Archaeological Testing at 10 Francis Street Annapolis, Maryland by Laura Galke Lynn Jones Principal Investigator Dr. Barbara J. Little Archaeology in Annapolis A cooperative project of Historic Annapolis Foundation and the University of Maryland, College Park .-?,..w- ANNAPOILIS LAB ABSTRACT In August 1990, archaeological investigations were permitted at 10 Francis Street (18AP55). The house on this property dates to the early eighteenth century and the property has had little disturbance since that time. Excavation here has provided an excellent opportunity to learn more about this period of Annapolis' history. Two units were excavated and are described fully within this report. One unit, placed next to the house foundation, revealed an eighteenth-century brick sidewalk beneath the current mid-nineteenth-century brick sidewalk, but it did not contain any builder's trench for the structure. A second unit, randomly place in the back yard, revealed intact stratigraphy dating back to the early eighteenth century. These findings demonstrate the integrity of this site and its potential for future investigation. Any alterations to this property should proceed only after further controlled excavations have taken place. Plate 1. Rear of the house at 10 Francis Street The permission to conduct a test excavation at 10 Francis Street was obtained by members of Historic Annapolis Foundation from Mrs. Rubin, the current owner of the property. The property was listed with a realtor and might soon change ownership. Excavations were performed by the Archaeology in Annapolis project, which is funded through the Historic Annapolis Foundation, a private, non-profit organization, and the University of Maryland, College Park. The excavation took place from August 2 to August 8 1990, and involved the participation of three field crew members under the supervision of Laura J. Galke. The principal investigator was Dr. Barbara J. Little who provided advice in the field as well as editing this site report. .*. lll TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................... i ... ~~knowledgements ........................................... m ~istofFigures ............................................... v List of Plates ................................................ v introduction ................................................. 1 Environmental setting ........................................... 2 ........................................... Background Research 5 Prehistoric background ................... - ................. 5 Historic background ...................................... 11 Sitehisto ry ............................................ 16 Research goals ............................................. -21 Results and Interpretations ....................................... 22 Methods ............................................. 22 Field Investigation Results .................................. 25 Recomrnendations/Conclusions .................................... 27 References ................................................ 28 Appendices A . Profile Drawings of Units .............................. 34 B . Artifact Inventory ................................... 40 C . Staff Qualifications .................................. 56 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Plate 1 LIST OF FIGURES Council for Maryland Archaeology archaeological research zones 1718 Stoddert map Map locating 10 Francis Street on U. S . G . S . Quad map, Annapolis, Maryland Map of Annapolis showing location of 10 Francis Street 18AP55 Site Map showing unit placement Unit 1 East Profile Unit 1 South Profile Unit 2 East Profile Unit 2 West Profile Unit 2 South Profile LIST OF PLATES . . Photograph of rear of house and back yard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 I. INTRODUCTION Archaeology in Annapolis was allowed to excavate two test units on the property at 10 Francis Street in August 1990. This site is one of the most well researched properties in Annapolis and is historically significant. It represents one of the few privately owned properties dating to the early eighteenth century which has not been impacted by land development. This property has been used for commercial as well as residential purposes since the early eighteenth century. Since Archaeology in Annapolis began in 1981, over two dozen archaeological sites have been investigated by this joint cooperative venture between Historic Annapolis r Foundation and the University of Maryland, College Park. Ranging from controlled test : phases to full scale excavation, these archaeological investigations have contributed greatly to our current understanding of the social and economic history of Annapolis. n. ENVIRONMENT.AL SETTINGIPROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION phvsiography and Topography The project area, 10 Francis Street, is located on a plot of land fronting on Francis Street just above its intersection with Main Street in the city of Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. This project area is located on the western shore of the Atlantic Coastal plain Province, within Maryland Research Unit 7 which is the Gunpowder-Middle-Back- Patapsco-Magothy-Severn-Rhode-West Drainages (see figure 1). The topography of the western shore of the Atlantic coastal plain province is characterized as gently rolling uplands. Climate Anne Arundel County presently has a temperate mid-continental climate. Rainfall is moderate, but the city's location and the surrounding bodies of water (i.e. the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries) provide humidity. Snowfall is also moderate. Mean temperatures for the Annapolis area include a low of 340in January and a high of 790 in July (Fassig 1917: 181, Steponaitis 1980:3-4). Vegetation and Fauna Between 25,000 B. C. to 15,000 B. C. the Chesapeake area forests consisted of spruce, pine, some f~, and birch trees. By 10,000 B.C. the forests had become dominated by oak- hickory, representing a more varied and thus more exploitable environment (MD Dept. of Natural Res). Modem vegetation in the county includes oak, chestnut, and hickory forests in the upland areas of the coastal plain and evergreen forests in the lowland coastal plain (Braun 1967:245). Faunal species dominant in the coastal plain include deer, small mammals, such as rabbit, squirrel, and fox, and birds, such as turkey and water fowl (Shelford 1963). Geology and Soils The substrata soils in the Chesapeake area are formed from unconsolidated sedimentary deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel which overlie crystalline bedrock. Though the topographic relief in the area is not diverse, the sediment deposits vary greatly in depth, texture, and degree of permeability (Brush, et. al. 1977:7). Much of the soil within the project area has been artificially deposited by human activity. The natural soils in the project area are of the Monmouth Series; sandy loam with a 0-2 % gradient, formed from unconsolidated beds of fine textured sediments. The soil is deep, strongly acidic, well 2 drained, olive colored, and tends to be highly erodible. The soil profile is made up of 40- 70 % glauconite (green sand) at any point. (Kirby and Matthews 1973). Past and Present Land Use Patterns During the prehistoric period, the land may have been utilized by Native Americans of the area as it is quite close to the Severn River. From the fxst quarter of th eighteenth century to the present, the land has been used as a yard associated with an urban dwelling. Parts of the yard may have been used, at one time or another, for flower or vegetable gardening, stable yard, or for keeping fowl. Presently, it is used as a lawn. Nuhere Designate Maryland Arclieological . ' Research Unita (Council for Marylmd Archeology) Figure 1 Council for Maryland Archaeology archaeological research zones m. BACKGROUND RESEARCH PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS No evidence was found indicating that previous archaeological investigation or excavation had been carried out on this property. PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND PaleoIndian Period, ca. 13.000-7500 B. C . The PaleoIndian Stage is not well represented in Annapolis and in the surrounding Anne Arundel County area. Most occurrences of PaleoIndian components within the county are represented by fluted points found out of context, on the surface of multi-component sites (Brown 1979). The scarcity of PaleoIndian sites within Anne Arundel County, as well as in the entire Coastal Plain Province, is the result of environmental changes which occurred in the Chesapeake Bay region during the retreat of the Wisconsin ice sheet. Retreat of this ice sheet resulted in global sea level rise and eventual formation of the Chesapeake Bay through the drowning of the ancient bed of the Susquehanna River and the lower reaches of her tributaries, thus covering PaleoIndian sites located there (Kraft 1971). Human occupation of Anne Arundel County may have begun as early as 13,000 B. C. (Steponaitis 1980: 12), although occupation of areas north of the Middle Atlantic Region was probably prior to 12,000 B. C. due to the presence of glacial ice (Funk 1978: 16). Traditionally PaleoIndian subsistence was believed to have depended primarily on the hunting of Pleistocene megafauna (Willey 1966, Griffin 1977). However, recent evidence suggests that PaleoIndian populations of the Eastern Woodland probably focused on hunting white tailed deer (Gardner 1980: 19-20). Ritchie (1957:7) suggests that subsistence strategies possibly included foraging for plants, fishing, and hunting for small mammals. The tool kit of the PaleoIndians was adapted primarily to a hunting economy and included scrapers, gravers, bruins, denticulates, hammerstones, utilized flakes, and knives, as well as fluted points. (I(msey 1972: 327-330, Funk 1972: 17-21, Gardner 19745, Custer 1984). PaleoIndian populations were mobile, changing location throughout the year in order to utilize available resources. Based on work at the Flint Run Complex in Virginia (Gardner 1974:19-23, 42-44, 1977, 1979) several types of PaleoIndian sites have been identified. The largest of these sites are base camps, the main locus of habitation, which are identified by the variety within the artifact assemblage present at the site, non-random lithic distribution indicating discrete activity areas, and occasional pits and post molds. Base camps may have been occupied seasonally by aggregate bands. Examples of base camps include the Thunderbird site in the Flint Run Complex, Virginia and the Shoop site in Pennsylvania (Gardner 1974, Witthoft 1952). Smaller PaleoIndian sites may represent special purpose sites occupied by smaller groups for shorter periods of time. These sites include quarry sites, quarry reduction stations, base camp maintenance stations, and outlying hunting sites. Steponaitis notes that PaleoIndian base camps identified by diverse artifact assemblages, non- random distribution of lithic debris, activity areas, and post holes and molds, are found in riverine environments. Further, quarry sites were identified by a lack of tools, and the presence of large amounts of debitage and a crypto-crystalline rock source (Steponaitis 1980:66). This indicates that eastern PaleoIndians were not following migrating animals but were occupying sites on a seasonal basis. Archaic Period 7500-1000 B. C. The end of the Pleistocene was marked by environmental changes, including the inundation of some riverine environments, a change from mixed coniferous forests to northern hardwoods, and a more temperate climate (Whitehead 1972: 308-3 10, Carbone 1976:121). Gradual changes in the flora and fauna, begun during the PaleoIndian Stage were continued through the Early Archaic Period, resulting in modem temperate flora and fauna populations through most of the Middle Atlantic region (Guilday 1967:232), The Archaic Stage is one of cultural adaptation to these changes, it is further divided into the Early, Middle and Late Archaic Periods. The Early Archaic Period (7500 - 6000 B.C.) is characterized by the appearance of two artifact traditions, the Corner Notched tradition (7500 - 6800 B. C.) and the Bifurcate tradition (6800 - 6000 B.C.). The Comer Notched tradition was marked by a change from fluted points to comer notched points, reflecting different hafting techniques and utilization. The general artifact assemblages of Paleo and Archaic peoples were very similar, the differences between the two peoples was in what they hunted (Steponaitis 1980:69-70). The Bifurcate tradition involved the scheduled use of a number of seasonal available resources. In general, the settlement pattern for this period is similar to that of the PaleoIndian Stage (Gardner 1974, 1977, and 1979). The Middle Archaic Period (6000-4000 B.C.) was marked by the replacement of northern Boreal forests by oak-hickory forests (Whitehead 1972:308-310). The climate gradually became warmer with increased precipitation from the Early Archaic Period to the Middle Archaic Period. Subsistence strategies and settlement patterns of the Middle Archaic Period were similar to Early Archaic Period patterns. Mobile bands utilized seasonally available plants and animals. Tool kits used during the Middle Archaic Period were similar to PaleoIndian and Early Archaic Period tool kits. New additions to the tool kit included stone mortars and polished stone atlatl weights, used to balance atlatl spear throwers, recovered at the Hardaway and Doerschuk sites, North Carolina. (Coe 1964: 5 1-55, 80-81). Some researchers have postulated an abandonment of coastal areas in favor of the Piedmont during the Middle Archaic (Kavanagh 1982:50). However, the continued rise of sea level during this period has probably submerged coastal sites associated with the Middle Archaic Period (Steponaitis 1983 : 177). Gardner (1978) and Custer (1984), have identified three types of sites associated with the Middle Archaic Period which reflect the social organization of the period. (See also Gardner and Custer 1978). The macroband base camp (Custer 1984: 67) was occupied by numerous family units. Artifact assemblages recovered indicate fairly long term occupation with a wide variety of activities at these locations. Microband base camps were occupied by smaller family units, probably individual family groups. These base camps tended to be located in environmental settings that could not support the larger populations associated with macroband base camps. Both the macroband and microband base camps were associated with procurement sites. Fewer tool types are associated with these sites and they tend to be related to a limited number of activities. Site location was dependent on the type of resource being utilized (i.e. quarry sites, interior hunting sites, etc.). The Late Archaic Period (4000-1000 B.C.) was marked by a warm and dry climate and dominant oak-hickory forests. Four traditions flourished during the Late Archaic Period. The Piedmont tradition (4000-2000 B.C.) was an in situ development in the Middle Atlantic Region (Kinsey 1972: 337, McNett and Gardner 1975). Contemporaneous and co-existing with the Piedmont tradition was the Laurentian tradition (4000-2000 B.C.) which was centered in the St. Lawrence River drainage of Ontario, New England, and New York (Ritchie 1969:29) but also extended south into Maryland. Custer suggests that the third tradition, the Broadspear Tradition (2000- 1500 B . C .) , developed out of the Piedmont tradition as an adaptive response to changing environmental conditions (Custer 1978:3). The final tradition, the Fishtail Tradition (1500-750 B. C .), developed during the terminal Late Archaic Period and extended into the Early Woodland Period (Steponaitis 1980:28). Subsistence and settlement patterns throughout the Piedmont and Laurentian traditions remained similar to the patterns of the Middle Archaic, suggesting a social and political organization similar to the PaleoIndian and Early and Middle Archaic populations. Bands were probably egalitarian in nature. A seasonal fusionlfission organization is postulated for population movement in which individual families spent a part of the year at microband base camps following seasonally available resources. During another part of the year several bands, probably connected through a kinship network, fused together at macroband base camps. (Custer 1984:67-68). After 3000 B.C. major environmental changes occurred in the coastal plain province which changed the subsistence and settlement patterns of the local population. The Broadspear tradition developed between 2000 and 1900 B.C., several researchers have suggested that the Broadspear tradition is a development out of the local Piedmont Tradition, with a primary focus on riverine environments (Kmsey 1972:347; Turner 1978:69; Mouer, et. al. 19805, and Steponaitis 1980:26). However, Turnbaugh (1975:54, 56) believes that this tradition represents more intensive exploitation of shellfish and estuarine resources in the south, while riverine resources were exploited in the north. Gardner (1982:60) suggests that Late Archaic coastal plain sites utilized estuarine resources and that these sites may have supported semi-sedentary populations. Broadspear knives and woodworking tools recovered from Late Archaic Coastal Plain sites could indicate that specialized tools such as fish traps, nets, and canoes, were being manufactured (Custer 1984:97). Stone and ceramic containers for cooking and storage as well as storage pits appear. The ability to store food resources at the macro and microband base camps allowed groups to remain sedentary for longer periods of time and to support higher population densities. Turner (1978) notes a marked population growth in the Virginia Coastal Plain during the terminal Archaic and Early Woodland Periods. Woodland Period 1000 B. C. - A.D. 1600 The transition from Archaic to Woodland is marked by the appearance of ~oodworking tools, such as axes celts, and cordage-impressed ceramics. Both types of artifacts reflect a more sedentary lifeway. This developmental stage is divided into three periods: Early, Middle and Late Woodland. In the Middle Atlantic Region, settlement and subsistence patterns established during the Archaic Stage continued until European contact. Custer (1984:96) and Wright (1973:20) both postulate a settlement pattern which includes large macroband base camps whose populations periodically separated and moved to smaller microband base camps. Gardner (1982:66) suggests that the macroband base camps were occupied as semi-sedentary sites. The Popes Creek phase of the Middle Woodland Period is seen as a continuation of and an intensification of the subsistence patterns established during the Early Woodland. Large semi-permanent macroband base camps were located along estuarine or riverine zones of river drainages, and were surrounded by extraction or procurement camps. Settlement patterns indicate that a variety of environmental zones were being utilized (Steponaitis 1980, Handsman and McNett 1974, Wright 1973). The Late Woodland Period on the western shore of the Maryland coastal plain is divided into two phases, the Little Round Bay phase (A.D. 800-1250) and the Sullivans Cove phase (A.D. 1250-1 650). Custer (1984: 146) suggests that vast changes occurred in the settlement and subsistence patterns of prehistoric Native Americans during the Late Woodland Period. Prior to A. D. 1000, settlement and subsistence patterns centered around intensive hunting and gathering with some reliance on cultigens. Groups continued the seasonal round of movement from base camp to base camp with occasional forays to Procurement sites. Sometime after A.D. 1000 agriculture appeared in the Middle Atlantic Region. Domesticated plants probably appeared prior to A.D. 1000 but, as Flannery (1968) points out, it is difficult to clearly differentiate between intensive horticulture and the actual Practice of agriculture in the archaeological record. The process of change from intensive gathering and horticulture to agriculture was gradual. Even with the appearance of agriculture, hunting and gathering still continued. Moeller (1975), Arminger (1 975), and Kinsey and Custer (1982) report the recovery of a variety of wild plant remains in association with domestic plants at sites in Pennsylvania. After A.D. 1000 Native American groups in Anne Arundel County became more sedentary than any previous group had been, as they intensified their practice of agriculture as an economic base. The surplus which agriculture supplied allowed a sedentary life style to develop that included villages. These villages were larger than any previous macroband base camp had been and contained storage facilities such as large pits and more permanent house structures. Large villages were probably surrounded by smaller hamlets or the farmsteads of individual family groups. When European explorers and colonists arrived in the Chesapeake Bay Region, Native American populations were living h large villages, relying on an intensified and integrated utilization of natural and cultivated resources. HISTORIC BACKGROUND Earlv Settlement 1629- 1683 Maryland was granted to George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, in 1629, and was established as a proprietary colony. The official settlement of the colony was in 1634 at St. Mary's City, which became the capital of the colony. As the majority of the population lived on tobacco farms, there was little urban growth in the colony (Carr 1974). The present site of Annapolis was settled in 1651 but remained a small village throughout the seventeenth century. Based on recent archaeological discoveries, the area' s first settlement, named Providence (c . 1649), was located on Broadneck peninsula. The area now occupied by Annapolis became known as Arundelton in 1683, when it became an official port of entry for the tobacco trade. An early feature that was thought to have been part of this settlement was Proctor's Tavern which, among other things, served as a meeting place for legislators. Results of recent documentary research suggest that Proctor's Landing was located in Londontowne on the South River and that Proctor's Tavern was on the site of St. Mary's Arts Building next to Taylor Funeral Home on Duke of Gloucester Street. It was during these years as a proprietary colony that Maryland developed an economy based on tobacco export. The smaller farmers relied on the large plantation owners for the processing and shipping of the tobacco, but very few of these large plantations were actually self-sufficient with skilled laborers such as blacksmiths, coopers, and cobblers. Thus, Maryland was organized to grow, process, and export tobacco (Middleton 1953) while relying on trade for many other goods. The Late Seventeenth Centurv 1683- 1694 The Acts of 1683, chapter 5 of the General Assembly, appointed commissioners to lay out a town at Proctor's. Prior to this time the town had not been surveyed. The Commissioners were authorized to purchase one hundred acres from the then current land owners. The land was then to be surveyed and staked into one hundred one-acre lots, with streets and alleys and open spaces for a church, chapel, market, and other public buildings (Riley 1901 :38). Richard Beard was hired to survey the town. Reconstruction of Beard's survey by Baker (1986: 192) indicates that the original settlement was concentrated along the shoreline, rather than the higher ground over-looking the harbor. The streets and lots laid out by Beard were concentrated in the area of present-day Shipwright and Market Streets. property by resident merchants, such as Amos Garrett, Charles Carroll the Settler, William Bladen, Thomas Bordley, and Daniel Larkin. Papenfuse suggests that property became valuable in Annapolis after 1715 because of the return of the proprietary government and the development of local industry. He (Papenfuse 1975: 10) identifies the period from 1715 to 1763, as the period of "Industrial Expansion and Bureaucratic Growth". After 1720, commercial zones developed within the city, as the importance of mercantilism grew (Baker 1986; Leone and Shackel 1986:7-8). Craftsmen such as goldsmiths and watchmakers did not appear until after 1720 and other luxury crafts developed much later (Baker 1986:201). Ship building had been carried out in the Acton's Cove and Dorsey Creek areas since the 17th century. However associated crafts such as ropewalks or block and sail makers did not appear in the city until after 1735 (Papenfuse 1975 : 10). I In 1689, Maryland became a royal colony as a result of the "Glorious Revolution" when William and Mary became the sovereign rulers in England. In 169415 the capital of Maryland was moved from St. Mary's City to Annapolis under the direction of the second royal governor, Sir Francis Nicholson. In designing the city, Nicholson intentionally used a Baroque design for the political purpose of creating stability by using the church and the State House as the focus of his design (Reps 1965). The Growth Of Annapolis 1694 -1784 Annapolis received its charter as a city in 1708 (Riley 1901 : 39). Historical records indicate that the city underwent several distinct periods of growth during the eighteenth century. Papenfuse (1975) has identified three periods of development within the city. The first was a period of uncertainty while the new town was establishing itself. Nicholson's decision to move the capital to Arundelton ensured that the town would survive but not necessarily grow. During this period of uncertainty, Baker (1983 and 1986) notes two phases of land development within the city. During the first phase, 1695-1705, the planterlmerchant class purchased most of the lots within the city but quickly sold them off. The second phase, 1705 to 1720, was characterized by the purchasing of large blocks of city The period 1745 to 1754 marked a significant increase in economic growth within the city. Employment for free white males was available in the civil service (Baker 1986:204). Craftsmen were branching out into other businesses, such as dry good importing, while still retaining their original craft (Papenfuse 1975:15, Baker 1986:202). This period of growth was intempted by the French and Indian War (1754-1763), which caused a general economic decline in Annapolis. The era between 1763 and 1774 is known as Annapolis' Golden Age. This time is characterized by the decline of small industry, such as shipbuilding and tanning, while conspicuous consumption among the wealthiest Annapolitans increased significantly (Papenfuse 1975 : 6). The battles of the Revolutionary War did not directly have an impact on the city. Several British warships anchored near the city during the war, but did'not fire on it (Riley 1887: 177-178). The end of the Revolutionary War also signaled the end of the Age of Affluence. Annapolis went into a slow and steady economic decline after the American Revolution and by 1820 was no longer the leading mercantile center of Maryland. A factor contributing to the decline of Annapolis was the rise of Baltimore as a major mercantile and shipping center. Annapolis began to feel the pinch from Baltimore's shipping industry as early as 1747. Post-Revolutionary War Annapolis 1784-1 840 During and after the Revolution, Annapolis tried to attract the government of the new nation to the city. Had the city succeeded in becoming the permanent seat of national government, the economic gains would have made up for the losses in shipping. The city tried to use its central location in the emerging country and its new State House to present itself as the best location for the new national government. The Maryland State House served for several years as the United States Capitol. This status, however, did not last and in 1791 Congress voted in favor of the District of Columbia location (Reps 1965:241). Economic strategies and the attraction of new business to Annapolis were interrupted during the War of 1812. The city turned into a military encampment and the citizens were constantly expecting an attack from the British. Annapolis continued in its search for sources of revenue in addition to the revenue generated by State government spending. Negotiations concerning the location of the Naval Academy at Annapolis continued for twenty-eight years. In 1845, the Naval Academy opened in Annapolis (Riley 1887:254 and 264-265). During negotiations between the Navy and Annapolis (1817-1845), the city began to make improvements in the transportation available between Annapolis and other points in the Tidewater Region. These improvements may have been prompted by the need to present Annapolis as a desirable location in which to do business. The Antebellum Era 1840-1860 and effects of the Civil War During the 1840s and 1850s the City of Annapolis experienced the growing tension between the North and the South. Annapolis itself was home both to unionists and secessionists. Economically the Civil War was a boom to many of the local merchants who sold supplies to the troops quartered in the city (Riley 1887:320). However after the war a short economic decline set in. The commerce of Annapolis prior to the war had depended on the spending habits of government officials living in Annapolis and the wealthy slave holding planters. After the Civil War, the abolition of slavery curtailed the trade with these planters. Riley, the city's historian, remarks that after the war "The Naval Academy, in some measure, supplie[d] the benefits of a foreign trade. The oyster-packing establishments, of which there [were] about ten, [brought] considerable money into the city, which.. .redeeme[d] the mercantile business from annihilation" (Riley 1887: 3 19). The Late Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries Annapolis began to expand when the building industry boomed in the late 1870's. New houses and shops were constructed along Maryland Avenue, Market, Conduit, Prince George and King George streets on large residential lots which had formerly been held by single owners, but which were now being subdivided (Baker 1986: 197). Despite the economic growth the major "industry" in Annapolis remained state government. Annapolis during the twentieth century continues to be the capital of the State of Maryland and the location of the United States Naval Academy. During the 1950s the downtown commercial area suffered the economic decline and urban blight that was found in many American cites. Unlike many other cities, Annapolis did not engage in wholesale I urban renewal, but preserved many of its earlier buildings. These eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings have become the location of shops along Maryland Avenue, Main Street, and the City Dock which cater to the present-day Annapolis industry of tourism. SITE HISTORY AU the land on the north side of Francis Street between State Circle and the intersection of Main and Francis Streets was surveyed as free school land and was described as such in James Stoddert's notebook of 1718 (see figure 2). It is believed that by circa 1730 a house was built by Henry or James Donaldson, successful merchants in eighteenth- century Annapolis, on the property known as 10-12 Francis Street (see figures 3 and 4). The earliest documentary evidence for a building on the property is mention of rent due to King William's School from H. Donaldson in 1738 (Papenfuse). From 1738 to 1773, the house on this property was sublet to Dr. George Steuart. During the eighteenth century, the house is referred to in documents as "the Donaldson House. " In 1774, the house at 10-12 Francis Street was rented by Isaac McHard and William Holder. McHard operated a tavern and inn known as "The Sign of the Indian King" on the premises. In an advertisement which he placed in the Maryland Gazette (March 17, 1774), McHard informs ". . . his friends and the general public that he . . . has now opened a tavern in the house where Dr. Steuart formerly lived in Francis Street . . . ." (Maryland Gazette, March 17, 1774) As part of his lease McHard was expected to do certain repairs to windows, locks and bolts and latches on the house. Between 1782 and 1786, the house was used as a tavern and as a boarding house. From 1786 to the turn of the century, the descendants of Jonas Green operated a printing office for the Marvland Gazette at 10-12 Francis Street. Besides the printing office, several other businesses were operated here during that period, including a post office, a store, and a tailor shop. By 1798, there were several buildings on the property which are described as ". . . brick kitchen 32 by 16, frame stable 26 by 32 -- a frame part adjoining the above house the office of Messrs. Green 32 by 24." (Chancery Papers #11315) After 1800, the house changed ownership several times and appears to have been used mainly as a residence, although part of it has been put to commercial use even to the present day. The original main section of the house was a one and one-half story brick (English and Flemish bond), with two rooms on each side of a center hall. It had a gambrel roof and two chimneys on each gable end of the house. Sometime in the late 19th century, a second Scale 1:401) \I i Figure 2 171 8 Stoddert map story was added to the house and the front facade was changed to reflect the Victorian of the period. The front porch and the bay window were added at that time. The rear retains the original gambrel roof style and the character of a late-17th, early-18th century dwelling. Today, the house and the addition, which is 12 Francis Street, are the only buildings on the property. All the others have disappeared. Figure 3 Map locating 10 Francis Street U.S.G.S. Quad map Annapolis, Maryland (scale = 1 : 24,000) Contemporary Annapolis 500 feet UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADAMY * 10 FRANCIS STREET Figure 4 Map of Annapolis showing location of 10 Francis Street IV. RESEARCH GOALS One of our primary concerns was to determine the age of the house. There has been some debate about whether this property represents the site of the Kentish Inn, build ca. 1694, or whether it is the Donaldson House, built ca. 1720 or 1730. Edward Papenfuse, of the Maryland Hall of Records, and Jean Russo of Historic Annapolis Foundation support the later date of construction based on documentary evidence. One goal of our archaeological investigation was to discover a builder's trench along side the house which might provide a date for its construction. Another goal was to document the stratigraphy of this property. It was anticipated that the original eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century layers remained intact. This would yield information concerning how the back yard of the property was used, and how that use changed over time. The information gained from this excavation should be used to guide any future development or archaeology on the property. I V. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS Methodologv - Field Methods The time available for excavation of this site was less than two weeks. The number of personnel available allowed for the excavation of two 2.5' by 5' units. In order to best meet our research goals, Unit 1 was placed next to the house foundation to discover if a builder's trench was present. Unit 2 was placed in the center of the back yard to determine if the stratigraphy was intact (see figure 5). Natural stratigraphy defined layer distinctions; if a new soil layer was not recognized before a depth of 0.5 feet was reached, the layer was arbitrarily ended and a new one begun. Unit layers were given capital letters (i.e., A, B, C, etc.) and feature layers were assigned lower-case letters (i.e., a, b, c, etc.). The features themselves were designated by Arabic numerals preceded by a capital 'F' (i.e., F1, F2, F3, etc.). - Excavation was conducted using shovels and trowels, and all soil was sifted through standard quarter inch screen. Soil and flotation samples were takes from each layer. The artifacts recovered were put into bags labeled with the provenience information and were sent to the Historic Annapolis Foundation's archaeology laboratory in Annapolis to be processed. Each unit was excavated into subsoil to a depth of at least 1 foot. In addition, each unit was then cored to substantiate that subsoil had been reached. Methodologv - Laboratory Methods Artifacts from the 10 Francis Street site were transferred daily to the Historic Annapolis FoundatiodArchaeology in Annapolis archaeology laboratory, located in the Maritime Museum at 77 Main St. All bags were checked to make sure that each had received a bag number and that the provenience was printed clearly. A core group of volunteers cleaned, labelled and catalogued the excavated materials. Ceramics, glass, bone and other stable artifacts were washed; some metals and other fragile objects were dry brushed. Once cleaned, artifacts were placed on racks to dry. When dry, they were removed from the racks, sorted by material type, and placed in reclosable plastic bags. Each bag was labelled with the provenience information and bag number. Provenience information is comprised of the site number (18AP55), followed by unit designation and level. If a feature was present, the feature number and level followed the unit. The same information that was printed on the bags was also printed on the ceramics, household glass, bone and other diagnostic artifacts. Tags with the provenience information printed on them were attached to items such as buttons and other diagnostics that either because of size or material could not be directly written on. Artifacts were catalogued for data entry into Archaeology in Annapolis9 data base, Adam, which is based on dBase III Plus. During identification the type of artifact, decorative aspects and manufacturing technique are coded into a six digit mastercode. This code ensures that the same terminology will be used throughout to identify a particular artifact. The computer translates this code into a written description which is included on all printouts. Other attributes such as form, quantity, and color were also recorded on the catalogue sheet. Data was entered into the computer and printed out to be proofed against the original catalog sheets. This process ensures the integrity of the data. Once all of the data from the catalog sheets had been entered into the computer and errors corrected, a printout was produced. This master printout was used to determine the Terminus Post Quem (TPQ) for each unit and to assess the integrity of the deposits. Were all the artifacts from the same time period or did there appear to be a mixture? In some cases, artifacts were examined again to confii the fnst identification. Following the processing and analysis, all artifacts were packaged for storage in Historic Annapolis Foundation's Crownsville storage facility. Artifacts were boxed in bag number order. All records were placed in storage at the University of Maryland, College Park, Archaeology Laboratory. The artifacts, records and reports can be made accessible for additional study. FRANCIS STREET Yard I I 1 House I Figure 5 I I 1 I UNIT 1 BRICK WALKWAY - Scale: 1 " = 10' 0 UNIT2 DATUM POINT 10 18AP55 Site Map showing unit placement Field Investigation Results Twentieth Centurv Unit 1 did not yield any twentieth-century artifacts due to the presence of a brick sidewalk capping the soil layers below. Unit 2 did contain twentieth-century material representing Stratum I. Layer A was a lOYR 313 Dark Brown Sandy Loam and contained a mix of eighteenth through twentieth century material with twentieth-century artifacts especially prevalent. This layer represents the current yard surface and was ended once the sod and its roots had been removed. Layer B in Unit 2, also part of Stratum I, contained a mix of eighteenth through twentieth century material including ceramics, glass, and bone. This layer represented a continuation of the soil found in Layer A and had an identical Munsell soil description. Together these two layers had a depth of 0.6 feet below the surface. These layers contained destruction debris, including fragments of brick and mortar, oyster shell, and nails. Layer C also contained this destruction debris within a soil matrix of 10YR 413 Dark Brown Loamy Clay mottled with a 7.5YR 414 BrownIDark Brown Loamy Clay. The presence of twentieth- century material, including wire nails and pieces of plastic, indicates that this layer is also part of Stratum I. In addition to the presence of twentieth-century material, late eighteenth and nineteenth century material was found. Nineteenth Century Stratum II dates to the mid- to late-nineteenth century and is represented by Layers A and B in Unit 1, and Layer D and Features 1, 2, and 3 in Unit 2. In Unit 1, Layer A is the soil which surrounded and lay directly below the current brick sidewalk. It was a lOYR 313 Dark Brown Loam and contained very few artifacts. This layer is dated to the mid-nineteenth century due to its relationship with Layer B, which lay below A, and was a lOYR 414 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam mottled with a 10YR 416 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay. Layer B contained one piece of whiteware and one piece of creamware. Layer B was 'sandwiched' between two brick sidewalks, the current sidewalk and an earlier one which was designated Feature 4. The earlier sidewalk was a box herringbone pattern oriented at a 45 degree angle to the house and dates to the early nineteenth century. In Unit 2, Stratum I1 consists of Layer D and Features 1, 2, and 3. Layer D was a 7.5YR 414 BrownIDark Brown Sandy Clay mottled with a lOYR 312 Very Dark Greyish Brown Loamy Clay with fragments of mortar, oyster shell, brick and coal. Much of the material in this layer dates to the eighteenth century with some nineteenth century material included, such as coal and whiteware. It is possible that Features 1-3 which occur at the base of this layer may have contaminated layer D which may actually date to the eighteenth century. Features 1, 2, and 3 are all characterized by a lOYR 313 Dark Brown Silty Clay. Feature 1 was an area where animal bone, apparently from the same individual, was deposited in a small (approx. 1 foot in diameter) and relatively shallow (approx. 0.6 feet in depth) pit clearly visible at the base of Level D. Features 2 and 3, also found at the base of Level D, probably represent planting holes. Each of these features contained whiteware, dating them to the nineteenth century. Early Nineteenth Century Stratum III dates to the early nineteenth century and was represented in Unit 1 by Level C and Feature 4. It is not represented in Unit 2. Feature 4 in Unit 1 is a brick sidewalk laid in a box herringbone pattern. This feature can be dated to the early nineteenth century due to its relationship with Layers B and C. Layer B, above this feature, dates to the mid- to late-nineteenth century, while Layer C, the soil between and directly below the bricks of Feature 4, dates to the early nineteenth century. Layer C was a 7.5YR 314 Dark Brown Sandy Loam, and is similar in color to Layer E, an eighteenth century layer in Unit 2. This similarity could be due to the fact that they represent the same time period, but Layer C dates to the Nineteenth century based on the presence of whiteware. Late Eichteenth Century Stratum IV dates to the late eighteenth century and was represented in both units. In Unit 1, Layer D was a lOYR 413 BrownIDark Brown Sandy loam mottled with a 7.5YR 416 Strong Brown Sandy Clay Loam. Eighteenth century cultural material found included a fragment of tin-glazed earthenware, pipe bowl fragment, and a wig curler fragment. All this material was found in the top 0.1' of this layer. The remaining 0.4' of this arbitrary layer was sterile. I In Unit 2, Layer E was a 7.5 YR 416 Strong Brown Clay Sand mottled with a 10YR I 313 Dark Brown Silty Clay. Only a few artifacts were recovered, including a piece of creamware, the only diagnostic artifact found. This layer was 0.5' in thickness and was ended arbitrarily. Sterile Subsoil Megastratum V represents sterile subsoil. In Unit 1, Layers E and F can be characterized as a lOYR 416 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay mottled with a 5YR 414 Reddish Brown Very Sandy Clay and 5Y 613 Pale Olive Sandy Clay with bog iron concretions. Each of these layers was 0.5' thick and were excavated as 2.5' by 2.5' windows. No cultural material of any kind was found in either of these layers. In Unit 2, Layer F was a 7.5YR 416 Strong Brown Sandy Clay mottled with a lOYR 313 Dark Brown Sandy Clay. It was arbitrarily ended once it reached a depth of 0.5'. Layer G was a 10YR 414 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay. It was excavated as a 2.5' by 2.5' window to a depth of 0.5'. Neither of these two layers contained any cultural material. VI. CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDATTONS The archaeological investigation did not discover a builder's trench which would indicate a construction date for the house. This may be because the builder's trench is on the inside of the foundation of the house, or because evidence of it had been obliterated by the growth of large tree roots close to the house. The ground was stratigraphically intact in both of the test units. In the area tested in the back yard (Unit 2), approximately the top 1' 3" of soil appeared to be fa, judging from the mix of 18th, 19th and 20th century artifacts. Below this level, the layers are intact and show uncontaminated evidence of occupation from the late 19th to the early 18th century. The house on this property is one of the older houses (ca. 1730s) in Annapolis, and the property has been continuously occupied since the early 18th century. There were at least 2 out-buildings on the property in the past. Therefore, it is recommended that before any landscaping or building is done which would disturb the intact archaeological layers, further archaeological excavation be conducted. References Arminger, C. 1975 l1 Susquehannock Plant Utilization". In: W. F. Kinsey (editor), Proceedings of the 1975 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference. Lancaster: Franklin and Marshall College, 1975. Baker, Nancy 1983 Land Development in Annapolis, Maryland: 1670-1776. In: L.S . Walsh (editor), hnap0lis and Anne Arundel Countv, Maryland: A Studv of Urban Development in a Tobacco Economy. 1649-1776. N.E.H. Grant Number RS 20199-81- 1955. Ms on fde, Historic Annapolis, Inc. 1986 Annapolis, Maryland 1695- 1730. Marvland Historical Magazine 81:191-209. Braun, E. L. 1967 Decidious Forests of Eastern North America. New York: Hafner. Brown, Lois. 1979 The Distribution of Palm-Indian Projectile Points in Maryland. Manuscript on fde, Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archaeology, Baltimore. Brush, Grace S . , Celia Lenke, and Joanne Smith 1976 The Natural Forests of Marvland: An Explanation of the Vegetation Map of Maryland. Prepared for the Department of Georgraphy and Environmental Engineering. The John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Carbone, Victor A. 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenadoah Valley. PhD disseration, Catholic University of America, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Carr, Lois Green 1974 "The Metropolis of Maryland": A Comment on Town Development Along the Tobacco Coast. Maryland Historical Magazine, 69 (2):124-145. Chancery Papers #I13 15 Coe, Joffre Lanning . 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 54(5). Custer, Jay F. 1978 Broadspears and Netsinkers: Late Archaic Adaptations Indicated by Depositional Sequences from Four Middle Atlantic Archaeological Sites of the Ridge and Valley Province. Paper presented at the 1978 Middle Atlantic Archaeological conference, Rehobeth Beach, Del. 1984 Delaware Prehistorv Archaeolo~v: An Ecolo&cal Approach. Newark, Delaware, University of Delaware Press. Fassig, 0. L. 1917 The Climate of Anne Arundel County. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Flannery , Kent V. 1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In: B.J. Meggers (editor), Anthropolo~rical Archaeolo~y in the Americas. Washington, D . C . , Anthropological Society of Washington, 1968, pp. 67-87. Funk, Robert E. 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late-Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast, 4:7-39. 1978 Post Pleistocene Adaptations. In: B . G. Trigger (editor), Northeast Vol. 15 Handbook of North American Indians. Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institute, pp. 16-22. Gardner, William M. 1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 -73 Seasons, Occasional Publication No. 1. Archaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, The Catholic University of America, Washington D. C. 1977 Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex and its Implications for Eastern North American Prehistory. In: W. S. Newman and B. Salven (editors), Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America. Annals of the New York Academv of Sciences 288. 1978 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge Piedmont and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Paper presented at the 1978 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Rehobeth Beach, Del. 1979 Paleo-Indian Settlement Patterns and Site Distributions in the Middle Atlantic (preliminary version). Paper presented at the January 1979 Meeting of the Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D. C. 1980 Settlement-Subsistence Strategies in the Middle and South Atlantic Portions of the Eastern United States during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Paper presented at the 1980 American Anthropological Association Meetings, Washington, D. C. 1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In: R. Moeller (editor). Practicing Environmental Archaeology. Occasional Pa-pers of the American Archaeological Institute 3. Washington, Conn., pp. 53-87. Gardner, William M. and Jay Custer. 1978 A preliminary cultural resources reconnaissance of the proposed Verona Lake Site No. 2. Manuscript on file, Catholic University of America. Griffin, James B. 1977 A Commentary on Early Man Studies in the Northeast. In: W. S. Newman and B. Salven (editors), Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America. Annals of the New York Academv of Sciences 288. Guilday, John E. 1967 The Climatic Significance of the Hosterman's Pit Local Fauna Centre County, Pennsylvania. American Antiauity, 32: 32 1-323. Handsman, Russell G. and Charles W. McNett. 1974 The Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Chronology, Adaptation, and Contact. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Conference, Baltimore, MD. Kavanagh, Maureen. 1982 Archaeological Resources of the Monocacy Rifer Regions. Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archaeologv, File Report 164. Kirby, Robert M. and Earl D. Matthews 1973 Soil Survey of Anne Arundel Countv, Maryland. U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D. C . : U. S . Government Printing Office. Kinsey, W. Fred III. 1972 Archaeologv of the Umer Delaware Vallev: A Studv of the Cultural Chronolo~v of the Cultural Chronologv of the Tocks Island Reservoir. Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Kinsey, W. Fred III and Jay F. Custer. 1982 Excavations at the Lancaster Park Site (36LA96). Pennsvlvania Archaeologist, 52 (3-4):25-26. Kraft, John C. 1971 "Sedimentary Facies Patterns and Geologic History of a Holocene Marine Transgression". Bulletin of the Geological Societv of America, 82: 2131-2158. Leone, Mark P. and Paul A. Shackel 1986 Final Report to the National Geographic Society On: Archaeology of Town Planning in Annapolis, Maryland. NGS Grant Number 31 16-85. Ms on file, Historic Annapolis, Inc . Marvland Gazette. March 17, 1774. McNett, Charles W. and William Gardner 1975 Archaeology of the Lower and Middle Potomac. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, The American University, Washington, D. C . . Middleton, Arthur Pierce 1953 Tobacco Coast: A Maritime Histom Colonial Era. Newport News , Virginia: The Mariners' Museum. Moeller, Roger W. 1975 Late Woodland Faunal and Floral Exploitative Patterns in Upper Delaware Valley. In: W.F. Kinsy (editor) Proceeding of the 1975 Middle Atlantic Archaeologcal Conference. Lancaster PA, Fmnklin and Marshall College, North Museum. Mouer, Daniel, Robin L. Ryder and Elizabeth G. Johnson 1980 Down to the River in Boats: the Late ArchaiclTransitional in the Middle James River VAUey , Virginia. Paper presented at the 1980 Middle Atlantic Conference, Dover, Delaware. Papenfuse, Edward C . 1975 In Pursuit of Profit. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Reps, John W. 1965 The Making of Urban America: A Histow of Citv Planning. In The United States. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Riley, Elihu S. 1887 The Ancient City: A History of Annapolis. in ~-&yland. 1649 - 1887. Annapolis: Annapolis Record Printing Office. 1901 Annapolis.. . "Ye Ancient Capital of Maryland". Annapolis: Annapolis Publishing Co. Ritchie, William A. 1957 Traces of Early Man in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin Number 358, Albany, New York. 1969 The Archaeologv of New York State. Second Edition. Arden City, New York, Natural History Press. Shelford, V. E. 1963 The Ecologv of North America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Steponatis, Laurie C. 1980 A Survey of Artifact Collections From the Patuxent River Drainage, Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Monog.ra~h Series Number 1. 1983 An Archaeological Study of the Patuxent Drainage Vol. I. Maryland Historical Trust Manuscript Series NO. 24. Turnbaugh, W. A. 1975 Toward an explanation of the broadspear dispersal in eastern North American prehistory". Journal of Anthropological Research, 31: 51-68. Turner, E. Randolf 1978 Population Distribution in the Virginia Coastal Plain, 8,000 B.C. to 1600 A.D. Archaeologv of Eastern North America, 6: 60-72. Whitehead, P.R. 1972 "Developmental History of the Dismal Swamp". Ecological Monomaphs, 42:301-315. Willey, Gordon R. 1966 An Introduction to American Archaeologv Vol. I North And Middle America. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Witthoft, John. 1952 A PaleoIndian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society, 96(4): 464-495. Wright, Henry T. 1973 An Archaeological Sequence in the Middle Chesapeake Region, Maryland. Archaeological Studies NO. 1, Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey. APPENDIX A Profile Drawings of Units A 10YR313 Dark Brown Loam B 10YR414 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Loam mottled w/ 10YR416 Dark Yel. Brown Sandy Clay C 7.5YR314 Dark Brown Sandy Loam D 10YR4/3 BrownJDark Brown Sandy Loam mottled w/ 7.5YR416 Strong Brown Sandy Clay Loam 0 CONCRETE BRICK ROOT E 10YR416 Dark Yel. Brown Sandy Clay mottled w/ 5YR414 Reddish Brown very Sandy Clay and 5Y613 Pale Olive Sandy Clay w/ bog iron F 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Sandy Clay N mottled w/ 5Y6/3 Pale Olive Very Sandy Clay and 10YR416 Dark Yel. E Scale: 1"=lY Brown Sandy Clay wl bog iron. Figure 6 Unit 1 East Profile Brick fragments A 10YR313 Dark Brown Loam 11 1'4 B 10YR414 Dark Yellowish Brown Scale: 1"=1' n Sandy Loam mottled w/ 10YR416 Dark Yel. Brown Sandy Clay U C 7.5YR314 Dark Brown Sandy Loam - D 10YR413 BrownIDark Brown Sandy Loam mottled w/ 7.5YR416 Strong Brown Sandy Clay Loam E 10YR416 Dark Yel. Brown Sandy CONCRETE Clay mottled w/ 5YR4/4 Reddish Brown very Sandy Clay and 511613 BRICK Pale Olive Sandy Clay w/ bog iron ROOTS F 5YR4/6 Yellowish Red Sandy Clay mottled w/ 5Y6/3 Pale Olive Very Sandy Clay and 10YR416 Dark el. Brown Sandy Clay w/ bog iron. Figure 7 unit 1 South Profde Scale: 1 " = 1 ' 1 10YR313 Dark Brown Sandy Loam 2 10YR3/3 Dark Brown Sandy Clay mottled with 7.5YR416 Strong Brown Clayey Sand 3 7.5YR414 Brown/Dark Brown Clayey Sand mottled with 10YR312 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Clay 4 10YR416 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Figure 8 lJnit 2 East Profile 1 10YR313 Dark Brown Sandy Loam a COAL Scale: 1"=1' 2 10YR313 Dark Brown Sandy Clay mottled with 7.5YR416 Strong Brown Clayey Sand 3 7.5YR414 BrownIDark Brown Clayey Sand mottled with 10YR312 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Clay 4 10YR416 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay 5 10YR313 Dark Brown Sandy Clay mottled with 7.5YR416 Strong Brown Sandy Clay 6 10YR413 BrowdDark Brown Clayey Sand Figure 9 Unit 2 West Profile Scale: 1" =I' 1 10YR313 Dark Brown Sandy Loam 2 10YR313 Dark Brown Sandy Clay mottled with 7.5YR416 Strong Brown Clayey Sand 3 7.5YR414 BrownIDark Brown Clayey Sand mottled with 10YR3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Sandy Clay 4 10YR416 Dark Yellowish Brown Sandy Clay Figure 10 Unit 2 South Profile .. APPENDIX B Artifact Inventory Utilized Artifact Codes 10 Francis St . 1990 Excavations CERAMICS Earthenware ............................................ 100000 ....................................... Coarse Earthenware 120000 Unglazed (describe in comments) ........................ 120001 Iberian Storage Jars (1763)c.1745-1780-- ........................... ext wash, int clear glaze 124000 Interior Lead Glazed (describe in comments) ............ 120002 Int/Ext Lead Glazed (describe in comments) ............. 120004 Black Glazed Redware (only true black glaze) ........... 127100 Refined Earthenwares ..................................... 130000 ................................... Tin Glazed Earthenware 112000 .................................. Blue on White (other) 112017 ............................................... Creamware 132000 Undecorated (1791)c.1762-1820--comment if deeper yellow .................................. 132020 Annular ............................................... 132100 ............................................... mocha 134128 .............................................. banded 134129 ......................... Handpainted (1788)~.1765.1840 132200 .............................................. banded 132229 Pearlware ............................................... 133000 .......................................... molded rim 133053 Annular (1805)~.1790~182O~~slip dec ................... 133100 .............................................. banded 133129 Handpainted ........................................... 133200 ................... underglaze blue (1800)c.1780~1820 133221 underglaze polychrome (1805)c.1795-1815-- ................................ peasant pallette 133222 .................... Transfer Printed (1818)~.1795.1840 133400 ..................................... underglaze blue 133434 ......................... Shell Edged (1805)c.1780.1830 133500 ...................................... underglaze blue 133521 .......................................... molded rim 133553 ............................................... Whiteware 134000 Annular (slip dec) .................................... 134100 .............................................. banded 134129 Handpainted ........................................... 134200 ..................................... underglaze blue 134221 . 19th C colors ...................................... 134223 Transfer Printed ...................................... 134400 .................................... . underglaze black 134433 .................................... underglaze blue 134434 ........................... . underglaze 19th C colors 134436 ........................................... flow blue 134437 ........................................... Shell Edged 134500 .......................................... molded rim 134553 Yellow Ware ............................................. 135000 Coarse Stonewares ....................................... 200000 ........................................... Gray Bodied 220000 rhenish blue and gray (1668)c.1650-1725-- ................................... w/manganese dec 221047 American blue and gray (mid 18th-19th~) thick cobalt ............................................... dec 211000 .............. Other gray bodied (describe in comments) 220009 .......................................... Brown Bodied 229999 ....................... English Brown (1733)c.1690.1775 230000 ............. Other Brown Bodied (describe in comments) 230500 Refined Stonewares ...................................... 240000 White Saltglazed (1763)c.1720-1805--date excludes plates ................................. and molded vessels 235000 HIGHLY FIRED REFINED WARES (these types of ceramics . are under debate as to whether they are earthenware or stoneware) . 250000 Black Basalt (1785)c.1750-1820--dry, black body ...................................... 236100 Engine Turned (1769)c.1763-1775--dry, red body; incised lines ..................................... 236251 Lead Glazed Refined Redware .......................... 236500 ...................................... engine turned 236551 PORCELAIN Porcelain (undistinguished) ............................. ....................................... Chinese general ...................... blue on white (1730)c.1660-1800 overglaze painting ................................... English (1770)c.1745-1795--softer paste, ............................... some transfer print .................................. overglaze painting ........................................ decalcomania .............................................. molded TOBACCO PIPES ........................................... Pipes general 500000 .......................................... Bowls. plain 510000 Stems. unmeasurable ................................... 520000 ..................................... Stems. plain 4/64 520004 ..................................... Stems. plain 5/64 520005 cnorcm cn 0 0 0 moo0 d'm bb 0 0 0 0 m m KI U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - a, rl. 0. so ? w. a, k rd. 3 b-'. 60. I. a, d tn c, rd c,k 0 '44 a a, at rn m rd rd u v omo 0 0 0 0 0 N oa oa m d'd'd' wU)w , 00 Orl 00 00 00 00 om 00 !-Id mm Pb rb 9.. .... ..*. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... 1.. 1 . . I. a*.. .... .... . . .- . . .d . . a,. . a,. . .k . . .m.. . . a,. . .$. . .-4 . . .rf . . 00.. . . .... .... .... .... .... -9.. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... a,.. .... .... .... a,.. .... .... ..*. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... -.a. a,. .. d... 0.. . d... B... -... ... a,.. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... as.. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .*a. .*.. .... .... .... .... ..,. .... ..*. .... .... ... -... a,... 4s.. c,. . k... g... c,... -... ... me.. c,... G... a,... E... m. .. a... k krl rd d GE'E% d rd-4 a, OEAL) a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'ai r: Cn GI 4 H d W 2 3 9 6 Dl E H 2 alo d 4.J 0 wl JJ . . . . . . .. . . *. . . .. . . .. . *. . . . :: *a a, .k 3; * a, PI al* : Fj 5: *E we 4 k rl Vlc, Ida, JJ G -2 2" .- ................................ Wood. building related 840000 .................................... form identifiable 840004 .... Charcoal .......................................... 840002 ......................................... Plant Remains 870000 ............................. seeds and nuts (specify) 870002 .................................. Metal Materials (Slag) 900000 Iron .................................................. form identifiable (other than nails) .................. Brass ............................................. 920000 .................................... form identifiable 920001 Lead ............................................. 940000 .................................... form identifiable 940001 ........................................ printing type 943000 ........................................... Other Metal 950000 .............................. Synthetic/Recent Materials 980000 Utilized Form Codes Identifiable Ceramic Fragment Attributes Handle ............. 0031 Rim ............,... 0032 Hollow Body Frag ... 0033 Flat Body Frag ..... 0034 - Base ........... ... 0035 Flowerpot .......... 8500 Identifiable Attributes Button ............. 9310 1-piece ........... 9311 - Wig Curler ......... 9345 I COLORS Amber -- Amb Aqua - - Aq Black -- Blk Blue -- B1 Brown -- Br Clear -- Clr Cobalt - - Cob Dark -- Dk Gold -- Gld Gray - - Gy Green -- Gn Light -- Lt Manganese -- Mang Olive - - 01 Orange -- Or Pink - - Pk Purple - - Pp Red -- Rd Silver -- Slv Turquoise -- Trq I White -- Wht Yellow -- Yw i BODY TYPES Cataloguing Abbreviations for use in "Commentsn section Brown Bodied -- Brbod Buff Bodied -- Bfbod Dry Bodied -- Drybod Gray Bodied -- Gybod Hard Bodied -- Hrdbod Pink Bodied -- Pkbod Red Bodied -- Rdbod Salmon Bodied -- Smnbod Soft Bodied -- Sftbod White Bodied -- Whtbod Yellow Bodied -- Ywbod ABBREVIATIONS CONTINUED Aluminum -- A1 Copper -- Cu Gold -- AU Iron -- Fe Lead - - Pb Magnesium -- Mg Silver -- Ag Tin -- Sn SPECIFIC PATTERNS/EDGE DECORATIONS I Barley Pattern -- Brlypttrn Basketweave -- Bsktwve Bead and Reel -- B&R Beaded -- Bead I Diamond -- Dimnd I Dot, Diaper, and Basket -- D.D.B Feather Edged -- Fthredg 1 Fluted -- Flut 1 Queen's Shape -- Qshp Royal Pattern -- Rylpttrn Scalloped -- Sclpd Shell Edged -- Shledg Spearhead -- Sprhd Wheat Pattern -- Wheat i 1 PLACE CODES ! Removed for Conservation -- RFC (02) Removed for Exhibit -- RFE (03) Removed for Study -- RFS (04) Removed for Crossmending -- RFM (06) I Water Screen -- WS 1 GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE ATTRIBUTES American -- Amn Annular -- Anlr Applied -- Appld Assorted -- Asst Banded - - Bnd Base -- Bse Body - - Bod Bottle -- Btl Bottom -- Bttm Bowl -- Bwl Buckle -- Bckl Burned -- Brnd Button -- Bttn Century -- C Chamber Pot -- Chmbrp Chinese - - Chn Clothing -- Clthg Coarse -- Crs Combed - - Cmbd Corroded -- Corrd Creamware -- Cmwr Crossmend -- Crsmend Curved - - Crvd Cutlery -- Ctlry Decorated -- Dec Diameter -- Dia Drinking -- Drnkg Dutch -- Dtch Earthenware -- Erthnwr Edge -- Edg Embossed -- Emb Enamel -- Enml Engine Turned -- Engtrnd English -- Engl Exterior -- Ext Flat -- Flt Fork -- Frk Fragment - - Frag French -- Fren Frosted - - Frstd German -- Germ Glass -- Gls Glaze -- Glz Glaze Chip --Glzchp Gravel Tempered -- Gvltmpd Handle - - Hndl Handpainted -- Hndptd Hardware - - Hdwr Incised -- Incsd Interior -- Int Ironstone -- Irnstn Jewelry -- Jwlry Knife -- Knf Large -- Lge Long - - Lng Lead Glaze -- Pbglz Maker's Mark -- MM Mammal - - Mml Material -- Mat1 Modern - - Mdrn Mold -- Mld Mottled -- Mttld Neck -- Nck Overglaze -- Overglz Pattern -- Pttrn Pearlware -- Plwr Plastic -- Plstc Plate -- Plt Platter -- Pltr Porcelain -- Pcln Round -- Rnd Salt -- Slt Serving - - Srvng Slip -- Slp Slipware -- Slpwr Small - - Sm Spanish -- Spn Sponge -- Spng Spoon -- Spn Spout -- Spt Stamped - - Stmpd Stencilled -- Stncld Stoneware -- Stnwr Square -- Sq Tempered -- Tmprd Thick -- Thk Thin - - Thn Trailed -- Trld Trandfer Printed -- Trnsfrpr Undecorated -- Undec Underglaze -- Undrglz Unglazed --Unglz Unidentifiable --Unident Ware - - Wr Whole -- Whl Window -- Wndw With -- W/ Whiteware -- Whtwr / *- BfiE-[iU"gEE = fiQij.2 ............................................................................................................ 1 Ej fi(ii (T ., i. :-. p .. v & gr!j*G! i nnF]fi "8.2." SqK; Lin$'STFQ -, bL 8 ", " 8 -2% n $02 i r .A ; L.! \.! I.! + '! i"FLRjCDRL -%..,, ..& ... :-\ - -..... ! !.!!; 3 jb$G!jij 7 -- GcTrif ..,\&-,. 11 t; ; J !j!j L' !j kP.<.. ?. $2:; 7 l e ... -. ... ... PT i ! , ;&TI :hi u -:LhE3 7 JF.~IL r( 085 .J!~$J, 4 f{ORTfiRjSHELL TEMPE:: -c--,.i ., t: ij& 63fi:'ii>? v ., ., - i IITLI~ :J.;<: E- ~ETTLLLAL , r :r!; EL. nl C,G: ?k;:.~~hg g ij ij7 & 1 fi$$g ,zi RT , w"y.41,.-E~ !!-~i;n~i . . . .. . ., 2% TTLjT ",. , .I,, B i;ii-;c ... ., c;,!uyg~ ,.. G!.RSS/GE!.jE$EL j ""A .-. ,-. j I L,W , 630$53 TsrrTF ROUND TC?." " DL! ! ILL. , ,>HD 11 B ... w " . V ., ,. %. 1 Prp,;-pfii!i , A , ..- .-, . La. ii ,? , i-.. 3, =, , :-. (. - -. > i lili, : 1 k- $1 1 2 !p.; !.j (j (j 1 Prj~/gf~DIST[;jE~~S&jj .-, " 2. - - - : 1 ii fi' ' 1 r,.-, - .<12 . - ,Iififi id".,..* 1 p-il$.nF , WERL, ;Pr*!rnsl uEiiCT\n~ j 1 B fif? .,A- . , JL!!i~;~ .... v 1 CRMyRjGE4ER;L ( ,-! ., " ' " I I B fit ., b L % iw.l?c .a': -. fit.:? r!r:-!in :;n !::n: i n.:!. c.'.~~.JuI , $2 ,,,. ;~fiq"r Y::L'LD Z U)") i v e r . i t y o f M a r via n d L. i. -.= t I i _g o-f All Ar i. i fae c s .J i fa 1. I *- FRANC I S SX ftF-SS 3?:?r Ped hy: Bf _I Jf 1 + SQ! J AR + FE AX-i-L .EVEL-* 5; a--_ _ s.ynsE _ rl ; . BAG-NUMBER = 0006 ITEM 020 02! 02S 023 024 025 026 027 02B 029 030 031 032 MASTER- CODE 120004 220009 135000 134000 134000 133000 S33000 133500 133434 134434 300000 236100 600000 FO! 0033 0033 0034 0032 0033 0032 0033 0033 0032 0035 3UANTITY COMMENT 1 RD BOD CLR Gi: 1 GY EH,BR INT ! BL TIP. BL 810000 760000 !_0. 0! 730001 630003 610000 630073 UiU 01! 012 013 OB 015 016 r-.j. n Oi ; 018 019 020 02! jdU.'UU 510000 310021 134000 236500 12000! 130000 . ?t. - -127 IDU 133053 112000 132000 1H0002 0033 0033 0033 8500 0033 0033 1 RAISED STAR N/8 POINTS IPTI0N CRS/INT-EXT PB GLZ CRS/GY BD OTHER Yy-yARE/GENFRAL WHTyR/GENERAL UHTyR/GENERftL P-yARE/GENERAL P-WARE/GENERAL P-yARE/SHLEBG/GENERAL P-UARE/TRNSFRPR-UNGL BL yHTyR/TRNSFRPR-UMGL BL POR/UNDISTINGUISHED HI FIRE/BLK BASALT GLASS/GENERA! STONE/NATURAL BONE/FRAGMENT BRICK SHELL/OYSTER MORTAR/SHELL TFHPER yiNE BOTTLEiDK QL GN5FRSG FLAT GLASS,HIND0y CASE BOTTLE,SQ..FRAG FLAT GLASS, GENERAI PIPE-UNHEASUREABLE STEM PIPE-BOWL/PLN POR/CHINESE.BLUE ON WHITE yHTNR/GEHFRAL HI FIRE/PB GLZ REF RBNR CRS/UNGLZ REFINED EARTHENWARE CRS/BPK GLZ RDWR P-WARE/MOLDED RIM REF/SN SLZ CRHNR/GENERAL CRS/INT PB GLZ *- BAG-NUMBER = 0007 Jr. ooi 002 003 004 005 007 008 009 010 120001 112000 I3322I I32I29 132000 134434 132000 132000 132000 8500 0032 0035 013 014 015 016 133129 GLZ DETACHED ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN BURNED INT/EXT DEC. bis CRS/UNGLZ REF/SN GLZ P-_RE/HHDPT-UN_R_Z BL CRMyR/ANNULAR/BANDED CRMWR/GENERAL WHTyR/TRNSFRPR-uNGL BL CRHMR/GENFRAL CRHyR/GENERAL CRHyR/SENERAl P-UARE/ANNULAR/BANDED P.SARE/SHLEDB/HLD P-MARE/SHLEDG/GENERAL P-UARh/SHL EDS-Bt iWHT WHTWR/GENERAL P-WARE/GFNERAL P-UflRF/RFNF--' .z -J ,-x ILL1 L-- rLl, I I:.CI LIJ qr LU I Err 17: -.J -.., 1 I..,.. 1l.l.J ,x, I ;:= C cc =:>: I llfl CPI LL1 ...I r.-, ft: .::,: ,& I LLJ .,L I_-. C. I -I J U1 cc: I-.- 13 l:Ca t-- I ... , .::XI i. W LLJ F! y .d; a;. I- ,ill ,&i "C' ;I,- ., . " :-;C" !id; fi , L :-% ?- z-, :, : -. ... 8 .d ?,?Ti. ,:r .-. c c ii: I ., , :-: q j ,, :n ., , r $77 fi?,? .: . " $79 fiR5 ... " .. >Kt .. . 082 :.I:., ,,--. .> " - SB'+ *RC "'J .: i i;isi vu.2 fig7 $88 0 i-,"fi " 7 .. $9 1 $92 fisq .: , w .-. fi i. il_(Y L. , 0 ,23ncn,. ?jd!J!j ,.2hifiji . r . " ... , ,-, ,-. - . - 1 rt'!,i$g , n .-. ,-: .-.. k i C!):>!>L; , r, :-. .-. : : , ,.. !J " 3 .2-, I .- .,c:LY n$fififit " . ... .. . si$$nfi , .. .> -....- . , , . . . . . . . i-~liillll , u 2 ., ., ., fi" .-. .-. ... . a j~i"'? "C ,-i i.. " " j J- Jgv ngi';f)c11 " L ., ., ., 92$0$i C .-, " :.. .-. ) J~?,!!)!J+ - .-. - . ,, !-! !) ij 5 51$8@$ 236100 T' - ->,-.A iq3!;!)!~ ; .>?{ i:ifi j arv.,v. " ,-i .-, c;J,,.)J 643.33 66 $25 ,.... bU"$!,iO ii'ji',fi(ifi " ., ... <. ... ; ., :.! i-.,,, OJ!, ..rg J =j c;~l, , , . : .q ,-: :-..,-, < ~J!>!ICI &30$92 630953 i 7iifiR3 ar..*r "7.. -" ;&t'g@i' ""fiiip#) Id.,". . 7.7.. - - i , .ll[iij I ,ru.>. "... . , { .. 3 .. .- .-. j .$!>!,I!> 410$$1 7 1000 1 qi..4:..i , Lj! I>!.! - At,?.--, El. n:;t. b, 3R 71 TP T'jT DL. JL., *r., ':W G!ilj Ef' FYT 1 % .,., :?I 2 fL7 TkfT t. ... r L .l.i gK, ROULEiTTED i- EA~-k!l;t.;P.FR = Mi4 ............................................................................................................ ,,U,,U ... ... . 3 i b 1 60 ! 6 1QQfiS I ~;,ft~ G~;'F- I~THF,~" ' r~j;ii...L't.< 5 i 062 EN@ u,.,.., , 1 Ci TflFFRfrP63 LL.~ i, r uJ6i 2 b ! p.p.7 .:;a : bijlji!? 1 BRICK b 1 $04 cl......~l G IJ~~ 2 PIG JAk), it4Ci TEETH 20f.i~ /ggal;;i 2 0 1 nfiq ,, ., - 81!jij$1 - i;:?.., r.~,: COU ZR HORSE nr~r cd:+E,',!,j:;;i;:~ '4f$pxr~.:: 2 1 ".->pF "TF' 1 ... t! .. .. , I;;,_ ., .: :;i$)Q4 f Y~~;E/TEETH - - f b t 810000 2 finl]~ ifpp~ij~tj~ ,lJ,,,, ,% 4.. 'L,, .!- gfis-piitm.~~: +-xi., = $018 ............................................. !I! G$! 630003 is. UItJE BOTTLE! DK OL p\j \ cSA:-. ; ....-,.--- Ji., , n;iG IF %. ., L c!j~7yY'j LIGHT PfiTTI?fi t; , . qK $! AT r! F.PF fF)jrr .! , Ln I JI naa , ~,j,,!.!.jC :.; 5 .. .7 2 ~figg,"c,:~ I uEiiLF,,% r: ,!.. f ""R !; C.! , .? " " .-. ,.,,!i 6033 L L A ., ., ., 1 CES/i;:{ g$ B! ii;.;;' .SEW, :.. : - %, , -< "% i? !,I$'$ ?.qzj pr, .ucr..: I CfizgR , ;$YMU! , -H:,)E%?c, Ee ZEfi APPENDIX C Staff Qualifications Curri cul urn Vitae for LAURA J. GALKE 8 /9i5 Current Address 933 S. Farmer Ave. , #4 Tempe, k2. 85281 602-92 1-9534 School Address Anthropology Dept. - A.S.U. Tempe, kZ. 85287 6(112-965-62 13 CURRENT POSITION: Graduate Student - 1)rpartment of Anthropc~l c~gy, Ar i iccna State Uni vet- 5.i ty , Tempe. EDUCATION: E. G. 6nthrupulopy - Gecrge Mac.on Urliversity - May 192B. First receipi ent of George Mason Certi f icate of Archa~c~logy. RESEARCH INTERESTS: 1. Ekhnicity. 7. hi . idr~i - festa.ticln clf i deo! oz.,:; in mater is1 culture. - .-% . -.rider studies. -- -7 . , it- F;L-c~ .>c,: O:;I -, c.T i-ii:: ~%EL -. . ::~~~~~).:E ~?91 ED~ f A. S~~:iaj. strratif ication f n cornple:.; scjc.ieti~s. EXCAVATION AND SURVEY EXPERIENCE: A~~qucrt. 14c;'C! - Archaeology in Annapolis (A joirrt venture between the Hic.tctric Finnapolis Foundation and the University of Maryland) - Field Director. Responsible for field data recovery at the Francic Street Site. Supervised three trained archaeol clgi sts on thi 5. ~ighteenth through twenti eth-century domestic site. Gnnapoli5, MD. Dr. Mark P. Leone, Principal Inv~stigatc~t-. Dr. Earbara J. Little, Site Director. July 1390 - Archaeology in Annapolis - Field Director for data r-eco<.;er-y at the Wi 11 iam F'aca Garden excavations. Supervised both ~_t~\dent.= f rclrri the Dni vfrsity of Mary1 and summer f i el dschool and traj ned ar-chaeol ogists in test phase invecti gations on this ~i qt~t~;er~tt,, ninetffnth, and twentieth century garden ~i tp. A:II-I~~c~~ is, fir?.. Dr. Marl: P. Leone, Principal Investigator. Dr. Lar-t,ar, J, Little, 'Site Director. J~irre - July 1440 - Archaeology in Annapolis - 4ssistant Field Director Tot-. the Car-rclll ~-~c~LIc-.E ~;.itavatioris, an eighteentti through tv~entieth c-errtur-y dwclllrig and qarden site. F;e~..puns-ibilitit?~ included the sirper.\ii siorc and instruction' of: undergraduate c t uderrts f rclrr~ the Llni versi ty cf Plaryl and summer f i el d sc ho~l . Annapolis, MD. Pr. Mar-l.i P. Leone, F'rincipal Investigator. Dr. Barbara J. Littl~, Sit? Director. Elirabrtl-I Kryder-Reid: Field Di re~tor- August 1487 - May 194C) - Soil Systems Inc. - Laboratory Technician. Responsi bi 1 i ti EE. incl~rded buri a1 vessel excavation and azsi st irr~ in general cc~l 1 ecti one. management for th~ F'uebl o Gr-ande Data Recovery Project. Phoenix, AZ. Cory Breterni tz , F're5.i dent. Leslie Fryman, Laboratory Directclr. Ma.;, 1387 - August 1989 - Archaeology in Annapolis - Assistant Field Director for the Carroll House e;.:cavations, an eighteenth tt~rclugt~ twentieth century d~ell ir~g and site. Responsibi 1 i ties inclcrded the supervision and instruction of ~~ndergradcrate st~rdents f rorr~ the Llni versi ty of Mary1 arid surrtmer f i elrJs.rtsor~1. Annapolis, MD. Dr. Mark F. Leane,. Prirtcipal Investi gator. Dr. Earbara 2. Little, Site Director. Elizabeth tylryder-Reid, Field Director. No.v~rr~t,er 1.5'Ee - Arizona State Univerc't-), - Excavator for the F'i nnscl e F'eal:: j nve~.ti pati on^.. Exper_ ,-!re included field survey, e:: cavati on, and teszhing archseol o?< ,.: :: techniques to i :atere~ted pc!.Llic par-ticipar~tc. Tempe, &Z. i-.- .zrici s Ei lman: F't-incipal Investigator. Pi_:.,) ! "9E: - k~ro~!:? 1 SO5 - Arch;-eol c- ~;J in Frlne-a! is - F,rsic;t~.n.t ?. . 5.. .- - - . ,..I rpz;. ,.?.- .; c,r t: .- L.e.- ,-r,: 1 , . %.. b!.?:~:? .;.,:c&vpt; c.->s, an ~i:?ht~~rI~".~ : # '. i-~r-ci~-.igh t w~rlti rth c~r~tur.2, dwel 1 irro arid gat-~ETI site. i;:e.;por-iti t:i 1 j.ties inc?c\ded the supervi sion and inrtrcrct ion of ~!nci~rq~-adust~ st~tdents f rmrn the Urti vet-~.i t)l ccf Mary1 and s~rmmer f ieldc,chocrl, as vrell as cclnducting site tours. A public prqgram sit^. Annapolis., PlD. Dr. Nark F'. Leone, Principal Investigat~r. Dr. F'al-11 A. Shacl::el, Site Director. Dr. Barbara J. Littl~, Field Eirector. S~~!ternb~r -. May I466 - Intern with Prince l~lilliam Co~rrity Civil War Pt-o-iect, possitle tht-mrph a qrant from the state CI+ Virginia. Par-ticipated in the nomination of three sites to the ~ational R~gi ~t~r. REC_.FO~S~ hi 3 i ties ir~cl~d~d sLrrvey rrrapping with transit and library research. F'rince William County, V&. Janet Townsend, Co~rrrty krchaeol ogi st. Mi.,>, - Jur-~e 17S7 -- Assistant Field Director, Feathet-stcane-Gal ke 51 t e - Anthropol tsq'g De~at-tm~nt, George Mason University. Arrl st PC? c o~tnty archaecll ooj st in t.he i n~.tt-uct i cln clf ~~rrder~r.ad~rate ct.~_rcl~=~~tc in the Gee\rge Mazon University summer f i eldsclrnol . F.1-I rice Wi 11 iam, Vfi- Tct;.~n~-~nd, F'rincipal Invec-tigatc~r. thr.c~c;qhclcct the county on vari out, histciri c and prehisoric si ~EE-. Also involved in the re-toning and special use permit approval pt-c~ces.s. e:.cami nj.t-1~ tt~ese prclpc~sal .; f cti their possitle impact LIpon ar-ctiaeol ogi cal resources. F'ri nce Wi? 1 iam County, VA. Janet To\~nserrd, Count*; Fit-chaecll ogi st. Septemhar - December 19Bb - Volunteer, Fairfax County Archaeology. Fie1 dwork included excavation of test units at pretii e-tori c and hi sturi c sites. Labwcerl:: included arti fact. cleaning, identification, and cataloging. Fairfat: County, VG. Mi 1: e Johnsc~n , Co~rnty Grchaec~l ogi st. 1 Ma;; - June 1785 - Field school student, George Mason University. Involved with the e;:cavation of an ei ghteenth-century house 1 foundation. Ir~cluded one kreeb of field survey as we13 as five i weeks of f ull-scale e::cavation. Fsirf au , VA. Dr. Ann Pal kovich, I 1 F'r-~nclpal Inve~tigatc~r. I :1 1 July 17-52 - Volunteer - Earthwatch, Belmont Massachusetts. I Invol\:~.d with the survey and e;.:cavatiori of E, prehist~~ric ~:ite in N~t~rc. .:a, c~nd~cct~d by Wichita State hive;-sity. Fur~ds for this trip camp pit-irnsrily from thr contribc!tic~ns elf organizations frorr~ Prince William Co~rnty, VG., as well as a scholarship from E-. dt - thw;iT:ch. -at 1, t. Dr. 1)~:-la1 d El a\:esl ee, Prirrci pal Ingestir,-ator-. TEACHJNG EXPEHIENZE: Pis.:- ci-b - k:;r.y 145'::) - Arizona St.it~ University - Teaching fiszi starit. T~~chi ng Gssi stant. for- two classec.: Old Wc~rl d F't-ehistory, with Dr. G~of i Clark, and Computer Archaeology, with Dr. Sylvia Gsi nez. =_. Fi~~.pnnsi tti 1 i ti ec. included ~r-ctvi di rig class notes f clr students, advising students, preparation of handouts, data entry and rrlarli pul ati or1 using S~rpet-, Cal c 5, tro~tbl e shooting prcryrarn5, and proctering of exams. Tempe, AZ. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Sclc i ety for Arrreri can krchaeol ogy Soci ety fur- Hi stor i cal Archaeol ogv TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gcl l E. La~cra J. 1$5(:) E>.cavatl or15 at the Gll 11 1 an. F'aca C.&rd~n, 1E(AF'i)! , Annap~l ls, Maryland. Archaezl coy in Anriapol 1s. On f i 1 E at: the Hi stori c Fir~nspc~l i 5. Foundat i c~n , Gnrtapol i r , MD. Stcaci:~I , Pz~tl k. and Laura J. Gal Ice 1980 E:-:cavations at Church Circle, 151kF43, Anriapol. is MD. AtJct~aeolugy in Anna~tc~l is. On f il~ at tt~f Historic Annapol. i s Faundat i on, Annapol is , MD. Towrts~nd, Janet anrj Laura J . G'al l::e --. 1487 George Mason University Archaeological Field Guide. Prepat-~d fur the George Mason krcha~ol oqi cal Fie1 d School.. On f il~ at th~ County Comple:.: Bui ldino, Prince William County, VA. In Preparation Jones, Lynn and Laura J. Gal \ce Excavations at the Francie ~treei Site, Annapel is MD. Archaeologv in Annapolis. Or, file at the Historic .Unnapol i s Fo~tndati art, Cirtnapc~l is P~U. REFERENCES : Dr . t;ar 1:: P. LE',ZITIF? -: .r;rLZ;I Clrdway Street, NW l-iact-~ingtor~, D. C. 20016 2(:!'7/3&2-4(:)86 Dr. Barbar-a J. Little ~)PP at- t rrtertt oi Ant ttropol oqy Un i vpr- .; i t-!j uf Ms.~-.i/l ar:j -.#-,7< _. ' , j : . - 1: i-i-:. --,. -. ._I ._ - --.-p- ;.t--;.-,>s Dr. F'a~il k. 5hac)::el National Park Service Harpe;-E. Frrry Nat i unal Hi stori c Fcir): p.c:,: ED;.: 65 Harper c Ferry, WV. 25425 Ms. Janet Townsend Ft-ince Nilliam Cocrnty Ftrchaeolclqy F'lanr~ing Office 1 Cclunt y CD~IF 1 E;: Court Woodbridye, VA. 22192 7 .- /~,xrth 2nd Street F'ttcfi~j11::, kZ. R5\:![:!4. Barbara J. Little 10/90 Department of Anthropology University of Maryland 107 East Fourth Street College Park, MD 20742 Frederick, MD 21701 301-405-1433;1423 301-694-3525 Current Position: Visiting Assistant Professor Education Ph.D. Anthropology; State University of New York at Buffalo; June 1, 1987; "Ideology and Media: Historical Archaeology of Printing in Eighteenth-century Annapolis, Maryland" Dissertation passed "With Distinction." M.A. Anthropology; State University of New ~ork at Buffalo; February 1, 1984; "Comparative Analysis of Archaeological Patterns" I Program entered January 1982 Y L .:-. Anthro~c 1-o~; Ponr,- >-lvaniz SL-: LL University; Novezber 30, 1980; with Isnor . Certificate awarded inWScience, Technology and Society" opticn. 1 I Academic Awards and Honors Smithsonian Predoctorzl Fellow June I, IS85 to Yay 31, 1986; "- ' lo;^^> f . ex:-r_-Cad ttrc~:~ '. r . CL-' C&e - t izdvanc~u Exus for FL.D. psss;~ "Kl~h Distinction" 3ez. 1584. 4 Woodburn Fellow, SUNY Buffalo 1982-1985 1 Student Marshall (first in college's graduating class) for d Liberal Arts, November 1980, Penn State University 1 Graduated "With Highest Distinction1' and Liberal Arts Honors program, Penn State University Julia K. Hogg Testimonial Fund: award for junior ranking first academically, Penn State University President' s freshman Award, Penn State University Lawrence J. Ostermayer Scholarship, Penn State University Bayard D. Kunkle Scholarship, Penn State University ! Donald MacIntire Scholarship, Penn State University Barbara J. Little Research Interests Complex Societies Historical Anthropology Interdisciplinary Research Theory and Methodology in Archaeology, including uses of text and documentation, feminist theory Archaeology and the Public Current Research Ideology and media; authorities of media; meanings of goods relationships among forms of material culture as media and ideological and symbolic systems Printing, text and media in 18th and 19th century America Consumption and production in complex societies Nineteenth-century mortuary practices in southern United States Coxpr;z~r systcx package lor arlF.tct catalo7:e and zr~lyzis being developed partially c~~der IBM FULCRUM grant at University of Maryland, College Par:;. The Eastern Cherokee - Kew Echota 1990 Review of Theodore R. Reinhart, with contributions by Eric G. Ackennan, Barbara Davis, and Esther C. White; Faterial Culture, Social Relations, and Spatial Orqanization on a Colonial Frontier;The Pope Site (44SN180), Southhampton County, Virqinia. (Dept . of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, 1987). American Antiquity: 53 : 3 : 654. 1990 Seeds of Sedition [on excavation of 18th-century print shop in Annapolis, Maryland] Archaeoloqy 43: 3 : 36-40 With M. P. Leone. Barbara J. Little 10/90 I 1989 Scales of Historical Anthropology: An Archaeology of I Colonial Anglo-America. Antiquity 63:495-509. I With Paul A. Shackel I 1989 Review of Daniel W. Ingersoll, Jr. and Gordon Bronitsky, editors; Mirror and Metaphor, Material and Social Constructions of Reality. (University Press of America, 1987) . American Antisuity 54 (4) : 873-4. 1988 Craft and Culture Change in the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake; pp. 263-292 in The Recovem of Meaninq. Mark P . Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., Editors. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1988 Review of Ian Bodder, Readinq the Past (Cambridge University Press 1986) . American Anthropoloqist 90: 1 : 179. 1988 Echoes and Forecasts : Group Tensions in the Pschaeoiogical Record. The International Journal of Group Tensions 18 (4) : 215-229. i # - =-. ,-.- s 05 Spr;';:;~ Ectter---c' c. 985 A Coap~ rativc An- 7 ---' - -A ., , Z~eric;-.n Arc?i~.~010~.- ~01.5, no. .-. pp. 34-40. / 1985 Co-Editor with Ezra B. W. Zubrov cf American ;~rcheolc~ 5 : 1. 1984, 1985 Co-Editor and founder of Buffalo Forum, :.r! i;:terdiscFplinzry jov.'rn~l; ,CU;.T Puifzl-Q. Publications in Press New Perspectives in Maryland Historical Archaeolow. Co-edited with R.Joseph Dent. (1990) Special edition of The Maryland Archaeolosist. Review of Domination and Resistance, D. Miller, M. Rowlands and C. Tilley, editors. One World Archaeology -3- (Unwin Hyman, London 1989) . American Antiquity. Barbara J. Little Artifacts as Expressions of Society and Culture: Memory and Subversive Genealogy. To appear in Learninq from Thinqs: Workinq papers in material culture. Edited by D. Kingery and S. Lubar. Smithsonian Institution Press. With Mark P. Leone. Popular Culture, Material Culture: Some archaeological thoughts. To appear in volume edited by Ray Browne. The Popular Press. (Bowling Green, Ohio) . In Preparation Meaninqs and Uses of Haterial Culture. Volume co-edited with Paul A; Shackel. I Explicit and Implicit Meanings in Katerial-culture and Print Culture. For Heaninqs and Uses of Haterial Culture. Edited by B.J.Little and P.A.Shacke1. I I "She was ... an Example to her Sex": Possibilities for a ferinist zrchaeolom in thc historic C'.zs;psa!:c. For Ric tc ric Chesz? ~ke: Arck:zeoloqical Contrlbucicx. Edi~-,cd by P.i-.Shackel znd B.J.Little. Text-Lid~d Archaeoi- IT. - *. ,,rodcctisn tc Text -r?+Fdcd Archaeoloqy . Edited by B. 2. Lit-cle . Texts, imaocz, material culture. ?or Text-Aided Archaeoloay. - Cdltc-6 2 -7 , .,I. 2,' ;;ticl. Assessing the development of Historical Archaeology in the United States. For Journal of Field Archaeoloqy. With P. A. Shackel. Display of "Beautiful Death" at the Weir family cemetery in Manassas, Virginia. With Kim Lamphere and Douglas Owsley. An Archaeoloqy of Printing. Current revision of dissertation for book. Barbara J. Little Books under contract F Text-aided Archaeolocry Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. The Historic Chesapeake: Archaeoloqical Contributions. Volume co-edited with Paul A. Shackel. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC. Professional Papers 1990 Postprocessual archaeology and the hermaphroditic mind. To be presented at the American Anthropological Association meetings November 28-December 2, New Orleans, LA. 1990 Excavations at a family cemetery in ~orthern Virginia. Society for Eiistorical kchaeolog meetings January 10-14, Tuscon, AZ. 1989 An Archaeological View of Text. American Anthropological . .-. .-I_ " . -< L&-- l:o-t-c~--~..- ..--29, : Associhtic - - ti- --- -~-"ios, L. . 1989 ::istorical ELnthr;pology in hnapcT ' c , Faryiand: C, 7oing Researci. Society for AIL; .' -.n Archaeology meetings i 2ril 5 -@, PLtlrn";- GA. Co-author-C i;ith Paui A. Sii~ckei. 1989 Pa Archa,c-,clow of Text? Societ:~ for Histori . -rchac,: ' .-~7~ . . . .. -. e :: 1 : ...:_ 1988 Thc chine in the An:apolis garden: Craft and TecLnology fo Printing and the Landscape. Council for Northeast Eistorical Archaeology meetings October 14-16, Quebec City, Quebec. 1988 Studies of Group Tensions in Historical Archaeology. The International Organization for the Study of Group Tensions, June 24-26, Princeton, NJ. 1988 The Structuring of Meaning in Annapolis, Maryland. Society for American Archaeology meetings April 28 - May 1, Phoenix, AZ. Co-authored with Paul A. Shackel. Barbara J. Little 10/90 1987 Material Culture as "Common Sense:" The Historical Archaeology of Printing. American Studies Association International convention Nov. 1987, New York; in session: Material Culture and the Structuring of American Society: Contributions from Historical A~xhaeology. 1987 Cows, Printers and Capitalists and the growth of Annapolis. Council for Northeast Historical Zvchaeology meetings October 1987, St. Mary's City, MD. Co-authored with Paul A. Shackel. 1987 Archaeology in Annapolis. Presentation at "Tidewater Archaeology Days, " August 1, St. Mary1 s City, MD with Paul A. Shackel. 1987 The Authority of Media: Print Culture and Material Culture in the Colony and State of Maryland. society for American Archaeology meetings April, Toronto, Ontario as part of symposium: The Meanings of Consuraption: Ongoing Research in I Historical Archaeology, organized by P .A. Shackel, B.J.Little and M.Purser. 15C7 71:: Arch: :Lor-r and Eistc:-_- of TI- ~k1-i; 'n Pr -industrial ! Annapolis, Maryland. Societl- Lor Eis~oriczl Archaeology meetir-gs January, Savannah, rL,. 1986 The Green Family Prin: She;> in lmnapolis, Mzryland. Eastern States Archaeological Federation meetings Oct. 31, Wilnj nqton, DE . IS66 CezpletFz~ ttc Picture: l:zcL;eo-. ri &s..- Listory rt ths Gre~n rtarily Print Shop in Annapolis. Talk given May 22 at colloquium series at the National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. 1986 Consuming Ideology: Printing and Printers in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake. Society for . American Archaeology meetings, April, New Orleans, LA. in symposium: The Cognitive Past: Ongoing Research in Historical Archaeology; organized by B.J.Little and P.A.Shacke1. 1986 Changing Domestic and Business Structures of the Green Family .of Printers in Annapolis, Maryland. Northeastern Anthropological Association meetings, March 21, Buffalo, NY. Barbara J. Little 10/90 1985 Home Birth as Rebellion. Northeastern ~nthropological Association Meetings, April, Lake Placid, NY. 1984 Pattern Recognition: A.Structured Approach for Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology meetings, April/May, Portland, Oregon, in symposium: From Fourier to Fractals : Archaeological and Mathematical Frontiers of Pattern Analysis; organized by E.Zubrow, B-Little and E.Hansen. Also presented at NEAA meetings March, Hartford, CT. University Courses Developed Field school in urban Historical Archaeology (undergraduate and graduate level) Introductory courses : Introduction to Archaeology Human Evolution and Prehistory Upper level undergraduate courses: I'istorFczl >-rckzeolo~y .- -.rite-?retation in 2--rchac - logy Public EscLaeology (cro: -1iste~ witL American Studies) Archae3logy of the New iT~z2.d Individually guided readings offered in: Modern material culture studies E;..-::.z czolf;y:- 2~:: q:-:., L:.,-;:~.-;:~?ir. r c.secrct rethosAs iz* c.r~jittslo~; i .: Laboratory methods in archaeology Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology (undergraduate and graduate level) Graduate seminar: Management and Cultural Prccess Teachinq Experience Sept.1989 - present University of Maryland, College Park. Upper level undergraduate lecture; graduate directed readings; graduate seminar; graduate committee work and internship guidance. Barbara J. Little Sept. 1987 - July 1989 George Mason University. Visiting Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology. 1985-1988 Summer field seasons University of Maryland, College Park. Department of Anthropology. Field school in urban historical archaeology. (Summer 1988 as Visiting Assistant Professor). Sept.1986 - May 1987 University of Maryland, College Park. Lecturer and Lab Supervisor, Department of Anthropology. 1987 Spring and Fall Anne Arundel Community College. Teacher for gifted and talented High School progran "Scepter". class entitled "Digging for Facts: Artifacts in Znerican c;lturerf for grades 6 to 9, and 8 & 9. Co-taught with P. Potter, then J. Ernstein. 1S87, 19EC Suzner Y-~cLer for Maryiznd T- zc of Educ~ti In Gifted and Talented Eish School Progrm "DIG" 7/14/87 - 8/6/E7; 7/86-8/86. Taught at c-cczvation sites nf "2-l-chaeology in Annapolis" project . ( 1986 Spring and Fall A-xle ALnnde1 Community College. Eistoric?.l Archaeolc.?y t;orE:shc? (Spz:. rc: cc-; CVC~;",.:.~: - : . :'c,ti-o.r' ; ";.ztif;cts ir? . . zinLc,rican Cult~re" 1 : ,-:-.--*- - P .A. Shzckel ~nc P .Potter) . 1986 Spring University of Maryland, College Park. Assisted Mark Leone with research seminar in Eistorical Archaeology. Designed and supenrised research on the colonial newspaper The Maryland Gazette. Barbara J. Little Professional Experience June 1989- Department of Anthropology Scientific and present Administrative Liaison with National Park Service: administer cooperative agreement, identify CRM needs in National Capital Region, advise on projects, review projects; Archaeology in Annapolis project: Administrator for Archaeology: budget preparation and oversight; project design and field supervision; report writing, editing and supervision; computer program supervision. I 1988 Summer Archaeology in Annapolis project: 1987 Summer Director of Carroll House excavations in Annapolis (18AP45) and university of Maryland t field school I Project Director: Dr. Mark Leone 1 1986 - 1987 Supervisor for Archaeology in Annapolis -. - Co1lc;-e L~CZ.. 1r:brratoqr: sup"rrisior: of em?loyecs - . i 1 i?l -eer- in p:_occscS - 3 ZEC: nalyzing archaeologic:: rrterials; creation and idance of student ~-3jec .s. Position concurrent # with lecture chip. 198 6 Summer ,Azchaeology in Annapolis project: Tirector of Jonqs Green print shop excavation f -7 (~2 r 2: r-t? <- -= . zr 71 ; r,r: fi.c-~(-- rcl cs4 5 Project Direc,or: dr. PdrL Leon& 1985 Summer Archaeology in Annapolis project : Co-Director of Jonas Green print shop excavation and University of Maryland field school; Project Director: Dr. Mark Leone. 1984 Fall SUNY Buffalo Archaeological Survey : supervision of crews in field; surface survey, shovel testing, structure survey, photography; Director: Dr. Ben Nelson. 1984 Summer 1984 Spring 1983 Winter 1983 Winter 1983 Fall i382 Spring 15 [ 2 s-msx Fall Winter 1980 Fall Barbara J. Little 10/90 Archaeology in Annapolis project: Assistant field supervisor and public program guide at Newman Street site excavation; Jonas Green print shop site part-time crew member; preliminary analysis of printersr type; Project Director: Dr. Mark Leone. SUNY Buffalo Archaeological Survey: surface survey, shovel testing, structure survey, photography; Director: Dr. Ben Nelson. New York Dept. of Transportation Groveland Shaker Community Project: location of and partial excavation and mapping of building foundations of a Sh.aker community in Western New ~ork;' Director: pl'z. Phil Lord, New York Dept. of Transportation archaeologist. Fort Niagara, New York: zcrve;. znd xzppir.o chold Tart 21Lzqara z.r;c' . . ;.2 jacan" c.:-,.:.. .:.ts zTt.:; Director: Dr. Stuar; Scott. SETY Euf falo Depaeislent of Anthropoic~: Research hssistant for Dr. X.T.Steepan, project on stature of colonial American military populations. SIj!;Y L ~f ici~. -rci-~ ,ologFczl Survey : surface survey, shovel testing, structure sc:~. ~y, map drawing, cataloging of artifacts, flint artifact analysis, photography, site files update; Director: Dr. Mark Aldenderfer. Pennsylvania State Public Archaeology System: surf ace survey, shovel testing, laboratory analysis, excavation; Director: Dr. Conran Hay, Central PA regional archaeologist. 1980 Summer 1979-1980 1979 Summer 1978 Fall 1.57C. Su--EX Barbara J. Little 10/90 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission: state environmental reviews, artifact preservation, artifact identification and inventory, some exhibit construction; Supervisor: Dr. Barry Kent, Pennsylvania State Archaeologist. Pennsylvania State University, Anthropology Dept: obsidian dating laboratory technician; Director: Dr. Joseph Michels. University of Pennsylvania, M.A.S.C.A.: responsible for initial formation of obsidian dating facilities at Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology; Director: Dr. Stuart Fleming. Pennsylvania State University, Museum of Anthropology : exhibit construction, attendant duties; Director: Dr. Jaxes Httch. ; .:r.-?zl ;zni~. L :e Unirczsity Field Sch~ol: Central Pennsyi.+--z.nia; Eouserville site and Fisher Farm site excavzti surface ~urvey, shoy--1 test Director: 2r. J=L -, llatch Field Supervisors : Ira Beckeman, Gary Ksbster . Barbara J. Little Grants 1990/1991 Maryland Humanities Council $15,000 with Mark P. Leone For initiative in archaeology of African-Americ sites and associated public outreach. 1989/1990 Maryland Humanities Council $6,000 with Mark P. Leone and Paul A. Shackel FOS creation of videotape from multi-projector AV: Reflections on the Age of Reason. 1989/1991 National Park Service, National Capital Region (Through cooperative agreement with Department of Anthropology): Kanassas National Battlefield Survey; Graduzte Student internship in Interpretation. 1986/1987 FULCRUM project - IBM equipment for use in Archaeology in Annapolis laboratory at College P2.r:- . ;.-~-.,-l r:i I-. , -: ___ .;r i :_,?;.. f-0 cdd sec~;. ..' - ----- r?': -. ;. c L . American iathropology ;Lcsociztion Society for American Archaeology Society for Historical Archaeology Northeastern Anthropological Association Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology