The Dynamics of Razing: Lessons from the Barnhisel House

The Dynamics of Razing: Lessons from the Barnhisel House Author(s): John R. White and P. Nick Kardulias Source: Historical Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1985), pp. 65-75 Published by: Society for Historical Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25615522 Accessed: 06/10/2010 10:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sochistarch. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for Historical Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org JOHN R. WHITE P. NICK KARDULIAS work undertaken at the Barnhisel site were to col lect and analyze archaeological, historical, and architectural data relating to the occupation and use of a homestead dating from themid-19th cen The Dynamics of Razing: Lessons from the Barnhisel turyto the early decades of the 20th century (White 1984). Specifically, it was hoped that evidence could be gathered thatwould help determine the reliability of local lore which held that the Barn hisel House had served as a way station on the underground railroad in the pre-Civil War era. House ABSTRACT at the Barnhisel House Excavation revealed the subsurface remains of a wing razed in 1930. In addition to providing data sufficient to satisfy the standard research goals es tablished for the site, a series of distinctive characteristics relating to the dynamics of razing the house wing were re vealed. These characteristics manifested themselves in five major aspects: 1) The character of the stratigraphy as re vealed in various profiles, 2) the nature of the artifact dis tribution, 3) the extant form and contents of the cistern, 4) the site topography, and 5) the architectural "scars" lefton the standing main house. Delineation of such patterns should aid archaeologists in distinguishing between structures that deteriorated in their time and those thatwere systematically destroyed as part of a residential site reuse strategy. Introduction a National Register of The Barnhisel House, Historic Places site, is located in Girard, near Youngstown, in northeastern Ohio. The original owner, Henry Barnhisel, possessed an extensive tractof 320 acres, most of which was given over to agriculture. The centerpiece of this spacious homestead was themain house, a Greek revival structure, that today dominates a much-shrunken Vi acre of urban land. Built in 1845 and serving as a residence until its abandonment in 1974, this structure saw a series of owner/occupants who over time initiated several major physical altera tions of the structure, including an interior transformationof the large single family dwelling into a duplex and the removal of an original wing extending eastward from the northeast corner of the house. It is with this latter alteration and its impact on the archaeological record that this paper is concerned. The broad initial goals of the archaeological However, in the process of examining the grounds around the house, the principal author noticed a subtle depression adjacent to the northeast corner of the structure.While subsequent archaeological work would reveal this depression as subsidence occurring over the foundational remains of a former house wing or ell, nothing was known of this architectural feature at the time of its discov ery. There was no documentary evidence either of its role as part of the house or of its demolition. Well after archaeological work was completed at the site, and conclusions drawn as to the exis tence of the east wing, an informantprovided the principal authorwith a tinted slide of an 1893 post card showing the then-ruralBarnhisel estate (Fig ure 1). The wing can be clearly noted extending eastward from the rear of the house. This informa tionwas subsequently substantiated by two sisters, formeroccupants, who resided in the house in the 1920s and who attested to the razing of thewing 1930. These informantsoffered the only "about" non-archaeological evidence for the razing of the wing. While research was initiatedwith the intention of recovering a corpus of data sufficient to meet the aims stated above, itbecame evident upon ex cavating the razed wing that even more might be accomplished. In addition to themore or less pro saic reconstruction of the presently extinct house unit itself and revelation of the range of activities carried out therein, the circumstances of itsdiscov ery and its apparent protection from subsequent house site building activities created a unique opportunity to study the dynamics of house razing. the initial set of site-specific research would be of primary use to the student of goals local history and to the historical architect, the last Whereas 66 FIGURE 1. The Barnhisel House viewed from the southwest HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 19 and clearly showing the northeast wing. (From an 1893 postcard) would, by virtue of itspotentially wide applicabil ity, be of more interest to the archaeologist. Excavation Methodology The wing remains, rectangular inplain view and clearly delineated by the still extant stone founda tion, were subdivided into 12 units of equal size, slightly less than 2m2 and designated alphabetical ly, fromwest to east (Figure 2). The ultimate unit size was dictated by the early detection of a stone support wall which ran north-south between the foundation walls and which divided thewing into two halves. Six units were located on each side of this support wall. In addition to the 12 interior units, six 1 x 2 m units and three 2 x 2 m units were excavated along the exterior edges of the wall. Definable features within the arbitrary units were excavated according to their shape and pe rimeters. All units were excavated in levels es tablished in accordance with the cultural or natural stratigraphywhen such was discernible, and arbi trarily in 10 cm levels when itwas not. The Dynamics of Razing excavation of the site of the Archaeological Barnhisel House wing in concert with an examina tion of the remaining structure revealed a series of distinctive characteristics relating to the disman tling of the wing and the razing and post-razing THE DYNAMICS OF RAZING 1METER FIGURE 2. Site plan of the excavated activities attendant thereto. These characteristics manifested themselves in five major aspects: 1) The character of the stratigraphy as revealed in various profiles, 2) the nature of the artifact dis tribution, 3) the extant form and contents of the cistern, 4) the site topography, and 5) the left on the standing main architectural "scars" house. The Character of the Stratigraphy In order to reconstruct an accurate picture of the cultural and natural depositional sequences occur Barnhisel Wing. ring at the site, profiles were drawn of several faces. The profile units were selected with refer ence to their location?each being in a position to register depositional information of a different sort. Two of these profiles are of specific interest in this discussion. Profile 1 (Figure 3)?The west wall of Unit D was profiled to show the accumulation ofmaterials at the southwest portion of thewing ruins. Three major strata and six subdivisions were delineated. Stratum I?The uppermost stratum consisted of a yellow to lightbrown loamy field soil. It var ied in thickness between 9 and 16 cm in a more or less level bed. Some cultural material, all 68 0 20 60 40 . * ^ 80 * 100 - .M. HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 19 120 . Jl 140 180160 Yellow-Brown FillI II Loamy L?ml -_-+-4.- Datum [> 0 j^^^^ I 20~^^^^^^^K': J0 - :. .>;' -:' : .'* I AShLenSU?MG'ayt0whiteDtJ"nc e -^^^^^^^ .j;<a:g^6S?&a?ftgSy;..?g^i a;^ _ |_ i c 0 Met . Broken sewerpipesejments -White ?sri FIGURE 3. Profile1, showing thewest wall of UnitD. recent,was found in the uppermost levels of this stratum. Stratum II?This stratum consisted of an abun dance of ash, charcoal, and burnt wood mixed with an orange sandy fill. Stratum II varied be tween 11 and 26 cm in thickness. It was from this stratum thatmost of the cultural material was recovered. Because of its complexity, this stratumwas furtherdivided into six discrete sub lineated. units. light gray towhite ash layer varying between .5 and 5 cm in thickness; at one point it is so thinly laid that it is indistinguishable from the level underlying it. It runs Ha?A lib?A in fairly even thickness the full length of the profile. dark brown ash lens 34 cm long and averaging 4 cm in thickness. lie?A dark gray ashy layer distinguishable by its deeper color and grainier texture from Ha which overlies it. It varies between 2 and 5 cm in thickness and is 120 cm Ild?A in length. thin layer of decomposed wood. It measures less than a centimeter in thickness throughout and is 126 cm long. layer composed of a mix of burnt wood, charcoal, and wood ash. It measures between 3 and 7 cm in He?A thickness and extends, fairly evenly, across the profile face. Ilf?A Stratum III?This stratum, consisting of an orange-brown sandy soil, was the base on which the wing foundation walls were laid. The only cultural material associated with this substrate came from the interfacewith stratum Ilf. east wall of Unit G Profile 2 (Figure 4)?The was selected for profiling because of the complex ityand variability in the cultural fill. Three major strata and six cultural subdivisions were de layer of dark ash mixed throughout an orange sandy fill. It varies between 2 and 5 cm over most of its length but expands to 18 cm thick against the south foundation of the unit. Stratum I?The uppermost stratum consisted of a yellow to lightbrown loamy field soil between 4 and 16 cm in thickness, undulating throughout its length. Some cultural material, all relatively recent, was found in its upper levels. Stratum II?This thick cultural level consisted of beds and lenses of burntmateri large entirely al, e.g., ash, charcoal, burnt wood, tar paper, etc., interlaced in a complex manner reflective of the razing process. This stratum varied be tween 58 and 76 cm in thickness. The bulk of the artifacts from this unit were found through out this stratum. Because of its relative com plexity, itwas divided into six subunits of some what different character. Ila?A dark gray ash level which runs the entire length of the profile and varied between 1 and 28 cm in thick ness. THE DYNAMICS OF RAZING 69 FIGURE 4. Profile2, showing theeast wall of UnitG. lens composed of a light gray towhite and very fine ash. Biconvex in cross section, itmeasured 14 cm at its widest point. lib?A light gray to white lens of fine ash virtually in distinguishable from lib but separated by 18 cm of Ha gray ash. Triangular in cross section, itmeasured 25 cm thick at its apex. lie?A lid?A He?A uniformly thin layer of tarpaper approximately 2 cm thick and 110 cm long which effectively separates Ha from He. dark gray ashy layer varying between 32 and 55 cm in thickness. At a length of 110 cm, itmakes up lAof Stratum II. Ilf? A layer, between 48 and 56 cm thick, consisting of a combination of large chunks of charcoal and burnt wood in an orange sandy matrix. It contains several large rocks. Stratum III?This level represents the orange to substrate thatunderlies the entire brown, sandy Barnhisel site. It is undisturbed and culturally sterile except for the interfacezone with Stratum He and Stratum Ilf. Profile Summary outside of the foundation is a mantle of soil pur posefully laid, sometime after cessation of the wing razing activities, in order to hide the rock outlined depression thatwas leftand to provide a suitable matrix for subsequent landscaping. Arti facts found in or on this level would have been deposited after the razing of the wing and likely represent, collectively, the most recent cultural material from the site. Stratum III represents the same glacial substrate which underlies the entire area and intowhich the Barnhisel structurewas built. The only artifactual material from this stratumcomes from its interface zone with the overlying cultural stratum.The arti facts from this level represent the oldest recovered and, in good part at least, were deposited prior to the destruction of the wing. Stratum II with its complex series of sublayers and lenses, marks the successful attempt by the wing razers to both rid themselves of the burden some detritus of their activities and mask the rel atively deep void left between the foundation walls. Within the confines of thewing foundation there are three primary strata, one of which is natural and two of which were deposited by human agency. Two of these strata also exist outside of the foundation perimeters. Stratum I, the up permost yellow loamy layer found both inside and This they accomplished by burning the various building materials, e.g., wood, shingles, tarpaper, etc. on-site and, at least in some cases, spreading them out to fill the newly-created depression. Nonburnable refuse was simply thrown in with other fill. Each definable lens and layer represents 70 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 19 the residue of a differentmaterial and/or burning. The artifact inventory from this stratum contains the full range from early to late, i.e., everything from the time of the earliest house occupation to the time of the wing destruction. Stratigraphic Traits Attributable to Razing Ac processes (or C-transforms) taking place at the site after the abandonment, and during the razing, of the wing. Schiffer's (1976, 1983) discussion of, and distinction between, N-transforms and C transforms serves to alert archaeologists to the di versity of elements thatmust be considered in in tivities 1. Stratum I, the uppermost level, consists of a yellow loam intentionallydeposited after the demolition activities to blanket thewing de pression and walls and provide a medium for landscaping and transformingthe area into a sightly and usable backyard. 2. Each definable lens and subunit in Stratum II represents the residue of a differentbuilding material and/or burning. Consolidated mass es ofmaterial indicate the effortsof razers to bunch or compact much of the rubble result ing from theirwork. Widespread and thin layers point, on the contrary, to attempts to distribute able" or the more even-out 4'spread refuse. 3. The orange sandy fill serving as thematrix for the Stratum II contents is the normally light-colored Chili-Urban (CoC) sandy loam naturally predominating in the area (Lessig et al. 1971:75) which has been oxidized by the on-site burning of the abundant and highly combustible building materials removed from the razed wing. 4. Stratum II of Unit I was an area of intensive burning?much more so than any other ex cavated unit?and seems to have been the principal spot used by the razers to reduce most of the construction material removed from the dismantled wing. Distribution The Nature of theArtifact The 4715 artifacts collected and examined from the Barnhisel wing were distributed in a non randommanner among most of the site units and at depths ranging from the surface to the bottom of in most cases, their dis the cistern. Unlike tributionalpattern reflectsonly minimally, ifat all, the loci of theiruse. Rather theirproveniences can be better explained by the cultural transformation terpreting the ultimate disposition of archaeologi cal remains. Artifact distribution at the Barnhisel site in dicated at least fourmajor razing activities: 1. The removal of reusable material including both portable artifacts (doorknobs, fancy hard ware, etc.) and structural items (plumbing, doors, window frames, etc.) which had potential for recycling. There was a paucity of window pane glass?a ubiquitous item at other sites? retrieved from the east wing. In addition, no trace of window frames, door handles, doors, copper tubing, or other such significant structuralelements appeared in the arti fact inventory.Arguing from a negative position, itcan be assumed that the absence of these objects represents their removal prior to the demolition of thewing. The substantial nature of the house sug gests that these itemswould have been present in sufficientquantity towarrant the effortof removal, from an economic perspective. These materials could have been sold or directly reused by the in dividuals involved in removing the wing. 2. The filling in of the recess or crawlspace under thewing with building material, numerous artifacts, and foundation stones. Underlying the superstructure of the east wing was a shallow foundation area or crawlspace which reached a maximum depth of 92 cm at the west end. To bring this area up to ground level required filling in the vacated area with constructionmateri al from the collapsed structure, various broken artifacts, and field soil. In addition, inorder to take up space, several foundation blocks were pushed into the deeper sections of the subfloor cavity. In Unit H, a limestone fireplace support composed of laid flagstones was also knocked over during the razing, with the stones distributed over a four square-meter area. There is a clear distinction between the north and south halves of the foundation with the units in THE DYNAMICS OF RAZING 71 the northern aspect generally containing almost twice as many artifacts as those in the southern. Unit I is the single exception to this observation. This disparity might be explained by a combina tion of two factors. First, the northern foundation wall was somewhat higher than the southern,mak more capacious. ing the units on this side initially Second, the refuse constituting a portion of the fill used to bring the foundation depression up to ground level was deposited in the northern half of the foundation and spread out in a southerly direc tion. The second observation is, of course, more speculative than the first and is discussed below. Figure 5 is a schematic of the Barnhisel wing showing the absolute and relative distribution of artifacts by unit. 3. The raking out of the heterogenous small sized rubble inorder tofill and level the capacious area between thefoundation walls. In general, therewas a higher artifactconcentra tion in the northern half of the foundation, with material subsequently raked out to the south. This was certainly the case with a porcelain toilet; this bulky, heavyware object was evidently broken up in Unit G, with some fragments being dragged southward into Units H and J and L during the spreading process. This same distributional pattern is evident for the faunal remains retrieved from the site, i.e., the heaviest concentrations were in the northern units (A, C, E, G, I, K) and the lightest were in the southern ones. The low density artifact yields in Units D and I can also be explained in terms of this leveling-off activity. The 23 artifacts (0.5% of the total) in Unit D compare with pro portions ranging between 3.6% and 6.9% for the surrounding units and, at first blush, appear an can be omalous. However the discrepancy accounted for, at least in part, by the presence of several enormous building stones which serve to take up much of the space of the unit. In Unit I, similarly low artifact density is explained by yet another razing activitywhich took place there: in tensive burning. This process served to concentrate objects for burning, then to disperse them into sur rounding units if they survived the fire.A situation was thereby created wherein the nonconbustibles were concentrated in the units around Unit I while Unit I itself retained, in themain, the ashy, nonar tifactual residue. It isworthy of note thata separate plotting of the faunal remains demonstrates the same apparent Units D and I anomaly. From the point of view of depth, roughly the same artifact percentages came from Stratum I (n = 2145 or = 1901 or 45.5%) as Stratum II (n This fact, in conjunction with the 40.3%). observation that older and newer artifacts were generally mixed, would indicate that the observed stratigraphic levels represent the dynamics of raz ing rather than strictly temporal episodes. 4. The levelling off of thefoundational fill and the distribution of a lamina of artifact-laden soil over the site surface. Once the area between the foundation walls had been roughly filled to ground level, field soil was transported to the site in order to cover the scars of razing activities and to provide a landscaping of FIGURE 5. Schematic plan showing the distribution artifacts by excavated unit. medium. The raking-out of this soil led to the later al displacement of fragmentary artifacts (largely glass and ceramic fragments, and nails) that, hav 72 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 19 ing sat high in the foundation fill, had become mixed in the overlying soil matrix. tending from thiswater respoitory intoUnit A of the razed wing attested to the contemporaneity of both use and abandonment for these two features. The Extant Form and Contents Therefore, the depositional character of the cistern reflects the demolition episode. The high density of artifacts is to be expected as the cistern was probably perceived as a potential hazard (especially to the young) and was, upon abandonment, filled to its lipwith a readily avail 4 able 'filler'' consisting of soil and household ref use, most specifically bottles and jars. The eagerness to fill the empty cistern resulted in an unusual reverse stratigraphy. The newer bottles, i.e., those dating to the late 1920s, were found in the lower depths of the cistern with progressively earlier specimens coming from the upper levels. The following scenario would account for this ap of the Cistern A stone-lined cistern was found situated just outside the northwest comer of thewing, itsmouth level with the surrounding ground surface. The razing of thewing left itsmark on two aspects of this feature: its physical structure and its artifact content. The Bamhisel cistern w*as a bulb-shaped struc ture with a flaring midsection and tapering top. the cistern presented an in Upon discovery, complete, abrupt appearance (Figure 6). Further excavation, coupled with the discovery of the re mains of a porch foundation along the northwall which would have encompassed the area of the cistern, indicated that the neck of the cistern was originally 46-50 cm higher than the present open ing. Evidently, when the wing was demolished, thisneck segment of the cistern, which would have been above ground and accessible from the porch, was also removed. In short, during razing, all structural features were lowered to ground level, thereby eliminating any obtrusive features. The cistern yielded the greatest proportion (24.4%) of artifacts of any single excavation unit. This material obviously was deposited after the cistern went out of use in 1930. A lead pipe ex parent anomaly. Razers began by filling the cistern with household refuse (the newer bottles, etc.). When the handiest resources were depleted, and the cisternwas still only half full, theywent farther afield for their fill material and dumped in older refuse possibly from the recesses of the cellar and attic of the house (the older bottles, etc.). The large number of unbroken bottles (and frag ile light bulbs) seems to indicate that their impact was in some way buffered, perhaps by careful lay ing or, more likely, by the presence of some water which acted as a cushion. This latterhypothesis is supported to some extent by the finding of two faunal specimens bearing a patina of vivianite [ferrous phosphate anhydrate, Fe3 (P04)8H20]. This bright blue, powdery residue occurs upon drying of previously water-soaked bone (Guilday 1977:121). No other faunal remains from the site carried The such traces. of bottles and bulbs?they that were, quite literally, side-by-side?indicates theywere probably packed in cartons prior to their placement in the cistern. The cartons, of course, had long since disintegrated in the wet, pres compaction ervation-poor environment. The Site Topography FIGURE 6. The appearance. The higher, connecting Barnhisel cistern. cistern was with Note the sheared-off originally some the house porch. 46-50 cm As previously noted, once the east wing had been removed, the resulting depression was filled in to provide a level surface. A thin layer of field THE DYNAMICS OF RAZING 73 soil was then spread over the site to cover what would have been a rough and unsightly surface strewn with debris. This landscaping sequence concealed most of the foundation, fulfilling in good measure its intent. However, in time, the once loose, ashy lenses within the foundation be came compacted and the ground surface over the wing settled somewhat. This created the subtle de pression (Figure 7) which, in 1979, led to the orig inal archaeological investigations of the site. Other than this relatively undramatic topographic fea ture, which went undetected by casual observers for decades, therewas little to indicate that a sub stantial structurehad once occupied this section of the property. which make sense only in light of the prior exis tence of the supplementary structure (Figure 8). First, thewest wall has two doors opening into the back yard. One of these, situated in the center of the rearwall of the house, has a flagstone walkway leading to it and provides access to the kitchen. The other rear door, closer to the northeast comer of the house, locked, and evidently not used for a considerable time, leads?in a long drop?from a sitting room to the yard. Although on occasion observed on certain West Virginia and Pennsyl vania farmhouses (in which theymay lead onto porches or backyard surfaces), two exits, es pecially in such close proximity on the same side of The Architectural Main House "Scars" Left on the Extant Since the east wing had once been an integral part of the Barnhisel House, the main structure would necessarily have features which reflect this relationship. The northern part of the west wall exhibits three apparent architectural anomalies the east covered wing remains. seem unnecessary. In an earlier wing. The second feature of note on the northwestwall is a small second-story window with no first-story counterpart. This asymmetry is not repeated else where on the house. The reason for itsexistence is that this offset window originally overlooked gable of the east wing. the The thirdfeature of interest is the texturaldiffer ence between the original rear outside wall and the wall where once thewing was attached. The siding boards are of a slightly differentwidth (the origi nals are narrower), and thepaint has been absorbed more readily by the newer siding imparting a FIGURE FIGURE 7. Subtle subsidence marking the site of the structure, day the latterdoor had served as an access to the left by 8. Photograph showing the 1920's razing. Note asymmetrically differences. placed the architectural "scars" the "extra" door, textural second-story window, back and 74 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 19 splotchy, piebald appearance to the rearwall of the house. A long vertical slat demarks the two wall opposed to one which has been torn down and then incinerated) will likely have a more even distribution of burntmaterial. sections. Conclusions work at the Barnhisel House Archaeological afforded the opportunity to supplement themore traditional historic site investigationwith a concen tration on delineating the dynamics of a specific cultural activity, razing, thathas received littleor no attention in the literature. In essence, the ar efforts focused on a site activity chaeological which took place over a relatively short period of time and examined themultifarious ways inwhich thatactivity came to be represented in the archaeo logical record. In the course of the investigations, a number of observations were made regarding the process of dismantling and razing a historic struc ture.While some of these were undoubtedly site specific, others would have wider applicability and, in fact,may represent processes basic enough to constitute repeatable patterns. Every historic building site is unique to some extent. Structures will differ from one another greatly in age, size, architectural style, craftsman ship, use, building materials, contents, and sur roundings. The combination of these factors (and others) results in each site leaving itsown archaeo logical "signature." However, even with all of these seemingly endless combinations, there still remains a set of common denominators from which can be derived several useful observations those regarding the razing process. Among observations having a wider, less site-specific, applicability are the following: 1. Definable lenses of burnt and unburntmate rial indicate artificial bunching by the razer. Widespread or thin layers, on theother hand, point to attempts at evening-out of the re fuse. 2. An area of intensive burning indicates the principal spot utilized by the razers to reduce most of the combustible constructionmateri al. A structurewhich has burned down (as 3. The absence of normally ubiquitous con structionmaterial, e.g., window glass, fancy hardware, window frames, plumbing, etc. supports the contention that they were re moved prior to a planned demolition and conversely argues against the normal di lapidation of the structure in due course or by sudden calamity. 4. The raising to ground level of the depression left by the demolition of the structures in dicates a desire to reuse the site?even if as a area. manicured only yard 5. The shearing-off to ground level of a cistern built to extend above ground and connect with a raised porch or floor indicates a desire on the part of the razers to produce an even ground contour and is consistent with plans for site reuse. 6. The systematic filling of a cisternwith avail able household refuse dating from the time of thewing demolition indicates that itwas part of a planned razing. A process in which a structure fell into decrepitude over time, or was burnt down, would not alter in any meaningful way the contents of an attached cistern; neither would a cistern, filled at some later time, reflect the orderly introduc tion of artifacts representative of such a nar row 7. time range. Architectural tural remains, left on "scars" e.g., assy metrical extant struc alignment of building elements such as windows, doors, etc. and unusual textural differences in building materials, indicate prior razing activity, especially where the remainder of the structure is in good condition and bears no signs of having been exposed to a fire or other natural calamity. This list is not intended to serve as any kind of end-all on the dynamics of razing. It represents the conclusions drawn from the careful excavation and examination of one historic site. The list needs refining and adding-to; it is a taking-offplace. It is THE DYNAMICS OF RAZING 75 intended as a start toward the development of a more sound understanding of how themechanics of razing ultimately reflect themselves in the ar chaeological record. Delineation of such patterns should aid considerably in allowing archaeologists to distinguish between structures thatdeteriorated in their time and were subsequently covered with overburden and those thatwere systematically de stroyed as part of a residential site reuse strategy. Michael Schiffer, 1976 Behavioral B. Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675-706. White, 1984 John R. at the Barnhisel House, Excavations Archaeological on file Department of Girard, Ohio. Manuscript Sociology and Anthropology, Youngstown State Uni versity. REFERENCES Guilday, 1977 John E. Excavations at fromArchaeological edited Fort Ligonier. In Experimental Archaeology, pp by D. Ingersoll, J. E. Yellen, andW. MacDonald, Animal Remains 21-101. Lessig, 1971 Hever, Post Columbia W.F. University Press, New York. Hale, P.W. Reese, and G.J. Soil Survey ofMahoning County, Ohio. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. John R. White P. Nick Kardulias Department of Sociology/ Anthropology Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio 44555