky and Wurst: 2003, Wurst: 2009). Wurst (2009) argues that farmers had to adjust
productive strategies to keep up with changing urban dynamics such as reduction of
prices for agricultural products in order to feed the growing capitalist labor force and the
type of production varied from farm to farm. This suggests that rural life was dynamic
and each farm had to produce within the influence of urban and rural contexts more so
than traditional subsistence “common sense” understandings of farms suggest. Ridarsky
(2006) argues that the farms on the Backbone were actually successful with their
production of a variety of fruits, grains, and livestock byproducts, by traditional standards
up into the early 20th century. Furthermore, she suggests that it was modern standards of
success, such as large specialized surplus production, which reflected capitalist ideals
positioned these farmers as unable to succeed. Ridarsky analyzed grain, fruit and
vegetables, as well as livestock from agricultural schedules of the third district of the
town of Hector. Her analysis supported the idea that the farms in this area were
successful by standards of the 19th century and these farmers were able to sustain their
20
families.
Conklin (2010) argued that soil conditions, which affected modern mechanization
on the Hector Backbone was not the main contributor to the abandonment of these farms.
He posited that into the early 20th century farm labor became less accessible in part due to
the younger generations of these farm families moving out of the countryside to look for
work. He suggests that changes in labor relations during the early 20th century had more
to do with the removal of these farmers than the condition of the land.
The contradictions between recent archeological data and the historic “common
sense” views, described above, suggest that simple analytical move of jumping scales, or
looking at individual farms to explain how all farmers behaved, cannot capture the great
deal of diversity in agricultural practices. Logically then, we can only develop “good
sense” of production from analysis at different scales, or looking at a variety of farms and
a variety of scales to understand what they were all doing as opposed to make inferences
based on a single productive unit.
This thesis addresses real examples of what farmers were actually doing during
this period of transition by examining the productive landscape from different scales. I
chose to view these farms individually then compare them to each other, and finally
compare them to the town down the hill in order to see firstly whether the farming
behavior was alike up on the Hector Backbone, seeing how they were all categorized
together as “non-capitalist” farms unable to keep up with the growing mode of
production. Secondly, the comparison to the town as to discern if there was enough
difference between the hillside farms and the rest of the town farms to warrant a strict
divide. I do this in order to contribute a theoretical/methodological approach to a growing
21
scholarship that recognizes the interrelationship between capitalism and agriculture. I
approached data analysis by a dialectical examination, informed by Marxist theory, of not
only specific farms of this era but also examining the immediate and larger communities
that surround and are interwoven together in the fabric of this society. I turn now to
layout the implications of this theoretical approach highlighting the differences,
similarities, and effects that a component from one scale may have on another, thus
providing a different and perhaps more nuanced understanding these transformations.
22
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Dialectic and Scale
Drawing from Marx’s view of social relations, I analyzed these farms
dialectically. The dialectical perspective is useful because it allows us to understand that
socio-economic conditions are not simply an aggregate of unrelated parts but rather the
totality of connected components. The theory of dialectics is way of thinking which
considers the entirety of changes and interactions that occur to the material world as
relational to the surrounding conditions (O’Donovan 2002: Ollman 2003) Therefore all
things are made up of all the relations they are involved with. The way we understand
these conditions or relations is by breaking them down into manageable, understandable
parts or abstractions (Ollman 2003). This approach is valuable since it recognizes the
interconnected relationship between humans and the land by breaking down lived
experience into manageable analytical parts and relations without only considering the
parts in isolation (O’Donovan: 2002, Ollman: 2003). This process of abstracting parts of
human experiences and relations allow us to examine how people created the complete
lived experience in order to understand it (O’Donovan: 2002, Ollman: 2003).
Marx (1998) stated:
The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but
real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination.
They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions
under which they live, both those which they find already existing and
those produced by their activity.
23
For my study, the premise by which I begin is the everyday life of these farmers. I
begin with what they were actually doing, rather than beginning with abstractions
reified by our “common sense.” The real lives of 19th century farmers was based
upon the social relations in a capitalist system that included their relations with
the land they worked, as well as the relation these farmers had with their
community and the larger region. Farms and farmers are linked together in a
dialectical web, both effecting how behaviors, including production strategies
take place. The dialectical approach applies directly to a landscape study of
production in so much as it supports the idea that “man” and the natural world are
intricately intertwined and that the economic structure of societies is linked to
humans and their relations to nature as well as other relations at different scales
(Ollman: 2003).
Marquardt (1992:107) explains that scales are abstractions that relate to a specific
amount of time and space taken under consideration. Or as Marquardt and Crumely
(1987: 2) state, “scale refers to the unit of analysis relative to the matrix as a whole.”
Harvey (2000: 75) explains spatial scales as a “nested hierarchy” in which people
organize and act out their activities. Different scales of analysis can be the household, the
community, a region, the nation, or the whole of global capitalism. Harvey (2000:75)
argues that processes at one of these scales may have ramifications on other scales
without either scale knowing the interrelationship between the two. He (2000:75) uses the
example of behaviors of people driving cars, which produce regional effects
accumulating into problems such as acid rain on a global level. A dialectical approach
suggests that in order to truly understand the relations of production, we need to perform
24
a multi-scalar analysis, since the processes at one level may affect other scales. This is
very different from “common sense” views that move directly from the capitalist scale to
that of the individual farm, or vice versa. Therefore, historical conditions that have
influenced change reside at a local level but also at a community, regional, and global
scales.
Harvey (2000, 2006, 2009) has addressed a top down idea of global and national
impact on individuals’ production, where larger structural advancements produce
geographic inequity. For example, if one region could produce a commodity cheaper than
another, these other regions would be less inclined to produce it. This would result in
geographic differences in the production of each commodity. These conditions may lead
to a politically, socially, and economically uneven geography. This would be applicable
to the farmers on the Hector Backbone with consideration of a regional scale. A
“common sense” perspective positions the varied production on the Backbone and lack of
large-scale commercial crops of these farmers as unsuccessful. Specific mechanisms such
as the Erie Canal, and railroads contributed to this process in the Northeast, as they
affectively reduced the cost of transporting and marketing surplus production and
affected the production of the farmers of this region. Farms located near these
transportation corridors enjoyed reduced shipping costs which those outside these areas
did not.
Harvey (2006) labels this process of underdevelopment as accumulation by
dispossession. This concept explains the accumulation of wealth by the capitalist class
and wealthier regions at the expense of working class and “marginal” regions.
Redistribution of wealth is achieved through different mechanisms: the privatization of
25
public assets; the deregulation of financial systems; management and manipulation of
crises such as raising interest rates at the expense of countries in unstable financial
positions; and state redistribution through code revisions so that profit goes to investment
returns instead of income (Harvey 2006: 44-49). Ultimately, the capitalist class moves
power and autonomy away from the working class or marginal regions.
These developments are engineered by the exploitative practices of capitalism that
fueled geopolitical, military, and political activities (Harvey 2006), and the inequality that
results from them are complex multilayered processes too involved for the scope of this
work. However, these ideas of uneven development and exploitation have been
propagated historically through the dominant narratives that do have an impact on how
19th century farmers on the “Hector Backbone” are viewed today. The narratives of the
past view “progress” (as seen in the structure of capitalism) in isolation; in other words,
the “progressive” farms became the farms seen as successful, while marginalizing or
emphasizing the futility of production in the areas not seen as “progressive.” This leads to
the popular myths that imbue all of our histories of Northeastern or upland farmers.
Explanations of these farmers’ unwillingness to transition into a market-driven mode of
production, and positioning them as stuck in more traditional farming methods (Heaton
1998, Heaton 2003, Smith and Boyle 2003) characterizes all these farms as marginal and
perhaps even “backwards”. This abstraction of traditional semi-subsistence farming
versus “progressive” capitalist farming makes it impossible to recognize any specialized
production these farmers may actually have been engaged in, the variability in their
strategies, or how these changed over time. That is, our “common sense” abstraction
already presumes to understand and classify their entire way of life.
26
I suggest that a dialectical framework focusing on multiple scales becomes
applicable to understand the farmers of the Hector Backbone once we understand that
that they were dealing with real material conditions involving their relationship with the
actual land that they worked, as well as the relations they had with the community and
region. The social relations at community and regional scales may focus our attention on
relationships between famers in terms of labor, ideas that a farm family may have owned
multiple farms throughout the area, or that different farm families may have worked
together.
As mentioned previously early to mid 20th century, agricultural historians
conceptualized these transformations based on large-scale assumptions that have
influenced how some scholarship has discussed the Hector Backbone. Many of these
agricultural models see change as having occurred equally across regions regardless of
land, resources, or histories (Redman and Foster 2008). However, it stands to reason that
some farmers would have experienced different stresses and would have had to approach
changing socioeconomic dynamics in different ways due to the resources, geography, and
development histories specific to them. That is to say, the specific local, regional,
national, and global levels at that specific time (19th to early 20th century in this case)
would have influenced each farmer individually. Thus, not all farmers would adjust or
adapt to changes in production in the exact same way. The implication is that to truly
understand these transformations, we need to include small-scale farmers such as those
on the “Backbone” as well as other farms that were located on so-called marginal areas to
recognize and capture the variability in their actual productive strategies. In what follows
I discuss the methods I used to actually correct this view. Seeing how agricultural
27
production is based ultimately in the “land,” landscape analysis provides the key
framework for examining these transformations.
Landscape Analysis
In order to understand how these farmers were producing and reproducing their
everyday lives, I used the tools of a multi-scalar Marxist dialectical analysis. And while a
large part of farmers lives is based on agricultural production, the actual nature and
complexities of agricultural practices and how they change through time was of
paramount interest. Since changes in production would inevitably change land use, a
landscape analysis informed by a multi-scalar Marxist dialectical approach of these farms
helps us understand their actual productive relations, how they transformed over time, as
well as how farmers were adapting to the larger capitalist structure.
Landscape studies have been important in archaeology for decades. Some have
dealt with features on the land such as rock paintings, burial grounds, or large physical
structures used for spiritual purposes to infer socio-symbolic dimensions (see Ashmore
and Knapp 1999), while other archaeologists have analyzed landscapes to determine
issues of power and resistance in uneven social systems (see Delle: 2001, Epperson:
2001). Still others archaeologists have used landscape aspects as groupings of data such
as maps and personal letters to generate a greater understanding of historical places
(Yamin and Metheny: 1996). In this thesis, I use a landscape analysis as a way to
understand these farmers’ behavior in reaction to a growing uneven capitalist structure
Specifically I used data that has been gathered since 2000 through the Finger
Lakes National Forest Archaeological Project under the direction of Dr. LouAnn Wurst.
28
Since its inception in 2000, data from 21 domestic contexts on 18 different farms has
been collected (Figure 2). Geographic data, including GPS mapped site features, such as
domestic residences, barns, wells, outbuildings, stone walls, and evidence of other
boundaries, has been collected as well. This geographic information was integrated into
an ArcMap GIS (Geographic Information Systems) computer program, which creates
maps, providing the data that will allow a nuanced spatial analysis of farm layout. Other
spatial coverage in the GIS include USGS soil surveys, hydrology, roads, topography,
farm boundaries, historic land ownership maps from 1853, 1857, and 1874 and
orthographic images from the 1930’s and 1940’s. This spatial information correlated with
historic records including census records, deed records, agricultural schedules, as well as
diaries of individuals associated with the area can provide textured details of how these
farms reproduced their everyday lives.
The richness of this data provides an ideal opportunity to develop a “good sense”
view of the actual nature of agricultural practices on the “Backbone.” This analysis
consists of three primarily scales: 1) the individual farms; 2) the community; and 3) the
town level. The first level will provide a nuanced look at the productive behaviors of
sixteen of the eighteen farms. My goal is to present what these farmers were actually
doing during the late 19th century and into the early 20th century. The second level
compares each of the individual farm to one another in order to understand the variety of
productive strategies across the community. The third scale compares the community to
the larger town of Hector in order to discern the similarities and differences. This
comparative scale is present because historical literature emphasizes the differential
productivity of upland versus lowland farms (Gates 1960). Therefore I wanted to see how
29
Figure 2 Ortho Image of Project Area
much of a difference was present between these upland farms that were marginalized and
ultimately bought out by the government and the farms in the town that were thought of
as more productively sound. While these three levels are my primary analytical scales,
these farms were also involved in regional and national scales. The others will be
considered in the final discussion section. In what follows I lay out the specific steps I
will take at each scale.
30
Scale 1: Individual Farms
The very basis of my research is the idea that we need to understand the actual
production of each farm rather than assume it through a facile classification system. I
begin with a brief overview of sixteen of the eighteen farms in this study sample. The
sixteen farms were chosen due to the abundance of accessible data from agricultural
records and maps.
At the individual farm level I will examine each farm layout. My intention is to
determine if these farms intensified their production and how they organized their farms.
I analyzed the actual locations of the domestic sites on the farms using spatial data
mapped with GPS and feature locations procured during various archaeological field
seasons. This data superimposed onto aerial photographs including ortho-maps taken in
the 1930 and historic maps has revealed the locations of the domestic sites in relation to
the total farm; this allows me to examine if the houses were centrally located as
prescribed by popular publications. The maps also allowed me to determine the proximity
of the farmhouse to other farm buildings as well as to other features on the landscape
such as roads, water, even hillsides. I analyzed the slope of the farm through these maps
to determine whether these farms and the farm buildings were located on relatively flat
surfaces. The slope of the land can be determined by using a digital elevation model
(DEM) in the GIS program.
In order to determine if these farms intensified production on the land I looked to
see if the farmers utilized the majority of their farms for production. I examined
agriculture schedules available from 1850, 1855, 1860, 1865, 1870, 1875, and 1880 for
acreage of improved and unimproved land as well as the number and size of cultivated
31
fields from ortho-maps to see if these farmers were improving their land through the
years and how much of the land remained woods. I was looking to see the total amount of
farm area used for production. This included the slope analysis in order to determine if
they used land that is not flat. I also used these agricultural schedules to ascertain the
amount of cordwood or other forest products listed to determine if the woodlots on their
farms were a source of production. I referred to the agricultural schedule to see if the
value of the farms fluctuated with the improvement or not.
I also used the agricultural schedules and archaeological evidence to determine if
there was evidence for mechanization of these farms. This analysis may help indicate an
interest in new technologies considered “progressive” during this era. I performed this
investigation by searching for features such as drilled wells and an increase in tool or
machinery value over the years according to the agricultural schedules. As a specific
point of reference archaeological surveys found material such as engine parts on the A.C.
Wickham Farm, mower blades on the Albright and R. Henry Farms, a trailer hitch on the
Ball Farm, and battery rods on the A. Dunham, Bell, Bement, Dunham, Dusenbury,
McNetton, and R. Henry Farms. Furthermore, to augment information of “progressive”
ideas, I referred to diaries and agricultural schedules to compare labor use from farm to
farm.
The agricultural schedules were also analyzed to ascertain changes in the types of
crops and livestock produced. I looked to see if there were other types of production such
as crafts or goods in addition to crops and livestock. Any changes were compared to farm
values through the same years, to see if any increase or decrease in value correlates to
32
these types of production. I assumed that if there was an increase in value on any farm of
then that farm could be considered successful and the type of production would be telling
of this success.
One way to ascertain these farmers’ intent to remain is to determine if they
constructed new features into the late 19th century or made considerable repairs to
features on their farms. If a farmer would expend energy to repair or build new structures
into the later parts of the 19th century then it makes sense to assume that they did not
want to leave.
In addition to construction and replacement of buildings I looked at boundaries,
both property and interior, or field boundaries. These boundaries are typically stone
walls, however barbed wire was also present on some of the farms in the sample. This
boundary analysis is used to determine how much energy was expended on separating
fields and property lines. Adams (1990:93) suggests that boundaries also speak to farmers
aspirations for permanence. Evidence of barbed wire is also telling of intentions to
remain into the later part of the 19th century since barbed wire wasn’t available until after
1873 and only became common, although costly, at the end of the century (McFadden
1978). I would expect that the absence of boundaries might suggest the short-term
production strategies identified by the “common sense” histories or lack of labor to
construct them.
The extent of each wall that remains on the sample of farms was mapped with a
GPS unit and then many of the walls were classified based on an estimate of their size
and labor invested in their construction. I used a classification of five different categories.
Wall category 1 (Figure 3) represents the least investment and is defined by a linear
33
ephemeral scattering of stone, with no evidence that stone was piled vertically. Wall
category 2 (Figure 4) is comprised of a line of stone touching or overlapping each to form
a linear wall, although these stones were not stacked one on top of another and there is no
significant height to the walls that fall into this category. In wall category 3 (Figure 5),
the vertical line of stone is stacked up vertically to a maximum of one foot above the
ground. Wall category 4 (Figure 6) consists of a substantial vertical placement of stone
above one foot and represents significant labor applied to the construction. Wall category
5 (Figure 7) is marked by very substantial construction of stone extending over three feet
tall.
This classification system is a subjective assessment used as a heuristic to aid in
determining how much energy was invested into exterior walls as well as interior
boundaries. For example, category 3 walls may have been constructed as category 4
walls, but through various processes, have fallen or stone has been removed through time.
Therefore, this system cannot be used to say without question the actual size of these
walls immediately after construction. Even so, I believe the distinction between the
exterior and interior is important to determine whether labor was invested in field
boundaries or just property boundaries. My analysis determined the percent of each wall
category that was present on each farm to see which farmers invested large amounts of
effort on their boundaries.
A comprehensive understanding of these farms’ productive behaviors and farm
arrangement is the goal of the analysis at the individual farm level. By looking at multiple
lines of data my intentions are to determine the specific production strategies of each of
these farms.
34
Figure 3 Wall Category 1
Figure 4 Wall Category 2
35
Figure 5 Wall Category 3
Figure 6 Wall Category 4
36
Figure 7 Wall Category 5
Scale 2: The Community Level
Analysis at the community level builds upon comparisons of farming strategies
from the individual level. I look at the different methods of farm layouts in order to
analyze the similarities and differences spatially across the sample of farms. This analysis
was performed to determine whether certain farmers seemed more willing or able to be
“progressive” then other farmers in the sample, and to assess whether the methods and
production behaviors they chose was market driven, based on individual needs, or the
geography itself. By comparing how farmers used the total landscape, or which farmers
used what percentage of their land, I evaluate whether some farmers were intensifying
their production.
This analysis was accomplished by tracking the amount of improved versus
37
unimproved land as recorded in the agricultural schedules and compare this with the
orthoimages which, clearly show unimproved lands or woodlots. If the capitalist ethos of
intensifying production were driving these farmers, we would expect to see an increasing
percentage of improved land through time as more and more of each farms’ area came
under production.
I also compared which farms used their unimproved land for lumber. Gates
(1960) and Hedrick (1933) both argue that farmers would use steeper land for woodlots
even in an era where coal, was used for fuel. I also used GIS data to evaluate whether the
variability of agricultural production relates to topographic or natural features from farm
to farm. This spatial analysis in conjunction with evidence of wood sales from
agricultural schedules helps determine whether some farms used what has been seen as
unproductive land.
I examined farm size to determine whether size contributed to variability in
productive strategies. I broke the size of the farms down arbitrarily into categories of 100
or more acres, 75 to 100 acres, and under 75 acres. Using information on acreage, value,
and production from agricultural schedules, I could determine if larger or smaller farms
were more or less successful. Then if size did seem to be a factor, I looked to see if the
types of production on these farms varied.
I also looked for familial or neighborly connections between farmers in the
community. My intentions were to assess whether or not they relied on each other in their
productive strategies such as joint production, sharing tools and machinery, or sharing
labor. Using historic records such as agricultural schedules, deeds and census records, I
was able to identify some connections between farms and infer how that may have
38
influenced production. Admittedly, the information listed in historic records and diaries
of the farmers on the Backbone may lead to a more developed understanding of personal,
and professional relationships that could potentially further deepen this study; however,
that type of analysis could be a thesis of its own.
Ultimately, I approached this scale to ascertain how production varied across the
community, and to assess aspects of the environment or social relations that help us
understand that variability. Variability across the sample helps us determine if classifying
all these farms into a discrete category makes any sense.
Scale 3: Town Level
My analysis at the town level considered the differences in agricultural production
between the upland “Backbone” farmers and the farmers in the rest of the town where the
“best” farmland was. All the literature on these farmers marginalization is based on the
idea that they couldn’t produce as well as the rest of the town. I want to know of this is
true. I want to know whether the Backbone farms produced at the same rate or with the
same efficiency as the remainder of the Town of Hector. I compared farm sizes, values,
and types of production such as different grains and livestock using agricultural
schedules. This comparison helps evaluate whether the “common sense” view of these
farms marginality has any basis in reality.
In this section, I build upon the findings from the other scales to determine if
farmers from the hill were producing the same commodities as those in the town below.
Specifically I want to know if there was a focus on fewer commodities (or specializing)
in the town below, or if the entire town engaged in similar production as the farms on the
39
Backbone. The larger purpose is to address the differences and similarities in production
between the farms throughout the town of Hector with the farms on the Backbone hillside
which had been seen as a landscape unable to produce efficiently.
To implement this methodology I will begin with the individual scale by creating
a portrait of each farm that includes a brief history and more in-depth analysis of their
farming behaviors. While several families occupied most of these farms, for the purposes
of clarity, I used the family name that was given to the farms during the original
archaeological investigations of the Finger Lakes National Forrest Archaeological
Project. I have selected sixteen farms of which I had access to unambiguous data from
ortho maps and agricultural schedules for my analysis. These farms are referred to from
this point on as: A. Dunham; A.C. Wickham; Albright; Ball; Bell; Bement; Creighton;
Dunham; Dusenbury; Gardner; Lee; McNetton; R. Henry; S. Dunham; Smith; and
Wickham.
40
CHAPTER IV
FARM PORTRAITS
A multi-scalar, Marxist dialectical, landscape analysis of the farms on the
Backbone will help us understand these farmers’ actual behaviors. This understanding of
the activities on the land is more important to developing a greater understanding of this
period of transition than categorizing these farms and measuring their success through a
“common sense” lens.
The project area investigated as a part of the Finger Lakes National Forest
Archaeological Project consisted of over 1650 square acres on the southern end of the
Finger Lakes National Forest. The Backbone extended up to 1800 feet in elevation and is
accessible by a few roads. Burnt Hill, Mark Smith, Mathews and Logan roads provides
access from the town below. These roads would have also provided access to the farms in
the 19th and early 20th centuries (Figure 8). Burnt Hill Road runs along the Ball, Smith, R.
Henry, McNetton, and Creighton on the north section of the sample, then further to the
south through the Lee and Dunham farms, and around the west edge of the Wickham
farm on the south end of the sample. Mark Smith road runs through both the A.C.
Wickham and Bement farms, and Logan road runs along the west edge of the Dusenbury
property (Figure 8).
What follows is an analysis of the productive behaviors and landscape
arrangement of this sixteen-farm sample. The landscape data was comprised of: the
amount of separate fields, whether they were bounded by stonewalls (or barbed wire),
how much stonewall and barbed wire was present on the farm, representing both interior
41
Figure 8 Main Roads Near the Backbone Sample
and exterior boundaries, the gradient of the land they lived on, what parts of the farms
were steepest, the amount of improved and unimproved land, the amount and
arrangement of farm buildings, the types of crops and livestock produced. The goal of
this was to ascertain the similarities and differences between a sample of farms on the
Backbone, as well as to determine the level of investment was present through this
specific empirical data about each farm, with the late 19th century as my primary focus.
A. Dunham
The A. Dunham farm was named after Alexander Dunham the farmer who
occupied this farm in the 1870’s into the early 1880’s. This farm consists of 103 acres on
42
Military Lot #61, west off Burnt Hill road. The farmstead or domestic site was located
on the North West corner of the farm connected by a farm lane roughly 400 feet north to
an unnamed public road that connected Logan and Burnt Hill Roads(Figure 9).
Prior to 1863 this land was owned by Jabez S. Smith. After his death the
Figure 9 A. Dunham Farmstead Location
executors of his will sold the 100 acre farm to Richard E. Smith. The property value,
listed as $1800, suggests that this farm was not developed at this time. Richard E. Smith
is listed in the 1865 agricultural schedule as owning 285 acres, probably representing this
farm as well as others. Indeed, no dwelling is shown on the A. Dunham farm for both the
43
1853 or 1857 Town of Hector maps, and both maps show Richard E. Smith as living at
the southern end of Lot 61. In 1869, Richard E. and Letty Smith sold the property to
Charles C. Owen for $4,000, a figure that suggests that they improved at least some of
their land. One year later the 1870 agricultural schedule lists Charles Owen owning 70
acres of improved land and 33 unimproved. That same year Charles Owen sold the farm
to Alexander Dunham for $3500. In 1885, they sold a 20-acre parcel of their land to
Estell Kimble for $600. After this, the farm stayed the same size for the rest of its history.
Alexander and his wife Olive lived on the farm until 1915 when they both died leaving
their son Irvin the farm. Irvin died in 1924 and his heirs sold this farm to George and
Gladys Creighton who ultimately sold it to the Federal Government in 1937.
The A. Dunham farm was separated into seven fields according to the 1930’s
orthoimages (Figure 10). It is located mostly at 1600 feet in elevation except for roughly
twenty acres that make up the far western edge of the property including the farmstead,
which is located at 1500 feet. While the farm is located at a high elevation, the grade of
slope of the farm itself is not overly steep. The vertical rise, (or the degree the land rises
from 0 or flat) calculated though ArcMap, shows that most of the land that was cultivated
does not rise over 9 degrees from level ground or the horizontal plane: it is pretty flat
land (Figure 10). In fact, the only areas that exceed a nine-degree rise are small sections
scattered throughout the farm (Figure 10). According to the 1930’s orthoimages, the
northwest and southeast corners are woodlots (Figure 11).
The entirety of the farm perimeter measures roughly 7545 feet and about 4757
feet (63%) of that was bounded by stone wall. An additional 5430 feet of stone wall
separated interior fields. Of the seven fields only two were not separated by stone walls,
44
both located in the northeast corner of the farm (Figure 11). For the stone walls, a sample
of about 1090 feet were measured specifically for my wall categories, while roughly 560
feet (51%) fell into wall category 1 about 530 feet (49%) of the walls fell into category 3,
which speaks to a significant amount of effort to construct (Figure12).
Figure 10 A. Dunham Fields and Degree Rise
In addition to stone walls, barbed wire was present on the north, south, and west
walls, as well as on the wall running north south along the west edge of the woodlot
(Figure 11). Ultimately, there was a very little of the property line not marked by stone
wall or barbed wire. The open section in the southeast corner was covered in forest
45
canopy (Figure 10). The investment of boundaries including barbed wire speaks to the
Dunhams’ effort to maintain this property.
By the 1930’s it seems the only area not cultivated was the southeast corner and a
small section in the north west corner covered by trees. According to the agricultural
Figure 11 A. Dunham Walls and Barbed Wire
schedules from the late 19th century the farmers who resided and worked here
continually cultivated more and more land (Table 1). In 1870, the Smith family or
Charles Owen had improved 70 acres or 68% of the total farmland. By 1880, Alexander
had 77 acres tilled bring the percentage to 75%. The land that was not listed as improved
46
may not have been unused however. According to the 1870 agricultural schedule, Charles
Owen listed a value of $380 for cordwood. This suggests that the 33 acres of woodland
was certainly productive. During Alexander Dunham’s time the value of cordwood
dropped precipitously to $20, and there is no record of cordwood in 1880. This does
make sense, since there was a reduction of woodland between 1870 and 1875 from 33
acres (32%) to 20 acres (20%) (Table 1). Furthermore, the 1930’s orthoimage shows only
10 acres of forest on the farm, primarily located in the southeast corner (area measured in
ArcMap). This suggests that the woods were further reduced after the last census. No
walls were found bounding the extreme southeast corner, suggesting the woods may have
been intentionally left as a farm boundary as well as a source of wood.
The other feature of note on this farm was a small stream, which still exists today
running through the southeast corner. This stream is located within the woods,
Table 1 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the A. Dunham Farm 1870-1880
Year
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
1870
70
68
33
32
1875
75
74 27 (20 acres woods)
26
1880
77
75
26
25
somewhat removed from the fields and quite far away from the farm buildings located on
the opposite side of the farm. The lack of fences or walls makes it unlikely that this
stream was used either for the household or for animals.
The farm buildings were all located towards the west portion of the farm, with a
long driveway extending about 300 feet south from the unnamed public road (Figure 9).
Six features were found on this farm during archaeological investigation; a cellar hole
with an addition or retaining wall attached, a stone-lined well, a drilled well, a privy, a
47
large well or springhouse, and a barn complex. These farm structures were not centrally
located on the farm, but were situated about 360 feet (140 meters) from the west
boundary, about 1805 feet (550 meters) from the east boundary, about 260 feet (80
meters) from the north boundary, and 1150 feet (350 meters) from the south boundary
(Figure 11). Access to water did not seem to impact the choice of location for the
domestic site as the only evidence of water was a stream located over 500 meters away.
According to the slope analysis, the domestic site was situated on land that slopes about
16 to 24 degrees, which is interesting since the land on the domestic site had a steeper
gradient than most of the farm (Figure 10). This may speak to the use of flatter land for
production. The farm buildings were all located about 164 feet (50 meters) from one
another, with the barn located southwest of the house, and a spring-house south and a bit
east of the house. There was a small woodlot immediately west of the domestic site and
this may have made supplying wood to the house easier. This woodlot was on the
steepest portion of the farm (Figure 10).
Archaeological investigations of the farm showed that there was an addition
added to the main house, though there was not enough datable material to ascertain who
constructed the feature. There was a mechanically drilled well with surrounding concrete
curb located between the barn complex and the house. A drilled well would have been
quite a monetary investment, and if the well had been drilled in the early 20th century, it
is telling of the desire of the farmer(s) to stay in this area, and their ability to adjust and
develop productive capabilities on their farm.
Changes in productive behaviors do seem to coincide with the changing of farm
ownership. The amount of mechanization on this farm increased from the Owen
48
occupation to the Dunham occupation. The 1870 schedule lists Owens’s value at $150. In
1875, Dunham listed $100 in machinery, which quickly rose to $330 in 1880. Labor cost
also rises from the Owens’ $55 to Alexander Dunham paying a hefty $160 for labor in
1880.
Other production changes occurred with grains, fruit, and animal husbandry. In
1870, Charles Owen produced seven different types of grains (Table 2), which does
correlate to the number of fields. He also had three different types of livestock (Table 3).
Alexander Dunham increased the amount and types of livestock raised to seven in 1875
and six in 1880 (Table 3). He also increased the number of different types of grains to
nine in 1875, although that number decreased to four by 1880 (Table 2).
While there was a reduction in the kinds of grains produced in 1880, Alexander
Dunham did seem to switch his production to focus more on certain livestock as seen by
the increase in sheep and the appearance of lambs. There seems to be no other additions
in production with the Alexander Dunham occupation except for 45 apple trees that are
listed in the 1875 agricultural schedule, though they are absent for the 1880 schedule.
A.C. Wickham
The A.C. Wickham farm was named after Alexander Wickham the first farmer
known to produce on it. The farm consists of 96 acres on military lot #53, located on the
east side of the Backbone sample. Mark Smith road passes through the farm and would
have provided easy access to the farmstead (Figure 8).
Alexander C. Wickham may have occupied this farm as early as 1840 since he is
in the 1840 census at this location. He is listed in the first available agricultural schedule
49
Table 2 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the A. Dunham Farm in Bushels
Year
S.Wheat
W.Wheat
Corn
Oats
Barley
Buckwheat
Hay (Tons)
Potatoes
Rye
Total Bushels
1870
25
0
100
400
375
288
3
25
0
1216
1875
45
4
150
325
425
110
5
60
35
1159
1880
0
0
0
350
500
0
21
60
0
931
Table 3 Livestock on the A. Dunham Farm
Year
Horses
Cows
Swine
Sheep
Oxen
Bulls
Poultry
Lambs
Total Animals
1870
1875
2
4
2
3
2
2
0
3
0
2
0
1
0 $4 worth
0
0
6
15
1880
6
5
2
29
0
0
30
15
87
in 1850 with 90 acres of land. In 1867, he sold the farm to Charles Dunham. Charles died
in 1889 and the farm passed down to his son Frank, who fully acquired his father’s estate
by 1897. Charles’s widow Martha retained 25 acres for “use-life rights.” No data records
Dunhams living there through the 1890’s and 1900’s but it may have been rented. In
1910, Frank arranged to sell the property to Alice Chesley, however he died in 1911
before the sale could be finalized. His widow Belle retained rights to the property. In
50
1912 she sold the farm to Ralph E. Curry, who transferred it to his wife Mary A. Curry in
1921. In 1932, Mary sold the property to John and Mary Stachurski who according to
1920 census records were living in nearby Burdett. The Starchurskis ultimately sold the
property to the Federal Government in 1936.
The A.C. Wickham farm is located at 1600 to 1800 feet in elevation. However, it
is not a steep incline across the farm. Only a few small sections exceed a five-degree rise
above a flat surface (Figure 12). The center of this farm contains three separate fields
located on flat areas with only a few steep areas that exceeded a twenty five-degree rise
(Figure 12). Two streams are present, one running near the center of the farm from the
center of the north boundary to the southeast section of the farm and the other runs
through the northeast corner within a woodlot (Figure 12). Another large woodlot
comprises the southwest section of the farm.
About 5905 feet (1880 meters) of stone walls surrounded the property (Figure 13). Of
these , 984 feet (17%) fell into wall category 1, about 1410 feet (24%) fell into category
2, and almost 2300 feet (39%) fell into category 3 (Figure 13). This indicates that
substantial effort was put into wall construction. All of the property boundaries were
marked by stone walls except for the northeast corner where there was about 14 acres of
woodlot (Figure 12). Only nominal amounts of barbed wire was found; a small amount
wrapped around a large tree marking the northwest corner of the property, and a
small amount was wrapped around a tree along Mark Smith road towards the center of
the south end of the farm (Figure 12 and 13).
There were only two interior stone walls found on the farm. One wall span about
1410 feet (430 meters) across the center of the west half of the farm (Figure 13). About
51
Figure 12 A.C. Wickham Domestic Sites, Degree rise, Fields, and Streams
820 feet (250 meters) fell into category 2 with 295 feet (90 meters) in each category 1
and 3. The woodlot had about 984 feet (300 meters) of stone wall separating the fields
from the forest. While the presence of wall category 3 walls show substantial effort, the
general sense is that there was less investment on interior divisions.
According to the 1850 agricultural schedule, 45 of the 90 acres were improved
increasing in 1865 to 65 acres improved out of 96 total acres. When Charles Dunham
took over in 1870, the total acreage rose to 100 acres but the improved amount remained
65 acres. By 1880, the farm size rose to 125 acres and the amount improved rose to 95
acres (Table 4).
During the Alexander Wickham occupation, the percentage of improved land
52
Figure 13 A.C. Wickham Walls
Table 4 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the A. C. Wickham Farm 1850-1880
Year Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
1850
45
50
45
50
1855
50
50
50
50
1865
65
68
31
32
1870
65
65
35
35
1875
60
60
40
40
1880
95
76
30
24
went from 50% of 90 acres in 1850 acres to 68% out of 96 acres in 1865 (Table 4). No
cordwood, was listed in the agricultural schedules from 1850 through 1865. However,
Charles Dunham recorded $225 worth of cordwood in 1870, which reduced substantially
in 1880 to $40. The percentage of improved land during the Dunham occupation went
53
from 65% to 76%. The reduction of cordwood may be related to the reduction in
woodlots as cropland was improved.
There were five structures found during the archaeological investigations at the
A.C. Wickham site; a cellar hole with an addition, two wells, a privy, and a barn complex
comprised of two barns. The domestic site represents the house, addition, two wells, and
the privy was located in the center of the farm on Mark Smith road. The barn complex is
located about 30 meters east of Mark Smith road and about 100 meters from the domestic
site (Figure 14). The barn complex is located immediately west of a stream, on land that
rises between 16 and 24 degrees from level ground; the domestic site however is on
reasonably flat land that did not exceed 15 degrees (Figure 12). The only evidence of
later construction on the A. C. Wickham farm may be the addition to the house, but no
artifacts allows us to date when it was built.
Similar to the A. Dunham Farm, production strategies changed with different
owners. In 1865, Alexander Wickham produced five different types of grains, and raised
four different types of livestock (Tables 5 and 6). In 1870, Charles Dunham added sheep
and by 1875, lambs and poultry were added as well (Table 4). In 1870, both spring and
winter wheat were added to the rotation as was barley, although corn was dropped (Table
3). Corn was reintroduced to the rotation in 1880. While the production of oats went up
significantly from 1855 with 105 bushels to 1865 with 500 bushels, the production of
spring wheat, winter wheat, and barley disappeared (Table 5). Furthermore, the
Wickham’s stopped raising sheep in 1865 down from 24 in 1855. In 1855 apples, dried
fruit, and peaches were listed in the agricultural schedule. Dried fruit does not make an
appearance during the Dunham occupation; however, by 1870, peas, beans, and clover
54
Figure 14 A.C. Wickham Domestic Sites and Roads
Table 5 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the A. C. Wickham Farm in Bushels
Year
1850
1855
1865
1870
1875
1880
Hay (Tons)
10
4
5
29
8
18
oats
30
105
500
400
400
0
buckwheat
12
32
125
500
150
100
corn
30
25
100
0
0
125
potatoes
40
12
60
75
50
30
W. Winter
100
5
0
50
150
75
S. Wheat
0
30
0
50
0
0
barley
30
24
0
200
250
500
Total Bushels
252
237
790
1304
1008
848
seeds were present. There was a drop in buckwheat production from 500 bushels in1870
to 150 bushels in 1875, spring wheat disappears from their production in 1875 as well
55
Year
cows
horse
swine
sheep
lambs
poultry
other
Total Animals
Table 6 Livestock on the A.C. Wickham Farm
1850
1855
1865
1870
1875
2
1
2
2
4
2
3
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
30
24
0
37
62
0
0
0
0
5
0 $5 worth
0
0 $8 worth
4
0
1
1
0
41
29
7
44
76
1880
4
2
2
46
34
30
2
120
(Table 5). The 1880 schedule lists the reintroduction of corn (Table 5), a significant rise
in the number of lambs (Table 6), as well as an increase in apple trees from 30 in 1875 to
200 in 1880. Charles Dunham seemed to have adjusted his strategies, reducing his grains
and increasing his fruit and livestock production between 1875 and 1880.
The 1850 agricultural schedule listed this farm as having $60 worth of machinery.
The monetary value of machinery jumped significantly when Charles Dunham took over:
in 1865 the farm had $50 worth of machinery; which rose to $200 in 1870 and $290 in
1880. Records of labor on the agricultural schedules do not become available until 1870;
that year the farm is listed as having spent $125; although, the 1880 schedule has no
listing for labor.
In addition, the overall value of the farm fluctuated from 1850 to 1880 (Figure
15). Two low spikes in value are present in 1865, and in 1875. Only 4 acres were added
to the farm between 1865 and 1870, too few to account for the difference. By 1880, the
farm value rises again. Therefore, the farm was still valuable going into the later part of
the 19th century.
56
Figure 15 A.C. Wickham Farm Value 1850 through 1880
Albright
The Albright farm consists of 95 acres on Military lot 62. It is located between the
Bell, Lee, and Dunham farms in the center of the Backbone sample and the productive
land has the highest elevation of all the farms. The farm was accessible by a lane that ran
south, east, then south again for a total of 1000 feet from Burnt Hill road (Figure 16).
However, there is evidence of an older farm road west 1500 feet to Burnt Hill Road along
the property line between the Lee and Dunham Farms (Figure 16).
John and Catherine Albright purchased this farm in 1865. Prior to this they were
living in the Texas Hollow vicinity about five miles south. The 1853 Tompkins County
map and 1857 Schuyler County map both show the Albrights in this area. The 1865
agricultural schedule lists John Albright on the Backbone. John was 52 at the time of the
Backbone farm purchase. In 1870, the Albrights farmed 100 acres, and their sons William
and Isaac were living on the farm with them. The 1874 map depicts a structure on this
57
Figure 16 Albright Accessibility
farm and according to the 1875 census John, Catherine, their son William and his wife
Mary Elizabeth were living in a log structure. Isaac had married a woman named
Eustacia, and in 1880 the couple were living near Mecklenburg.
John died in 1886, Catherine died in 1888, and Isaac inherited the farm in 1891.
However, Isaac and Eustacia had already purchased and lived on the R. Henry Farm to
the north of the Albright farm on Burnt Hill Road. In 1897, Isaac and Eustacia’s daughter
Maud married Herman Broderick, and they moved up to the Albright farm and
established a new domestic site. It seems as if Herman and Maud had financial difficulty
as the farm was auctioned in 1925 for unpaid back taxes from 1922-1924. Chester
Burnett purchased it at auction, although the 1930 census lists Herman and Maud as still
58
living on the farm. We do not know how long they lived there or when they died. The
farm remained in private hands until 1992 when the USDA Forest Service purchased it.
The Albright farm is located primarily at 1800 feet in elevation, though the
southeast corner declines over a 30 acre portion from 1800 to 1500 feet. This section of
the farm also has a variety of spots that rise above horizontal plain up to twenty-four
degrees making this land very steep (Figure 17). However, woods covered the southeast
areas where the gradient is steepest (Figure 17). Even so, most of the farm is relatively
flat and does not exceed a fifteen-degree rise, with the exception of the southeast corner
woodlot. Interestingly, the southwest portion of the farm slopes south from about 9
degrees to 25 within 170 feet (Figure 17). While this land had a fairly significant slope
the orthoimage shows that the land was still improved for field use (Figure 17).
According to the 1930’s orthoimage, there were eight separate fields on this farm.
All but one boundary between fields had stone walls (Figure 18). Interestingly, there
seems to be more effort put into interior than exterior walls, excepting a farm lane that
marks the northern boundary and the southern boundary, which was distinguished by the
woodlot (Figure19). Of the interior stone walls recorded, about 377 feet (.6%) fell into
category 1, a little over 3280 feet (52%) fell into category 2, 328 feet (37%) fell into
category 3, and about 360 feet (5%) fell into category 4. The presence of wall category 4
suggests that there was a significant effort put into the creation, as category 4 consists of
very significant vertical construction (Figure 18). Furthermore, about 3900 feet of barbed
wire was found throughout the farm including roughly 880 feet which seems to
demarcate the southern boundary, yet this wire runs through property south of the
59
Figure 17 Albright Domestic Sites, Degree Rise, Fields, and Barbed Wire
farm indicating that the Albrights or Brodericks misinterpreted their property line (Figure
17).
Unlike other farms, the amount of improved land of the Albright farm remained
steady. From 1870-1880 the total improved areas was always listed as 70 and the
unimproved went from 30 in 1870 to 25 in 1875 and 1880 (Table 7).
Nine features were found during the archaeological investigation conducted on
this farm. The original occupation site, labeled Albright II consisted of a foundation/stone
floor, possible privy, well, and barn. The later occupation site labeled Albright I consisted
60
Figure 18 Albright Walls
Table 7 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Albright Farm 1870-1880
Year
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
1870
70
70
30
30
1875
70
74
25
26
1880
70
74
25
26
of a cellar, an addition, a possible garage, a drilled well, a dug well, and a privy. The old
farm road on the west side of the farm seems to be associated with the Albright II site,
while the farm road, which still exists was probably built later when Isaac Albright
owned the farm or the Brodericks constructed the second house. This landscape
modification indicates that they invested time and energy into changes in access (Figure
16).
61
Even though the farm was located well off Burnt Hill road, the domestic sites
were centrally located on the actual farm. They were positioned on level land with no
more than a nine-degree rise from flat land. There was evidence of reconstruction and
additions to the farmstead as well. In 1884, the Albright barn burned down and was
subsequently rebuilt in the same place (Wickham Diary). This suggests that the original
location must have been desirable for production purposes, as well as speaking to
aspirations of remaining on the farm. There was a drilled well found at the Albright I
domestic site, which would have been expensive to construct in the late 19th century,
more evidence of permanence.
According to the 1870 agricultural schedule, the Albright’s produced seven
different types of grains, mostly oats and corn (Table 8). Other crops included peas and
beans, in addition to $244 from unspecific domestic manufacturing. In 1875, buckwheat
production disappeared, and winter wheat, corn, and potato production decreased (Table
8). However, diversity in livestock increased in 1875 with swine, bull, an oxen, and
poultry (Table 9). By 1880, only horses and cows were listed, but they expanded their
grain production with the inclusion of barley and the reintroduction of buckwheat (Table
8 and Table 9). The 1880 agricultural schedule also lists clover seed and $15 worth of
cordwood. Given these shifts in production, it is interesting that there does not seem to be
a notable emphasis on mechanization or labor on this farm. Machine value for the
Albright farm was recorded at $100 in 1870 and did not change through 1880, and the
only payment for labor was recorded in 1870 at $25. Furthermore, in 1870, the value of
the farm is listed at $3000; it then dropped to $1800 in 1875, and rose again in 1880 to
$2750 (Figure 19).
62
Table 8 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Albright Farm in Bushels
Year
S. Wheat
W. Wheat
Corn
Oats
Buckwheat
Potaotes
Hay (Tons)
Barley
Total Bushels
1870
40
90
150
400
87
70
5
0
842
1875
40
5
70
400
0
40
15
0
570
1880
43
0
50
400
38
30
7
123
691
Table 9 Livestock on the Albright Farm
Year
Cows
Other Cattle
Horses
Swine
Bulls
Oxen
Poultry
Total Animals
1870
1875
1
2
2
0
2
5
0
2
0
1
0
1
0 $15 worth
5
11
1880
4
0
6
0
0
0
30
40
Figure 19 Albright Farm Value 1870 through 1880
63
Ball
The Ball site is a 25-acre farm on Military lot 53. It is located immediately east of
Burnt Hill road (Figure 8). It was originally part of the Smith Farm though the Ball
family occupied it for most of the years with accessible agricultural records.
John M. Smith purchased 100 acres on lot 53 in 1835.He subsequently sold a 25acre parcel to Homer Smith and another 25 parcel, the parcel we refer to as the Ball farm,
was deeded to his brother Caleb Smith. Caleb Smith sold these 25 acres to Robert Curry
in 1842. Curry passed away in 1848 and left the farm to Asenath Beach and Emma Ball,
though Emma and her husband David seemed to occupy the farm as they are listed in the
1850 census. David Ball occupied the farm until his wife Emma died in 1868 and
according to the agricultural schedule of 1870; John H. Smith, John M. Smith’s son,
occupied the farm. According to an 1874 map of the area David Ball returned and is also
listed in the agricultural schedule of 1875. In the same year, David Ball sold the property
to Ellen Coughlin, however, there is no indication that she actually lived there. Five years
later the agricultural schedule and the federal census listed Richard Maloney, her son-inlaw, occupying the farm with Ellen’s daughter Bridget. In 1900, Richard Maloney died
and Bridget moved off the hill (Table 10). The land then changed hands a few times
throughout the early 20th century until Henry Smith purchased it in 1933 and
subsequently sold it to the federal government in 1936.
The Ball Farm is located from 1700 to 1800 feet in elevation. The entire farm is
reasonably flat with a nominal amount exceeding a nine-degree rise from flat land
(Figure 20). According to the agricultural schedules, there was very little fluctuation in
improved land from 1850 to 1880. In 1850, David Ball had five unimproved acres, four
64
Table 10 The Ball Farm Occupants1835-1900
Occupant(s)
Caleb Smith
Robert Curry
The Balls
John H Smith
David Ball
The Maloneys
Years
1835-1842
1842-1848
1848-1868
1868-1874
1874-1875
1876-1900
by 1855, and three by 1875. According to the orthoimages, it remained that way until the
1930’s (Figure 20), with the unimproved land broken into two small woodlots.
Three stone walls separated the improved land into four separate fields (Figure
21). Each of these walls measured a little over 450 feet north-south. 4500 feet (1370
meters) of the total farm boundaries was also demarcated by stone wall (Figure 21). A
sample of 2215 feet (675 meters) was classified according to my wall categories (Figure
22); about 525 feet (24%) of wall fell into wall category 2, 660 feet (30%) was wall
category 3 and 130 feet (5%) fell into wall category 4. The presence of the substantial
walls that fell into category 4 speaks to the substantial effort put into this construction.
There was no evidence of barbed wire found.
There were five structures found at the Ball site; a cellar hole, two wells, a
garage/wagon house, and a stone feature which may have been a root cellar. The
domestic site is located on the extreme west side of the farm immediately east of Burnt
Hill Road and all buildings are located no more than 200 feet apart. The domestic site
was not centrally located on the farm but on the road (Figure 20, Figure 21). Access to
the road may have been a large contributing factor to the initial placement of the
domestic site. It is curious that despite our best efforts, no remains of any barns were
located on this farm, although the second well, located about 75 feet from the house,
65
Figure 20 Ball Farm Domestic Site, Fields, Degree Rise
speaks to its possible location.
In the early years of the Ball occupation, six different grains were produced
(Table 11). By 1880, the Maloneys were only producing four; hay, corn, potatoes, and
barley (Table 11). In 1850, David Ball had twelve animals, but when he returns in1875,
he only had one horse and $6 worth of poultry (Table 12). In 1880, Maloney listed seven
animals and $17 worth of poultry, indicating that there were production strategy changes
into the later part of the 19th century. It is probable that the two woodlots were used for
production purposes as John H. Smith had a value of $30 worth of cordwood in 1870.
Production would have been influenced by machinery and labor however,
evidence of mechanization on the Ball farm seems limited, as the machinery value does
66
Figure 21 Ball Farm Walls, Domestic Site
Table 11 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Ball Farm in Bushels
Year
Wheat
Corn
Oats
Barley
Buckwheat
Hay (Tons)
Rye
Potatoes
Total Bushels
1850
44
15
50
20
9
5
0
0
143
1855
30
85
80
0
35
5
6
70
311
1865
10
0
108
0
30
2.5
0
44
194.5
1870
30
40
125
0
0
5
5
25
230
1875
0
20
90
0
20
10
0
60
200
1880
0
15
0
35
0
3
0
35
88
not exceed $60 from 1850 to 1865. Then in 1870, with the John H. Smith occupation the
machinery value increases to $150. The machine value drops to nothing in 1875 when
David Ball returned and increased to $40 when Maloney had control. The only paid labor
67
Table 12 Livestock on the Ball Farm
Year
Horse
Cows
Swine
Sheep
Poultry
Lambs
Other Cattle
1850
1855
1865
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
2
1
6
8
8
0 $1 worth $10 worth
0
0
1
0
0
0
1870
1875
3
1
2
0
0
0
19
0
0 $6 worth
0
0
0
0
1880
2
3
2
0
17
0
0
recorded was $15 in 1870 when John H. Smith occupied the farm.
The value of the Ball farm increased steadily from 1850 to 1870 (Figure 22). It
reached its peak in 1870 at $1200, by 1800, the value of the farm dropped significantly to
$300 (Figure 22).
Figure 22 Ball Farm Values 1850 through 1880
Bell
The Bell Site is a 95-acre farm on Military Lot 62. It is located just east of Burnt
Hill Road and borders the Albright Farm on the north, and east sides (Figure 8). This
farm remained in the hands of John Bell throughout the mid and late 19th centuries.
68
The 1850 census listed John Bell as an immigrant from Ireland living and laboring on the
farm of Robert Henry and his wife. Three years later in 1853, John Bell purchased the 95acre farm from Robert Henry. The Bell family maintained possession of this farm until it
was sold to the federal government in 1935. According to the 1855 census John, his wife
Isabella, their nephew and niece, William and Mary lived on the farm. By 1860, John,
Isabella and their two children, Ida and Martha live there, Mary had moved down the
road on the farm her uncle owned (The McNetton farm) with her husband Andrew
Devitt. The 1870 census listed John, Isabella, Ida, Martha, and another child John
Graham, as occupying the farm. They continue to live there through 1880.
John and Isabella may have gotten sick in the 1880’s. Sixty-three medicinal
bottles that date to this time were found during the archaeological investigation. From
this sample, less than half had a mean date after 1886, the year that Isabella died.
Furthermore, only two bottles had a begin date after 1886 (Munro 2005). According to
the 1893 Hector directory, John is retired and lived with his son John Graham who was
working on the farm. John Bell died in 1897, and his daughter Martha and her husband
Loyal Palmer took over the farm. The couple remained on this farm until at the latest
1925 when their son John G. Palmer along with his wife Ruth, daughter Martha, and son
John took over. John G Palmer ultimately sold the farm to the federal government in
1937.
The Elevation of the Bell Farm ranges 1200 to 1800 feet. There were eight
separate fields according to the 1930’s orthoimage, all located either 1700 or 1800 feet in
elevation though most do not rise above flat land more than fifteen degrees (Figure 23).
The land located in the southeast portion of the farm dropped quite precipitously from
69
Figure 23 Bell Domestic Site, Fields, Degree Rise
1700 feet to 1200 over roughly 22 acres; this section varies from 25- 45 degrees from flat
surface (Figure 23). However, this portion of the farm is covered in woods (Figure 23).
Only 1460 feet (445 meters) of stone wall was found along the property boundary.
There is a little less of 1000 feet (68%) of stone wall separated the Bell farm from the
Albright farm. However, since most of the Albright farm boundaries were marked by
stone wall, the Albrights or Brodericks may have been responsible for their construction.
There was a small portion of about 300 feet (21%) of stone wall on the eastern boundary
and about 160 feet (11%) on the northern boundary (Figure 24).
There was over 3200 feet (about 1000 meters) of stone wall measured on the
interior of the farm, with four of the eight fields definitively separated by stone walls.
70
Figure 24 Bell Farm Walls
Roughly 1640 feet (about 500 meters) of wall was measured for wall categories (Figure
24). For this sample 295 feet (18%) fell into wall category 1, 1060 feet (65%) fell into
wall category 2, and 245 feet (15%) fell into category 3. While wall category 3 walls
indicates a large investment of labor into construction it should be mentioned that the
walls that fell into category 3, as well as about 330 feet that fell into of wall category 2,
were all located on the western boundary separating the Bell farm and the Albright farm.
Given this, it does not seem as if wall construction was as important to the occupants of
the Bell farm. Even so, there was about 3000 feet (roughly 900 meters) of barbed wire
found on this farm. So while the wall construction on this farm may not be as impressive
71
as other farms there seemed to have been capital investment in fencing into the later parts
of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
According to the 1855 and 1860 agricultural schedules, John Bell listed 80
improved acres and 15 unimproved (Table 13). He was not included in the 1865
agricultural schedule but by 1870, the amount of improved land rose by 5 acres. In 1874
he purchased 25 more acres bringing the total amount of land to 120. However, there
were five less improved acres in 1875 than in 1870 (Table 13). In 1880 the improved land
on the Bell farm dropped to 45 acres or only 38% (Table 13). This reduction may be
linked to the failing health of the Bells as suggested by the medicinal bottles (Conklin
2009). The town directory listed their son, John listed as a farm hand; perhaps his parents
could no longer help with the labor.
There was some evidence that the unimproved acreage was also used
productively. Out of the 72 unimproved acres on the Bell farm in 1880, 40 acres were
listed as woodlot and there was also $77 of cordwood listed. This was the only year the
farmers on Bell recorded any value from cordwood.
Table 13 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Bell Farm 1855-1880
Year
1855
1860
1870
1875
1880
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
80
84
15
16
80
84
15
16
85
89
10
11
80
67
40
33
45
38
72
62
Most of the farm buildings were located along the northern boundary (Figure 23),
situated on flat terrain that only rose 15 degrees from level ground (Figure 23). The
farmstead consisted of a cellar, two additions to the house, a dug stone lined well, an
72
outbuilding located about 30 feet east of the well, a privy, two barns, a stone lined well
about 15 feet east of the barns, and a drilled well immediately south of the stone lined
well. In addition, a stone pile standing about 3 feet high with a cavity in the center was
located about 1500 feet from the house on flat ground about 150 feet west of the Bell
farm property line (Figure 23). This feature measured 23 feet by 12 feet and had steps,
measuring 9.5 feet wide, towards the western side of the northern wall. Several of the
flagstones of this feature were reddish in color and some looked to be broken from heat.
There was another feature 1900 feet southeast of the domestic site. It was located
near the center of the farm on the south edge of a woodlot (Figure 23). This feature was a
stone pile (check measurements). These outbuildings suggest that the Bells’ invested
energy and resources into areas that would be convenient for productive areas away from
the domestic site. The implication here is that the farmers not only produced something
on most of the farm, but also had the wherewithal to establish structures for more
efficient production, such as drilled wells and multiple barns.
Most of the farm, besides the woodlot in the southeast corner, was relatively flat
and rose from level ground no more than 15 degrees (Figure 23). While the farm
buildings were positioned on the northern boundary of the farm, the idea of centrality on
the farm proper may not have been as large a factor for the domestic site construction as
accessibility was. Although, the domestic site is not immediately off Burnt Hill Road, a
farm road breaks from Burnt Hill Road east to the domestic site at the center of the
northern boundary, which may suggest that some ideas of centrality did apply.
Mechanization seemed have been of interest the Bell family. The 1855 and 1860
agricultural schedules listed the machine value at $250 though it dropped to $50 by 1880.
73
Interestingly, it is generally assumed aging, evidence of sickness, and the departure of
children would increase the amount of machinery to make labor a bit easier, yet that is
not the case with the Bells.
The reduction of machinery did not reduce the amount of grains produced.
According to the agricultural schedules, the only grains that saw a significant reduction
from 1855 to 1880 were wheat and oats (Table 14). There was also a significant drop in
buckwheat from 1875 to 1880 (Table 14). However, hay, corn, potatoes, and barley
increased from 1855 to 1880 (Table 14). There was also no significant reduction of
livestock from 1855 to 1880, except for sheep which dropped from 50 in 1860 to 0 in
1870, and horses which dropped from 7 to 2 during the same decade (Table 15). Though
1870 seems to have been an anomaly as by 1880, they increased their sheep production
from to 20 and increased their lamb production to 19 (Table 15). While the production of
grain and livestock increased into the late 19th century the value of the farm continually
decreased (Figure 25).
Table 14 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Bell Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (Tons)
S. Wheat
W.Wheat
Oats
Corn
Potatoes
Rye
Buckwheat
Barley
Total Bushels
1855
3
30
0
130
50
20
0
30
70
333
1860
0
80
0
300
0
0
0
0
0
380
74
1870
12
10
30
300
40
40
15
200
0
647
1875
8
10
0
300
0
40
0
240
25
623
1880
10
8
0
40
85
50
0
37
100
330
Table 15 Livestock on the Bell Farm
Year
1855
Cows
3
Horses
2
Swine
2
Sheep
27
Bulls
0
Lambs
0
Poultry
$3 in eggs
Other Cattle
0
Total Animals
34
1860
4
7
3
50
0
0
0
2
66
1870
1875
3
3
2
3
2
0
0
15
0
1
0
18
0 $12 worth
2
0
9
40
1880
2
3
0
20
0
19
25
1
70
Figure 25 Bell Farm Value 1855 through 1880
Bement
The Bement Farm is located directly west of Mark Smith Road on Military Lot
53. The arrangement of the domestic site would have been easily accessible as it was
located just to the west of the road. Just south of the domestic site and across the road
was the barn area (Figure 26).
In 1853, Asahel Bement purchased 100 acres on Lot 53 from William and Alice
A. Wickham. By 1857, historic maps place him on Mark Smith Road. In 1860, he was
living with his wife Polly and children Jesse, Lorenzo, Otis, Mary Bouck, and Percis
75
Kellogg, likely his mother-in-law. While the Bements’ seem to be located on the farm as
early as 1857, their first record in the agricultural schedules is 1865. This may mean that
the family was not living or producing on this farm until later.
In 1862, Bement’s wife Polly died and he remarried Nancy Lovina Health two
years later. His son Otis married Areminta C. Albright in 1863. By 1868, Asahel and
Nancy were listed as living in Bennettsburgh. Asahel and Nancy’s relationship must not
have been auspicious as in 1874, Nancy took over the Bement farm when the Supreme
Court in Watkins, NY ruled in her favor over Asahel in divorce proceedings. The 1875
agricultural schedule listed Nancy as the owner of the farm, and by 1877 they were
officially divorced. By 1880, Asahel was living with his daughter-in-law in Michigan and
the 1880 the agricultural schedule lists Abram Cronk at the location of the Bement farm.
No deeds were found transferring land to Cronk so he may have been a tenant farmer.
Census records from 1910 indicate that Jabez Chesley was living on at the Bement Farm
with his wife Stella, children Grace and Floyd J., and his sister-in-law Libbie Slaigh.
Jabez Chesley continued to live at this location until he sold it to the Federal Government
in 1936.
The Bement farm is located between 1400 and 1700 feet in elevation. The grade
of the farm itself is steep in certain areas, such as the southern portion of the farm where
the degree rise falls between 25 and 45 degrees. However, most of this steep area was
covered in woodlot, though areas seems to be in demarcated fields (Figure 26).
According to the 1930’s orthoimage and GPS data there were eight separate fields
on this farm (Figure 26). However, only one full interior stone wall was mapped on the
entire farm (Figure 27). This wall was located in the center of the farm and measured
76
Figure 26 Bement Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Access Road
about 1312 feet (about 400 meters). A smaller segment (165 feet, 50 meters) of stone
wall defined another center field, and about 115 feet (35 meters) on an interior division in
the northwest portion of the farm separated by stone walls (Figure 27). Over 6500 feet
(about 2000 meters), of property boundary was marked by stone wall. The only exterior
boundaries that did not have stone walls were the southern property boundary that was
covered in woodlot, and the northwest corner.
Of the roughly 6110 feet (1860 meters) measured for my wall categories, about
1200 feet (19%) fell into category 1, about 1320 feet (22%) fell into category 2, and
about 3625 feet (59%) fell into category 3 (Figure 27). The substantial amount that fell
77
into category 3 suggests that the occupants of the Bement farm invested heavily in their
boundary walls. There were also around 100 feet (roughly 30 meters) of barbed wire on
part of the exterior walls, and about 100 feet (roughly 30 meters) of barbed wire on part
of one interior wall (Figure 28), which suggests some effort to maintain the walls.
According to the agricultural schedules the Bement farm remained a constant 100
acres. The amount of improved versus unimproved land did change significantly through
these years (Table 16). In 1865, the Bement farm had 50 acres of improved land, and by
1875, the number of improved acres rose to 85 (Table 16). The steadily increasing
improved acreage suggests that the Bements’ were cultivating land for production.
According to the 1870 agricultural schedule, the Bements’ produced $50 of cordwood,
therefore the unimproved acreage had value as well. When Abram Cronk occupied the
farm, the improve land dropped from 85 to 75 acres. This drop does not seem to reflect a
change in production strategies that would require less improved land use.
The domestic site on this farm was located on land with a rise from level ground of
sixteen to twenty four degrees (Figure 28), which is somewhat steep when compared to
other farms from this sample. The domestic site is comprised of a cellar hole, a well, a
small outbuilding about 30 feet south east of the cellar hole, and another possible
structure about 50 feet to the east of the cellar hole. This last feature has a large rock, and
three lilac trees around it. An excavation unit revealed few artifacts although lilacs can be
indicative of privy locations.
Other farm buildings were found to the east across Mark Smith road (Figure 28).
These building include the remnants of two barns, a root cellar, and a stone lined pit. The
northern barn is located about 125 feet (about 40 meters) away from the domestic site,
78
Figure 27 Bement Walls
Table 16 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Bement Farm 1865-1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
50
50
50
50
80
80
20
20
85
85
15
15
75
75
25
25
while the southern barn is located about 165 feet (about 50 meters) from the domestic
site. The root cellar, and stone lined pit are located only about 80 feet (25 meters) from
the southern barn.
There does not seem to be much in the way of improvement or new construction
and repair to the farm buildings. There was a small amount of barbed wire on some of the
79
Figure 28 Bement Domestic Site Slope
walls of the farm, which suggests boundary upkeep, but the amount of wire is nominal.
Beyond the wire though the farmstead itself did not have any additions, drilled wells, or
other features that show capital investment into the later part of the 19th century or early
20th century. There were two barns on the farm; however it is difficult to determine when
they were built.
All the farm buildings were located towards the northeast portion of the farm and
nearly central when the woodlot in the southwest is taken into consideration (Figure 28).
However, the proximity to the road, may have been more important than centrality. The
farm buildings are not located on the flattest areas of the farm, and the only body of water
80
on this farm is a stream located in the woodlot over 1300 feet to the south, therefore these
factors did not influence the construction of the site.
The Bements’ engaged in different productive behaviors. According to the 1865
agricultural schedule, the Bement farm listed three different types of grain and only one
kind of animal (Tables 17 and 18). At this time only 50% of their land was improved for
farming (Table 16). Five years later when they improved 80% of their farmland the
Bements’ recorded seven different grains and five different types of animals (Tables 17
and 18). In 1875, the number of grains produced dropped to four; however, they
produced more of them (Table 17). In addition, they no longer had oxen or other cattle,
but increased the number of horses, swine and cows, as well as introduced poultry and a
bull (Table 18).
Table 17 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Bement Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (Tons)
Oats
Buckwheat
S. Wheat
W.Wheat
Corn
Barley
Potatoes
Total Bushels
1865
15
300
140
0
0
0
0
0
455
1870
20
50
80
70
70
250
0
100
640
1875
8
200
0
0
158
0
400
0
766
1880
5
200
60
0
70
0
160
30
525
When Abram Cronk occupied the farm in 1880, the amount of improved land
dropped by ten acres, however he produced potatoes and buckwheat, sheep and lambs
(Table 17 and 18). This means that he produced more variety on fewer acres. In addition,
he added 25 peach trees to the production.
Over the years, the farm value had a high of $5000 (1870) and a low of $2000
(1875). It is interesting that the value was the same ($3000) for the earliest latest census
81
years (Figure 29).
Table 18 Livestock on the Bement Farm
Year
Horse
Cows
Oxen
Bulls
Swine
Poultry
Sheep
Lambs
Other Cattle
1865
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1870
1875
2
5
2
3
2
0
0
1
1
2
0 $7 Value
0
0
0
0
2
0
1880
2
6
0
0
3
60
17
13
2
Figure 29 Bement Farm Value 1865 through 1880
The value of labor and machinery on the Bement Farm dropped into the later 19 th
century. The Bements’ paid $200 for labor, and had $200 worth of machinery in 1870. In
1880 Cronk spent nothing on labor, and had only $75 worth of machinery. This makes
sense if Cronk since he was the labor and tenant farmers do not own their of the means of
production.
82
Creighton
The Creighton farm consists of 100-acres on Military lot 53. Located on Burnt
Hill Road just north of the Bell Farm (Figure 8), the Creighton Farm was one of the
oldest and most stable, in terms of occupants, from the Backbone sample. Analysis of the
Creighton Farm has some inherent difficulties as ponds created by the SCS immediately
east of the domestic site, may have destroyed foundations of the other farm buildings
(Figure 30).
William Creighton, an Irish immigrant, purchased this 100-acre parcel in 1832.
He died in 1844, and the 1850 census listed his wife Martha, son John H, his daughter
Jane, and a laborer, on the farm. John H remained on this farm until his death in 1907.
The farm was then passed to his son William, and then to his grandson George. The
federal government purchased this farm in 1932. The 1935 appraisal report lists the house
and barn as in poor condition. This family stability through the span of a century was
unique for the farm sample.
The Creighton farm is located at 1700 feet in elevation, and positioned on
relatively flat land (Figure 31). Most of the land rose no more than fifteen degrees from
flat terrain. The 1930’s orthoimage show seven separate improved fields (Figure 32). The
improved fields were separated by six interior stone walls which measured a little over
2600 feet (about 800 meters) collectively (Figure 33). Of these interior walls, about 1115
feet (43%) were measured for my wall categories all which fell into either category 1 or 2
(Figure 33). The orthoimage shows that many of the farm fields without stone walls may
have been separated by hedgerows (Figure 33).
Both the northern and southern boundaries were separated by stone wall. The
83
Figure 30 Modern Ortho-Image of Creighton Ponds
northern boundary was marked by 900 feet (275 meters) of stone wall and separated the
Creighton farm from the Smith Farm. A partial stone wall spanning roughly 215 feet (65
meters) separated the Creighton farm on the south from the Bell farm. Furthermore there
was also a small amount of barbed wire along the Creighton/Bell border. However, since
wire was common on the Bell Farm, I feel confident that this wire was added by Bell
(Figure 33). Roads on the west and south and woodlot to the east (Figure 33) distinguish
the remaining boundary lines.
The improved fields represented over half the farm. From 1850 through 1880, the
improved Creighton land remained consistently between 60% and 70% (Table 19). Based
on the 1930’s orthoimage, the unimproved land was most likely the woodlot on the
84
Figure 31 Creighton Domestic Site, Degree Rise, and Access Road
eastern side of the farm (Figure 32). In 1880, the farm listed $28 worth of cordwood;
therefore, we can see production from the unimproved land into the later 19th century.
The farm buildings were positioned on the western edge of the farm immediately off
Burnt Hill Road (Figures 32 and 33). This location supports the idea that accessibility to
the road was more important than centrality. Furthermore, the domestic site was situated
on very flat land similar to the remainder of the farm (Figure 31).
There were only three feature found on the Creighton farm, a cellar hole, a root
cellar, and a well. The two ponds created immediately east of the domestic site likely
destroyed other farm buildings.
85
Figure 32 Creighton Domestic Sites, Fields, Woodlots
Even so, it was still possible to determine the types of production the Creightons
engaged in. According to the agricultural schedules, the Creightons’ produced a variety
of grains and livestock through these years (Table 20 and 21). They listed fewer grains
and livestock for 1860 than other years; however, the records from 1860 did not have
columns for nearly the variety of products as the other years.
Significant production differences occurred between 1865 and 1875 with regard
to grains and between 1870 and 1875 with regard to livestock (Tables 20 and 21).
Between 1865 and 1870, corn and potatoes decreased while oats, buckwheat, winter
wheat and barley increased (Tables 20 and 21). From 1870 to 1875, the Creightons
86
Figure 33 Creighton Walls
Table 19 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Creighton Farm 1850-1880
Year
1850
1855
1860
1865
1870
1875
1880
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
60
60
40
40
60
60
40
40
70
70
30
30
60
60
40
40
70
70
30
30
65
66
34
34
62
62
38
38
reduced the total number of grains. However, during those five years, the variety of
livestock rose (Tables 20 and 21). By 1880 as did the production of corn, oats, wheat,
barley, and hay decreased (Table 20). The decrease in grain production may have been
87
Table 20 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Creighton Farm in Bushels
Date
Corn
Oats
S. Wheat
W. Wheat
Buckwheat
Barley
Potatoes
Hay (Tons)
Total Bushels
1850
20
100
100
0
20
0
20
15
275
1855
40
225
25
15
15
50
60
6
436
1860
0
500
100
0
0
0
0
0
600
1865
100
200
15
0
60
0
45
11
431
1870
40
400
15
40
140
125
20
25
805
1875
2
200
0
30
215
40
40
18
545
1880
50
60
0
6
60
200
25
15
416
Table 21 Livestock on the Creighton Farm
Date
Horses
Cows
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Bulls
Oxen
Poultry
Other Cattle
1850
1855
3
3
4
4
4
3
25
27
0
0
0
0
0
2
0 $6 egg value
8
0
1860
3
2
2
16
0
0
0
0
2
1865
3
2
0
36
0
0
0
0
1
1870
1875
2
3
2
3
1
0
18
7
0
3
0
1
0
1
0 $18 Value
4
0
1880
3
5
0
11
7
0
0
50
2
the reason for the reduction of improved acreage while the total amount of land remained
the same (Table 19). This pattern continues in 1880; while the variety of grains stayed the
same the total amount of grains decreased (Table 20), concomitantly the improved
acreage decreased (Figure 19). Along with these changes, the farm value also increased
significantly from 1865 to 1870 and then dropped (Figure 34).
The production on the Creighton Farm was possible in part to machinery and
labor. The Creightons’ machine value, spiked from $100 in 1865 to $225 in 1870, then
back down to $125 in 1875. In 1880, machine value rose again but only up to $135. In
addition to machinery, the Creightons’ recorded $110 worth of labor in 1870, and $0 in
1880.
88
Figure 34 Creighton Farm Value 1850 through 1880
Dunham
The Dunham Farm is located on Military Lot 61 between the Lee and Wickham
Farms. It is accessible by Burnt Hill road, which runs right through it (Figure 8).
Between 1836 and 1838 Mowbray Owen purchased 135 acres. Mowbray was
already 55 years of age and it is likely that he purchased this farm for his son Daniel.
However, Daniel died in 1840, and the census of the same years listed the head of
household as Mrs. Owens, most likely Daniel’s widow.
There is no evidence of anyone having occupied this farm from 1840 until Jesse
McNish purchased it in 1864. McNish and his family bought the 102 ½-acre parcel from
John M. and Lydia Ann Owen for $3,100. In 1866, Jesse purchased 28 more acres, which
brought the total acreage of the Dunham farm up to 130. In 1870, the McNish family
lived on the Dunham Farm with a domestic servant Lucy Sherman; and a farm laborer
Guy Lewis. In 1878, Jesse McNish hung himself in his barn. According to the Watkins
Express on July 25 1878 McNish must have experienced some form of temporary
89
insanity since he was a well to do farmer respected by all (Watkins Express 1878). Sarah
and her children were residents of Elmira N.Y when his estate was finally settled in
March of 1880.
In 1879, Sylvester Dunham who was already established on the S. Dunham Farm,
purchased McNish’s land for his son William and his wife Ella. The couple had their only
child, Fred Dunham in 1881. William and his family did not live at the site for very long
however since William died in 1885. William’s sister Adelia and her husband Charles
Velie occupied the Dunham Farm after Ella moved. In 1900, Sylvester’s other son
Monroe lived on this farm with his wife Alice, and their two children Minor and
Roxanna. In 1914, Minor and his wife Elsie moved onto the Dunham farm, but both
Monroe and Minor were living in Akron Ohio in 1920. In 1923 Monroe legally
transferred ownership of the Dunham farm to Minor who continued to pay taxes on it
until at least 1930. Monroe and Alice may have lived on the farm in 1925, however the
1935 appraisal report designates this land was unoccupied. In 1937, Minor sold the
property to the Federal Government.
The Dunham Farm is located between 1500 feet and 1800 feet in elevation and is
relatively flat in most areas. The only area that exceeds a fifteen-degree rise is in the west
section, an area covered in woodlot (Figure 35). Besides woodlots, located on the west
and southeast sections, the remainder of the farm was improved for production. These
improved acres were broken into nine separate fields (Figure 35).
Since early in the McNish occupation, most of the farm was improved and
separated into fields. After Jesse McNish purchased 25 acres in 1866 the farm increased
90
from 75 to 105 acres (Table 22). The improved acreage dropped to 96 in 1880 when
William Dunham took over the farm; however most of the acreage was still improved.
Stone wall separated the improved fields (Figure 36). Over 9000 feet (about 2750 meters)
were measured on the interior of this farm. Of this, about 700 feet were measures for my
wall categories, and from that a section roughly 165 feet fell into wall category 4 (Figure
36). This sample of wall suggests a very substantial investment of time and labor was
applied to at least some of the interior wall construction. The remainder of this sample
fell into wall category 2.
Figure 35 Dunham Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots
91
Table 22 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Dunham Farm 1865-1880
Year
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
1865
75
71
30
29
1870
105
81
25
19
1875
105
81
25
19
1880
96
74
34
26
Stone wall also bounded the perimeter of the farm. These walls outlined the
boundaries of the farm except for the north boundary, where the Albright access road
separated the Dunham farm from the Lee farm (Figure 36). The northwest and southwest
sections of the farm were bounded by Burnt Hill road, and woodlots bounded the
southeast edge and the far west edge (Figure 36). While there was obvious effort put into
wall construction there was no evidence of barbed wire on this farm.
The Daniel Owen and the McNish domestic sites were located in two different
areas on the farm (Figure 35). The former consisted of only a foundation and a
smokehouse. The latter was located about 415 feet (about 130 meters) southwest and
consisted of a cellar hole, two additions to the house, a smoke or icehouse, a privy, a
well, a barn, a springhouse, and one other outbuilding. The Owens’ site was located on
land that rose from flat terrain by sixteen to twenty-four degrees, whereas the McNish
site was located on land that only rose nine degrees at most (Figure 35).
Due to limited information about the brief period the Owens’ spent on the farm, all
production analysis focused on the later occupation. Jesse McNish erected his buildings
in close proximity to each other. The barn is located about 65 feet (20 meters) east of the
house and the springhouse is located about 165 feet (about 50 meters) east of the barn.
The McNishs’ did not establish the farmstead centrally on the farm but rather constructed
it just east of Burnt Hill Road (Figures 8 and 35).
92
Figure 36 Dunham Walls
From 1865 to 1870, the Dunham Farm value rose exponentially (Figure 37). This
increase was facilitated by purchase of 25 acres in 1866. Jesse McNish increased both the
number and the variety of grains from 1865 to 1870 (Table 23). The variety of livestock
on the Dunham farm remained at four from 1865 to 1870, however, the total number of
livestock decreased. McNish also listed $100 value of cordwood in 1870.
Production changed by 1875, the number and the variety of grains decreased after
1870 (Table 23), and production of sheep was eliminated (Table 24). Three years later
Jesse McNish took his own life. Since the 1880 numbers show (Figure 37), the farm was
not in financial crisis, production and economics should not have been a large concern.
93
The Dunham site farmers invested in machinery and labor to help with
production. Machine value rose from $100 in 1865 to $300 in 1870, then dropped to $25
in 1880. Wages paid in 1870 was $250, then $38 in 1880.
Figure 37 Dunham Farm Value
Table 23 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Dunham Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (Tons)
Oats
Corn
Potatoes
S Wheat
W Wheat
Barley
Buckwheat
Total Bushels
1865
19
300
430
108
0
0
0
0
857
1870
50
400
100
100
100
125
200
400
1475
1875
35
230
0
60
30
0
0
150
505
1880
10
200
0
0
0
0
0
750
960
A decrease in grain production with the exception of buckwheat, and an increase
in livestock occurred when William Dunham took over the farm. (Table 23, 24). There
was an exponential rise in the amount of sheep present as well as the introduction of
lambs (Table 24). The amount made from cordwood in 1880 was listed at $20, and the
94
only other production not listed in the grain table was $30 in clover seed. Therefore,
production strategies changed from a focus on grain to livestock.
Table 24 Livestock on the Dunham Farm
Year
Cows
Horses
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Mules
Bulls
Poultry
Other Cattle
1865
6
2
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
1870
1875
1
3
0
4
1
2
10
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0 $7 value
0
0
1880
3
2
0
55
12
0
0
25
2
Dusenbury
The Dusenbury Farm is located on both Military lots 60 and 61, and accessible
from Logan road immediately west of the farm. The first evidence of occupation on the
Dusenbury site was an unlabeled structure on the 1857 map. The 1860 population
schedules listed John Wilcox and his wife Orrinda who is 25 (Lorinda Bement, Asahel‘s
daughter), on the farm. John and his family sold the farm to Reuben Dusenbury in 1866;
at the time of purchase, the Dusenbury family was still living in the town of Burdett.
According to the 1870 census, a farm laborer Mitchell Gardner and his family occupied
the farm even though, the agricultural schedule listed Dusenbury as the owner.
In 1879, Reuben Dusenbury and his family move to the farm. Five years later, in
1884 Reuben died and his wife, heir and executrix Mariette took over the farm. It is not
clear whether she continued to live there. In 1894, Mariette purchased .25 acres on lot 69
west of Burnt Hill, and the 1900 census had her and her daughter Della living in Burdett.
95
In 1908, Mariette sold the Dusenbury farm to Eugene and Cora Fish who also lived in
Burdett and never lived on the farm. Their niece Pearl Egan took over the farm after
Eugene’s death and according to the probate inventory, the farm had been neglected for
some time. A map from 1932 shows this farm had 88 acres. The federal government
ultimately purchased the farm in 1941.
The Dusenbury farm is located from 1100 to 1500 feet in elevation, and was
relatively flat. Most of the farm does not exceed a fifteen-degree rise from flat terrain
(Figure 38). The occupants of the Dusenbury Farm established five different fields, and
there was roughly 9 acres of woodlot in the southeast corner (Figure 38).
Figure 38 Dusenbury Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots
96
No stone walls separated these fields. The only stone walls discovered on this
farm were lining the property boundaries. There was a little over 2000 feet (about 615
meters) of stone wall covering the southern boundary, though this wall was sparse and
intermittent (Figure 39). The northern boundary measured about 2260 feet (around 690
meters) (Figure 39). A little less than 400 feet of this northern boundary was measured
for wall categories all which fell into wall category 2 (Figure 39). There was also a small
amount of stone wall located along the edge of the woodlot although it was sparse and
ephemeral. In addition, there was some substantial wall along the eastern edge, which
may have been constructed for the Dusenbury Farm or perhaps it was wall was
constructed for the Gardner Farm (Figure 39).
Barbed wire was also found on the farm. There was roughly 2440 (about 745
meters) of barbed wire located on the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries. While
these farmers may not have put forth much effort towards the separation of their fields or
impressive wall construction the presence of barbed wire suggests a capital investment in
the maintenance of borders.
Most of the farmland was improved since the Wilcox occupation. Improved land
remained stable around 80% for all census years (Table 25). The 1880 agricultural
schedule separated unimproved land into two categories; acres of forest and acres other.
The Dusenbury farm had ten acres of forest and six acres other. According to the 1930’s
orthoimage there was about nine or ten acres of woodlot in the southeast corner
suggesting the woodlot remained stable into the 20th century. In 1870, the farm recorded
$150 in cordwood, and in 1880, the Dusenburys recorded $45 value in cordwood.
The domestic site consisted of a cellar hole with evidence of either a porch or an
97
Figure 39 Dusenbury Walls
Table 25 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Dusenbury Farm 1865-1880
Year
Improved acres Improved % Unimproved acres Unimproved %
1865
70
78
20
22
1870
70
80
18
20
1875
70
80
18
20
1880
71
82
16
18
addition, a well adjacent to the house, a barn complex, a barn well, a drilled well, and two
other outbuildings. These farm buildings and features were located on the far west side of
the farm immediately adjacent to Logan road (Figures 38 and 39). All these features were
located in close proximity to each other; the barn complex was located only about 130
feet (about 40 meters) away from the cellar. The domestic site was positioned on land
98
that rose from flat terrain between sixteen and twenty-four degrees. This is steeper than
most of farms in the Backbone sample. The proximity of the domestic site to the road
was probably a facilitating factor in the construction of the site. Centrality would
certainly not have played a role in its establishment.
In 1865, John Wilcox raised a variety of grains (Table 26) and livestock (Table
27), as well as produced 300 bushels of apples, 17 bushels of flax seed and 90 tons of
lint. By 1870, he added potatoes to his production, and the amount of every other grain
except corn and buckwheat increased (Table 26). The same year his livestock production
decreased in variety and amount (Table 27). In 1875 the production of wheat, barley oats,
and potatoes increased (though corn was removed completely), and while the number of
livestock increased the variety did not. In 1880, corn was reintroduction (Table 26) rye
production increased (Table 26) as did livestock (Table 27), and the farm value began to
rise again into the 1880’s (Figure 40). Furthermore there was $200 worth of machinery
on the farm in 1865, the value rose to $250 in 1875, and according to the 1870
agricultural schedule the Dusenburys or John Wilcox spent $20 in labor.
Table 26 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Dusenbury Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (Tons)
W.Wheat
Rye
Oats
Barley
Buckwheat
Corn
Potatoes
Total Bushels
1865
8
20
0
40
15
60
300
0
443
1870
25
100
0
100
115
30
200
25
595
99
1875
10
220
0
130
200
22
0
100
682
1880
15
0
60
105
250
0
75
60
565
Table 27 Livestock on the Dusenbury Farm
Year
1865
Cows
6
Horses
2
Swine
4
Sheep
64
Lambs
65
Poultry
$15 worth
Oxen
0
Other Cattle
5
1870
1875
3
5
2
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0 $12 worth
0
2
7
0
1880
5
2
4
15
1
35
0
7
Figure 40 Dusenbury Farm Value
Gardner
The Gardner farm consists of 55 acres located on Military Lot 61. The farm was
located well off any main roads, and was most likely accessed from a lane that ran
through the Dusenbury Farm (Figure 41), that was originally constructed to access a saw
mill documented by archaeologists surveying the area.
After serving in the Civil War in 1865, Owen Gardner returned to New York and
purchased this 55-acre plot from Richard E. Smith. Around the same time, Owen married
100
a woman named Lovina and by 1866, they had their first child, Luella. By 1875, the
Gardner family had grown to include two more children, Emma and Samuel. At this time
Lovina’s niece, Mary also lived on the farm performing general housework. In 1877, the
Gardners sold the farm and moved to the town of Catherine N.Y.
Abram Wyatt, who was listed in the 1875 census as a farm laborer in Hector
N.Y., purchased this farm two years later from the Gardners. That same year that he
married Kate Knight. Between 1878 and 1892, Abram and Kate have six children: Nora,
Edith, Mary Alice, Clarence, Joseph, and Florence.
Figure 41 Gardner Domestic Site and Access Roads
101
In 1894, Abram deeded the farm to Kate. It looks as if Abram and Kate split up
since the 1900 census had Kate living by herself in Montour Falls and the 1910 census
listed Abram in Allegany County. It is likely Kate remained owner of the farm since her
father John Knight had paid the balance owed on the mortgage in 1886. However, there is
no census record indicating that any Wyatt lived on this farm after 1894. The Dusenbury
farm absorbed the Gardner farm in 1905.
The Gardner farm is located between 1400 and 1600 feet in elevation, and quite
flat, only reaching an excess of twenty-four degrees from flat terrain in a few areas
(Figure 42). According to the 1930’s orthoimage, this farm was broken into three
separate fields, a woodlot on the far eastern side, and the domestic site lot (Figure 42).
7280 feet (2220 meters) of stone wall in total was found on this farm. Roughly, 1480 feet
(20%) of these walls were interior divisions. About 280 feet of these interior walls were
measured for wall categories; all fell into wall category 2. While there was a small
amount of interior fields there is one field located immediately east of the domestic site,
demarcated by a stone wall which fell into wall category 2 and almost 1000 feet of
barbed wire (Figure 43).
In 1870, Owen Gardner had 50 improved (94%), and 3 unimproved acres (Table
27). Five years later, during Abram Wyatt occupation, the total amount of improved land
was reduced by three acres (Table 28). There were three acres of woodland in all three
agricultural schedules, which corresponded to the amount of woodlot seen on the extreme
eastern edge of the farm on the 1930’s orthoimage (Figure 42). Owen Gardner listed
$180 worth of cordwood in the 1870 agricultural schedule.
The domestic site consisted of a cellar hole, a house addition, a well, a privy,
102
Table 28 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Gardner Farm 1870-1880
Year
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved Acres Unimproved %
1870
50
94
3
6
1875
47
89
6
11
1880
47
94
3
6
Figure 42 Gardner Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots
root cellar, a barn, and a barn addition. The barn area was located only about 130 feet
(roughly 40 meters) south of the farmhouse. The area that these farm buildings were
located rose no more than nine degrees from flat terrain (Figure 42). All these features
were filled after abandonment suggesting this area was used as pasture once incorporated
into the Fish/Dusenbury farm.
103
According to agricultural schedules the farm value reached its peak in 1870
(Figure 44). In 1875, the farm value decreased as did the improved acres (Table 28).
Figure 43 Gardner Walls
Interestingly the value of the farm increased in 1880 without the help of more improved
land, though the percentage of unimproved does decrease (Figure 44 and Table 28).
With the change of ownership after 1875 production strategies also changed on the
Gardner farm. In 1880 there was less focus on the amount of grains and more focus on
both the amount and variety of livestock (Table 30).
The farmers on Gardner invested in the farm through the various occupations.
These investments included additions to the house and the barn, as well as the barbed
104
Figure 44 Gardner Farm Value
Table 29 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Gardner Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (Tons)
Oats
S.Wheat
W.Wheat
Corn
Barley
Buckwheat
Potatoes
Total Bushels
1870
10
350
15
100
175
90
101
50
891
1875
8
100
30
0
0
63
117
0
318
1880
15
125
0
0
0
50
0
18
208
Table 30 Livestock on the Gardner Farm
Date
Horses
Cows
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Poultry
Other Cattle
1870
1875
2
2
3
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0 $6 value
1
0
1880
3
2
1
17
5
10
3
wire demarcating field boundaries. To aid in production, the Gardners spent $100 in labor
105
and had $100 worth of machinery in 1870. Machine value increased during the Wyatt
occupation to $120, although labor dropped to $0.
Lee
The Lee Farm was one of the earliest established from this sample. It is located on
Military Lot 61, south of the sharp bend on Burnt Hill road (Figure 8). This road would
have provided easy access since it ran right through the farm.
Daniel Lee purchased this 125 acre farm in 1819. Daniel married Ann Teeter, and
probate records indicate that Daniel and Ann had four children: Nelson, Diana, Aloisa
Smith (who died 1843), and Helen. Daniel and Ann obtained a divorce in 1844, and
Daniel left the farm to move back in with his parents in Ulysses New York.
Nelson became the head of the household, which included his mother Ann, Helen,
Winton Mathews, Amy, Abba, and a laborer named Hiram William by 1850. The Lee
farm is not listed in the 1855 and 1860 agricultural schedules.
Nelson died in the late 1850’s or early 1860’s and according to the 1865
agricultural schedule, Daniel’s nephew Jepther Lee occupied the Lee farm with his wife
Clementine and two children: Emma and Minnie. The household also included, a
housekeeper named Easaba, Daniel’s younger brother, and a farmer, Franklin and his
wife Mary Lee.
Daniel Lee returned to Hector by 1868-1869, and was listed as a farmer working
125 acres. In 1870, he bought 3 acres of land from Owen and Lovina Gardener, which
increased his farm to 128 acres. Daniel Lee died in 1878 and according to the 1880
106
census, Diana Mattison, Daniel’s daughter was listed as head of household. Even so, the
1880 agricultural schedule listed Lewis, her 22-year-old son, as the farmer.
Diana died in 1887, and Lewis continued living and operating the farm.
According to the 1900 census, Lewis lived on the farm with his wife Amanda, and their
two sons Carl and Frank. Two years later they had a third son, Theodore. By 1925, Carl
and Frank had left the farm and moved to Syracuse New York, Theodore left shortly
after. Amanda died prior to 1930 leaving Lewis the sole occupant on the farm. In 1937,
Lewis sold the farm to the federal government and moved to Syracuse to live with his
sons.
The Lee farm is located between 1600 and 1700 feet in elevation, with a small
portion on the southeast corner at 1800 feet. Most of the land was flat and did not rise
above fifteen degrees from flat terrain at any point besides a small strip in the south east
section (Figure 45).
According to the 1930’s orthoimage, this land was broken into 13 different fields
(Figure 45), quite a few separated by stone wall (Figure 46). About 500 feet (about 150
meters) of stone wall was measured for wall categories. This 500 feet was located just
west of the domestic site, and fell into wall category 2 (Figure 46). The remaining walls
on this farm were sparse without evidence of substantial effort invested. There were no
real exterior stone walls found besides boundaries between the Albright Farm in the south
east and the A. Dunham Farm in the north west. Since both the A. Dunham and Albright
Farms had extensive walls it makes sense to attribute these walls to them and not to the
Lee Farm.
107
Figure 45 Lee Domestic Sites, Degree Rise, Fields
While the borders of this farm were sparse and ethereal, the Lee family did invest
in a small amount of barbed wire (Figure 46). There was about 200 feet (about 65 meters)
of barbed wire found on the Lee farm proper, and a bit over 650 feet (about 200 meter)
found on the eastern boundary separating the Lee farm from the Albright farm. It is
difficult to determine if the Lees or the Albrights put up the wire found on the Lee eastern
border, as there was wire present on both farms, though, according to the 1880
agricultural schedule the Mattisons did spend $90 on fences.
In 1850, 80 of the 125 total acres were improved (Table 31). By 1880, the total
amount of land rose to 130 acres, and with this the actual amount of improved land
108
Figure 46 Lee Walls
increased as well (Table 30). This increase of total and improved land suggests that the
Lees, then the Mattisons, both considered investment in land an effective strategy. In
1880, the farm contained 25 acres of forest, in the same year the Mattisons recorded $72
of cordwood, therefore they, like many of the other farmers on the Backbone, used the
unimproved land productively.
The Lees and the Mattisons established two different domestic sites both of which
were located on the south end of the farm. Artifacts from the Lee II site had a mean date
of 1905. The presence of a garage suggests that the Lee II site was associated with Lewis
109
Table 31 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Lee Farm 1850-1880
Year
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved Acres Unimproved %
1850
80
64
45
36
1865
75
60
50
40
1870
80
63
48
37
1875
80
63
48
37
1880
97
75
33
25
.
Mattison, and built towards the later occupation of the farm.
The oldest domestic site (Lee I) was comprised of a cellar hole, a house addition,
a privy, a cistern, a well, and a barn. The first five features are concentrated together in
one area with the barn located about 115 feet (about 35 meters) to the north, all relatively
close to each other. The Lee II site was located about 180 feet (about 55 meters) to the
southeast of the Lee I site on the other side of Burnt Hill Road. This site consisted of
cellar, porch addition, hen house and a garage.
Both of these sites were located immediately adjacent to Burnt Hill Road (Figure
45). The road itself seems to have been an important characteristic with consideration of
the farmstead settlement. The area that Lee I was established on must have proved
sensible as the Mattisons established their farm in the same area.
In 1850, the Lees focused their production primarily on wheat, corn, and sheep
(Tables 32 and 33). By 1865, the amount of livestock had decreased substantially due to
the loss of sheep production (Table 33) however; the number and variety of grains had
increased substantially (Table 32). The production in 1865 other products included grass
seed, 100 bushels of apples and five barrels of cider. In 1870, the variety of grains
increased (Table 31). The variety and number of grains decreased in 1875 (Table 32), as
did livestock (Table 33). When Lewis Mattison took over in 1880 he increased livestock
(Table 33) and the variety of grains (Table 32). He also increased the machine value, to
110
Table 32 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Lee Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (Tons)
Corn
Oats
S. Wheat
W. Wheat
Barley
Buckwheat
Potatoes
Rye
Total Bushels
1850
50
150
0
200
0
0
0
50
0
450
1865
50
100
200
20
0
0
60
40
0
470
1870
30
30
200
0
20
50
50
30
15
425
1875
40
0
200
0
0
0
60
7
0
307
1880
23
0
40
0
0
100
60
30
0
253
Table 33 Livestock on the Lee Farm
Year
Cows
Horses
Swine
Oxen
Bulls
Sheep
Lambs
Poultry
Other Cattle
1850
5
3
3
0
0
40
0
0
4
1865
5
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
1870
1875
2
1
3
1
3
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 $5 value
2
0
1880
4
4
0
0
0
7
3
25
4
Figure 47 Lee Farm Value
$250 in 1880, $100 more than what it was in 1875. The cost of labor dropped from $200
111
in 1870 to $28 in 1880, and after 1870, the farm value slowly dropped as well (Figure
47).
McNetton
The McNetton Farm is a 41 acre farm located on Military Lot 52. The farm is
situated immediately north of Burnt Hill Road (Figure 8).
Sometime between 1857 and 1860, John Bell purchased a 41 acre plot on lot 52,
kitty-corner to the northwest of the Bell farm already established. In 1860, his niece Mary
occupied this farm with her husband Andrew Devitt and their sons John and Robert.
Within the following decade, Mary and Andrew divorced and by 1870, Mary had
remarried Alexander McNetton. In 1870, Alexander, Mary, Edward and William
McNetton as well as John, Robert, and David Devitt occupied the McNetton farm. Ten
years later Robert and John had become farm laborers at another location in town, and
Mary E., Fred, Emmett, and Albert McNetton occupied the farm in addition to Edward,
William, and Alexander, and Mary.
By 1900, Alexander and Mary lived on the farm with their two children Libbie
and James. Alexander died in 1907and Mary passed away the following year. Emmet
McNetton took over the farm, but left the area by 1920, John Palmer, who was living on
the Bell farm, assumed control. John Palmer lived on the Bell farm and sold both the Bell
and McNetton properties to the Federal Government in 1936.
The McNetton farm is located from 1600 and 1700 feet in elevation, and on very
flat land, with no area exceeding a nine-degree rise from flat terrain (Figure 48). The
1930’s orthoimage, shows no separation of fields but rather only one field and one
112
woodlot (Figure 48). The field and woodlot were separated by one wall stretching
roughly 475 feet (about 145 meters) and fell into wall category 2 (Figure 48). There was
no barbed wire found on the farm.
The McNetton farm first appeared in the 1870 agricultural schedules. Analysis of
this farm seems somewhat problematic due to the confusion in size; John Bell purchased
41 acres between 1857 and 1860, and John Palmer sold 64 acres to the federal
government in 1936, the farm on the 1930’s orthoimage measures 64 acres, yet the
agricultural schedules in 1870, 1875, and 1880 list the total amount of land on the
McNetton farm as 25 acres. Therefore, there was an incongruity in the amount of land
attributed to the McNetton farm. Regardless we know that the McNettons’ listed their
production in the 1870, 1875, and 1880 agricultural schedules.
The McNettons had only nine improved acres of land according to the agricultural
schedule of 1870. The improved amount increased by a few acres into 1880 (Table 34),
but never exceed the unimproved acreage during the years recorded in the agricultural
schedule, and only reached 48% (Table 34).
The domestic site was comprised of only a house foundation, a barn and a barn
well located on the southeast corner of the farm next to Burnt Hill Road (Figure 49). As
small and compact as this farm was, the McNettons utilized the small amount of
cultivated land for production. The uninterrupted field that these features were situated on
was used for the production of grain and livestock.
According to the agricultural schedules, the McNettons used their land to grow a
variety of grains in 1870 and 1875 (Table 35). However, this number dropped
significantly in 1880 as they only produced potatoes and hay (Table 35). In 1880, it
113
Figure 48 McNetton Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Woodlot
Table 34 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the McNetton Farm 1870-1880
Year
1870
1875
1880
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved AcresUnimproved %
9
36
16
64
10
40
15
60
12
48
13
52
seems as if they switched focus to raising livestock as both variety and number increased
with the addition of swine (Table 36). The agricultural schedule listed only trace amounts
of other types of production on this farm from 1870 to 1880. In 1870, the McNettons
produced one bushel of peas and beans, in 1880 there was no other production besides the
114
livestock and grains shown on Tables 35 and 36. In 1875, the agricultural schedule shows
that the McNettons listed honey and beeswax.
Table 35 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the McNetton Farm in Bushels
Year
S.Wheat
W.Wheat
Corn
Potatoes
Hay (In Tons)
Oats
Barley
Total Bushels
1870
35
17
50
60
0
500
0
662
1875
0
31
100
100
1
0
60
292
1880
0
0
0
100
4
0
0
104
Table 36 Livestock on the McNetton Farm
Year
Horses
Cows
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Poultry
Other Cattle
1870
1875
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
10
0
9
0 $8 value
2
0
Figure 49 McNetton Farm Value
115
1880
1
3
11
10
9
30
0
The reduction in grain production could have been due to the loss of labor as both
Robert and John had become farm laborers at another location and their other children
would have been relatively young. There was also $0 recorded labor in 1880. There was
however, $15 machinery in 1880, which was up from the $10 value in 1870. Given its
small size and lack of improved land, the farm never had a high value (Figure 49), it also
would affect the amount of labor and machinery.
R. Henry
The R. Henry farm is an 85-acre parcel on Military Lot 52, easily accessible
immediately to the west of Burnt Hill road (Figure 8). The farm was established in 1860
when Ralph Henry and his brother Horace purchased the 85 acres from John C. Meddick.
The census records from 1860 lists Ralph Henry, his wife Mary, their daughter
Georgiana, and Ralph’s brother Horace on the farm. After 1860, there was no mention of
Horace in any agricultural schedule or census record. In 1880 the Henrys still owned the
farm but the agricultural schedule lists John C. Williams living there and working for
shares. The 1880 census lists Ralph Henry residing in Ovid NY with Mary’s father John
Brooks.
In 1881, Henry sold the farm to Isaac Albright for $2000. After Isaac’s parents
died, he appears to have operated both this and the Albright farm.
The 1893 directory listed Isaac as farming 180 acres of land, the combination of
the Henry and Albright farms. In 1897, Isaac’s sister Maud moved to the Albright farm
with her husband Herman Broderick. Then in 1901, Isaac bought land in Bennetsburg
and sold the Henry farm to his son John, an employee of Shepard and Crane Company in
116
nearby Montour Falls, NY. However, John did not stay long; he and his wife Mary
bought a parcel of land in the village of Burdett in 1906 and sold the R. Henry farm to
Lina B. Robinson in 1909. There is no evidence that Lina lived on the farm and the 1914
farm directory listed her as a dressmaker living in Burdett and owned 85 acres in hay and
grain. Lina ultimately sold the farm to the Federal Government in 1936.
The R. Henry farm is located between 1500 and 1700 feet in elevation. Most of
the land was flat with the only areas rising over fifteen degrees found in the woodlots
(Figure 50).
This farm was demarcated into six separate fields (Figure 50). Most of these
interior fields were divided by stone walls (Figure 51). Stone walls made up almost 3300
feet (about 1000 meters) of interior divisions on this farm. About 500 feet of interior
stone wall was constructed to bound the woodlot (Figure 51).
About 3180 feet of stone wall was found defining the property boundary. Roughly
1080 feet (34%) of the exterior stone wall was constructed along the northern boundary
and about 660 feet (21%) of stone wall lined the southern boundary. The remaining
exterior wall ran along Burnt Hill Road on the eastern edge of the farm. The western
boundary is located inside the western woodlot.
A small sample of about 100 feet was measured for the purposes of my wall
categories. This sample fell into wall category 1 (Figure 51). Much of the remaining
interior wall not sampled was sparse and scattered. The construction of the walls was not
that impressive, although it does signify that effort was made to separate fields. Barbed
wire was found on this farm as well. Roughly, 220 feet (about 65 meters) of barbed wire
was found on the northern boundary and about 40 feet (about 12 meters) was found on
117
Figure 50 R. Henry Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots
one of the interior walls. There was barbed wire associated with a small round stone
feature in the woodlot, and a barbed wire roll located on the extreme southeast corner
(Figure 51). Furthermore, the 1880 agricultural schedule listed $90 in fence cost. This
suggests that more effort was put into boundaries during the later period when wire had
become commonly available.
The improved land did not exceed 50% of the total until 1880 (Table 37). There is
evidence that the unimproved land was productive. The 1870 agricultural schedule lists
$40 in cordwood and the 1875 agricultural schedule listed $30 worth of hop poles, and
118
Figure 51 R. Henry Walls
Table 37 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the R. Henry Farm 1865-1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved Acres Unimproved %
30
35
55
65
35
44
45
66
30
38
50
62
42
53
38
47
hop poles were used to support hop vines.
The domestic site was located close to Burnt Hill road and accessibility would
have been influenced the decision for placement. The domestic sites consisted of a series
of stone foundations that made up the original house location, a well, a tool shed, a
119
foundation for a silo, and foundations for two large barns. This farm also contained a
cellar hole representing a later house built by Isaac Albright, and a privy.
The barns and tool shed suggest investment put into production taken place during
the R. Henry occupation. The late 19th century began to look promising for the Henry
family as farm value increased $1324 from 1865 to 1870 (Figure 52). In 1875, the farm
decreased in value corresponding with a decrease in improved acreage (Figure 52, Table
37).
Figure 52 R. Henry Farm Value
Table 38 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the R. Henry Farm in Bushels
Year
W Wheat
S Wheat
Corn
Potatoes
Hay (In Tons)
Oats
Barley
Buckwheat
Total Bushels
1865
42
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
57
1870
0
20
25
20
5
150
0
0
220
120
1875
20
0
30
30
4
100
0
130
314
1880
0
0
0
0
10
0
112
0
122
Table 39 Livestock on the R. Henry Farm
Year
1865
Cows
1
Horses
1
Swine
1 in '64
Sheep
0
Lambs
0
Oxen
0
Poultry
$12 egg value
Other Cattle
0
1870
1875
3
2
2
1
1 1 in '74
12
11
0
3
0
2
0 $12 value
1
0
1880
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
S. Dunham
The S. Dunham Farm is located at the south end of the Backbone on Military lot
71. The farm would have been accessible from a farm lane running east off Burnt Hill
road (Figure 53).
Sylvester Dunham purchased 90 acres in 1846, and prior to occupying the farm,
he sold twenty acres of the land. He was first listed on the farm in the 1860 census
immediately after the Wickham entry. Sylvester enlisted in the army in 1861 when the
Civil War begins.
In 1867 Catherine Dunham, Sylvester’s wife, purchased thirty acres to the north
of their property, which increased the farm to 100 acres. For the next thirty years, the
Dunhams farmed this property. Sylvester died in 1895 and Catherine died fourteen years
later in 1909. In that year Monroe Dunham purchased his siblings share of the property.
Monroe and his wife Alice retained possession of the farm until 1925 though it is unclear
whether anyone occupied the farm during this time. In 1925, Delphine Jennings acquired
the deed to the farm and ultimately sold the property to the federal government in 1941.
The S. Dunham Farm is situated between 1300 and 1700 feet in elevation and
121
Figure 53 S. Dunham Domestic Site, Access Road
established on land that vary from 0 to 45 degree rise from flat terrain (Figure 54). While
this farm was not as flat as others on the backbone, the more substantial slope is located
in the woodlot (Figure 54). The 1930’s orthoimages show nine distinct fields on the S.
Dunham Farm (Figure 54). Most were separated by stone wall. In fact roughly 3900 feet
(about 1190 meters) of stone wall was mapped on the interior (Figure 54). The property
boundaries of this farm were also marked by almost 7700 feet (roughly 2350 meters) of
stone wall (Figure 55). The only boundary that was not marked by stone wall was the
woodlot area on the eastern boundary (Figure 55).
122
Figure 54 S. Dunham Degree Rise, Fields Woodlots
Roughly, 1270 feet (about 385 meters) of stone wall was assessed for the wall
categories. About 670 feet (53%) of wall fell into wall category 2, roughly 195 feet
(15%) fell into wall category 3 (Figure 56), and about 280 feet (22%) fell into wall
category 5. This wall is interesting because it separated the S. Dunham from the
Wickham Farms, families who were closely related (Catherine Dunham was Erastus
Wickham’s daughter). It is impossible to determine who was responsible. In addition, a
little over 1400 feet (about 430 meters) barbed wire as well as a wound up ball of wire,
was discovered on the property (Figure 55). Sylvester Dunham and his family certainly
123
Figure 55 S. Dunham Walls
invested a great deal of time and energy on their property and field boundaries.
Given the investment in stone walls, it is interesting how much was improved.
(Table 40). In 1860, 57% of the S. Dunham farm was listed as improved while the
improved acreage was 65% in 1880 (Table 40). The intervening years list the improved
land as under 50%. The low percentage of improved land is unique in the Backbone
sample.
The domestic site is located on the southern edge of the farm next to a road that
runs east off Burnt Hill Road (Figure 54). The site consisted of a cellar hole, an addition
124
Table 40 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the S. Dunham Farm 1860-1880
Year
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved Acres Unimproved %
1860
60
57
45
43
1865
60
38
100
62
1870
35
35
65
65
1875
40
38
64
62
1880
65
65
35
35
attached to the east side of the cellar, an ell off the north edge of the addition, a concrete
cistern, a well, a privy about 35 feet to the west of the cellar, and a barn located roughly
80 feet to the east of the addition. The cement cistern and the concrete used to repair or
stabilize the addition and ell speak to the desire these farmers had to remain on this farm.
Proximity to the road would most likely have been the reason for establishing the
farmstead where they did. It is not central on the farm, nor is it located on the flattest part
of the farm; though the area does not exceed a twenty four-degree rise from flat terrain as
the majority of improved land is not rigidly steep (Figure 54).
While the unimproved acres exceeded the improved for much of the 1860’s and
1870’s (Table 40), the unimproved acres seem to be quite productive. According to the
1875 agricultural schedule, the S. Dunham farm contained 100 apple trees, and 600 peach
trees; the Dunhams also produced 500 hop poles. In 1880, the Dunhams had 50 apple
trees, 100 peach trees, clear evidence for the focus on fruit not seen on the other farms.
They also produced $30 worth of cordwood.
Other crops included $384 worth of strawberries and 5000 lbs. of grapes in 1875,
and 2,500 lbs of grapes in 1880, further evidence of the focus on fruit. The Dunhams also
varied their grain production and focused on livestock as well. From 1860 to 1865, the
Dunhams expanded the variety and number of the grains they produced (Table 41). In
1870, the Dunhams increased the total number of grains; they did not record any corn or
125
buckwheat, but added barley to their production. In addition, the total number of
livestock increased as well (Table 41).
Table 41 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the S. Dunham Farm in Bushels
Year
W.Wheat
Corn
Oats
Buckwheat
Barley
Potatoes
Hay (In Tons)
Total Bushels
1860
47
100
40
0
0
0
0
187
1865
10
200
40
40
0
25
3
318
1870
70
0
300
0
45
30
20
465
1875
53
100
23
25
12
80
15
308
1880
0
50
0
0
65
50
13
178
Table 42 Livestock on the S. Dunham Farm
Year
Horses
Cows
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Poultry
Other Cattle
Bulls
1860
2
3
2
25
0
0
5
0
1865
2
4
0
27
5
0
4
0
1870
1875
3
3
3
4
0
0
35
1
0
0
0 $10 value
4
0
0
1
Figure 56 S. Dunham Farm Value
126
1880
2
2
1
55
13
40
3
0
The 1870 agricultural schedule lists $10 in labor where as the 1880 they invested
nothing in labor. Machine value rose from $300 in 1875 to $500 in 1880, also the farm
value began to increase between 1875 and 1880 after a precipitous drop from 1870 to
1875 (Figure 56).
Smith
The Smith Farm is a 50 acre farm on Military Lot 53, located just east of Burnt
Hill Road (Figure 8). This main road would have allowed access for the 101 years it
existed as a farm. John M. Smith purchased this land in 1835. He initially purchased a
100 acres parcel but subsequently sold a 25-acre parcel of this purchase to Homer Smith
and another 25 parcel (the Ball Farm) to his brother Caleb Smith.
The Smith family maintained this farm for the next century, during which John
and his wife Martha raised six children. Mary died in 1876 and John died in 1880 but not
before transferring the farm to his youngest son Andrew. In 1886, Andrew took out a
$2000 loan using the farm as bond, but he defaulted on the loan and the farm went up for
auction. In 1892, his brother John H. Smith purchased it at auction. John H. Smith lived
on this farm until his death in 1914. The farm directory of Hector listed John’s son Henry
Smith as the occupant of the farm. Henry ultimately sold the property to the Federal
Government in 1936.
The Smith Farm is located between 1700 and 1800 feet in elevation. While this
farm is located high up on the hill, the farm is on land that rises no more than fifteen
degrees from flat terrain (Figure 57). The 1930’s orthoimages shows the farm separated
into five distinct fields (Figure 57). Stone walls were constructed to demarcate these field
127
boundaries and most were assessed for wall categories (Figure 59). Of the roughly 5600
feet (about 1700 meters) about 45% fell into category 1, 39% fell into wall category 2,
390 feet (7%) fell into wall category 3 and 650 feet (12%) fell into wall category 4
(Figure 58).
Fields covered most of the Smith farm through the mid to late 19th century and
into the early 20th century. According to the agricultural schedules in the 19th century
most of the total land was improved (Table 43). Only thirteen acres were unimproved,
and these thirteen were woodlot (Figure 58).
Table 43 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Smith Farm 1850-1880
Year
1850
1865
1870
1875
1880
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved Acres Unimproved %
45
90
5
10
40
80
10
20
35
70
15
30
35
70
15
30
35
70
15
30
The farm buildings were comprised of cellar hole, two additions, two wells, a
privy, a garage, and a barn located about 440 feet (about 135 meters) to the east of the
domestic site. The choice of location of this farm, like many others from the sample
seemed to be influenced by proximity to road rather than a progressive idea of centrality.
The farmstead itself was located on the far west edge of the farm on improved land. The
land it was located on did not exceed a rise of nine degrees from flat terrain (Figure 57).
The improved land hosted a variety of grain and livestock. The Smiths adjusted
the types of grains they produced from 1850 through 1880 while maintaining a variety
(Table 44). Livestock production decreased in variety as the 19th century advanced, and
unlike many other farms on the Backbone the number of livestock was limited by 1880
128
Figure 57 Smith Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots
(Table 45). Other production on the farm included 19 apple trees in 1865, 30 apple trees
in 1875, and 35 apple trees in 1880, 400 lbs of butter in 1870, and $25 from cordwood in
1880 up from nothing in 1870. The increase of products from unimproved land such as
cordwood could account for the reduction in improved acres after 1865 (Table 43)
regardless it corresponded with farm value since the value decreased after 1870 (Figure
59). The Smiths also invested a lot in machinery as they listed $264 in machine and tool
value in 1875. Although this number decreased to $30 in 1880, the cost of labor also
decreased from $40 to $0 between 1870 and 1880.
129
Figure 58 Smith Walls
Table 44 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Smith Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (In Tons)
S.Wheat
W.Wheat
Oats
Barley
Buckwheat
Potaotes
Corn
Total Bushels
1850
12
75
0
40
15
10
35
0
187
1865
10
0
0
230
0
90
20
425
775
130
1870
15
105
11
130
45
0
15
0
321
1875
8
20
0
100
0
86
0
30
244
1880
5
20
0
115
100
0
30
40
310
Table 45 Livestock on the Smith Farm
Year
Cows
Horses
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Poultry
Oxen
Other Cattle
1850
5
2
3
35
0
0
0
3
1865
7
3
0
18
3
0
0
0
1870
1875
4
5
4
5
0
0
17
0
0
0
0 $17 Value
0
0
0
0
1880
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
Figure 59 Smith Farm Value
Wickham
The Wickham farm is located on military Lot 71 at the southern edge of the
Finger Lakes National Forest. It is accessible from Burnt Hill Road, which ran
immediately west of the farm.
In 1837, Erastus Wickham purchased 85 acre from his parents William and
Martha, Hector’s first permanent settlers. In 1842, he also purchased an additional 25
acres on lot 71. The 1855 census records Erastus Wickham and his wife Almeda with
131
eight children ranging in age from 19 years old to 5 months. Their holdings had grown to
294 acres. Not all this land was on the Backbone. By 1860, the Wickhams’ three oldest
children moved away from the farm and the total holdings decreased to 125 acres.
In 1873, Erastus and Almeda Wickham sold the farm to Charles Wickham, and by
1875, Charles and his wife Amelia lived there with two biological children, one adopted
child, and one hired hand. The farm was now totaled 109 acres. Charles Wickham died in
1911 and William Wickham, his son, was sole executor. However, the will divided
Charles Wickham’s real and personal property between his son William Wickham, his
daughters Bina Hubbell, May Mickel, and Nellie Wickham. He requested that one or
more of his children keep the farm. This request did not seem to come to fruition and the
farm was sold to Charles Egan. In 1939, Charles sold the farm to G. Earl Egan who
subsequently sold it to the Federal Government in 1940.
The Wickham Farm lies between 1300 and 1600 feet in elevation. Most of the
farm is quite flat, the surface only exceeds a twelve degree rise from flat terrain in a few,
very small areas (Figure 60).
The Wickham’s separated this land into 18 different fields (Figure 60). Most of
these fields were demarcated by stone walls (Figure 61). About 5530 feet of stone wall
was measured for the wall categories. Roughly 1280 (23%) of the interior walls fell into
wall category 1, roughly 3675 feet (66%) fell into wall category 2, and about 575 feet
(10%) fell into wall category 3.
Roughly 8540 (about 2603 meters) of property boundaries demarcated by stone
wall was measured for wall categories as well. About 2036 (24%) fell into category 1,
about 4460 feet (52%) fell into wall category 2, about 1764 (21%) fell into category 3
132
and 280 feet (3%) fell into category 5. As mentioned in the S. Dunham portrait, the 280
feet that fell into wall category 5, suggests an impressive effort in the production of walls.
In addition to the stone walls there was roughly 1920 feet (about 585 meters) of barbed
wire suggesting that the Wickhams invested in boundaries into the late 19th and early 20th
centuries.
This land was mostly improved for production, as the improved acreage exceeded
78% of the total land for all years listed in the agricultural schedules (Table 46). The
unimproved acres were not just simply idle acres but rather a productive part of the farm.
In 1870 and 1880, the Wickhams listed $50 and $35 sales from cordwood.
Table 46 Improved and Unimproved Acreage on the Wickham Farm 1850-1880
Year
1860
1865
1870
1875
1880
Improved Acres Improved % Unimproved Acres Unimproved %
100
80
25
20
90
90
10
10
89
82
20
18
85
78
24
22
92
80
23
20
The Wickhams invested in the farmstead as well, four barn foundations, a root
cellar, a smokehouse, and an unidentified outbuilding were found on this site in addition
to the privy, well, and cistern and house foundation. The farm buildings were all located
within 230 feet (70 meters) from each other, on land that did not exceed a fifteen -degree
rise from flat terrain; therefore, they were all located on very flat land (Figure 60). While
the farm buildings were located on flat land they were not constructed centrally on the
farm or near water, in fact Charles Wickham mentions in his diary that he spent a
significant amount of money; $140 to provide running water to his multiple barns
133
Figure 60 Wickham Domestic Site, Degree Rise, Fields, Woodlots
(Charles Wickham Diaries 1884-1910). The diaries also mention that he invested
considerable amounts of money in the repair and maintenance to his outbuildings and
barns. The presence of these multiple barns suggests that this farm was successful enough
to invest in the infrastructure.
The success of the farm was most likely due to the production of a variety of
grains and fruits, as well as selling an array of livestock and their byproducts. The
Wickhams consistently produced a variety of grains and livestock through the mid to
late19th century (Tables 47 and 48). The number and variety of both grains and livestock
134
Figure 61 Wickham Walls
vastly increased after 1860. The production of grain then decreased into the 1880’s, yet
the number of livestock increased. Success could also be seen in the quality of goods the
Wickham’s produced. Their livestock and grains won awards at local fairs during the late
19th and early 20th century. Multiple products including: barley, oats, rye, wheat, colts,
and sheep took first and second premiums at the various fairs including the Watkins Fair
(Charles Wickham Diaries 1884-1910). They also produced an abundance of fruit, in
1865 the Wickhams listed 65 apple trees; and 100 trees in 1875.
The value of machinery on this farm was increasing into the later part of the 19th
135
Table 47 Grains and Potatoes Produced on the Wickham Farm in Bushels
Year
Hay (In Tons)
W.Wheat
Oats
Corn
Barley
Buckwheat
Potatoes
Rye
Total Bushels
1860
0
80
20
150
0
0
0
20
270
1865
15
120
60
400
30
0
100
0
725
1870
30
213
0
300
300
200
100
0
1143
1875
25
200
150
300
300
45
50
0
1070
1880
8
141
28
180
241
25
35
0
658
Table 48 Livestock on the Wickham Farm
Year
Cows
Horses
Swine
Sheep
Lambs
Poultry
Oxen
Bulls
Other Cattle
1860
1865
7
7
4
4
3
4
0
100
0
8
0 $5 sold
0
2
0
0
9
7
1870
1875
2
5
3
2
2
0
86
10
0
2
0 $8 value
0
2
0
1
4
0
Figure 62 Wickham Farm Value
136
1880
5
5
6
30
0
40
0
0
5
century from $250 in 1870 to $270 in 1880. They also spent money on labor, $250 in
1870 and $164 in 1880.
The farm value from 1860 to 1880 augments the idea that the farm was successful
(Figure 62). While the value dropped in 1875 increased between 1875 and 1880,
concomitantly with the rise in improved acres at this time (Table 46).
Discussion of Farm Portraits
While these portraits may have taken a while for you to trudge through, I feel that
this specific information is necessary in order to understand what these farmers were
actually doing during the capitalist transformations in agriculture. We can use data to
evaluate the simplistic measures or criteria that form “common sense” ideas of what
capitalist agriculture should look like. This is the rational for the presentation of so much
specific information about 16 different farms on the Hector Backbone.
While there were similarities between the farms on the Backbone, the data drawn
show enough diversity between theses hilltop farms to make sweeping generalizations
about them erroneous and misleading. Furthermore no evidence exists that would suggest
these farmers were slovenly or incapable of successful farming or were only interested in
short-term production or that the land they lived on would have been an impediment to
production.
According to the data on the individual farms, these farmers invested, time,
energy, and money into their land, and most continually improved it throughout their
occupation as well as adjusted their production strategies to remain successful. However,
137
looking at each individual farm does not fully explain how and why they behaved as they
did.
In the following chapter, I further develop the understanding of how these
farmers’ used a variety of productive strategies and how they affected and were affected
by the actual land they lived on. I approached this next section by comparing the farms
from the Backbone sample to understand what different strategies were used and then
compare the sample to the larger lowland town, to further explicate the idea that the land
itself was not an impediment for success on these hillside farms.
138
CHAPTER V
THE COMMUNITY AND TOWN SCALE
As the individual farm portraits have demonstrated, the farms on the Hector
Backbone engaged in a variety of production strategies. While they all raised a diversity
of crops, their choices were, at times, unique to the individual farms. These individual
practices proved to be successful to varying degrees. However, farms from this era are
categorized simplistically, without recognizing the different strategies involved. This
ultimately eliminates the diversity by homogenizing them. Regardless of any success that
can be seen through the data presented here, the farmers on the backbone were still
marginalized in the literature. A large factor naturalizing this marginalization was the
land they lived upon, land deemed non-productive since the area was not suitable for
mechanized farming. In addition, they were written off by early to mid 20th century
historians as semi-subsistence farmers without the ability to, or no intentions of adopting
“progressive” farming practices, which would not allow them to keep up with the
growing market economy (Vaughn 1929; Darrah 1942). These ideas filtered down to
early 21st century scholars, as Smith and Boyle put it: “Faced with small farms, marginal
land, an agricultural system that may have already been outdated, the farmers entering the
late-19th century in the Hector Backbone could probably do little to participate in this
new system.” (56).
In this chapter I compare the strategies between these farms that allowed them to
continually survive way up on top of the hill. This chapter will explicate that while these
farms may not have completely subscribed to “progressive” farming strategies, they still
139
were able to survive as farmers with different degrees of success through improvements
on their land and varied production. Moreover, while they all diversified their strategies,
they did so in different ways therefore it does not make sense to standardize them into a
single category. I did this because while they shared similarities there were also real
differences between them.
If these farmers fully subscribed to ideas of “progressive” farming the physical
landscape of their homes and land would have reflected advice taken from journals and
popular publications of the time. The idea of centrality, that the largest pastures, where
there would be less amount of an investment in energy, would be located furthest from
the farm buildings, was one such piece of advice (Adams 1990). The placement of
farmsteads on the Backbone sample clearly demonstrates that these farmers, for the most
part did not subscribe to ideas of centrality. For many of these individual farms it seems
that the popular idea of farmstead centrality was less important than accessibility to
roads. Out of this sample of 16 farms only five built their farmstead in an obvious central
location. The Albright and Bell farmsteads were both centrally located with farm lanes
connecting to them to main roads, the other three; the A.C. Wickham, Bement, and Lee
farmsteads were central on the farm solely because the main roads ran through the middle
of them (Figures 14, 26, and 45). The remainder of the farmers seemed more concerned
with access to main roads rather than geographic centrality. These remaining farmsteads
were located just off main roads.
So while these farms obviously did not buy into this element of “progressive”
farming advice, this did not mean that these farmers were incompetent or unable to
successfully produce. Simply because their farms were located on top of a hill it did not
140
mean their land did not have the capability to produce. First, even though these farms
were situated high in elevation, they were on relatively flat land (Figure 63). The areas
they choose to build their farmsteads on were generally the flattest sections available
(Figures: 10,12,17,20,23,26,31,35,38,42,45,48,50,54,57,60).
The flat land where most of the production actually occurred exhibit that elevation
doesn’t necessarily mean these farmers were cursed with unstable terrain. In fact, the land
Figure 63 Degree Rise for Backbone Sample
was level enough to cultivate multiple farm fields. All the farmers, except for the
occupants of the McNetton farm, created separate fields for a variety of agricultural
141
activities. These farms had evidence of multiple fields without much variance between
the sizes of the fields. According to the 1930’ ortho images, the average field size was 9.4
acres with a standard deviation of 3.7. Therefore, the difference in field size was not
excessive. The number of fields across all farms averaged 8 with a standard deviation of
4, and considering the coefficient of variation, or the variation of distribution, was 0.1,
the variability in number of fields across this sample was not substantial. All of this
suggests that the majority of the farmers had enough productive land to develop multiple
separate spaces for their production.
Most of the farms consisted of these improved fields. Only five farms had
unimproved land exceeding the improved land; the R. Henry farm and S. Dunham farm
in 1870, the S. Dunham farm in 1875, the Bell farm in 1880, and the McNetton farm
from 1870 to 1880. Nine of the sixteen farms increased their percentage of improved
farmland between 1870 and 1880, with two other farms remaining stable (Table 49).
Table 49 Percent of Acres Improved 1870 to 1880 and 1930’s (Based on Orthoimage)
Farm
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R Henry
S Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1870
70
65
70
84
89
80
70
81
80
94
63
36
44
35
70
82
1875
74
60
74
88
67
85
66
81
80
89
63
40
38
38
70
78
142
1880 1930's
75
84
76
62
74
70
88
88
38
77
75
71
62
69
74
79
82
90
94
94
75
78
48
44
53
58
65
60
70
74
80
78
The five farms that saw a decrease in improved land did not see a substantial
decrease, except for the Bell farm (Table 49). The Bell farm improved acreage dropped
from 67% to 38% however; this reduction could be due to the failing health of the Bells
in the later parts of the 1870’s. The improved land on the Bement farm was reduced by
ten acres, though between 1875 and 1880 the Bement farm experienced a occupancy
transition. However, the land that the new occupants worked on rose in value increased
by $1000 from 1875 to 1880 (Figure 29). The Creighton farm’s improved land only
decreased by two acres, and from 1850 to 1880, the cultivated land on this farm
fluctuated between 60% and 70% (Table 19). The Wickham farm also saw a reduction
from 1870 to 1880 however; the improved acres on the Wickham farm reduced much
more from 1870 to 1875 and began increase again from 1875 to 1880. The only farm that
consistently had less improved acres than unimproved was the McNetton farm, which
was the only farm in the sample that lacked a separation of fields. The lack of separate
fields and improved land suggests that something very different happened at this farm.
The McNettons had ties to the Bell family (on the Bell farm) across the street, which may
have influenced the productive behavior. John Bell’s niece Mary occupied the McNetton
farm from 1860 until her death in 1907. The familial connection in such close proximity
could have allowed the McNetton farm to exist without much improvement, value, or
extensive production.
Examination of the 1930s orthoimages shows that these farms continued to
improve their land into the early 20th century (Figure 2). Eight of the farms from this
sample had a higher percentage of improved land in the 20th century than in the late 19th
century, the improved land on only six of the sixteen farms decreased, with the most
143
significant reduction being five acres on the S. Dunham farm. The Ball and Gardner
farms remained the same, whereas the improved acreage on nine farms increased from
the late 19th century to the early 20th century (Table 49). This indicates that the potential
for increased production was still considerable on these hillside farms, into the 20th
century, an era that was commonly marked by ideas of soil depletion and a decrease in
production (Heaton 2003b).
The improvement of land did not mean that these farmers were simply not
utilizing the extent of their farms. Beside the Lee and McNetton farms, woodlots on these
farms were located on the sections of the farm with the steepest gradient (Figure 64). Use
of this non-cultivated acreage on a steeper gradient indicates further that these farmers
maximized much of their land for production. Furthermore, improved acreage was not the
only indicator of productive space, the land recorded as unimproved was not dormant but
rather productive on many of these farms. The Bell, R. Henry, and S. Dunham farms all
recorded the production of hop poles, in 1875. According to the two years in which
cordwood value was listed, each farm recorded the production of cordwood in at least
one of the two years (Table 50).
While the amount of cordwood dropped significantly from 1870 to 1880, this
could be in part from the increased improved land, as well as adjustments in production
strategies. The A. Dunham, A.C. Wickham, Albright, Ball, Dusenbury, Lee, and R.
Henry farms all showed a decrease in cordwood with the increase of improved acres.
While the reduction of resources would likely affect the production of cordwood, the
decrease may have been a conscious decision to change production.
These farms were productive units divided into fields and organized with stone
144
Table 50 Cordwood Value in Dollars 1870 and 1880
Farm
A. Dunham
A.C. Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R. Henry
S. Dunham
Smith
Wickham
Sum
1870
380
225
0
25
0
50
0
100
150
180
100
0
40
0
0
50
1300
1880
0
40
15
0
77
15
28
20
45
0
20
12
0
30
25
35
362
Figure 64 Degree Rise in Woodlots
145
Figure 65 Backbone Sample Walls
walls (Figure 65). A great deal of effort was put into constructing both property
boundaries as well as interior boundaries. Over 82,000 feet (25,000 meters) of wall was
mapped and almost 12,000 feet of these walls fell into either wall category 3, 4, or 5,
categories that represent a significant application of labor. Fourteen of the sixteen farms
constructed internal field boundaries, and roughly, 3280 feet of these interior walls fell
into wall categories 3, 4, or 5, suggesting that some of these farmers invested intensive
labor into interior walls as well as to the property boundaries. The wall construction
suggests that these farms were viable for production; otherwise, why would they expend
energy constructing unnecessary boundaries. Only two farms, the Dusenbury and
McNetton, did not have interior walls. According to the 1930’s orthoimage, the
146
McNetton farm had only one field supporting the idea that farm boundaries may not have
been necessary (Figure 48). According to the 1930’s ortho images, the Dusenbury farm
contained a farm lane running east-west through the center (Figure 42). The orthoimages
also show that the Dusenbury farm had what looks like separate fields; however, in 2011
when this farm was mapped no interior walls were found. Their fields may have been
delineated by hedgerows and barbed wire that was not identified during survey. The
remainder of the farms on the Backbone sample had extensive interior wall construction.
After measuring a sample based on my wall categories, some of these farms had interior
walls of substantial construction. 75 years after abandonment, the Bement farm still had
almost 1300 feet (almost 400 meters) of wall that fall into wall category 3 (Figure 28),
built to one foot above the ground (Figure 5). The Albright farm had about 360 feet (110
meters) that fall into category 4 (Figure 19). This investment in interior boundaries
suggests that the farmers on the Backbone were not slovenly and un-systematic. In fact,
most of them devoted rigorous energy into organizing their fields and boundaries.
Every single farm from the Backbone sample demarcated their property
boundaries with stone walls and either woodlots or roads (Figure 65) defined the areas
along the property lines, that did not have them. There was considerable effort placed in
the construction of some of these external walls. Both the Bement and the A.C. Wickham
farms had vast amount of wall that fall into wall category 3 (Figure 66). The Bement
farm had well over 2000 feet falling into this category. The Albright, Ball, Bement,
Dunham, and Smith farm have evidence of category 4 walls, and the S. Dunham and
Wickham farms have evidence of category 5 walls. The walls that fall into these
categories are astonishing in so much that the impressive construction remains after all
147
these years.
Figure 66 Walls on A.C. Wickham and Bement
According to the 1880 agricultural schedule ten farms from the Backbone sample
invested in fences, amounting to $277 in total. During archaeological investigations
barbed wire was found on eleven out of the sixteen farms (Table 51). This addition
suggests that these farms continued to invest into the organization of their productive
land into the late 19th century. Over 3500 feet of barbed wire was found on the Albright
farm, over 2700 feet was mapped on the Wickham farm, and over 2100 feet was mapped
on the S. Dunham farm. This indicates that investments in boundaries continued into the
later part of the 19th and 20th centuries. Bourcier (1984) stated that fence construction
148
Table 51 Farms with Barbed Wire
FARMS
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R Henry
S Dunham
Smith
Wickham
Presence of Wire
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
indicated a desire for commercial production and ideas of private property that goes
along with it. Alternatively, he suggests that fencing is perhaps reconciliation between
agrarianism and capitalism; it represents the farmer’s independence as well as protects
his/her products of labor (Bourcier 1984). Whether these ideas apply to the farmers on
the Backbone, I really cannot be sure. However, the amount of barbed wire found on
these farms suggests that it was not an idiosyncratic practice but rather an approach to
boundary maintenance that was popular on the Backbone. These walls suggest that
substantial effort went into arranging and organizing the fields for production and
intimate aspirations for permanence (Adams 1990).
Effort expended towards maintaining these farms was further indicated by the
repair, maintenance, and additions on most of these farms. Evidence for the construction
of additions suggests that the Backbone farmers were invested in maintaining their
farmsteads. Twelve of the sixteen farms constructed additions to their farmhouses (Table
149
52). Moreover, there were houses built on the Albright, Dunham, Lee, and R. Henry
farms after the initial occupations. These farmers built homes, lived, produced, and
obtained the means to improve their material existence. Furthermore, the Albrights, Bells,
Lees, and Wickhams all rebuilt barns. While it makes sense as a barn is integral to a farm
it also speaks to the ideas of permanence and desire to stay into the late 19th century.
These farmers not only invested energy and labor in the construction of their boundaries,
both property and internal fields, but they also invested time and money into maintenance
of their properties. The maintenance is indicative of the farmers’ dedication to managing
their farms.
Table 52 Farmstead Additions
FARM
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R Henry
S Dunham
Smith
Wickham
ADDITIONS
House Addition
House Addition
House Addition
Garage
Two house additions
No
No
Two house additions
House Addition
House/Barn additons
House/Garage
No
Second house
Porch/Ell
Two house additions
House Addition/New Barn
These farmers also invested in machinery. In 1870, all sixteen farms invested in
machinery (Table 53). Six of these farms spent more on machinery in 1870 than any
other year, the Smith’s spent more in 1875 and seven of these farms increased their
150
Table 53 Machine Value
Farms
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R Henry
S Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1865
0
50
0
60
0
0
100
0
200
0
150
0
0
0
0
0
1870
150
200
100
150
150
200
225
300
200
100
100
10
40
100
150
250
1875
0
0
0
0
0
100
125
100
50
100
50
0
50
300
264
250
1880
330
0
100
40
50
75
135
25
0
120
250
15
90
500
30
270
machine value into 1880. While this may not indicate that they were necessarily
innovative it does suggest that they were not adverse to using farming technologies of the
time.
In addition to machinery, these farmers also invested in paid labor during the late
19th century. In 1870 all sixteen farms paid for labor, some invested an impressive
amount (Table 54). The Albrights, Bements, Creightons, McNishs (Dunham farm),
Gardners, Lees, and Wickhams all spent a substantial amount on labor in 1870. This
illustrates the importance of wage labor to these farmers in the later part of the 19th
century when dominate narratives of this area separates them from capitalism. In 1880,
the Dunhams (A. Dunham farm), and the Wickhams continue to spend an excessive
amount on labor, however the remainder of the farms reduced the amount of paid labor to
nothing in most cases (Table 54). If we were to subscribe to a taxonomy that separates
151
capitalist behavior from non-capitalist behavior this labor drop off from 1870 to 1880
makes it seem that most of these farms were capitalist in 1870 and not in 1880.
Table 54 Paid Labor on Each Backbone Farm
Farm
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R.Henry
S.Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1870
55
125
25
15
30
200
110
250
20
100
200
20
25
10
40
250
1880
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
164
The farmers on the Backbone produced a variety of different crops through the
late 19th century (Table 55) as well as livestock and livestock byproducts (Table 56).
Changes in production suggest that other forces, such as changes in consumption patterns
or cheaper grains from other geographic area forced these farmers to adjust their
strategies.
Charles Wickham’s diaries from the late 19th century indicates that he regularly
traded eggs and butter in stores in Burdett and Watkins Glen, while products such as
wool, apples, and potatoes were sold through brokers in Philadelphia as well as other
cities. According to the agricultural schedules, every farm from the sample produced
butter and eggs. Butter production overall rose in 1865 and it was produced at the highest
152
amount and by all farms that year (Table 57). Egg production rose from almost nothing
across the sample to seemingly becoming a staple between 1865 and 1875 (Table 58).
Table 55 Variety (and Bushels) of Grains Produced on the Backbone Sample 1865-1880
FARM
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R Henry
S Dunham
Smith
Wickham
Totals Per Year
1865
1870
7 (1216)
5(790)
7 (1304)
7 (842)
5 (194.5)
7 (1585)
8 (647)
3 (445)
7 (640)
6 (431)
8 (805)
4 (857)
8 (1475)
6 (443)
7 (595)
8 (891)
6 (470)
8 (425)
5 (662)
2 (57)
5 (220)
6 (318)
5 (465)
5 (775)
6 (321)
6 (725)
6 (1143)
54 (5505.5) 109 (13236)
1875
9 (1159)
6 (1008)
6 (570)
5 (200)
6 (623)
4 (766)
7 (545)
5 (505)
6 (682)
5 (318)
4 (307)
5 (292)
6 (314)
7 (308)
5 (244)
7 (1070)
93 (8911)
1880
4 (931)
6(848)
7 (691)
4 (88)
7 (330)
6 (525)
7 (416)
3 (960)
6 (565)
4 (208)
5 (253)
2 (104)
2 (122)
4 (178)
6 (310)
7 (658)
80 (7187)
Table 56 Variety of Livestock on the Backbone Sample 1865-1880
Farm
A Dunham
AC Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R Henry
S Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1865
4
4
6
5
1
4
4
7
5
3
5
4
8
1870
3
5
3
3
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
3
5
4
3
5
153
1875
7
6
6
3
6
5
7
5
4
4
4
5
6
5
3
7
1880
6
7
3
4
6
7
6
6
7
7
6
6
2
7
2
6
Table 57 Pounds of Butter Produced on Hector Backbone Farm Sample
Farm
A. Dunham
A.C. Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R. Henry
S. Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1850
0
100
0
100
0
0
400
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
250
540
1855
0
90
0
150
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1860
0
150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1865
0
300
0
110
0
141
199
482
370
0
300
0
0
300
490
500
1870
200
400
150
300
200
300
200
600
500
200
500
300
300
250
400
300
1875
0
400
300
0
300
0
200
400
400
150
100
150
200
300
350
600
Table 58 Egg Production on Hector Backbone Farm Sample
Farm
A. Dunham
A.C. Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R. Henry
S. Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1865
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$12
0
0
$5
1875
$0
$4
$5
$30
$10
$0
$20
$5
$40
$5
$0
$25
$19
$5
$20
$0
1880
200 Doz.
150 Doz.
300 Doz.
150 Doz.
100 Doz.
230 Doz.
250 Doz.
75 Doz.
250 Doz.
2 Doz.
50 Doz.
300 Doz.
200 Doz.
175 Doz.
50 Doz.
400 Doz.
This production of butter and eggs suggests that the Wickhams were not the only family
producing for the local markets. Other farms in addition to the Wickham farm produced
apples and potatoes that, as Charles Wickham stated, were sold to the larger markets. The
154
1880
200
400
400
250
200
250
250
150
600
150
300
300
300
200
0
400
A. Dunham, Bell, Bement, Dusenbury, McNetton, S. Dunham, and Smith farms all
increased their potato production after 1870 (Tables 2, 14, 17, 26, 35, 41, and 44). Every
farm from this sample contained apple trees at one time or another. In 1875, the
Dusenbury, Lee, S. Dunham, and Wickham farms all had 100 apple trees. Therefore,
these farms were producing these goods to be sold at the larger markets.
These farms also produced wool at one time or another between 1850 and 1880.
The Wickham farm had 155 sheep on their farm in 1855 (Table 48) and produced 450
pounds of wool that year (Table 59). Wool production on the Wickham, Smith,
Dusenbury, and Creighton farms, decreased substantially after 1865. This decrease
suggests that they were producing wool to replace the cotton supply disrupted by the war.
The Watkins Express from April of 1865 states that the U.S. was experiencing a decline
in the value of wool and many of the Backbone farms thus shifted away from wool
production. However, some farmers continued to produce it especially into the later parts
of the 19th century (Table 59).
Charles Wickham’s diary mentioned that he produced a wide variety of grains and
grasses to sell and trade with neighbors, as well as in the regional market. The
diversification of grains was not isolated to the Wickham farm, all sixteen of the farms
from the sample varied grain production.
Furthermore, in the later part of the 19th century, one fourth of all barley raised in
New York State came from the four counties closest to Seneca Lake, the lake
immediately west of Hector NY (Bell 1990). Farms from the Hector Backbone sample
produced barley throughout the second half of the 19th century (Table 60). In fact,
Charles Wickham regularly won prizes at the county fair for the barley he produced.
155
Table 59 Pounds of Wool Produced on the Hector Backbone Sample
Farm
A. Dunham
A.C. Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R. Henry
S. Dunham
Smith
Wickham
1850
0
60
0
20
0
0
80
0
0
0
170
0
0
0
100
90
1855
0
96
0
18
160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
450
1860
1865
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
0
0
0
116
164
0
264
0 100 in '64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
148
400
400
1870
0
100
37
118
0
100
100
240
0
0
0
0
40
100
60
150
1875
0
375
0
0
72
0
35
0
0
0
0
40
50
7
0
49
1880
175
276
0
0
80
681
60
200
71
102
35
50
0
220
0
0
Barley would have gone to the malt houses and sent out through the Northern Central
Railway (Bell 1990).The massive increase in barley production after 1870, along with the
active malt factories nearby (Bell 2005), supports the idea that these farmers were
producing for larger markets and shifting production as specific opportunities became
available.
While these farms shifted their productive strategies in order maintain success
during this period of transition, they did not all adjust in the same way. Nine of these
farms decreased their total number of grain bushels (Table 55) and increased the number
of livestock between 1870 and 1880 (Table 56). However, the A.C. Wickham, Creighton,
and Dusenbury Farms maintained the same variety of grains (Tables 5, 20, 26), the Bell
and Bement Farms increased the variety of grains during this time (Tables 14 and 17).
Conversely, different patterns occurred on other farms. The Albright, Dunham, and Smith
Farms all increased the number of bushels in 1880 (Table 55) the Smith Farm decreased
156
Table 60 Bushels of Barley Produced on the Hector Backbone Sample
Farm
A. Dunham
A.C. Wickham
Albright
Ball
Bell
Bement
Creighton
Dunham
Dusenbury
Gardner
Lee
McNetton
R. Henry
S. Dunham
Smith
Wickham
Sum
1850
0
30
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
45
110
1855
0
24
0
0
70
0
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
234
1865
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
45
1870
375
200
0
0
0
0
125
200
115
90
50
0
0
45
45
300
1545
1875
425
350
0
0
25
400
40
0
200
63
0
60
0
12
0
300
1875
1880
500
500
123
35
100
160
200
0
250
50
100
0
112
65
100
241
2536
the amount of livestock (Table 45). While the number of grain bushels increased on the
Dunham Farm, the variety decreased (Table 23). On the R. Henry farm the number of
both grain and livestock decreased by 1880 (Tables 38 and 39). The types of livestock
and grain varied from farm to farm as well.
In order to focus the lens to see this variation of productive strategies between the
farms more clearly I will use some specific examples. The A. Dunham, Albright, Bement,
and Dunham Farms all produced well over 100 bushels of oats in 1880 (Tables 2,8,17,23)
whereas the A.C. Wickham, Ball, McNetton, R. Henry, and S. Dunham Farms produced
none (Tables 5, 11, 35, 38, 41). While 12 farms increased their barley production in 1880,
the Dunham, Gardner, McNetton, Wickham Farms either decreased their barley or did
not produce it at all (Table 60). In 1875 the S. Dunham Farm produced a mass amount of
fruit including strawberries, 5000 lbs of grapes in addition to 100 apple trees and 600
157
peach trees. That same year no other farm in the sample listed peaches, grapes, or
strawberries. Staying with that same year only the Gardner and Wickham Farms listed
clover seeds, the Bell and Dunham Farms produced beans, and the McNetton Farm was
the only to produce honey and beeswax. In 1880 the Bement Farm recorded Peaches, the
Albright, Creighton, and Dunham Farms listed clover seeds, the Bement and Gardner
Farms produced beans, and no one listed honey or beeswax.
The Dusenbury Farm raised 64 sheep and 65 lambs in 1865 (Table 27), and
decreased this to 15 and 1 respectively by 1880, whereas the A. Dunham Farm increased
their sheep and lamb production from nothing in 1870 to 29 and 15 respectively in 1880
(Table 3).
It may make sense that these farms used different production strategies since they
were dynamic in their own ways. These were all small-scale farms; their sizes varied
from 25 acres to over 100. I wanted to see if size may have influenced the different
productive behaviors, and while there may have been certain behaviors attributed to farm
size it did not seem to dramatically impact the productive behaviors discussed above. In
order to control for the variances in size I broke the farms into three arbitrary categories;
farms with 100 acres or more, farms with 100 to 75 acres, and farms with less than 75
acres. With regard to the only three farms that increased the number of grain bushels in
1880; the Dunham farm had 130 acres, the Albright Farm had 95, and the Smith Farm
had 50. Of the four farms that did not increase or produce barley in 1880, the Dunham
Farm had 130 acres, the Wickham Farm had 115, the Gardner Farm had 50, and the
McNetton Farm had 25.
158
I also used these size categories to understand if the size of these farms had
anything to do with their value. I divided the sample of farms on the Hector Backbone
into these categories based on their size in 1870, the year most of these farms had the
highest value. While “common sense” would dictate that the larger the farm the higher
the value, as bigger is usually seen as better in the eyes of conventional wisdom, the data
here shows that the farms between 75 and 100, not the farms over 100 acres actually had
more value per acre (Table 61). The data also shows that the average value between the
farms with over 100 acres and the farms with less than 75 acres is not that great. All these
farms, regardless of size emphasized diversity, and varied their production in different
ways.
The value of most of these farms dropped after 1870 (Figures 15, 19, 22, 25, 29,
Table 61 Value Per Acre Farms 1870
Farm
Dunham
Lee
Wickham
A. Dunham
Albright
Bement
Creighton
S. Dunham
A.C. Wickham
Average 100 Acres or More
Bell
Dusenbury
R. Henry
Average 75 to 100 Acres
Gardner
Smith
Ball
McNetton
Average Less than 75 Acres
Acreage Value
Value per acre
130
6000
46
128
5000
39
109
6000
55
103
4000
39
100
3000
30
100
5000
50
100
5000
50
100
6000
60
100
4000
40
108
4889
45
95
4000
42
88
8000
91
80
3200
40
88
5067
58
53
2000
38
50
3000
60
25
1200
48
25
700
28
43
1725
44
159
34, 37, 40, 44, 47, 52, 56, 60), with the exception of the McNetton Farm which rose from
1870 to 1875 (Figure 49), and the Wickham Farm which dropped from 1870 to 1875 but
rose again in 1880 (Figure 62). Since most of these farms experienced a drop in value
after 1870, regardless of the variety of production strategies between them it makes sense
that larger forces were responsible for the decline.
Discussion of Community Scale
The data I have presented her make it clear that the farmers on the Backbone
engaged in a variety of productive behaviors. Even though some of these behaviors were
similar across the sample, these farms were quite different from each other as well.
Varying productive strategies sustained these farms and allowed the farmers’ relative
scales of success, though to say they were all the same or were capitalist or non-capitalist
would be misleading.
An example of this confusion exists with the use of wage labor on the Backbone
sample. Common definitions of capitalism focus on the presence of wage labor. The
ubiquitous use of labor for 1870 suggests that they would all be considered capitalist.
Given the lack of paid labor ten years later would we argue that they stopped being
capitalist? In addition to wage labor, the value of machinery is considered indicative of
capitalist behavior through technologies that aid in production efficiency. These farmers
on the Backbone invested in machinery during the 19th century; however, this does not
always jibe with “common sense” ideas of capitalism. Modern Amish societies
intentionally chose high levels of technologies considering it advantageous to production
160
(Heasley 2005:111). Amish communities do not always maintain the front lines when it
comes to conventional wisdom with regard to capitalism.
Labor and machinery may have been important to the farmers on the Backbone,
as suggested by the investments in both categories. However, the reduction of both in a
“common sense” notion would suggest that these farmers were fluctuating between
capitalist and non-capitalist behaviors. The problem here is inherent in the classifications
and the way it mixes scales. At the individual level, these simple criteria make “no
sense.”
What is clear is that the farmers on the Backbone improved their land to produce
a complicated mix of crops for both local and regional markets. The Wickham diaries
show that butter and eggs were traded in stores in nearby towns such as Burdett and
Watkins Glen, while products such as wool, apples, and potatoes were sold through
brokers in Philadelphia and elsewhere. All the farms in the sample recorded butter and
eggs at least one year of the agricultural schedules from 1850 to 1880 (Tables 57 and 58).
All the farms from this sample engaged in wool production at some point, produced a
surplus of apples and used a great variety of grains and grasses on their farms, selling
them through local and regional markets. The massive amounts and variety of grains
(Table 55) indicate the effort that was put into production for both domestic use and
market sale.
Not all these strategies were uniformly shared by all the farms. While many farms
increased certain types of production as the 19th century advanced, others did not as
illustrated by barley (Table 58), and the production of sheep and lambs on the A.
Dunham and Dusenbury Farms.
161
Ultimately, the data suggests that these farmers organized their land in efficient
ways to maximize productivity, and adjusted productivity in different ways in order to
find success. While these farmers were dealing with markets and factors such as
investment in technologies and wage labor, they certainly would not be considered
“fully” capitalist through a “common sense” perspective. However, the capitalist market
would have heavily affected these farmers and it makes “no sense” to exclude them and
put them into a category outside of the system. Furthermore, to categorically place them
outside capitalism assumes that they all produced and behaved in the same way. While
the data presented here suggests otherwise, they were still collectively marginalized. So
in order to see why these farms was marginalized we need to compare them to others in
the town to see if their production varied from other areas that were not so marginalized.
The Backbone community is one scale in the larger web of relations that make up
the social-economic fabric of their society. While there are many scales that make up the
fabric of the dialectic totality comprehensively discussing them all would be too
expansive for a thesis, or perhaps a book for that matter. However, comparing the
productive behavior of the Backbone sample to the rest of the town is possible and can
help us understand the differences in production between the town scale, and the hillside
farms.
The Town Level
The historical and archaeological evidence of the farmers across the sample on the
Hector Backbone evinces that the majority of the farmers diversified their production and
were, at times doing so successfully. Yet in the 20th century, these farms were seen as
162
unable to produce efficiently and ultimately marginalized in the annals of agriculture.
The upland farming communities were viewed as areas that could or would not produce
the way the lowland farming communities could. However, analysis comparing the
farmers from the Backbone sample to the rest of the town of Hector in the mid to late 19th
century shows the difference was perhaps more negligible than the wholesale and
simplistic categorization of capitalist or non-capitalist suggests.
The variety of products cultivated on the farms on the Hector Backbone included
barley, buckwheat, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, and wheat. The Ball, Bell, Dusenbury, Lee,
Smith, and Wickham farms produced rye at one time or another. According to the
agricultural schedules, the farms on the Backbone were not the only farm in Hector to
cultivate these varieties of products (Table 62). Table 61 shows the percentage of farms
in the entire town that grew these crops. Over 50% of the total farms in Hector produced
barley, corn, hay, oats, and potatoes.
Table 62 Crops in Hector NY 1865, 1870, 1875, 1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Area
Hector Backbone Hector
Backbone Hector Backbone Hector Backbone
Barley
41%
15%
71%
63%
58%
63%
76%
88%
Buckwheat
48%
62%
60%
75%
44%
81%
36%
50%
Corn
61%
62%
72%
81%
66%
56%
64%
56%
Hay
78%
77%
93%
94%
84%
100%
92%
100%
Oats
73%
77%
82%
100%
76%
94%
61%
69%
Rye
2%
0%
7%
25%
5%
1%
11%
1%
Potatoes
71%
69%
92%
100%
74%
88%
76%
81%
Wheat
66%
54%
93%
100%
78%
88%
70%
44%
Total Farms
771
12
705
16
752
16
201
16
In addition to grains and potatoes, cordwood was also a common product
throughout Hector as well as on the Backbone sample. In 1870, ten of the sixteen farms
163
of the Backbone sample produced cordwood, and according to the same agricultural
schedule, 78% of the total farms in Hector produced cordwood. In other words,
diversified farming seen on the Hector Backbone is reproduced in the larger town data.
Throughout the town of Hector, farms also diversified their livestock holdings.
The farmers in the Backbone sample varied the types of livestock they raised from the
mid to late 19th century. While the livestock varied, animals such as cows, horses, and
sheep remained fairly consistent through all four census years (Table 63). This pattern
held true throughout the town of Hector during these years (Table 63). Furthermore, in
1870 there was a decrease in livestock through the town of Hector, including the
Backbone sample (Table 63).
The average farm size of the Backbone sample and the total farms in Hector did
not vary significantly (Table 64). However, the small sample size and the inclusion of
smaller farms such as the Ball Farm would have affected the analysis. Regardless the
town of Hector only had 17 more average total acres than the Backbone sample from1865
and 1880 (Table 64). More importantly, the average amount of improved land across
Table 63 Percentage of Various Livestock in Hector New York 1865-1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Area
Hector Backbone Hector Backbone Hector Backbone Hector Backbone
Bulls
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
56%
0%
0%
Calves
67%
81%
0%
0%
48%
56%
73%
88%
Colts
25%
1%
0%
0%
25%
44%
0%
0%
Cows
84%
91%
95%
100%
83%
94%
88%
94%
Horses
76%
100%
90%
94%
84%
100%
87%
100%
Lambs
53%
64%
0%
0%
34%
38%
38%
69%
Mules
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
Other Cattle
51%
55%
75%
81%
0%
0%
64%
69%
Oxen
10%
18%
9%
1%
35%
38%
1%
1%
164
both samples always exceeded the unimproved between 1865 and 1880 (Tables 64 and
65). Furthermore, the average amount total land per farm on the Backbone sample
dropped from 114 in 1875 to 97 in 1880, while the improved land increased (Table 65).
At the same time the average total farm size for the town increased by 48 acres yet the
average improved land remained the same at 66 acres (Tables 64 and 65). This suggests
that while the amount of land was decreasing on the Backbone sample into the later 19th
century, the capability of improved acres was still comparable to the remainder of the
town.
Table 64 Average Farm Size 1865-1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Town of Hector Backbone Sample
108
94
106
97
109
114
148
97
Table 65 Average Improved Acres Per Farms 1865-1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Town of Hector Backbone Sample
85
58
69
61
66
60
66
65
Table 66 Average Farm Values 1865-1880
Year
1865
1870
1875
1880
Town of Hector Backbone Sample
$4,193
$3,652
$6,299
$4,069
$5,063
$2,805
$4,166
$2,398
It is also revealing to compare the farm values. The farm values for the entire
town including the Backbone sample increased in 1870, and then began to decrease into
165
the later part of the 19th century. While the average farm value from the Backbone sample
was less than the average farm value throughout the town, the overall trend remains the
same. This suggests that the decrease may be related to larger scale forces of momentary
standards and markets then attributes of the land itself. The Backbone farms had slightly
lower values, but this is not surprising since they were on average slightly smaller.
Investment in machinery and labor are hallmarks of a capitalist enterprise both of
which are present in the Backbone sample. It is useful to compare their usage to the entire
town (Tables 67 and 68). Investment in machinery was high in all four censuses for the
town of Hector (Table 67). The large disparity between the town and the Backbone
Table 67 Investment and Percentage of Farms with Machinery in Hector
Sample
Hector
Backbone
Hector
Backbone
Year
Percentage of Farms
Percentage of Farms
Average Investment
Average Investment
1865
73%
45%
$189
$116
1870
90%
100%
$241
$148
1875
82%
63%
$203
$144
1880
82%
85%
$241
$147
Table 68 Investment of Labor in Hector New York 1870, 1880
Sample
Hector
Hector
Backbone
Backbone
Year
Percentage of Farms
Average Cost
Percentage of Farms
Average Cost
1870
89%
$237
100%
$92
1880
38%
$29
25%
$98
sample in 1865 was attributed to the fact that many of these farms were established
later into the 19th century. Seven of these farms were established in the 1860’s and four
more were established during the 1850’s. So when compared to the Backbone sample the
percentages were similar in 1870 and 1880. In fact, the Backbone farmers had a higher
percentage in these two years, even though there was a substantially smaller sample on
the Backbone compared with the entire town. Analysis of the average investment of
166
machinery between the town and the Backbone should consider sample size as well.
While the average investment is higher every year for the town of Hector, there were
many more farms than on the Backbone; some of these farms were bigger and worth
more. However, we should not discount how much the Backbone farmers invested in
machinery.
The cost of labor was also similar between the town and the Backbone sample
(Table 68). While there was less money on average spent in labor on the Backbone only
in 1870, the consideration of fewer farms would have been a factor. The percentage of
farms paying for labor decreased dramatically for both samples for 1880. This suggests a
more general phenomenon of census reporting. Interestingly, the Backbone sample
actually had a higher average labor cost than the town in total. Therefore the importance
of wage labor mattered just as much on the hill as it did throughout Hector.
Discussion of the Town Scale
Analysis of crop production and farm value indicates that the majority of farms
from the Backbone sample experienced similar trends as the town of Hector. The
Backbone sample and the entire town produced various grains as well as other products
such as cordwood and potatoes. Crops such as barley, corn, hay, oats, and potatoes were
prevalent on the majority of farms in the town including those farms on the Backbone.
Data from the livestock production explicates that the Backbone sample exhibited very
similar patterns in the specific types of livestock as well as fluctuations in the overall
amount of focus put on livestock production.
167
According to the agricultural schedules, the Backbone sample and the town of
Hector displayed the same patterns of labor and machinery investments. This suggests
that while the hilltop farms were categorized as unwilling or unable to engage in the
growing capitalist system, they displayed at least two hallmarks of capitalist behavior
similar to the remainder of the town.
The farms across Hector in the mid to late 19th century, including the Backbone
community had more improved land for cultivation of these crops than unimproved.
Therefore, the Backbone community utilized as much of their land for production as their
neighbors throughout the town. Furthermore, on average the total average farm size was
not significantly different up on the Backbone than it was throughout the town (Table
64). The farm values also show similar trends on the Backbone as it did throughout the
town. Both samples experienced a decrease in value as the century advanced. Yet the
farms on the Backbone were still seen as less valuable and less viable in this era of
transition.
The Backbone farms were written off as unable or unwilling to keep up with the
growing capitalist system, labeled “problem farms,” and purchased by the Federal
Government in an effort to “aid” these farms since they couldn’t help themselves. These
farms were then marginalized in historical literature, written into history as farms that
couldn’t succeed within a capitalist system and needed outside help. Yet all of this data
suggests that these farms were similar to the rest of the town. They largely shared similar
productive strategies, and while the strategies are not parallel with each other exactly,
patterns in the data suggest they worked alike within similar situations.
168
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The Hector Backbone farmers were marginalized in historical literature of the
early and mid 20th century and viewed as unwilling or unable to keep up with the
dynamics of capitalism. The roots of this argument was forged in the belief that the land
they lived and worked upon was of poor quality, too poor to accommodate mechanization
(Darah 1942; Fippin 1921; Foote, et al 1944; Gates 1969). Archaeological investigations
in the 1990’s and early 2000’s continued this legacy by maintaining that these farms fell
into non-progressive, non-capitalist categories (Delle, Boyle, and Cuddy 2003;
Heaton1998, 2003a, 2003b). The categorization of these farms is not isolated scholarship
since questions of when, where or if capitalism existed in rural America have been
discussed for decades (Clark 1990; Henretta 1978; Kulikoff 1992 Mann 1990; Mann and
Dickinson 1978; Wood 2000). However, a nuanced analysis of productive behaviors can
help us understand what these farmers were actually doing and help us steer away from
gross homogenizations that simple categorizations create.
The majority of the farmers on the Hector Backbone in the late 19th century
invested time, labor, and energy into considerable wall construction, additions, and
improvements to structures such as barns, houses, garages, drilled wells, barbed wire, and
land cultivation. They also arranged their farms for accessibility to main roads. These
investments resulted, in part, in the organization of the farms for production. The land
they produced on was also quite flat, with only a slight rise in degrees from flat terrain.
Most of this land was improved and demarcated fields were created. Furthermore, the
169
unimproved land was used for production as seen in the value of cordwood. These factors
speak to the effort these farmers invested in their land. These farmers utilized this land
through a variety of productive strategies that mixed grains, fruits, potatoes, livestock, as
well as other products. My analysis has also demonstrated that these farmers’ strategies
were just like all the others across the town.
So why is it these farms were marginalized and considered non-capitalist and the
rest of the town was viewed as “progressive?” While I showed that the types of
diversified production differed at the community scale this area was still grossly
homogenized into a category with characteristics seen as antithetical to capitalist
behavior. If we are going to lump them together simplistically it should be noted that
evidence demonstrates that both areas were characterized by diversified production that
may not fall into our common sense notion of capitalist production.
Firstly, this could be a product of historical literature such as seen in Mann and
Dickinson (1978) which posits capitalism can’t really develop in an agrarian setting.
Some arguments rooted in debates over definitions of capitalism push agricultural
production completely outside of the system. In this estimation, capitalism cannot
develop in agriculture because of long periods of time when labor is not applied. Since
only labor produces surplus value or profit, these long “fallow” periods make capitalist
agriculture impossible. While fundamentally true, their approach fails to recognize or
account for the full range of productive tasks that farmers engaged in. Mixed husbandry
takes a careful balance and integration of diverse crops and livestock (Donahue 2004).
The application of a Marxist dialectical approach, where the relationships of famers, their
170
land, what the produce, and the use of the market elucidates clearly the actual behaviors
that occurs versus simply homogenizing groups into discrete categories.
Mann and Dickinson (1978) mention the single annual turnover (or period from
its beginning stage to its finished stage where it is marketable), of wheat farming
specifically, as a form of commodity which would produce less surplus value than a
commodity which can be turned over a number of times a year. However, by definition,
diversified farms are based on a series of crops and they do not rely on long fallow
periods (Donahue 2004). The farms on the Backbone produced goods that did indeed
have an annual turnover however; these farms invested time, labor, and money in many
crops that required labor at different, staggered, periods of time. The agricultural
schedules list a variety of products on these farms including: spring wheat, usually
planted in April and harvested in August; winter wheat ,usually planted in September and
harvested in July; barley which can be planted in the spring or the winter; potatoes,
usually planted after the final frost and can be harvested after 10 weeks, and cordwood.
Mann and Dickinson’s thesis of the long fallow period of the application of labor as an
obstacle to the development of capitalist agriculture only makes sense for farms that were
mono-cropping. These farms on the Backbone were diversified to produce a range of
crops and other goods that resulted in the constant application of labor to production. So
while these farms did constantly apply labor to production they are still seen as outside of
capitalism.
“Common sense” ideas of categories and definitions place smaller diversified
farms out of capitalism reach as they separate them from market relations, wage labor
relations, and investment in contemporary technologies that aid in efficient production.
171
With this in mind perhaps these “smaller” farms up on the Backbone were seen as units
that were primarily self sufficient, rarely affecting the markets where capitalism thrives?
The application of a Marxist dialectical approach can help us see the error in this
assumption since it elucidates the actual behaviors of famers with regard to their
relationships to the land and the use of the market, versus simply homogenizing groups
into discrete categories. This approach helps us understand that market relations, the use
of wage labor, and investment in technologies actually existed on farms that have been
categorized as non-capitalist.
Maintaining varied production in a capitalist society was and still is a reality.
Carefully balanced and integrated diversified productive strategies across a varied
landscape would not rely on long fallow periods and could be sustainable (Donahue
2004: xv). The farmers on the Backbone, not unlike the farms in the community that
surrounded them, integrated diversified productive strategies, as well as invested time in
the organization of the land, paid money for labor, and crops. These farmers also had a
relationship with different markets. They cultivated and sold products such as butter and
eggs in local stores in Burdett and Watkins Glenn, as well as apples and potatoes in larger
markets in areas like Philadelphia.
Henderson (1998: 77), following Marx, posits that some of the commodities that
enter the market do so as an unfinished circuit, commodities that can be used as the
means of production even if the source of the initial production may be seen as outside
relations of capitalist social production, enter the market and act as capitalist commodity
production. This can be seen on the Backbone through commodities such as barley,
which was vital for the brewing industry, and wool which would be sent to textile
172
factories. Regardless of whether the initial production falls into “common sense” ideas of
capitalism the goods produced are transformed into the exploitative relations that define
capitalism itself. Therefore, these farmers were contributory and, again, part of capitalist
relations in various forms.
These hilltop farms have been portrayed as struggling to maintain production.
Some historians have laid the blame on the farmers themselves faulting them for the
unwillingness or inability to adapt to contemporary farming strategies, as well as trying to
produce on a harsh non-productive landscape. However, through this work I have hoped
to contribute to the ideas that an inability to adapt and a poor choice of farmland were
negligible to their marginalization. Furthermore, seeing how they produced in a similar
fashion to the rest of the town suggests that larger forces were likely more important
contributors to the marginalization of this area. Change in production occurred at many
scales during this period. Advanced technologies came in other forms than farm
machinery and included railroads and canals which reduced the cost of transport
(Redman and Foster 2008), making export easier and affected the farmers’ abilities to sell
at the market. The overall industrialization of the country attracted younger generations
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, drawing them from rural areas into the cities
(Parkerson 1995). This can be seen in the Backbone sample since Isaac Albright’s son
John left the farm to pursue work at Shepard and Crane Company. In fact, changes in
household dynamics and availability of labor facilitated the process of abandonment (see
Conklin 2010). As out migration intensified, it may have become easy to say that these
farms were not keeping up with, or cut out for a capitalist production. However, the
analysis put forward here shows that the farmers were productive; utilizing a strategy of
173
mixed husbandry and the land they lived on was certainly not an impediment to their
production. They also followed similar strategies as the rest of the town. While they
certainly were not what we would see as capitalist through a “common sense” lens, the
data suggests that they were capable of maintaining their farming endeavors and
continually improved their farms.
The agrarian transition during the 19th and early 20th centuries changed the way
America produced as well as the way certain types of production was viewed. From this
vantage point we can see that categories that homogenized farmers as capitalist or noncapitalist were created as well; this position is much too simplistic; it makes “no sense” to
simplify these farms into discrete categories, and it really does not matter how capitalist
or not they were. We need to understand what they were actually doing and not just
consign them to a romanticized landscape with little need for outside markets, or view
them as progressive machine likened to a pastoral assembly line gravitating towards large
specialized production. If we first see what they were actually doing then perhaps we can
infer why they actually doing it. “Common sense” ideas position certain types of
production outside of capitalism, positioning the farmer, especially the hilltop farmer,
idealistically as a relic that maintained a distance from the smoggy hustle of the city.
Though I hope that “good sense” can help us remember that Thoreau’s cabin was just on
the edge of town.
“Common sense” dictates that farming areas like the Hector Backbone were
antithetical to capitalism. However, the data presented in this thesis supports the idea that
these farms conflicted with mechanics of capitalism makes “no sense.” Therefore, studies
such as this explicate why these areas in particular are positioned the way they are
174
through a “common sense” lens. This is important because only through studies based on
the actual behaviors of individual farmers and individual areas can we understand why
certain areas are privileged over others and help us confront “common sense” with “good
sense.”
175
BIBILOGRAPHY
Adams, William Hampton
1990 Landscape Archaeology, Landscape History, and the American Farmstead.
Historical Archaeology, 24(4): 92-101
Allen, William
1925 The Utilization of Marginal and Sub-Marginal Hill Farm Land, Cornell
University.
Appadurai, Arjun
1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Ashmore, Wendy and A. Bernard Knapp, ed.
1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Malden,
Massachusetts and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Barron, Hal S.
1997 Mixed Harvest: The Second Great Transformation in the Rural North 18701930. Chapel Hill and London: The University Of North Carolina Press.
Bell, Barbra
1990 The Davis Malt House. The Schuyler County Historical Society 26(3).
Bell, Barbara
2005 Crops Change with the Times. Journal of the Schuyler County Historical
Society 41(3):45.
Bottomore, Tom
1985 Theories of Modern Capitalism. Volume 17. London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd.
Bourcier, Paul G.
1984 “In Excellent Order”: The Gentleman Farmer Views His Fences, 17901860. Agricultural History, 58(4):546-564.
Clark, Christopher
1990 The Roots of Rural Capitalism: Western Massachusetts 1780-1860. Ithaca
and London: Cornell University Press.
Conklin, Dustin
176
2011 THE PRECONDITIONS OF FARM ABANDONMENT:
AGRICULTURAL AND DOMESTIC LABOR, Department of Anthropology,
Western Michigan University.
Cuddy, Thomas W.
2003 Spatial Analysis and Archaeological Resources in the Finger Lakes
National Forest. Northeast Historical Archaeology 32:95-100.
Darrah, Lawerance B.
1942 An Economic Study of Land Utilization in Schuyler County. In Cornell
University, Agriculture Experiment Station. Ithaca: Bulletin 781.
Delle, James A.
2001 Race, Missionaries, and the Struggle to Free Jamaica. In Race and the
Archaeology of Identity. C. E. Orser Jr., ed. Pp. 177-195. Salt Lake City: The
University of Utah Press.
Delle, James A., James Boyle, and Thomas W. Cuddy
2003 Introduction to the Finger Lakes National Forest Archaeology Project.
Northeast Historical Archaeology 32: 1-18.
Delle, James A.
2003 Concluding Thoughts on the Finger Lakes National Forest Archaeology
Project. Northeast Historical Archaeology 32: 101-106.
Donahue, Brian
2004 The Great Meadow: Farmers and the Land in Colonial Concord. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Epperson, Terrence W.
1990 Race and the disciplines of the plantation. Historical Archaeology, 24(4),
29-36.
Fippin, Elmer O.
1921 Rural New York. In Rural State and Province Series. L.H. Bailey ed. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
Foote, N, W.A. Anderson, W.C. McKain
1944 Families Displaced in a Federal Sub-Marginal Land Purchase Program.
Cornell University, A.E. Station.
Fulcher, James
2004 Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gates, Paul W.
177
1960 The Farmer’s Age: Agriculture, 1815-1860. New York: Harper Torchbook,
Harper and Row.
Gates, Paul W.
1969 Agricultural Change in New York State 1850-1890. New York State
History:115-141.
Gramsci, A.
1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith,
Trans.). In Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith (Eds.). New York: International Publishers.
Gregg, Sara M.
2010 Cultivating an Agro-Environmental History In A Companion to American
Environmental History D.C. Sackman, ed. Oxford, UK. : Wiley-Blackwell.
Groover, Mark D.
2008 The Archaeology of North American Farmsteads. Gainesville: University
Press of Florida.
Hagenstein, Edwin C., Sara M. Gregg, and Brian Donahue, ed.
2011 American Georgics: Writings on Farming, Culture, and the Land. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Harvey, David
2000 Spaces of Hope. Berkley: University of California Press.
Harvey, David
2006 Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical
Development. New York: Verso.
Harvey, David
2009 Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Heasley, Lynne
2005 A Thousand Pieces of Paradise: Landscape and Property in the Kickapoo
Valley. Madison, Wisconsin The University of Wisconsin Press.
Heaton, Patrick
1998 Farmsteads and Finances in the Finger Lakes: Using GIS to Interpret
Archival Records in Historical Archaeology, New York University.
Heaton, Patrick
2003 Farmsteads and Finances in the Finger Lakes: Using Archival Resources in
a GIS Database. In Northeast Historical Archaeology. J. Delle, ed. Pp. 29-44.
Boston: Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology.
178
Heaton, Patrick J.
2003 The Rural Settlement History of the Hector Backbone. Northeast Historical
Archaeology 32:29-34.
Hedrick, Ulysses P.
1933 A History of Agriculture in the State of New York. New York: Hill and
Wang.
Henderson, George
1998 Nature and Fictitious Capital: The Historical Geography of an Agrarian
Question. Volume 30: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Henretta, James A.
1978 Families and Farms: Mentalité in Pre-Industrial America. The William and
Mary Quarterly 35(1):3-32.
Hopkins, Alfred
1913 Modern Farm Buildings. New York: McBride, Nast and Company.
Joyce, D.
1997 The Charleston Landscape on the Eve of the Civil War: Race, Class, and
Ethnic Relations in Ward Five. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
Knapp, A. Bernard and Wendy Ashmore
1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In
Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Wendy Ashmore and
A. Bernard Knapp, ed. Pp. 1-30. Malden Ma: Blackwell Publishing.
Kulikoff, Allan
1992 The Agrarian Origins of American Capitalism. Charlottesville and London:
University Press of Virginia.
Lachmann, Richard
1989 Origins of Capitalism in Western Europe: Economic and Political Aspects.
Annual Review of Sociology 15:47-72.
Lenin, Vladimir
1915 New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in
Agriculture.
Retrieved from Marxist Internet Archive website:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume22.htm
Mann, Susan A.
1990 Agrarian Capitalism in Theory and Practice. Chapel Hill and London: The
University of North Carolina Press.
179
Mann, Susan A. and James M. Dickinson
1978 Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist Agriculture. Volume 5.
London: Routledge.
Marquardt, William H.
1992 Dialectical Archaeology. In Archaeological Method and Theory. Michael
B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 101-140. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press
Marquardt, William H. and Carole L. Crumley
1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning. In Regional
Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspectives. C.L. Crumley and
W. H. Marquardt, ed. Pp 1-18. San Diego: Academic Press.
Marx, Karl
1881 Letter to Vera Zasulich. Retrieved from Marxist Internet Archive website:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm
Marx, Karl
1964 Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations. New York International Publishers.
Marx, Karl
1967 Capital Volume 2. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl
1993 Wage Labour and Capital: Retrieved from Marxist Internet Archive
website: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
Marx, Karl
n.d. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louie Bonaparte. Moscow: Foreign Languages
Publishing House.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels
1998 The German Ideology. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
McFadden, Joseph M.
1978 Monopoly in Barbed Wire: The Formation of the American Steel and Wire
Company. The Business History Review 52(4):465-489.
McMurry, Sally
1988 Families and Farmhouses in Nineteenth-Century America. New York,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merril, Michael
1993 Putting "Capitlaism" in Its Place: A Review of Recent Literature. The
William and Mary Quarterly 52(2):315-326.
180
Mintz, Sidney W.
1985 Sweetness and Power: The place of Sugar in Modern History. New York:
Penguin Books.
Munro, Kristin
2005 Bell Site Report Senior, Anthropology, State University of New York at
Brockport.
Nassaney, Michael S., and Marjorie R. Abel
2001 Urban Spaces, Labor Organization, and Social Control: Lessons From New
England’s Nineteenth-Century Cutlery Industry. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press.
O'Donovan, Maria
2002 Grasping Power: A Question of Relations and Scales. In The Dynamics of
Power. M. O'Donovan, ed. Pp. 19-34. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Carbondale.
Ollman, Bertell
2003 Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method. Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Parkerson, Donald H.
1995 The Agricultural Transition in New York State: Markets and Migration in
the Mid-Nineteenth-Century America. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Post, Charles
2011 The American Road to Capitalism: Studies in Class-Structure, Economic
Development and Political Conflict, 1620-1877 Leinden: Koninklijke Brill NV.
Redman, Charles L. and David R. Foster
2008 Agrarian Landscapes in Transition: Comparisons of Long-Term Ecological
and Cultural Change. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ridarsky, Christine L.
2006 Marginalizing Farms and Farmers: Land-Use Planners and Changing
Definition of Agricultural “Success” in Early 20th Century Rural America.
Agricultural History Society Annual Meetings, Cambridge Ma., 2006.
Ridarsky, Christine L. and LouAnn Wurst
2003 Farming the “Sub-Margins”: Dominant Myths and Archaeological
Realities. Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Long Beach,
California, 2003.
Sayers, Daniel O.
181
1999 Of Agrarian Landscapes and Capitalist Transitions: Historical Archaeology
and the Political Economy of a Nineteenth-Century Farmstead. Master’s thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Sayers, Daniel O.
2003 Glimpses Into the Dialectics of Antebellum Landscape Nucleation in
Agrarian Michigan. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(2).
Seligman, Edwin R.A.
1929 The Economics of Farm Relief: A Survey of the Agricultural Problem. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Six, Janet, Patrick J. Heaton, Susan Malin-Boyce, and James A. Delle
2003 The Artifact Assemblage from the Finger Lakes National Forest
Archaeology Project. Northeast Historical Archaeology 32:79-94.
Smith, Mark and James Boyle
2003 Analyzing Farm Layout and Farmstead Architecture. Northeast Historical
Archaeology 32:45-56.
Todd, S. Edwards
1867 The young farmer's manual. New York: F.W. Woodward.
Vaughan, LM.
1929 Abandoned Farm Land in New York. Journal of Farm Economics 11.
Visser, Thomas Durant
1997 Field Guide to New England Barns and Farm Buildings. Hanover and
London: University Press of New England.
Watkin’s Express
1878 Obituaries. Watkin’s Express, 1 August. Watkin’s Glenn, New York.
Wehner, Karen B. and Karen G. Holmberg
2003 Analyzing the Settlement Pattern of the Burnt Hill Study Area. Northeast
Historical Archaeology 32: 57-78.
Wickham, Charles
1884-1911 Diaries of Charles Wickham. March 1884-January 1911.Collection,
Anthropology Department, Western Michigan University.
Wolf, Eric R.
1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley and Los Angeles
University of California Press.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins
182
1998 The Agrarian Origins of Capitalism In Monthly Review, Vol. 50.
Worster, Donald
1990 Transformations of the Earth: Toward an Agroecological Perspective in
History. The Journal of American History 76(4):1087-1106.
Wurst, LouAnn
2009 “Sapping the Original Source of All Wealth”: Capitalism in the
Countryside. Presented in “Landscapes of Riches and Ruin” Society for Historical
Archaeological meetings, Toronto.
Wurst, LouAnn
2010 Ten Years in the Finger Lakes National Forest. Council for Northeastern
Historical Archaeology annual meetings, Lancaster, PA., 2010.
Wurst, LouAnn and Paul Reckner
2012 What's Agriculture got to do with Capitalism? In Society for Historical and
Underwater Archaeology. Baltimore.
Yamin, Rebecca and Karen Bescherer Metheny
1996 Preface: Reading the Historical Landscape. In Landscape Archaeology:
Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape. R.Y.a.K.B.
Metheny, ed. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
183