32

IV. GROUND PENETRATING RADAR SURVEY

In 2009 Alexandria Archaeology contracted with Sarah Lowry, a specialist in ground penetrating radar (GPR) studies at archaeological sites, to investigate the maintenance yard, the Old Graveyard, and the Jackson Cemetery for evidence of human graves (Figure 17). GPR survey in the Old Graveyard indicated 21 possible grave locations (Figure 18). The orientations of some of the possible grave locations suggested several likely rows oriented approximately 45 degrees to the east or west of magnetic north (see Figure 18) (Lowry 2009).

A total of 10 possible graves were located in the maintenance yard (see Figure 18). Six of the possible grave locations were identified along the northern edge of the maintenance yard close to the boundary with the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery (see Figure 18). In the centermost portion of the maintenance yard, GPR testing confirmed the likely location of the grave of Clara Adams as denoted by her gravestone, as well as the unmarked grave of her husband Robert Adams adjacent. An additional possible grave was indicated as present along the eastern edge of the maintenance yard, and another possible grave at the south end of the maintenance yard (see Figure 18) (Lowry 2009).

Seven possible grave locations were identified in the Jackson Cemetery parcel (Figure 19). Most were clustered in the south end of the GPR survey area, with one located some 50 ft. north from the cluster (see Figure 19) (Lowry 2009).

Overall, GPR survey indicated a total of 38 possible grave locations in the Old Graveyard, maintenance yard, and Jackson Cemetery parcel. Using this information as a guide, archaeologists focused archaeological testing on the 38 locations in order to conclusively verify the locations of human graves.

33

Figure 17. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey areas at Fort Ward Park (Lowry

2009:6).

Ground Penentrating Radar Survey Areas

Fort Viki rd Park j 200 100 0

N

34

Figure 18. Location of possible graves in the Old Graveyard and the maintenance yard

as indicated by ground penetrating radar data.

Elements

Fort Ward Historical Park Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery

Survey Areas 0 Possible Burial (GPR Target)

ro 20 o 40 Ft::t::LI .__ __ G_P_R~_~b_o_u_n_d_ar_ie_s ______ Ll••==-••=-•••.__J_

_p,...\,EX AN'DR!,1

:(~ •~y ¾ +

}~ ARcHAEOLOG Y

35

Figure 19. Location of possible graves in the Jackson Cemetery as indicated by ground

penetrating radar data.

egend

FortW,mBooodaoes l t~ I o Possible Bunal (GPRTarget) 1./ ;J',, E Lf5•c:=12:J.■5C::::Jo••••••2s_Fe_4

GPR_bo unda nes

Suivey Areas ARCHAEOLOG y

36

V. RESEARCH DESIGN

A. OBJECTIVES

The focus of the archaeological investigations at the four parcels is driven by four research objectives: 1) As guided by a 2009 GPR study, locate and confirm the presence of human graves in the maintenance yard, the Old Graveyard, and the Jackson Cemetery; 2) Delineate the boundaries of clusters of graves or individual graves in each of the study areas; 3) Precisely map all identified graves; 4) With standard shovel testing, metal detection, and mechanical trenching methods, locate, record, and evaluate all cultural resources10 within the four parcels.

Three of the four goals concern the identification and recordation of human graves in the maintenance yard, the Old Graveyard, and the Jackson Cemetery. The fourth goal pertains to the identification and evaluation of cultural resources other than graves in the four survey parcels. While the Old Graveyard and Jackson Cemetery are known solely for their use as burial grounds, the maintenance yard and the Shorts House Lot functioned primarily as home lots in the years following the Civil War. Moreover, given the location of Fort Ward, there is a high likelihood for encountering evidence of Civil War activity in all areas of the park property. Furthermore, artifacts associated with historic and American Indian activity that predates the Civil War are also a distinct possibility.

B. FIELD METHODS

Fieldwork for this project consisted of four testing procedures: 1) metal detection; 2) shovel tests; 3) excavation units; and 4) mechanical scraping/stripping in trenches and/or blocks. The first three testing methods were used to sample the topsoil overburden in each survey parcel. Mechanical stripping is the final testing stage expressly because the purpose of it is to remove the topsoil in selected areas to expose the underlying subsurface. The locations of all metal detection targets, shovel test locations, square excavation units, mechanically stripped areas, and identified features were mapped with a total station and transferred as layers into the City of Alexandria’s GIS system.

1. Metal Detection

Experienced metal detector operators conducted a nonsystematic metal detecting survey in the maintenance yard, the Shorts House Lot, and the western portion of the Old Graveyard. Metal detecting was not attempted in the Jackson Cemetery in order to prevent any damage to the fort glacis. The primary aim for the metal detecting in each area was to identify artifacts directly associated with Civil War activity. Concentrations of military artifacts could indicate locations of soldier’s campsites or outbuildings associated with Fort Ward. Each positive metal signal was excavated and collected unless it was immediately apparent to be of modern origin (i.e. aluminum pop tab, etc.).

10 For this project “cultural resources” mean “historic properties,” all of which will be manifested

as archaeological sites. Standing buildings can be cultural resources as well, but there are no historic buildings in the four survey parcels.

37

The location for each positive metal signal was flagged and later picked up by surveyors and entered into the City GIS system.

2. Shovel Testing

Archaeologists excavated a grid pattern of shovel test pits in the maintenance yard and in the Shorts House Lot. Shovel testing was not conducted in the Old Graveyard or the Jackson Cemetery mainly because this method of fieldwork is not as effective for finding graves as other more comprehensive methods.11 Shovel test pits were placed in transects at 30 ft. intervals, with the interval dropped to 15 ft. around potential structural foundations. Each shovel test pit was at least 1.0 ft. in diameter and excavated into sterile subsoil. The depths of each test hole soil column was recorded and described using Munsell color designators and U. S. Department of Agriculture soil texture terminology. The soil extracted from each test hole was sifted through ¼-inch screen mesh and artifacts were segregated, when possible, by stratum. The location of each shovel test hole was recorded on a scaled base map, and all shovel tests were designated by their grid coordinates. Each shovel test hole immediately was backfilled after it was completed.

3. Test Unit Excavation

Hand-dug test unit squares were excavated in each of the four survey parcels. In the majority of cases test squares were dug at the locations of possible graves as indicated by the ground penetrating radar survey (Lowry 2009). Depending upon the circumstances, the test units varied in size from 3.0 ft.2 to 10 ft.2 and these units were not screened, although artifacts recovered during the excavation were collected. A lesser number of test units were placed in high-artifact concentration areas, and the soil extracted in these units was screened through ¼ inch steel mesh and all artifacts were retained. All test squares were excavated stratigraphically by natural layer.

4. Mechanical Stripping

As a final testing measure, a mechanical backhoe with a smooth bucket blade was used to strip off the topsoil in blocks and trenches around areas of documented features and/or graves and in potential grave areas. Mechanical stripping was conducted in all the parcels except for the Jackson Cemetery. Archaeologists monitored the backhoe excavations at all times, directing the operator to remove soil to the top of subsoil and no further so as to not cut into natural deposits, grave shafts, or other subsurface features. Following the mechanical exposure of subsoil, archaeologists hand-troweled and shovel-shaved the exposed surface in order to identify and define subsurface features (Plate 3).

C. LABORATORY METHODS

The Ottery Group conducted laboratory analysis during and following the field efforts. After the shovel test survey, but prior to mechanical excavation, a rough sort of artifacts was performed of artifacts recovered from the shovel test holes into general classifications (bottle glass, window glass, ceramics, nails, brick, other). Distribution maps were generated using Surfer mapping software for each of these categories as well as for overall number of artifacts. Later, upon completion of the fieldwork, all artifacts

11 The ground penetrating radar survey that preceded this project accomplished what shovel testing

is intended to do, which is to find archaeological evidence of cultural resources.

38

Plate 3. Archaeological crew members hand-troweling the exposed subsurface in the

Old Graveyard.

were washed, sorted, and cataloged using the cataloging system developed by Alexandria Archaeology. The catalog is entered into a database based on a template provided by Alexandria Archaeology.

The artifacts and accompanying acid-free labels were placed in 2-mil or 4-mil, perforated polyethylene zip-lock bags. The site number and bag number was written on the exterior of bags with permanent black marker, and provenience information acid-free labels was inserted in each bag. Bags were then placed in archival-quality acid-free “Hollinger” boxes for curation. The ultimate storage of the artifacts is with Alexandria Archaeology.

A GIS database was created that integrates the results of the archaeological survey, geo-referenced historic maps, survey data provided by the City Surveyors, and GIS layers from the City of Alexandria. The database has been provided to the City Archaeologist for future reference, use, and to serve as a foundation so that the results of future archaeological investigations at Fort Ward can be added to it.

D. PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES

A number of archaeological sites within Fort Ward have been registered with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Figure 20). Site 44AX0090 includes the entire 35-acre historical parcel of the park, while other sites registered within this parcel

39

Figure 20. Previously identified sites at Fort Ward registered with the Virginia

Department of Historic Resources.

focus on specific types of resources. During an archaeological survey in the early 1980s Alexandria Archaeology identified site 44AX0036, a small grouping of American Indian artifacts just to the north of the fort’s northeast bastion. In 1991 Alexandria Archaeology conducted excavations at site 44AX0155 which encompasses the barracks, mess hall and possible trash areas east of the fortification. Germane to this project, the Old Graveyard was registered as site 44AX0153 in the early 1990s based on historical deeds, and the adjacent Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery also received a site number (44AX0151) at that time in recognition of its historical significance.

40

VI. SURVEY RESULTS

Archaeological results are presented below for each of the four survey parcels. The parcels include: A) a 1.5 acre area used until recently as a maintenance yard12; B) a 0.90 acre lot once occupied by the Burr and Harriet Shorts family and their descendants; C) a 0.10 acre burial plot known as the “Old Graveyard”; and D) a 0.25 acre area situated on the western glacis of Fort Ward and referred to as the “Jackson Cemetery” (see Figure 4). In reporting the results, each of the four parcels is presented as a separate entity, and analyzed as a standalone plot of land with a unique background history of ownership and use. The parcels also are interconnected in time and space by different people and events, and these connections will become more apparent with additional historical research, excavation, and oral history in later project stages.

A. MAINTENANCE YARD

The maintenance yard parcel is approximately 1.5 acres in size (180 ft. by 390 ft.), the largest of the four survey parcels (Figure 21). Located in the southeast section of Fort Ward Park, the yard has been put to use in many different capacities by the City for several decades. Vehicles and equipment have been stored in this location, as well as gravel, lumber, mulch and other plant materials. The yard has also been used for greenhouses and for plant bedding. This fenced area was selected as a priority survey area due to 1) public interest in appropriate future uses of the area; 2) the location of the School/Chapel on this parcel which was a significant focal point for The Fort community; 3) oral history sources that indicate that graves are located in the area (as well as the Clara Adams gravestone in the center of the lot.

While the project is driven by the four overarching research questions discussed earlier, there are additional research questions that apply specifically to the maintenance yard. These include:

1) Are graves present at each of the GPR anomalies?

2) Are graves present in subsoil on what was once Amanda Clark’s lot as indicated on the mid-twentieth-century USGS maps (see Figure 15a) and in Sargent Young’s oral account (Alexandria Legacies 1996, 2009)? Furthermore, is the Clara Adams headstone in its original position? Is Robert Adams’ grave still present next to Mrs. Adams’ grave?

3) Has all or portions of the maintenance yard lost resource integrity from late twentieth-century ground altering activities?

4) Are there structural remains of the School/Chapel/Young house as well as associated artifacts and subsurface features?

12 Unlike the other three study parcels, the use of the term “maintenance yard” is not a historical

reference to the area, but refers to its recent use by the City for maintenance purposes. The historical ownership and use of the lot involved many different people and organizations, which would make for an unwieldy term of reference (e.g. Shorts/Adams/Clark/Casey/Belk/Young/Ruffner/Falls Church School Board/Diocesan Mission Society). Only for the sake of convenience, we use “maintenance yard” in this report.

41

Figure 21. Aerial view of the maintenance yard and the Old Graveyard, ca. 2009.

5) Are cultural resources present? If so, where are they located and to which family or organization are they associated?

6) Is further work needed to assess the potential integrity of any resources?

7) What is the potential of the maintenance yard for additional graves and significant cultural resources? Moreover, what are the recommended preservation treatments for planning purposes?

1. Lot History Over the years the maintenance yard has been carved into a variety of individual

parcels. After the Civil War it first came into the hands of Burr and Harriet Shorts in 1879 as part of a 10-acre tract of land. Shortly after Burr Shorts died, Harriet Shorts deeded several acres to her daughter Clara Shorts Adams. On the last day of the year in 1898 Clara and her husband Robert Adams sold a ¼ acre to the Falls Church School District for the purpose of building a school for African American children. By 1926, the parcel was sold to the Diocesan Missionary Society of Virginia to be used as an Episcopal chapel. St. Cyprians served a small congregation of families until it was sold to John Lorenzo Claiborne in 1942. Claiborne renovated the structure and sold it to Sgt. Lee Thomas Young as a residence in 1947.

42

Based on aerial photographs of the property taken in 1937 and 1949, and a contour map made in 1962, and oral history accounts, we know the locations of a series of structures and other landscape features that once were present in the yard (Figure 22). The most prominent of these is the School/Chapel/Young residence. According to the 1962 survey map, the core area of the structure was 26 ft. (north to south) by 45 ft. (east to west). An 8 ft. by 20 ft. addition or room projected off the northeast corner of the building, and an 8 ft. by 10 ft. compartment extended off the southeast corner (see Figure 22). A second residence owned by the Casey family is located in the extreme southwest corner of the maintenance yard. Charles Casey acquired the one-quarter acre lot in 1931 and built a house shortly thereafter. The house was razed in the 1960s. The remaining known structures all served as outbuildings related to the School/Chapel/Young residence or date to the maintenance activities from the park.

One of the earlier owners of the parcel, Clara Adams, is buried in the center of the maintenance yard area, marked by a headstone (Plate 4). Several informants indicate that Clara Adams’s husband Robert is buried next to his wife, although there currently is no above-ground evidence of Mr. Adams’ grave (Alexandria Legacies 2009:9-10).

Another former owner of property in the maintenance yard, Amanda Shorts Clark, requested in her 1923 will to be buried on her own property “in the corner next to Clara Adams Line in the little grove on my property, located on Seminary Hill, in Fairfax County, Virginia” (Fairfax WB 14:458). Based on this statement, her final resting place may be near the property line separating her land from Clara Adams’ parcel (see Figure 22). It is not known whether her wishes were honored. Amanda Clark’s death certificate states that she was buried at “Seminary Hill” on April 14, 1933.

2. Shovel Testing Archaeologists excavated 83 shovel test pits (STPs) in the maintenance yard parcel and these produced 442 historic period artifacts (Figure 23; Table 1). More than 35 percent of the artifacts were recovered from STP N1060/E970, including 152 window pane fragments, 2 bottle glass shards, and 1 fragment of ceramic drain tile. The STP is located in the southwest corner of the maintenance yard, less than 20 ft. from a group of small buildings that were built in the late 1940s after Lee Thomas Young acquired the property in 1947. Later, once the City owned the property, hothouse trailers were located in this area, the possible source of the numerous window glass fragments. As such, it is difficult to attribute this dense artifact concentration with any single lot owner.

Of the 83 STPs in the Maintenance Yard, 14 were excavated in close proximity to the location of the School/Chapel/Young residence (see Figure 23). Of these 14 STPs, most contained at least one artifact, and in general the domestic artifacts seem to be concentrated in and around this portion of the maintenance yard, particularly ceramic fragments. The most common artifact type present throughout the entire maintenance yard (not counting the large quantity of window glass fragments from STP N1060/E970) is bottle and container glass. Some of the glass shards may be attributable to park-related use and activity in the second half of the twentieth century.

43

Figure 22. Locations of known structures and landscape features within the maintenance

yard parcel.

Fort Ward Park Resources in Maintenance Yard

Al-(<:U,\1-:0L()Cj Y

60 30 0 60 Feet

Source: City of Alexandria 2009 Aerial GI S Layers Created by Alexandria Arch a eo logy and The Ottery Group, Inc.

Legend

D Fort Ward Boundaries

D Parcels in 1962

D Survey Areas

Known and Potential Historic Resources

Type

- Road

c::::J Structure

- Vegetation

44

Plate 4. Headstone marking the grave of Clara Adams in the northwest corner of her

property.

Table 1. Total number of artifacts from STPs within the maintenance yard.

Category School/Chapel/

Young Lot

Percentage of

Total

Assemblage from

Young Lot

Total Artifacts

from

Maintenance

Yard

Brick 3 14.8% 27

Nails 6 46.4% 28

Window Glass 5 38.4% 190*

Bottle Glass 52 35.6% 146

Ceramics 19 63.3% 30

Other 3 14.28% 21

Total 106 23.9% 442

*152 window glass pieces recovered from STP N1060/E970 were removed from sample for percentages.

45

Figure 23. Locations of shovel test pits in the maintenance yard parcel.

In order to better understand how the artifacts are arrayed across the maintenance yard area, archaeologists analyzed the distributions with a software program known as Surfer©. Distributions of ceramics, bottle and container glass, nails, and window glass support the notion that most of the archaeological materials were generated by activity at

Elements

Fort Ward Historical Park l + I »"''""'" Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery v · '.J', - E f.-=--_~--- -·- ~: ,· ..

Survey Areas Y "'

'--. __ S_T_P_S_u_r_v_e_,,_y ________ __, =ro~-2=:..--0~----

5-o-Frt AR~~~o~~GY

46

the School/Chapel/Young residence (Figure 24). Container glass is concentrated around the School/Chapel/Young structure, but also shows up in high quantities to the north of the main structure. Window glass also is concentrated outside of the main structural area, to the south and in the southeast corner of the maintenance yard parcel (see Figure 24). As mentioned above, the high quantities of window glass in the south half of the maintenance yard may be a result of greenhouses in these areas or planting beds.

Based on an examination of the soil layers in each of the 83 shovel test holes, the stratigraphy throughout much of the maintenance yard has been severely impacted by recent maintenance yard activities over the past several decades. In most areas of the yard there are two layers of soil, a topsoil layer between 0.25 ft. and 0.70 ft. thick, and an underlying layer between 0.30 ft. and 0.60 ft. thick. The topmost layer generally is a grayish brown clay loam, often with gravel and other modern materials mixed in it. Nearly two-thirds (n=64 percent) of the artifacts came from this upper layer. The second layer is light brown clay loam with considerably fewer artifacts. Subsoil (i.e. sterile soil that has not been impacted by human activity) typically is at a depth of between 0.80 ft. and 1.2 ft. below the current surface.

3. Mechanical Stripping and Hand Excavated Units Mechanical stripping was used at the maintenance yard for exposing GPR anomalies, identifying structures, and searching for additional graves. A total of 5,542 square feet of area within the maintenance yard was removed mechanically (Figure 25). The stripping was excavated in nine trenches, most aligned diagonally from northwest to southeast so as to more effectively expose possible grave shafts and foundations. Two of the ten anomalies from the GPR survey were exposed by the trenching. One of these was obscured by flooding and ice and could not be fully investigated. The other anomaly was identified as a tree root.

Hand excavated units were placed to investigate GPR anomalies in areas too close to trees to be excavated mechanically and in the vicinity of the Clara Adams headstone as well as an exploratory unit excavated to determine if a grave was present in the location where Amanda Clark had requested to be buried (see Figure 25). A total of seven hand excavated units were excavated, covering an area of 119 square feet. Of the seven hand excavated units, six were dug at the location of eight GPR anomalies. The size of the units varied between 4.0 ft.2 and 10 ft.2. Excavation of the units revealed two graves (Clara and Robert Adams) and three non-grave features.

4. Findings in Test Trenches and Units Archaeologists recorded 15 subsurface features and two graves in the maintenance yard testing (Table 2). Trenches 1, 4, and 5 contained all the features aside from small features in Test Units 11 and 13, and two graves in Test Unit 12 (see Figure 25). Six of the features were identified as recent intrusions (Features 1, 2, 3, 12, 17, 18), and therefore have no archaeological significance and are addressed no further in this report (see Table 2).

47

Figure 24. Distributions of ceramics (upper left), container glass (upper right), nails

(lower left), and window glass (lower right).

Fort Ward Boundaries RGB

- Red : Band_1

- Green: Band_2

- Bl ue: Band_3 kalAEOLOG Y

. ·. . . . , MoiDlo-,coYord

Survey Areas maint yard window glass distrlbltion.Jp

Fort Ward Boundaries RGB

- Red: Band_1 - Green: Band_2

- Blue: Band_3 ARcuAEOLOG Y

48

Figure 25. Locations of mechanically stripped areas, test units, and the corresponding

features in the maintenance yard.

0 Features

49

Table 2. List of features recorded in the maintenance yard.

FEATURE TRENCH

OR UNIT INTERPRETATION EXCAVATED

Feature 1 Trench 1 Root stain Yes

Feature 2 Trench 1 Tire rut Yes

Feature 3 Trench 1 Modern fill trench- park related Yes

Feature 4 Trench 5 School/Chapel addition foundation and piers

No

Feature 7 Trench 4 Amorphous stain- unknown No

Feature 8 Trench 4 Amorphous stain- unknown No

Feature 9 Trench 4 Posthole—possibly part of boundary fence for the School/Chapel/Young residence lot

No

Feature 10 Trench 4 Privy- possibly related to Casey property

Partially

Feature 11 Trench 4 Amorphous stain- unknown No

Feature 12 Trench 4 STP from current survey No

Feature 15 Trench 5 Probable utility trench associated with School/Chapel/Young residence

No

Feature 16 Trench 5 Posthole- 6” diameter No

Feature 17 Unit 11 Tire rut No

Feature 18 Unit 13 Backhoe trenches No

Burial 2 Unit 12 Clara Adams grave No

Burial 3 Unit 12 probable Robert Adams grave No

Features 4 and 15

Archaeologists encountered portions of the School/Chapel/Young residence in Trench 5 (Figure 26). The structure manifested itself as a 20-foot wide cinderblock and concrete foundation along with several possible structural piers, all of which were designated as a group as Feature 4. Based on map overlays, the intact cinderblock foundation represents the northeastern corner of what was an addition to the main building (Figure 27 and Plate 5). The foundation consists of cinderblock laid end-to-end to form a 15 ft. long north wall; the east wall extends for 10 ft. and the west wall extends for 5 ft. (Figure 27a). The north wall extends an additional 5.5 ft. to the west as a concrete surface, perhaps an indication that a porch of some sort was located on the northwest corner of the addition. The projected path of the west wall falls in line with a stone block and two in-situ bricks which may have functioned as pier supports for the addition (Figure 27b). It is also interesting to note that a concrete pier is in line with the apparent location of a small extension on the southeast corner of the main building, a possible indication that the addition was approximately 15 ft. by 25 ft. in size (see Figure 27b). A second concrete pier is located nearly in line with the projected east wall of the addition (see Figure 27b). Feature 15 is a subsurface feature that extends off the northeast corner of the cinderblock addition (see Figure 27a). Given its location and appearance, Feature 15 probably represents a utility trench.

50

Figure 26. Features in Trench 5 in the maintenance yard.

Survey Areas Fort Ward Boundaries Burials B<caV(ltion _/\ro(ls

o Possible Burial (GPR Target)

Trench 5 Maintenance Yard

f. 2.5 -- 0

Trench 8

5 Feet

51

Figure 27. Features associated with the School/Chapel/Young residence overlaid on the

1962 contour map of the park.

Plate 5. Partial foundations for the School/Chapel/Young residence.

Source: Structural Outl ine Based on City of Alexandria 1962 Contour Map GIS Layers Created by A lexa ndr ia Archaeo logy and The Ottery Group , Inc

0 1 2 4 rv,.-....,....,, Feet

52

Figure 27a Field drawing of the partially exposed School/Chapel/Young residence.

Cinderblock was not invented until 1913 (Kreh 2003:34), whereas Clara Adams deeded the one-quarter acre lot to the Falls Church School Board in late 1898, and according to records, the Seminary Colored School began operation soon thereafter. Therefore, the exposed area of the northeast corner of the structure must have been built at some point after 1913, perhaps as an expansion of the building when it was transformed into St. Cyprians Episcopal Church in the late 1920s, or when John Claiborne acquired the property in 1942 and converted the building to a private residence. Sgt. Young, the resident of the house beginning in 1947, indicated that the eastern end of the house contained three rooms, which were likely added onto the original School/Chapel structure (Alexandria Legacies 1996; 2009). We can further postulate that the original school building to the east of the addition may have been 25 ft. wide (east-to-west) and 27 ft. (north-to-south) (see Figure 27b). Overall, Features 4 and 15 are significant archaeological features and contribute to a better understanding of the School/Chapel/Young residence.

-- -- .•. ____ ---~~J~_o!~~~p~ -------------------,--------------- --------~

\ \ \

Builder's Trench

stone hlock ■

'\ brick

II hrick-

hole

concrete pier

Feature 15

--.._ concrete block foundation

concrete pier

53

Figure 27b. Projected dimensions of the School/Chapel/Young residence.

Features 7, 8, and 9

Located in Trench 4, Features 7 and 8 are amorphous stains whose shapes resemble tree roots or possible tree stumps (Figure 28). Until this interpretation is verified by testing, these two features remain potentially significant. Feature 9 is a small posthole some 6 inches in diameter. Its size strongly suggests that it served as a fencepost in the past, perhaps part of a fence that delineated a boundary for the lot. It is notable that the posthole falls exactly on the south boundary line of the School/Chapel/Young residence lot and may well be part of a post-and-rail fence that framed the property (Figure 29). Feature 9 is significant and contributes to a better understanding of the use of the lot in the early twentieth century.

I I I

stone block 4 I I I I I I ., I I

I I I I I I

'\,brick

bricks

I -----------

10 ft.

r ,~------'~ _______ __,_ _ ____,_~---~' ◄--------------------------------------------------------------------

45 ft.

54

Figure 28. Features 7, 8, and 9 in Trench 4 in the maintenance yard.

Figure 29. Illustration of Feature 9 (posthole) in relation to lot boundaries.

0 0.5 1

i-- -

00.51 2 4 &•.-....,..., Fee t

A 1K:n.'lr-rn.rn:;Y

0

T,enm4

School Board of Falls Church 1899

Clara Adams 1898

Legend

D Parcels in 1919

- Features

D Excavation Areas GIS L ayers Created by Alexandr ia Archaeology and The Ottery Group, Inc.

55

Feature 10

Feature 10 was located in Trench 4 and interpreted as a privy possibly related to the Casey family period of ownership of the lot (ca. 1931-1962) (Figure 30). The location of the privy feature is along the property boundary line separating the Casey lot from St. Cyprians Chapel (see Figure 29). The privy was partially excavated, stopping when conditions became unworkable due to rising water levels (Plate 6). The stratigraphy in the feature included a cap of sterile soil sealing off a 5.5 ft. wide wood-lined privy containing materials dating to the first half of the twentieth century, including fragments of a cone-top beer can and part of a tin toy identified as a Marx racer. The toy racecar appears to have characteristics of models manufactured by the Marx Toy Company in the 1930s (Plate 7). The Schlitz Brewing Company introduced cone-top cans in 1935, and they became quite common by 1939, although Schlitz remained the only national brewery to use cone-tops on their cans (Maxwell 1993:98-99).

The racecar and cone-top can fragments were recovered from the upper layers of the privy and indicate that the feature had to have been filled after 1935. In addition to the toy and cone-top can, Feature 10 yielded several ceramic fragments, bottle glass, nails, additional can fragments, and miscellaneous metal pieces. Feature 10 is a significant feature that can contribute to a better understanding of the use of the Casey lot, but its full depth, size, and date of origin is still unknown. The south half of the feature and the lower levels of the north half remain preserved in place.

Feature 11

Feature 11 is located in Trench 4, approximately 25 ft. to the west and slightly north from the privy (Feature 10) (Figure 31). The feature is roughly 1.0 ft. wide and appears to have an amorphous shape, suggesting that it was not created by direct human activity. Nevertheless, until this interpretation is verified by testing, Feature 11 remains potentially significant.

Feature 16

Feature 16 is located in the center of Trench 5 and is approximately 6 inches in diameter. Similar in shape and appearance to Feature 9, this posthole probably served as a fencepost. Unlike Feature 9, the posthole does not correlate with any of the known lot lines, but it is close enough to the School/Chapel/Young residence to suggest that it may have been part of an inner fence that surrounded the main building. Although its function remains unknown, Feature 16 is significant and contributes to a better understanding of the landscape of the lot in the early twentieth century.

5. Graves In Test Unit 12, archaeologists uncovered the outlines of the shafts of Burials 2 and 3 (Figure 32). The shaft identified as Burial 2 as marked by her gravestone (which did not show any sign of repositioning) is that of Clara Adams, whereas the presumption is that Burial 3 adjacent is that of Robert Adams, her husband, based upon the memories of former residents (Alexandria Legacies 2009:9-10) (Plate 8).

6. Metal Detecting A non-systematic metal detector survey was conducted within the

maintenance yard. The metal detection was conducted in order to potentially identify

56

Figure 30. Plan view of Feature 10 in Trench 4, a privy.

Plate 6. Photo of profile of Feature 10, the privy feature.

0 0.5 3 ~- 4

,Feet

Trench 4

F 10

57

Plate 7. Fragment of a Marx racer (top) and an example of the complete toy (bottom).

58

Figure 31. Features 11 and 12 in Trench 4.

Figure 32. Plan View of grave shafts of Burials 2 and 3 in Test Unit 12; Clara Adams in

the south end of unit, presumably Robert Adams in the north end of the unit.

0 25 5 ~-

0 0.5 1 ~-

10

2 3 --

15 20

I Feet

B

4 I Feet

Legend

GPR Hits (Possible Burials)

□Burials

- Features

D Excavation Areas

' \\+I

TU 12

GIS Layers Created by Alexandria Archaeology and The Ottery Group, Inc.

59

Plate 8. View of grave shafts in Test Unit 12, looking south, with Robert Adams’

grave in foreground and Clara Adams’ grave in background.

Civil War period encampments that would not otherwise be detectable. It was determined that the amount of disturbance within the maintenance yard likely erased any potential encampment there. Likewise, the quantity of random metallic objects in the soil obscured the presence of any possible structures relating to the pre-park occupation of the maintenance yard. No artifacts were recovered from the maintenance yard during the metal detection survey.

7. Lot Summary The archaeological testing within the maintenance yard was focused on seven

basic research questions. Let us briefly review them:

1. Are graves present at each of the GPR anomalies?

Out of nine anomalies located in the maintenance yard, only two proved to be graves.

2. Are graves present in subsoil on what was once Amanda Clark’s lot?

Furthermore, is the Clara Adams headstone in its original position? Is Robert

Adams’ grave still present next to Mrs. Adams’ grave?

The headstone for Clara Adams is in its original position, and the grave for Robert Adams almost certainly is adjacent to his wife. Other than those two, no other graves were identified throughout the remainder of the lot. There is a very good possibility that

60

additional graves are located in the maintenance yard, and testing indicates that subsoil (the lower stratum of soil into which graves are dug) remains intact.

3. Has all or portions of the maintenance yard lost resource integrity from late

twentieth-century ground altering activities?

The topsoil layer throughout much of the maintenance yard has been compromised by recent activity. This means that except for hand-excavation within the immediate area of the School/Chapel/Young residence, the topsoil can be removed with mechanized equipment in the remainder of the maintenance yard in the event of any future archaeological work.

4. Are there structural remains of the School/Chapel/Young house as well as

associated artifacts and subsurface features?

The structural remains of the northeast corner of the School/Chapel/Young structure remain in place, and the likelihood that the entire structural footprint survives is quite good. Associated artifacts and subsurface features also are present.

5. Are cultural resources present? If so, where are they located and to which family

or organization are they associated?

The maintenance yard contains a variety of cultural resources. The exact locations of the Adams graves have been identified. The remains of the School/Chapel/Young residence is known. However, associating particular artifacts and subsurface features with each of the occupants of the property is difficult to accomplish at this juncture. The privy (Feature 10) almost certainly pertains to the Casey family who lived at The Fort beginning in 1931.

6. Is further work needed to assess the potential integrity of any resources?

Only a portion of the School/Chapel/Young has been uncovered (Feature 4). In order to fully assess its integrity, more excavation would be necessary. Features 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16 have integrity, although in some cases their full significance is not known until each can be archaeologically tested (see Table 2). Feature 10, the privy, has archaeological integrity. The graves of Clara and Robert Adams also retain a high level of integrity.

7. What is the potential of the maintenance yard for additional graves and

significant cultural resources? Moreover, what are the recommended

preservation treatments for planning purposes?

The potential is good for additional graves in the maintenance yard, especially in the north half of lot between the Adams’ graves and Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery. The potential also is good for additional significant cultural resources, mostly in the form of subsurface features. Recommended preservation treatment for the maintenance yard is presented in the final chapter of this report.

61

B. SHORTS HOUSE LOT

The Shorts House Lot parcel is slightly less than one acre in size (75 ft. by 400 ft.) (Figure 33). Located in the eastern central portion of Fort Ward Park, the parcel is wooded—especially on its eastern half—and has not been developed since becoming a park.

Figure 33. Aerial view of the Shorts House Lot, ca. 2009.

In addition to the main research questions that drive the overall project, several research questions were developed for the Shorts House Lot in particular. These include:

1. Are the original house foundations preserved in place on the lot? If so, what level of integrity do they retain?

2. Are artifact concentrations, landscape features, or outbuildings present on the lot? If so, do they relate to the main house?

3. Are there any indications of graves on the lot?

1. Lot History Burr and Harriet Shorts purchased 10 acres of land in 1884 and are believed to be

one of the first African Americans to own land at what would become The Fort community. Their house may have been built on the lot by 1870, prior to formally acquiring the property. According to census records, 10 people were living in the Shorts household in 1870, including seven children: Clara Shorts (age 5), John Shadnick (6 mo.) Florence, Kittie, Marion and Robert McKnight, one other child (Mary B), and one other adult (Lavonia Peekins). Although the census is not specific as to location, the Shorts household was situated somewhere in the Fort Ward Park. The 1894 Hopkins map identifies “B. Shorts” as the owner of a house located on the lot. When Burr Shorts died in 1898 the property passed to his wife Harriet McKnight Shorts. In the early twentieth century Harriet Shorts helped to found the Oakland Baptist Church with her daughter, Clara Adams, and seven other community members. In her will executed in 1919, Harriet Shorts stated her desire that “…the executors [are] to give unto my daughter, Kate Stuart, the house I am living in, with one acre of land.”

62

It is not known for how long Kate Stuart (also Stewart) and her husband George may have occupied the property after 1919. A 1956 document indicates that Daniel Stewart owned the lot at that time, and former residents recall that “Dan Stewart” lived in the house with his father (presumably George Stewart) (Alexandria Legacies 1992). At some point in time members of the Randall family, most specifically Jessie Randall, lived in the house (Alexandria Legacies 2009:6). The house apparently was destroyed by fire sometime between 1949 and 1962, based on historic maps of the area and oral accounts (ibid:14). A 1927 aerial map shows a small outbuilding some 75 ft. to the northwest from the main house, and seemingly outside the survey lot (Figure 34). The outbuilding is not visible on later aerial photographs in 1937 and 1949. The locations of the main house and a possible garden plot to the east can be seen on aerial photographs up to 1949 (see Figure 34).

Figure 34. Locations of known structures and landscape features within the Shorts

House Lot parcel.

2. Shovel Testing Of the 49 shovel test pits excavated within the Shorts House Lot, 15 were close-

interval tests that were placed at the location of the house, as extrapolated from historic aerial photos (Figure 35). All of the STPs within the house area contained artifacts. The remaining STPs had a lower rate of positive tests, with 19 of 34 containing artifacts (n=55.8%). Nearly all of the negative STPs were clustered on the steep slope leading to a

P,.'!--i.X..\.'IJ)'<i,1

r;_:_· ,,,,. -~

50 25 0

Source: City of Alexandria 2009Aeria!

Fort Ward Park Resources in Shorts Lot

50 Feet Legend

~ Fort Word Boundoric:::

D Parcels in 1962

D Survey Areas

..

Known ond Potentiol Historic Resources

Type

- Road

c::J structure

GI S Layers Created by Alexandria Arch a eo logy and The Ottery Group, Inc. ~ Vegetation

63

Figure 35. Locations of shovel test pits in the Shorts House Lot parcel.

Survey Areas

Fort Ward Boundaries

• STP Survey

p,...\,EX AN'DR!,1

:(~ ' ~" ¾ +

}~ ARCHAEOLOGY

64

Table 3. Total number of artifacts from STPs within the Shorts House Lot.

CATEGORY ENTIRE LOT SHORTS HOUSE

Brick 8 6 (75% of assemblage)

Nails 43 16 (37.2% of assemblage)

Window Glass 218* 22 (32.8% of assemblage)

Bottle Glass 177 59 (33.3% of assemblage)

Ceramics 43 23 (53.4% of assemblage)

Other 11 5 (45.4% of assemblage)

Total 500 131 *151 window glass comes from STP N1660/E730, removed from sample for percentages.

drainage to the east of the house and the undeveloped area on the eastern side of the drainage. Only 2 of the westernmost 31 STPs did not contain artifacts, corresponding with the high, level landform.

A total of 500 artifacts were recovered from the 49 STPs placed inside the Shorts House Lot. The artifacts appear to date to the twentieth century and are a mixture of domestic and architectural artifacts that are associated with the Shorts house (Table 3). A categorical breakdown of the artifacts shows total number of artifacts from the entire parcel compared to the total number of artifacts recovered that are directly attributed to the location of the house.

More than 43 percent of the artifacts were recovered from STP N1660/E730, including 151 window pane fragments, 3 bottle glass shards, 2 nails, and 1 hinge. The STP does not correlate with any known structures but is located immediately adjacent to the loop road that forms the primary park access road, which follows the route of the historic road connecting the Shorts property to Braddock Road (see Figure 35).

As was done with the maintenance yard, the distribution of artifacts was analyzed to determine whether concentrations of particular artifact types (brick, nails, ceramics, bottle glass, window glass) existed in order to guide the placement of mechanical trenches. The distribution maps indicate that indeed, the majority of the materials are concentrated around the foundations of the main house (Figure 36). It is possible that the distribution maps are indicating the presence of an outbuilding to the east of the main house or a garden plot.

Soils at the Shorts House Lot contained a shallow topsoil horizon above undisturbed soils suggesting heavy erosion or possible grading relating to the adjacent road and parking lot. There was no layering of deposits observed, rather artifacts from the entire occupation of the site were compressed into a single thin layer.

3. Mechanical Stripping and Hand Excavated Units Mechanical stripping at Shorts House Lot was done in order to determine whether

structural remnants of the house were present. A total of 915 square feet were stripped within the parcel (Figure 37). During the mechanical stripping phase 10 subsurface features were encountered. Four brick piers are directly attributable to the Shorts house. The other six features are likely also associated with the house, although further testing would be necessary to accurately determine the functions of each one.

65

Figure 36. Distributions of ceramics (upper left), container glass (upper right), nails

(lower left), and brick (lower right).

AR.c11AEOLOG Y

66

Figure 37. Locations of trenching and test units at the Shorts House Lot parcel.

Two 5.0 ft.2 hand excavated units were excavated within the Shorts House Lot (see Figure 37). The units were excavated to investigate an artifact cluster that appeared during the mechanical stripping and an exploratory unit placed where a structural pier was expected. Unlike the units excavated in the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery that were intended to identify the presence or absence of graves, the test units at the Shorts House Lot focused on collecting data generated by domestic activity relating to the Shorts house. As a result, all soil was screened and all artifacts were retained.

egend

Survey Areas

Fon Ward Bot11dari

Burials

Excavation_Areas

t'"f,X ANDf?J..,i

.:~· • ~ y.c-.,_ ~

·t~ AR.c1IAEOLOG Y

67

4. Findings in Test Trenches and Units All of the features encountered at the Shorts House Lot were mapped, photographed, and surveyed (Table 4). Only artifacts that were visible at the surface were collected, and all features were left in place.

Table 4. List of features recorded in the Shorts House Lot.

FEATURE TRENCH OR UNIT

INTERPRETATION EXCAVATED

Feature 21 Trench 12 Sheet Midden No

Feature 22 Trench 12 Burn Deposit No

Feature 23 Trench 12 Brick Cluster- Possible Structural Pier

No

Feature 24 Trench 12 Linear Brick and Cobble Cluster No Feature 25 Trench 12 Linear Stain- Possible Drip Line No

Feature 26 Trench 12 Burn Deposit No

Feature 27 Trench 12 Brick Structural Pier- Main House No Feature 28 Trench 12 Brick Structural Pier- Main House No Feature 29 Unit 19 Brick Structural Pier- Main House No Feature 30 Unit 20 Brick Structural Pier- Main House No

Four structural features (Features 27, 28, 29, 30) were identified as brick piers for the main house. Two additional brick and cobble features (Features 23 and 24) may also be structural, although their purpose is not known. An artifact concentration is interpreted as a sheet midden (Feature 21). Two burn deposits (Features 22 and 26) and a linear stain (Feature 25) are also related to the house, but their function is unknown. All the identified features are considered to contribute to the significance of the Shorts House Lot.

Feature 21

A total of 76 artifacts were recovered from the exposed surface of Feature 21, a sheet midden located some 25 ft. to the south of the main house (Figure 38). Based on the midden deposit, this area of the yard, south of the main house appears to have been used for trash disposal at some point during occupancy of the lot. The majority of the artifacts recovered from this midden area were ceramics and bottle glass. Ceramic types included ironstone, whiteware, yellowware, stoneware, porcelain, and flower pots, dating from the mid nineteenth through twentieth century.

Features 27, 28, 29, 30 (and 23, 24, and 25)

Features 27, 28. 29, and 30 represent structural piers for the main house (Figure 39; Plate 9). By measuring the relationships of the piers they form a 22 ft. by 22 ft. structure (see Figure 39). Feature 23 is located 10 ft. to the south of this core structure, and may represent a structural addition. Parallel with the core structure, Feature 24 could be a portion of a foundation for an addition. Feature 25 may represent a drip line from the roof of the original structure.

68

Figure 38. Features 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 27 at the Shorts House Lot.

N·',XAN1JJ11 I)

.,,; .:_"'."~ m ARr:HAF.OT.OGY

Legend

D Features

D Excavation Areas

GI S Layers Created by Alexandria Arch a eo logy and The Ottery Group, Inc.

69

Figure 39. Features 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and conjectural house footprint at the Shorts

House Lot.

Plate 9. View of Feature 30, a structural pier that forms the south corner of the main

house.

Trench 12

I

I

J

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

J

I

F 26

I

J

I I

I

I

J

I

I

I

J

I

I

I

70

Features 22 and 26

Features 22 and 26 are burn deposits that could represent locations of fireplaces or hearths. In particular, Feature 26 is located within the walls of the main house and therefore could the remnant signs of the hearth location (see Figure 39). Feature 22 on the other hand is located in the south yard, and may be signs of cooking out of doors or doing other tasks such as laundry (see Figure 38).

A variety of distinctive artifacts were collected in and around the main house that shed light on some of the activities that took place on the lot (Plate 10). Some of the more notable items are numerous fragments of phonograph records, some of them with identifiable markings and serial numbers. The record collection includes:

• “Camptown Races” made by Bing Crosby in 1940;

• “One Dozen Roses” by the Harry James Orchestra recorded in 1942;

• ”You’re Too Good for Good-For-Nothing Me” by Helen Forrest with the Harry James Orchestra in 1942;

• “Thanks For the Memory” and “The Continental” by the David Rose Orchestra in the early 1940s;

• “Cuckoo in the Clock” and “Patty Cake, Patty Cake” by the Merry Macs in 1939.

In addition to the record collection, other interesting artifacts include a silver-plated table fork marked “Oneida Community Par Plate” in a plain Windsor pattern recovered from Test Unit 20 (see Plate 10). Also of interest, from a shovel test hole in the vicinity of the main house, a 2.6 inch tall clear glass bottle with the screw top still attached (see Plate 10). The maker’s mark on the bottom is an “H” over an “A-3,” an indication that the Hazel Atlas Glass Company in Wheeling, West Virginia manufactured the bottle between 1920 and 1964, possibly to hold medicine or elixir (Toulouse 1971:239-242). A pink porcelain bisque miniature baby doll manufactured in Germany also was recovered from the main house area (see Plate 10). The figure is 1.8 inches high and missing its detachable arms. These types of dolls were popular in the first several decades of the twentieth century, and often came in sets, sometimes as part of a dollhouse (King 1977:570-574). Indeed, a burned fragment of a plastic dollhouse fireplace mantel was recovered from the same area, possibly used in conjunction with the porcelain doll figurine.

5. Graves No graves were encountered in the Shorts House Lot at this juncture of the

project. The locations of Burr and Harriet Shorts’ graves remains unknown, although the burial certificate for Harriet Shorts states that she was buried near the Theological Seminary, leaving open the possibility that her grave is located somewhere at Fort Ward.

6. Metal Detecting A non-systematic metal detection survey was conducted within the Shorts House

Lot. The metal detection was conducted in order to determine whether outbuildings were present that could not be identified on historic aerial photographs. Accordingly, individual iron signatures were not pursued, in favor of clusters of signals that would correspond with a former structure. Secondarily, given the proximity of the Shorts House

71

Plate 10. Examples of artifacts recovered from the Shorts House Lot. Upper left: vinyl

record fragments; upper right: silver-plated table fork; lower left: possible

pharmaceutical bottle; lower left: porcelain doll.

Lot to the fort itself, non-iron signatures that could represent Civil War era materials were investigated.

Pursuant to the search for potential Civil War era deposits, metal detection was expanded to include parts of the drainage that crosses the eastern side of the Shorts House Lot (Figure 40). While extending outside of the historic boundaries of the Shorts House Lot, the artifacts recovered from the creek drainage are included with the artifacts found within the property boundaries (Table 5). Ten of the metal detected artifacts (MD 9 through MD 15, MD 17, MD 26, and MD 28) were recovered from a 20 ft. by 40 ft. area in the northwest corner of the lot, at the apparent location of an outbuilding depicted on a 1927 aerial map (see Figure 34). Based on some of the artifacts from this area such as a tire valve extension and a rubber gasket, the outbuilding may have served as a garage. Three fired lead bullets (MD 30, MD 31, and MD 32) were recovered within 18 ft. of each other in the ravine to the south of the Shorts House Lot, one of which probably dates to the Civil War era (see Figure 40). Given the close proximity of these three projectiles, they could represent the leavings of target practice from the nearby fort approximately 335 ft. to the west.

Several fragments of household artifacts, personal items, and tools also were found during metal detection. Much of the material appears to be directly associated with

72

Figure 40. Location of metal detector signals at the Shorts House Lot.

activity in the main house or the nearby outbuilding. Artifacts of note include an iron axe head, a silver-plated Catholic medal, workings from a pocket watch, a copper alloy promotional token, a brass harness buckle, and assorted iron and copper alloy items (Plate 11; see Table 5). Some of the metal-detected artifacts date to more recent use of the property as a park, although differentiating these from artifacts related to the Shorts House Lot can be difficult.

Elements

Fort ward Historical Park

Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery

Survey Areas

o Metal_Detector

Contour 2 ft. f 5 12.5 0

■■

p,...i,EX A NDR l,1

-<~ ·~ ~~

M ARcHAEOLOG Y

73

Table 5. Artifacts recovered in metal detector survey at the Shorts House Lot.

ARTIFACT # DESCRIPTION

Finds to the south of the Shorts House Lot

MD 27 aluminum collar MD 28 brass hook MD 29 copper alloy promotional token MD 30 fired lead rifle bullet (probable Civil War era) MD 31 fired lead rifle bullet (possible Civil War era) MD 32 fired lead pistol bullet (possible Civil War era) MD 33 silver-plated Catholic medal MD 34 copper alloy rim fragment

Finds in the vicinity of the main house

MD 5 iron wire MD 6 copper alloy lid/cover MD 7 copper alloy locking nut MD 8 two-piece iron strap MD 9 tapered iron bar MD 10 large, irregular flat iron piece MD 11 large iron fragment MD 12 white metal tube MD 13 iron t-strap hinge MD 14 iron strap MD 15 1943 Mercury dime, stamped white metal tag MD 16 copper alloy lighting fixture MD 17 copper alloy covered rubber gasket MD 18 axe head MD 19 thin oval-shaped iron plate MD 20 pocket watch workings MD 21 modern fence post fragment MD 22 lead rod MD 23 white metal appliance handle MD 24 lead alloy decorative base MD 25 brass harness buckle MD 26 axe head

MD 35 lead sheeting material

• The iron axe head (MD 26) is an American-made felling axe with a thickened poll and a teardrop shaped eye, recovered approximately 50 ft. to the south of the main house (Wilbur 1992:5; 105) (see Plate 11).

• The silver-plated Catholic Miraculous Medal (MD 33) depicts the Virgin Mary on the front with the devotional phrase "O Mary Conceived Without Sin—Pray For Us Who Have Recourse To Thee” (see Plate 11). The medal was recovered in the ravine to the south of the Shorts House Lot, within 20 ft. of the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery, perhaps dropped by a visitor to the cemetery of the Catholic faith.

• The workings of a pocket watch (MD 20) were recovered several paces to the north of the main house. The watch is 1.7 inches in diameter and ¼ inch thick (see Plate 11).

74

Plate 11. Examples of metal detected artifacts recovered from the Shorts House Lot.

Upper left: iron axe head; upper right: silver-plated Catholic medal; lower

center: pocket watch workings.

• Curiously, a copper alloy promotional token (MD 29) was recovered from the ravine to the south of the Shorts House Lot. The front of the token is stamped, “Lucky Duck Coin/Scooter Proof/Duck Logo/Dux[bak] Leather [Belt]ing Soles/ Chas.A.Schieren Co. Boston” and was attached to a fob on products made by the Charles A. Schieren Company, an industrial belt manufacturer (McDermott 1923:352-354).

7. Lot Summary The archaeological testing within the Shorts House Lot concentrated on three

main research questions. Let us briefly review them:

1. Are the original house foundations preserved in place on the lot? If so, what level

of integrity do they retain?

Enough of the brick piers for the main house are preserved in place to allow for the re-siting of the location of the structure. Other elements of the house and possibly evidence of later additions to it also are present. The archaeological integrity of the main house is excellent.

2. Are artifact concentrations, landscape features, or outbuildings present on the

lot? If so, do they relate to the main house?

75

The archaeological evidence indicates that an outbuilding once stood in the yard a short distance to the northwest from the main house, a structure that is depicted on a 1927 aerial map (see Figure 34). Its exact location is not known at this time. Further archaeological testing will be necessary to flesh out the concentration of artifacts to the east of the main house where a purported garden was once located (see Figure 34).

3. Are there any indications of graves on the lot?

Archaeologists did not uncover any evidence of graves on the Shorts House Lot. The lack of evidence for graves does not preclude the possibility that graves are located on the lot. Indeed, topsoil was stripped from the area in and around the main house, the least likely place for graves on the lot. The possibility exists that graves are present on the Shorts House Lot, perhaps to the east from the main house.