Two weeks ago, the blog highlighted some of
the more interesting artifacts recovered this season. Our focus this week is on several interesting
features that have revealed more of the story of life during the 18th
and 19th centuries in central Pennsylvania. According to my favorite
archaeology text book by David Hurst Thomas and Robert Kelly, a feature is the nonportable evidence of technology;
usually fire hearths, architectural elements, artifact clusters, garbage pits,
soil stains, and so on. They are artifacts but they usually cannot be
removed from the ground and can only be described. Fort Hunter was occupied by Europeans for
nearly 300 years and contains a very large quantity of artifacts.
Unfortunately, the majority of these cannot be dated unless found in features
with other diagnostic objects – that is artifacts that can be chronologically
placed to a specific and limited time period. Below we will review the more
interesting and significant features encountered this season - some were
datable and some were not.
(East
wall of foundation)
Feature
22/55 is a rock foundation that we first encountered in 2009 but misidentified
as a French drain. As we expanded the area north of the well, it became clear
that this feature was a building foundation. It consists of a mixture of mostly
rounded cobbles but also some dressed diabase. Many of the cobbles were large,
12” – 18” in diameter. In this part of the site, it is possible to identify the
original ground surface present at the time of European contact and the
foundation seems to be resting on this surface. At the same level as the
foundation or just below it, we uncovered numerous fire-cracked-rocks which
were part of a Native American hearth feature to the east. It does not appear that
a builder’s trench was dug for this foundation but rather the foundation was
simply placed on the ground surface. The east wall of this structure is at
least 15 feet long. As we expanded the block north, we carefully excavated
around and beneath the rocks but did not find any artifacts that would suggest
a date for when the foundation was constructed. Since it rests on the original
ground surface, it could be early.
(Northeast
corner of foundation)
This
year we reached the back corner and were hoping to solve this problem. The back
or north wall makes a right angle turn to the west. Unfortunately, the back
wall ended within two feet where it had been cut by a waste water ditch or where
a large section of the bank eroded away during the hurricane Agnes flood of
1972. To our dismay, what appeared to be postmolds turned out to be rodent
disturbances and the artifacts found in them could have dated anytime during
the 19th century. In the future, we will investigate the area to the
west of the erosion ditch and hopefully, uncover the west wall of the
foundation.
(Feature
24/48 with Andrea standing on the iron pipe in the bottom leading to the well)
Another
feature that attracted our attention this season was Feature 24/48. This was a
large hole dug adjacent to the well but it also extends to the north for
approximately ten feet. It was first identified in plan-view in 2009 as a large
circular stain adjacent to the well. Our excavation eventually extended to a
depth of 6.6 feet and an iron pipe was found at the bottom that apparently was
part of a pumping system for the well. Based on historic photos from the
1890’s, there was a windmill approximately ten feet to the west and it is assumed
that it pumped water out from the well.
This feature was not completely excavated because part of it extended into the west
wall. During last winter, the adjacent unit to the north slumped and exposed
more of the feature. While troweling the wall this year, we recovered the U.S.
Navy button dating to approximately 1809.
(Navy button probably part of the uniform worn
by Thomas Gates McAllister, son of Archibald McAllister, who served in the U.
S. Navy from 1805 to 1807.)
After
the slump was cleared, approximately 15 inches of the feature was exposed in
the floor and considering the date on the button, this required our attention.
The button and several pieces of Middle Woodland pottery were the earliest
artifacts found, however the majority were post 1850 in age and not
particularly chronologically diagnostic. This portion of the feature was over
seven feet in depth and revealed a mostly decayed log situated upright with an
iron bar extending perpendicular through it. Most of the log had decayed but
part was covered in creosote and therefore was preserved. Initially we
speculated that the log was a wooden pipe that had been inserted into the
ground. However, the iron bar suggested another scenario. Since the pipe
connecting the windmill and the well are in the same excavation pit, we are now
thinking that this log was part of this construction activity. In this
scenario, the log was placed into the hand dug pit upright and the soil was
filled in around it to secure it in-place. The log functioned as a “dead man”
to which cables were attached to secure an adjacent structure; in this case most
likely the windmill. We are reasonably sure that the windmill and pipe were part
of the improvements made by the Boas family when they purchased the property in
the 1870s. Therefore both structures probably date to that time. This does not
help us much when interpreting the 18th century occupation but it does
establish the construction chronology in this area of the site.
(Profile
of Feature 24/48 illustrating “dead man” on the left)
Feature
77/90 is located at the back or north end of the icehouse. Originally, these
were considered two separate features but after further excavation, they
connected. The Feature 77 section is an 18” by 24” rectangular opening in the
icehouse wall with a lining of motar on the bottom. The opening extends
approximately two feet below the present ground surface and is approximately 6”
below the current wooden floor of the icehouse. The opening does not extend
inside the structure but is blocked by a dried laid brick wall. It is
associated with a dark stain outside the wall that extended approximately 12’’below
the plastered surface. Middle to late 19th century artifacts were
recovered from both the opening in the wall and the dark stain area outside the
wall.
(Opening
in icehouse wall. Brick
in back of the opening)
The Feature
90 section started out as a poorly defined stain extending north of the opening
in the wall approximately 8 feet. It did not really take shape until the stain
had been excavated to a depth of 8”. Rough cut wooden sides were exposed at
this point with several long spikes protruding vertically from the sides. The
spikes suggest that wood was attached to the top. It appears to have been a rectangular
box extending from near the icehouse wall, north, possibly funneling water over
the cliff that drops 36 feet to Fishing Creek. Depending on which records are
accurate, the icehouse is either 15 or over 20 feet deep with stairs leading to
the bottom. The records describe the ice as being stored on the bottom floor
but, if the ice is stored on the bottom, why is there a drain at the top?
Possibly the historic records are not accurate and the icehouse is not
constructed deep into the ground and this feature acted as a drain for the
melting ice. We have considered augering into the floor of the icehouse to
determine its depth. However, augering inside a building would be very
difficult since there is less than eight feet of roof clearance.
(Feature
90 with wood and nails visible on the left side)
The
most productive feature we excavated this season in terms of 18th
century artifacts was Feature 62. This was first identified in 2011. It appeared
as a dark linear stain under the topsoil that produced a French gunflint and
scratch blue salt glaze stoneware. This year, we recovered significantly more stoneware
along with tin glaze earthenware. A preliminary analysis suggests these
represent pieces of three or four vessels of scratch blue and at least two
vessels of tin glaze earthenware. Unfortunately, these were found with 19th
century artifacts. The stain was associated with a line of mostly dressed rocks
but some rounded cobbles. It extended approximately 15 feet along the top of
the slope leading down to the edge of the cliff overlooking Fishing Creek. The
18th century artifacts were generally confined to a six foot long section
but, it seems to have been part of a dumping area that was used well into the
19th century. Several pieces of the stoneware and the earthenware have
been mended and it will be interesting to see if there are any re-fits from
other parts of the site. For example, the area around the bake oven produced a
considerable quantity of similar stoneware and they also might cross-mend. Feature
62 produced more 18th century pottery than we have recovered in many
years at Fort Hunter, unfortunately all of it was from a mixed context.
(the
alignment of rocks to the left of the rock foundation in the center is Feature
62)
As is
frequently the case, one of the most intriguing features was uncovered the last
two weeks of the excavation. This is a circular rock foundation, 12 feet in
diameter. Many of the rocks are large cobbles similar to Feature 22/55 but
there is also a mixture of smaller cobbles and dressed pieces of diabase.
However, in this case, there is a significant builder’s trench that is about 18
inches deep. The rocks do not appear to be aligned for a foundation but seem to
have been disturbed. Possibly, the foundation was partially removed (robbed) to
be used in some other structure. There also seems to be a small open ended
rectangular structure on its north side. Artifacts are not common but most date
to the 18th century. These include scratch blue stoneware, gunflint,
musket ball and the near complete lock from a Brown Bess musket. Along with
these early artifacts, the low density of artifacts also suggests that this is
an early feature. Once Captain McAllister arrived in 1786, his artifacts became
very common. Therefore, the low density of artifacts in this feature suggests a
pre-McAllister structure. However, Feature 99 cuts through another feature that
seems more recent, suggesting the foundation may not be as old as we think. The
inside of the circle is disturbed but not to any depth so it is not a large
well or cistern. We have discussed the possibly that it was one of the fort’s
bastions or its powder magazine.
However, a re-examination of historic records discovered that in 1798, there
was an octagon shaped smokehouse in the back yard. It was elevated off the
ground and smoke was produced via a stove on the outside of the structure –
probably the rectangular structure to the north of the circle. However, the
wooden smoke house was possibly constructed on top of a fort related structure.
Clearly more excavation is required in and around the rectangular attachment
and the features in the center of the rock circle. This feature will be a focus
of our activity in the fall of 2015.
(Circular
foundation, builders trench in profile and attached rectangular structure to
the north)
Although,
this season produced a relatively high frequency of 18th century
artifacts, some of which may be fort related, with the exception of the
hillside dump, all of these features could date to Archibald McAllister’s
occupation rather than the French and Indian War fort. The features have also
given us direction for excavation in the future. Practically all of these
features are examples of the mystery and frustration involved in archaeological
field projects. We spend considerable time in the excavation of features but
their function and age frequently remain problematic.
References:
Thomas, David Hurst and Robert Kelly
2007 Archaeology Down to Earth. Thomson
Wadsworth Publishing, Australia.
