We recently discovered a small steatite/soapstone bowl during a cultural
resources survey in Fairfield County, South Carolina (you may view pictures
at the link below).  

 

https://picasaweb.google.com/107587124200645518980/SteatiteVesselFairfieldCo
untySouthCarolina?authuser=0
<https://picasaweb.google.com/107587124200645518980/SteatiteVesselFairfieldC
ountySouthCarolina?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCK6BgeehgtPhOg&feat=directlink>
&authkey=Gv1sRgCK6BgeehgtPhOg&feat=directlink

 

This bowl was found on the ground surface on the periphery of a late 19th to
early 20th century house site.  The bowl itself was situated on a heavily
eroded slope and likely in a disturbed context; however, a light scatter of
historic artifacts does extend down this slope.  No other steatite fragments
were found at the historic site; however, unworked steatite fragments were
found on a Late Archaic site approximately 400 meters to the south.  It
should be noted that no prehistoric artifacts were observed at the site
where the bowl was found.

 

The bowl itself appears to be handmade (i.e., not machined).  As can be seen
in the photographs, the surfaces are irregular and we could find no evidence
of metal tool marks on the vessel.   The vessel is 9.7 cm wide at the base
and 5.2 cm deep.  The interior wall is approximately 0.96 cm thick and 2.9
cm deep.  

 

We have sent photographs of the bowl to several regional experts on
soapstone vessels, and they are all in agreement that this vessel is outside
of the normal range of variation seen in prehistoric vessels in the
Southeastern United States, and they all agreed that it is likely related to
the historic site.  However, none of them have ever seen a vessel like this
before.  One suggested that this might be a "miner's crucible"; another
thought that it might be a small smelting pot.  

 

It should be noted that an archaeologist on our staff is extremely familiar
with the use of soapstone bearings in industrial/mill settings, and he
assures me that this does not fit the normal characteristics of this type of
artifact (symmetrical/uniform edges with distinct tool marks, and evidence
of wear/grinding on the interior).

 

So, with all of this said - has anyone ever seen an artifact like this in a
19th-20th century context?  Also, if anyone would like a better look, I do
have a 3D scan of the bowl (10MB) that I can send via email.

 

Thanks,

Eric

 

 

Eric D. Sipes, RPA

Senior Archaeologist

Southern Research