ADAMS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE - NPS History

ARCHEOLOGICAL

COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT AT

ADAMS

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

MASSACHUSETTS

ACMP Series No. 9

Archeology Branch

Cultural Resources Center

North Atlantic Regional Office

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Illustration on cover: 1828 depiction of the Adams Birthplaces, Adams National Historic Site, by Ann Gray (Massachusetts Historical Society).

United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

North Atlantic Region

IN REPLY REFER TO: 15 State Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3572

April 10, 1992

H30 (NAR-CRC)

Dear Colleague:

Enclosed is a copy of the Archeological Collections Management at Adams National Historic Site report. This report documents the collections project for the Park conducted by the Archeology Branch of the Cultural Resources Center, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service.

Included in the report are sections pertaining to project methodology, collections summary, a historical overview, and recommendations for further work. An artifact inventory, ACMP catalog flow chart, and glossary of artifact definitions can be found in the appendices of the report.

The collections project organized and cataloged archeological materials from Adams NHS. All of the material from Adams NHS was recovered from two archeological projects at the Adams Birthplaces. The first project was a systematic survey conducted by Pratt and Pratt during 1980. The second project was conducted in 1982 by National Park Service archeologists Dick Hsu and Linda Towle. This collection includes 39,205 artifacts.

This report will provide the Park staff with information to manage and interpret the collections, as well as additional archeological resources at the Park. It will also provide future researchers with accessible and documented collections. We hope that other archeologists and curators will find our approach useful in designing their own collections management projects.

If you have any questions about the report, or would like to receive additional copies, please contact me or ACMP Manager Gail Frace at (617) 242-1979. Thank you.

Myra F. Harrison Manager, Cultural Resources Center

Enclosure

Sincerely,

Archeological Collections Management

at Adams National Historic Site

Massachusetts

ACMP Series No. 9

Darcie A. MacMahon

Archeology Branch Cultural Resources Center

North Atlantic Regional Office National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior Boston, Massachusetts

1991

Preface and Acknowledgments

This report is ninth in a series of Archeological Collections Management Project (ACMP) reports produced by the North Atlantic Regional Office of the National Park Service (NPS). The purpose of this project has been to process, catalog, prepare for storage, and analyze the uncataloged archeological collections at the Adams National Historic Site (Adams NHS). All of these collections were from a portion of the Park known as the Adams Birthplaces. The project has resulted in better-documented and more accessible collections, as well as a synthesis of the archeological work performed at the site. This report serves as a general guide for the collections, and for the interpretation of the archeological record as excavated to date.

The collections were processed at the Eastern Archeological Field Laboratory in Charlestown, Massachusetts. As the result of reorganization in 1990, the name of the laboratory was changed to the Archeology Branch of the Cultural Resources Center (CRC), which serves the North Atlantic Region of the NPS. In order to avoid undue confusion, the laboratory will be referred to as the Archeology Branch throughout the text.

Many people have contributed to the successful completion of this project. Myra Harrison, Manager of the CRC, and Linda Towle, Supervisor of the Archeology Branch of the CRC, have been true project proponents. Without their support, the ACMP would not be possible, and this volume would not have been published. Linda also read this volume, and her comments as an archeological colleague provided substantive contributions.

At Adams NHS, Park Curator Judy Curtis helped with the logistics of the project and provided helpful information. I thank her also for her patience in seeing the volume come to completion.

Other colleagues at the Cultural Resources Center have given invaluable assistance in every area. Architectural Conservator Carole Perrault generously shared her research on the Adams Birthplaces, most of which will be incorporated into her upcoming Historic Structure Report. Maria Capozzi and Doreen Crowe cataloged the collections, and Maria helped to answer questions about the data long after she had returned the collections to the Park. Grace Ziesing did a fine editing job on the volume, and compiled the manuscript into its publishable format. Louise DeCesare also helped in the final compilation of the manuscript, and in the production of some of the figures. Leslie Mead and Sarah Smith provided additional assistance in drafting the final figures.

Last but not least, colleague Kurt Faust was responsible for drafting the preliminary figures for this report. Kurt passed away during the completion of the project, on the same day as the death of one of his favorite presidents—John Adams. This volume is dedicated to Kurt's memory, and to the joy that it has been to know and work with him.

Darcie A. MacMahon Charlestown, MA August 18, 1991

iii

Table of Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vii List of Tables viii

Introduction 1 The Archeological Collections Management Project 1 The Adams NHS Archeological Projects and Collections 5

Pratt and Pratt Project 6 Towle and Hsu Project 7

Historical Background 8 Ownership and Occupancy 8 Tenant Activities 9 The Birthplaces Grounds 9

Project Methodology 10 Prior Condition of the Collections 10

Pratt and Pratt Collection 10 Towle and Hsu Collection 11

ACMP Provenience System 11 Pratt and Pratt Collection 11 Towle and Hsu Collection 12

Collections Processing and Storage 12 The ACMP Classification System 15

Design and Format 15 Artifact Categories 16 Summary 18

The Automated National Catalog System and Adams NHS Computer Files 19 Cataloging Associated Collection Documentation 19 ACMP Map Construction 20

ACMP Composite Excavation Plan 20 Geophysical Maps 20

Collections Summary 21 Accession #36, The Pratt and Pratt Collection 21

Artifact Collection Contents 21 Collection Documentation 21 Provenience Problems 22 Missing Artifacts 23

iv

Field Methods 24 Artifact Classification Differences 24

Accession #37, the Towle and Hsu Collection 24 Artifact Collection Contents 24

Artifact Conservation 25 Collection Documentation 25 Missing Artifacts 25 Field Methods 26 Classification Differences 26

Prior Research Results 27 Weston Geophysical Survey 27 Pratt and Pratt Survey 27

Field Methods 28 Cultural Features 32 Testing the Geophysical Results 39 Test Pit Data Results 44

Towle and Hsu Excavation 44 Field Methods 45 Cultural Features 45 Artifact Analysis 47 Reconstructed Vessels 48

ACMP Evaluation 49 Evidence of Structures 49

Feature A 49 Feature B 51 Feature C 53 Feature D 56 Feature E 57 Feature F 58 Summary 58 Geophysical Evidence for Additional Structures 59 Additional Outbuildings in Historical Documents and Images 59

Adams Period Deposits 60 Probate Data from Early Site Periods 64 Evidence of Other Site Activities 65

Shoemaking at the Birthplaces 65 Summary 68

Site Disturbances 68

Management Summary 71 Collections Summary 71

v

ACMP Evaluation 71

Recommendations 74

References Cited 75

Appendices Appendix 1. Archeological Collections Management Tables for Adams NHS . . . . 83 Appendix 2. Ownership and Occupancy of the Adams Birthplaces 89 Appendix 3. Adams NHS Archival Materials by Accession Number 95 Appendix 4. ACMP Cataloging Flow Chart 99 Appendix 5. ACMP Artifact Definitions 115 Appendix 6. Catalog Placement of Miscellaneous Items 143 Appendix 7. Adams NHS Summary Artifact Inventory 147 Appendix 8. Missing/Extra Artifacts in the Pratt and Pratt Collection 157 Appendix 9. Missing/Extra Artifacts in the Towle and Hsu Collection 169 Appendix 10. Letter from Geosight to NPS Chief of Cultural Resources

Re: Geophysical Survey Results 173

vi

List of Figures

1. U.S.G.S Topographic Map, Showing Locations of Adams NHS 2 2. 1991 ACMP Photograph of the John Adams Birthplace, Looking North 3 3. 1991 ACMP Photograph of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, Looking West . . . 4 4. ACMP Composite Excavation Plan 13 5. Photograph Showing an ACMP Storage Box and Bag 16 6. Flow Chart of NPS Archeological Classification 17 7. ACMP Composite Map Showing Resistivity Anomalies 29 8. ACMP Composite Map Showing Ground Radar Anomalies 30 9. Overall View of Pratt and Pratt Excavation 31 10. Photograph of Cased Well, Square 27 32 11. Plan Map of Cased Well, Square 27 33 12. Photograph of Brick Floor in Cellarhole at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace . . 34 13. Plan and Profile Maps of Cellarhole at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace 35 14. Plan of Square 15 36 15. Profile of Squares 4 and 15 38 16. Photograph of Squares 4 and 15 39 17. Plan Maps of Possible Foundation in Square 25 40 18. Photograph of Square 25 41 19. Photograph of Square 24 42 20. Photograph of Square 18 43 21. Pratt and Pratt Test Pit Artifact Density Map 45 22. Pratt and Pratt Test Pit Date Map 46 23. Photograph of Cellarhole at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace 47 24. Photograph of Cellarhole Foundation at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace . . . . 48 25.1828 Depiction of the Birthplaces by Ann Gray 50 26.1849 Engraving of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace 51 27. Historic Photograph (Mid-1890s) of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace 52 28. Plan and Profile Maps of Square 8 54 29. Historic Photograph (Early 1880s) of the John Adams Birthplace 55 30. Historic Photograph (Early 1880s) of the John Adams Birthplace 56 31. Engraving from 1893 Showing the John Adams Birthplace 57 32. ACMP Computer Diagram of the Distribution of Early Ceramic Wares 62 33. ACMP Map Showing the Distribution of Early Ceramic Wares 63 34. ACMP Map of Known Modern Ground Disturbances 69

vii

List of Tables

1. ACMPs Conducted to Date 5 2. Collections Summary 22 3. Interpretation of Anomalies Identified in the Geophysical Survey 28 4. Major Features from the Pratt and Pratt Survey 31 5. Correlation of Significant Geophysical Anomalies with Archeological Results . . . 44 6. Nail Assemblage in the Vicinity of Feature B 53 7. Ceramic Types used as 17th- and 18th-century Indicators 61 8. Leather in the Adams Birthplaces Assemblage 67

viii

Introduction

The subject of this report is the Archeological Collections Management Project (ACMP) that was undertaken for the Adams National Historic Site (Adams NHS) in Quincy, Massachusetts. Adams NHS is composed of two separate parcels of land in downtown Quincy: the main part of the Park where both the Adams Mansion and the Park Headquarters are located; and the Adams Birthplaces parcel, which is a little more than a mile from Park Headquarters (Figure 1). The only archeological collections that currently exist for the Park were recovered from the site of the Adams Birthplaces, which is therefore the focus of this report.

The Birthplaces themselves are two classic New England salt box houses in which John Adams and John Quincy Adams, each of whom became President of the United States, were born. They are located next to each other on what is now a small triangular piece of property in downtown Quincy. Both of the Birthplaces have been renovated on a number of occasions, most recently by the National Park Service (NPS) in the early 1980s (Perrault n.d.b). This work attempted to return the houses to their appearance during the tenures of John and John Quincy Adams (Figures 2, 3).

Two archeological projects have occurred at the Birthplaces. Pratt and Pratt Archeological Consultants conducted the first project in 1980, following a geophysical survey of the property (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980). Pratt and Pratt systematically tested the entire property. The second project was done in 1983 by NPS Regional Archeologist Dick Hsu and staff archeologist Linda Towle. This was essentially a monitoring project associated with the installation of a new drainage system around the periphery of both houses. Each of these projects was reported on, and the artifacts were inventoried (Pratt 1981; Towle and Hsu 1983).

The ACMP began working on the Birthplaces collections in October 1987. The purpose of the project was to organize and catalog the collection to NPS standards. This report documents that work, and offers some additional interpretation of the archeological site and the artifacts that resulted from the two projects.

The Archeological Collections Management Project

The ACMP is an ongoing project sponsored by the Archeology Branch of the Cultural Resources Center in the North Atlantic Regional Office of the NPS. The project began in 1981, in part because of the attention that both archeological and museum professionals had begun to give to collections issues, particularly the lack of adequate care given to archeological collections. Citing the value of such collections for research and educational purposes, these professionals called for renewed attention to archeological collections and

1

Figure 1. U.S.G.S topographic map showing the locations of the Adams Birthplaces (circled) and Park Headquarters (to the north) (Norwood [1985] and Boston South [1987] quadrangles).

2

Figure 2. 1991 ACMP photograph of the John Adams Birthplace, looking north. Most of the archeological work was conducted behind (west and north of) the house.

argued for their proper curation (e.g., Christenson 1979; Cantwell et al. 1981; Marquardt et al. 1982; American Association of Museums 1984; Towle 1987).

The North Atlantic Regional Office, recognizing its collections responsibilities, initiated the ACMP. The goal of the project was to inventory and reorganize the archeological collections held at various parks in the region, and to make them accessible to both park staff and independent researchers for curatorial, interpretive, and research purposes. Since that time, the ACMP has worked with collections from a variety of National Parks in the northeast. These are listed in Table 1 in the order in which they were conducted.

The scope of the ACMP has changed over time. For the fourth ACMP, on the large archeological collection at Minute Man National Historical Park (Minute Man NHP) in Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington, Massachusetts, the scope was broadened to include a reanalysis of the collections from each site at the Park, which would serve as background research for the concurrent Minute Man NHP Archeological Project. The reanalysis would also provide the Park staff with more information for interpreting the sites to the public (Towle and MacMahon 1986, 1987).

During the completion of the ACMP for Minute Man NHP, two issues that changed the course of future ACMPs arose on a national scale. First, a Service-wide push began for

3

Figure 3. 1991 ACMP photograph of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, looking west. Most of the archeological work was conducted behind (west and north of) the house.

the cataloging of uncataloged collections. This push was summarized in a memorandum released by the NPS Chief Curator, Ann Hitchcock, calling for the Service to "bring about full accountability for and sound management of its collections" (Hitchcock 1987:1) according to the standards in the NPS Museum Handbook (NPS 1984). Hitchcock cited the estimated backlog of uncataloged NPS collections as comprising 22.6 million objects (Hitchcock 1987:1). In addition, the new NPS Automated National Catalog System (ANCS) was introduced, providing the capability for computerized cataloging. In response, the ACMP shifted its orientation to those NARO archeological collections that had not been cataloged previously. In conjunction, a computerized data base and printed catalog cards would be produced using the new ANCS.

In May 1985 Linda Towle, who later became the ACMP manager, initiated an "Accountability Project" assessment phase to determine how many uncataloged archeological collections there were at each park in the North Atlantic Region. The final report included a table for each park, which summarized the status of the park's archeological collections (Towle 1985:appendix III). The table for Adams NHS is presented in Appendix 1, along with the information as revised after the completion of the ACMP. The recommendations presented in Towle's assessment report gave direction to the ACMPs that followed.

4

Table 1. ACMPs Conducted to Date

Park Report Reference

Salem Maritime NHS* Morristown NHPf Great Island Tavern at Cape Cod NS+. Minute Man NHP Lowell NHP Longfellow NHS Boston NHP Saugus Ironworks NHS Adams NHS Springfield Armory NHS Sagamore Hill NHS Martin Van Buren NHS Women's Fights NHS

* NHS = National Historic Site f NHP = National Historical Park % NS = National Seashore

Synenki and Charles 1983a Synenki and Charles 1983b Synenki and Charles 1984 Towle and MacMahon 1986, 1987

MacMahon 1988 MacMahon 1991 (this report) DeCesare 1990a DeCesare 1990b Capozzi 1991 DeCesare n.d.

Following the assessment, we decided that for many parks a basic report describing ACMP procedures would suffice, but in certain cases a more extensive report would be in order. This would be true for parks with large archeological collections, collections from research projects that had never been adequately reported on, or collections from multiple research projects that had never been synthesized for interpretive purposes. These reports would include a reanalysis of the collection when appropriate and an overall site interpretation. We decided that the Adams NHS collections merited more extensive treatment based on the latter two criteria.

The Adams NHS Archeological Projects and Collections

The collections assessment for Adams NHS identified four uncataloged archeological collections (Appendix 1). The first collection was recovered from excavations at the Duck Pond or Fish Pond at the Adams Mansion in October 1962 and July 1963. Dr. John L. Cotter of the NPS conducted the work and reported on the excavation in a brief report (Cotter 1963). The objective of the work was "principally to establish the original bed of the pond and to locate, if possible, a [purported] brick wall" (Cotter 1963:1). The report included typed field notes, excavation maps, photographs, and a field specimen data log that inventoried the artifacts recovered. Although exact counts were not provided for all artifacts in the inventory, at least 20 artifacts were recovered. The artifacts were not accessioned or cataloged. This small collection of materials is not currently housed at Adams NHS, and to date its location remains unknown.

The remaining three collections were all recovered from the Birthplaces property. At the time of the collections assessment, all three were located in the attic of the Adams NHS carriage house, and had not yet been accessioned.

5

Pratt and Pratt Project

The largest of these collections was recovered during the systematic survey conducted by Pratt and Pratt Archeological Consultants. The project was done in conjunction with another similar survey at the Hartwell Tavern site at Minute Man NHP (MacMahon 1986). Fieldwork for this joint project occurred between June and August 1980, with the work at Adams NHS taking place during July and August.

The archeological survey followed a geophysical study of the property by Weston Geophysical Corporation, conducted on four days in October 1979 (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:3-4). The study consisted of both a resistivity and a ground radar survey. In their final report, Weston Geophysical noted that

[t]he purpose of these surveys was to locate potential archeological deposits in order to facilitate resource planning and management....The surveys were also intended to show the comparative effectiveness of resistivity versus ground radar for archeological prospecting (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:1).

The geophysical data revealed a number of anomalies that were interpreted as to possible cultural function. Several anomalies proved to be pronounced features on both the resistivity and ground radar surveys.

The Pratt and Pratt survey during the following summer had four goals, which were stated in their report as follows:

1) design and execute a subsurface archaeological testing program which would locate and delineate the archaeological resources within the study area, 2) assess the information derived from these researches in relationship to the present state of knowledge of similar sites, 3) in consultation with the NPS Regional Archeologist, develop and test hypothesis regarding the spatial distribution of archaeological features at historic sites, and 4) compare the relative efficiencies and reliability of a previous archaeological survey performed by resistivity with a present subsurface survey (Pratt 1981:1-2).

These four goals were specified in the original Scope of Work for the contract (NPS Contract No. CX1600-9-0061). The Pratt and Pratt final report actually addressed only two of these goals: locating archeological resources and testing the geophysical survey results.

The Pratt and Pratt survey was able to identify a number of cultural features, including a well, a foundation with a brick floor adjacent to the north side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, the possible remains of a shed, two areas that may have been related to foundations, and miscellaneous modern disturbances (Pratt 1981:49).

6

Several of these features had been noted as anomalies during the geophysical survey, while several others had not. The geophysical survey also identified anomalies that the Pratt and Pratt survey could not correlate with cultural activity. These features and the comparison between the two studies will be discussed in more detail later in this report.

Towle and Hsu Project

The last two uncataloged archeological collections identified in the assessment report (Appendix 1) resulted from NPS excavations around the periphery of the two Birthplaces. Although noted as two separate collections in the assessment, these materials resulted from the same project and have been accessioned as a single collection.

As stated in the final report on the project, the goal was "to mitigate any adverse effects to important archeological resources as a result of the installation of a drainage system around the John Adams and John Quincy Adams birthplaces" (Towle and Hsu 1983:1). Water had begun to damage the exterior wooden clapboards because of soil buildup around the houses. The remedy chosen was a combination of lowering the ground level and installing French drains and sumps (Towle and Hsu 1983:1).

Towle and Hsu monitored the digging of trenches around the perimeter of the two houses and excavated an additional unit themselves to further explore a cellarhole feature on the north side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. The cellar had previously been located by Pratt and Pratt. Although no additional features were discovered, Towle and Hsu identified a number of artifact concentrations and modern disturbances. These areas and the artifact analysis offered in the Towle and Hsu report will be discussed later in this report.

7

Historical Background

The Adams Birthplaces have been the subject of a number of historical studies (e.g., Adams 1936; Edwards 1957; Sprague 1954, 1959; Gall 1978; NPS 1978; Perrault n.d.b). All of these studies have focused on the history of the families and their occupation of the two houses, with some additional reference to other owners/occupants. The structures themselves and how they have changed through time have also been referenced in some of these sources, most thoroughly in Perrault (n.d.b). Recent structural changes to the buildings are documented in a NPS Completion Report (Perrault 1980). Appendix 2 summarizes much of the historical research, so only a brief discussion of site history will be offered here (based upon Sprague 1959 and Perrault n.d.b).

Ownership and Occupancy

Both properties were first occupied in the 17th century. William Needham constructed a house on the John Adams Birthplace property ca. 1639. Deacon Joseph Penniman replaced this house with a new one in 1681, possibly using the Needham foundation. Samuel Belcher constructed a house on the John Quincy Adams Birthplace property in 1663, and his son Deacon Gregory Belcher expanded the house in 1716. These two structures later became the birthplaces of the two presidents.

The Adams family first came to the properties in 1720, when Deacon John Adams purchased the house now known as the John Adams Birthplace, named because his son John was born there. He purchased the neighboring house in 1744 and willed it to his son John Adams in 1761. John and his wife Abigail had their children, including son John Quincy Adams, in this "cottage," hence the name for this second Birthplace.

Although both houses were owned by the Adams family until 1940, they were often occupied by tenants. Following the death of Deacon John Adams in 1761, family members occupied the two houses sporadically. His son John's role as a statesman continually expanded, keeping him and sometimes his family in Boston or abroad. In 1788 the John Adamses returned from Europe and settled in what is now called the Adams Mansion, which is about a mile from the Birthplaces. Members of the family lived in the John Adams Birthplace from 1720 to 1768, and again from 1810 to 1819. The John Quincy Adams Birthplace was occupied by the family for a much shorter period, from 1764 to 1784, and again from 1805 to 1806, this last time by John Quincy Adams and his family.

The houses were first opened to the public as historic sites in the late 19th century. This followed the major restoration of both structures: the John Quincy Adams Birthplace in 1895-1896, by the Adams Real Estate Trust and the Quincy Historical Society; and the John Adams Birthplace in 1897 by the Adams Real Estate Trust and the Daughters of the Revolution (Sprague 1959:15, 26-27; Perrault n.d.a). Appendix 2 provides a summary of the complex chain of ownership and occupancy of both houses.

8

Tenant Activities

A wide range of tenants occupied the two houses and influenced the character of activities on the property. Many tenants were farmers, but people with other occupations also lived in the houses. A number of these tenants were shoemakers, a tradition actually begun by Deacon John Adams who was a cordwainer. Although the information about the tenants and their professional occupations is incomplete, it is nonetheless helpful in expanding our understanding of life on the property.

Some of the tenants' activities can be briefly summarized, and are noted in Appendix 2. In 1820 Adam and Samuel Curtis lived in the John Adams house and ran a shoemaker's shop that employed five additional men. In 1833 Sukey Burrell ran a private school in the John Adams Birthplace. John Adams opened his first law office in 1764 in the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. The same part of the house was later used as an apothecary shop, Quincy's first drugstore, which was established in 1825 by the wife of tenant Tom Hayden (Sprague 1959:34). Tom Hayden was a shoemaker and worked nearby for a Mr. Field. Following the Haydens, John Faxon, who was in the "sheepkilling and mutton business," lived in the house (1827-1829), and was succeeded by butcher and fisherman Harvey Field in 1829. The 1850 census shows John Harrison and Patrick Hailey, both bootmakers, to be living in the house. These are but a few of the tenants who lived in the Birthplaces, and other specialized activities may well have been conducted on the premises.

The Birthplaces Grounds

During much of the site's history, the houses were situated on a large tract of farm property. Deeds from the period attest to various barns and outbuildings, although the exact location of these is unknown. The farm acreage began to be sold off for house lots in 1886 (Sprague 1959:14), eventually leaving the small triangle of property (approximately .6 acre) currently owned by the NPS.

There has been no study, to date, of the evolution of the grounds at the Birthplaces or the various outbuildings that have come and gone near the houses. In preparation for the Historic Structure Report for the Birthplaces, NPS Architectural Conservator Carole Perrault compiled a series of historic images and photographs of the Birthplaces (Perrault n.d.a). This is currently the best source of information about the evolution of the houses and grounds. Very few of these images, however, give more than a general idea about outbuildings near the houses, and the surrounding grounds are rarely visible. More discussion about outbuildings as related to the archeological record will be offered in the "ACMP Evaluation" section of this report.

9

Project Methodology

The ACMP began work on the Adams NHS collections in the fall of 1987. Retrieved from storage in the Adams NHS carriage house attic, the collections were taken to the Archeology Branch of the Cultural Resources Center in the Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston National Historical Park, for processing. The curator of Adams NHS assigned the following accession numbers to the collections:

Pratt and Pratt collection Accession #36 Towle and Hsu collection Accession #37

The collections were returned to the Park in October 1989. They were placed on metal shelving units in the basement of the Adams Mansion, along with other Park collections.

Prior Condition of the Collections

Pratt and Pratt Collection

Following the archeological fieldwork in 1980, the artifacts and associated field documentation were taken to the laboratory of Pratt and Pratt Archeological Consultants in Syracuse, New York, for cataloging and analysis. Two artifact inventories were completed, the first on Pratt and Pratt inventory forms (yellow forms known as "marigold sheets"), and the second on NPS inventory forms that had recently been developed for use in the Cape Cod National Seashore Archeological Survey. The NPS inventory was a coded system designed for computer entry and analysis. The use of two separate inventories apparently slowed the progress of the contract, resulting in a variety of correspondence and an extension of the contract deadline (NPS n.d.).

The artifacts were later returned to the Park. In 1982, when the Towle and Hsu monitoring project was in preparation, the Pratt and Pratt collection was taken to the Archeology Branch for reorganization and improvement of storage containers. NPS staff reboxed the materials in small acid-free Hollinger boxes. These were subsequently returned to the Park (Dick Hsu, personal communication 1988).

When the ACMP began work on the collection, it was once again taken to the Archeology Branch in Charlestown. The artifacts were still stored in their original plastic bags, most of which had provenience information written on them in magic marker. Some of the bags had degraded, and the provenience was no longer legible. The bags were also open at the top, making the artifacts vulnerable to loss, and the thin plastic had been pierced in places by sharp artifacts. Many (but not all) of the artifacts had been assigned Pratt and Pratt inventory numbers, which were written on the artifacts in permanent ink.

The Pratt and Pratt field notes and associated documentation were not stored with the artifacts at the Park. In 1985 the ACMP contacted Pratt and Pratt concerning the documenta-

10

tion for both the Hartwell Tavern and Adams Birthplaces projects. Pratt and Pratt were able to locate much of this material, which was forwarded to the NPS. Among these records were the original field forms, some field photographs, and laboratory records including the two artifact inventories (Pratt and Pratt, and NPS). These materials are listed in more detail in Appendix 3.

Towle and Hsu Collection

Following the 1982 monitoring project, all artifacts were taken to the Archeology Branch for processing, and were returned to the Park in the spring of 1983 (Linda Towle, personal communication 1988). The artifacts had been inventoried on what was then the current ACMP inventory form (entitled "1982 Artifact Catalog"). They had been bagged in polyethylene zip-lock bags, by artifact type and by provenience. Each bag contained an acid-free paper tag with artifact and provenience information. The bags were stored in acid-free Hollinger boxes. The ACMP retrieved this collection from the Park in the spring of 1988 after completing the cataloging of the Pratt and Pratt collection, and found it to be in good condition. Associated documentation was stored with the collection, and is listed in Appendix 3.

ACMP Provenience System

The ACMP assigned a standard provenience format to each of the collections, and organized the proveniences in numerical order. The provenience designation was taken directly from the artifact bags when possible. If discrepancies occurred between the provenience designation written on the artifact bag and the original inventory, the ACMP attempted to resolve the discrepancy using all sources of information. At times it was impossible to determine the provenience for unmarked materials, and these were designated Unproven-ienced.

Pratt and Pratt Collection

The Pratt and Pratt excavation consisted of both test pits and excavation units. The test pits were dug at regular intervals along numbered transects within three "sectors" of the site. Excavation units ("squares") were dug site-wide without differentiation by transect or sector (Figure 4). The ACMP provenience designations for the Pratt and Pratt collection are relatively self-explanatory, and contain the following abbreviations:

SEC (Sector) TRAN (Transect) TP (Test Pit) SQ (Square) L (Level) FEAT (Feature)

11

A test pit provenience might appear as: SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 1. An excavation unit provenience might appear as: SQ 1, L 1. The ACMP organized the proveniences numerically. Test pits were organized first by sector, then by transect, then by test pit number. Squares were organized by square number.

In addition, if the original artifact bag or inventory entry specified additional information, the ACMP included this in the provenience designation. This was often the case, for example, with specific depths in inches. Less often, a modifier such as "Ash Deposit" might be present. Such additional information was incorporated into the ACMP provenience as follows: SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 1, 0-11", ASH DEPOSIT. Most of the Pratt and Pratt proveniences included a depth measurement.

Towle and Hsu Collection

The Towle and Hsu collection was organized by numerical excavation unit number. With the exception of Excavation Unit 22, these unit numbers reflect the arbitrary division of the continuous trenches around the two houses (Figure 4). Excavation units 1-10 were at the John Adams Birthplace, and units 11-22 were at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. The ACMP retained the original designation of "EU" for Excavation Unit. While some units simply had a numeric designation (e.g., EU 1), most were divided into subunits that were given an additional alpha designation (e.g., EU 1A). Only two excavation units had strati-graphic level information, and the ACMP designated these with "L" for Level (e.g., EU 22, L I ) .

Collections Processing and Storage

Prior to cataloging, some of the Adams NHS materials required cleaning. These were washed or, in the case of organic materials or metal, brushed. The artifacts from each accession were then sorted by provenience and compared to the inventories prepared by the original excavators to determine how much of the collection was missing. The data from this comparison will be presented in a later section of this report.

The ACMP cataloging process of each accession began with the sorting of artifacts by material type within each provenience. These categories were further broken down into lots according to the ACMP artifact classes discussed in the following section. Each lot was assigned a catalog number, and the artifacts were placed into a resealable polyethylene bag with an acid-free tag noting the Park acronym (ADAM), the site (Adams Birthplaces), the within-site provenience, and the catalog number for that lot.

Polyethylene bags were used because they meet object conservation standards and because they are durable and transparent for easy viewing. Four sizes of bags were used: 4, 6, 8, and 12 in. square. These were used to bag the artifacts hierarchically according to the ACMP categories for each provenience. Ideally, the artifacts from one provenience fit into a single 12-in. bag, but often the number of artifacts required more than one 12-in. bag per provenience.

12

Figure 4. ACMP composite excavation plan, showing areas excavated by Pratt and Pratt and by Towle and Hsu.

13

After bagging, the artifacts were placed in acid-free Hollinger storage boxes in catalog number and provenience order. Within each provenience, the bags were organized according to the order of the artifact classes on the ACMP flow chart (Appendix 4). Sometimes it was necessary to insert a catalog number out of sequence, but the provenience order was maintained. Organic materials were boxed separately to allow for separate storage in a climate-controlled area. Each box was then labelled with the following information: the Park acronym (ADAM), the accession number, the site name, the box number, the catalog numbers stored in that box, and whether the contents were organic or inorganic materials (Figure 5). The box numbers are recorded on the catalog cards.

The artifacts in Accessions #36 and #37 occupied 66 boxes, 6 of which contained organic materials, and 60 of which contained inorganic materials. Accession #36 accounted for a total of 50 boxes (46 inorganic, 4 organic), and Accession #37 for 16 boxes (14 inorganic, 2 organic).

The ACMP Classification System

Design and Format

The classification system used for Adams NHS was essentially the same as that used during the ACMP for the Saugus Ironworks NHS (MacMahon 1988), which in turn had evolved from that used during earlier ACMPs.

Appendix 5 provides definitions for the artifact categories developed by the ACMP. These categories were first structured by a hierarchical classification system established in the NPS Museum Handbook (NPS 1984). The Handbook calls for the classification of archeological artifacts according to whether they are historic, prehistoric, or unknown, and then by two levels of standardized material types (Figure 6; NPS 1984:El-2). Within these groupings, much of the ACMP classification system is based on material type and artifact morphology, but a number of the categories are functional. These functional categories appear under various material categories, resulting in a mixture of functional and morphological categories that all fall within larger material-based categories. The ACMP cataloging staff followed a "flow chart" in order to determine how each lot of artifacts would be classified (Appendix 4).

The format of the flow chart, and thus of the catalog cards and the computerized data base, was standardized to provide consistency and easy computer access. Standard terms were used for object names and the basic description fields, although in some cases additional description was also added. Researchers interested in using the ACMP data base may therefore use the flow chart as a guide to the classification structure, and may access the computerized data base using these categories. It should be noted that blanks appearing on the catalog cards are fields that were not relevant to the archeological data.

15

Figure 5. Photograph showing an ACMP storage box and bag.

Artifact Categories

The ACMP artifact categories were for the most part developed during previous ACMPs. They were designed to provide both adequate inventory information for accountability purposes, and data that are generally considered useful for research purposes. Detailed attribute-based classifications may have been preferable for research purposes, but were neither feasible nor desirable given the purpose and scope of the ACMP. As Hill and Evans have noted,

since not all attributes can conceivably be considered.. .the investigator must either select his attributes to suit his specific problems, or decide simply to select those attributes that most of his colleagues have considered important (1972:261).

Factors that influenced the choice of categories included:

1) artifact typologies that were generally agreed upon by historical archeolo-gists, particularly ceramic categories; 2) artifact categories used during previous ACMPs, to enable inter-park comparisons; and 3) summary functional categories for artifacts similar in material and function but typically few in number (Synenki and Charles 1984:28).

16

Figure 6. Flow chart of NPS archeological classification.

i—'

The resulting artifact categories were variously based on material composition, manufacturing technique, morphological characteristics, or functional attributes. Thus classification varied according to what were believed to be the most useful analytical attributes of each artifact class.

Historic vessel ceramics, for example, were classified according to material and manufacture type, as well as vessel fragment morphology. This was presumed to be most useful for research purposes as it identified ware type and thus, when known, the associated country of origin and date of manufacture. Ceramic tobacco pipes and other ceramic objects were classified separately in functional categories that were deemed to be more analytically useful. Glass artifacts were approached similarly, with bottle and drinking vessel glass identified by manufacturing technique and morphology, while other glass items were incorporated into separate functional categories (e.g., bottle closures, lighting fixtures, etc.).

The ACMP hoped that this combination of attribute-based and functional categories would provide researchers with a variety of analytical options. For example, certain chronological research questions could be addressed through the analysis of diagnostic artifact types, such as historic vessel ceramics, bottle glass, or nails. The ACMP based these classifications upon definitions generally accepted in the archeological literature. Alternatively, questions involving intersite activities or feature function might benefit from the analysis of functional artifact categories. Further definition of the specific ACMP artifact categories is provided in Appendix 5.

At times, the division of artifacts into material-based and function-based categories made classification difficult. Functional categories were often broad enough that the placement of certain items could be ambiguous. The ACMP tried to maintain consistency in classification, and Appendix 6 provides a listing of the categories assigned to most miscellaneous items.

Summary

The ACMP classification system was designed to meet multiple project goals. These goals included the cataloging of the collections by established NPS classification standards, but went beyond this to accommodate additional curatorial and research needs.

Any classification system is arbitrary in that it reflects the goals of the project at hand. Typically, a classification system will vary depending upon whether it is designed for collections management or for research purposes, and it will vary further according to a specific project's research goals (Chenhall 1975:13-16; Jones and Sullivan 1985:3; Hill and Evans 1972:245, 252). No single system is more correct than any other, and all, including that used by the ACMP, have their shortcomings. It was not possible to design a classification system that would meet all possible research or management needs. In addition, certain procedures will become obsolete through time as new standards evolve and as further

18

research expands our knowledge of material culture. Nonetheless, the ACMP data base for Adams NHS should serve as a useful tool for collections management, and as a solid starting point for more extensive research projects.

The Automated National Catalog System and Adams NHS Computer Files

The Adams NHS collections were computerized using the Automated National Catalog System (ANCS). ANCS is a computerized cataloging program that was developed by the NPS Curatorial Services in Washington, D.C. (NPS 1987). It was first released in the spring of 1987, and is intended to be used in conjunction with the NPS Museum Handbook (NPS 1984) for the cataloging of all NPS collections. ANCS is a menu-driven system that was written using dBASE III Plus software (NPS 1987:v). It allows for the printing of NPS catalog cards (form 10-254, Rev. 7/84), and also creates data base files that can be manipulated in dBASE III Plus for purposes of additional analysis.

The ACMP computer files for Adams NHS were large, reflecting both the size of the collection (a total of 7,667 catalog records), and the amount of storage space required by each ANCS catalog record. These records required a total of nearly 11 megabytes of storage space. In archive format, the space requirement was greatly diminished. Floppy disk copies of the archived files were returned to the Park in June 1989, with instructions on how to load them onto the Park's computer, how to un-archive them, and how to access them in ANCS. The catalog cards were printed and given to the Park in December 1989.

Cataloging Associated Collection Documentation

Field records and other associated documentation are a vital part of any archeological collection, and the ACMP attempts to locate such documents whenever possible. The NPS Museum Handbook recommends that field-generated records be cataloged within the accession as a single "organic collection," and stored in the accession or catalog folder. These records are cataloged under the History classification as an Archival/Manuscript Collection (NPS 1984:D-18-20), rather than the Archeology classification used for the artifact collection.

The ACMP was able to locate much of the original documentation for both the Pratt and Pratt and the Towle and Hsu collections. These materials were divided into catalog lots, based upon the type of document represented, as enumerated in Appendix 3. This concept of lot cataloging according to "intellectual units" was followed in order to provide easier research and curatorial access, and to allow different storage locations. It is recommended, for example, that photographic negatives and slides be stored in a more climate-controlled setting than the paper records. The ACMP organized all associated documentation in archivally sound containers prior to returning them to the Park.

19

ACMP Map Construction

The maps presented in this report were copied or compiled from various source materials. Many were taken directly from the original field plans and profiles (in the case of the Pratt and Pratt excavation, Catalog ft ADAMJ 7849), or from figures in the final reports (Pratt 1981; Towle and Hsu 1983). Three maps were created that reflect information from more than one source: the ACMP composite excavation plan (Figure 4), the map of resistivity anomalies (Figure 7), and the map of ground radar anomalies (Figure 8).

ACMP Composite Excavation Plan

This map presents all excavated areas on a single base map. Since no single surveyed map of the property and the houses as they are currently configured exists, it is recommended that the site be resurveyed before any additional archeology is undertaken. To construct the composite excavation plan for this report, the ACMP used four maps: a measured drawing of the property by the Historic American Buildings Survey in 1979; the Pratt and Pratt site plan (1981:figure 2); and the Towle and Hsu plans (1983:figures 1, 2). The configurations of the two houses were taken from the Towle and Hsu plans, which provided the most current measured drawings of the structures. In particular, the John Adams Birthplace had been renovated by the NPS in September 1980, following the Pratt and Pratt excavation (Perrault 1980). During this project, which was prior to Towle and Hsu's excavation, the rear ell was removed and replaced with a smaller shed addition. The ACMP plan reflects the current configuration. The Pratt and Pratt field notes were also used to verify the placement of excavation squares. According to the field maps, Square 12 was extended during excavation, and this extension was added to the ACMP plan.

Geophysical Maps

Figures 7 and 8 present the resistivity and ground radar anomalies that resulted from Weston's geophysical survey. The ACMP used Weston's maps (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:figures 4, 8), and plotted the anomalies on the overall excavation plan in order to facilitate the comparison of anomalous areas with areas that were archeologically excavated. The technique used to accomplish this was a simple overlay of the geophysical maps onto the excavation plan. This method, though straightforward, had its problems. When the geophysical maps were reproduced to the same scale as the excavation plan, the site boundaries and the house locations and configurations did not match precisely. The ACMP chose to align the John Quincy Adams Birthplace and plot the anomalies accordingly. The exact outlines of both houses as presented on the Weston maps are provided as a dashed line so that readers can assess the discrepancy themselves.

20

Collections Summary

Archeological collections have several important components, the most visible of which is the collection of artifacts recovered during excavation. In order to fully understand and utilize the artifacts, however, other vital components must be present. These include a variety of original records: daily field notes and forms, field maps and profiles, photographs, artifact inventories, and other associated data. Both the artifact collections and the archival collections of original records have been cataloged for Adams NHS.

In the process of cataloging the Adams NHS archeological collections, the ACMP was able to define certain issues for each collection that affect their integrity and their potential for further research use. This information will be summarized below by accession number.

The collections and their total artifact counts and weights are listed in Table 2. The weights represent totals for artifact categories that were weighed rather than counted (e.g., slag, shell specimens, etc.; see Appendix 7). There were a total of 7,660 catalog lots (and thus catalog cards) for the Adams NHS artifact collection. In addition to the excavated artifacts, the collections contained 7 archival catalog lots for the associated documentation (e.g., the original field notes). These 7 lots accounted for a total of 129 archival items.

Accession #36, the Pratt and Pratt Collection

The collection from the Pratt and Pratt excavation was by far the largest collection from the Birthplaces, and was generally in good condition. Any problems that might affect future research and interpretation of the collection are noted below.

Artifact Collection Contents

The ACMP cataloged a total of 31,669 artifacts and an additional 212.98 kg of weighed materials in the Accession #36 collection, which resulted in 5,772 catalog lots. These are summarized in Appendix 7 by artifact type. The collection contained almost exclusively historical materials. The only prehistoric artifacts were three ceramic sherds.

A wide variety of historical materials was present. The largest category was vessel ceramics (27%), followed by nails (22%), window glass (11%), bone (10%), and bottle glass (9%). The large quantity of weighed materials was accounted for primarily by structural material, such as brick, mortar, and plaster (199.40 kg). A more detailed summary of the collection can be found in Appendix 7.

Collection Documentation

The records associated with the Pratt and Pratt excavation and collection are fairly complete. These materials, listed in Appendix 3, were forwarded to the ACMP in 1985 by

21

Table 2. Collections Summary

Accession # Catalog #s Total Counts Total Weights* Catalog Lots

Artifact Collection:

36 ADAMJ 189-5077, 31,669 212.98 kg 5,772 5079-5961

37 ADAMJ 5078, 7,536 2.24 kg 1,888 5962-7848

Totals 39,205 215.22 kg 7,660

Archival Materials:

36 ADAMJ 7849-7851 95 - 3

37 ADAMJ 7852-7855 34 - 4

Grand Totals 39,334 215.22 kg 7,667

* Weights were measured in grams but are presented here in kilograms rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Pratt and Pratt. The ACMP divided them into three lots: field notes, field photographs, and laboratory analysis records.

These materials probably represent most of the original records from the Pratt and Pratt project. The field notes consist of standardized forms for test pit, excavation unit, and feature data. A limited number of plan and profile maps was available, but they did not represent all excavation units or all features. Additional excavation plans and profiles are either missing or were never drawn during excavation. Excavation photographs may also be missing from the collection. The report states that photographs were taken of all features (Pratt 1981:11), but the 5 black and white negatives and 54 slides in the collection do not document all excavated features. Additional photographs of the Pratt and Pratt excavation were taken by NPS historic preservation staff, copies of which were incorporated into the archives under Accession #37 (Catalog # ADAMJ 7855).

Provenience Problems

For the most part, the Pratt and Pratt collection was well provenienced. Occasionally, broken or unsealed artifact bags resulted in lost provenience data. Materials that could not be reassociated with a specific provenience were cataloged as Unprovenienced, and totaled only 19 counted items and .25 kg of weighed materials.

The ACMP also encountered a provenience problem with the Pratt and Pratt record of stratigraphic level depths. In these cases, the original artifact bags listed one depth while the artifact inventory for the same materials listed another depth. The ACMP could not deter-

22

mine the correct depth information in most of these cases, and instead used both depths as part of the provenience designation (e.g., SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 6, 12-3670-36"). Notes on these discrepancies may be found in Appendix 8.

Missing Artifacts

The ACMP compared the artifacts present at the time of our project to the artifact counts recorded on the Pratt and Pratt inventory. This resulted in a count of missing artifacts, summarized by provenience in Appendix 8. A total of 1,245 artifacts, or 3.3% of the collection as it was originally inventoried, was missing. This is not a tremendous amount of material, and for the most part appears to be random loss from various artifact classes.

The reasons for the missing artifacts could not be determined. There was certainly some outright loss of artifacts. In several instances, all artifacts from certain proveniences, or whole artifact classes from certain proveniences (e.g., all vessel ceramics) were missing. In addition, the original inventory may have included incorrect counts, resulting in the appearance of missing artifacts when in fact they had simply been overcounted originally. There has also been some loss through corrosion, as with iron objects that had deteriorated into small fragments and were cataloged by the ACMP as metal residue. These are a few of the reasons for artifact loss, but beyond speculation, the ACMP could not identify all forms of loss. Appendix 8 notes any obvious forms of loss.

Additional materials were missing from the Pratt and Pratt collection but could not be quantified. These were items that Pratt and Pratt had not counted on the original inventory, but had instead noted their presence by numbers of bags (e.g., "1 bag of bone" or "1 bag of coal"). The ACMP noted the absence of these materials in the comments section of Appendix 8. The overwhelming majority of this missing material was coal, cinders, and clinkers. Reportedly, the coal, cinders, and clinkers were culled from the Pratt and Pratt collection in 1982 when it was being organized and re-boxed at the Archeology Branch in Charlestown (Dick Hsu, personal communication 1988). Brick may also have been culled, somewhat less systematically, as much of the brick was missing.

The ACMP also cataloged 3,985 "extra" artifacts. These artifacts do not account for missing materials, as they were either different artifact types or from different proveniences. There are several reasons for the "extra" artifacts in the collection. First and foremost, Pratt and Pratt did not provide counts for all objects. Thus, while it appears that ACMP counts were at times higher than the original Pratt and Pratt inventory, their inventory may have noted "1 bag of metal," which the ACMP cataloged as individual items. These situations are noted in the comments section of Appendix 8. Breakage may also account for a certain amount of the extra material.

In summary, the ACMP found that there were both missing and extra artifacts in the Pratt and Pratt collection. Much of the discrepancy between ACMP counts and the original

23

Pratt and Pratt inventory counts can be explained by the reasons cited above. Even though all discrepancies could not be explained, the loss of material amounted to only 3.3% of the original collection counts, and the extra counts provide a more detailed inventory of the collection than was originally enumerated. Aside from the missing cinders, clinkers, and coal, the collection is largely intact for research purposes.

Field Methods

Just as important as the artifacts from an archeological project are the field methods used in recovering them. The Pratt and Pratt field techniques were largely systematic and well recorded. All soils were screened through 1/2-in., 1/4-in., and 1/8-in. mesh (Pratt 1981:5). Test pits were excavated as single units with no stratigraphic distinctions. Excavation units were excavated by "natural stratigraphic levels" (Pratt 1981:11). These levels were assigned level numbers, and the depths of these levels were usually recorded as part of the provenience designation. In addition, the field forms gave general soil information for the stratigraphic levels.

The strata on the site were never cross-correlated or interpreted. This makes it difficult to do stratigraphic analysis, as each unit was assigned a different set of strata that do not correspond to the strata from other units. Close inspection of soil descriptions in the field records and comparisons among the relative strata depths might help to interpret the overall site stratigraphy and chronological patterns, but such analysis was beyond the scope of the ACMP.

Artifact Classification Differences

The Pratt and Pratt classification system differed from that of the ACMP in a number of ways. These differences do not affect the interpretation of the site, and are not noted here in detail. It is sufficient to note that confusion may arise for researchers who attempt to use both sets of inventories, as there will be discrepancies in the counts for different artifact types. The ACMP recommends that only the ACMP catalog records be used for analysis purposes.

Accession #37, the Towle and Hsu Collection

The goal of the Towle and Hsu project was to monitor the process of drainage ditch excavations around the perimeter of the two houses, and to mitigate any adverse impact to archeological resources (Towle and Hsu 1983:1). As such, it was not a systematic testing program, and the field methods limit the types of analysis possible with the resulting collection. These limitations will be presented below, along with a summary of the collection.

Artifact Collection Contents

There were a total of 7,536 counted artifacts and 2.24 kg of weighed materials in the Accession #37 collection, resulting in 1,888 catalog lots (Table 2). None of the materials

24

were prehistoric. Appendix 7 provides a detailed breakdown of the collection contents. In summary, historical ceramics represented the largest percentage of artifact types (47%), followed by nails (13%), window glass (12%), and bottle glass (9%).

Artifact Conservation

With the assistance of an NPS conservator, the ACMP attempted to stabilize one badly deteriorating object in the Accession #37 collection, an iron knife with an antler handle (Catalog ft ADAMJ 7836). The antler handle, which was crumbling and peeling, was soaked in an acrylic resin solution (Incralac) and air dried. This treatment successfully stabilized the crumbling handle. An object treatment report is part of the archival collection (Catalog ft ADAMJ 7851).

Collection Documentation

Very limited documentation exists for the Towle and Hsu project (Appendix 3). The artifacts were thoroughly inventoried, and the inventory sheets are in good condition (Catalog ft ADAMJ 7853). The only original field documentation that is available, however, is a set of field notes maintained during part of the project by Towle (Catalog ft ADAMJ 7852). Project director Hsu reportedly maintained field notes, which may be located in NPS files in the North Atlantic Regional Office in Boston, but at the time of this writing such notes could not be located. These notes would have included documentation of the excavation of EU 22, which uncovered the only significant archeological feature, a former cellar-hole.

Although no photographs were taken by the archeologists, a small number of photographs were taken by NPS architectural conservator Carole Perrault, who was at the time in charge of the house renovations. Copies of these were made and are now incorporated into the archival documentation for the project (Catalog ft ADAMJ 7855).

Missing Artifacts

The ACMP found only 20 artifacts to be missing when compared to the counts given on the original inventory sheets. This is less than 1% of the original collection count and appears to represent random loss. The missing artifacts are thus insignificant for research purposes. They are summarized by provenience in Appendix 9.

There were also 421 "extra" artifacts in the collection. Nearly half of these (193) were in a bag labelled EU 22, L 3, the lowest level of the excavated cellar feature. It appeared that this label was incorrect and that the artifacts may have been from different proveniences, although the ACMP could not determine their actual provenience origin.

A second large group of "extra" artifacts (115) were from provenience EU 12B. In this case, the artifacts were "extra" simply because Towle and Hsu had never inventoried

25

the materials from this provenience. The remaining "extra" artifacts were probably the result of breakage and occasional miscounts on the original inventory sheets. These materials are summarized by provenience along with the missing artifacts in Appendix 9.

Field Methods

The artifacts in the Accession #37 collection were recovered from a non-systematic excavation, limiting the type of analysis for which they may be used. Quantitative analysis is not possible for several reasons. First, the excavation units were of different sizes, and precise depths were not recorded. Moreover, the soil was not screened, and artifact recovery was therefore biased by those materials that were found during "visual inspection" of the removed soils (Towle and Hsu 1983:3). Although a wide range of materials was recovered in this fashion, the collection is not a reliable index as to what was actually present.

Stratigraphic data were maintained for only two excavation units (EU 13 and EU 22), although the monitored trenches were all approximately 2 ft. deep, and 4 ft. deep in the area of the sumps (Towle and Hsu 1983:2). The lack of stratigraphic data excludes the possibility of any chronological analysis, such as the identification of patterns or activities from the early Adams period versus the 19th or 20th centuries.

Classification Differences

Although the Accession #37 collection was inventoried with an earlier version of the current ACMP system, there were certain differences in the way artifacts were classified. These differences were minor, but nonetheless led to different counts for different artifact classes between the two inventories. These differences should not affect the researcher as long as the ACMP catalog cards are used as the primary reference.

26

Prior Research Results

The two archeological projects conducted at the Adams Birthplaces, the first by Pratt and Pratt in 1980 and the second by Towle and Hsu in 1982, were very different in design and in results. Both projects uncovered cultural features and reported on their interpretation (Pratt 1981; Towle and Hsu 1983). The following discussion will provide a summary of each project's field methods, results, and analyses as presented in the reports. It will also provide a summary of the geophysical survey that was undertaken in 1979 prior to the Pratt and Pratt site-wide survey.

Weston Geophysical Survey

A geophysical survey was conducted by Weston Geophysical Corporation on the Birthplaces property prior to the first archeological testing. The survey used both resistivity and ground radar survey techniques in an attempt to locate possible archeological deposits (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:1). The ground radar portion of the survey was conducted by Geosight, Inc., a consultant to Weston Geophysical Corporation. A number of anomalies were delineated and interpreted. These are summarized in Table 3, and are shown on Figures 7 and 8.

The two survey techniques identified different, though often overlapping, anomalies. The surveyors reported that the resistivity data provided more reliable horizontal contours, while the radar better identified stratified deposits by depth (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:2). Five areas were identified as particularly worthy of further investigation:

1) a possible refuse pit west of the John Adams Birthplace (anomalies 6B, L); 2) a possible carriageway between the two houses (anomalies 11, F, G, M, N); 3) a rubble-filled area behind the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (anomalies 10, H, P, V); 4) a possible collapsed structure northwest of the John Adams Birthplace (anomalies 1, J); and 5) a possible well (anomaly K) (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:33).

Additional detail on the project methodology and results can be found in the Weston Geophysical Corporation's final report (1980).

Pratt and Pratt Survey

The Pratt and Pratt excavation followed the Weston Geophysical survey, in part as an attempt to test the geophysical anomalies and their hypothesized functions. The overall survey goal was simply to "locate and delineate the archaeological resources within the study area" (Pratt 1981:1).

27

Table 3. Interpretation of Anomalies Identified in the Geophysical Survey (see Figures 7, 8)

Anomaly Designation

Resistivity Anomalies:

1 1A 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 6C 7 8 9 10 11 12

Interpretation

Possible collapsed structure Buried road or path Buried path from John Adams Birthplace to Anomaly #1 Refuse disposal area Collapsed outbuilding Refuse dump Collapsed structure Refuse pit or path Collapsed well or privy Well or privy Previous stone wall Path/walkway Refuse pit or dump Carriageway or access road Path/walkway

Resistivity Anomalies Related to Known Modern Features:

13, 14 13A, 14A 15 16 17A,17B,17C

Two modern house foundations Access ways or utility lines to 13 and 14 Small structure (garage) Modern sidewalk deposits Known utilities

Ground Radar Anomalies:

A Al B C D-I J J1-J3 K L-P Q-S T U-V W X

Possible razed building (rubble-filled basement) Possible well Possible razed building Uninterpreted Shallow building rubble or cultural debris Possible collapsed structure Possible wells Possible well Low mounds of refuse overlying buried topsoil Possible pits Mound/rubble area Possible shallow gravel areas Uninterpreted Possible structure or oil tank

Field Methods

Pratt and Pratt divided the Birthplaces property into three sectors: Sector 1 surrounded the John Quincy Adams Birthplace; Sector 2 surrounded the John Adams Birthplace; and Sector 3 covered the area of two former 19th-century houses on the north side of the property. They further subdivided the site by parallel transects placed at 10-ft. intervals,

28

to

Figure 7. ACMP composite map showing the resistivity anomalies resulting from the geophysical survey, and an overlay of archeological excavation areas.

©

Figure 8. ACMP composite map showing the ground radar anomalies resulting from the geophysical survey, and an overlay of archeological excavation areas.

Table 4. Major Features from the Pratt and Pratt Survey

Feature Excavation Unit ACMP Figure #

Cased well Square 27 4, 10, 11 Cellarhole (north side of JQA*) Square 6 4, 12, 13 Possible stone foundation (west side of JQA) Squares 4, 15 4, 14, 15 Possible foundation (north side of J At) (cut Squares 25, 26 4, 17

stones, rubble) Possible structural remains (bricks in disjointed Squares 14, 24 4, 19

arrangement) Possible structural remains (deep deposit of coal, Squares 17, 18 4, 20

ash, clinkers, refuse)

* JQA = John Quincy Adams Birthplace t JA = John Adams Birthplace

along which test pits were excavated every 10 ft. in Sectors 1 and 2, and on alternating transects at 20-ft. intervals in Sector 3 where the houses had caused modern disturbances (Pratt 1981:5) (Figure 4).

Excavation units were subsequently placed across the property in order to investigate cultural features located during the testing program as well as those hypothesized during the

Figure 9. Photograph of Pratt and Pratt excavation, showing an overall view of excavation units and field setup (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7850).

31

geophysical survey. Twenty-seven 3-ft.-square units were excavated by natural stratigraphic levels (Pratt 1981:11). The excavators screened all soil during both the testing and excavation programs. Figure 4 shows the locations of all Pratt and Pratt excavations, and Figure 9 shows the site during excavation.

Cultural Features

Pratt and Pratt located several significant cultural features during excavation: a well, a cellarhole with brick floor, and the possible remains of four additional structures (Pratt 1981:49). These are listed in Table 4, and will be discussed below.

Figure 10. Photograph of cased well, located in Pratt and Pratt excavation Square 27 (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7850).

32

Figure 11. Plan map of cased well, Square 27 (from Pratt and Pratt field notes, Catalog # ADAMJ 7849).

The small, cased well was located in Square 27, west of the John Adams Birthplace (Figures 4, 10, 11). Local residents remembered its existence and directed Pratt and Pratt to the approximate location. The well was encountered 9 in. below ground surface. It measured 15 in. in diameter, and was lined with fragile, smooth concrete. Pratt and Pratt excavated only 3-6 in. of the well and encountered soil and "upright sticks" (Pratt 1981:40). The well

33

Figure 12. Photograph of brick floor in cellarhole at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. East is at top of photograph (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7850).

was then partially backfilled, covered with plastic, backfilled another 4 in., overlain by a sheet of plywood, then completely filled and resodded (Pratt 1981:43). No attempt was made to date or further interpret this feature in the final report.

The cellarhole was located in Square 6, near the north side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (Figure 4). At a depth of 56 in. below ground surface, a brick and stone floor was encountered (Figures 12, 13). Pratt and Pratt interpreted this as the remains of a shed that was once attached to the side of the house, as shown in historical photographs from

34

CO on

Figure 13. Plan and profile maps of cellarhole in Square 6 at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (from Pratt and Pratt field notes, Catalog # AD AM J 7849).

Figure 14. Plan of Square 15, on the west side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, showing possible stone footing or foundation (from Pratt and Pratt field notes, Catalog # ADAMJ 7849).

36

1849 and 1852. According to another historical photograph, this shed had been removed by the late 1880s or early 1890s. Pratt and Pratt noted that the feature had then been filled, and the fill contained artifacts from the late 19th century (Pratt 1981:30). As to the function of this feature, Pratt and Pratt suggested that it was a cellar for the shed, or perhaps a cold storage area or cistern (Pratt 1981:49).

Just west of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, Squares 4 and 15 revealed the remains of a possible stone foundation (Figure 4). A course of tightly packed pebbles at 21 in. below ground surface appeared to be the base of the feature, with less well-defined groupings of field stones above the pebbles (Figures 14, 15). Pratt and Pratt noted that a structure was shown in this area in a late 19th-century photograph (1880s-1890s). They also speculated that the structure may have burned or that an activity involving fire may have taken place inside since the excavation revealed quantities of ash and burned soil (Pratt 1981:23-24, 49). Building materials were plentiful in Squares 4 and 15, as well as in nearby Squares 5 and 8, and might relate to the structure that once stood in the area (Pratt 1981:24, 26-27). Although 19th-century materials were reported from all levels of excavation, Pratt and Pratt did not date or identify the possible foundation more specifically. The only available excavation photographs of this feature were taken after removal of the course of pebbles, and all that remains in situ are some of the larger stones in the excavation unit walls (Figure 16).

On the north side of the John Adams Birthplace, Squares 25 and 26 revealed an abundance of stones, some of which exhibited cut faces (Figures 4, 17, 18). The density of stones prevented complete excavation of the units, and suggested that a building foundation had been in the area (Pratt 1981:40). No additional units were dug to explore this hypothesis, and no further interpretation was offered. Pratt and Pratt concluded that more work would be necessary in this area (Pratt 1981:49).

Evidence of a third possible structure was located in Squares 14 and 24, approximately 60 ft. west of the John Adams Birthplace, near President's Avenue (Figure 4). The only evidence that this area might relate to a structure was the presence of bricks in a "disjointed arrangement" (Pratt 1981:34) (Figure 19). Mortar and brick rubble were concentrated between 8 and 14 in. below the surface, but revealed no discernable pattern (Pratt 1981:39). Pratt and Pratt noted that 19th-century photographs might show a structure in this area, but were not clear enough to be of further assistance (Pratt 1981:49).

The last area noted as significant was in the northwest corner of the study area, where Pratt and Pratt excavated an ash and refuse deposit. Squares 17 and 18, in particular, contained a dense assortment of 19th-century refuse, coal, ash, and clinkers (Pratt 1981:35-37) (Figure 20). Although the cultural deposits in Square 17 were only 12 in. deep, they were 40 in. deep in Square 18. This depth, in combination with the quantity and content of the refuse, led Pratt and Pratt to suggest that there may have been a structure in this area (Pratt 1981:49).

37

oo

Figure 15. Profiles of Squares 4 and 15, on the west side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, showing possible stone footing or foundation (from Pratt and Pratt field notes, Catalog # ADAMJ 7849).

Figure 16. Photograph of Squares 4 and 15, after removal of pebbles, showing only those larger stones that remained in the unit walls (archival records, Catalog # AD AM J 7850).

Testing the Geophysical Results

One goal of the Pratt and Pratt survey was to test the results of the earlier geophysical survey. To this end, Pratt and Pratt excavated at least one unit in most of the anomalies, and test pits provided additional coverage (Pratt 1981:44). They found a certain degree of correlation between the two survey results, but concluded that the geophysical results had not adequately predicted archeological features (Pratt 1981:47).

39

o

Figure 17. Plan maps of possible foundation in Square 25 (from Pratt and Pratt field notes, Catalog # ADAMJ 7849).

Figure 18. Photograph of Square 25, on the north side of the John Adams Birthplace, showing cut stones and rubble (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7850).

Pratt and Pratt commented primarily on the five anomalous areas noted as significant by Weston Geophysical Corporation (see above). Their comments are summarized in Table 5, and the location of the anomalies and corresponding excavation units may be found on Figures 7 and 8.

The first anomaly tested was a hypothesized refuse pit in resistivity anomaly 6B, and was found to have no archeological correlate. The second, a hypothesized carriageway in resistivity anomaly 11, revealed a cellarhole in one square (Square 6), but no archeological features in three additional squares, and no evidence of a carriageway. The third, a hypothesized rubble-filled area in resistivity anomaly 10, was the area where Pratt and Pratt located a possible stone foundation and large quantities of building rubble. The fourth, a proposed collapsed structure in resistivity anomaly 1, revealed an area of dense coal, ash, clinkers, and refuse, in one case to a depth of 40 in., which Pratt and Pratt thought could be related to a structure. In the area of the final significant anomaly, a proposed well in radar anomaly K, Pratt and Pratt reported finding only rocks and no features.

In summary, although many of the features located by Pratt and Pratt were within the boundaries of geophysical anomalies, they often did not correspond to the physical extent of the anomaly or the hypothesized function. Pratt and Pratt suggested that a possible reason

41

Figure 19. Photograph of Square 24, showing brick rubble of possible structural remains (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7850).

for the poor correlation was the electrode interval used in the resistivity study. While the electrodes had been set to detect features between 2 and 6 ft. below the surface, most of the archeological remains were less than 2 ft. deep.

In spite of the Pratt and Pratt conclusions, the geophysical survey did target areas of high potential, within which most of the major archeological features were located. The one exception may have been the cased well in Square 27, which was located on the edge of a large geophysical anomaly interpreted as a refuse area (resistivity anomaly 6B). The geophysical study did not always hypothesize the correct function for the areas that proved archeologically significant, but on the whole, the remote sensing subcontractor was pleased with his results. Bruce Bevan of Geosight, who conducted the radar portion of the study, commented on the results following the Pratt and Pratt excavation. His letter is included as Appendix 10.

Note should also be made of the possibility that the Pratt and Pratt excavation was not thorough enough to properly evaluate the geophysical results. A number of areas remained untested, and some large areas received minimal testing. In addition, the two surveys used slightly different grids, and on occasion the Pratt and Pratt test units did not correspond to the anomaly location. This combination of factors left a number of potentially interesting anomalies untested (e.g., the three possible well/privies, anomalies 6C, 7, and K).

42

Figure 20. Photograph of Square 18, deep ash and refuse deposit, which might be the remains of a structure (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7850).

It is also important to keep in mind, however, that ACMP Figures 7 and 8 are composite maps derived from overlaying the Weston geophysical maps onto the ACMP composite excavation plan. Efforts to scale the maps to make them comparable brought to light discrepancies that could not be resolved. The resulting maps are therefore only approximations, and, consequently, it is difficult to evaluate precisely where Pratt and Pratt thought they were digging.

43

Table 5. Correlation of Significant Geophysical Anomalies with Archeological Results

Geophysical Anomaly Archeological Feature

Possible refuse pit* No refuse pit features; Cased well on edge of (Anomalies 6B, L) 6B (Squares 13, 21, 27)

Possible carriageway* Cellarhole in 1 of 4 squares (Square 6); No (Anomalies 11, F, G, M, N) evidence of carriageway (Squares 6, 7, 10, 11)

Rubble-filled area* Possible stone foundation; Building rubble (Anomalies 10, H, P, V) (Squares 3, 4, 5, 8, 15)

Possible collapsed structure* Possible structural remains (deep deposit of (Anomalies 1, J) coal, ash, clinkers, refuse) (Squares 17, 18, 19,

20)

Possible well* No feature (Square 22 intended as test but was (Anomaly K) placed in incorrect location)

Refuse dump Possible structural remains (disjointed bricks) (Anomaly 5) (Squares 14, 24)

Collapsed outbuilding Possible foundation (cut stones, rubble) (Squares (Anomalies 4, D) 25, 26)

* Anomalies noted as most significant by Weston Geophysical Corporation (1980:33)

Test Pit Data Results

Pratt and Pratt excavated 184 test pits, only 19 of which were excavated in more than one level (Pratt 1981:18). For each test pit, Pratt and Pratt calculated an artifact density (using test pit soil volume) and plotted them on a map (Figure 21). Artifact densities were high across much of the site, but appeared to be particularly high around, and especially behind, the two houses (Pratt 1981:19).

Pratt and Pratt also assigned broad test pit dates according to the range of material recovered (Figure 22). They identified no 17th-century materials (the period when the houses were built), and 18th-century material in only 13.6% of the test pits. The 18th-century material was clustered behind the two houses and in the northwest portion of the study area (Figure 22). The remaining test pits contained only 19th- and 20th-century materials, or material that could not be dated (Pratt 1981:19).

Towle and Hsu Excavation

The second archeological project at the Birthplaces was designed to monitor the installation of a drainage system around the perimeter of the two houses (Towle and Hsu 1983:1). Two architectural features were uncovered, both at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace: a continuation of the cellar found by Pratt and Pratt and a possible stone piling for a shed. Towle and Hsu also provided an analysis of the recovered artifacts.

44

Figure 21. Pratt and Pratt test pit artifact density map (Pratt 1981: figure 4).

Field Methods

The area monitored during this project was a nearly continuous trench around the foundation walls of each house. The trenches were approximately 2 ft. wide and 2 ft. deep, and were divided into arbitrary horizontal units of differing sizes. Also monitored was the excavation of four sumps, two at each house, which measured approximately 4 ft. in diameter and 4 ft. deep (Towle and Hsu 1983:2) (Figure 4). Stratigraphic control was maintained in only two of the excavation units, EU 13 and EU 22, both of which were within the cellarhole feature. Workers on the drainage project crew dug the trenches by shovel, while the archeologists monitored their work and recovered artifacts from the removed soil (Towle and Hsu 1983:3). No soil was screened, and no plan or profile maps were drawn. These field techniques seriously limit the types of analysis that may be performed on the collection.

Cultural Features

Excavations at the John Adams Birthplace did not reveal any architectural features. In addition, Towle and Hsu reported that no builders' trench for the foundation was detected (1983:4). The only noteworthy discoveries were two concentrations of artifacts: one along

45

Figure 22. Pratt and Pratt test pit date map (Pratt 1981: figure 3).

the southeastern wall (EUs 1A, 1, 2A), and the second along the north wall (EUs 4A and 4B) (Towle and Hsu 1983:3-4).

The most significant feature that was discovered during excavation was at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, along the north wall in the area where Pratt and Pratt discovered a cellar floor. EUs 13 and 13B revealed the stone walls of this cellarhole, and EU 22 further exposed the walls. The stones were at least 16 in. thick and were dressed on the interior face (Figures 23, 24). The cellar fill contained dense domestic refuse. Because of limited time, Towle and Hsu curtailed excavation at 41 in. below ground surface, 15 in. short of where Pratt and Pratt had located a brick floor (Towle and Hsu 1983:5).

Specific dates and the function of the cellar could not be determined. The authors noted that the cellar walls were not bonded to the house foundation, indicating that it was most likely constructed at a different time (Towle and Hsu 1983:8). No further speculation was offered.

A second architectural feature was uncovered at the southwest corner of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace during excavation of the trench for the sump. Towle and Hsu

46

Figure 23. Photograph showing the east wall of the cellarhole on the north side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7855).

speculated that the two large boulders encountered here "may have been part of a foundation of an earlier shed" (1983:5). No photographs of this feature were taken, and no additional interpretation was given.

Towle and Hsu also reported on two artifact concentrations at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace: a particularly dense concentration along the north wall, and an area by the back door (EUs 14A, 15A) that yielded a large quantity of animal bone (1983:4).

Artifact Analysis

In their report, Towle and Hsu noted that ceramics were the most abundant type of artifact recovered (constituting 44% of the total), and gave percentages for several other artifact classes as well (1983:6-8). Because the soil was not screened, however, these percentages may not be representative of the actual quantities of materials present. It may be useful to know that artifacts dating to an earlier period were more abundant at the John Adams Birthplace. Even so, very little material predated the 19th century (site-wide), and only a few sherds were identified as possibly predating the mid-18th century. This dearth of artifacts from the early occupation of the sites corresponded to the results of the Pratt and Pratt excavation (Towle and Hsu 1983:6-8).

47

Figure 24. Photograph of the south side of the cellarhole foundation, adjacent to the north foundation of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7855).

Reconstructed Vessels

Towle and Hsu reconstructed three ceramic vessels from sherds found in EU 22, the cellar feature at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. These vessels—all probably late 19th-century in date—were a Rockingham teapot, a whiteware plate, and a brown stoneware beanpot (1983:6). Although the vessels do not date to the Adams period (generally the 18th to early 19th centuries), they may be of value for exhibits discussing later occupations.

48

ACMP Evaluation

The purpose of this section is to provide additional interpretation of the results of archeological research at the Adams Birthplaces, particularly in areas that were either not reported on or poorly reported on, and to synthesize the information that resulted from the two excavations. At times, the ACMP found it difficult to provide additional interpretation because of the type of data collected, the way in which it was collected, and the absence of certain field records. In spite of these limitations, which are noted below when pertinent, additional insight into the interpretation of the site can be gained through the archeological record as known to date. Several topical issues will be discussed below.

Evidence of Structures

Archeological excavation at the Birthplaces revealed evidence of five possible architectural structures and one well. The data, however impaired by the lack of adequate excavation controls and reporting, seem to indicate that all of these archeological features date to the 19th century. Tenants occupied both of the Birthplaces during much of the 19th century, and may have been responsible for the addition of these structures to the property. These features definitely show that the houselots were actively used during the 19th century. This discussion will offer a more thorough interpretation of these features than provided by the original excavators. For ease of reference, they will be designated Features A-F.

Feature A

The cellarhole along the north wall of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace was discovered by both excavators. Pratt and Pratt excavated Square 6 in this feature, and Towle and Hsu excavated EUs 13, 13B, and 22 (Figure 4). Pratt and Pratt noted that a shed was evident in this location in several mid 19th-century photographs.

Indeed, a one-story shed appears in this location as early as 1828 in a watercolor by Ann Gray (Figure 25). The best view of the shed is provided by an 1849 engraving. In this image (Figure 26), a window at the base of the shed's north elevation implies the existence of a cellar, clearly the feature excavated during both archeological projects. The shed is still present in an engraving from 1852, but is gone by the time of the 1895-1896 restoration of the structure, as documented in photographs (Perrault n.d.a). The imagery thus reveals that the shed was present by 1828, and survived until sometime between 1852 and 1895. It could well have been constructed earlier than 1828, as the only known earlier image of the house is an 1822 sketch that does not show the north elevation (Perrault n.d.a). Nor is this side of the house shown in images between 1852 and 1895, thus precluding a more precise date for the shed's demise.

Archeological evidence adds some additional detail to this picture. The cellar for the shed was constructed of sizeable stones, faced on the interior, and had a laid brick floor

49

Figure 25. 1828 depiction of the Birthplaces by Ann Gray, showing a shed along the north wall of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (Massachusetts Historical Society).

(Figures 12, 13, 23, 24). Archeologists were unable to identify a builders' trench or other feature that may have indicated the date of construction. Although we do not know the exact date of the shed's construction, it is likely that it was built while John Quincy Adams owned the house (1803-1848). It is even possible that it was constructed while he lived in the house during 1805 and 1806. Subsequently, an active period of tenancy was launched, with the occupants of the house changing every few years and conducting a variety of businesses on the property (Appendix 2).

The fill inside the cellar, however, provides more precise information about the date of the shed's destruction. Given the proximity of the shed to the house, there is no doubt that the cellar would have been filled in immediately after the dismantling of the shed. The entire depth of the fill, from both excavations, contains 19th-century materials, many of which are dateable to the mid- to late 19th century. The latest dateable artifacts recovered were a whiteware ceramic vessel from Towle and Hsu's EU 22, Level 3, with an 1880 maker's mark, and a button from Pratt and Pratt's Square 6, Level 2, with a date attribution of post-1891. These dates tell us that the shed destruction post-dated 1891. This, combined with photographic evidence from the 1895-1896 restoration of the house (Perrault n.d.a), suggests that the shed may have been dismantled as part of the restoration program. Neither existing images of the house nor the archeological record provide any information about the function of the shed.

50

Figure 26. 1849 engraving of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, from Scholar's Penny Gazette (on file, Adams NHS, Quincy, MA).

Feature B

Archeology also located evidence for a second structure attached to the west side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. Pratt and Pratt excavated Squares 4 and 15 in this area, exposing a possible footing of packed pebbles approximately 12 ft. west of the house foundation. Associated with this feature were additional larger stones, possibly used for piers and/or an overlying foundation (Figures 4, 14, 15, 16).

The first historical image of this side of the house is a photograph taken ca. mid-1890s, sometime prior to the 1895-1896 house restoration. It shows a one-story shed on the north end of the west wall (Figure 27). Since there is no earlier view of this side of the house, the imagery offers no additional information about the date of construction for this shed. Photographs from the 1895-1896 restoration of the house show that by this time, the shed had been removed.

The archeological data provide little more information about this shed. Unfortunately, no undisturbed (closed-context) deposits that might have given us more precise data for dating the structure or determining its function were excavated. Both 18th- and 19th-century materials were recovered from all levels of excavation in Squares 4 and 15, and in nearby

51

Figure 27. Historic photograph (mid-1890s) showing a shed at the north end of the west wall of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (Halliday Historic Photograph Co., courtesy of the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities).

Squares 5 and 8. These squares also produced a large quantity of building materials. The nail assemblage from these excavations suggests that the structure would have been built no earlier than 1790, as the overwhelming majority of identifiable nails were machine cut. Approximately 7% of these were identified as late machine cut nails (post-1840), which may indicate that the structure post-dated 1840 or was repaired or renovated after that date. Since the excavation methods were not more precise, however, it is difficult to associate these deposits directly with the feature. Given the overall quantity of machine cut nails, it is probably safe to assume that the feature post-dated 1790 (Table 6).

Square 8 revealed a linear feature across half of the unit that may represent the southern boundary of the shed (Figure 28). An ash layer and underlying brown sand deposit on the north side of the square were, at ca. 1-2 ft. below ground surface, at approximately the same depth as the possible stone footing in Squares 4 and IS. This feature was not followed beyond Square 8. If it continues in linear form to the west, it may well represent the boundary of the shed, suggesting that the shed may have measured approximately 12 ft. square.

52

Table 6. Nail Assemblage in the Vicinity of Feature B

Excavation Unit

Sq4, L 1, 1-13" Sq4 , L 1,0-29" Sq4 , L 1 ,0-9" Sq 4, L 2, 0-29" Sq 4, L 2, 0-7" Sq 4, L 2, 0-9" Sq 4, L 2, 9-29" Sq 4, L 3, 14-18" Total Square 4

Sq5 , L 1 ,0-7" Sq 5, L 2, 7-15" Sq 5, L 2, 7-17" Sq 5, L2, 7-19" Total Square 5

Sq8 , L 1, 2-5" Sq 8, L 2, 5-18" Sq 8, L 3, 12-20" Sq 8, L 4, 20-27" Sq 8, L 4, 21-25", Ash Sq 8, L 5, 1 8 - 2 7 " Total Square 8

Sq 15, L 1, 2-7" Sq 15, L 2 , 6-11" Sq 15, L 3 , 11-28" Sq 15, L 4 , 11-28" Total Square 15

Grand Total

Hand Wrought

— — — 2

— — — 2

— — 2 2

— — — — — 0

— — — 0

4

Machine Cutl

— — — — — — — 0

— — — 0

6 — — — — — 6

2 — — 2

8

Machine Cut 2

1 — 3

— — — — 4

4 — — 9

13

28 — 5

— — — 33

5 — — 5

55

Machine Cut Indet.

15 81 14 25

7 12

1 1

156

52 — 12

152 216

53 5

110 53 — —

221

63 52

2 2

119

712

Wire

— — — — — — — 0

— — — 0

— — — — — 0

1 — — — 1

1

Indet.

54 17 6

57 119 27 51

2 333

22 7

116 116 261

29 103 109 102

5 23

371

77 25

450 4

556

1521

Total

69 99 20 85

128 38 52

3 495

78 7

128 279 492

116 108 224 155

5 23

631

141 84

452 6

683

2301

Like the shed on the north wall of the house, this shed may have been built while John Quincy Adams owned the house (1803-1848), and was certainly used by the many tenants who occupied the house in the 19th century (Appendix 2). The shed may have served as a shop for two bootmakers who lived in the house ca. 1850, the evidence for which will be discussed below under "Evidence of Site Activities." More precise dates for and functions of this structure cannot be determined from historical and archeological information as uncovered to date.

Feature C

Another possible foundation was located off the north side of the John Adams Birthplace in Pratt and Pratt Squares 25 and 26 (Figures 4, 17, 18), just behind the lean-to that is attached to the north side of the house. The stones in these squares, some of which exhibited cut faces, were so dense that they prevented the complete excavation of Square 26. Accord-

53

Figure 28. Plan and profile maps of Square 8 (from Pratt 1981).

ing to the field notes, the stones continued to a depth of 30 in. in Square 25, and excavation was curtailed in Square 26 at 40 in., with the stones still densely packed. Unfortunately, no maps were drawn or photographs taken of Square 26.

Towle and Hsu excavated EUs 4C, 4D, and 4E in this area, along the back of the lean-to. No mention of features was made in their final report, but the field notes for EU 4D state that 5 ft. from the end of EU 4C a "pile of boulders [was] encountered; decided not foundation" (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7852). No further information, maps, or photographs were provided for this feature. The area had also undergone substantial change as the lean-to was reconstructed by the NPS just prior to Towle and Hsu's excavation. Nonetheless, the presence of such boulders is particularly interesting given the proximity of this unit to Squares 25 and 26, and may be related to the same structure.

54

Figure 29. Historic photograph (early 1880s) showing a structure attached to the rear lean-to at the John Adams Birthplace (front view) (Quincy Historical Society).

It is also worthy of note that both the resistivity and ground radar surveys showed an anomaly in this area (Figures 7, 8). Radar anomaly D was a particularly well-defined area off the north end of the lean-to, encompassing Squares 25 and 26, and EUs 4D and 4E. Anomaly D may help to more precisely indicate the outlines of the archeological feature.

Historical imagery of this area suggests that this feature may have been related to a structure that was attached to the lean-to in the late 19th century. The structure can be seen in photographs from the early 1880s (Figures 29, 30) and an engraving from 1893 (Figure 31). The structure is gone by the time the photographs of the mid-1890s restoration were taken. An engraving of 1852 shows that the structure was not present (Perrault n.d.a). The imagery thus suggests a short-lived structure that post-dates 1852 and is gone by the mid-18908. The archeological materials recovered from these squares, which range widely in

55

Figure 30. Historic photograph (early 1880s) showing a structure attached to the rear lean-to at the John Adams Birthplace (back view) (Quincy Historical Society).

date but support a 19th-century filling, do not offer more precise dates. The function of this structure also remains unknown.

Feature D

West of the John Adams Birthplace, nearly along the western edge of the property, Pratt and Pratt identified what they thought might be a building foundation. This feature was located in Squares 14 and 24 (Figure 4), and was represented by a shallow jumble of bricks and mortar (Figure 19).

Indeed, the artifact assemblage from these squares contained relatively large quantities of brick and mortar, and a mixture of 18th- and 19th-century artifacts. The field notes for Square 24 mention that the bricks and mortar on the east side of the square were in larger pieces, in a "more orderly arrangement," "loosely together" (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7849).

Pratt and Pratt noted that 19th-century photographs may show a structure in this area, but that these sources remained unclear. In a review of the historical imagery, the ACMP

56

Figure 31. Engraving from 1893 showing the structure attached to the lean-to behind the John Adams Birthplace (reproduced from Gil Ion [1971], courtesy Dover Publications).

concluded that no adequate views of this area are available. Although outbuildings were located west of the Birthplaces, the imagery known to date provides no information about the area where this feature was located.

In fact, in reviewing the artifact assemblage, the historical imagery, and the original field notes, the ACMP could not support the hypothesis that this feature indicates the presence of a structure. The mixture of 18th- and 19th-century materials (spanning more than 150 years in date) suggests instead that this may be a secondary deposit of refuse, quite possibly from the 1895-1896 restoration project. Extensive demolition and reconstruction occurred during the restoration project. Sprague writes that at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, "most of the old soft brick and yellow clay filling was removed from the front and sides of the house" (Sprague 1959:15). It is also notable that the geophysical survey located resistivity anomaly 5 in this location and identified it as a refuse dump (Table 3, Figure 7). The precise nature of this jumbled brick feature with late 19th-century fill could not be further identified.

Feature E

Pratt and Pratt located another area possibly related to a foundation in the vicinity of Squares 17-20 (Figure 4). Deposits of ash, coal, cinders, and dense refuse continuing to a depth of 40 in. in Square 18, led them to believe that a foundation might have been present.

57

This area of the property is not typically shown on historical images. One photograph from the early 1880s shows a barn or carriage house behind and extending west of the John Adams Birthplace (Figure 29). It is possible that this structure extended as far west as Square 18, although this remains inconclusive.

The artifact assemblage from these units contained a mixture of 18th-20fh-century materials. Much of the refuse was domestic in nature, including ceramics and bottle glass, which could be dated to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Doll fragments and toys were found in most squares. A number of items were whole (at least 6 bottles and 1 transfer-printed and gilded whiteware teacup from Square 18), and a fair amount of the material had been burned. All of the squares exhibited "ashy" soil deposits, usually accompanied by coal and cinders (archival records, Catalog # ADAMJ 7849).

Given the available data, it was impossible to determine if a structure actually stood in this location. The radar and resistivity surveys concluded that a structure may have collapsed in this area. In reviewing Pratt and Pratt's final report, however, Bruce Bevan, who had worked on the geophysical survey, noted that this had been a mistaken interpretation of what was actually a "near-surface layer of high attenuation material" (Appendix 10).

The soils and the artifact assemblages from these squares were more like a classic refuse dump than the remains of an outbuilding. They seem to indicate that domestic refuse from the house sites was redeposited in this location, possibly following a fire, or at least containing fireplace debris (burned artifacts, coal, ash, and cinders). The mixed dates of the artifacts (18th-20th centuries) further suggest such redeposition, and indicate that the materials were deposited here at the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th.

Feature F

The cased well excavated in Square 27 was lined with concrete and was 15 in. in diameter (Figures 4, 10). Pratt and Pratt found the well based upon local residents' memories. Only 3-6 in. of the well were excavated, most of which consisted of decomposed wood.

Pratt and Pratt offered no date for the well. The artifact assemblage from this feature contained only one sherd of whiteware and some brick, which indicated nothing about a date of construction. Since living residents remembered its use, it must have been filled during the 20th century, and the concrete lining of the well suggests that it was probably built during the 20th century. Certainly this well was not present while the Adams family lived on the property.

Summary

Archeologists working at the Birthplaces found strong evidence for three structures (noted in this section as Features A-C), all of which appear to be the remains of shed additions to the two houses. Two of these were attached to the John Quincy Adams Birth-

58

place, and were probably built during his ownership of the house in the early 19th century. Both were also removed during or by the time the house was renovated in 1895-1896. Evidence for a third addition was located on the north side of the John Adams Birthplace, and may be the remains of a shed that is shown in late 19th-century images, built after 1852 and gone by 1897.

The other two features that Pratt and Pratt interpreted as possible structural remains (Features D-E in this section) were located west and northwest of the houses, and seem to be better described as refuse disposal areas from the late 19th century. The final feature excavated was a cased well, which probably dated to the 20th century (Feature F in this section).

Geophysical Evidence for Additional Structures

The geophysical survey of the property hypothesized the existence of one additional collapsed structure and three possible well/privies, which were either not excavated by Pratt and Pratt or not fully discussed in their final report.

Resistivity anomaly 6A was interpreted as a collapsed structure (Figure 7). Pratt and Pratt excavated Square 21 in this anomaly, and reported the recovery of brick, stone, and 18th-19th-century artifacts. They concluded, however, that there was no evidence of a structure in this square (Pratt 1981:38). The field notes did not provide any additional information or maps of this square, and the ACMP could not further evaluate their conclusion.

The three hypothesized well/privy features were resistivity anomalies 6C and 7, and radar anomaly K (Figures 7, 8). None of these was excavated. Pratt and Pratt believed that they excavated Square 22 within anomaly K, but both the geophysical surveyor Bevan (Appendix 10) and the ACMP concluded that Square 22 was actually several feet north of the anomaly (Figure 8). These three features thus remain untested, and may be undisturbed (closed-context) features from an earlier period at the site.

Additional Outbuildings in Historical Documents and Images

Historical documents begin to make reference to outbuildings on the property as early as the late 17th century. At the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, an inventory of Samuel Belcher's property in 1680 notes the presence of a barn (Sprague 1959:38). At the John Adams Birthplace, the 1720 deed of the property to Deacon John Adams notes the presence of a barn and a well (Sprague 1959:23).

Certainly there were outbuildings present from this time on, including the years in which the houses were occupied by the Adamses. But the property was much larger at the time and in a rural farmland setting. It is quite possible that the outbuildings may have been outside the boundaries of the current property. It is also true that, unless there were as-

59

sociated cellars, the evidence for outbuildings tends to be ephemeral and easily destroyed by later activity. Given the amount of activity on the Birthplaces property during the 19th and 20th centuries, it may be unlikely that any archeological evidence for the outbuildings remains intact, even if they were on what is now NPS property.

All historical images of the property date to the 19th and 20th centuries. Some of these images show outbuildings that were not located by the archeological survey. In one of the earliest images (1828), two gabled, barn-like structures appeared in association with the two houses (Figure 25). A daguerreotype from 1840-1850 also shows a structure west of the John Adams Birthplace that may be the same as that shown in the 1828 image. It is difficult to determine actual distances and angles using these old images. Given an approximate location, however, it did not appear that there were any geophysical correlates for either of these two structures, nor did the archeologists test these areas extensively or find any structural remains.

Adams Period Deposits

Archeologists did not discover the remains of outbuildings that might have dated to the Adams occupations, with the exception of the shed additions to the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. Artifacts from the 18th century were excavated, however, and the ACMP attempted to identify any general deposits of Adams period materials at the site. The Adams family lived at the site through much of the 18th century and briefly in the early 19th century (see "Historical Background").

In looking at the data, it was clear that no excavated deposits were exclusively 18th century in date or earlier. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the majority of areas excavated were zone deposits rather than undisturbed (closed-context) features. Second, excavation controls were not tight enough to define pre 19th-century elements within the zone deposits. It was common, for example, for all culture-bearing soils to be removed as a single unit, typically more than a foot in depth, and in some cases up to several feet deep. This technique provided no opportunity for the definition of a pre 19th-century horizon at the site.

One provenience near the west side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (SQ 3, L 3, 14-18") came the closest to identifying an early horizon within the general cultural stratum. Although it is impossible to determine a site-wide horizon from this single provenience, it suggests that the earlier materials may be about a foot beneath the ground surface, at least in this area.

In most areas of the site, the culture-bearing zone was between 1 and 2 ft. deep. It is reasonable to assume that the Adams period deposits would be located toward the base of this zone. The excavation methods did not allow for further definition of such a horizon, however.

60

Table 7. Ceramic Types Used as 17th- and 18th-century Indicators*

Tin Enameled Wares Trailed Slipware Coarse Buff-Bodied Wares

(combed, dotted, mottled) Jackfield

White Salt Glazed Stoneware Nottingham Stoneware Westerwald Stoneware Whieldon Ware Creamware

* For date information, see Appendix 5.

On a more general level, it was possible to look at the distribution of 17th- and 18th-century materials across the site. The only systematically excavated data were those recovered from the Pratt and Pratt test pit survey. In their final report, Pratt and Pratt provided a schematic map of dates assigned to each test pit (Figure 22). They did not state what artifact types were used as chronological markers, however, and the dates were determined by the range of materials present.

The ACMP looked at the test pit data (artifact counts) again, using only those ceramic types that serve generally as pre 19th-century chronological markers and were present in the Adams NHS assemblage (Table 7). Artifact counts, rather than densities, were used because the information needed to calculate densities was no longer available. Although the use of counts has its limitations and is never a precise indicator, it nonetheless provides us with an idea of the general distributional trends of these materials. The data were plotted using a three-dimensional graphics program called Surfer, resulting in Figure 32. The data and this diagram show a distinct pattern, with nearly all early materials clustered around the two houses. The peaks may be explained by their proximity to demolished cultural features such as structural additions to the houses (cellarholes and building foundations).

One area of interest is the small side yard east of the John Adams Birthplace, which yielded consistent quantities of early materials. Only one excavation unit, Square 23, was dug in this area. The field notes for this unit are brief, stating only that 17 in. of loam were excavated as one level, underlain by sterile sand. Nearby Square 22 revealed 12 in. of loam, also excavated as one level. This side yard may thus have been an area where general soil horizons built up gradually through time, and retain the signature of the Adams and earlier occupations, as well as 19th- and 20th-century components.

The ACMP also plotted the early ceramic recoveries for Pratt and Pratt excavation squares and Towle and Hsu excavation units. Because these were not systematic samples, they cannot be interpreted quantitatively. They do indicate, however, that units excavated close to the houses were generally also those which contained early materials. The total number of early ceramics per unit has been plotted on Figure 33, for all excavation units (including test pits, squares, and excavation units). Nearly all units that contained high numbers of early materials were located within 20 ft. of the house. Most outlying high

61

Figure 32. ACMP three-dimensional computer diagram of the distribution of early (17th-18th century) ceramic wares from test pits across the site. View is from the southeast, looking northwest. The houses are located in the flat basins in the middle of the high values. (JA = John Adams Birthplace; JQA = John Quincy Adams Birthplace.)

values are related to trash disposal areas that contained 18th-19th-century materials, as discussed in the previous section. This suggests that evidence of Adams period activities may be best investigated close to the house.

In summary, although no Adams period features were located during excavations, a range of 17th- and 18th-century materials was recovered from the site. Some of these materials no doubt belonged to the Adams family. We do not know how these materials

62

OS

Figure 33. ACMP map showing the distribution of the total counts of early (17th-18th century) ceramic wares from all excavation units.

were deposited, but it seems likely that at least some of them were part of the typical discard and soil buildup process that happens through time and through various occupations, and which can be seen on almost all archeological sites. The precise definition of an Adams period horizon would require tighter excavation controls than those imposed in the past at this site. It is also possible that some closed-context features from this period may still be present on the site, most likely in the area immediately around the two houses.

Probate Data from Early Site Periods

One question has often been asked of 17th- and 18th-century rural New England archeological sites (see, e.g., Towle and MacMahon 1986, 1987): why are relatively few artifacts recovered from these periods of site occupation? Looking at the ceramics recovered from the Adams Birthplaces, for example, we see that wares that could be attributed to the 17th and 18th centuries (Table 7) accounted for only 1,402, or 11.6%, of all ceramics recovered from the site.

A major factor for the relative scarcity of early materials seems to be the use, during these periods, of materials that do not survive in the archeological record or that are not breakable and are therefore kept in the family for long periods of time. Household implements of pewter and wood were more common than the ceramic and glass vessels that became ubiquitous during later periods (see, e.g., Smart 1984). This is often borne out in the historical documents, particularly probate data that provided inventories of household goods.

The Adams Birthplaces property may fit this pattern as well. Prior to and during the Adams occupation, the site was still part of a large tract of farmland. Probate inventories published by Sprague give some insight into the composition of three of these early households (Sprague 1959:38-46). Rather than ceramic and glass vessels, Samuel Belcher's probate of 1680 lists wooden utensils and "pewter forgotten." Gregory Belcher's probate of 1734 also lists no ceramic or glass items, but details a variety of "wooden ware" and pewter vessels (plates, platters, basins, tankards, and porringers). By the time of Deacon John Adams's probate in 1761, pewter is still listed as a major component of tablewares. One line in the probate that reads "10 Pewter Dishes 19 Plates 3 Basons" may indicate that, in addition to 10 pewter dishes, there were pewter plates and basins. Alternatively, the plates and basins could be of another material, quite possibly ceramic. This may reflect the first period at the site during which ceramics were more commonly used.

These probates thus suggest that until the mid-18th century, pewter and wood may have been the common material for household tableware at the Birthplaces site. Due to longer curation times of these materials (resulting from less breakage, etc.), and poor preservation in the archeological record, there simply may not be much refuse from these early periods in the Birthplaces soils.

64

Evidence of Other Site Activities

The ACMP evaluated the Birthplaces archeological collections to see if there were components related to some of the professional occupations practiced on the site. Specifically, we looked for evidence of the apothecary shop at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (1825-1827), a private school at the John Adams Birthplace (1833), and the cordwainer/ shoemaker activities at both houses.

There was no direct evidence for the apothecary shop at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. Although medicinal bottles were recovered from various locations across the site, all of those that could be dated were from the second half of the 19th century. The apothecary shop may have been open too briefly to have left behind evidence in the archeological record. It is also possible that there are apothecary-related materials that were not located by the two archeological projects to date.

The school that operated out of the John Adams Birthplace in 1833 also left no archeological evidence that has been revealed to date. The ACMP looked at the distribution of toys across the site, but most of the marbles, doll parts, and other toys dated to the mid-19th century or later. It is reasonable to assume that any evidence of the school, given its brief period of operation, would be ephemeral and difficult to detect in the archeological record.

Shoemaking at the Birthplaces

Shoemaking was a longer-lived activity on the site, one for which there is some artifactual data. The earliest shoemaker was Deacon John Adams, who lived in the John Adams Birthplace from 1720 to 1761. Deacon John is noted in the historical documents as a cordwainer, and his probate inventory from 1761 lists "Carpenters & Shoemakers Tools" as part of his estate (Sprague 1959:46). To date, however, there is no clear evidence of his shoemaking activities in the archeological record.

It is the later shoemakers who have made their mark at the Birthplaces. In 1820 Adam and Samuel Curtis set up a shoemaking shop with five men at the John Adams Birthplace. From 1825 to 1827 the Haydens opened their apothecary shop in the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, and Tom Hayden worked nearby as a shoemaker for Jos. Field (Sprague 1959: 34). In 1850 Irishmen John Harrison and Patrick Hailey, both bootmakers, lived in the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (Sprague 1959:37).

The largest collection of materials related to the shoemakers was recovered during the NPS restoration of the John Adams Birthplace. Inside the house, restorers found many types of footwear and other related leather items hidden within the walls. Forty-four items were later conserved, inventoried, and analyzed (Saguto n.d.). In the report that documented the project, the conservator divided the shoes and boots into two chronological groups: ca. 1820 and ca. 1860. These were further analyzed as to material, color, toe shape, heel height, sole

65

shape, size, and construction details, and photographs were taken of each specimen (Saguto n.d.).

Of the shoes found within the walls, the ca.-1820 group was the largest. These undoubtedly relate to the shop run by the Curtises. The reason for their concealment in the walls is not known, although it has been suggested that "concealments" of this type have been reported in other locations (e.g., England) and may be a form of ritual practiced by shoemakers of the era (Judy Curtis, personal communication 1989). The conservator noted that all items were "in need of repair before concealment, and split uppers, worn-through soles and run down heels were common on all objects" (Saguto n.d.:l). Men's, women's, and children's shoes were all present, in a variety of styles. Several specimens had intact labels, attributing their origin to shoe shops in Boston, and one boy's boot was inscribed with the owner's name, George Curl. These shoes may thus have been made in Boston and other locations, and were brought to the Curtises for repair. For some unknown reason they were not repaired, were never returned to their owners, and instead were hidden away in the house walls.

Nine of the concealed pieces were attributed to the ca.-1860 period. Their presence within the walls is less easily explained. The Curtis shop had been gone for a long time, and dairy farmers lived in the house until at least 1860. It is possible that a shoemaker lived in the house following the dairy farmers and preceding 1886. It is also possible that these specimens, 7 of which are boots, somehow relate to the bootmakers who lived in the John Quincy Adams Birthplace in 1850. Their presence in the John Adams Birthplace, however, remains unexplained.

The archeological record also provided some clues about shoemaking at the site. The ACMP looked at the distribution of leather items across the site (Table 8). There were a total of 158 items, 119 of which were definitely portions of footwear, and 39 of which were indeterminate leather pieces that may have come from footwear. Some of these pieces were scattered in random locations, but the majority of the material was located in several concentrations.

The first concentration was in Square 15, where a feature interpreted as a shed foundation was located (Figure 4). This shed was attached to the west side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, and has been interpreted earlier in this report as a 19th-century addition, constructed sometime after 1790 and destroyed by 1895 (see the discussion of Feature B). The 19 footwear fragments found in this feature suggest that the shed may have been used by bootmakers Harrison and Hailey as a shop (ca. 1850). Two additional fragments were located in nearby Square 5, which may also be associated with the shed feature.

A second concentration occurred in the cellarhole on the north side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace (see the discussion of Feature A). Square 6, EU 22, and EU 13B all produced leather fragments (Figure 4). The ACMP has suggested that the shed over this

66

Table 8. Leather in the Adams Birthplaces Assemblage

cellarhole was constructed by at least 1828, and was destroyed with the shed on the west side of the house during the 1895-1896 restoration project. The 48 leather fragments in the cellar fill may actually be refuse associated with the shed to the west. Both these fragments and those from the western shed may thus relate to the bootmakers who lived in the house in the 1850s. A number of the fragments from these assemblages have characteristics (e.g., heels with square nails or wooden pegs, sewing holes, brass rivets) that may provide direct comparison with shoes from the "concealment" assemblage or that may simply help a specialist to date the shoes. The ACMP did not undertake a more specific analysis of the fragments.

A third concentration of leather was located north/northwest of the houses, along Transect 6 in test pits 18-20 (Figure 4). The 62 fragments from these test pits were located in an area of dense refuse that extended to a depth of 36 in. below the ground surface. Pratt and Pratt did not excavate squares in this area. The geophysical survey interpreted resistivity anomaly 15 in this area as a small structure (Figure 7), and noted that residents reported the

67

Provenience Type Count Catalog ft

John Quincy Adams Birthplace Concentrations:

Feature B Area: SQ 15, L 3, 11-28" Footwear 19 ADAMJ 1922 SQ 5, L 2, 7-15" Indeterminate 1 ADAMJ 723 SQ 5, L 2, 7-17" Indeterminate 1 ADAMJ 784

Feature A, Cellarhole: SQ 6, L 2, 13-56" Footwear 26 ADAMJ 1028 SQ 6, FEAT 1 L 2, 1-56" Footwear 1 ADAMJ 1120 SQ 6, FEAT 1,0-56" Footwear 8 ADAMJ 1157 SQ 6, L 2 Footwear 4 ADAMJ 1193 EU 13B Footwear 1 ADAMJ 7101 EU 22, L 3 Footwear 8 ADAMJ 7835

Concentration Northwest of Houses:

SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 19, 10-36" Footwear 39 ADAMJ 4251 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 19, 10-36" Indeterminate 10 ADAMJ 4252 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 0-10" Footwear 9 ADAMJ 4299 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 2-30" Footwear 2 ADAMJ 4352 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 18, 8-23"/2-25" Indeterminate 2 ADAMJ 4414

Miscellaneous Occurrences:

SQ 18, L 1, 2, & 3, 0-40" Footwear 2 ADAMJ 2241 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 14, 0-9.5 + 9.5-26" Indeterminate 5 ADAMJ 4136 SEC 3, TRAN 8, TP 12, 2-38" Indeterminate 1 ADAMJ 4736 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 10, 0-14" Indeterminate 19 ADAMJ 5283

Total Leather 158

existence of a garage on this site in the 1950s and 1960s (Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980:20). This is also the approximate location of the carriage house shown in a photograph from the 1880s (Figure 29).

The refuse in these test pits may be associated with the destruction of one of these two structures, or may be trash brought from another area of the site and dumped here. Diagnostic materials in the test pit assemblages ranged from the 18th to the 20th century. Excavation controls for the test pits were not tight enough, however, to determine a more precise date for the deposit, which may have been a feature distinct from the modern surface refuse.

The footwear fragments from this area are difficult to interpret further. A number of the fragments exhibit diagnostic characteristics that might help a specialist to compare them to other footwear from the site or to provide more specific dates. As excavated, we know only that the fragments became incorporated into a 19th- or 20th-century trash deposit.

Summary

Shoemaking was the only professional occupation that left its mark at the site. The major record of this activity was the collection of footwear found "concealed" within the walls at the John Adams Birthplace. Most of these appear to be related to the Curtis shop, which began operation in the house in 1820. Archeological evidence of shoemaking was sparse, but may indicate that in 1850 the bootmakers who lived in the John Quincy Adams Birthplace did some of their work in the shed attached to the west wall of the house. These leather fragments could be further analyzed by a shoe specialist for additional diagnostic information.

Site Disturbances

Over time the Adams Birthplaces property has been through many changes. The construction and destruction of additions and outbuildings, the late 19th-century restoration of the houses, the installation of utilities, and recent NPS renovations and landscaping have all left their mark upon the archeological record. These disturbances affect the archeological integrity of the site, and will affect any future archeological work.

Figure 34 shows a number of known modern ground disturbances. Several utility lines are indicated, though it is certain that others also exist. Pratt and Pratt unearthed pipes in Square 10, for example, but this, and no doubt others, remain unmapped. Also shown are some of the landscape changes that were made as part of the NPS restoration project in the early 1980s. Some of this work is documented in a NPS Completion Report (Perrault n.d.c). According to the Chief of Maintenance at the Park, the area indicated on Figure 34 around the John Adams Birthplace was regraded, with approximately 4-6 in. of soil removed (Eugene Gabriel, personal communication 1989). In certain areas, soil was built up using the backfill dirt from the Towle and Hsu monitoring project (Michael Fortin, personal communication 1989). This soil may well have contained artifacts, since screening was not performed during the Towle and Hsu project.

68

ON NO

Figure 34. ACMP map of known modern ground disturbances.

The area around the John Adams Birthplace thus has been altered by both the removal and addition of soils. This would affect the archeological record to a depth of at least 6 in. Unfortunately, this includes the side yard east of the house, which yielded a consistent quantity of early materials during archeological excavation. It is possible that if the 17th-18th-century soil horizons were approximately 12 in. deep prior to this work (as discussed in the preceding section), that the landscaping work did not affect the early deposits. Future archeological work must take this and other recent site disturbances into account.

70

Management Summary

Two archeological projects have been conducted at the Adams Birthplaces. The first project was undertaken by Pratt and Pratt Archeological Consultants in 1980, following a geophysical survey of the property. The geophysical survey attempted to locate cultural features that could be tested archeologically. Pratt and Pratt systematically tested the entire property, and excavated additional areas where significant cultural features had been hypothesized. The second archeological project was designed to monitor the installation of a drainage system around the two houses during NPS restorations in 1982. NPS Regional Archeologist Dick Hsu and staff archeologist Linda Towle monitored the excavation of a nearly continuous trench around each house, and dug an additional unit to further investigate a cultural feature. Neither of the collections that resulted from these projects had been accessioned or cataloged prior to the current Archeological Collections Management Project (ACMP).

Collections Summary

The ACMP cataloged a total of 39,205 counted artifacts, 215.22 kg of weighed materials, and 129 pieces of archival material. This resulted in a total of 7,667 catalog lots, represented by Catalog #s ADAMJ 189-ADAMJ 7855. The ACMP placed the artifact collections in archivally sound plastic bags and boxes. Following the cataloging project, we returned the 66 boxes of artifacts to Adams NHS for permanent storage in the basement of the Adams Mansion. Original field records were placed in archival record boxes, and were also returned to the Park. The ACMP also gave the Park the printed catalog cards and the computer files containing these records, with instructions on how to use the latter. The computerized records can be manipulated in either dBASE 111+ or the NPS Automated National Catalog System (ANCS).

Accession #36 from the Pratt and Pratt project was the largest of the two artifact collections, with over 31,000 items and 5,772 catalog lots. Except for three prehistoric ceramic sherds, all of the artifacts were from the historical period. By comparing the current collection to the original artifact inventories, the ACMP determined that approximately 3.3% of the original collection was missing (Appendix 8). Accession #37 from the Towle and Hsu project was much smaller (over 7,500 artifacts), and contained only historical-period materials. The ACMP found only 20 items to be missing from this collection.

ACMP Evaluation

The ACMP reanalyzed the major archeological features to better interpret their dates and functions. A total of three architectural features were located, all of which appear to reflect 19th-century shed additions attached to the two houses.

Two of these features were located at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. The first was along the north wall of the house and was partially excavated during both archeological

71

projects. It had a cellar with walls of faced stones and a brick floor. This structure was constructed sometime prior to 1828, probably during John Quincy Adams's ownership of the house, and was destroyed after 1891, most likely during the 1895-1896 restoration of the house. The second feature was located along the west wall of the house, and was represented by a packed pebble footing with larger stone piers or foundation walls. It was constructed sometime after 1790, probably during John Quincy Adams's ownership of the house, and like the other shed seems to have been destroyed during the 1895-1896 restoration project. This shed may have been used as a shop by the bootmakers who lived in the house ca. 1850.

The third architectural feature was located along the north wall of the John Adams Birthplace. Excavators found large, densely packed stones in this area, some of which exhibited cut faces. These likely reflect the foundation stones for a shed addition that was present in this area after 1852, and which was destroyed before or during the 1897 house restoration. The geophysical survey located a radar anomaly in this area, which may help to better define the feature's limits.

Other features that the excavators interpreted as possible foundations seem more likely to be trash deposits located on the periphery of the lot. Although we know that earlier outbuildings were present on the property (e.g., two gabled outbuildings near the houses shown in an 1828 drawing), no archeological evidence for these has been located to date. Outbuildings mentioned in the earliest deeds to the property may have been located outside of what is now the property boundary.

Excavators uncovered a small, cased well, which post-dates the Adams occupation of the site. The geophysical survey of the property hypothesized the location of three additional wells. These remain unexcavated and could provide good undisturbed (closed-context) features for future research.

Archeologists did not locate cultural features from the earliest periods of site occupation. Artifacts from the 17th and 18th centuries were recovered, however. Many of these may have been located in a general site-wide horizon that was gradually deposited throughout the early years of site occupation. Most of these artifacts were located near the two houses. Although they may reflect a horizon that lies approximately one foot or more below the current ground surface, this horizon can only be defined through additional, more tightly controlled excavation.

The ACMP also found that there was sparse evidence of the diverse professional activities that took place on the site. For example, there was no evidence for the 1833 school at the John Adams Birthplace, or for the 1825 apothecary shop at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. Shoemaking was the one activity that left its mark at the Birthplaces. It was a time-honored site activity, begun by Deacon John Adams in the 18th century. During NPS restoration of the John Adams Birthplace, a large collection of footwear was found

72

concealed within the walls. This collection seems to relate to the shoemaking shop established in the house by the Curtis brothers in 1820. Additional fragments of footwear in the archeological collection may reflect the bootmakers' activity at the John Quincy Adams Birthplace, ca. 1850. These collections may provide comparative data for specialists of 19th-century footwear.

A fair number of whole or reconstructed glass bottles and ceramic vessels are present in the archeological collection, most of which were recovered from the cellar feature on the north side of the John Quincy Adams Birthplace. These are all 19th-century objects, and as such do not relate to the Adams family, but rather to later tenants or community activity at the site. They may be useful in exhibits that deal with later site use, and can be accessed through the computerized data base as "whole vessel" or "partial vessel" in the object name field.

73

Recommendations

The Adams Birthplaces property is a small tract of land, much of which has been disturbed by landscaping work, renovations to the houses, the installation of utilities, and archeological excavations. In spite of this, there should still be areas that remain relatively intact, particularly below the zone that has been impacted by landscaping.

Remaining research potential at the site includes the investigation of three possible wells hypothesized by the geophysical surveyors in 1980, and the definition of a possible Adams period (and earlier) soil horizon. If such a horizon were defined, additional questions could be asked about life at the site during these early periods. The early materials recovered at the site to date are clustered in the near vicinity of the two houses, which may indicate the most fruitful areas for such research.

Any additional archeological work conducted on the property must take into account the range of known ground disturbances. These can best be identified by the map of archeological excavations and the map of additional known ground disturbances, both of which appear in this report (Figures 4, 34).

A final note must be made that any future archeological work must maintain tight excavation controls. Both previous projects lacked adequate controls, resulting in a wide range of data problems that limit the research value of the recovered materials. We recommend that any utility installation, landscape changes, or other ground-disturbing activity at the site be preceded by controlled excavation. Monitoring projects do not provide adequate controls. The Adams Birthplaces site is so small and has had so much disturbance that any future archeology may be the last opportunity to better interpret the site.

74

References Cited

Adams, Henry 1936 The Birthplaces of Presidents John and John Quincy Adams. In The Bulletin for

the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. Boston.

American Association of Museums 1984 Caring for Collections. Strategies for Conservation, Maintenance and Documenta

tion. AAM, Washington, D.C.

Austin, John C. 1978 Some Recent Gifts of Creamware to Colonial Williamsburg. In English Pottery

and Porcelain: An Historical Survey, edited by Paul Atterbury, pp. 37-41. Main Street Press, New York.

Barber, E. A. 1906 Tin Enameled Pottery. Philadelphia Museum, Philadelphia.

Binford, Lewis R. 1978 A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples. In Histori

cal Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 66-67. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, NY.

Boger, Louise Ade 1971 The Dictionary of World Pottery and Porcelain. Charles Scribner's Sons, New

York.

Cantwell, Anne-Marie, James B. Griffin, and Nan A. Rothschild (editors) 1981 The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 376. The New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Capozzi, Maria Angela 1991 Archeological Collections Management at Martin Van Bur en National Historic

Site, New York. ACMP Series No. 8. Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Chaplin, Raymond E. 1971 The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Seminar Press, New York.

Chenhall, Robert G. 1975 Museum Cataloging in the Computer Age. American Association for State and

Local History, Nashville, TN.

75

Christenson, Andrew L. 1979 The Role of Museums in Cultural Resource Management. American Antiquity

44:161-163.

Cotter, John L. 1963 Preliminary Archeological Investigation of the "Fish Pond," Adams Mansion. Ms.

on file, Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

DeCesare, Louise M. n.d. Archeological Collections Management at Women's Rights National Historical

Park, New York. Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston, forthcoming.

1990a Archeological Collections Management at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, Massachusetts. ACMP Series No. 6. Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

1990b Archeological Collections Management at Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, New York. ACMP Series No. 7. Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Deetz, James 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor

Books, New York.

Edwards, William Churchill 1957 Historic Quincy Massachusetts. City of Quincy, MA.

Gall, Lawrence D. 1978 The Adams Birthplaces: An Interpretive Study in New England Preservation

History. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Gillon, Edmund V., Jr. 1971 Early Illustrations and Views of American Architecture. Dover Publications, Inc.,

New York.

Godden, Geoffrey A. 1975 British Pottery. Clarkson N. Potter, New York.

Gordon, Elinor 1975 Chinese Export Porcelain: An Historical Survey. Main Street Press, New York.

Greer, Georgeanna H. 1981 American Stonewares, the Art and Craft of Utilitarian Potters. Schiffer Publishing

Limited, Exton, PA.

76

Harrington, J. C. 1978 Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco

Pipes. In Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 63-65. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, NY.

Hill, J. N., and R. K. Evans 1972 A Model for Classification and Typology. In Models in Archaeology, edited by

David L. Clark, pp. 231-273. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.

Hitchcock, Ann 1987 Report to Congress. Ms. (Memorandum) on file, Archeology Branch, Cultural

Resources Center, Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Charlestown, MA.

Jones, Olive, and Catherine Sullivan 1985 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware,

Flat Glass, and Closures. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History. National Historic Parks and Sites Branch, Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Ketchum, William C , Jr. 1978 Yellowware. Americana 6:42-44.

Lewis, Ariselda 1969 A Collector's History of English Pottery. Viking Press, New York.

MacMahon, Darcie A. 1986 Ephraim Hartwell Tavern Site. In Archeological Collections Management at

Minute Man National Historical Park, vol. 3, edited by Linda A. Towle and Darcie A. MacMahon, pp. 19-137. ACMP Series No. 4. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

1988 Archeological Collections Management at the Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site. ACMP Series No. 5. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Marquardt, William H., Anta Montet-White, and Sandra C. Scholtz 1982 Resolving the Crisis in Archaeological Collections Management. American

Antiquity 47:409-418.

Massachusetts Historical Commission 1984 Guide to Prehistoric Site Files and Artifact Classification System. Massachusetts

Historical Commission, Office of the Massachusetts Secretary of State, Boston.

Miller, George L. 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical

Archaeology 14:1-40.

77

1984a Marketing Ceramics in North America. Winterthur Portfolio 19(1): 1-5. 1984b George M. Coates, Pottery Merchant of Philadelphia, 1817-1831. Winterthur

Portfolio 19(1): 37-49.

Miller, George L., and Catherine Sullivan 1981 Machine-made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-blown

Bottles. Research Bulletin No. 171. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Miller, J. Jefferson, II, and Lyle M. Stone 1970 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac. Smithsonian Studies in

History and Technology No. 4. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.

Moore, Hudson N. 1909 Wedgwood and His Imitators. Frederick A. Stokes, New York.

Mountford, Arnold R. 1973 Staffordshire Salt-Glazed Stoneware. In Ceramics in America, edited by Ian M. G.

Quimby, pp. 197-215. Winterthur Conference Report 1972. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA.

National Park Service (NPS) n.d. Project Files. Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic

Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston. 1978 New Area Study: The Birthplaces of Presidents John Adams and John Quincy

Adams. North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston. 1984 Museum Handbook. Park II, Museum Records. Curatorial Services, National Park

Service, Washington, D.C. 1987 User Manual, Automated National Catalog System. Curatorial Services Division,

National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Nelson, Lee H. 1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buildings. Technical Leaflet 48, Vol.

211 No. 11. American Association of State and Local History, Nashville, TN.

Noel Hume, Ivor 1960 Rouen Faience in Eighteenth Century America. Antiques 78:559-561. 1978a Pearlware: Forgotten Milestone of English Ceramic History. In English Pottery

and Porcelain: An Historical Survey, edited by Paul Atterbury, pp. 42-49. Main Street Press, New York.

1978b The Rise and Fall of English White Salt-Glazed Stoneware, Parts I and II. In English Pottery and Porcelain: An Historical Survey, edited by Paul Atterbury, pp. 16-29. Main Street Press, New York.

1980 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Reprinted. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., New York. Originally published 1969.

78

Olsen, Stanley 1971 Zooarchaeology: Animal Bones in Archaeology and their Interpretation. McCaleb

Module 2. Addison Wesley Modular Publications, Reading, MA.

Perrault, Carole Louise 1980 Completion Report: Exterior Painting, Reroofing and Related Repairs to the

Adams Birthplaces. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

n.d.a Adams Birthplaces, Exterior Views and Measured Drawings. Ms. on file, Cultural Resources Center, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Charlestown, MA.

n.d.b Birthplaces of Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Historic Structure Report: Architectural Data Section. Ms. on file, Building Conservation Branch, Cultural Resources Center, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Charlestown, MA.

n.d.c Completion Report; Grout/Regrade Adams Birthplaces. Ms. on file, Cultural Resources Center, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Charlestown, MA.

Pratt, Marjorie K. 1981 Archaeological Survey at the Adams Birthplaces. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural

Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Ramsay, John 1976 American Potters and Pottery. Reprinted. Ars Ceramica Ltd., Ann Arbor, MI.

Originally published 1939, Colonial Press, Clinton, MA.

Saguto, D. A. n.d. Concealed Footwear, John Adams Birthplace. Ms. on file, Adams National

Historic Site, Quincy, MA.

Smart, Ann Morgan 1984 The Role of Pewter as 'Missing Artifact.' Ms. on file, Office of Archaeological

Excavation and Conservation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Solon, L. M. 1906 The Art of the Old English Potter. John Francis, New York.

South, Stanley 1978 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeo

logy. In Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 68-82. Baywood Publishing Company, New York.

79

Sprague, Waldo C. 1954 A Brief Story of the Birthplaces of the Presidents John and John Quincy Adams.

Quincy Historical Society, Quincy, MA. 1959 The President John Adams and President John Quincy Adams Birthplaces. Quincy

Historical Society, Quincy, MA.

Stewart, Regina, and Geraldine Cosentino 1977 Stoneware. Golden Press, New York.

Synenki, Alan T., and Sheila Charles 1983a Archeological Collections Management at Salem Maritime National Historic Site.

ACMP Series No. 1. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

1983b Archeological Collections Management at Morristown National Historical Park. ACMP Series No. 2. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

1984 Archeological Collections Management of the Great Island Tavern Site. ACMP Series No. 3. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Towle, Linda A. 1985 Final Report, Assessment Phase of the Archeological Collections Accountability

Project. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

1987 Introduction: An Overview of Archeological Collections Management. In Archeological Collections Management at Minute Man National Historical Park, vol. 1, edited by Linda A. Towle and Darcie A. MacMahon, pp. 5-18. ACMP Series No. 4. Divison of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Towle, Linda, and Dick Ping Hsu 1983 Archeological Monitoring at Adams' Birthplaces. Ms. on file, Division of Cultural

Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Towle, Linda A., and Darcie A. MacMahon (editors) 1986 Archeological Collections Management at Minute Man National Historical Park,

Massachusetts, vols. 2-4. ACMP Series No. 4. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

1987 Archeological Collections Management at Minute Man National Historical Park, Massachusetts, vol. 1. ACMP Series No. 4. Division of Cultural Resources, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Towner, Donald 1957 English Cream Colored Earthenware. Faber and Faber, London.

80

1965 The Leeds Pottery. Traplinger, New York.

Turnbaugh, Sarah Peabody 1983 17th and 18th Century Lead-Glazed Redwares in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Historical Archaeology 17 (1):3-17. 1985 Imitation, Innovation, and Permutation: The Americanization of Bay Colony Lead-

Glazed Redwares. In Domestic Pottery of the Northeastern United States, edited by Sarah Peabody Turnbaugh, pp. 209-228. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Van Rensselaer, Susan 1966 Banded Creamware. Antiques 90:337-341.

Watkins, Lura Woodside 1959 Early New England Pottery. Old Sturbridge Village, Sturbridge, MA. 1968 Early New England Potters and Their Wares. Reprinted. Archon Books. Originally

published 1950, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Webster, Donald Blake 1971 Decorated Stoneware Pottery of North America. Charles E. Turtle, Rutland, VT.

Weston Geophysical Corporation 1980 Geophysical Surveys at the Adams Birthplaces National Historic Site. Ms. on file,

Division of Cultural Resources Management, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Boston.

Woodhouse, Charles Platten 1974 The World's Master Potters: Their Techniques and Art. Pitman Publishing,

London.

81

Appendix 1. Archeological Collections Accountability Tables for Adams NHS

83

Archeological Collections Accountability Project

PARK NAME: ADAM (Acronym)

Site

1) Duck Pond ( "Fish Pond" )

2) Birthplaces

3 ) John Adams Birthplace

4 ) John Quincj Adams

Birthplace

Archeologist (Affiliation)

John L. Cotter (NPS)

Marjorie K. Pratt (Pratt & Pratt)

Linda Towle Dick Ping Hsu (DCR, NARO)


Date(s) Of Fieldwork

Oct. 1962 July 1963

June - Aug. 1980

Oct. - Nov. 1982

Oct. - Nov. 1982

Report Reference

Cotter 1963

Pratt 1981

Towle & Hsu 1983

Towle & Hsu 1983

Artifact Inventory in Report

(Y/N)

Y

N

Y

Y

Provenience Data (Y/N)

Y

N

Y

Y

Park Accession

JJ

Not Accessioned

Not Accessioned

Not Accessioned

Not Accessioned

Accession Date

Acquisition Type

Catalog i 's

?ield Collection Not Cataloged

„

ii ii

••

••

PARK NAME: ADAM (Acronym)

Inventoried by ACMP

1) No

2) No

3) Yes

4) Yes

TOTAL

Estimated ft Artifacts

20 +

35,990

2,483

4,857

43,330

Est. 8 Lots (Gross Material

Types)

1,259

231

(included w/#3 above)

1,490

Estimated (t of ACMP lots

5,011

713

823

6,547

Est. 8 Lots (Finest

Breakdown)

5,667

774

914

7,355

Storage Location

Not at Park

Carriage House attic

Carriage house attic

»

Storage Containers

, plastic bags in Hoilinger

Boxes

•I

ii

Artifacts sorted by

Provenience (cataloged artifacts bagged separately)

artifact type w/in provenience (ACMP)

"

Doci Field Notes

Y (return ed to ADAM)

in Notebooks @ adam office

»

raent Maps

Y

in re port

II

ation Photos

Y (returned to

ADAM)

None

None

PARK NAME: ADAM (page 1) (Acronym)

Archeological Collections Accountability Project (Revised 9/91)

Site

1) Duck Pond ("Fish Pond")

2) Birthplaces

3) John Adams Birthplace

4) John Ouincy Adams Birthplace

Archeologist (Affiliation)

CotJtfm CNPS)

Marjorie K. Pratt (Pratt and Pratt)



Date(s) Of Fieldwork

Oct. 1962 July 1963

June-Aug. 1980

Oct.-Nov. 1982

Oct.-Nov. 1982

Report Reference

Cotter 1963

Pratt 1981

Towle and Hsu 1982

Towle and Hsu 1982

Artifact Inventory in Report

(Y/N)

Y

N

Y

Y

Provenience Data (Y/N)

Y

N

Y

Y

Park Accession

#

Not Accessioned

36

37

37

Accession Date

—

9/14/87

4/24/88

4/24/88

Acquisition Type

Field Collection

Field Collection

Field Collection

Field Collection

Catalog #s

—

ADAMJ 189-5077, ADAMJ 5079-5961 ADAMJ 7849-7851

ADAMJ 5078, ADAMJ 5962-7848, ADAMJ 7852-7855

combined with #3

PARK NAME: ADAM (page 2)

(Acronym)

Archeological Collections Accountability Project (Revised 8/91)

Inventoried by ACMP

1) No

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) Yes

Totals

# of Artifacts

—

31,669 212.98 kg

7,536 2.24 kg

combined with #3

39,205 215.22 kg

# of ACMP Lots

—

5,772

1,888

with #3

7,660

Storage Location

—

Adams Mansion

Adams Mansion

Adams Mansion

Storage Containers

—

Plastic bags in Hoi linger boxes



Artifacts Sorted by

—

ACMP system

ACMP system

ACMP system

Field Notes

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maps

—

Yes

Yes

Yes

Photos

—

Yes

No

No

# of Archival Materials

—

95

34

combined with #3

129

# ACMP Archival Lots

—

3

4

combined with #3

7

Appendix 2. Ownership and Occupancy of the Adams Birthplaces

89

VD

John Adams Birthplace* John Quincy Adams Birthplace*

Date Owner Occupant Date Owner Occupant

1639/ William Needham William Needham and fam- 1639 Gregory Belcher no house yet 1640 ily; possibly tenants at end

of period

1675 Deacon Joseph Joseph Penniman and fam- 1663 Samuel Belcher Samuel Belcher and family Penniman ily; 1681 built new house, build house

possibly on Needham foundation

1705 James Penniman unknown, but not owner 1680 Deacon Gregory this son of Samuel, his mo-Belcher ther, her new husband, her

other children

1687 Gregory and brother Samuel Belcher

1690 Gregory Belcher (wheel-right, carpenter, shipwright) marries and lives here with family

1716 Gregory Belcher enlarges house

1719 Gregory Belcher, Jr. marries and probably remains in house with family; lean-to probably built

to



1720 Deacon John same, with family; lean-to 1727 Gregory Belcher, same, with family Adams probably present Jr.

1727 widow and same daughter of Gregory Belcher, Jr.

1728/ Daughter Abigail tenants 1729 Belcher

1742 Lewis Vassall unknown; empty or tenants

1742/ John and Richard unknown; empty or tenants 1743 Billings

1744 Deacon John Dr. Elisha Savil and wife Adams

1761 Peter Boylston same, with mother and bro- 1761 John Adams willed to John; may have Adams ther John; mother remarries moved in after married,

and leaves 1766; P.B. mar- 1764. Lived here periodi-ries and leaves 1768 cally: 1764-68, 1771-72,

1774-84. Sets up law office.

1774 John Adams 1772 John Adams's mother and husband (for 2 years) 1775; Mr. Hayden 1784; Pheby (freed slave of Abigail's father)

1778 Matthew and James Pratt 1788 John and Abigail move into Adams Mansion



1790 John Adams families of Samuel Clark 1790 John Adams Matthew Pratt (cont.) and Daniel Hollis (cont.)

1796- Moses French 1796- Rev. William Clark 1798 1798

1802- JohnBriesler 1800 Peter Whitney 1806

1803 John Quincy Briesler to 1806 1803 John Quincy Adams Adams

1810- Thomas Boylston Adams 1805- John Quincy and family; 1819 and family; last Adams to 1806 last Adams to live here

live here

1820 Adam and Samuel Curtis 1809 Joseph Faxon

(ran shoemaker shop)

1827 John Crane 1814 Luther Spear and family

1830 George Hardwick 1819- Ebenezer Green 1820

Sukey Burrell ran private 1825 Noah Clark; Hayden family 1833 school here (ran apothecary shop here)

1841 Charles Spear and Caroline 1827 John Faxon (ran "sheep-Adams Green (to at least killing and mutton busi-1860); other tenants there- ness" from house) after

1829 Harvey Field (butcher, fisherman) and nephew



1830 John Quincy Harvey Field Adams (cont.)

1841 Charles Spear and Caroline Adams Green rented house but sublet to tenants

1848 Charles Francis tenants 1848 Charles Francis Adams Adams

1850 John Harrison and Patrick Hailey (bootmakers) and families

1886 Adams Real Estate Much of land sold for 1886 Adams Real Es-Trust house lots tate Trust

1897 Daughters of the Revolu- 1895- Quincy Historical Society; tion; restored house; addi- 1896 restored house tion behind lean-to

1940 City of Quincy 1940 City of Quincy

1950 Quincy Historical Society

1979 NPS 1979 NPS

* Information for this chart taken from Carole Perrault's "Survey of Ownership and Occupancy" chart, created for Perrault (n.d.b); and Sprague (1959).

Appendix 3. Adams NHS Archival Materials by Accession Number

95

ADAMS BIRTHPLACES FINDING AID

ARCHIVAL RECORDS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL COLLECTION

ACCESSIONS #36 & 37

ADAMS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

3

CAT CONT #: DESCRIPTION OBJECT UNIT UNIT TYPE

#: DATE(INCLUSIVE) COUNT

** ACCESSION #: 36

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: FIELD NOTES

7849 CONTAINER 1 OF 6 SQUARE DESCRIPTIONS AND STRATIGRAPHIC RECORDS 6/8/80 - 6/19/80 1 FOLDER

7849 CONTAINER 1 OF 6 TRANSECT FORMS WITH TEST PIT DATA 6/8/80 - 6/19/80 1 FOLDER

* Subsubtotal *

2

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS

7850 CONTAINER 2 OF 6 COLOR SLIDES 1981 54 EACH

7850 CONTAINER 2 OF 6 COLOR NEGATIVES 1981 15 EACH

7850 CONTAINER 2 OF 6 BLACK & WHITE 35MM NEGATIVES 1981 5 EACH

7850 CONTAINER 2 OF 6 BLACK & WHITE 4" X 5" NEGATIVES 1981 4 EACH

* Subsubtotal *

78

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: LABORATORY ANALYSIS RECORDS

7851 CONTAINER 3 OF 6 DCR-NARO ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARTIFACT INVENTORY FORMS N.D. 4 FOLDER

7851 CONTAINER 4 OF 6 DCR-NARO ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARTIFACT INVENTORY FORMS 6/16/80 - 10/3/80 4 FOLDER

7851 CONTAINER 5 OF 6 DCR-NARO ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY ARTIFACT INVENTORY FORMS 10/3/80 - 12/4/80 4 FOLDER

7851 CONTAINER 5 OF 6 TEST PIT DATA SPREADSHEET N.D. 1 FOLDER

7851 CONTAINER 5 OF 6 TEST PIT ANALYSIS NOTES 11/81 1 FOLDER

7851 CONTAINER 5 OF 6 OBJECT TREATMENT REPORT 5/23/88 1 FOLDER

* Subsubtotal *

15

** Subtotal **

95

** ACCESSION #: 37

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: FIELD NOTES

7852 CONTAINER 6 OF 6 NOTES FROM LINDA A. TOWLE 10/25/82 - 1/18/83 1 FOLDER

* Subsubtotal *

1

00

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: LABORATORY ANALYSIS RECORDS

7853 CONTAINER 6 OF 6 1982 ACMP ARTIFACT CATALOG SHEETS 1982 3 FOLDER

* Subsubtotal *

3

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: ORIGINAL REPORT

7854 CONTAINER 6 OF 6 ORIGINAL REPORT FROM TOULE & HSU 8/83 1 FOLDER

* Subsubtotal *

1

* CATALOG LOT BASIS: FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS

7855 CONTAINER 2 OF 6 BLACK & WHITE PRINTS BY CAROLE PERRAULT 1982 29 EACH

* Subsubtotal *

29

** Subtotal **

34

*** Total ***

129

Appendix 4. ACMP Cataloging Flow Chart

99

ACMP Catalog Flow Chart 5/88, p.l

CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) MINERAL (0001) CERAMIC (02)

OBJECT NAME

BODY SHERD(S) RIM SHERD(S) BASAL SHERD(S) HANDLE(S) LID/COVER(S) WHOLE VESSEL (75%+) WHOLE VESSEL,

RECONSTRUCTED PARTIAL VESSEL

(25-75%) PARTIAL VESSEL, RECONSTRUCTED

DESCR1

REDWARE

TIN ENAMEL COARSE BUFF-BODY

CREAMWARE

PEARLWARE WHITEWARE WHIELDON WARE LUSTERWARE AGATEWARE ROCKINGHAM/BENNINGTON YELLOWARE UNIDENTIFIED EARTHENWARE

DESCR2

PLAIN, LEAD GLAZED 1 SURFACE, LEAD GLAZED 2 SURFACES, SGRAFFITO, TRAILED SLIPWARE, JACKFIELD, ASTBURY, OTHER (specify), UNIDENTIFIED

DELFT, ROUEN/FAIENCE, OTHER (specify), UNIDENTIFIED COMBED WARE, DOTTED WARE, N. DEVON GRAVEL TEMPERED,

MOTTLED, OTHER (specify), UNIDENTIFIED PLAIN, SHELL-EDGED, OTHER EDGE-DECORATED, HANDPAINTED, ANNULAR, TRANSFER-PRINTED, SPONGE/SPATTER-DECORATED, MOLDED, OTHER (specify), UNIDENTIFIED

(as above for creamware) (as above for creamware)

MATERIAL

EARTHENWARE

PORCELAIN UNDECORATED, UNDERGLAZE HANDPAINTED MONOCHROME (or POLYCHROME), OVERGLAZE HANDPAINTED MONOCHROME (or POLYCHROME), GILTED, TRANSFER-PRINTED, SPRIG-MOLDED, OTHER (specify), UNIDENTIFIED

PORCELAIN

WHITE SALT GLAZED STONEWARE

DRYBODY STONEWARE NOTTINGHAM BELLARMINE/FRECHEN WESTERWALD/RAEREN DOMESTIC STONEWARE UNIDENTIFIED STONEWARE

PLAIN, MOLDED (specify on DESCR3), SCRATCH BLUE, OTHER BLACK BASALTE, ROSSO ANTICO, OTHER, UNIDENTIFIED

BLUE COBALT DECORATION

STONEWARE

DESCR3 DESCR4

(space to elaborate, e.g., FLOWER POT)

MAKER'S MARK = x (x = count) (not a separate lot)

ACMP Catalog Flow Chart 5/88, p.2

CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) MINERAL (0001) CERAMIC (02)

OBJECT NAME

TOBACCO PIPE(S)

BOTTLE CLOSURE(S)

BUTTON(S)

BUCKLE(S)

OTHER FASTENER(S) ( s p e c i f y )

s p e c i f i c H o u s e h o l d / P e r s o n a l o b j e c t s (*see p . 1 3 )

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL

DESCR1

BOWL(S)

STEM(S), 4-9/64 BORE DIAMETER , INDETERMINATE BORE DIAMETER

DESCR2

WITH STEM ATTACHED, XX BORE DIAMETER - x

MOLDED DECORATION = X

DESCR3

MAKER'S MARK =» X

1 (or 2)-PIECE CAST; 2, 3 or 4-PIECE STAMPED; STAMPED; MOLDED; OTHER (specify); UNIDENTIFIED

specify object (SEWER TILE, e.g.) (leave blank for brick)

MATERIAL

KAOLIN (WHITE), RED CLAY, PORCELAIN, OTHER (specify)

specify ceramic type

EARTHENWARE, STONEWARE BRICK [weight, grams]

INDETERMINATE CERAMIC OBJECT

ACMP CATALOG FLOW CHART 5/88, p.3

CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) MINERAL (0001) GLASS (05)

OBJECT NAME

BODY SHERD(S), NECK SHERD(S), BASAL SHERD(S), BASAL/STEM SHERD(S), STEM SHERD(S) HANDLE(S) , RIM SHERD(S), LID/COVER(S), WHOLE VESSEL(S) (75%+), WHOLE VESSEL,

RECONSTRUCTED, PARTIAL VESSEL (25-75%) J, PARTIAL VESSEL, RECONSTRUCTED,

BOTTLE DRINKING VESSEL INDETERMINATE VESSEL

DESCR1

FREEBLOWN MOLDED

DESCR2 DESCR3

INDETERMINATE CONTACT MOLDED PATTERN MOLDED PRESS MOLDED OPTIC MOLDED MACHINE MADE MANUFACTURE

DIP MOLD 2-PIECE MOLD 2, 3, OR 4-PIECE MOLD WITH SEPARATE BASE

SHOULDER-HEIGHT MULTI-PIECE MOLD RICKETTS MOLD TURN/PASTE MOLD MOLDED NECK WITH HAND-FINISHED LIP APPLIED COLOR LABEL

WINDOW GLASS SHERD(S)

BOTTLE CLOSURE(S)

BUTTON(S)

BUCKLE(S)

OTHER FASTENER(S)

specific Household/Personal Objects (*see p.13) (e.g., LIGHTING FIXTURES

CROWN/CYLINDER PLATE INDETERMINATE

1 (or 2)-PIECE CAST; 2, 3 or 4-PIECE STAMPED; MOLDED; OTHER (specify); UNIDENTIFIED

(specify object)

LAMP CHIMNEY GLASS)

DESCR4

EMBOSSED BODY = x (x = count) (not a separate lot)

DESCR5

MAKER'S MARK = X (x = c o u n t ) ( n o t a s e p a r a t e l o t )

INDETERMINATE GLASS

MATERIAL

GLASS MILKGLASS


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) MINERAL (0001) METAL (04)

OBJECT NAME

BOTTLE CLOSURE(S)

BUTTON(S)

BUCKLE(S)

specific Household/ Personal Objects (*see p.13)

NAIL(S)

DESCR1

SCREW(S)

STAPLE(S) BOLT(S)

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL

DESCR3

MAKER'S MARK = X (x=count)

(see ceramics sheet)

(specify object)

HAND WROUGHT MACHINE CUT INDETERMINATE MACHINE CUT (1795-1850) MACHINE CUT (1840-1885) WIRE INDETERMINATE

HAND WROUGHT MACHINE CUT INDETERMINATE

WINDOW HARDWARE DOOR HARDWARE ELECTRICAL HARDWARE PLUMBING HARDWARE LIGHTING/HEATING HARDWARE HAND TOOL(S) MACHINE PART(S) DOMESTIC ANIMAL GEAR TRANSPORTATION OBJECT(S) WEAPONRY/ACCOUTREMENTS MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE

[do all as one lot]

INDETERMINATE METAL OBJECT(S) RESIDUE (wt. in grams)

(specify object)

DESCR3

RESIDUE FROM (specify object name) = x GM (x = wt. in grams), (put in same lot as object)

(e.g.: SPIKES-2, BRASS RING-1)

MATERIAL

specific metals: FERROUS, COPPER, BRASS, LEAD, TIN, PEWTER, SILVER, INDETERMINATE, etc.


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) MINERAL (0001) STONE (01)

OBJECT NAME

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL specific Tools/Hardware Objects (***see p.13)

GUNFLINT(S)

GROUNDSTONE

WORKED STONE UNWORKED STONE

DESCR1

ROOFING TILE (e.g.)

ROUNDED HEEL RECTANGULAR HEEL POSSIBLE GUNFLINT MANUFACTURE FLAKE

(specify other) PESTLE MORTAR

MATERIAL

SLATE (e.g.)

(specify)

MINERAL SYNTHETIC (06)

OBJECT NAME

BOTTLE CLOSURE(S) CLOTHING FOOTWEAR BUTTON(S) specific Household/ Personal Objects (*see p.13)

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL specific Tools/Hardware Objects (***see p.13)

MACADAM LINOLEUM FRAGMENTS INDETERMINATE SYNTHETIC OBJECT/S)

DESCR1

(specify object?) ( " ) (see ceramics sheet) (specify object)

MATERIAL

PLASTIC, RUBBER, ASPHALT, NYLON, (specify other)

SYNTHETIC LINOLEUM (specify or INDETERMINATE)


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) MINERAL (0001) OTHER MINERAL (07)

OBJECT NAME DESCR1 MATERIAL

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL [use weight in grams]

PAINT CHIP(S) [use weight in grams]

COAL [use weight in grams] CINDERS/CLINKERS [use

weight in grams] BOG IRON [use weight in

grams] SLAG [use weight in grams] COMPOSITE FIRE BYPRODUCTS

[use weight in grams] MICA INDETERMINATE MINERAL OBJECT

(specify color)

MORTAR/PLASTER, CONCRETE

PAINT

COAL CINDERS/CLINKERS

BOG IRON

SLAG (leave blank)

MICA (specify or INDETERMINATE)

MINERAL CLAY/MUD/SOIL (03)

OBJECT NAME

SOIL SAMPLE(S) SOIL


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) VEGETAL (0002) WOOD (10)

OBJECT NAME

BOTTLE CLOSURE(S) specific Household/Personal Objects (*see p.13)

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL specific Tools/Hardware (***see p.13)

SPECIMEN (UNWORKED) [use wt. in grams if fragmentary]

WOOD SAMPLE(S) CHARCOAL [use weight in grams] ASH

DESCR1

(specify object)

MATERIAL

WOOD, CORK

CHARCOAL ASH

CLASSIFICATION

VEGETAL FIBERS (11)

OBJECT NAME

CLOTHING specific Household/Personal Objects (*see p.13)

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL specific Tools/Hardware (***see p.13)

INDETERMINATE TEXTILE(S)

DESCR1

(specify object)

MATERIAL

COTTON WOOL

FIBER

CLASSIFICATION

VEGETAL PAPER (13)

OBJECT NAME (specify object, e.g. wallpaper fragment)

VEGETAL

OTHER PLANT MATERIALS (14)

OBJECT NAME

SEED(S)

NUTSHELL(S)

FLOTATION SAMPLE(S)

DESCR1

(specify if possible) (specify if possible, e.g., walnut)

MATERIAL

VEGETAL

NUTSHELL

(leave blank)


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC (HI) ANIMAL (0003) SHELL/CORAL (20)

OBJECT NAME DESCR1 DESCR2

BUTTON(S) specific Household/ Personal Objects (*see p.13)

SPECIMEN (UNWORKED) [weight in grams]

BIVALVE UNIVALVE INDETERMINATE SHELL CORAL

species (**see p.13)

ARCHEOLOGY HISTORIC ANIMAL BONE/IVORY (21)

OBJECT NAME DESCR1 DESCR2

BUTTON(S) specific Household/ Personal Objects (*see p.13)

specific Tools/ Hardware Objects (***see p.13)

SPECIMEN (UNWORKED) FISH, MAMMAL, BIRD, INDETERMINATE specify other

DIAGNOSTIC UNDIAGNOSTIC TOOTH

ARCHEOLOGY HISTORIC ANIMAL HIDE/HAIR (23)

OBJECT NAME DESCR1 MATERIAL

CLOTHING FOOTWEAR BUTTON(S) specific Household/ Personal Objects (*see p.13)

specific Tools/ Hardware Objects (***see p.13)

INDETERMINATE LEATHER

(specify object) LEATHER FUR HAIR

ACMP CATALOG FLOW CHART 5 / 8 8 , p . 9

C L A S S I F I C A T I O N

ARCHEOLOGY (A) HISTORIC ( o r P R E H I S T O R I C ) (HI o r PR) HUMAN REMAINS ( 0 0 0 4 ) OSTEOLOGICAL ( 3 0 )

OBJECT NAME

TOOTH BONE ( a n d t y p e )


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) PREHISTORIC (PR) MINERAL (0001) STONE (01)

OBJECT NAME DESCR1 DESCR2 DESCR3**

FIRE-CRACKED ROCK [wt. in grams]

GROUNDSTONE

CHIPPED STONE

PESTLE MORTAR (specify other)

PROJECTILE POINT(S)

BIFACE(S)

(specify point type)* INDETERMINATE INDETERMINATE

BIFACIAL IMPLEMENT .BLADE* ;

EDGE TOOL*

BASAL FRAGMENT

POSSIBLE (specify type)

BASAL FRAGMENT; TIP FRAGMENT; MIDSECTION

FRAGMENT; REWORKED POINT; SHAPE*

SHAPE* UNIFACE(S) EDGE TOOL*

(as one lot): CORE(S) - (specify ct.) [DESCRl] SHATTER/BLOCK - (ct.) [DESCR2] DECORTICATION FLAKE(S) - (ct.) [DESCR3] FLAKE(S) - (ct.) [DESCR4]

MATERIAL

FELSITE, QUARTZITE, QUARTZ, SAUGUS JASPER, CHERT, ARGILLITE, OTHER, UNKNOWN

ARCHEOLOGY PREHISTORIC MINERAL CERAMIC (0 2)

OBJECT NAME

BODY SHERD(S) RIM SHERD(S) BASAL SHERD(S)

DESCRl

(specify temper)

DESCR2

(specify surface decoration)

* Refer to MHC Artifact Classification System (1984:140-145); also see p.13 of this document.


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) PREHISTORIC (PR) ANIMAL (0003) SHELL/CORAL (20)

OBJECT NAME

specify object SPECIMEN (UNWORKED)

ARCHEOLOGY PREHISTORIC ANIMAL BONE/IVORY (21)

OBJECT NAME DESCR1

TOOTH specify object SPECIMEN (UNWORKED) (see Historic/Bone sheet)

ARCHEOLOGY PREHISTORIC ANIMAL ANTLER/HORN (22)

OBJECT NAME

specify object SPECIMEN (UNWORKED)


CLASSIFICATION

ARCHEOLOGY (A) PREHISTORIC (PR) VEGETAL (0002) WOOD (10)

OBJECT NAME MATERIAL

CHARCOAL CHARCOAL C-14 SAMPLES (specify other)

ARCHEOLOGY PREHISTORIC VEGETAL OTHER PLANT MATERIALS (14)

OBJECT NAME

FOOD REMAINS FOOD REMAINS, BURNED

ARCHEOLOGY HISTORIC or PREHISTORIC or UNKNOWN (UN) UNIDENTIFIED MATERIAL (0005) UNIDENTIFIED (40)

OBJECT NAME MATERIAL

UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT INDETERMINATE

5/88, p.13

HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL OBJECTS* UNIVALVES**

TABLEWARE KITCHENWARE FURNITURE AND HARDWARE LIGHTING FIXTURE(S) DECORATIVE OBJECT(S) TOILETRIES STATIONERY COINS/TOKENS/MEDALS PERSONAL OBJECT(S) TOY(S)

BUSYCON CANALICULATUM CREPIDULA FORNICATA NASSARIUS OBSOLETUS POLINICES DUPLICATUS UROSALPINX CINEREA OTHER GASTROPODS INDETERMINATE UNIVALVE

BIVALVES**

TOOLS AND HARDWARE***

OTHER BUILDERS' HARDWARE WINDOW HARDWARE DOOR HARDWARE ELECTRICAL HARDWARE PLUMBING HARDWARE LIGHTING/HEATING HARDWARE HAND TOOL(S) MACHINE PART(S) DOMESTIC ANIMAL GEAR TRANSPORTATION OBJECT(S) WEAPONRY/ACCOUTREMENTS

MERCENARIA MERCENARIA CRASSOSTREA VIRGINICA MYA ARENARIA ENSIS DIRECTUS ARGOPECTEN IRRADIANS SPISULA SOLIDISSIMA MYTILUS EDULIS MODIOLUS MODIOLUS OTHER MARINE BIVALVES INDETERMINATE BIVALVES

Appendix 5. ACMP Artifact Definitions

115

Introduction

The ACMP artifact categories were for the most part developed during previous ACMPs at other parks in the North Atlantic Region. The ACMP for the Adams Birthplaces retained the general artifact classes that were designed for the Great Island Tavern site collection from Cape Cod National Seashore (Synenki and Charles 1984), with some minor revisions made during later ACMPs (Towle and MacMahon 1986, 1987). During the ACMP for the Saugus Ironworks NHS, certain changes were made to accommodate the format of the NPS Automated National Catalog System (ANCS), and the classification of bottle glass was also revised. Some of the definitions that follow will be quoted verbatim from previous ACMP reports (Synenki and Charles 1983a: 14-30, 1983b:26-36, 1984:28-41; Towle and MacMahon 1987:132-154; MacMahon 1988), although specific citations will not be given.

The categories discussed below are organized as follows: first, historic vessel ceramics and vessel glass will be defined, and second, the remaining artifact categories will be discussed within general functional groupings. This differs from the order in which the artifact categories appear on the ACMP flow chart (Appendix 4). The flow chart is organized by material type in order to accommodate the classification system required by ANCS. This means that functional groups of artifacts that cannot be associated with a single material class are listed on multiple pages of the flow chart, (e.g., Bottle Closures, which could be ceramic, glass, metal, cork, etc.). In the definitions that follow, these functional categories will be discussed only once, within the context of a general functional group.

More complete definitions are provided for historic ceramics and other artifact categories that were deemed most useful for site analyses, particularly those categories that provide temporal information. Other categories are largely self-explanatory and are thus given only general summary definitions. In the case of general functional categories, specific examples of the artifact types inventoried in those categories may be found in Appendix 6. The Indeterminate categories will not be discussed, although they are a part of every material classification (e.g., Indeterminate Metal Object, Indeterminate Ceramic Object, etc.). Further discussion of the inventory form design may be found in the Methodology section of this report.

The Adams Birthplaces artifact collections contained a total of 39,205 items and 215.22 kg of weighed materials. Reference may be made to Appendix 7 for the overall artifact inventory.

117

Historic Vessel Ceramics

Historic ceramics are divided into three groups on the basis of paste: earthenware, porcelain, and stoneware. There are major ware-type categories within these groups, each of which also has subsidiary categories based upon temper, glaze, and decoration. The ceramics are also classified according to one of five attributes of form: body sherd, rim sherd, basal sherd, handle, or whole vessel. Fragments that contain both base and rim forms are classified as rims in order to enable minimum number of vessel counts. These attributes of form are used for the object name field in the ANCS program, while the ware type is defined in the first two description fields (Appendix 4). The presence of maker's marks is noted in the third description line of the catalog record.

Ceramic sherds and vessels used in the preparation, cooking, serving, and storing of food are recorded in the historic ceramics section of the inventory. Also included are ceramic flowerpots and toiletry items such as chamber pots. Other ceramic items are recorded in functional categories, such as ceramic dolls (Toys), porcelain buttons (Buttons), or bricks and other structural materials (Structural Material). These will be discussed under the functional classification section.

The specific ceramic ware categories were chosen to reflect attributes generally considered useful for analytical purposes, although finer breakdowns by attributes such as decorative motif or color were not included. The attributes used were often derived from and consistent with those detailed by historical archeologists (e.g., Noel Hume 1980; South 1978) and ceramic specialists (e.g., Godden 1975; Lewis 1969; Ramsay 1976; Watkins 1959, 1968).

Earthenware

Earthenware has a relatively soft, water-absorbent paste in comparison with stoneware and porcelain (Deetz 1977:47). Unrefined earthenwares, including redwares, tin enameled wares, and coarse buff-bodied wares, have a softer and more porous paste than the refined earthenwares that began to be developed in the mid-18th century. The harder pastes of the refined wares were due to the addition of calcinated flint to the clay (Miller 1980:1). They include Whieldon ware, creamware, pearlware, whiteware, and several later ware varieties such as yelloware and Rockingham. Earthenwares were commonly glazed and often decorated, particularly the refined earthenwares. Unrefined earthenwares, when they served a utilitarian rather than tableware function, were not as consistently glazed, especially redwares, which were often "plain," or unglazed.

Redware

A red earthenware paste is the only attribute used to define redware ceramics. Eight categories of redware are inventoried, including 17th- through 19th-century wares manufac-

118

tured in both local and foreign production centers. Redwares often compose the largest ceramic assemblage from 17th- and 18th-century historic sites in New England.

PLAIN REDWARE

This ware has an unglazed, coarse, red earthenware paste and was commonly used for utilitarian vessels. Plain redwares are common in ceramic assemblages from historic sites in New England.

LEAD GLAZED REDWARE, 1 & 2 SURFACES

Lead glazed redwares exhibit a coarse red earthenware paste and a clear lead glaze on the interior and/or exterior surface. If only one surface is glazed, usually it is the interior of the vessel. The clear lead glaze results in a color similar to but darker than the fired clay body, though variations in glaze composition and firing procedures can result in color variations. The predominant colors after firing are black and brown or red-brown, although orange, yellow, and green are also possible.

Most of these wares were probably produced by local potters. The ACMP inventory does not further separate them by glaze color or other attributes, although it should be noted that recent research has shown such breakdowns to be of some utility in redware analysis (Turnbaugh 1983, 1985). Undecorated lead glazed wares are often the most abundant type of redware from 17th- and 18th-century historic sites in New England.

SGRAFFITO

Three attributes define this ware: a red earthenware paste, a white slip that has been scratched or cut away to expose the red paste, and a clear lead glaze. The combination of paste, slip, and glaze produces a rich yellow surface color with light brown body ornamentation.

Sgraffito was produced during the 17th century and into the mid-18th century. It was exported primarily from the Devon potteries (Lewis 1969:24), although the decorative process seems to have been invented in Italy during the 15th century (Woodhouse 1974: 155). In contrast to most other redware varieties, sgraffito does not appear to have been imitated by Bay Colony potters (Turnbaugh 1985:222).

TRAILED SLIPWARE

This ware has three attributes: a coarse red earthenware paste; the presence of a thin, trailed white slip decoration; and a clear lead glaze. Godden suggests that slip-decorating represents "an early standard form of embellishing" on both American and English redware as early as ca. 1670 and as late as 1795 (1975:17). The dates for the many local American redwares and their variants, such as trailed slipware, have not been firmly established, however, and local trailed slipwares may also have been manufactured into the 19th century. Although typically not as abundant as plain lead glazed redwares, trailed slipwares are common components of historic site ceramic assemblages.

119

JACKFIELD

This ware was included in the redware category of the inventory as it was originally done in the earlier ACMPs. Jackfield bears no relationship to the redware types discussed above, however. It is identified by two attributes: a thin, highly vitrified, fine-grained reddish-purple or gray earthenware paste and a lustrous black, often metallic-like lead glaze.

Jackfield was named after the original product manufactured at the Jackfield Pottery in Shropshire by Maurice Thursfield ca. 1750, but the term "Jackfield" in the ACMP inventory does not refer to the pottery produced by this one potter. Indeed, similar wares were manufactured by Thomas Whieldon and other Staffordshire potters from ca. 1745 to 1790 (Noel Hume 1980:123; Godden 1975:18). Noel Hume suggests that Jackfield-type wares are common on American sites of the 1760s (1980:123).

ASTBURY

This ware is distinguished by a fine-grained, thin red earthenware paste; a glossy, clear lead glazed surface appearing ginger or light brown in hue; and often a white slip decoration. Sprig-molded designs are common. These wares were produced by John Astbury as well as a variety of other potters (Noel Hume 1980:122-123), including potters in the Stoke-on-Trent district of England (Lewis 1969:77) and at Newcastle-under-Lyme during the second quarter of the 18th century (Noel Hume 1980:123).

MISCELLANEOUS AND UNIDENTIFIED REDWARES

There are other ceramics with a redware paste that cannot be classified in the above categories. The most common such ware in collections inventoried by the ACMP is a plain redware that has been coated with a dark slip, usually on one surface, but not glazed. The ACMP identifies these as Slip-Coated on the second description line. There are also other redwares classified simply as Unidentified.

Tin Enameled Wares

Tin enameled wares exhibit the following attributes: a soft earthenware paste and a thick lead glaze containing a tin oxide (Barber 1906). Tin enameling was a widespread pottery manufacturing technique throughout Europe, and the resulting wares were referred to by various names depending upon the country of origin (e.g., delft, faience, maiolica or majolica). Noel Hume has succinctly summarized the history of the manufacturing technique:

It had been used in Spain and Italy from the fourteenth century onward and was there known as maiolica. The same term described the products of Italian craftsmen who moved to Antwerp in the sixteenth century and thence to England. In France similar tin enameled wares were known as faience, but in England the term delftware...became the generic term for the ware, just as it did in Holland (1980:106).

120

DELFT

This ware has a soft buff or light pink-colored paste, often so porous that it can be scratched easily with a fingernail. In cross section, delft sherds are relatively thick and the enamel appears to sit on the surface, rather than being tightly bonded to the paste. This enamel is often pitted and is easily flaked off the body. The overall appearance of a glazed delft surface is opaque, and often dull looking. In coloration, the white glaze typically has a slight blue hue, and is commonly decorated with dark blue handpainted designs in geometric, floral, or chinoiserie patterns, and to a lesser extent with polychrome designs.

In England, the technique of tin enameling began with immigrant potters from the Netherlands who began their production in about 1567 (Noel Hume 1980:105, 203; Lewis 1969:35; Solon 1906). The production of delft, said to be the major English ceramic development of the 17th century (Noel Hume 1980:105), continued in most countries of western Europe well into the 18th century when the production of white salt glazed stonewares and creamwares supplanted the tin enameled earthenware market.

Delft from England rather than Holland most likely predominates in ceramic assemblages from historic sites in New England because of trade restrictions from the late 17th to mid-18th centuries (Noel Hume 1980:107).

ROUEN/FAIENCE

Faience is the French equivalent of other European tin enameled wares. Rouen was a major center of faience production. It is distinguished from delft by its salmon-white tin enameled interior. On some vessels the white tin enameling is present on the exterior lip or rim. Noel Hume suggests that, in general, faience was not shipped to the colonies until after the American Revolution because of British embargoes (1960; 1980:141). It seems to have reached the colonies prior to this in at least some cases, however, since faience was recovered in excavations at Fort Michilimackinac (Miller and Stone 1970).

MISCELLANEOUS AND UNIDENTIFIED TIN ENAMELED

There are other types of tin enameled wares that sometimes appear on early historic sites in New England (e.g., hispanic, Portuguese, and Italian majolicas). These would be identified as such when possible. The Unidentified category is used primarily for sherds with a tin enameled ware paste, but which have lost the easily flaked glaze from both surfaces and cannot be further identified.

Coarse Buff-Bodied Earthenware

The distinguishing characteristic of these wares is a coarse, buff-colored unrefined earthenware paste.

COMBED WARE

Three attributes define this ware: a relatively hard, coarse, buff:to-pink earthenware paste; a slip decoration consisting of a white slip with repetitive thin, wavy brown lines on

121

the surface; and a smooth, often glossy yellow surface color due to the application of a lead glaze. Undecorated fragments of combed and/or dotted sherds were also recorded in this category.

The technique of combing involves drawing a thin wire, horn, leather comb, or similar object with brown slip on it over the vessel's surface (Woodhouse 1974:157; Godden 1975:17). South (1978:72) and Noel Hume (1980:135) suggest that combed and dotted wares were produced in England initially at Staffordshire and then at Bristol and Wrotham, ca. 1670-1795.

DOTTED WARE

Dotted wares exhibit the same attributes as combed wares except for the slip decoration. Rather than fine combed lines, the decoration consists of circular, often raised brown dots on the vessel's surface.

MOTTLED WARE

The attributes of mottled ware are: a buff-to-brown earthenware paste and a mottled brown lead glaze with lustrous streaks due to the addition of manganese. This is an early 18th-century Staffordshire ware, and was commonly used in the production of mugs.

UNIDENTIFIED COARSE BUFF-BODIED WARES

Sherds inventoried under this category are those that exhibit coarse buff-colored earthenware pastes, but cannot be identified as any of the wares listed above.

Creamware

This ware type is identified by two primary attributes: a thin, hard, fine-grained cream-to-white earthenware paste; and a clear surface glaze to which copper was added, resulting in a pale yellow to yellow-green tint. This tint is most noticeable in the folds and crevices of the vessel where the glaze pools, particularly along the edges of footrings.

The development of creamware was the result of many individuals' work in several districts of England (Solon 1906:199-299). The clay body was refined by the addition of ground flints, which allowed the production of thinner, harder vessels. "Clouded" or "Whieldon" wares (see Whieldon Ware, below) were among the first wares of this type to be manufactured, ca. 1750. Wedgwood perfected a plain cream-colored ware in Burslem by 1762 (Noel Hume 1980:123-124), although much English creamware is also attributed to producers in Leeds, Liverpool, and Staffordshire (Austin 1978:39; see also Moore 1909; Towner 1965).

In general, most creamware assemblages on American sites postdate 1770 (Miller and Stone 1970:42-44), and production continued in England until ca. 1820 (Towner 1957; Noel Hume 1980; South 1978) although its popularity waned significantly with the introduction of

122

pearlware (Miller 1980:15) (see below). The perfection and subsequent popularity of creamware is viewed as one of the most important ceramic developments of the 18th century (Noel Hume 1980:123) since it shaped the course of all future earthenware production. It also displaced "tin-glazed ware, white salt glazed stoneware, and to some extent even oriental porcelain...from the market" (Miller 1980:1). Creamware, along with the subsequent development of pearlware (see below), allowed the British to capture "the world ceramic tableware trade by the 1790s" (Miller 1980:1).

PLAIN CREAMWARE

This category is used to record undecorated creamware sherds, which are often the most common form of creamware found on New England historic sites.

SHELL-EDGED CREAMWARE

Shell-edging was a decorative motif that was infrequently used on creamware but that later became quite common on pearlware and whiteware vessels (Noel Hume 1980:126). It consisted of handpainted brushwork along the interior rim of the vessel, which was "drawn inward to create a feathery edge" (Noel Hume 1980:131).

OTHER EDGE DECORATED CREAMWARE

A variety of edge decorations was used on creamware vessels, typically consisting of unpainted molded designs. These included shaped rims such as the Queen's and Royal patterns, and raised relief designs such as the feather-edge, spear head, and bead and reel designs (Noel Hume 1980:116, 126-127). The names of these patterns are identified whenever possible in the first description line of the catalog record.

HANDPAINTED CREAMWARE

This category contains sherds that were decorated with either monochrome or polychrome handpainted designs. Common handpainted decorations included floral and chinoi-serie patterns done in an underglaze blue. The handpainted decorations were popular, and continued to be so in the later production of pearlware (Noel Hume 1980:129).

ANNULAR CREAMWARE

These wares exhibit underglaze decorations characterized by bands of color or designs. Annular wares were most popular between 1795 and 1815 (Noel Hume 1980:131), and are most frequently found on pearlware vessels. The decorative motifs include simple annular designs, or bands of color; mocha designs, which are fern-like ornamentations usually bounded with bands of color; and fingerpainted designs with multicolored cloud-like swirling lines. The mocha and fingerpainted designs became popular after 1800 and remained so for approximately the next 20 years (Van Rensselaer 1966; South 1978:72; Noel Hume 1980: 131-132).

123

TRANSFER-PRINTED CREAMWARE

Transfer printing is an underglaze decorative process that was perfected on mass-produced pottery by Sadler and Green of Liverpool ca. 1756 (Noel Hume 1980:128-129). While transfer prints were used on creamware (commonly in black), they became much more popular on pearlware toward the end of the century and in the early 19th century (Noel Hume 1980:129; Miller 1980:4, 1984b:43-44).

SPONGE-DECORATED CREAMWARE

This decorative technique involved the application of colored glaze to the surface of the vessel with a sponge or sponge-like material. The resulting appearance was a surface with stippled or clouded-like coloration. Typically this technique was used on later refined wares, particularly whitewares. Boger notes that a number of Staffordshire potteries produced sponge-decorated wares for the American market, ca. 1820-1850 (Boger 1971: 323).

MISCELLANEOUS AND UNIDENTIFIED CREAMWARE

There are other miscellaneous types of creamware decoration that do not fit into the above categories. These are described when possible, or listed as simply unidentified. Such decoration could include molded designs on parts of the vessel other than the rim, and a combination of two or more of the above techniques (e.g., transfer printing with hand-painting). These sherds are lumped as Unidentified for the purpose of inventory display in the ACMP reports.

Pearlware

Pearlware exhibits two major attributes: a thin, hard, fine-grained white earthenware paste and a clear surface glaze to which cobalt was added, resulting in an overall blue tint. Like creamware, this coloration is most noticeable in the folds and crevices of vessels, particularly around footrings where the bluish glaze often pools.

Pearlware has been called "one of the landmarks of English earthenwares" (Noel Hume 1978a:42). It evolved out of creamware (Miller 1980:2), and although it was available in England as early as 1765, it seems to have entered the American ceramic market in the 1780s, after the disruption in trade caused by the American Revolution (Noel Hume 1978a: 46).

Pearlware developed as the demand for creamware waned (Miller 1980:2). Its bluish glaze and typically blue surface decorations were an attempt to imitate porcelain. With pearlware came the transition in marketing emphasis from ware type to decoration (Miller 1980:2, 15-16). Many of the decorative techniques were the same as those developed on creamware. Unlike creamware, pearlware was rarely undecorated (Miller 1980:16). This emphasis on decoration continued with the gradual development of whiteware, and the distinction between the two ware types was not as significant a factor for the market as were the decorative motifs. Thus the wares of the early 19th century (ca. 1820+) are less easily

124

distinguished by ware type (Miller 1980:16-18). The decorative categories represented are classified in the same way as those used for creamware.

PLAIN PEARLWARE

Although plain pearlware was not a typical market item (Miller 1980:16), it is commonly found on archeological sites, often reflecting decorated vessels that were broken into sherds that may or may not retain a portion of the decoration.

SHELL-EDGED PEARLWARE

The shell-edged rim design has been called the most popular of all pearlware borders (Noel Hume 1978a:44). As with creamware, it consisted of a painted border that was drawn inward with brushstrokes to give a feathery appearance. At times, the vessel rim itself was also molded or embossed with feathery designs, or others such as fish scales or garlands, to accentuate this effect. Early examples (ca. 1780-1795) were generally well painted, but after ca. 1800 it was common to have a "debased" version of the motif, often nothing more than a painted stripe along the rim of the vessel (Noel Hume 1980:131). Shell-edging was done in both blue and green.

OTHER EDGE DECORATED PEARLWARE

Pearlware sherds with rim decoration other than shell-edging are classified either as "other edge-decorated," or as a more specific descriptive type, most commonly some form of molded rim (e.g., beaded edge). The nomenclature for various molded rims is typically adapted from that defined by Noel Hume (1980:116, 126-127).

HANDPAINTED PEARLWARE

Underglaze handpainted designs were common on pearlware vessels and were generally floral, chinoiserie, or geometric patterns. Blue was the most common color, but polychrome designs were also made after ca. 1795, typically in brown, yellow, and green floral or geometric designs (Miller 1984b:43; Noel Hume 1980:129).

ANNULAR PEARLWARE

Annular decorations were also popular on pearlware vessels, peaking in popularity between ca. 1795 and 1815 (Noel Hume 1980:131-132). The decorative motifs are described above under creamware.

TRANSFER-PRINTED PEARLWARE

Underglaze transfer printing became a common mode of decoration by the 1790s, and continued to be very popular until the mid-19th century (Miller 1980:4, 1984b:44). Blue was the most common color used, although other monochrome colors and polychrome designs were also available. Designs included oriental motifs (particularly the blue willow design), floral patterns, European and idealistic scenes, and geometric designs.

125

SPONGE-DECORATED PEARLWARE

This decorative technique has been described above under Creamware, and was more often applied to white wares.

MISCELLANEOUS AND UNIDENTIFIED PEARLWARE

There are other, less common decorative techniques that have not been enumerated above. Examples could include molding and multiple decorative techniques, and would be identified on the first description line of the catalog record as either a descriptive type or as Unidentified.

Whiteware

Two major attributes characterize whiteware: a very hard, fine-grained paste, with a vessel body that is usually fairly thin but can also be rather substantial; and a clear, glossy surface glaze. Whiteware emerged from the production of pearlware, and was first made simply by reducing the amount of cobalt in the glaze. The gradual whitening of the glaze reflected the growing popularity of whiter porcelains during the first decades of the 19th century (Miller 1980:17). These wares are thus sometimes difficult to distinguish from late pearlwares, and in fact the producers made no real distinction as they focused instead on the decorative techniques (Miller 1980:17). The emergence of whiteware as the predominant ware type by ca. 1820 (Noel Hume 1980:130), however, serves as a useful, though certainly not absolute, chronological marker. By ca. 1840 there was again a demand for wares with a bluish or "pearl" tint, and the glazes of some whitewares of this period reflect this change (Miller 1980:17-18). Whiteware continues to be manufactured, and although it was first produced in England, it was subsequently produced in the United States as well.

The ACMP whiteware category includes all "white" wares of the period, although several varieties existed (e.g., ironstone, white granite, semiporcelain). The subcategories identified are based upon the same decorative techniques discussed above for creamware and pearlware. The whiteware assemblage is often the largest ceramic assemblage from 19th-century historic sites in New England.

Whieldon Ware

This ware exhibits the following attributes: a cream-colored earthenware paste, essentially a creamware paste; a surface decoration consisting of patches or "clouds" of purple, blue, brown, green, and/or yellow; and a clear glaze.

The production of Whieldon ware, or "clouded" ware, seems to have arisen in the 1740s from the early ventures of Thomas Astbury and Thomas Whieldon who refined a clay body by the addition of ground flints (Noel Hume 1980:123; Woodhouse 1974:166). After its inception, this ware was produced by many other potters and remained popular through the 1770s (Lewis 1969:78; Woodhouse 1974:167). Whieldon ware was the predecessor of creamware, which as noted above had a significant influence upon the world ceramic market.

126

Rockingham/Bennington

There are three major attributes that characterize this ware: a highly vitrified, buff-colored earthenware paste; a glossy brown, often mottled exterior glaze; and a clear yellow interior glaze. Rockingham was first manufactured during the late 18th century in Swinton, England, on the property of the Marquis of Rockingham. The name is also used, as is Bennington (after the potteries of Bennington, Vermont), for a very similar 19th-century ware that was produced in great quantities in the United States after ca. 1840 in almost every sizeable pottery (Boger 1971:287-288; Ramsay 1976). This American variety was most popular between ca. 1840 and 1900, and is a common component of ceramic assemblages from sites of that period.

Yelloware

The two primary attributes of yelloware are: a highly fired, relatively thick, buff-colored earthenware paste and a transparent glaze that gives the vessel an overall mustard color. Ramsay (1976) and Ketchum (1978) indicate that yelloware is a utilitarian earthenware that was manufactured in the United States from the 1830s to the 1930s, and in England from the 1840s to the 1900s. Food preparation vessels (e.g., mixing bowls) are the most frequently found vessel type in this category.

Unidentified Earthenware

This category is used to record earthenwares that are different from the above categories or are otherwise unidentifiable, particularly sherds that have lost their glaze or have been burned. Sometimes sherds that exhibit an Albany-like slip on the interior but have an earthenware paste are included in this category, even though they may actually be low-fired domestic stoneware.

Porcelain

Two attributes characterize porcelain: an extremely vitreous, often translucent white paste and a white glossy surface glaze. Numerous decorative techniques were employed, several of which are enumerated on the ACMP flow chart (Appendix 4), including: Under-glaze Handpainted Monochrome, Underglaze Handpainted Polychrome, Overglaze Hand-painted Monochrome, Overglaze Handpainted Polychrome, Gilted, Transfer Printed, Molded, and Sprig-Molded. Monochrome designs were typically executed in blue, and polychrome designs most commonly added red. These descriptive types were not further analyzed as to point of origin or time period. Both Oriental and English porcelain were available in the American marketplace during, as well as after, the colonial period.

It is generally held that porcelain tablewares were relatively expensive, high-status wares in the 17th and early 18th centuries (Noel Hume 1980:257; Miller 1984a:2). They subsequently became more popular and affordable, and the quality of the wares generally

127

decreased as they were mass-produced for the foreign trade (Noel Hume 1980:257-265; Gordon 1975:162). In the late 18th century, the porcelain market was affected by the strong competition of the newly developed refined earthenwares (e.g., creamware and pearlware) (Miller 1984a:2). Many of the porcelains from historic sites can be later (19th and 20th centuries) domestic wares, as opposed to imported Oriental or European wares from the 17th or 18th centuries. The ACMP does not distinguish between these wares.

Stoneware

Stonewares are fired at high temperatures and have a very hard, vitreous, non-absorbent paste. The color and surface texture of stoneware vessels are variable, depending largely on clay composition, kiln firing conditions, and the kinds and amounts of glaze applied to the surface (Stewart and Cosentino 1977:21).

Nottingham

This ware is identified by two primary attributes: a thin, dense, hard, gray stoneware paste and a smooth, lustrous orange-to-brown salt glazed surface. This specific type of English brown stoneware was developed by James Morley of Nottingham, England, by 1684 (Lewis 1969:55; Noel Hume 1980:114), and production continued throughout the 18th century. Common vessel forms include mugs, bowls, and pitchers, which are often decorated with incised lines and inscriptions. Similar wares were also produced at other potteries, but those from Nottingham are identifiable by a thin white slip that appears between the clay body and the glaze (Noel Hume 1980:114).

Bellarmine/Frechen

This category refers to Rhenish stoneware vessels, including Bellarmine bottles, that were produced primarily in the Frechen area around the first quarter of the 18th century. They exhibit a thick gray stoneware paste and a light-to-golden brown, mottled salt glazed exterior surface. Typically these vessels are jars or bottles that often have ornamental relief designs, most often a bearded human face (Noel Hume 1980:55-57).

Westerwald/Raeren

These wares have two primary attributes: a gray stoneware paste and an elaborate stamped, incised, and/or sprig-molded surface decoration colored with a cobalt blue and/or manganese purple glaze. These gray and blue stoneware vessels were produced in the Raeren district beginning ca. 1590 and were joined by similar wares from the Westerwald district later in the 17th century. They continued to be made throughout the 18th century, although their popularity waned in England and America in the 1760s (Noel Hume 1980: 279-281). Cobalt blue floral and geometric patterns were most popular.

White Salt Glazed Stoneware

These stonewares exhibit a thin fine-grained white stoneware paste and a white salt glazed surface. The development of this ware type ca. 1720 marked perhaps "the most

128

important stoneware development" (Noel Hume 1980:114; see also 1978b:27), for it allowed the production of strong, fine, white tablewares that were much superior to wooden and earthenware tablewares. These wares enjoyed tremendous popularity, which waned toward the end of the 18th century with the introduction of refined earthenwares such as creamware (Mountford 1973:214).

The ACMP inventory divides white salt glazed wares into four categories: Plain, Molded, Scratch Blue, and Other. Plates in particular were frequently molded with elaborate rim decorations, many of which were carried through later in refined earthenware production. These patterns are identified whenever possible. Scratch blue designs consisted of incised designs that were painted with cobalt blue, and were produced during the second half of the 18th century (South 1978:72; Noel Hume 1980:117-118).

Drybody Stoneware

These stonewares are characterized by their thin, fine-grained paste and their lack of glaze. Rosso Antico and Black Basalte were two well-known drybodied wares, which were named after Josiah Wedgwood's production although they were also produced at other potteries. The former was made throughout the 18th century and the latter during the second half of the 18th century. These wares were most often used for teawares and were commonly decorated with elaborate relief-molded designs (Noel Hume 1980:120-123).

Domestic Stoneware

Three attributes were used to define this ware: a stoneware paste, a salt glazed exterior vessel surface, and an interior Albany-type slip. Albany-type slip refers to an iron oxide clay wash that was used on a vessel's interior surface to seal the clay body. It was originally developed in Albany, New York, but similar varieties were subsequently mined and used elsewhere in the United States (Greer 1981:194). It varies in color from medium brown to black, but most often appears as a dark metallic brown. This color variability is due to differences in clay sources or techniques of applying the slip before or after firing (Webster 1971:40). These are generally 19th-century wares, and both Webster (1971:40) and Watkins (1968:11) indicate that after ca. 1800 Albany-type slip appeared often on American stonewares and nearly always on New England stonewares. These wares are not further broken down by the ACMP, although if a maker's mark or design is present, they are recorded on the forms and identified where possible.

Unidentified Stoneware

These sherds exhibit a stoneware paste and a glazed or unglazed exterior, but lack an Albany-type slip on the interior and cannot otherwise be identified in the above categories. These sherds may be domestic stonewares produced without an Albany-type slip, or unidentified imported stonewares.

129

Bottle and Drinking Vessel Glass

The ACMP classified bottle glass and drinking vessel glass according to manufacturing technique. These categories were developed from the system used by the Parks Canada Historic Parks and Sites Branch, as defined in their excellent publication entitled The Parks Canada Glass Glossary (Jones and Sullivan 1985; see also Miller and Sullivan 1981). The ACMP used these categories for the first time for the Saugus Ironworks NHS collection. The classification system used during previous ACMPs was based upon older research information and was not an adequate system for identifying chronological attributes. The new system uses hierarchical categories, as shown on the ACMP flow chart (Appendix 4). The first breakdown is based upon sherd morphology (body, neck, base, base/stem, handle, rim, lid/cover, or whole vessel), which is recorded in the object name field on the catalog record along with an identifier as to whether the object is from a bottle, drinking vessel, or indeterminate vessel (of indeterminate function).

The first three description lines on the catalog record are used for recording technological attributes. These categories, as defined by Jones and Sullivan (1985), provide chronological information that is useful for archeological analysis. The first breakdown identifies the object as Freeblown, Molded, or Indeterminate. Molded objects are further described as Contact Molded, Pattern Molded, Press Molded, Optic Molded, or Machine Made Manufacture. Whenever possible, the contact molded items are further classified as to mold type: Dip Mold; 2-Piece Mold; 2, 3, or 4-Piece Mold with Separate Base; Shoulder-Height Multi-Piece Mold; Ricketts Mold; Turn/Paste Mold; or Molded Neck with Hand-Finished Lip. If the item exhibits embossing or a maker's mark, these are noted on the fourth and fifth description lines of the catalog record.

Because of the small size of most glass sherds from archeological sites, it is often impossible to identify precise technological attributes such as the mold types represented by contact molded sherds. Most frequently the bottle glass is identifiable only to the first level of classification, as either freeblown, molded, or indeterminate. The definitions for the manufacturing technique categories follow, as abstracted from The Parks Canada Glass Glossary (Jones and Sullivan 1985) with permission of the authors (Olive Jones, personal communication 1988). Researchers may refer to that publication for more detailed definitions.

Freeblown

Freeblown vessels are made without the assistance of molds, and are often somewhat irregular in shape and exhibit a glossy surface. Glass blowing technology has been used for centuries and is still used today, and thus specific dates of manufacture cannot usually be determined (Jones and Sullivan 1985:22). Generally, most glass vessels were freeblown until about the mid-18th century when molds began to be used with increasing frequency for the

130

production of certain vessel types, particularly bottles. Thus, in order to use freeblown glass for chronological analysis, it is most useful to regard it in the context of the total glass assemblage (e.g., compared to the relative percentages of molded glass vessels).

Molded/Contact Molded

This category includes all glass vessels that were formed, at least partially, in a mold known as a contact mold. The glass can be blown by mouth or by machine into the mold. The technique of molding glass was known during Roman times, and was revitalized by Venetian glassmakers in the 17th century for molding stemware. It does not appear to have been regularly used for glass containers until the 18th century, with the exception of 17th-century square case bottles (Jones and Sullivan 1985:22-24). The fact that a vessel was molded cannot therefore be used as a specific chronological marker, although in a general sense molded bottles did not become common until after the mid-18th century. There are a number of mold types that were commonly used and that can be more chronologically diagnostic. Those identified by the ACMP will be discussed below.

Sherds from contact molded vessels can be best recognized if they have part of a mold seam or an embossed surface. Molded vessels are also more regular than freeblown vessels, and the surface of the glass often exhibits a fine stippling caused by contact with the mold. In many cases it is possible to identify a sherd as molded, but specific mold types cannot be identified. In these cases, the ACMP classifies the sherd as Molded/Contact Molded on the first two description lines of the catalog record.

Dip Mold

The dip mold was a one-piece mold used to form the body of a bottle, with the shoulder and neck freeblown. Such bottles do not exhibit mold seams, although the glass may bulge at the intersection of the mold and the freeblown shoulder. The bottle must have straight vertical sides or be slightly tapered toward the base to have allowed for removal from the mold. The surface of the molded body should be textured, unless the bottle was worked after removal from the mold, and the freeblown shoulders and neck should be smooth and glossy. The body should not be embossed, with the possible exception of ribbing, although there may be embossing on the base. The dates for the use of the dip mold are not precise, ranging from before the 18th century to at least the late 19th century. Dip molds were probably introduced in the production of dark green English wine bottles in the 1730s (Jones and Sullivan 1985:25-26).

Two-Piece Mold

This hinged mold was used to form the base, body, shoulder, and neck of a bottle, while the finish was then hand-tooled. Bottles formed in a two-piece mold should exhibit mold seams on opposite sides of the bottle, beginning just below the finish and continuing across the base. Embossing on the body may be present. This mold type was often used for

131

flat-sided bottles, in which case the mold seams can be concealed on opposite corners. Evidence indicates that the two-piece mold was used for container production from ca. 1750 to ca. 1880, at which point it was gradually replaced by the two-piece mold with separate base part. The dating of this technique for the manufacture of drinking vessels is somewhat more complex. It was used to make the stem portion of stemware as early as the late 16th century, and was later adapted for the production of some tumblers (Jones and Sullivan 1985:26-28).

Two, Three, or Four-Piece Mold with Separate Base

These multi-piece molds consist of hinged vertical mold sections with a separate post or cup base mold. Usually the finish is shaped by hand, although it may also be formed in the mold. The most common of these molds is the two-piece, which became the most widely used mold type for containers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The three and four-piece molds were less commonly used, usually for decorative containers. The mold seams on these bottles extend from the finish to the edge of the base. The base mold also leaves seams around its periphery as well as on the base itself according to the mold type (cup or post mold). The common two-piece mold with separate base part can be dated to roughly post-1850, and it was generally replaced by machine manufacturing, which began in the 1920s (Jones and Sullivan 1985:28-29). Such multi-piece molds were used earlier in the production of highly decorated tableware, which can .be dated to the first half of the 19th century.

Shoulder-Height Multi-Piece Mold

This type of mold is similar to a dip mold in that the shoulder, neck, and finish of the bottle were freeblown. The multi-piece mold allowed for a variety of body shapes. These bottles are not common, and no further dating information is available (Jones and Sullivan 1985:29).

Ricketts (Ricketts-type) Mold

This was a three-piece mold consisting of a dip mold for the body of the bottle and two hinged segments for the shoulder or shoulder/neck. The finish is hand-done, often by using a finishing tool. These bottles have a horizontal mold seam around the bottle at the interface of the body and shoulder, and two vertical mold seams on the shoulder and possibly part of the neck. The body may be slightly tapered toward the base, and embossing may appear on the base or the shoulder. The Ricketts mold was patented in 1821 and for roughly 20 years was used primarily in the production of dark green liquor bottles. Similar versions of the mold were in use by the mid-19th century for the manufacture of round pharmaceutical or toiletry bottles. By the late 19th century this mold type was rarely used for liquor bottles, although it continued to be used for pharmaceutical and toiletry bottles (Jones and Sullivan 1985:29-30).

132

Turn- or Paste-Mold (Turn/Paste Mold)

These molds have a paste on the interior that is wetted before the glass is blown into the mold. This creates a cushion of steam between the glass and the mold which allows the bottle to be turned, eliminating mold seams. These bottles are vertically symmetrical, with no mold seams or embossing except possibly near or on the base. The surface of the glass is highly polished, and sometimes exhibits horizontal lines created during the turning process. The original use of this technique has not been dated, but was most commonly in use for commercial containers, particularly wine and liquor bottles, from about the 1870s to 1920s (Jones and Sullivan 1985:30-31). This was also a popular technique for the manufacture of tumblers during the 19th and 20th centuries.

Molded Neck with Hand-Finished Lip

This category is used by the ACMP when the specific mold type cannot be determined, but the lip is hand-finished, indicating that the bottle was not machine-made. In this case, the definite lack of diagnostic attributes for machine-made bottles was considered to be important for chronological analysis.

Machine-Made Manufacture

These vessels were created entirely within contact molds, using air supplied by a machine. The molding process generally begins with a ring mold for the formation of the finish, followed by a parison mold for the initial formation of the vessel body, and a full-sized mold for the final shaping of the vessel and the possible addition of embossing. This combination of molds imparts a variety of mold seams that are diagnostic of the machine-made process, although all are not necessarily present. These include horizontal seams on the finish and at the base of the finish; vertical seams up the body and over the finish; possible "ghost seams" left by the parison mold, which wander up the side of the bottle in proximity to the final vertical seams and are unique to machine-made manufacture; basal cup or post seams similar to other multi-piece molds; and basal "Owens scars," which are "feathery" roundish scars caused by shearing the glass, and are also unique to the machine-made process, dating to post-1904 (Jones and Sullivan 1985:35-37).

The production of machine-made containers began in the 1880s, but was not widespread until the 20th century. The introduction of Owens's fully automatic machine (ca. 1903), combined with subsequent technological innovations and promotion of the new technology, led to the widespread use of the machine-made process. By the 1920s, other forms of bottle production were quickly becoming obsolete (Jones and Sullivan 1985:38-39).

Pattern Molded

This technique has been used for the production of decorative glassware from Roman times to the present. The glass is blown into a part-sized mold with a simple repetitive design, and is then removed from the mold and freeblown to its final form. The vessel thus

133

exhibits attributes of both molded and freeblown vessels. The molded designs are often diffuse in the thinner portions of the vessels, and the interior glass surface has the same contour as the exterior. The surface may be glossy as in freeblown vessels, and the form may be rather irregular (Jones and Sullivan 1985:31-32).

Press Molded

Vessels made by press molding are formed in a mold of any number of parts, with the glass pushed into the mold by a plunger that creates the interior surface of the vessel. The vessel can then be removed from the mold and finished in various ways (e.g., addition of a neck and lip), although often the finished product is taken directly from the mold. The interior surface is typically smooth from the plunger and does not need to be related to the exterior surface shape or design. The exterior surface can be highly decorated, and should exhibit signs of molding, such as mold seams and possibly a stippled surface, although fire polishing can eliminate some of these characteristics. It can be distinguished from cut glass by the more rounded edges of the designs and the other characteristics of molded glass. This technique was not usually used for making commercial containers, and was most often employed in the production of tableware and display vessels such as ink or cosmetic bottles. Although the technique was developed as early as the late 17th century, it was not used to produce hollowware vessels until the 19th century. This change occurred in the United States in the 1820s, and by the 1830s such vessels were mass produced in at least New England and Pennsylvania. Press molded vessels are common on mid 19th- to 20th-century sites (Jones and Sullivan 1985:33-35).

Optic Molded

This technique is used primarily for the production of tableware. It is a combination of pattern and contact molding, and involves two molds. The glass is first blown into a pattern mold, then extracted and blown into a contact mold. The result is a vessel that retains the original pattern on the interior, and the final mold pattern, which is often simply smooth, on the exterior. The exterior will also exhibit the common characteristics of molding, such as mold seams and a textured surface. Optic molding dates back to at least the 18th century and is still used today.

134

Functional Artifact Categories

The ANCS requires that archeological materials be cataloged according to material, as indicated on the ACMP flow chart (Appendix 4). Many of the categories used for the object name and description fields are functional rather than material-based, however, and are more easily discussed by functional headings than by material groupings. The following discussion is therefore organized by functional groups, some of which are actually ACMP classification categories, while others are simply general topical groups that enable an overall discussion of a variety of categories.

Tobacco Pipes

Historic ball clay tobacco pipe bowls and stems are recorded as Tobacco Pipes in the object name field of the catalog record, and as either Stems or Bowls in the first description line. Stems are classified by bore diameter, which is measured using the shank end of drill bits ranging from 4/64 to 9/64 of an inch in diameter. These measurements are taken to facilitate chronological analysis using the Harrington-Binford technique (Harrington 1978; Binford 1978). When the diameter of pipe stems cannot be determined, they are recorded as Indeterminate Bore Diameter. Pipe bowls and bowls with stems attached are recorded in the bowl category. The presence of molded decorations and maker's marks is noted in the second and third description lines of the catalog record.

Bottle Closures

Bottle closures (or stoppers) are classified by material type, and are generally not further identified. Notations such as "crown cap" may be added in the first description line.

Apparel-Related Objects

ACMP categories that may be grouped under this general heading include clothing, footwear, buttons, buckles, and other apparel fasteners. These categories are largely self-explanatory. The buttons are classified as to manufacturing technique, including the following: Stamped; 1 (or 2)-Piece Cast; 2, 3, or 4-Piece Stamped; and Molded. All of the apparel-related categories are cataloged by material type (e.g., metal, ceramic, glass, leather, fiber, etc.).

Household and Personal Objects

A variety of ACMP categories can be discussed under this general heading. Some of these categories are for objects that have pragmatic or decorative household functions, and others are for personal possessions associated with grooming, writing, procurement of goods, ornamentation, and play. These categories are largely self-explanatory: Tableware, Kitchenware, Furniture and Hardware, Lighting Fixtures, Decorative Objects, Toiletries,

135

Stationery, Coins/Tokens/Medals, Personal Objects, and Toys. Each of these categories is used in the object name field of the catalog record, with more specific information provided in the description fields. These objects are cataloged by material type.

Many miscellaneous items are recorded in these functional categories, and confusion may arise as to which category an item would be included under. For example, how would a pair of scissors be classified? Appendix 6 provides a listing of how various household and personal objects have been classified. The following listing may also help to clarify some of the categories:

1) Tableware includes objects used in the serving and consumption of food (e.g., cutlery). 2) Kitchenware refers to objects used in the preparation, cooking, and storage of food (e.g., pots and pans, colanders, tin cans, and stove parts).

Architectural-Related Materials

Several ACMP categories may be best described as architectural-related, as they include construction hardware and building materials. The specific categories, which appear in the object name field of the catalog record, include Window Glass, Nails, Screws, Staples, Bolts, Wood Fasteners, and Structural Material. Each group is subdivided into additional categories, which are largely self-explanatory, though several merit further discussion.

Window Glass

The window glass category is divided into two manufacturing techniques: Crown/ Cylinder, and Plate. An Indeterminate category was also added for less identifiable fragments. Crown/cylinder glass is identified by bubble patterns and other markings in the glass indicating that either a cylinder of glass had been blown and then cut and laid flat, or that a crown of glass had been blown and laid flat leaving a circular pattern of bubbles and a "bull's-eye" in the center where the pontil was removed. This category is useful for identifying glass assemblages that predated plate glass.

Nails

Nails are also classified by manufacturing technique, in order to be used for dating purposes. The information used to identify the various nail types was derived from Nelson (1968) and from discussions with Blaine Cliver, former Chief of the NPS North Atlantic Historic Preservation Center (Synenki and Charles 1983b:34).

Hand wrought nails, the first in the chronological sequence, are characterized by a nail shank that tapers on all four sides to a point, a faceted head, and a grain in the iron that runs the length of the shank. Hand wrought nails are also often bent or twisted.

Machine cut nails were stamped out of rolled iron bars. Their production began ca. 1790, and after several decades they had virtually replaced hand wrought nails on the market

136

(Nelson 1968:3). The early machine cut nails were characterized by a shaft that was more rectangular than hand wrought nails, burrs on diagonal sides of the nail resulting from the method of cutting the iron bar, iron grain that ran across the shank, a somewhat rounded point, and, at times, heads that were hand wrought and applied. After several decades, ca. 1840, the technology was modified, and these later cut nails can sometimes be distinguished from the early cut nails. The late cut variety were characterized by the same rectangular shaft shape, but also exhibited burrs on the common side of the rolled edge, grain that ran the length of the nail, a sheared point, and no hand wrought head.

The manufacture of wire nails from round steel wire began ca. 1850, but it was several decades before they became commonly used. By the late 1880s, wire nails were quickly superseding cut nails on the market (Nelson 1968:7).

It is often difficult to identify some of the above characteristics when examining archeologically recovered nails. In particular, separating early and late cut nails is often impossible to do, and the indeterminate cut nail category is often used. Prior to the addition of this category in 1985, nails that were identified by the ACMP as cut but not as early or late were placed in the late cut category to avoid biasing the dating of an assemblage as earlier than it might actually be. Therefore, the late cut category contains a large number of cut nails that were actually indeterminate cut nails. After this date, the indeterminate machine cut category was used.

Screws

Screws are also sorted by hand wrought or machine cut technology, or cataloged as Indeterminate.

Staples, Bolts, and Wood Fasteners

These categories include items other than nails or screws used as fasteners in building construction.

Structural Material

Structural Material includes categories such as brick, mortar, stone, and other materials used in buildings or associated structural components (e.g., stoneware sewer pipes). Structural Material appears in the object name field on the ANCS catalog record, and in the case of brick and mortar/plaster, the material field accommodates the only additional description (Brick or Mortar/Plaster). Both brick and mortar/plaster were weighed rather than counted.

Tools and Hardware

This is not an actual classification category, but rather a grouping of several functional categories. These are largely self-explanatory, and include Window Hardware, Door

137

Hardware, Electrical Hardware, Plumbing Hardware, Lighting/Heating Hardware, Hand Tools, Machine Parts, Domestic Animal Gear (e.g., horse shoes and harnessing equipment), Transportation Objects (e.g., portions of cars, bicycles, and carriages), and Weaponry/Accoutrements (e.g., gun parts and bullet shells). There is also a Miscellaneous Hardware category to accommodate hardware items that could not be specifically identified as to function. These categories are used in the object name field of the catalog record. These items are also cataloged by material type (which is not included in the artifact inventory in this report; Appendix 7) and are further described under the description fields. Appendix 6 may be consulted for further information concerning what kinds of items were inventoried in the different categories.

Fuel and Fire-Related Byproducts

Categories that may be discussed under this general heading include Coal, Charcoal, Ash, Cinders/Clinkers, Slag, and Bog Iron—all of which are recorded in the object name field of the catalog record. These materials are weighed rather than counted. Most of these materials are classified in the ANCS category Other Mineral, although ash and charcoal are recorded under Wood.

Miscellaneous Mineral Objects

A number of additional mineral objects appear on the ACMP catalog flow chart in the object name field. These include mica (under Other Mineral), and macadam (under Synthetic). Another miscellaneous category consists of the small, unidentifiable iron fragments that are often corrosion residue from other iron objects in the collection. Such material is cataloged as Residue on the catalog record, and is weighed. It is cataloged with an iron object if it can be directly associated with that object, and is simply noted on a separate description line. If it can only be associated with a larger group of iron objects and not with a specific object or catalog lot, it is cataloged as a separate lot. Typically these iron fragments are less than one-half inch in size. Larger fragments are cataloged as Indeterminate Metal Objects.

Floral and Faunal Remains

A number of categories can be discussed under this general heading, including Seeds, Nutshells, Shell, and Bone. These do not refer to artifacts that have been culturally modified, but rather to unworked specimens that may reflect food remains. Seeds and nutshells are self-explanatory and will not be discussed further other than to note that the type of seed or nut is listed whenever possible in the first description field of the catalog record.

Bone

Bone is recorded as Specimen (Unworked) in the object name field of the catalog record, and as a more specific category of bone in the first description field. These categories commonly include Fish, Mammal, Bird, or Indeterminate, although other categories

138

were possible if necessary. The second description field is used to record whether the bone is diagnostic, undiagnostic, or a tooth. Diagnostic bone is defined as that which exhibits articular surfaces (e.g., distal or proximal ends), or intentional sculpturing (Olsen 1971:18). Diagnostic bone aids researchers in determining information such as species, age, sex, size, diet, or possible pathologies. It may also yield data about butchering techniques. Certain research questions require bone weights rather than counts (Chaplin 1971:67). The ACMP uses counts, however, to help specialists estimate the time and effort required for a more complete analysis. Human bone and teeth are treated differently as they are classified as Osteological, with Bone and Tooth appearing in the object name field.

Shell

Shell is also classified as Specimen (Unworked) in the object name field, and is weighed rather than counted. It is further classified as Bivalve, Univalve, Coral, or Indeterminate Shell on the first description line, and as one of 15 species or as Indeterminate on the second description line. The species are listed on the last page of the catalog flow chart (Appendix 4). These descriptions are a part of the data base and are printed on the catalog cards, but are not included in the inventory in this report (Appendix 7). The specific identifying characteristics of each species are summarized in a previous ACMP report (Synenki and Charles 1984:39-40).

Samples

Several ACMP categories can be regarded as samples. These include soil samples, which are classified as Clay/Mud/Soil with Soil Sample as the object name. Wood samples, which have been saved specifically as a sample, are also in this category and differ from wood classified as Specimen (Unworked), which has not been culturally modified. Other samples might be flotation or pollen samples (classified under Other Plant Materials), or Carbon-14 samples (classified under Wood). These categories are treated differently as to quantity (count or weight), as indicated on the flow chart (Appendix 4).

Historic Lithics

There are a number of categories for stone artifacts manufactured during the historic period, as well as a category for unidentified Worked Stone and a category for Unworked Stone. The latter category was created for artifacts that were collected during excavation, but that show no signs of cultural modification. They may have been collected mistakenly or as samples of a historic feature and not recorded as such. These will not be discussed further.

Gun/lints

Historic gunflints are cataloged as gunflints in the object name field of the catalog record. Rounded heel and rectangular heel flints are distinguished on the first description line, although only a total appears on the inventory in this report (Appendix 7). Also

139

identified in this category are possible gunflint manufacture flakes, which are recorded on the first description line.

Groundstone

This category was created for historic pestles, mortars, or other identifiable groundstone artifacts. Groundstone is used in the object name field on the catalog record, and the first description field is used to further identify the artifact.

Prehistoric Lithics

Prehistoric lithics were divided into three major categories in the object name field of the catalog record: Fire-Cracked Rock, Groundstone, and Chipped Stone. The fire-cracked rock category will not be discussed further.

Groundstone

As with historic groundstone, this category was designed for implements such as pestles and mortars, although a larger variety of prehistoric implements made of groundstone might be expected (e.g., plummets, axe heads, etc.).

Chipped Stone

The chipped stone classification system was adapted from that developed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (1984). The first level of breakdown within chipped stone is recorded in the first description field as either Projectile Point, Biface, or Uniface.

Projectile points are further classified as either Indeterminate or as a specific type identified by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (1984:56-133). When classified as indeterminate, a point is sometimes described as a "possible" specific type on the third description line. The third description line is also used to identify basal fragments (Appendix 4).

Bifaces are classified on the second description line as either Bifacial Implement Blade or Edge Tool. These types were defined by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (1984:140-145). The primary distinction between the two is the size of the object, in both length and thickness. These categories are summarized as follows:

1) Bifacial Implement Blade: These artifacts are bifacially modified around the entire periphery. They must also have a length equal to or greater than 4 cm, and a thickness of less than or equal to 1.5 cm. 2) Edge Tool: There are three possibilities within this category. The object may be a) bifacially modified along at least one edge; b) bifacially modified around the entire periphery and of any length but more than 1.5 cm thick; or c) bifacially modified around the entire periphery and of any thickness but less than 4 cm long.

Bifaces can also be further described on the third description line as to shape (Massachusetts

140

Historical Commission 1984:140-145) or whether they are basal fragments, tip fragments, midsection fragments, or reworked points.

Unifaces can be further classified as edge tools on the second description line. This is defined as one or more modified unifacial edges (Massachusetts Historical Commission 1984:140).

There are four additional categories for prehistoric lithics, reflecting different stages in the reduction process: Core, Shatter/Block, Decortication Flake, and Flake. Flakes are not broken down further into various levels of reduction. These are cataloged as a single lot for each provenience, with Core listed on the first description line, Shatter/Block on the second, Decortication Flake on the third, and Flake on the fourth.

Prehistoric Ceramics

Prehistoric ceramics are identified as to sherd morphology in the object name field of the catalog record, and temper and decoration in the first two description lines. The decoration descriptions are consistent with those used by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (1984:185).

141

Appendix 6. Catalog Placement of Miscellaneous Items

143

Object Name Category Artifact

Footwear

Other Fasteners

Tableware

Kitchenware

Furniture and Hardware

Lighting Fixtures

leather shoe parts, slipper parts, rubber shoe soles

clothing rivet, cuff link, clothing stud

utensil handle, fork, knife, spoon, napkin ring

tin can fragments, sardine can key, bottle/can opener, pots and pans, stove parts, fireplace hook, corkscrew, whisk, colander, trivet, egg beater, salt/pepper shaker, canning jar, opal glass insert for canning jar, lead seal for canning jar, aluminum foil, canning jar lid

ornamental shelf bracket, plant hanger, drapery hooks, picture hanger hooks, drawer knob, furniture latches, drawer handle, casters

light bulb, lamp chimney fragments, lamp globe fragments, oil lamp parts, candle snuffer, flashlight parts, wax candles

Decorative Objects

Toiletries

Stationery

Personal Objects

Toys

Window Hardware

Door Hardware

clock parts, candy dish, press molded vessel, chandelier crystal wall crucifix, porcelain figurines

toothbrush, comb, hair pin, wig curler, eye wash cup

pen, ruler, pencil, pencil lead, slate pencil, ink well, paper clip

bead, sewing accessories, snuff box, jewelry, corset stays, purse handle, umbrella parts, mirror, shoe dye bottle, cosmetic containers, scissors, pocket knife, eye glasses, false teeth

marble, doll part, toy wheels, Jews harp, rubber ball pieces, ice skate blades

window hinges, glazing points, turned lead window casing, sash weight, window putty

door latch, door hinge, door knob, keyhole escutcheon

145

Object Name Category

Electrical Hardware

Plumbing Hardware

Miscellaneous Hardware

Structural Material

Hand Tools

Machine Parts

Domestic Animal Gear

Transportation Objects

Weaponry and Accoutrements

Artifact

insulated wire, car lighter, carbon battery rod, battery cap, glass insulator, porcelain insulator

faucet, pipe, spigot

eye bolt, screw eye, padlock, nut, keyhole escutcheon (not from door), springs, pintle hinge, iron rod, iron bar, iron ring, barbed wire, hook, wire, strap metal, washer, chain link, pulley, plumb bob

roofing slate, slab marble, brick tile, ceramic tile, gravestone, drain pipe, asphalt roofing, tar paper, sheet metal, concrete, cement, mortar/plaster, brick, paint lumps, wall paper, fiberglass insulation, caulking

file, axe head, saw blade, shovel head, wedge, sharpening stone

plow blade, moveable type

horseshoe, oxshoe, pony shoe, bit, harness buckle

car parts, bicycle parts, railroad spike

musket ball, bullet, gun shell casing, gun parts, spurs

146

Appendix 7. Adams NHS Summary Artifact Inventory

147

ADAMS NHS COLLECTION TOTALS AND PERCENTAGES

ACC.#36 ACC.#36 ACC.#36 ACC.#37 ACC.#37 ACC.#37 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

COUNTS WEIGHTS X COUNTS WEIGHTS X COUNTS WEIGHTS X

HISTORIC ARTIFACTS

CERAMIC VESSEL

REDWARE

PLAIN

LEAD GLAZED 1 SURFACE

LEAD GLAZED 2 SURFACES

SGRAFFITO

TRAILED SLIPWARE

JACKFIELD

ASTBURY

ALL OTHER

TOTAL REDWARE

TIN ENAMEL

DELFT

ROUEN/FAIENCE

ALL OTHER

TOTAL TIN ENAMEL

COARSE BUFF-BODY

COMBED WARE

DOTTED WARE

N. DEVON GRAVEL

MOTTLED

ALL OTHER

TOTAL COARSE BUFF-BODY

CREAMWARE

PLAIN

SHELL-EDGED

OTHER EDGE-DECORATED

HANDPAINTED

ANNULAR

TRANSFER-PRINTED

SPONGE-DECORATED

ALL OTHER

TOTAL CREAMWARE

PEARLWARE

PLAIN

SHELL-EDGED


1482

749 158

0

25

1

0

93 2508

19

0

1 20

70

4 0

12

27

113

646

0

3

1

2 0

0

2

654

390

40

7

X

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

CERAMICS

17.32X

8.76X

1.85X

O.OOX

0.29X

0.01X

O.OOX

1.09X

29.32X

0.22X

O.OOX

0.01X

0.23X

0.82X

0.05X

O.OOX

0.14X

0.32X

1.32X

7.55X

O.OOX

0.04X

0.01X

0.02X

O.OOX

O.OOX

0.02X

7.64X

4.56X

0.47X

0.08X

159

173

72 0

13 0

0

12

429

9

0

0

9

8 1 0

3

3

15

428 19

3

2

0

2

1

2

457

371

64

4

X

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

CERAMICS

4.51X

4.91X

2.04X

O.OOX

0.37X

O.OOX

O.OOX

0.34X

12.17X

0.26X

O.OOX

O.OOX

0.26X

0.23X

0.03X

O.OOX

0.09X

0.09X

0.43X

12.15X

0.54X

0.09X

0.06X

O.OOX

0.06X

0.03X

0.06X

12.97X

10.53X

1.82X

0.11X

1641

922 230

0 38

1

0

105

2937

28

0

1 29

78

5 0

15

30

128

1074

19

6 3

2 2

1

4

1111

761

104

11

X

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

CERAMICS

13.59X

7.63X

1.90X

O.OOX

0.31X

0.01X

O.OOX

0.87X

24.31X

0.23X

O.OOX

0.01X

0.24X

0.65X

0.04X

O.OOX

0.12X

0.25X

1.06X

8.89X

0.16X

0.05X

0.02X

0.02X

0.02X

0.01X

0.03X

9.20X

6.30X

0.86X

0.09X

149



COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS %

HANDPAINTED

ANNULAR

TRANSFER-PRINTED

SPONGE-DECORATED

ALL OTHER

TOTAL PEARLWARE

WHITEWARE

PLAIN

SHELL-EDGED


HANDPAINTED

ANNULAR

TRANSFER-PRINTED

SPONGE-DECORATED

ALL OTHER

TOTAL WHITEWARE

OTHER EARTHENWARE

WHIELDON WARE

LUSTERWARE

AGATEWARE

ROCKINGHAM/BENNINGTON

YELLOWARE

ALL OTHER

TOTAL OTHER EARTHENWARE

PORCELAIN

UNDECORATED

UNDERGLAZE HP MONOCHROME

UNDERGLAZE HP POLYCHROME

OVERGLAZE HP MONOCHROME

OVERGLAZE HP POLYCHROME

GILTED

TRANSFER-PRINTED

ALL OTHER

TOTAL PORCELAIN

WHITE SALT GLAZED STONEWARE

PLAIN

MOLDED

SCRATCH BLUE

ALL OTHER

76

7

77

3

13

613

2718

69 58

90

39

532

42

62

3610

0

0

1 162

229 311

703

90

23

0

4

5

8

11 18

159

31

3

1

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.89%

0.08%

0.90%

0.04%

0.15%

7.17%

31.77%

0.81%

0.68%

1.05%

0.46%

6.22%

0.49%

0.72%

42.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.01%

1.89%

2.68%

3.64%

8.22%

1.05%

0.27%

0.00%

0.05%

0.06%

0.09%

0.13%

0.21%

1.86%

0.36%

0.04%

0.01%

0.00%

114

13

151

7

25

749

923

28 19

82

32 326

23

32

1465

1

0 0

61 71

56

189

29

21

0

2

5

3 1

2

63

34

3

0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.23%

0.37%

4.28%

0.20%

0.71%

21.25%

26.19%

0.79%

0.54%

2.33%

0.91%

9.25%

0.65%

0.91%

41.57%

0.03%

0.00%

0.00%

1.73%

2.01%

1.59%

5.36%

0.82%

0.60%

0.00%

0.06%

0.14%

0.09%

0.03%

0.06%

1.79%

0.96%

0.09%

0.00%

0.00%

190

20

228

10

38

1362

3641

97 77

172

71

858

65

94

5075

1

0

1 223 300

367

892

119

44

0

6

10

11

12 20

222

65

6

1

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.57%

0.17%

1.89%

0.08%

0.31%

11.28%

30.14%

0.80%

0.64%

1.42%

0.59%

7.10%

0.54%

0.78%

42.02%

0.01%

0.00%

0.01%

1.85%

2.48%

3.04%

7.38%

0.99%

0.36%

0.00%

0.05%

0.08%

0.09%

0.10%

0.17%

1.84%

0.54%

0.05%

0.01%

0.00%

150




TOTAL WHITE SALT GLAZED

DRYBODY STONEWARE

BLACK BASALTE

ROSSO ANT I CO

ALL OTHER

TOTAL DRYBODY

OTHER STONEWARE

NOTTINGHAM

BELLARMINE/FRECHEN

WESTERWALD/RAEREN

DOMESTIC

ALL OTHER

TOTAL OTHER

TOTAL CERAMIC VESSEL

X OF TOTAL COLLECTION

35

0

0

0 0

9

0

2

93

36

140

8555

27. OX

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.41X

o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox

0.11%

o.oox 0.02X

1.09X

0.42X

1.64X

100.00X

37

0 0

0 0

2

0

8

75

26

111

3524 _

46.8X'

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.05X

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

0.06X

o.oox 0.23X

2.13X

0.74X

3.15X

100.00X

72

0

0

0

0

11

0

10 168

62

251

12079

30.8X

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.60X

O.OOX

o.oox o.oox o.oox

0.09X

o.oox 0.08X

1.39X

0.51X

2.08X

100.00X

TOBACCO PIPE

WHITE CLAY

BOWLS

STEMS: 4/64

5/64

6/64

7/64

8/64

9/64

INDET.

TOTAL WHITE CLAY

ALL OTHER

TOTAL TOBACCO PIPE

BOTTLE GLASS

FREEBLOWN

CONTACT MOLDED ;

PATTERN MOLDED

PRESS MOLDED

OPTIC MOLDED

117

49

76

7

3

1

0

15

268

0

268

111 2703

0

0 0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

X TOTAL

ARTIFACTS

0.37X

0.15X

0.24X

0.02X

0.01X

O.OOX

O.OOX

0.05X

0.85X

O.OOX

0.85X

0.35X

8.54X

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

25

33

79

11

0

1

0

2

151

0

151

19

639 0

21

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

X TOTAL

ARTIFACTS

0.33X

0.44X

1.05X

0.15X

O.OOX

0.01X

O.OOX

0.03X

2.00X

O.OOX

2.00X

0.25X

8.48X

O.OOX

0.28X

O.OOX

142

82

155

18

3

2

0

17

419

0

419

130 3342

0

21 0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

X TOTAL

ARTIFACTS

0.36X

0.21X

0.40X

0.05X

0.01X

0.01X

O.OOX

0.04X

1.07X

O.OOX

1.07X

0.33X

8.52X

O.OOX

0.05X

O.OOX

151


ACC.#36 ACC.#36 ACC.#36 ACC.#37 ACC.037 ACC.#37 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS X

MACHINE HADE

ALL OTHER

TOTAL BOTTLE GLASS

DRINKING VESSEL GLASS

FREEBLOWN

CONTACT MOLDED

PATTERN MOLDED

PRESS MOLDED

OPTIC MOLDED

MACHINE MADE

ALL OTHER

TOTAL DRINKING VESSEL GLASS

INDETERMINATE VESSEL GLASS

FREEBLOWN

MOLDED

INDETERMINATE

TOTAL INDET. VESSEL GLASS

BOTTLE CLOSURES

CERAMIC

GLASS

METAL

SYNTHETIC

WOOD/CORK

ALL OTHER

TOTAL BOTTLE CLOSURES

APPAREL

CLOTHING

FOOTWEAR

BUTTONS

BUCKLES

OTHER FASTENERS

TOTAL APPAREL

HOUSEHOLD & PERSONAL OBJECTS

TABLEWARE

KITCHENWARE

FURNITURE & HARDWARE

LIGHTING FIXTURES

DECORATIVE OBJECTS

17

57

2888

0

106

0

16

0

0

1

123

0

341 27

368

0

4

1 0

6

0

11

1

111

119

4

23

258

8

34 14

1445

67

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.05%

0.18%

9.12%

0.00%

0.33%

0.00%

0.05%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.39%

0.00%

1.08%

0.09%

1.16%

0.00%

0.01%

0.00%

0.00%

0.02%

0.00%

0.03%

0.00%

0.35%

0.38%

0.01%

0.07%

0.81%

0.03%

0.11%

0.04%

4.56%

0.21%

2 19

700

0

20

0

24

0

0

0

44

1

26

0

27

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

31

2

0

42

4

10

1 320

12

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.03%

0.25%

9.29%

0.00%

0.27%

0.00%

0.32%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.58%

0.01%

0.35%

0.00%

0.36%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.12%

0.41%

0.03%

0.00%

0.56%

0.05%

0.13%

0.01%

4.25%

0.16%

19

76

3588

0

126

0

40

0

0

1

167

1

367 27

395

0

4

1

0

6

0

11

1

120

150

6

23

300

12

44

15

1765

79

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.05%

0.19%

9.15%

0.00%

0.32%

0.00%

0.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.43%

0.00%

0.94%

0.07%

1.01%

0.00%

0.01%

0.00%

0.00%

0.02%

0.00%

0.03%

0.00%

0.31%

0.38%

0.02%

0.06%

0.77%

0.03%

0.11%

0.04%

4.50%

0.20%

152



COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS X

TOILETRIES

STATIONERY

COINS/TOKENS/MEDALS

PERSONAL OBJECTS

TOYS

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD & PERSONAL OBJ

WINDOW GLASS

CROWN/CYLINDER

PLATE

INDETERMINATE

TOTAL WINDOW GLASS

NAILS

HAND WROUGHT

MACHINE CUT INDETERMINATE

MACHINE CUT I

MACHINE CUT II

WIRE

INDETERMINATE

TOTAL NAILS

OTHER FASTENING DEVICES

SCREWS

STAPLES

BOLTS

TOTAL OTHER FASTENING

STRUCTURAL MATERIAL

BRICK

MORTAR/PLASTER

STONE

EARTHENWARE/STONEWARE

PORCELAIN

METAL

WOOD

SYNTHETIC

ALL OTHER

TOTAL STRUCTURAL

TOOLS & HARDWARE

WINDOW HARDWARE

DOOR HARDWARE

13

13 7

78

62

1741

283 2787

324

3394

21

2408

68 222

47

4355

7121

17

6

3

26

0 0

14

14

0 8

92

56

2

186

1

5

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

179733.3

18709.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

953.2

199396.1

0.0

0.0

0.04%

0.04%

0.02%

0.25%

0.20%

5.50%

0.89%

8.80%

1.02%

10.72%

0.07%

7.60%

0.21%

0.70%

0.15%

13.75%

22.49%

0.05%

0.02%

0.01%

0.08%

0.00%

0.00%

0.04%

0.04%

0.00%

0.03%

0.29%

0.18%

0.01%

0.59%

0.00%

0.02%

4

10

0 11

12

384

147 706

23

876

8 427

10

96 93

351

985

7

2

0

9

0

0

1

10 0

5

5

0

0

21

3

4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1523.1

200.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1723.9

0.0

0.0

0.05%

0.13%

0.00%

0.15%

0.16%

5.10%

1.95%

9.37%

0.31%

11.62%

0.11%

5.67%

0.13%

1.27%

1.23%

4.66%

13.07%

0.09%

0.03%

0.00%

0.12%

0.00%

0.00%

0.01%

0.13%

0.00%

0.07%

0.07%

0.00%

0.00%

0.28%

0.04%

0.05%

17

23

7

89

74

2125

430

3493

347

4270

29 2835

78

318 140

4706

8106

24

8

3

35

0 0

15

24

0

13 97

56

2

207

4

9

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

181256.4

18910.4

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

953.2

201120.0

0.0

0.0

0.04%

0.06%

0.02%

0.23%

0.19%

5.42%

1.10%

8.91%

0.89%

10.89%

0.07%

7.23%

0.20%

0.81%

0.36%

12.00%

20.68%

0.06%

0.02%

0.01%

0.09%

0.00%

0.00%

0.04%

0.06%

0.00%

0.03%

0.25%

0.14%

0.01%

0.53%

0.01%

0.02%

153



COUNTS UEIGHTS X COUNTS WEIGHTS % COUNTS WEIGHTS X

ELECTRICAL HARDWARE

PLUMBING HARDWARE

LIGHTING/HEATING HARDWARE

HAND TOOLS

MACHINE PARTS

DOMESTIC ANIMAL GEAR

TRANSPORTATION OBJECTS

WEAPONRY/ACCOUTREMENTS

GUNFLINTS

WORKED STONE/GROUNDSTONE

COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT

MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE

TOTAL TOOLS & HARDWARE

FUEL & FIRE BYPRODUCTS

COAL

CINDERS/CLINKERS

CHARCOAL

ASH

BOG IRON

SLAG

COMPOSITE FIRE BYPRODUCTS

TOTAL FUEL & FIRE

SHELL

BIVALVES

UNIVALVES

INDETERMINATE SHELL

CORAL

TOTAL SHELL

BONE

FISH

MAMMAL

BIRD

HUMAN

ALL OTHER

TOTAL BONE

VEGETAL MATERIAL

SEEDS

NUTSHELLS

TOTAL VEGETAL

3

0

0

2

1 4

2 8

2

0

0

463

491

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

189 2418

252

0

303

3162

1

0

1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2715.8

966.8

29.7

0.0 0.0

607.0

570.5

4889.8

796.8

7.9

53.6

0.0

858.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.01X

0.00%

o.oox 0.01X

o.oox 0.01X

0.01X

0.03X

0.01X

o.oox o.oox 1.46X

1.55X

o.oox o.oox 0.00%

o.oox 0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

o.oox 0.00%

o.oox o.oox o.oox

0.60X

7.64X

0.80X

o.oox 0.96X

9.98X

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

13

1 0

2 0

2

0 4

0

0

0

65

94

0

0

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

349 42

0

0

397

1

0

1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

216.5

2.3

0.3 0.0 0.0

62.2

0.0

281.3

91.8

0.0

0.3

143.9

236.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.17X

0.01X

O.OOX

0.03X

O.OOX

0.03X

O.OOX

0.05X

O.OOX

O.OOX

o.oox 0.86X

1.25%

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX


o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox

0.08X

4.63X

0.56X

O.OOX

o.oox 5.27X

0.01X

O.OOX

0.01X

16

1

0 4

1 6

2

12 2

0

0

528 585

0

0

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

195

2767

294

0

303

3559

2

0

2

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2932.3

969.1

30.0

0.0

0.0

669.2

570.5

5171.1

888.6

7.9

53.9

143.9

1094.3

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.04X

O.OOX

O.OOX

0.01X

o.oox 0.02X

0.01X

0.03X

0.01X

o.oox o.oox 1.35X

1.49X

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX



0.50X

7.06X

0.75X

O.OOX

0.77X

9.08X

0.01X

O.OOX

0.01X

154


ACC.#36 ACC.#36 ACC.#36 ACC.#37 ACC.#37 ACC.«7 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL


SAMPLES

SOIL

C-K FLOTATION

POLLEN

ALL OTHER

TOTAL SAMPLES

MISCELLANEOUS

INDETERMINATE METAL OBJECTS

OTHER INDETERMINATE OBJECTS

METAL RESIDUE

ALL OTHER MISCELLANEOUS

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS

TOTAL HISTORIC ARTIFACTS

0

0 0 0

0

0

2245

807

0

21

3073

31666

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

7830.6

6.6

7837.2

212981.4

o.oox o.oox O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

7.09X

2.55X

O.OOX

0.07X

9.70X

99.99X

0 0

0 0

0 0

210

68

0

3 281

7536

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2241.2

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

o.oox

2.79X

0.90X

O.OOX

0.04X

3.73X

0 0 0

0 0

0

2455

875

0

24

3354

100.00X 39202

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7830.6

6.6 7837.2

215222.6

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

O.OOX

6.26X

2.23X

O.OOX

0.06X

8.56X

99.99X

PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS

STONE

CHIPPED STONE

PROJECTILE POINTS

BIFACES

UN I FACES

CORES

SHATTER/BLOCK

DECORTICATION FLAKES

FLAKES

TRIM FLAKES

TOTAL CHIPPED STONE

FIRE-CRACKED ROCK

GROUNDSTONE

TOTAL STONE

CERAMICS

BONE

SHELL

ALL OTHER

TOTAL PREHISTORIC ARTIFACTS

TOTAL ARTIFACTS

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

31669

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

212981.4

O.OOX

O.OOX

o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox

o.oox o.oox o.oox

0.01X

o.oox o.oox o.oox 0.01X

100.00X

0 0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

7536

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2241.2

o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox

o.oox o.oox o.oox


0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

3

100.00X 39205

0.0 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

215222.6

o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox o.oox

o.oox o.oox o.oox

0.01X

o.oox o.oox o.oox 0.01X

100.00X

155

Appendix 8. Missing/Extra Artifacts in the Pratt and Pratt Collection

157

SUMMARY OF PRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG IS, ACMP CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS

RECI PROVENIENCE PRATT CATALOG IS ACMP CATALOG IS PRATT ACMP ACMP COMMENTS COUNT MISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

1 SO 1, L 1, 0-21' 28954-29000, 30001-30219, 35314-35363 189-250 302 19 20 ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF MORTAR, 2 BAGS OF BRICK 2 SQ 2, 0-20" 26536-26802, 30561-30661, 31426-3I67B 251-312 639 10 33 3 SO 3, L 1, 2-6' 28709-28923 313-345 255 5 5 4 SQ 3, L 2, 6-14- 21255-21466, 29067-29270, 29935-30000, 346-416, 873 999 103 12 ACMP 1873 ADDED TO END OF RANGE

31001-31319, 35644-35660 5 SQ 3, L 3, 14-18' 35364-35469 417-448 106 11 17 ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF SHELL, 1 BAG OF CHARCOAL 6 SQ 4, L 1, 0-9' 21660-21710 449-463 102 8 1 7 SQ 4, L 1, 0-13' 10866-11161 464-500 291 14 12 8 SQ 4, L 1, 0-29' 21010-21254 501-523 254 1 15 9 SQ 4, L 2, 0-7" 1863HB921 524-579 335 4 45 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS. MOST EXTRA ACMP COUNT NAS 44

BRICK FROM 1 EXTRA BAG OF BRICK 10 SQ 4, L 2, 0-9' 22685-22805 580-605 130 0 4 DESIGNATED AS LEVEL 1 ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET, BUT ACMP

CODED AS LEVEL 2 PER INFORMATION ON BAG 11 SQ 4, L 2, 0-29' 20024-20202, 21001-20002 606-633 196 43 25 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS, 2 BAGS OF BRICK 12 SQ 4, L 2, 9-29" 15836-16000, 17001-17031 634-672, 874 208 15 5 ACMP CAT. I 1 874 ADDED TO END DP RAN6E 13 SQ 4, L 3, 14-1B" 22B06-228I3 673-679 7 0 1 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 14 SQ 5, L 1, 0-7" 12108-12499, 12501-12550 680-718 457 0 138 15 SQ 5, L 2, 7-15' 22831-22843 719-723 31 21 0 ALSO MISS1N6 1 BAG OF BRICK 16 SQ 5, L 2, 7-17" 11313-12000, 13001-13372 724-785 1046 0 79 17 SQ 5, L 2, 7-19" 17395-17921, 19078-19669 786-872 1141 4 278 MOST EXTRA ACMP COUNT NAS 179 EXTRA IRON FRAGS. LISTED AS '1

BAG' SLAG ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET 18 SQ 6, L 1, 4-8" 23223-23527 B75-922 30! 0 194 HOST EXTRA AMCP COUNT NAS 192 EXTRA IRON FRAGS. LISTED AS '1

BAG' IRON ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET 19 SQ 6, L 2, 0-11" 6676, 21639-21659 923-927 26 0 10 ALSO MISSING 11 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS, SLAG 20 SQ 6, L 2, 13-56" 6351-7370, 8151-8219, 18922-19000, 19670-20023, 928-1029, 1159-1161, 5383 2461 0 83 ALSO SEVERAL BAGS OF INDETERMINATE METAL NOT REFLECTED IN

20203-20655, 21003-21009, 23847-24000, COUNTS. ACMP CAT. I 1159-1161, 5383 ADDED TO END OF RANGE 24565-24571, 25001-25174, 25176-25356, 26107-26139, 26510, 27007-27089, 27371, 28689-28708

21 SQ 6, FEAT 1 L 2, 0-56" 7820-7875, 7926-7949, 8220-8715 1030-1101, 1119-1120 714 10 23 ACMP CAT. I J 1119-1120 ADDED TO END OF RAN6E 22 SQ 6, 0-56" 26266-26268, 26284-26285, 25943-25987 1102-1118 70 1 1 MOST EXTRA ACMP COUNT NAS 467 EXTRA IRON FRAGS. LISTED AS '1

BAG' METAL ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET 23 SQ 6, FEAT 1, 0-56" 7950-8017, 9631-9632, 21912-21916, 24400-24561 1121-1158 362 6 4 24 SQ 6, L 2 1162-1193 0 0 748 THIS PROVENIENCE CONTAINS EXTRA ARTIFACTS FROM SQ 6, L 2.

INFORMATION RECORDED FROM BAGS 25 SQ 7, L 1, 0-12" 16986-17000, 18001-18630 1194-1261 646 18 6 26 SQ 7, L 2, 13-23" 16986-17000, 1B001-18630 1262-1276 391 15 0 SOME ARTIFACTS FROM SQ 7, L 2, 13-23" AND SQ 7, 0-12" NERE

MIXED AND COULD NOT BE SEPARATED. ACMP DESIGNATION = SQ 7 27 SQ 7, 0-12" 27294-27343 1277-1283 49 5 0 SOME ARTIFACTS FROM SQ 7, L 2, 13-23" AND SQ 7, 0-12" NERE

MIXED AND COULD NOT BE SEPARATED. ACMP DESIGNATION = SQ 7 28 SQ 7 1284-1295 0 0 41 CONTAINS MIXED ARTIFACTS FROM SQ 7, L 2, 13-23" AND SQ 7,

0-12" 29 SQ 8, L 1, 2-5" 28053-2814B, 34555-34719 1296-1324 267 1 17 30 SQ B, L 2, 5-18" 28046-28052, 2B263-28269, 28473-28539, 1325-1383 452 16 5 ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF MORTAR, 1 BAS Of BRICK

32223-32465, 34541-34554,35252-35313 31 SQ 8, L 3, 12-20" 32832-33000, 34001-34104, 32096-32106 1384-1419 360 3 63 32 SQ 8, L 4, 22-24", ASH DEPOSIT 28944-28950 1420-1426 28 2 0 33 SQ 8, L 4, 21-25" 32032-32033 1427-142B 2 0 0

t—»

4-ft VO

SUMMARY OF FRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG IS, ACMP CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS

RECI PROVENIENCE PRATT CATALOG IS ACMP CATALOG IS PRATT ACMP ACMP COMMENTS COUNT HISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

34 SO 9, L 4, 20-271 33866-33964, 34211-34393, 35619-35643, 2854S-28557 1429-1479 291 0 26 COUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE BONE OR BRICK AS THEY NERE SOMETIMES NEIGHED

35 SO 8, L 5, 16-27- 29023-29066, 34105-34132 1480-1494 165 0 4 36 SO 9, 0-30" 33198-33568, 28464-28472 1495-1552 369 39 5 ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF BRICK 37 SO 10, 0-24' 33039-33141,29271-29287 1553-1586 112 9 11 COUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE BONE OR SHELL AS THEY NERE SOMETIMES

NEIGHED 38 SO 11, L 1, 0-15- 32466-32B31 1589-1629 384 18 0 39 SO 12, L 1, 0-17- 17922-18000, 19001-19020 1630-1652 98 0 6 40 SO 13, L 1, 0-5- 34133-34210 1653-1681 77 1 7 41 SO 13, L 1, 2-9- 32107-32146 16B2-1692 50 4 5 42 SO 14, L 1, 0-10- 26505-26509 1693-1696 6 0 0 43 SO 14, L 1, 2-10- 30785-30842, 35038-35067 1697-1725 69 0 4 COUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE BRICK, MORTAR, OR SHELLAS THEY NERE

SOMETIMES NEIGHED. ALSO EXTRA 1 LARGE BAG OF BRICK 44 SO 14, L 1, 0-27- 26803-27000, 28001-28045, 27564-27648, 1726-1727 515 0 0 PRATT COUNT REFLECTS BRICK NHICH ACMP NEIBHED. ALSO MISSING

27667-27752, 28149-2B260, 6672-6674 1 BAG OF COAL, I BA6 OF BRICK, 1 BAG OF MORTAR 45 SO 15, L 1, 2-7" 28558-28688, 30483-31000, 32001-32031, 35470-35473 172B-1779 458 7 0 ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF BRICK, 1 BAG OF MQRTAS 46 SO 15, L 2, 6-11" 29728-29934, 2B540-2B54B 1780-1813 241 4 37 47 SO 15, L 3, 11-2B- 6775, 19021-19077, 2928B-29727, 30250-30481, 1814-1922 1632 0 145 ALSO MISSING 3 BAGS OF CINDERS/CLINKERS

30748-30704, 31320-31425, 31679-32000, 32147-32166, 33001-33038, 34885-35000, 35569-35618

48 SO 15, L 4, 11-28" 30770-30784 1923-1933 39 0 1 49 SB 16, L 1, 0-4" 34720-34B50 1934-1974 191 1 31 50 SO 16, L 1, 0-12" 35504-35568 1975-1992 64 8 14 51 SO 16, LANN, 0-12" 33682-33B65 1993-2050 161 6 16 52 SO 16, L 2, 4-16" 34394-34539 2051-2062 150 11 0 53 SO 17, L 1, 0-4" 35662-35S19 2063-2089 204 0 11 54 SO 17, L 2, 4-12" 35820-35990 2090-2111 173 4 6 55 SO IB, L 1, 0-4" 22844-22B72 2112-2125 30 0 0 56 SB 18, L 2, 0-5" 24562-34564 2126-2128 7 0 0 57 SO 18, L 2, 4-12" 23833-23846 2129-2135 14 2 2 58 SB 18, L 2 6677 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAB OF CINDERS 59 SO IB, L 2, 5-25" 27272-27293, 32167-32207, 35474-35503 2136-2165 86 2 11 60 SO IB, L 3, 25-40" 26276-26283, 3208B-32092 2166-2175 16 1 0 61 SB 18, L 1, 2, I 3, 0-40" 8810-9190 2176-2241 393 13 9 62 SO IB, L 3 6671 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 13 BASS OF COAL, CINDERS/&.INKERS 63 SO 19, L 1, 0-4" 22567-22627 2242-2255 60 8 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 64 SB 19, L 2, 4-7" 26494-26490 2256-2258 5 0 2 65 SO 19, L 2, 7-13' 21553-21638 2259-2283 86 1 7 66 SB 19, L 3, 7-13" 9420-9475,9601-9630 2284-2306 114 26 3 67 SO 19, L 4, 13-19" 936B-9419 2307-2318 51 1 0 68 SO 20, L 1, 0-4" 30662-30747,32093-32095 2319-2340 110 4 2 69 SO 20, L 2, 4-12" 32208-32222, 33142-33197 2341-2358, 2188 72 1 2 ACMP CAT. I J 2188 ADDED TO END OF RANGE 70 SO 21, L 1, 0-19" 12720-13000, 15001-15264 2359-2391 555 2 1 71 SB 22, 0-12" 14070-14220 2392-2428 146 6 20 72 SB 23, L 1, 0-17" 14303-15000, 16001-16126 2429-2506 816 3 71 73 SO 24, L 1, 0-13" 33965-34000, 35001-35037 2507-2536 78 1 2 74 SO 24, L 1, 0-23" 27649-27666, 27753-22800, 28270-28463,29001-29022, 2539-2544 612 0 19

34540

O

REM PROVENIENCE

SUMMARY OF PRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGiNAL CATALOG IS, ACNP CATALOG IS, HISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS

PRATT CATAL06 IS ACHP CATALOG IS PRATT ACHP ACHP COMMENTS COUNT HISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

ON

75 SO 24, L I, 2-14" 32034-32055 2545-2553 23 0 7 76 SO 24, L 1 2554-2557, 26B9 0 0 0 PRATT INVENTORY SHEET HISSING, CONTAINS BRICK,

HORTAR/PLASTER, COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS NHICH ACHP NEIGHED. ACHP CAT. I J 26B9 ADDED TO END OF RANGE

77 SB 25, L 1, 0-30" 21917-22000, 24001-24399 255B-261B 473 3 39 78 SO 26, L 1, 0-3B/4O" 10314-10510, 11252-11312, 12500-12562, 13724-14069 2619-268B 617 0 104 PRATT INVENTORY SHEETS RECORDED BOTH DEPTHS OF 0-38" A 0-40" 79 SB 27, NELL, 0-9" 29282-29283 2690-2691 2 0 0 BO SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 1, 0-11" 800.3-800.9 2692-2696 6 0 0 81 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 1, 11-13" BOO.1-800.2 2697-2698 1 0 0 82 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 2, 0-9" 801.13-801.15 2699-2700 2 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 83 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 2, 9-11" 801.10-801.12 2701-2702 2 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 84 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 3, 2-26" 802.1808-802.1842 2703-2714 35 14 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF BRICK 85 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 4, 0-18" 803.16-803.52 2715-2729 37 0 8 ALSO HISSING 1 FAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 86 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 4, 18-20" 803.53-803.77 2730-2742 29 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 87 SEC 1, TRAN I, TP 5, 0-21" 804.78-804,96 2743-2752 20 1 2 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 88 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 6, 0-14" 805.97-805.106 2753-2759 9 0 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BA6 OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 89 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 7, 0-17" 806.107-806,374 2760-2792 265 6 12 ALSO H1SSINB 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 90 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 8, 2-10" 807.375-807.378 2793-2795 3 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAB OP COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 91 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 9, 2-11" 808.379-808.3B4 2796-2798 5 0 0 ALSO H1SSIN6 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 92 SEC 1, TRAN 1, TP 10, 2-10" 809.858-809.660 2799-2801 3 0 0 ALSO HISSINB 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 93 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 11, 2-7' 810.385 0 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAB OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 94 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 13, 2-11" 812.386-812.416 2802-2805 30 0 0 95 SEC 2, IRAN 1, TP 14, 2-14" 900.417-900.554 2806-2813 121 1 0 ALSO HISSINB 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 96 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 16, 0-13" 901.555-901.557 2814-2B15 2 0 0 ALSO HISSINS 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 97 5EC 2, TRAN 1, TP 17, 4-8" 902.576-902.642 2816-2829 4] (i 0 98 SEC 2, TRAN I, TP 17, 8-14" 902.643-902.650, 902.676-902.689, 902.701-902.703 2830-2838 26 0 0 ALSO HISSINB 3 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 99 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 18, 2-8" 903.558-903,560 2B39-2B40 2 1 0 HOST COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS HISSINS 100 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP IB, B-12" 903.561-903.606 2841-2844 19 0 3 HOST COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS HISSING 101 SEC 2, TRAN I, TP 19, 5-12" 904.607-904.625, 904.651-904.669 2845-2853 35 2 2 ALSO HISSING 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 102 SEC 2, TRAN I, TP 20, 2-6' 905.690-905.69B 2854-2B5B 9 0 0 ALSO HISSING I BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 103 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 20, 6-12" 905.704-905.716 2859-2861 13 1 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 104 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 21, 2-6" 906.699-906.674 2B62-2864 9 2 4 ALSO HISSINS 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 105 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 21, 6-13" 906.675-906.738 2865-2870 13 0 0 106 SEC 2, TRAN 1, TP 22, 2-13" 907.717-907.766 2871-28B1 24 0 1 ALSO HISSINB I BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 107 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 1, 2-19" 908.976-908.1201 2882-2893 166 1 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 108 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 2, 2-22" 909.961 0 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 109 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 2, 8-22" 909.962-909.1065 2894-2920 100 0 11 110 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 4A, 2-6" 910.1404-910.1425,910.2601-910,2680 2921-2942 117 4 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 111 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 5, 2-19" 911.944-911.950,911.1226-911.1403, 2943-2960 209 1 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAB OF CINDERS/CLINKERS

911.2127-911.2150, 911.5317- 911.5322 112 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 6, 0-10" 912.1202-912.1228 2961-2972 26 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 113 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 7, 0-10' 913.846-913.857 2973-2982 11 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 114 SEC 1, TRAN 2, TP 8, 0-12" 914.767-914.816 2983-2991 52 0 7 115 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 9, 0-12" 915.830-915.845 2992-2997 15 1 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 116 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 10, 0-6" 916.862 2998 1 0 0 117 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 11, 0-8' 917.863-917.875, 917.901-917.902 2999-3003 14 8 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 118 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 12, 0-4" 918.921-918.925, 918.951-918,960 3004-3006 14 B 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS, 1 BAB OF BRICK 119 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 13, 0-12" 919.819-919.B29 3007-3011 10 6 5 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS

SUMHARY OF PRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG IS, ACNP CATALOG IS, MISBIN6 AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS

RECI PROVENIENCE PRATT CATAL06 IS ACNP CATALOG IS PRATT ACNP ACNP CONNENTS COUNT HISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

O N t o

120 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 14, 0-11" 920.903-920.904 1 1 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 121 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 16, 0-15" 921.905-921.906 3012-3013 2 0 0 122 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 17, 6" 922.917-921.918 3014-3015 2 0 0 123 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 17, 10.5" 922.919 3016 1 0 0 124 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 17, 9-12" 922.920 0 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 125 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 17, 0-12" 922.912-922.916 3017-3019 5 0 1 126 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP IB, 0-6" 923.1504-923.1506 3020 9 B 0 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 127 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 18, 10-17" 923.1507-923.1541 3021-3028 43 0 0 ALSO N1SSINB 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 128 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 19, 0-10" 924.739-924.746 3029-3031 7 0 0 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 129 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 19, 10-23' 924.747-924.750, 924.B76-924.943 3032-3050 49 5 0 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 130 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 20, 1-15" 925.907-925.911 3051-3054 4 1 1 ALSO NISSING 1 BAB OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 131 SEC 2, TRAN 2, TP 21, 2-22' 926.1066-926.1075,926-1776-926.1807 3055-3067 42 5 1 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG DF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 132 SEC 1, TRAN 3, TP 1, 2-29" 927.1477-927.1750,927-2701-927.2873 3068-3097 274 2 5 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 133 SEC 1, TRAN 3, TP 2, 2-11" 92B. 1576-1600, 928.1651-928.1653, 3098-3108 37 0 1

92B.1843-928.1850 134 SEC 1, TRAN 3, TP 6, 2-21" 929.1426-929.1475,929.1601-929.1650, 3109-3138 135 0 23

929.1676-929.1700, 929.1700, 929.6725 135 SEC 1, TRAN 3, TP 7, 2-19* 930.1658-930.1675,930.1751-930.1775, 3139-3161 74 7 5 ALSO NISSING 1 BAB OF COAL

930.2501-930.2529 136 SEC 1, TRAN 3, TP 8, 2-19" 931.1858-931.2125,931.2151-931.2450 3162-3195 579 0 2 ALSO NISSINB 1 BAS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 137 SEC 1, TRAN 3, TP 10, 2-11" 933.2B74-933.2875, 933.2976-933.2996 3196-3200 24 0 0 138 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 11, 2-12" 934.1654-934.1657 3201-3203 3 0 0 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 139 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 12, 2-14" 935.2958-935.2964 3204-3207 6 0 0 ALSO HISSIN6 1 BAG OF COAL 140 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 13, 2-12" 936.2466-936.2500, 936.2B76-936.28B2 3208-3220 43 3 3 141 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 14, 2-14" 937.2966-937.2975, 937.3001-937.3009 3221-3226 19 8 0 142 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 16, 0-14" 938.3022-938.3026, 938.3051-938.3095 3227-3229, 5928-5933 49 0 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL. ACNP CAT. I J 5928-5933 ADDED TO

END OF RANGE 143 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 17, 2-12" 939.2451-939.2465 3230-3234 14 5 0 ALSO HISSING I BAG OF COAL 144 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 18, 2-12" 940.26B1-940.2700, 940.2997-940.3000, 3235-3240 25 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL

940.3020-940.3021 145 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 19, 2-12" 941.2883-941.2886 3241-3244 3 0 3 ALSO NISSINB 1 BAG OF COAL 146 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 21, 2-15" 943.1476, 943.2562 0 0 0 ALSO NISSINE 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 147 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 21, 2-18" 943.2530-943.2561, 943.2563-943.3000, 3245-3269 106 0 5

943,3010-943.3019, 943.3026- 943.3050 148 SEC 2, TRAN 3, TP 22, 2-21" 944.2887-944.2953, 944.2956-944.2957 3270-3274 68 3 0 ALSO HISSING 3 BAGS DF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 149 SEC 1, TRAN 4, TP 5, 2-31' 945,3096-945.3220, 945.3237, 945.3321-945.3336, 3275-3312 341 33 2 ALSO H1SSIN6 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS, 1 BAG OF

945.3338-945.3357, 945.6452-945.6637 HORTAR 150 SEC 1, TRAN 4, TP 6, 2-25" 946.3944, 946.3946-946.3994 3313-3332 4? 2 2 ALSO NISSINB 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 151 SEC 1, TRAN 4, TP 7, 2-29" 947.3995-947.4000, 947.4292-947.4389, 3333-3352 150 3 61 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS

947.4406-947.4433 152 GEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 9, 9-15" 948.4524-948.4526 3353-3356 3 0 0 153 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 9, 0-9" 94B.4523, 948.4527-948.4532 3357-3360 6 1 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 154 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 10, 0-7" 949.4442-949.4465 3361-3368 24 11 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BA6 OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 155 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 10, 7-16" 949.4434-949.4441 3369-3374 7 0 1 ALSO HISSING 1 BAS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 156 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 11, 0-16" 950.4466-950.4522 3375-33B6 56 23 2 157 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 12, 0-14,5" 951.4058-951.4254 3387-3400 199 110 8 158 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 13, 0-5.5" 952.3875-952.3900, 952.4001-952.4027 3401-3413 52 29 2 ALSO HISSING 1 BAS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 159 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 13, 5.5-15.5" 952.4028-952.4057 3414-3419 26 20 1 ALSO NISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS

SUMMARY OF FRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG IS, ACMP CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS


COUNT COUNT

p — •

ON

160 SEC 2, IRAN 4, TP 15, 0-7" 953.5602-953.3637 3420-3429 35 10 5 ALSO MISSING I BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 161 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 15, 6-16" 953.3638-953.3669, 953.3B06-953.3810 3430-3444 81 3 11 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 162 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 16, 0-9" 954.3814-954.3865 3445-3456 52 7 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BA6 OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 163 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 16, 9-12" 954.3866-954.3874 3457-3461 8 1 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLMERS 164 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 17, 0-7" 955,3796-955.3798, 955.8311-955.3B13 3462-3464 5 2 0 ALSO M1SS1N6 1 BA6 OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 165 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 17, 7.5-10.5" 955.3799-955.3807 3465-3469 8 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 166 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 18, 0-9.5" 956.4255-956.4291 3470-3480 36 14 I ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 167 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 19, 0-B" 957,3551-957.3576 3481-3488 24 3 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 166 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 19, 8-13" 957,3577-957.3593 3489-3495 16 3 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OP COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 169 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 19, 13-18" 957.3594-957.3601 3496-3501 7 0 1 ALSO MISSINS 1 BA5 OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 170 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 20, 0-8.5" 958.3259-958.2370, 958.3351-958.3361 3503-3510 27 3 4 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 171 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 20, 8.5" 958.3362-958.3475 3511-3539 195 7 14 172 SEC 2, TRAN 4, TP 21, 2-26" 959.3101-959.3125, 959.3276-959.3350, 3540-3564, 5934-5935 227 47 2 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS. ACMP CAT, I 1

959,3476-959.3550, 959,3904- 959.3943 5934-5935 ADDED TO END OF RANGE 173 SEC 1, TRAN 5, TF 1, 0-19" 960.4533-960.4674 3565-3588 143 0 2 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 174 SEC 1, TRAN 5, TP 5, 2-20' 961.5316, 961.52B5-961.5315, 961.5984-961.6139 3589-3634 215 6 6 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 175 SEC 1, TRAN 5, TP 6, 2-23" 962.5390-962.5500, 962.5769-962.5784 3635-3668 110 1 2 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 176 SEC 1, TRAN 5, TP 7, 2-26' 963.5785-963.5983 3669-3711 216 4 2 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 177 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 9, 2-17" 965.6151-965.6191, 965.6200-965.6206 3712-3723 55 3 1 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 178 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 10, 2-15" 966.6147-966.6150 3724-3725 4 0 0 179 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 11, 2-17" 967.4981-967.5122, 6726 3726-3741 140 3 11 ALSO MISSING ! BAB OF COAL 180 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 12, 2-15" 968.4862-968.4952 3742-3754 87 0 7 1B1 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 13, 2-13" 969,4955-969.4960, 969.4971-969.49B0 3755-3768 25 0 3 182 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 15, 0-16" 970.6258-970.6341 3769-3785 81 0 9 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 183 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 16, 0-16" 971.6342-971.6431 37B6-378S, 3833-3845 88 1 2 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS. ACMP CAT. I J

3B33-3845 ADDED TO END OF RANGE 184 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 17, 0-B" 972.6140-972.6146 3789-3793 6 0 1 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 185 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 17, 8-15" 972,5123-972.5281 3794-3802 162 0 0 186 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 18, 9-9.5" ASH LAYER 973.6241-973.6257 3803-3811 16 3 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 187 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 19, 2-8' 974.4B01-974.4B11 3812-3816 10 0 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OF COAL 188 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 19, 8-22" 974.4812-974.4863 3817-3832 49 0 2 189 SEC 2, TRAN 5, TP 20, 0-28" 975.4675-975.4800, 975.5323-975.5389, 3846-3893 563 2 20 ALSO MISSING 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS

975.5501-975.576B, 975.6207- 975.6240 190 SEC 1, TRAN 6, Tp 1, 0-19" 976.9633-976.9672, 976.6638 3894-3912 40 S 2 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OF COAL 191 SEC 1, TRAN 6, TP 2, 2-23" 977.6639, 977.17104-977.17206 3913-3942 104 1 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OF COAL 192 SEC 1, TRAN 6, TP 3, 0-17" 978.10511-978.10676 3943-3967 164 0 1 193 SEC 1, TRAN 6, TP 3, 2-17' 978.6640,978.6655 3968 0 0 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAG OF COAL. ONLY MORTAR IN THIS PROVENIENCE

NHICH ACMP NEIGHED 194 SEC 1, TRAN 6, TP 4, 2-18" 979.6641-979.6643 3969-3990 0 0 55 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL. PRATT INVENTORY SHEET WITH

COUNTS NAS MISSING 195 SEC 1, TRAN 6, TP 5, 2-20" 980.6644-980,6645 3991-4006 0 0 25 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OP COAL, PRATT INVENTORY SHEET WITH

COUNTS NAS HISSING 196 SEC 1, TRAN 6, TP 6, 2-15" 1071.6646-1071.6647 4007-4035 0 0 56 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAS OF COAL. PRATT INVENTORY SHEET NITH

COUNTS NAS MISSINS 197 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 7, 2-17" 9BI.16896-981.19611 4036-4047 16 0 0 19B SEC 2, TRAN 6, TF 8, 0-4" 982.17350-982.17355 4048-4051 6 0 0 199 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 9, 2-14" 983.17332-983.17342 4052-4059 11 0 0 200 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 10, 2-15' 984.17364-984.17394 4060-4070 30 0 2

SUMMARY OF PRATT MID PRATT COLLECTION', ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG IS, ACW> CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS

RECI PROVENIENCE PRATT CATALOG IS ACHP CATALOG IS PRATT ACMP ACMF COMMENTS COUNT MISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

201 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 11, 2-9" 985.16703-985.16703 4071-4085 60 0 1 ALSO MISSING 1 SAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 202 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 12, 0-18" 9B6.16610-986.16702 40B6-4106 98 2 7 203 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 12, 2-18" 9B6.6656 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 204 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 14, 0-9.5" I 9,5-26" 987.9253-9B7.9367 4107-4136 114 5 10 205 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 14, 0-9.5" 9B7.6654 0 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 206 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 14, 9.5-26" 9B7.6652-967.6653 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, 1 BAG OF BONE 207 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 15, 0-20" 98B.6649, 988.6651, 988,14221-988.14302 4137-4157 77 1 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 208 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 16, 0-6" 989.17356-989.19363 4158 8 0 0 209 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 16, 6-16" 989.6657, 989.6659, 939,16912-989.16934 4159-4164 21 0 0 ALSO MISSING 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 210 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 17, 0-13" 990,17290-990.17312 4165-4175 23 I 0 211 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 17, 2-13" 990.6658 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/0.INKERS 212 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 17, 0-26" 12563-12584, 12692-12704 4176-4191 0 0 35 PRATT INVENTORY SHEET WITH COUNTS WAS MISSINS 213 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP i8, 2-10" 991.6667 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAB OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 214 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP IB, 10-25" 991.6664-991.6666 0 0 0 ALSO MISSING 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 215 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 19, 0-36" 992,16784-992.16B05 4194-4203 21 0 58 MOST EXTRA ACMF COUNT HAS 54 EXTRA IRON FRAGG, LISTED AS ' 1

BAG' ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET. 2-10",DEPTH RECORDED ON BAG WHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET RECORDED 0-36"

216 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 19, 2-36' 992.666B-992,6669 0 0 0 ALSO HISSING 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 21? SEC 2, IRAN i, TP 19, 10-36" 992.6670,992.15265-992,15745 4204-4252 5B0 12 239 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS. MOST EXTRA

ACMP COUNT HAS 78 EXTRA IRON FRAGS. LISTED AS '1 BAG' IRON ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

218 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 0-10" 993.9673-993.9686, 993.10677-993.10865, 4253-4299 429 13 34 SAGS OF NAILS AND METAL CATALOGED WITH SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 993.11162-11251, 993.16144-993.16235 2-30" MAY HAVE BEEN FRDM THIS PROVENIENCE, BUT ACMP CQUO

NOT DETERMINE 219 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 2-30" 993.9806-993.10000, 993.12001-993.12006 4300-4352 237 0 10! BAGS OF NAILS AND MEIAL MAY CORRESPOND TO SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP

20, 0-10" AND 98 OF THE ACMP EXTRA COUNT HERE NAILS FROM THESE BAGS. CATALOGUED WITH THIS PROV. DUE TO ORIGINAL BAG LABEL

220 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 10-30" TOP LEVEL 993.6660-993.6664 4353-4359 0 0 14 ALSO MISSING 4 BA6S OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS EXCEPT SMALL AMOUNT. PRATT INVENTORY SHEET WITH COUNTS HAS MISSINS

221 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP 20, 10-30' LOHER LEVEL 993.9686-993.9805 4360-4376 125 1 5 222 SEC 2, TRAN 6, TP IB, B-23V2-25' 991.16252-991.16524 4192-4193, 4379-4414 296 0 98 MOST EXTRA ACMP COUNT HAS 79 EXTRA IRON FRAGS. LISTED AS '!

BAG' ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET. ACMP CAT. I J 4379-4414 ADDED TO END OF RANGE. 2-25" DEPTH RECORDED ON BA6 HHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET RECORDED 6-25"

223 SEC !, TRAN 7, Tp 1, 2-13" 994.27090-994.27200 4415-4443 110 7 7 ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF CINDERS /CLINKERS 224 SEC 1, TRAN 7, TP 2, 2-13" 995.26199-995.26211 4444-4450 20 2 2 225 SEC 1, TRAN 7, TP 3, 2-12" 996.27498-996.27517 4451-4465 19 0 3 226 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 4, 2-19" 997.26140-997.26164 4466-4477 24 0 0 ALSO MISSINS 1 BAB OF COAL 227 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 5, 2-24" 99B.26466-998.26487 4478-4490 27 0 2 228 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 6, 2-21" 999.26247-999.26265 4491-4500 26 0 0 229 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 7, 0-17" 1000.25429-1000.25494 4501-4520 65 0 6 230 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 8, 0-7.5" i 7.5-16" 1001.24669-1001.25000, 1001.26001-10001.26057 4521-4554 205 1 7 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 231 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 9, 0-14" 1002.25767-1002.25942 4555-4576 173 1 3 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 232 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 10, 0-1B" 1003.25495-1003.25565 4579-4602 70 1 0 233 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 10, 8.5-18" 1003.24765-1003,2486G 4603-4633 121 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BA6 OF COAL 234 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 12, 0-14" 1004.12007-1004.12075,1004.12101-1004.12107 4634-4652 9B 0 14 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 235 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 13, 2-17" 1005.6731-1005.6748 4653-4670 69 0 0

O N 4 ^

SUMMARY OF PRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORI61NAL CATALOG IS, ACNP CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS


COUNT COUNT

ALSO MISSING 1 BA6 OF COAL, CINDERS

ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS

ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS, I BAG OF IRON, 1 BAG OF ROOFING. MOST EXTRA ACMP COUNT MAS 31 EXTRA NOOD FRAGS, LISTED AS '1 BAG' ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

Ly>

236 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP II 4671-4469 0 0 61 PRATT INVENTORY SHEET MITH COUNTS NAS MISSING 237 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 15, 0-16" 1007.16567-1007.16609 4690-4702 42 2 2 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 238 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 16, 0-1B" 0999.13373-0999.13723 4703-4744 36! B 12 ALSO MISSING 1 BA6 OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 239 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 17, 0-26" 1009.12563-1009.12719,1009.26499-1009.26504 4745-4761 164 47 0 240 SEC 2, TRAN 7, TP 18, 2-12" 1010.6676-1010.6704 4762-4774 26 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 241 SEC 1, TRAN 8, TP 1, 2-19" 1010.27201-1010.27247 4775-4795 43 1 14 ALSO MISSING 1 BA6 OF CINDERS/CLINKERS. MOST EXTRA ACMP

COUNT HAS 13 EXTRA IRON FRA6S. LISTED AS '1 BAG' IRON ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

242 SEC 1, TRAN 8, TP 2, 0-22" 1011.27248-1011.27271 4796-4813 22 0 3 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 243 SEC 2, TRAN B, TP 3, 2-21" 1012.27518-1012.27555 4814-4827 37 1 1 244 SEC 2, TRAN 8, TP 4, 2-19" 1013.26078-1013.26106 4828-4833, 5936-5939 28 5 0 ACMP CAT. I 3 5936-5939 ADDED TO END OF RANGE 245 SEC 2, TRAN 8, TP 5, 2-18" 1014.27422-1014.27471 4834-4849 48 0 0 246 SEC 2, TRAN 8, TP 6, 2-12" 1015.26212-1015.26246 4850-4865 49 0 5 247 SEC 2, TRAN 8, TP 11, 0-32" 1016.23001-1016.23222 4866-4887 219 0 2 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 248 SEC 2, TRAN 8, TP 12, 2-38" 1017.23528-1017.23832, 1017.2605B 4888-4924 304 2 11 ALSO MISSING 2 BAGS OF COAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS 249 SEC 2, TRAN 8, TP 12, 38-47" 1017.259BB-1017.26000, 1017.27001-1017.270B6 4925-4949 97 1 6 ALSO MISSING 1 BA6 OF CINDERS. 38-47" DEPTH RECORDED ON BAG

WHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET RECORDED 2-38' AND ACMP NAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THESE ARTIFACTS AS FROM 38-47"

250 SEC 3, TRAN 8, TP 13, 2-15" 1018.26165-1018.26174 4950-4954 9 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 251 SEC 3, TRAN 8, TP 14, 0-12" 1019.22B73-10I9.23000 4955-4988 127 1 1 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 252 SEC 3, TRAN 8, TP 15, 0-16" 1020.2295B, 1020.27472-1020.27497 4989-5004 25 I 18 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS. EXTRA ACMP COUNT NAS 16 EXTRA

NOOD FRAGS. LISTED AS '1 BAG' NOOD ON PRATT INVENTORY SHEET 253 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 1, 0-20" 1021.21467-1021.21552 5005-5037 90 3 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 254 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 2, 0-13" 1022.22628-1022.22642 5038-5046 14 0 0 255 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 2, 13-19" 1022.22643-1022.22663 5047-5056 22 1 2 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS, 13-19" DEPTH RECORDED ON BAG

NHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET RECORDED 0-13" AND ACMP NAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THESE ARTIFACTS AS FROM 13-19"

256 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 3, 1-5" 1023.22664-1023.22674 5057-5062 10 0 3 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 257 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 3, 5-10" 1023.27556-1023.27563 5063-5069 7 2 1 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 258 SEC 2, TRAN 9. TP 3, 10-18" 1023.22675-1023.22684 5070-5078 19 0 2 259 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 4, 0-19" 1024.20656-1024.20836 5079-5094 180 1 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS. PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

RECORDED 16-19" DEPTH, BUT DUE TO CONFLICTING DEPTHS ON BAGS, ACMP CHANGED DEPTH TO 0-19"

260 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 5, 2-17" 1025.22814-1025.22830 5095-5107 i6 0 3 261 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 8 5108-5120 0 0 23 ON PRATT MAP TP 8 LOCATED IN THE HOUSE, THERE NAS NO RECORD

OF TP 8 EXCAVATION IN THE PRATT NOTES. PROVENIENCE INFORMATION RECORDED ON BAG. ACMP LEFT AS TP 8 BECAUSE CORRECT TP I COULD NOT BE DETERMINED.

262 SEC 2, TRAN 9, TP 10, 0-36" 1026.22230-1026.22566 5121-5160 426 0 4 ALSO MISSIN5 I BAG OF CINDERS 263 SEC 2, TRAN 10, TP 1, 2-23" 1027.27356-1027.27370 5161-5168 14 1 0 264 SEC 2, TRAN 10, TP 2, 2-20" 1028.26511-1028.26535 5169-5179 30 1 1 265 SEC 2, TRAN 10, TP 3, 2-11" 1029.24759-1029.24764 5180-5182 5 0 0 ALSO HISSING 1 BA6 OF COAL, CINDERS 266 SEC 2, TRAN 10, TP 7, 0-24" 1030.26286-1030.26465 5183-5222 194 2 14 267 SEC 2, TRAN 10, TP B, 2-25" 1031.25566-1031.25766 5223-5261 198 0 3 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 268 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 9, 2-13" 1032.27411-1032.27421 5262-5271 10 0 0 269 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 10, 0-14" 1033.25357-1033.25428 5272-5283 66 0 32 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS, 1 BAG OF IRON, 1 BAG OF

SUMMARY DF PRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG US, ACMP CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS


COUNT COUNT

270 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 10, 2-25' 1033.2X572-103J.24758 5284-530? 222 9 1? 271 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 11, 0-14' 1034.26175-1034.26197 5310-5321 23 0 1 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL 272 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 12, 0-13" 1035.27344-1035.27355 5322-5329 11 0 0 273 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 12, 2-12' 1035.26269-1035,26275 5330-5335 6 0 0 274 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 12, 12-13' 1035.264BB-1035.26493 5336-5341 7 0 0 275 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 13, 0-16' 1036.26059-1036.26076 5342-5351 24 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 276 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 14, 2-15" 1037.27372-1037.27410 5352-5360 36 0 0 277 SEC 3, TRAN 10, TP 14, 0-27" 1037.21711-1037.21911 5361-5382 299 1 54 278 SEC 2, TRAN 11, TP 1, 2-19" 1038.10149-1038,10170 5384-5394 19 2 0 27? SEC 2, TRAN 11, TP 2, 2-17" 7760-7816 5395-5407 60 0 1 280 SEC 2, TRAN 11, TP 6, 0-24" 1041.10171-1041.10291 5406-5438 106 0 6 281 SEC 2, TRAN 11, TP 7, 0-7" 1042.10292-1042.10313 5439-5447 21 0 0 282 SEC 3, TRAN 11, TP 8, 0-27" 1043,9191-1043,9252 5448-5464 62 2 3 ALSO MISSING I BAG OP COAL, CINDERS10.INKERS 283 SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 1, 2-17" 7371-7434 5465-5485 64 3 9 284 SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 2, 0-20" 7455-7775 5486-5514 118 1 0 285 SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 3, 0-20" 1046.16806-1046.14695 5515-5540 B? 5 7 ALSO HISSING 1 BA6 OF CINDERS 286 SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 4, 2-23" 7601-7625, 7629-7706 5541-5571 105 3 1 287 SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 5, 2-23" 1046.32057-1048.32087 5572-5586 30 0 0 288 SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 5, 2-25" 7576-7626 28 28 0 ALL ARTIFACTS MI5SIN6, SOME PRATT CATALOG NUMBERS OVERLAP

WITH THOSE USED IN SEC 2, TRAN 12, TP 4, 2-23", AND THUS THESE ARTIFACTS MAY HAVE BEEN CATALOGED TN1CE VS. MISSING

289 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 6, 0-24" 1049.16935-1049.16951 5587-5594 16 1 0 290 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 7, 0-25" 1050.16236-1050.1625! 5595-5605 15 0 0 291 SEC 3, IRAN 12, TP 8, 2-10 7435-7453 23 23 0 ALL ARTIFACTS MISSING 292 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP B, 0-5" 1051.28924-1051.2B943 5606-5613 19 2 4 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CINDERS 293 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 9, 2-7* 1052.17032-1052.17050 5614-5623 18 0 0 294 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 9, 7-12V0-15" 1052.16127-1052,16143 5624-5634 16 0 0 7-12" DEPTH RECORDED ON BAG WHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

RECORDED 0-15" 295 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 9, 12-15" 1052.17207 3 3 0 ALL ARTIFACTS MISSING 296 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 10, 0-18" 1053.16525-1053.16566 5635-5648 40 1 B ALSO MISSING 1 BAG GF CINDERS/CLINKERS 297 SEC 3, TRAN 12, TP 11, 0-16" 1054.17313-1054,17331 5649-5655, 5940-5943 17 5 0 ALSO MISSING i BAG DF CCAL, CINDERS/CLINKERS, 1 BAG OF

MORTAR, ACMP CAT. I 3 5940-5943 ADDED TO END OF RANGE 298 SEC 2, TRAN 13, TP 1, 1-9" 1D55.17208-1055.17289 5656-5678 81 0 0 299 SEC 2, TRAN 13, TP 1, 9-28" 1055.17051-1055.17103 5679-5701 65 3 3 300 SEC 2, TRAN 13, TP 2, 0-10" 1056.34851-1056.34BS4 5702-5713 34 0 I 301 SEC 2, TRAN 13, TP 2, 10-14" 1056.16952-1056.16985, 1056.7707-1056.7735 5714-572? 63 29 0 ALL ARTIFACTS FROM 1 OF 2 PRATT INVENTORY SHEETS MISSING

(PRATT CATALOG I 7707-7735). ALSO EXTRA 1 BAG OF SHELL 302 SEC 2, TRAN 13, TP 3, 0-3" 1057.17343-1057,17349 5730-5733 6 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OP CINDERS/CUMMERS 303 SEC 2, TRAN 13, TP 3, 3-12" 7736-7757, 7788-7789 5734-5746 23 0 2 ALSO MISSIN6 1 BAB OF CINDERS/CLINKERS 304 SEC 3, TRAN 13, TP 4, 0-18" 1058.15751-1058.15835 5747-5757 101 0 0 305 SEC 2, THAN 14, TP I, 0-8*70-14" 1059.10139-1059.10148 5758-5767 9 0 0 0-8' DEPTH RECORDED OH BAG NHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

RECORDED 0-14" 306 SEC 2, TRAN 14, TP 1, B-13"/0-13" 1059.10033-1059.10043 5768-5778 10 0 1 307 SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 2, 0-25" 1060.10044-1060.10125 5779-5802 80 4 4 ALSO MISSING 1 BAB OF CINDERS/CLINKERS, 1 BAG DF SHELL 30B SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 3, 0-25" 1061.10126 5803 1 0 0 309 SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 4, 0-25" 1062.10001-1062.10021 5804-5818 20 0 i 310 SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 5, 0-15" 10022-10032 5819-5824 9 0 0 311 SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 6, 0-12" 1064.87B1-1064.8600 5825-5B32 23 2 2

as as

SUMMARY OF PRATT AND PRATT COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS ORIGINAL CATALOG IS, ACMP CATALOG IS, MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS


COUNT COUNT

5

312 SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 6, l£-3f/0-36' 1064.8737-1Q64.8780 5833-5851 42 0 5 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF COAL, 12-36' DEPTH RECORDED ON BAG WHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET RECORDED 0-36"

313 SEC 3, TRAN 14, TP 7, 0-24' 1065.8716-1065.B734 5B52-5B57 IB I 1 ALSO MISSING 1 BA6 OF MORTAR 314 SEC 3, TRAN 16, TP 1, 0-22' 1066.8076-1066,8137 5860-5880 61 0 4 315 SEC 3, TRAN 3, TP 2, 0-16' 1067.10127-1067.10135 5881-58B8 8 0 0 316 SEC 3, TRAN 16, TP 3, 0-12V12-29" 1068.B138-106B.8150, 1068.8B01-106B.8809 5B89-5901 21 0 1 12-29' DEPTH RECORDED ON BAG WHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

RECORDED 0-12" 317 SEC 3, TRAN 16, TP 3, 0-I6V2-12" 1060.10136-1068.10138 5902-5905 2 0 0 2-12" DEPTH RECORDED ON BAB WHEREAS PRATT INVENTORY SHEET

RECORDED 0-16' 31B SEC 3, TRAN 16, TP 4, 0-16' 1069.6018-1069.8075 5906-5926 56 3 4 319 SEC 3, TRAN 18, TP 2, 0-13' 1070.B735-1070.B736 5927 1 0 0 ALSO MISSING 1 BAG OF CHARCOAL 320 UNPROVENIENCED 5944-5961 0 0 IB THIS CONTAINS ARTIFACTS THAT HERE NOT MATCHED WITH ANY OTHER

PROVENIENCE

Appendix 9. Missing/Extra Artifacts in the Towle and Hsu Collection

169

REC# PROVENIENCE ACMP CAT.#S

SUMMARY OF TOWLE AND HSU COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS (ORIGINAL COUNTS, ACMP MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS)

ORIG. ACMP ACMP COMMENTS COUNT MISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

1 EU 11A 6804-6814 19 0 0 2 EU 11 6815-6826 18 0 0 3 EU 11B 6827-6860, 7161 109 0 0 4 EU 12A 6861-6895 73 0 0 5 EU 12B 6896-6940 0 0 115 NO ORIGINAL INVENTORY SHEET FOR THIS

PROVENIENCE. NOT IN REPORT EITHER. 6 EU 13A 6941-7004,6512,6514-6515,7045,7843 237 0 3 7 EU 13 7005-7044 169 0 4 8 EU 13B 7046-7101 139 0 22 9 EU 13&13A&13B, L 2 7102-7120 77 0 0 10 EU 14 7121-7160, 7844 141 2 4 11 EU 14A 7162-7207 149 0 14 12 EU 15A 7208-7258, 7845 151 1 8 13 EU 15B 7259-7304, 7848 161 1 2 14 EU 16 7305-7339 78 0 2 15 EU 16B 7340-7386 147 0 3 16 EU 18A 7430-7442, 7846 53 0 4 17 EU 17A 7387-7429 119 3 0 18 EU 20 7443-7501, 7847 231 0 3 19 EU 21 7502-7566 336 0 7 20 EU 22, L 1 7567-7624 289 0 3 21 EU 22, L 2 7625-7701 565 1 18 22 EU 22, L 3 7702-7835 1596 0 193 MUCH OF EXTRAS = CERAMIC AND GLASS

VESSEL FRAGS. APPEAR TO BE MIXED FROM OTHER PROVS. (CONTAMINATED)

23 EU 1A 5962-6006 185 0 1 24 EU 1 6007-6041 102 1 1 25 EU 2A 6042-6092 311 0 0 26 EU 2 6093-6114 48 0 0 27 EU 2B 6115-6145 58 0 0 28 EU 3A 6146-6172 60 0 0 29 EU 3 6173-6196 41 0 1 30 EU 4A 6197-6248, 7837 133 3 1 31 EU 4B 6249-6302, 7838 143 1 1 32 EU 4C 6303-6342 160 2 1 33 EU 4D 6343-6378 116 0 1 34 EU 4E 6379-6410 100 0 0 35 EU 4F 6411-6431 34 0 0 36 EU 4G 6432-6439 18 0 0 37 EU 5A 6440-6473 102 0 3 38 EU 5 6474-6481, 7839 11 0 1 39 EU 5B 6482-6509 118 0 0 40 EU 6A 6510-6511, 6513, 6516-6532 46 1 0 41 EU 6 6533-6549 31 0 0 42 EU 6B 6550-6562 16 0 0 43 EU 7A 6563-6582, 7840 39 2 0 44 EU 7 6583-6606, 5078 42 0 0 45 EU 7B 6607-6625 52 0 1

-J

SUMMARY OF TOWLE AND HSU COLLECTION, ADAMS NHS (ORIGINAL COUNTS, ACMP MISSING AND EXTRA ARTIFACTS)

I—> -J to

REC# PROVENIENCE ACMP CAT.#S ORIG. ACMP ACMP COMMENTS COUNT MISSING EXTRA

COUNT COUNT

46 EU 8A 6626-6657, 7841 108 0 0 47 EU 8 6658-6688 76 0 2 48 EU 8B 6689-6722 95 0 1 49 EU 9 6723-6755, 7842 83 0 1 50 EU 10 6756-6803 156 2 0

Appendix 10. Letter from Geosight to NPS Chief of Cultural Resources

Re: Geophysical Survey Results

173

Geosight GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION AND REMOTE SENSING

Consul ta t ion Field Surveys In terpre ta t ion

BRUCE W. BEVAN. OWNER POST O F F I C E BOX 135

( 2 0 3 EAST AVENUE)

P I T M A N . N E W JERSEY 00071

USA

Francis P. McManamon Chief, Cultural Resources National Park Service, North Atlantic Region 15 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109

26 July 1982

Dear Frank,

I have had a chance now to study Marjorie Pratt's report on the Adams Birthplaces site and can see some further points on the correlation between the radar survey and the excavation.

It is clear to me now that the cause of radar anomalies J1 , J21 and J- is a thin, near-surface layer of high attenuation material. While I had originally thought that the most likely explanation was a tall vertical cylinder of different material, this is definitely not the case. These high attenuation, low pulse velocity, surface patches have a low electrical resistivity. Their cause, ordered from the most likely to the least likely,-could be: clinkers or cinders, general debris, ash, or coal. These anomalies had very sharp edges, and had an excavation crossed their boundary, the exact material cause would probably be clear. The unexcavated anomaly, A., has almost surely the same source.

Rubble areas appear to have been clearly indicated. Radar anomalies H, G, and D were all found to be thick with coarse stone or brick. The anomalies as mapped probably delineate the approximate extent of the rubble. I have found this type of mapping to be accurate at other sites. Coherent foundations can never be isolated by the radar in such rubble.

The buried "mounds" or lenses are a particular problem. Anomalies L and N are very clear, and distinctly indicate near-surface stratigraphic basins. A 1x9 ft excavation crossing the boundary of either anomaly might have indicated the source better that the 3 ft squares within the anomalies. While the radar gives no indication whether the lens of sterile sand in excavation 13 is natural or man-made, it indicates an unusual, clear interface at a depth of about 2^-32 ft; I can't tell from the excavation report whether this depth was exceeded in the test pit in excavation 13.

p. 1 of 2

p . 2 of 2

It is likely that excavation 22 was not coincident with anomaly K, the well-like feature. There are obvious positional differences in this part of the survey area; the placement of the north side of the John Adams Birthplace house differs by 6 ft between the Weston and the Pratt reports. My best estimate of the cause of anomaly K is still a well or similar feature; a low attenuation patch, allowing a "window" into the deeper strata, is possible but less likely.

Anomaly Q is still a favorite with me; while it has not been tested, my experience since this 1979 survey still indicates that it is a refilled pit or basin.

On p. 4*4- of Marjorie Pratt's report, it is mentioned that test excavation 7 is within anomaly F; they appear to be 8-10 ft apart.

The 15 inch diameter well found in excavation 27 was probably too small for the particular radar antenna to locate; I have a higher resolution antenna now.

If the three pipes in excavation 10' were extended primarily north-south, along the line of radar traverse, it would be reasonable that they would not be detected.

So, in summary, I am pleased with the radar's detection of rubble areas, but am puzzled by the stratigraphic lenses which the radar clearly detected.

It looks to me that this site was a very interesting one to excavate; it has furnished a much better idea of the historical land use there.

Please let me know if I can clarify anything here.

Very best regards,

copy to: Marjorie Pratt John Doherty

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992—600-626—90059

REPORTS OF THE DIVISION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service

The Division produces and prints reports on archeological, curatorial, historical, and historic architectural topics that identify, evaluate, document, and interpret cultural resources in National Park Service units of the North Atlantic Region. Some of these reports are of general interest for their presentations of substantive, bibliographic, technical, or methodological information. These are listed below. Those that are listed with an NTIS number are only available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151. Others are available from the Division of Cultural Resources Management, NARO, National Park Service, 15 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. Prices are listed.

Cultural Resources Management Studies

No. 1 Archeological Resource Study, Roger Williams National Monument. Public Archeology NTIS PB81 185134 Laboratory, Brown University, 1979.

No. 2 Archeological Overview and Evaluation at Minute Man National Historical Park. NTIS PB81 185142 Vernon G. Baker, 1980.

No. 3 Historic Resources Study, Jamaica Bay: A History. Gateway National Recreation Area, New NTIS PB81 226649 York-New Jersey. Frederick R. Black, 1981.

No. 4 Archeological Site Examination: A Case Study in Urban Archeology. Roger Williams 6.00 National Monument.

No. 5 Archeological Resource Study, Historical Archeology at Bunker Hill Monument. Boston NTIS PB83 186957 National Historical Park. Thomas Mahlstedt, 1981.

No. 6 Archeological Investigation at the Narbonne House. Salem Maritime National Historic Site. 7.00 Geoffrey P. Moran, Edward F. Zimmer, Anne E. Yentsch, 1982.

No. 7 Historic Resource Study, A History of Fort Wadsworth, New York Harbor. Frederick R. 4.00 Black, 1983.

No. 8 Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, I: Results of the Cape Cod National Seashore NTIS PB85 220101 Archeological Survey, 1979-1981 (2 volumes). Francis P. McManamon, editor, 1984.

No. 9 The National Park Service in the Northeast: A Cultural Resource Management Bibliography. 7.00 Dwight T. Pitcaithley, 1984.

No. 10 Celebrating the Immigrant: An Administrative History of the Statue of Liberty National 5.00 Monument, 1952-1982. Barbara Blumberg, 1985.

No. 11 Hoosac Docks: Foreign Trade Terminal. A Case of the Expanding Transportation System 4.00 Late in the Nineteenth Century. Paul O. Weinbaum, 1985.

No. 12 The 1983 Excavationsofl9BN281: Chapters in the ArcheologyofCapeCod.il. Christopher 5.00 L. Borstel, 1985.

No. 13 Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, III: The Historic Period and Historic Period 5.00

Archeology. Francis P. McManamon, editor, 1985.

No. 14 Inventory of Structures: Morristown National Historical Park. David Arbogast, 1985. 7.00

No. 15 The Scene of the Battle: Historic Grounds Report, Minute Man National Historical Park. 3.00

Joyce L. Malcolm, 1985.

No. 16 Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, IV.

No. 17 Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, V: Indian Neck Ossuary. Francis P. McManamon, 5.00 James W. Bradley, and Ann L. Magennis, 1986.

No. 18 Interdisciplinary Investigations of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts. Volume I: Life at 12.00 the Boarding Houses. Mary C. Beaudry and Stephen A. Mrozowski, editors, 1987.

No. 19 Interdisciplinary Investigations of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts. Volume II: The 12.00 Kirk Street Agents' House. Mary C. Beaudry and Stephen A. Mrozowski, editors, 1987.

No. 20 Charlestown Navy Yard, 1890-1973. Volumes I and II. Frederick R. Black, 1988.

No. 21 Interdisciplinary Investigations of the Boott Mills, Lowell, Massachusetts. Volume III: The Boarding House System as a Way of Life. Mary C. Beaudry and Stephen A. Mrozowski, editors, 1989.

No. 22 Archeological Investigations of Minute Man National Historical Park. Volume I: Farmers 15.00 and Artisans of the Historical Period. Alan T. Synenki, editor, 1990.

No. 23 Archeological Investigations of Minute Man National Historical Park. Volume n: An 10.00 Estimation Approach to Prehistoric Sites. Duncan Ritchie, Marsha K. King, Christy Vogt, and Patricia Fragola, 1990.

http://ArcheologyofCapeCod.il

Archeological Collections Management Project Series 4.00

No. 1 Archeological Collections Management at Salem Maritime National Historic Site. AlanT. Synenki and Sheila Charles, 1983.

No. 2 Archeological Collections Management at Morristown National Historical Park, New Jersey. 3.00 Alan T. Synenki and Sheila Charles, 1983.

No. 3 Archeological Collections Management of the Great Island Tavern Site. Cape Cod National 3.00 Seashore, Massachusetts. Alan T. Synenki and Sheila Charles, 1984.

No. 4 Archeological Collections Management at Minute Man National Historical Park, Massachusetts. Linda A. Towle and Darcie A. MacMahon, editors.

Volume 1, Introduction and Fiske Hill Area, 1987. 4.00 Volume 2, Nelson Road Area, 1986. 6.00 Volume 3, Virginia Road and Wayside Areas, 1986. 7.00 Volume 4, North Bridge Area and Miscellaneous Collections, 1986. 9.00

No. 5 Archeological Collections Management at The Saugus Iron Works National Historic 4.00 Site, Massachusetts. Darcie A. MacMahon, 1988.

No. 6 Archeological Collections Management at The Springfield Armory National Historic Site, 2.00 Massachusetts. Louise M. DeCesare, 1990.

No. 7 Archeological Collections Management at Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, Massachusetts. 1.50 Louise M. DeCesare, 1990.

No. 8 Archeological Collections Management at Martin Van Buren National Historic Site, New York. Maria A. Capozzi, 1991.

No. 9 Archeological Collections Management at Adams National Historic Site, Massachusetts. Darcie A. MacMahon, 1991.

Other Publications

Cultural Resources Inventory, Lowell National Historical Park and Preservation District: NTIS PB81 189169 Report. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott, Architects, 1980.

The Archeology of Cape Cod National Seashore. Francis P. McManamon and Christopher 1.00 L. Borstel, 1982, (pamphlet 16pp.).