Anything But Boring: An African – American Boarding House in Fredericksburg

December 23, 2022 by
By Elyse Adams, Dovetail Lab Manager

In March 2022, Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) conducted archival research and a two-day archaeological excavation at 1416 Princess Anne Street in downtown Fredericksburg, Virginia. These combined efforts shed light on a notable Jim Crow-era African-American-owned boarding house in the city—the only such site excavated archaeologically in Fredericksburg.

1933 Aerial Photograph Showing the House at 1416 Princess Anne Street (NPS 1933).

The house at 1416 Princess Anne Street was constructed around 1872 and sold to Susan H. Lattimer in 1905. By 1910, records indicate that the dwelling was being utilized as an African American boarding house. The building was sold to Emma Carter in 1914, the first Black owner of the property, who continued to run the building as a boarding house. The dwelling was in use as an African-American-occupied boarding house for the next 50 years.The longest inhabitants, sisters Mary E. Jackson and Nellie Smith, lived in the home from 1940 through the 1980s, eventually purchasing the residence themselves in 1978. The property was sold and demolished in 1990 after Mary E. Jackson had moved into a nursing home; the lot remained empty and fenced off until present-day construction began.

 

Edward McMullen (Left) and Elyse Adams (Right) Perform Archaeology at the Site, Looking Northwest.

A large variety of artifacts were noted during the excavation. Most dated to the occupation period of the home from the last quarter of the nineteenth century through the third quarter of the twentieth century. Most artifacts were manufactured between 1900 and 1940, the period when the home was at the peak of its use as an African-American boarding house. The personal items excavated from 1416 Princess Anne Street especially reflect the daily lives of those who dwelled there, providing valuable insight on their participation in a free consumer market in the face of social and economic limitations on Black residents during this time. Most importantly, this is the first collection of artifacts retrieved from a site with a known African American owned and occupied boarding house during the Jim Crow era. The artifacts reflect the types of products in use by the residents and an assortment of personal items which provide us with a closer and more individualized look at the lives of those who called this building home. These objects denote consumer choices in individual tastes, as many of the functional items were also highly decorative. Pictured below are several of these decorative items including hand-painted Japanese Meiji-era (1868-1912) Celadon teapot sherds, a highly ornate and relatively expensive piece.

Sample of Artifacts Recovered from a Privy Excavated on the Site. From top left clockwise: Rockingham ceramic
sherd, refined earthenware plate base sherd with maker’s mark, hexagonal aqua bottle base, clear glass goblet
fragment. Center: glass heart-shaped adornment of unknown function, a clay marble

Items such as a 1930s purse handle, a heart-shaped glass jewelry charm, porcelain doll parts, medicinal bottles, and ceramic plates and cups represent both personal and daily life for the residents.The presence of toys like doll parts and marbles may suggest the presence of children.

Sample of Artifacts Recovered 1416 Princess Anne Street. Top row: copper alloy purse clasp. Middle row: aqua patent medicine bottle neck and finish, porcelain doll head and legs, ironstone plate base with maker’s mark. Bottom row: three hand-painted Japanese Meiju-era Celadon teapot sherds.
Example of a complete Japanese Meiju-era Celadon teapot (WorthPoint 2022)
.

This expansion on the narrative of a marginalized population offers valuable details and a more complete picture of the lives of the people of Fredericksburg. African Americans, women, and children are repeatedly left out of the historical records, making an assemblage so firmly connected to such groups invaluable data to preserve. While the collection is small and the dig was limited, work here provided a notable step in telling this story.

References

National Park Service (NPS)
1933 Aerial Image of Fredericksburg. Image 18aa, box 128. Copy on file, Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Military Park, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

WorthPoint
2022 Antique Japanese Seto Celadon Teapot Hand Painted Enamel Flowers Meiji. Electronic document, https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/antique-japanese-seto-celadon-teapot-2029843889, accessed April 2022.


Filed Under: Archaeology, Artifact, Fredericksburg, pottery, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rocker – Stamped and Dentate – Stamped Pottery

November 18, 2022 by

From the Wolfe Neck Shell Midden Sitein Sussex County, Delaware

By Bill Liebeknecht

In advance of a proposed trail at Cape Henlopen State Park in Sussex County, Delaware, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control hired Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) to conduct a Phase I archaeological survey of the new trail. Part of this survey skirted the perimeter of the National Register-listedWolfe Neck Site (7S-D-010), a precontact shell midden Shell middens consist of an accumulation of marine shells such as oyster, clam, and whelk related to harvesting and processing by precontact peoples living near the coastline. The site has been dated between BC 782 and AD 993, based on radiocarbon dates associated with pottery previously found at the site (Custer 1984:115; Griffith and Artusy 1977:1-–9). The Phase I survey by Dovetail recovered four pottery sherds with what is known as exterior rocker-stamped and dentate-stamped decoration (Photo 1). The sherds appear to be from a single vessel. Stamped decorations are well known from surrounding regions but are extremely rare in Delaware, suggesting that the pottery vessel may have been traded or transported to the site from outside of the state and may suggest population movement. The closest match to pottery decorated in this manner appears to be from the Point Peninsula complex located over 300 miles to the north in eastern Ontario and New York state, although similar sherds have been reported from northern New Jersey and on Staten Island (Kraft 2001:197; Mason 1981; Stewart 2018:105). The only other known sherd of dentate-stamped pottery found in Delaware is a single fragment recovered from the Island Field site (7K-F-17), a ceremonial burial site associated with the Webb Complex in Kent County Delaware. The complex is mostly mortuary with a unique group of stone tools and pottery (Custer 1984:138–140). The recovery of rocker-stamped decorated pottery at the Wolfe Neck site is the only known discovery of this ware in Delaware.

Other artifacts recovered by Dovetail from the Wolfe Neck site (7S-D-010) that indicate possible ties to Point Peninsula and the Webb Complex are a sherd of fabric-impressed pottery known broadly as “Vinette I” and the midsection of a pentangular-shaped projectile point known as a Jack’s Reef point made from a high-quality jasper (Photos 2 and 3) (Custer et al. 1990:56). The Vinette I sherd may represent the plain body of a vessel decorated with the rocker-and dentate-stamped sherds noted above. Jack’s Reef points are considered especially characteristic of the Webb Complex. A more detailed analysis will be forthcoming in the Archaeological Society of Delaware Bulletin.

 

Photo 1: Dentate-Stamped Pottery Sherd on theLeft and Rocker-Stamped Sherd on the Right.
Photo 2: Vinette I Pottery Sherd with Exterior Cord Impressions.
Photo 3: Center Portion of a Jack’s Reef Pentagonal Projectile Point.

References

Custer, Jay F.
1984  Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Delaware Press, Newark.

Custer, Jay F., Karen Rosenberg, Glenn Mellin and Arthur Washburn
1990  An Update on New Research at the Island Field Site (7K-F-17), Kent County, Delaware. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Delaware, No. 27, New Series, Wilmington, Delaware.

Griffith, Daniel R., and Richard E. Artusy, Jr.
1977  Middle Woodland Ceramics from Wolfe Neck, Sussex County, Delaware. The Archeolog XXVIII(1). The Sussex Society of Archeology and History.

Kraft, Herbert C.
2001  The Lenape-DelawareIndian Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000. Lenape Books, New Jersey.

Mason, Ronald J.
1981  Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Stewart, R. Michael
2018  A Radiocarbon Foundation for Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York. Prepared for the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office.

Filed Under: Archaeology, Artifact, pottery, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Coins, Balls, Bats, and Bases: A Few Fragments on Fredericksburg’s Ties to America’s National Game

February 27, 2020 by

By Kerri S. Barile

On February 22, 1936, over 3,000 people gathered on the banks of the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg and Stafford County, Virginia, to witness history. Former Major Leaguer Walter “Big Train” Johnson attempted to recreate George Washington’s monumental feat of throwing a coin across the river (Photo 1). Many believed that this small metal fragment, a silver dollar, could not sail across the water; they said that the Washington story was a fabrication. But was it? If anyone could recreate this throw, it was Johnson—an All Star pitcher and a member of the very first class inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. From Washington’s boyhood home in Stafford County, Ferry Farm, Johnson launched the coin in the air and successfully landed the object on the opposite shore near Fredericksburg’s City Dock (Barile 2020:28; Richmond Times-Dispatch 1936). This act secured the place of two American legends.

Photo 1: Walter Johnson Posing in Throwing Motion on the Banks of the Rappahannock River as He Prepares for his Toss (Baseball History Comes Alive 2019).

The story of Walter Johnson’s coin toss across the Rappahannock River is just one of many incredible historical tales uncovered during recent research on the history of baseball in Fredericksburg. Commissioned by the Fredericksburg Nationals (the FredNats, an affiliate of the Washington Nationals), Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail) and the Fredericksburg Area Museum partnered together to complete extensive research on America’s greatest pastime in the Fredericksburg region. From local Native Americans playing a game called “chunkey” to Civil War soldiers engaging in the game of baseball when not on the battlefield, ball games have a vast history in the community. Fredericksburg’s first baseball club was founded in 1866 (The Fredericksburg Ledger 1866:3) (Figure 1), and our first professional team was established in 1908, the White Sox (The Daily Star 1908:3) (Photo 2). The data derived from the research is being used to create a History Pavilion at the new FredNats stadium to share the significant history of baseball with all patrons. The History Pavilion will open in late May 2020. A corresponding exhibit containing an amazing collection of baseball memorabilia is being created at the Fredericksburg Area Museum. Dovetail is honored to be part of this project.

Figure 1: Organization of the First Fredericksburg Baseball Club in 1866 (The Fredericksburg Ledger 1866:3).

 

Photo 2: The Fredericksburg White Sox in 1924 (The Daily Star 1924).

Whether it is a fragment of metal in the form of a coin thrown across the Rappahannock or a fragment of leather from a nineteenth-century baseball used in town, the research and artifacts related to this topic are vast and inspiring. We invite you to read more about the History Pavilion here. A brief video on the Walter Johnson coin toss can be found here. We give our profound thanks to the FredNats for their support of this project, as well as Germanna Community College—the incredibly generous donor who made this project possible.

References
Barile, Kerri S.
2020    “An Ideal Stage for the Great National Game”: A Research Compendium of Baseball in Fredericksburg (Year 1). Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and Fredericksburg Area Museum, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Baseball History Comes Alive
2019    Special Washington’s Birthday Feature: “I Cannot Tell A Lie…But I Can Sure      Stretch the Truth!” Electronic document, https://www.baseballhistorycomesalive.com/special–washington-birthday-feature-i-cannot-tell-a-liebut-i-can-Sure-stretch-the-truth/, accessed January 2020.

Daily Star, The [Fredericksburg, Virginia]
1908    “Help the Ball Team.” July 3. Page 3.
1924    “Fredericksburg White Sox.” 18 August.

Fredericksburg Ledger, The [Fredericksburg, Virginia]
1866    “Base Ball Club.” 2 November. Page 3.

Richmond Times-Dispatch [Richmond, Virginia]
1936    “Fredericksburg, Feb 22.” 23 February. Page 17.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Let’s Shed a Little Light on this Blog: A Civil War-Era Sticking Tommy Candle Holder

January 30, 2020 by

By D. Brad Hatch

This month’s post highlights an object recovered from a Civil War battlefield and campsite in Virginia. Rather than being associated with fighting, however, this object speaks to the daily lives of soldiers during the war. The object is a cast iron candle holder with a short spike extending from its base (Photo 1). Known as a “sticking tommy” this candle holder could be used in a variety of settings by pounding the spike into any soft material, creating a makeshift candlestick wherever extra light might be needed. While the “sticking” part of the name is fairly obvious based on the object’s function, the “tommy” part is less clear. The word “tommy” may be related in some way to “tommyknockers” who were mythical Welsh creatures similar to leprechauns who wore miner’s outfits and were known as mischief makers among miners (Figure 1). A variation of the “sticking tommy” related to mining was particularly popular in the middle of the nineteenth century, perhaps leading to the colloquial name of this device. Unlike the Civil War example, miner’s candle holders had long, horizontal spikes that allowed the candle to sit out further from the wall in addition to sometimes having hooks that would allow the candle to be suspended (Figure 2).

Photo 1: Sticking Tommy Recovered by Dovetail.

Figure 1: Depiction of a Tommyknocker (Outta The Way! 2020).

Published material discussing the history of this type of candle holder is generally scarce, likely due to their plain and utilitarian nature. However, similar wrought iron examples pre-dating the nineteenth century extend far back in history for as long as iron working and a need for portable lighting were aligned (see Figure 2). Clearly, we can only speculate what the soldier who owned this “sticking tommy” used its light for. However, some of the common evening activities requiring candlelight would have included reading, writing letters, sewing, routine equipment maintenance, and other leisure activities, such as whittling. Rather than gathering around a larger campfire, the “sticking tommy” would have allowed soldiers a more private and individual space in which to work, perhaps underscoring the personal nature of the activities that may have been associated with its use. Additionally, it could have provided needed light in smaller quantities, making it more difficult for enemy troops to ascertain positions and troop strength through campfires. Ultimately, this small object helps to illuminate the more mundane and routine aspects of life for soldiers during the Civil War that occupied the majority of their time.

Figure 2: On Left : Wrought Iron “Sticking Tommy” Likely Dating to the Eighteenth Century. On right: “Sticking Tommy” of the Type Typically Used in Mining (Barnes 1988:126).

References
Barnes, Frank T.
1988    Hooks, Rings & Other Things: An Illustrated Index of New England Iron, 1660-1860. The Christopher Publishing House, Hanover, Massachusetts.

Outta The Way!
2020    The Tommyknockers. Electronic document, http://outtaway.blogspot.com/2011/10/tommyknockers.html, accessed January 2020.

Filed Under: Archaeology, Artifact, Civil War, Nineteenth Century, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

An Artifact as Stubborn as a Donkey: We Need Your Help?

December 12, 2019 by

By Kerry S. González

For our last blog of 2019 we are once again revisiting artifacts recovered from the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek site, a mid- to late-nineteenth-century domestic site in Randolph County, North Carolina. On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Dovetail conducted data recovery excavations at the site, guided by the data recovery plan authored by NCDOT (Overton 2014).

This blog, unlike most others, is putting the role of identification on our readers in the hopes of discovering the purpose of the small copper alloy object pictured below.  Artifacts such as these are often classified as ‘small finds’ as they are, well, small and imply a personal connection.

Photo 1: Small Metal Donkey Recovered From the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek Site.

 

A total of three of these tiny metal objects were found at the site. They are composed of a thin sheet metal with two very short prongs on the back. Initially we thought they were some type of charm affixed to a piece of leather associated with horse tack, but the composition of the artifact would not allow for the puncture of a hard material like leather.

They were found in conjunction with mid- to late-nineteenth-century artifacts such as prosser buttons, locally made ceramics (turningandburning), a frog gig (wrought-iron-frog-gig), and milk glass mason jar lid liners. Given the context in which these little items were found they are thought to date to a similar time period.

Now you know as much as we do on these interesting small finds. If you have some thoughts on identification please email our Lab Manager at kgonzalez@dovetailcrg.com.

Overton, Brian
2014    Archaeological Data Recovery Plan: Site 31Rd1426, Randolph County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation Human Environment Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Filed Under: Archaeology, Artifact, Mystery Artifact, NCDOT, Nineteenth Century, North Carolina, Squirrel Creek, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,

The HumunGIS Importance of Mapping Data at Archaeological Sites

November 14, 2019 by

Featured Fragment – HumunGIS Importance of GIS

By D. Brad Hatch and Emily Calhoun

Since this past Wednesday (November 13, 2019) was Geographic Information System (GIS) Day, we’ve decided to dedicate this week’s blog to highlighting how archaeologists use GIS as a tool to better understand and interpret archaeological sites. We use GIS (through the computer program ArcGIS) to link archaeological data to specific geographic locations. Once we can link our data geographically across an area, we can begin to tease out patterns in the data that might not have been noticed otherwise. To provide an example of the archaeological application of GIS we will be returning to the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek site in Randolph County, North Carolina, which was the subject of a number of previous blog posts, including posts on eyewear, frog gigs, pottery, and more. On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Dovetail Cultural Resource Group conducted data recovery excavations at the site, guided by the data recovery plan authored by NCDOT (Overton 2014).

Archaeologists have demonstrated that plow zone artifact and soil chemical distributions have the potential to reveal important aspects about the use of space on sites (e.g., Fesler 2010; King and Miller 1987; King 1988; Pogue 1988b; Wilkins 2009). Artifact data for spatial analysis at the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek site were collected through the excavation of 80 2 x 2-foot (0.6 x 0.6-m) test units; soil chemical data was collected using the systematic method of taking a sample every 20 feet (6.1 m) on grid across the site. Analysts plotted artifact and soil chemical distributions using ArcGIS, revealing significant patterns for several artifact types and soil chemicals. ArcGIS plots patterns by creating contour maps of distributions. Essentially the computer program takes the raw artifact or soil data and connects locations with similar values to create lines. These lines represent values or counts, which when plotted geographically can show how values change across a site. Where there is little change in value, the lines are spaced farther apart. Where the values rise or fall rapidly, the lines are closer together. The resulting map is similar to a topographic map, which plots changes in elevation.

Dovetail used ArcGIS to plot domestic artifacts across the site. In this case, the most illustrative domestic materials included ceramics and animal bone (Figures 1 and 2). The distribution of ceramics revealed two concentrations of artifacts. The first, and most distinct, occurred off of the southeast corner of the dwelling. This concentration of ceramics is indicative of increased refuse disposal and activity in this portion of the site, which likely stemmed from the traffic between the dwelling and the outbuilding located to the southeast. The second concentration, which is less intense and smaller in size, occurred near the southwest corner of the dwelling. This small peak, which was also noted in the distribution of architectural artifacts, likely represents a disposal area near a window or at the edge of the backyard where refuse was conveniently deposited. Overall, the ceramic distribution matches other historic artifact distributions, indicating that the northern yard was kept relatively free of refuse and that the southern yard functioned as a disposal and work space.

Figure 1: Distribution Map of All Ceramics.

 

Figure 2: Distribution Map of Bone.

Soil chemicals often provide archaeologists with important additional evidence about activity at sites when more traditional artifact types are not present. Different chemicals are associated with different activities. For example, phosphorus is generally interpreted as representing organic refuse, calcium tends to represent bone and shell, and potassium and magnesium are interpreted as representing ash or burning (McCoy 2016:25–26; Pogue 1988a:3; Wilkins 2009:20). At this site the distribution of phosphorus tended to concentrate near the dwelling and an outbuilding (Figure 3). Specifically, the primary area of high phosphorus concentration occurred in a heavily used area between the two buildings. This general pattern coincides with the historic artifact distributions on site, and is almost certainly related to the disposal of domestic refuse. Dovetail archaeologists concluded, based on the high phosphorous signature, that the outbuilding was likely a detached kitchen. Refuse discarded from the outbuilding was also noted down the hill, to the east, as well as between the outbuilding and the dwelling. There are also two small peaks of high phosphorus concentration located to the north of the dwelling. These peaks are associated with the locations of two tree stumps.

Figure 3: Distribution Map of Phosphorus.

As you can see, the application of GIS-based mapping of artifact and soil chemical distributions at the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek site was vital to our interpretation of the site. In this case the computation tools within the ArcGIS program helped to reveal activity areas. These GIS-generated maps even helped to define the location of an outbuilding, likely a kitchen. Without this analytical tool archaeologists may have overlooked the kitchen, because no foundation or obvious architectural feature marked its location. Archaeologists have many analytical tools in their toolbelts, but GIS is definitely one of the most powerful for analyzing past landscapes!

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References:
Fesler, Garrett
2010     Excavation the Spaces and Interpreting the Places of Enslaved Africans and Their Descendants. In Cabin, Quarter, Plantation: Architecture and Landscapes of North American Slavery, edited by Clifton Ellis and Rebecca Ginsburg, pp. 27–49. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

King, Julia A.
1988     A Comparative Midden Analysis of a Household and inn in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 22(2):17−39.

King, Julia A., and Henry M. Miller
1987     The View from the Midden: An Analysis of Midden Distribution and Composition at the van Sweringen Site, St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 21(2):37−59.

McCoy, Curtis A.
2016     Colluvial Deposition of Anthropogenic Soils at the Ripley Site, Ripley, NY. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology/Archaeology, Mercyhurst University, Erie, Pennsylvania.

Overton, Brian
2014     Archaeological Data Recovery Plan: Site 31Rd1426, Randolph County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation Human Environment Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Pogue, Dennis J.
1988a     Anthrosols and the Analysis of Archaeological Sites in a Plowed Context: The King’s Reach Site. Northeast Historical Archaeology 17:1–15.

1988b     Spatial Analysis of the King’s Reach Plantation Homelot, Ca. 1690−1715. Historical Archaeology 22(2):40–56.

Wilkins, Andrew P.
2009     Identifying 18th Century Hidden Landscapes at Stratford Hall Plantation Using Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Phosphorus Readings on Plowzone Samples. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology/Historical Archaeology, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts.

Filed Under: Archaeology, Consumption, GIS, NCDOT, Nineteenth Century, North Carolina, Squirrel Creek, Uncategorized

Hindsite is 20/20: A Look at Historic Eyewear

September 19, 2019 by

Featured Fragment – Historic Eyewear

By Kerry S. González

We’ve decided to continue our series highlighting the artifacts recovered from the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek site in Randolph County, North Carolina for the month of September. On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Dovetail Cultural Resource Group conducted data recovery excavations at the site, guided by the data recovery plan authored by NCDOT (Overton 2014).

The artifacts pictured below are eye glass lens fragments dating to the early-twentieth century (Photo 1). Both lenses are round as opposed to earlier styles that were more ovoid. The lens on the right is made of crown glass with a diamond-beveled edge and was concavo-convex in design, placing it in the 1900–1930-time period (John Tull, personal communication 2017). Furthermore, the lens was tested with a Topcon Lensmeter, a machine that determines the strength of a prescription. This particular lens gave a reading of +4 indicating that the owner of the glasses was moderately farsighted. The second lens was too scratched to provide a prescription reading but given its shape it likely dates from 1900–1930 as well.

 

Photo 1: Eye Glass Lenses Recovered From Trogdon-Squirrel Creek Site.


 

According to several sources, the Romans are credited with using a form of magnified glass to see small items at a larger scale (allabouteyes.com 2019). However, it wasn’t until the 1200s that we see the first evidence of wearable glasses (allabouteyes.com 2019). The first written reference to eyeglasses is in a book titled De iride (“On the Rainbow”) by Robert Grosseteste (circa 1235) (OpticianU 2018). The book mentions using a lens to “read the smallest letters at incredible distances” (OpticianU 2018). Reportedly, these “primitive glass-blown lenses were set into wooden or leather frames (or occasionally, frames made from animal horn) and then held before the face or perched on the nose” and were primarily used by monks for reading, as cited in Archives of Ophthalmology (2002) (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: La Mer des Histoires (Letocha and Dreyfus 2002).


 

It wasn’t until the 1700s that eyewear began to improve and from this point on eyeglasses evolved at a rapid pace (allabouteyes.com 2019). While Benjamin Franklin is often credited for inventing bifocals in 1784 when he glued his distance glasses and reading glasses on top of each other, some historians believe he is unduly credited with this invention due to his historic importance (OpticianU 2018). By the late-nineteenth century glasses were being mass produced and advertised in places like the Sears & Roebuck catalog where one could even give themselves an eye exam to determine the strength of glasses needed (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2: Sears & Roebuck Eyeglass Advertisement (Sears, Roebuck and Catalogue Company 1897).


 

It is artifacts like these eyeglass fragments that really speak to the occupants of a site. They are tangible and relatable to the young and old, especially when you hold up a lens and see through the eyes of its owner 100 years ago.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References: 

Allabouteyes.com
2019 See Into The Past: The Fascinating History of Eyeglasses. Electronic document, https://allabouteyes.com/see-past-fascinating-history-eyeglasses, accessed September 2019.

Letocha, J., and M. Dreyfus
2002 Archives of ophthalmology 2002. Early Prints Depicting Eyeglasses (Figure 4). Electronic document, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Early-prints-depicting-eyeglasses.-Letocha-Dreyfus/f952e6a9a6509a4da61e6e48b1e61a6d91331818, accessed September 2019.

OpticianU
2018 Eyeglass History – Seeing Through the Ages. Electronic document, https://www.op
ticiantraining.com/eyeglass-history-vision-through-the-ages/, accessed, September 2019.

Overton, Brian
2014 Archaeological Data Recovery Plan: Site 31Rd1426, Randolph County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Transportation Human Environment Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Sears, Roebuck and Company Catalogue
1897 The Sears, Roebuck Catalogue. Sears, Roebuck and Company. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., New York, New York.

Filed Under: Archaeology, Artifact, eyewear, glasses, NCDOT, North Carolina, Squirrel Creek, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The “Clear” Benefit of Bottle Glass. And Wire Nails. And Sewer Pipes….

September 22, 2017 by

Featured Fragment – One Person’s Trash

By Kerry S. González

One of the questions we get asked most often with our work revolves around artifact ownership. In many states, all artifacts recovered from private land during Section 106 review rightfully belong to the person who owned the property at the time they are excavated (ACHP 2009). As such, coordination with landowners is essential. Dovetail works with the landowners to assure that their artifacts are returned to them, but what is retrieved often isn’t what they expect.

The conversation with property owners usually begins like this:

Archaeologist: “Would you like to keep the artifacts found on your property or would you like to donate them to the state repository?”

Landowner: “Yes, I would like to keep them. How many whole bottles did you find? What is the collection worth?”

Archaeologist: “Actually we only found small fragments of clear glass and while the collection has research potential it does not have any monetary value.”

Landowner: “I would like to donate the collection.”

A large percentage of the population believes that during an archaeological excavation only complete objects of monetary worth are recovered. The reality is, we find and collect broken stuff. We dig up people’s trash from the past, most of which is not desirable to anyone but an archaeologist who has spent days/weeks/months digging in the dirt to find it. But as the saying goes, “one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.” As archaeologists we love the broken bits and use these fragments of dishes, bottles, smoking pipes, jewelry, etc. to piece together information on the people that lived in a particular area.

Many of the artifacts we typically find date to the late-nineteenth to early-twentieth century, when large-scale commercial manufacturing allowed for faster production of items like glass, nails, and plastics. Faster and easier production meant that they were more affordable. This, in turn, made those items more readily available to consumers and thus seen as more disposable.

Typically, for this blog we like to highlight a particularly interesting object or collection of artifacts. However, in an effort to show what standard finds are during survey work, please enjoy the pictures below showing the types of artifacts we most commonly see. Are they worth a fortune? No. But are they invaluable to our understanding of our past? Absolutely….

 

Top row from left: White clay pipe stem, clear lead-glazed redware, two whiteware plate fragments. Bottom row from left, ungalvanized wire nail, machine cut nail, collection of window glass.

 

From left: Red automobile tail light fragments, clear vessel glass, and collection of clear bottle glass.

 

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References: 

ACHP.gov
2017 ACHP 2009,  http://www.achp.gov/docs/ACHP%20ARCHAEOLOGY%20GUIDANCE.pdf, accessed September 2017.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

History Buttoned Up

August 25, 2017 by

Featured Fragment – Huntley House Button

By Kerry S. González

In 2016 Dovetail conducted an archaeological excavation at the Historic Huntley House in Fairfax County, Virginia. This work was completed at the request of the Fairfax County Park Authority as part of their Huntley Tenant House Rehabilitation Project. Dovetail surveyed portions of the property surrounding the tenant house as well as the interior of the building. This was a unique case where the floorboards of the tenant house had been removed prior to the installation of new flooring, revealing the soils below the dwelling and allowing archaeological access to an often-hidden living surface. Dovetail’s excavations inside the house primarily focused on the builder’s trench (an excavated trench for the placement of a brick or stone foundation) in the southwest room of the building. Of the numerous artifacts recovered during this excavation, one was instrumental in determining a possible construction date for the building.

View of the Huntley Tenant House.

 

View of Southwestern Room of the Huntley Tenant House.

 

A copper-alloy U.S. great coat button (pictured below) was recovered from the builder’s trench within the southwest room. This coat button dates to the 1830s and 1840s and was potentially dropped by someone involved in the construction of the home. This date proved extremely useful for interpretation as the previous estimated date of construction was circa 1880.

 

1830s–1840s Great Coat Button with Inset Showing 1830s Great Coat (USHistory.com 2017).

 

The presence of this button and other artifacts suggested an antebellum construction date for the dwelling. Also key to dating the structure was the lack of Civil War-era material within the builder’s trench. The Huntley House property “was the scene of a large encampment of Union troops during the Civil War” (Bierce 2002:6; cf. also John Miner and Associates 2003:67–75). Earlier excavation near the tenant house recovered many Civil War-specific artifacts and post-1860 materials across the yard. If the tenant house were constructed after 1880, some artifacts dating to the 1860–1880 period likely would have been dug up during the building’s construction and thus end up in the builder’s trench. The builder’s trench, though, only contained artifacts that predate this period. The tenant house, therefore, potentially dates to the circa 1825–1862 Mason family ownership of the Huntley House property, rather than having been built after the Civil War, as previously thought (National Park Service 1972). This excavation, along with other studies on the property, highlights Fairfax County Park Authority’s dedication to history and the importance of having professionals present during renovations on historic properties.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References: 

Bierce, C. Richard
2002   Historic Structure Report. Schaffer, Wilson, Sarver, and Gray, Reston, Virginia.

John Milner and Associates, Inc. (JMA)
2003   Historic Huntley: Cultural Landscape Report. JMA, Charlottesville, Virginia.

National Park Service (NPS)
1972   National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. United States Department of the Interior. Electronic document, http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-   0117_Huntley_1972_Final_Nomination.pdf, accessed June 2016.

USHistory.com
2017   M1832 Enlisted Greatcoat, http://www.ushist.com/mexican_war/us_military/uniforms/qm-3350_greatcoat_m1832_mexican-war-us.shtml, accessed August 2017.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

What’s in the Attic?

January 21, 2016 by

Featured Fragment – Archaeology in historic Salubria’s attic

100_2466

Historic Salubria

On August 23, 2011, 5.8-magnitude earthquake struck central Virginia with its epicenter in Louisa County. The earthquake caused massive damage to eighteenth-century Salubria, a Georgian home located in Culpeper County, Virginia and owned by The Memorial Foundation of the Germanna Colonies In Virginia, Inc. (The Foundation).

The damage caused by the 2011 earthquake required extensive repairs to the original roof truss system, roof cladding, and chimneys. Prior to installation of associated new attic flooring, Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, at the request of The Foundation, was hired to remove the detritus that had accumulated on the attic “floor” over the years. Because the process involved hand removal of soil, dust, and other materials through careful, controlled digging, the project was termed an “archaeological excavation” despite its location two stories above the ground surface.

Using the building’s structural system, Dovetail laid in a “grid” to divide the attic into 12 sections. All artifacts were bagged by section to examine the deposition of the artifacts. More than 12,000 artifacts were recovered from the attic, including over 350 pieces of cloth of varying size and material, nails, personal items, and paper.

Dovetail archaeologist hard at work!

Dovetail archaeologist hard at work!

The thousands of pieces of paper found in the attic are a direct reflection of both the humans who lived at Salubria and the animals who carried the goods to the attic. One of the most remarkable intact paper fragments was a personal letter from 1862! This haunting letter speaks of the first student death at Farmville Female College (Longwood University) and speaks of the demise and death of Molly Priott (see transcription below the letter).

Front of letter from the Farmville Female College.

Front of letter from the Farmville Female College.

back

Back of letter from the Farmville Female College.

 

The death of our dear Mollie is as great a shock to us as it can possibly be to you my precious friend – we did not know the poor child was sick until Sunday when we all thought she had neuralgia, at a late hour last night the Dr. pronounced her disease congestion of the brain – her mother at 10 o’clock last night, no later when I left her, did not seem to apprehend any danger – at five this morning word came to me that she was dying. I went hastily up…[unreadable]

the children, half conscious, half unconscious, of their loss. – I have just left her, little May and I being the last to look upon the loved face of mine the last kiss upon her brow. The coffin is closed and we can not see her more until we all go home where you and we will live again with our beloved.

We have service in the chapel this evening at six, and Mr. Preot goes with the corpse to Petersburg to-night. Write to Mrs. P or come to see her to-morrow. – I feel so obliged to you for your sympathy, it is the first death in our school and keenly felt by Mr. [La chonde] and myself.

I hope to see you soon. – God bless you, my dear, dear friend and be to you all He has promised. Love to you mother and the children –

Tuesday 14th Jan, 1862, Truly and fondly your friend

R…

The 12,000-plus artifacts found during the excavation shed light on the lives of the residents of Salubria. Because this type of “excavation” is rare, these fragile, perishable artifacts are typically lost. This was truly a unique and amazing, albeit filthy, experience for Dovetail!

100_2462

Dr. Kerri Barile, Dovetail’s president, after a day in the attic!

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

To learn more about Salubria, or Germanna Castle, visit http://germanna.org/.

Filed Under: Eighteenth-century dwelling, Entertainment, Household, Uncategorized Tagged With:
Next Page »