WE SURVIVED!

We survived! We troweled, maddoxed, and shoveled our way through the last week of the field school. The final days in the field seem like a blur of dirt, sweat, and more dirt.

I was working with Miguel in EU 12. This unit and EU 1 (finished shortly thereafter) were the only two units still digging although not necessarily finding many artifacts. EU 12 was an interesting unit for we were convinced that we had hit sterile soil, though the soil was not the brownish-orange subsoil we had found in the other units.

With a little further digging, we found our answer. As the blog related earlier, a dark stain appeared in the northeast corner of our presumed sterile soil (Image 1). This stain became Feature F and yielded the most amount of artifacts for the unit, including a fragment of a George Bauernschmidt bottle (similar bottle fragments from this brewery were found the last two years in Texas and even at the Irish Shrine!)—it must have been a popular local beer. The feature also included a porcelain cleat (for anchoring electrical wire), other ceramics, and a foil wrapper (Image 2).


IMAGE 1: Feature F- Dark soil stain in EU 12


IMAGE 2: Artifacts from Feature F

Before proceeding further, we made a planview map of Feature F in order to identify the dimensions of what and where we were digging. As we continued excavating down into the feature, the stain began to spread out into the rest of the unit. This soil layer was obviously a disturbed historic layer because of the quantity of artifacts and their position within the unit. For instance, the artifacts were mainly from the late nineteenth century (such as a pipe stem with the word [GL]ASGOW), but some of the artifacts were twentieth and late twentieth century— suggesting a mixing of soil layers or an intrusion into an existing soil layer (Image 3).


IMAGE 3: Pipe stem, glass, and ceramics

Below this dark soil layer sat a lighter soil layer with coal and limestone and thick lenses of charcoal. While no modern artifacts were found, a large piece of a grey salt-glazed stoneware crock was found as well as a pipe stem and a blue transfer-print whiteware piece (Image 4). Of course, by the time we had excavated a portion of this layer, the day was over. Yet the large piece of a crock (the largest artifact we had this year) and the absence of modern material suggests this could be an intact historic ground surface from the nineteenth century. The subsequent layers above could have been fill or much later activities, as the presence of a modern foil wrapper suggests. Even more exciting, the charcoal lenses could be associated with the burning of the residence in the 1890s? Still, we only had a few burned artifacts in this soil layer or in the other soil layers. We will have to clean and examine these artifacts in the lab to see if they show signs of exposure to high heat.


IMAGE 4: Grey salt glazed stoneware crock, ceramics, and other artifacts

On Monday, Paul and Peter came back and excavated EU 12 and quickly exposed the brownish-orange subsoil. After digging into this soil just to make sure it was sterile, Paul and Peter mapped the unit’s walls. By the end of a nice hot summer day, they had backfilled the unit and the excavation was officially over.

The final week of the field school was spent in the lab— where the real works goes on to make sense of the excavations and understand the artifacts in their contexts. Let me explain a little further. Artifacts are identified and described in depth in the lab. This level of the analysis allows us to compute quantity, affiliation, and possibly dates of when the artifacts were made and/or commonly used. Armed with this knowledge, we hypothetically can place the artifacts back in their excavation context or soil layers to understand where and how they were deposited in the ground. For instance, if a plastic wrapper was found in a soil layer below a soil layer with a pearlware ceramic dish, then we know that soil layer with the pearlware dish was deposited or modified fairly recently.

Artifact affiliation and context also aids in comparing and understanding the artifacts found at the entire site. For example, artifacts found in similar soil contexts but in different units likely found their way into the ground in a similar manner around the same time period. Thus, we can figure out what is happening over time at the site, and eventually piece together the lives of the inhabitants of Texas— our ultimate goal. Without these scientific methods, we are just simply looking for cool things and can never understand who was using them and why.

Working in the lab is a great relief for some, including myself. This field school has been a great experience. I personally have learned what I enjoy and what I would rather not do. The field school has been invaluable in helping me find the direction I want to take with archaeology. As a collective, I think we all enjoyed the field school and have learned a great deal! Thank you Dr. Brighton.

Now for me, I am not done yet. I have begun the accompanying lab portion of the summer session. This three-week class is going to work on washing, cataloging, and labeling the artifacts from the 2010 and 2011 Texas Field Schools. We are also going to be entering the data into a computer spreadsheet program to allow us to summarize our findings and to begin to analyze them closer.

Today was a rewarding day because Rachel and I finished cataloging the final artifacts of the 2010 Texas Field School (Image 5). We are now going to start washing the artifacts from this year’s field season. Once all the artifacts have been washed we will start the process of labeling and cataloging again! And so goes life in the archeology lab…


IMAGE 5: Erika working in the lab and boxes from three years of excavation at Texas

Erika Kruse
July 18, 2011

A Field Trip To Wye

On Wednesday, we travelled to Maryland’s Eastern Shore and toured the historic Wye House, the current site being excavated by Dr. Mark Leone’s Archaeology in Annapolis Field School. The Wye House, situated on the Wye River near Easton, was settled in the seventeenth century and remains a privately held home. This site became famous through Frederick Douglas’ description of his childhood there in his autobiographies, such as the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave (the first and published in 1845).

Upon our arrival at Wye House, it was impossible to ignore the obvious differences between our urban and industrial sites at Texas and the Irish Shrine with the quiet and pastoral landscape of Wye. On the surface our projects are drastically different, but after a tour of the excavations and property by Dr. Leone, several similarities and historical links became apparent.

First, the lives of the slaves who worked the fields of the Wye House and the Irish immigrants and later Irish-Americans who worked the quarries of Texas were very distinct, but both struggled with long hours of gruelling work. Slaves worked long hours in the fields in all types of weather as well as other tasks while the workers in Texas quarried stone and burned lime for long hours year round. Further, around the 1860s or 1870s, perpetual kilns in Texas were manned year round, twenty-four hours a day. The laborers and people of Texas suffered through numerous hazards, such as explosions in the quarries, the smoke and noise of the trains, and fumes and pollution of the kilns.

Second, the conditions of labor of both the slaves and later tenants at Wye and worker’s at Texas were both structured by the wider social relations in which these groups were situated. While the slaves were locked to the land by force and treated as property, workers in Texas were limited by their immigrant status and the availability of work. Though slavery is not comparable to the labor of free workers, the notion that workers were free to choose is also inaccurate. In the nineteenth century, both groups had few options to escape the life into which they were born and so group members spent their lives laboring often in horrendous conditions.

Another connection between Texas and the rural plantation lies in the industry of both locations. Starting in the middle of the nineteenth century, the kilns operated by the people of Texas burned limestone from the quarries to make lime. This lime was used as an agricultural fertilizer to increase crop yields especially as farmers switched from tobacco to other crops such as wheat. A movement towards a more scientific agriculture sought to increase yields and manage and control the production of crops. Similarly, the use of fertilizer is an example of Wye embracing scientific changes in farming practices. We do not have any evidence yet of Texas lime reaching the Eastern Shore though we know it was shipped from Texas to points north and south via the railroad. Perhaps, with some research, we might find a physical connection between Texas and Wye.

As for comparing excavations, I observed that the units being dug by the Archaeology in Annapolis field school differed from our own because they were larger, five feet by five feet or more compared to our own square one meter units. Their units also tended not to be as deep as ours at Texas— perhaps, reflecting the differences in stratigraphy between the two sites. Also, at Texas, we found small pieces of artifacts and only a handful of limestone and brick while at Wye archaeologists uncovered larger artifacts, many bricks, and possible segments of foundations. The number and completeness of these bricks were unlike anything we have found at Texas. Obviously, this disparity reflects their discovery of buildings and other features (aided by Ground Penetrating Radar or GPR) while we have mainly found only artifact scatters.

On the whole, our trip to Wye provided us with the opportunity to see how the same archaeological techniques we learned at Texas and the Irish Shrine can be applied to sites from different temporal and geographic areas. The trip was also a nice break before we headed back to the field for the rest of the week! Thank you to Dr. Mark Leone and the Archaeology in Annapolis Field School.

Katie Cooper
July 5, 2011

A Busy Week in Texas

Well, last week was very busy and equally eventful. On Monday morning, we were greeted by at least forty vultures milling about the site— in and around the units. They promptly flapped away when we approached, but loomed menacingly above us in the trees (Image 1). A bad omen?


Image 1: Vultures looming above the site

After inspecting the site, we found the buzzards were not too happy with our excavations. It seems that they had a taste for the orange flagging tape and the string around our units as well as the datum lines (Image 2). Further, they left many "presents" and feathers around the site. It was a lovely sight and smell to start the morning.


Image 2: Unit "visited" by vulture

Yet their pale soon passed and after restringing the datum and marking the units with new flagging tape, the excavations continued. While the buzzards greeted us from the trees for several days thereafter, we were able to make significant progress exploring the rear yard area of 18BA313.

Excavation Unit (EU 11), which mirrored EU 10 a few meters away to the east, was slightly deeper in depth with several artifacts, like pipe stems and pearlware and whiteware ceramic pieces, at the base of culturally sterile soil (Image 3). We know from our excavations over the past two years that the sterile soil in the area is a reddish-brown clay. In 2009, we decided to test whether this soil was a fill soil or a natural, sterile clay. At about a meter and a half below the surface, this soil disappeared only after we hit limestone bedrock— which seems to make sense given all the quarries around! Still, in EU11, we dug about 20 to 30 cm into the clay just to make sure it was devoid of artifacts. The soil proved to be sterile and we backfilled the unit.


Image 3: EU 11 Wall Profile

Just a meter or two to the north, EU 9 proved to be much more challenging (Image 4). After removal of the post and posthole, we excavated the west half of the unit. We found very few artifacts, and the soil was extremely hard. In fact, we had difficulty excavating with even shovels and a pick. In the sun, this unit caused much sweat and a few blisters before we reached a reddish-brown sterile clay. As in EU11 upon reaching sterile soil, we mapped the different soil profiles and features in the wall of EU 9 prior to backfilling.


Image 4: Katie excavating EU 9

We then concentrated our efforts on the two remaining units, EUs 1 and 12. Away from the gaze of the buzzards, EU 1 sat at the far end of a rear lot close to Church Lane (Image 5). We hoped to encounter a privy in this location. We assumed that this triangular house lot would have its privy at the narrow end of the lot away from the road. While we found several nineteenth-century artifacts like pipe stems and ceramics, we did not locate a privy or any other identifiable feature. Besides a concentration of small bones, the soil stratigraphy was relatively level with the ground surface and shallow. Therefore, we mapped and recorded the soil stratigraphy and once again backfilled.


Image 5: Wall Profile of EU 1

Nearby units excavated in 2009 were equally shallow in depth to sterile soil. While these units were on a different lot, does this mean there was less intensive activity in this area? So far, the small fragments of artifacts and the large number of domestic artifacts suggest that the rear lots were used for a variety of activities associated with the occupants of the homes. Based on the marbles and doll parts found, maybe kids played in the rear yards, especially since the front yards of homes along Railroad Avenue bordered the busy rail line. Similarly, the lot along Church Lane also has a small front yard area, and the occupants may have utilized the rear yard as well.


The last unit, EU 12, was our last hope for finding a substantial feature that may further shine a light on activities in the rear yard area or life in Texas in general. By the beginning of the week, we had some interesting finds from ceramics, like a whiteware ceramic base with a "Thomas China Co." maker's mark, to writing slates and pencils to many nails (Image 6). EU 12 also produced limestone and brick and an assortment of modern and nineteenth-century artifacts (Image 7). Is this debris from the residence on Railroad Avenue that burned down in the 1890s?


Image 6: Erika holding a whiteware ceramic base with "Thomas China Co." maker's mark


Image 7: Miguel and Erika excavating the first soil layer of EU 12


EU 12 initially contained different soil layers than what we had encountered in the other units. Yet, after excavation of these first layers, it was clear that they potentially were disturbed fill layers. The vertical positions of the limestone and brick as well as the large patches of reddish-brown clay suggest that this soil and rock had been mixed and redeposited as some point.

Further, we found artifacts, such as a Frozen Charlotte's doll head (Image 8) and other ceramics, but in the same context as plastic. By the end of the week, we had some help from one of Ed Doyle's (who ran the bar at the corner of Church Lane and Railroad Avenue in the early twentieth century) descendants. With her help, we found a feature in the soil that contained coal and limestone. By the next day, after excavation, this feature turned out to be a soil layer. Yet, we will have to see what lies beneath next week and what the profile of the feature looks like.


Image 8: Frozen Charlotte doll head from EU12

Finally, we had an opportunity to visit Wye House, a plantation where Frederick Douglas was enslaved and where the other field school is running. As our field school winds down next week, Katie will soon give us an account of that visit and how it may relate to Texas.

Adam Fracchia
July 4, 2011

Working in the Lab

This year's field school has seven students taking the course for credit, Miguel Valdivia, Peter Flagle, Erika Kruse, Alex Gordon, Katie Cooper, Paul Flynn, and Rachael Pacella. The students have divided their time between working in the field and in the lab.

Last week working in the lab, the students finished labeling artifacts from the 2009 Field School in Texas, Maryland. With at least 50,000 artifacts, it really did take that long!

Currently, the students are working on labeling and cataloging artifacts from the 2010 Field School. Artifacts, such as the pipe stem, ceramics, cut nail, and writing slate and pencil depicted in Image 1, come in from the field dirty and grouped only by soil layer and unit. After a gentle washing and drying, artifacts are painted with a fine strip of acrylic, then the site number and lot number (a catalog number) is written on each artifact so that they can always be identified by their context (Image 2), even during vesselization (where pieces from the same artifact are put back together). Though tedious, putting artifacts back together allows us to understand exactly what and how much of something we have. Also, we can attempt to figure out how and when an artifact made its way into the ground by studying its parts and where they were located in the ground. Finally, a second layer of acrylic is applied to keep the site number and lot number from wiping away (Image 3).


Image 1: Artifacts (a pipe stem, ceramics, a cut nail, and a writing slate and pencil) recovered in the field


Image 2: Katie writing on an artifact in the lab


Image 3: Smoking pipe stem labeled with site and catalog number

After labeling, we are faced with the task of cataloging or inventorying (Image 4). When cataloging artifacts, students write down the type of material, its function, its form, any decorative qualities, if its whole or fragmented, if it contains any marks, and the finally the quantity. For example with a beer bottle, you would describe the type of glass (brown), then continue to list its qualities: its decoration (embossed), its category (kitchen), its function (alcohol), and its form (a bottle). If the artifact is whole you can catalog it as whole, but it is more common to log fragmented artifacts, which in the case of glass, can be divided into body, base, or lip pieces. Also, students can find maker's marks on the base of the bottles. These symbols or letters can help identify the company that made the bottle, narrowing down the time frame from which the bottle could come from as well as the location of manufacture.


Image 4: Erika cataloging a ceramic sherd with a Flow Blue decoration

We have been cataloging lots of brown bottle glass recently, as well as some clear bottle glass and window glass. We have also been cataloging lots of whiteware, specifically tableware, some of which is transfer printed with floral designs. We have also found some stoneware, yellowware and redware. In many cases, the artifacts are so small that vessel form cannot be discerned— perhaps vesselization can help us later in this regard.

Working in the lab can be tedious at times, yet, unlike working in the field, we can examine the artifacts more carefully and fully. With various references, we can look up details about them, like if a glass bottle has a brandy or a crown cap finish— giving us clues to their contents and uses. These details are interesting because the lab is not only where each artifact can be examined closely, but where all the artifacts can be studied together as an assemblage. When all the artifacts are entered into a spreadsheet, we then can begin to figure out the nature of the site, who the people were, how they lived, and numerous other exciting questions. For now, we still have a lot of work to do.


Rachael Pacella
June 28,2011

Our First Week In Texas

After a week in the lab, we have just ended our first week in Texas, Maryland. In Texas, we opened up three units utilizing the survey grid from the 2009 field season. Currently, we are testing the rear yard area of a residence built around the 1840s that burned down in the 1890s. Last year's field school excavated part of the yard area but concentrated their efforts in the rear portion of the lot. They excavated a "store" which now seems to be an icehouse, based on its depth (almost 3 meters below the surface!) and artifacts. With seven students excavating this year and two weeks under our belts, we made quite a bit of progress looking for additional features in the yard (such as privies), and we even opened two additional units towards the end of the week.

As we are only a week into excavation, let me summarize the progress in each unit so far: (All the units and designations have continued off from were the 2010 Field School ended.) In Excavation Unit (EU) 9, Miguel and Katie found various artifacts ranging from the nineteenth century through the present which tell us that the site has been disturbed. We know this because the nineteenth-century clay tobacco pipe bowls and stems should not be in the same context layer as plastic bags. By midweek, two features were discovered that appear to be a post and posthole in what was originally thought to be a pit (Image 1). Limestone, plaster, and coal littered this hole as well as several small artifact fragments such as whiteware and glass.


Image 1: Possible Post and Posthole Partially Excavated in EU9

With Paul and Erika, I dug EU 10 a few meters to the south of EU 9. This unit is the rockiest of the units due to the layers of rocks that include limestone, plaster, and quartz (Image 2). This unit has five soil layers in it and all but the last soil layer has had coal. As we dug into the unit, the rocks did tend to lessen with depth, but excavation proved to be slow and tedious. No distinct features were identified, and the soil contexts were clearly defined on the unit's wall. We found several clay tobacco pipes stems and bowl fragments as well as several large pieces of whiteware with different designs on them (spatter, sponge painted, and transfer printed), and a slate pencil and writing slate. With these artifacts in the first soil layers, we found more modern artifacts like twentieth-century beer bottle fragments, wire nails, and plastic. The last soil context excavated was a reddish brown clay and contained no artifacts so we considered it sterile and backfilled the unit.


Image 2: South Wall Profile of EU 10

Only two meters to the west sits EU 11 dug by Alex and Rachel. This unit is like a mirror image of EU 10 based off of the soil layers and artifacts (Image 3). Matching the profiles of soil in the walls of both units shows gently sloping soil contexts with little disturbance. This leads us to ask what activities were happening in this area of the backyard.


Image 3: A Sampling of Artifacts from EU 11 (a thimble, ceramics, glass, writing slates, a clothing hook, a pendant?...)

In an entirely different lot closer to Church Lane, Paul and I have just started to excavate EU 1 (Image 4) in an area thought to contain a privy. This grassy lot abuts a lot containing a turn-of-the-century home now, but the boundaries of these lots likely have been altered at some point. Therefore, the lot we are excavating in might have held one of the original homes bordering the south end of Church Lane where the current house now stands.

This unit so far has had mixture of modern artifacts, like aluminum nails and wrappers, and older ones, like amethyst glass. We also found an old flask-like bottle that could have had medicine in it, but next to it was a plastic-handled screwdriver and screws. This tells us that at least the top part of the unit has seen recent use because of the mixture of artifacts in it. Yet, as we dug down on Friday, the artifacts seem to be fewer but older. We have hopes of finding the privy at the end of this lot and will continue to dig. Keep your fingers crossed!


Image 4: Excavation of EU 1

Peter Flagle
June 27, 2011

Excavations at the Irish Shrine

We have wrapped up two weeks of excavations at the Irish Shrine on Lemmon Street in West Baltimore. With temperatures topping 100°F and the occasional visit by some friendly rats, students enrolled in the 2011 Field School dug two excavation units. During this search for privies located in the rear lots of these row homes, several interesting features were uncovered as well as a wide range of artifacts.

In one unit, we found a fairly recent concrete foundation that rested above a deep pit (going down 1.5 meters from the surface). In this pit, the dark and loose soil indicated a fill layer which is further supported by the discovery of a mix of nineteenth-century domestic artifacts, such as doll parts and buttons, as well as twentieth-century domestic artifacts and architectural debris, like plastic toys and bricks.

So what can a Sprite bottle and an 1830's painted plate tell us? Having these and other items in the same layer of soil suggests that an earlier feature, perhaps a privy, was disturbed by later excavation or renovation of the row homes and their yards— resulting in a mix both of artifacts and soil.

The other and adjacent unit proved even more interesting. Relatively quickly, a soil stain was identified which resembled a post hole. Further investigation uncovered a collared metal pipe situated vertically in the soil. Even more perplexing, below and connected to this pipe sat another pipe running perpendicularly from north to south [Image 1]. We still are researching their possible function, but one theory is that these pipes may have been used as a venting mechanism for a later water closet.


Image 1: Pipes and circular stain/wood of barrel

Equally fascinating, underneath these pipes was a dark circular stain the approximate dimensions of a barrel bottom. Careful excavation unearthed a well-preserved wooden board that fit exactly within the circular stain. This board likely is the last remnant of a barrel from a barrel-vaulted privy (a privy placed over a buried barrel and regularly emptied but some very unfortunate person). Perhaps, the barrel was cleaned around the turn of the century and the pipes were then added for a water closet? Any ideas? White ball clay pipes, bone buttons, and various ceramics are among some of the nineteenth and twentieth-century artifacts that came from this unit and its features [Image 2].


Image 2: Recovered artifacts, washed and drying in the sun

After several days of mapping and recording soil data and other information, the students backfilled the units. The students of the Field School have endured some extremely difficult climate conditions [Image 3], but their diligence and hard work paid off with many exciting discoveries!



Image 3: Field School student, Alex, working through the heat

This short excavation demonstrates the rich heritage and history of Baltimore that is available archaeologically when excavated and documented systematically and scientifically. We would like to thank the Irish Shrine and the residents of Lemmon Street for the opportunity to excavate and their patience during the last two weeks.

The remainder of the field school will be in Texas, Maryland, and will be our third year of studying this nineteenth and twentieth-century quarrying community. More soon to follow!

Paul Flynn and Adam Fracchia
June 23, 2011

Field Season Ends...

The field school ended July 9th and was a very successful field investigation - although extremely hot. In comparison to last year the artifact count was low, however unlike the previous season the shards of glass and ceramic were much more diagnostic forming a very tight date range between 1850 and 1890. The date range spans the Connor family tenancy and the time of the rowhouse built in 1854 and burnt, abandoned, and demolished by 1896. The artifacts were mostly domestic and included teacups, plates, soup tureens, chamber pots, buttons, and toys. The data provide a keen insight into the daily lives of the Connor family.

Unfortunately, the artifacts do not provide any clues as to the use of the structure. It has been assumed that the 12 ft. X 12 ft. structure was used as the family shop. The widow Conner (1870s) was listed as owning a shop on the property, however it is unclear if she did so in this outbuilding. The material culture is similar to many other non-commercial, domestic sites and does not provide any insights into the use of the structure. There are no indications (other than domestic items) that the building was a residence. It has been suggested that it could have been a worker's barracks, but the presence of women and children in the assemblage suggest otherwise. It is because of this I contend that the material most likely belongs to the Conner family and was dumped in the structure (most artifacts found along the bottom of the feature) after the fire and abandonment of the house - and subsequently the outbuilding. After 1896 the house was razed and the lot remained vacant until the present time. Thus for now the our structure remains somewhat of a mystery...

The next phase of the project is laboratory work. The artifacts were washed in the field, but now every piece needs to be labeled and cataloged before I begin the analysis. I look forward to this part as it allows the time to really sit and think about the materials and their implications for daily life amongst Irish immigrant and Irish-American laborers.

I hope people continue to follow the project as it moves through what can be one of the most exciting phases. I plan to post weekly blogs in terms of new findings, photographs, and of course the completed site report.

I want to thank the fantastic crew working this summer - none of this could have been possible without them. I hope they read this and stay connected to the project.

Post by:
Stephen A. Brighton