phase i a t an americans with d a (ada)- a w cemetery d ... · jackson cemetery are a crucial step...

i

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING FOR AN AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)-

APPROVED WALKWAY AND CEMETERY DEMARCATIONS AT

FORT WARD PARK (44AX0090)

Save America’s Treasures Grant No. 51-10-ML-2047

DHR File No. 2012-0652

Prepared by:

Garrett Fesler, Ph.D. Francine Bromberg, M.A. Alexandria Archaeology

105 North Union Street, #327 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703.746.4399

March 2015

iii

PROJECT SUMMARY

The City of Alexandria plans to build an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant walkway at Fort Ward Historical Park as well as erect enclosures around two historic cemeteries, the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery. The three projects are funded under a Save America’s Treasures Grant (No. 51-10-ML-2047). The grant monies will help the City of Alexandria enhance the visitor experience at Fort Ward Park. Specifically, the proposed walkway will open up visitation into the reconstructed north bastion of Fort Ward, a place that heretofore has been inaccessible to non-ambulatory visitors. Outside of the fort, the proposed enclosures at the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery are a crucial step toward ensuring that these two sacred places are properly memorialized for future generations.

The Area of Potential Effect for the proposed ADA-compliant walkway is 5.0 ft. wide and approximately 1,000 ft. long, forming a teardrop shaped loop around the north-central portion of the fort. The final design of the walkway has eliminated the loop and instead it will travel from the fort entrance gate, take a jog through the center of the fort, and lead directly to the north bastion. For the majority of its length, construction of the path will cause disturbance to the existing ground surface for a maximum depth of 2.0 inches. In the center of the fort the path will reach a maximum of 5 inches below grade.

Because of its shallow depth the proposed walkway will displace in most locations only topsoil contexts. In those few places where the walkway construction might penetrate below the topsoil layer, the underlying layer is a re-deposited clay fill that was created during construction of the fort. The proposed walkway will pass overtop a portion of one subsurface feature, a privy that dates to the early twentieth century. The privy feature will remain intact and unharmed by the walkway. We recommend that, as planned, the proposed ADA-compliant walkway will have no adverse effect on any significant archaeological resources.

Twenty graves have been archaeologically identified at the Jackson Cemetery, an unmarked burial ground located at Fort Ward Park. The City of Alexandria is pursuing some funding for an as yet unspecified enclosure to be placed on the west and south perimeter of the Jackson Cemetery. Archaeologists monitored the mechanical excavation of a 4.0 ft. wide trench for a length of 140 ft. along the west and a portion of the south perimeter of the Jackson Cemetery. No grave shafts or subsurface cultural features were observed within the excavated trench. However, completion of the trench around the perimeter of the cemetery is needed prior to placement of any enclosures to ensure that no burials will be disturbed if and when it might be put into place.

Thus far, seventeen graves have been identified within an area known as the Old Graveyard at Fort Ward Park. The City of Alexandria has applied for a grant to provide some funding for an enclosure. Archaeologists monitored the excavation of a 4.0 ft. wide and 265 ft. long trench placed along the proposed boundaries of the Old Graveyard. No grave shafts or subsurface cultural features were observed within the trench. There is a small 10-foot long section of the perimeter that has not been checked. Additional archaeological work or monitoring will be needed in this small section to ensure that no graves will be disturbed by the placement of an enclosure.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................. III

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... IV

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... V

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ VII

LIST OF PLATES ....................................................................................................... VIII

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

A. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 5

II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................ 7

A. GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 7

B. HYDROLOGY .............................................................................................................. 8

C. SOIL MORPHOLOGY .................................................................................................. 8

D. NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 10

III. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC CONTEXT .................................................... 14

A. PREHISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 14

1. Prehistoric Potential at Fort Ward Historical Park ............................................... 15

B. HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................ 16

1. Historic Potential at Fort Ward Historical Park .................................................... 18

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN.............................................................................................. 27

A. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 27

B. FIELD METHODS ...................................................................................................... 27

C. LABORATORY METHODS ......................................................................................... 28

D. PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES .................................................................... 28

V. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING RESULTS ........................................................ 34

B. JACKSON CEMETERY FENCE INVESTIGATION ........................................................ 68

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 77

VII. REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................... 81

APPENDIX A: FINDS LIST.......................................................................................... 84

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Fort Ward Historical Park on a USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map (Washington West 1986). ................................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Location of Fort Ward Historical Park on the USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map (Alexandria 1983). ........................................................................................... 3

Figure 3. Location of the Areas of Potential Effect (APE) for the ADA-approved walkway, and the two cemetery demarcation areas. ........................................ 4

Figure 4. The City of Alexandria as divided into 15 Small Area Plans (City of Alexandria 2011). ............................................................................................ 5

Figure 5. Figure 5 has been omitted from this report

Figure 6. Elevations at Fort Ward Park at 10 ft. and 2 ft. contours. ............................... 9

Figure 7. Soil types at Fort Ward Park (City of Alexandria, Soil Survey Staff 2011). 10

Figure 8. Fort Ward as shown on a 1927 aerial map. ................................................... 13

Figure 9. Fort Ward Engineer Drawing, 1864 (National Archives) with approximate location of the proposed ADA-compliant walkway. ..................................... 17

Figure 10. Land ownership at Fort Ward Park in 1884. .................................................. 19





Figure 15. The Old Graveyard overlaid on the 1945 (left) and 1956 (right) USGS Alexandria quadrangle maps. ........................................................................ 24


Figure 17a. Previously identified sites at Fort Ward registered with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. ................................................................ 29

Figure 17b. Registered archaeological sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park. ............................................................................................................... 30

Figure 17c. Registered architectural sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park. ............................................................................................................... 32

Figure 18. Location of the lot belonging to Cassius and Rachel McKnight in relation to the proposed ADA-approved walkway. ........................................................ 35

Figure 19. The house belonging to Cassius and Rachel McKnight as depicted on an 1894 map (top), and a 1927 aerial photograph (bottom). .............................. 36

Figure 20. Locations of shovel test holes within the proposed walkway APE. .............. 39

Figure 21. Representative shovel test pit profiles. .......................................................... 40

vi

Figure 22. The proposed walkway APE as divided into three distinctive use areas. ...... 41

Figure 23. Counts of all artifacts in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. ............................................................................. 43

Figure 24. Counts of artifacts in Layers B and C in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. .............................................. 45

Figure 25. Counts of container glass fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. .............................................. 47

Figure 26. Counts of ceramic fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. .............................................................. 49

Figure 27. Counts of all nails and nail fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. .............................................. 51

Figure 28. Counts of all machine cut nails and nail fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. ............................. 52

Figure 29. Counts of all wire nails and nail fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. .............................................. 53

Figure 30. Counts of window glass fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups. .............................................................. 55

Figure 31. Metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE. ............................. 57

Figure 32. Metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE, Group 1. .............. 58

Figure 33. Metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE, Groups 2 and 3. ... 59

Figure 34. Civil War metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE, highlighted in orange. .................................................................................... 60

Figure 35. Location of test units in the vicinity of the proposed walkway APE. ........... 64

Figure 36. Location of test units in the vicinity of the proposed walkway APE, close up. ....................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 37. Location of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed fence around the Jackson Cemetery. ................................................................................... 69

Figure 38. Location of Jackson Cemetery survey parcel as overlaid on a City of Alexandria 1962 contour map. ...................................................................... 70

Figure 39. Example of the typical soil stratigraphy encountered in the boundary delineation trench at the Jackson Cemetery. .................................................. 71

Figure 40. Location of the APE for the proposed fence around the Old Graveyard. ...... 73

Figure 41. Location of Old Graveyard survey parcel overlaid on 1962 City of Alexandria contour map. ............................................................................... 74

Figure 42. Example of the typical soil stratigraphy encountered in the boundary delineation trench at the Old Graveyard. ....................................................... 76

Figure 43. Final design of the proposed ADA-compliant walkway at Fort Ward. ......... 78

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1a. Registered Alexandria archaeological sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park. ......................................................................................... 31

Table 1b. Registered architectural sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park. ............................................................................................................... 33

Table 2. Total artifacts recovered from STPs excavated for the proposed walkway. . 38

Table 3. Categories of artifacts recovered from the walkway STPs as divided into groups. ........................................................................................................... 40

viii

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. View of the reconstructed northwest bastion of Fort Ward. ............................ 6

Plate 2. Barracks of the First Battalion, Companies C, E, and L, 1st Connecticut Heavy Artillery, at Fort Ward (National Archives ca. 1863). ....................... 12

Plate 3. Overview of the McKnight house lot, facing north. ....................................... 26

Plate 4. Civil War artifacts recovered from within the general vicinity of the proposed walkway APE during the metal detector survey. ........................................... 61

Plate 5. Brass medallion during the walkway metal detector survey commemorating the opening of Alexandria High School in 1915. ........................................... 61

Plate 6. Model T Ford wheel hub recovered during the walkway metal detector survey. ............................................................................................................ 62

Plate 7. Overview of completed Test Unit 43 with privy feature visible in plan, and Test Unit 50 in progress. ............................................................................... 66

Plate 8. Close up view of the wood side wall of the privy feature. ............................. 66

Plate 9. A sample of some of the artifacts recovered from the privy feature. ............. 67

1

I. INTRODUCTION

Under a Save America’s Treasures Grant (SAT) (No. 51-10-ML-2047), the City of Alexandria, Virginia, plans to build an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant walkway at Fort Ward Historical Park. There is also a possibility that grant funding will be used to construct a fence or other demarcation around two historic cemeteries, the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery. Owned by the City of Alexandria, and managed by the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Fort Ward Historical Park consists of 42.75 acres located at 4301 Braddock Road. The central 36.5-acre parcel represents the historical section of the park (Figures 1 and 2). It contains a Civil War-era fortification and the Fort Ward Museum, which are administered by the Office of Historic Alexandria.

Fort Ward was recognized as a significant historical site with placement on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. The nomination for National Register designation highlights the role that Fort Ward played in the Civil War, when it formed one of the strongest links in a chain of 164 forts and batteries protecting Washington D.C., from the Confederate Army. The northwest bastion of the fort was reconstructed in the 1960s when the City acquired the property to create the park. The historical section of the park is also registered as archaeological site 44AX0090 with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR).

In October 2009, Alexandria City Council allocated funds to begin an archaeological investigation in the historical section of the park to provide information for park planning and management by locating and identifying the full range of cultural resources on the property, not just those related to the Civil War. The City’s archaeological and historical work, which is ongoing, includes a focus on the study and interpretation of an African American community that was founded on the property after the Civil War and continued as a neighborhood until the creation of the park in the 1960s. Known as “The Fort,” the community included many homes, a schoolhouse that later became a chapel and then a residence, and several burial grounds. To ensure preservation of burials, locating and identifying the African American graveyards on the property has been a critical part of the current City-funded project.

The SAT grant provides additional funding for Fort Ward research and improvements, including the construction of an ADA-approved walkway within the boundaries of the fortification and the possible placement of fencing or another method of demarcation around one or more of the archaeologically identified cemeteries. The archaeological testing documented herein was to determine if construction of the proposed walkway and possible demarcations will have an adverse effect on significant cultural resources.

The linear Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed ADA-compliant walkway is 5.0 ft. wide and approximately 1,000 ft. long (Figure 3). The APE forms a teardrop shaped loop that travels around the center of the fort. In addition to the elements of the fort itself (i.e. bombproofs and a powder magazine), archaeologists also took into account the presence of an early twentieth-century domestic site in the center of the fort (see Figure 3). Additionally, an area at the point of the teardrop section of the path was

2

thought to have been the location of a well—the main source of water when the fort was occupied during the Civil War—and a flagpole, both potentially significant resources.

Figure 1. Location of Fort Ward Historical Park on a USGS 1:100,000 quadrangle map (Washington West 1986).

N

2

MILES

0~====ci===:::k==~~3 ~ ;;==:::i4====~sE===6 KILOMETERS

4

3

Figure 2. Location of Fort Ward Historical Park on the USGS 7.5’ quadrangle map (Alexandria 1983).

A fence or other means of demarcation around the limits of burials in the areas known historically as the Old Graveyard and Jackson Cemetery will possibly be built to enclose the grave locations identified through archaeological research. The exact specifications of the enclosures are not known at this time. Archaeologists mechanically excavated 4.0 ft. wide trenches around the majority of the perimeters of both cemeteries in an expectation that enclosures would be placed in those locations (see Figure 3). Therefore, the APE for the Jackson Cemetery is 4.0 ft. wide and 140 ft. long, and the APE for the Old Graveyard is 4.0 ft. wide and 265 ft. long.

SCALE 1 : 10000

0 1000

FEET 0 100 200 300 400 E-----------3

YARDS

GN 1.31 ° W 200 300 400 I MN 10.64° W METERS

4

Figure 3. Location of the Areas of Potential Effect (APE) for the ADA-approved walkway, and the two cemetery demarcation areas.

Francine Bromberg (M.A.) and Garrett Fesler (Ph.D.) served as principal investigators for the project. Ben Russell (M.A.) directed the fieldwork and was assisted

200 100 0 200 400 600 ~Fl__,__L._F---3___._ ___ ___L_I ___ -1I ___ _JI Feet

5

by Alicia Boyle (M.A.), Rob Hancock (B.A.), and Alexandra Vancko (B.A.). Rosemary McCarthy (B.A.) catalogued the artifacts recovered from the shovel test pits. All artifacts, field records, maps, background research, and photographs that resulted from this project will be permanently stored at the Alexandria Archaeology curation facility.

A. BACKGROUND

The City of Alexandria, Virginia, is 15 square miles in size with a population just short of 140,000 people, making it the most densely populated city in the state. Located a mere 6 miles south from Washington, D.C., Alexandria serves as a bedroom community of sorts for the nation’s capital with a large percentage of its citizens working for the federal government or in support of federal projects. Since the town’s founding in 1749, the City of Alexandria has geographically expanded outward from the original Old Town section along the Potomac River (see Figure 1). Distinctive wards and neighborhoods have developed over the years. For planning purposes, Alexandria is divided into 15 districts, each with its own Small Area Plan (SAP). The historic preservation section for each SAP outlines specific historic needs and objectives (City of Alexandria Master Plan, 1992). Fort Ward Park is located in SAP 4, the Seminary Hill (Strawberry Hill) district bound between King Street on the northeast, North Quaker Lane on the east, the 495 Beltway on the south, Holmes Run on the southwest, and the Henry Shirley Memorial Highway (395) on the northwest (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The City of Alexandria as divided into 15 Small Area Plans (City of Alexandria 2011).

In 1952 the City of Alexandria doubled its size when it annexed 7.65 square miles (4,896 acres) of property from Fairfax County to form the City’s West End, much of the area that today is located to the west of Quaker Lane (Fairfax County v. City of

City of Al,xandrl■ lm■II ArN Pl■n■

.,.,.., •• 1011

L,g■nd

lm•II Arn Plan Nam• c=J ."1exandria West

C:) Braddodl Roai M • lro

Cl Ci::!tc:\h0'1.TCr Ea:s!

C:J 1-filirlinc,MQrwiradh•

~ Knc:llfti t.Wm.'Fi■IWlhnwfn'Av

O uincllliW~llllnDo,n

□-R--t 1111 Northeasl

(=:J :J1d -own

[:] Old -own NQrlh

c=JPotomaeWest

c=J Pokrnac YanilPotomac: Green, - S.etnma,), Hi.llJSU

□.-...-.. Q- • C:J r~ylor R1.,n

.a FIil .....

6

Alexandria 1951). Included in this tract of land was the 42.75 acres that would eventually become Fort Ward Park ten years later (see Figure 2).

Many consider Fort Ward to be the best preserved of the 164 forts and batteries that once formed a defensive ring around Washington, D.C. during the Civil War. Two years after the formal annexation of land from Fairfax County, the City of Alexandria began to move to acquire the acreage in and around historic Fort Ward for the purposes of creating a city park. The first acquisitions focused on the fort proper, most of which was part of a subdivision called Eagle Crest, which was platted in 1938, but never developed (Fairfax County Land Records Z12:541). In 1961 archaeologists conducted an excavation of the northwest bastion of the fort to allow for an accurate reconstruction as the focal point of the park (Larrabee 1961) (Plate 1). Fort Ward Park opened to the public in May 1964. In 1982 the park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the fortification, the park includes a small museum that tells the story of Fort Ward and local Civil War history, as well as outdoor facilities for picnicking, walking paths, and annual living history events. A current City of Alexandria initiative seeks to preserve, understand, and interpret not only those features related to the site’s Civil War history, which have been the focus of historical interpretation for the past 50 years, but also those related to the African American community that had been present on the property after the Civil War until the creation of the park.

Plate 1. View of the reconstructed northwest bastion of Fort Ward.

7

II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Because human societies are closely linked to their natural environments, many cultural changes can be best understood in the context of the varying constraints and opportunities presented by dynamic environmental conditions. A brief review of the environmental setting of the Fort Ward project area and the general area can thus provide insight into the changing lifeways of its inhabitants.

An environmental frame of reference is particularly important when considering changing Native American settlement patterns over the course of many millennia. Archaeologists largely agree that the environmental factors that had the most significant influence on where Native Americans chose to live were topography, access to water, and the availability of natural resources, including access to raw materials for stone tool manufacturing. Throughout most of Native American history people were hunters and gatherers that changed location frequently, camping for short periods of time in one location and then moving on to the next. When choosing a place to set up camp, most Native Americans sought out flat, well drained landforms overlooking streams or rivers, the same types of settings that modern-day backpackers favor. The choice of campsite also depended on the types of plants and animals living at the location, as well as the kinds of natural rock present that could be knapped into stone tools.

For the historic era over the past 400 years of time, the environmental conditions have remained relatively stable and a close environmental analysis is usually not necessary. However, Native Americans and historic peoples, although potentially separated by thousands of years would have shared some of the same basic needs when finding a place to camp or live: a well-drained landform with access to fresh water and other natural resources. Therefore, we must consider the environmental factors at the Fort Ward property that potentially influenced how it was used over the years, all of which were interconnected. For instance, the character of the topography, the proximity of water resources, and the type of soil all had a direct effect on the variety of flora attracted to the setting, and in turn the fauna that relied on that ecological setting for sustenance. The quantity and variety of both plants and animals in an area had a direct influence on human habitation. New settlers relied on available timber to build shelter, and in part on procurable plants and animals to augment the diet. It would have been difficult for a Woodland Indian in A.D. 300, a colonial tobacco planter in 1750, or a wheat farmer in 1870 to have prospered without certain key natural resources. Let us consider the types of resources and the setting that the Fort Ward Historical Park offered potential inhabitants.

A. GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The project area is situated in northern Virginia on the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province, an area of low topographic relief extending from the Atlantic Ocean west to the Fall Line. The City of Alexandria sits atop the Potomac Formation, a result of ancient fluvial sediments formed millions of years ago during the Cretaceous age (Fleming 2008). Fort Ward Park is located on the Seminary Terrace near its interface with the Fort Ward Escarpment, one of the four major upland landforms in the City. The

8

Seminary Terrace consists of medium-coarse gravel in strong orange-brown heavy loam (ibid).

In topographic terms, the park is situated on an upland terrace. Elevations on the Fort Ward property range from approximately 230 ft. to 280 ft. above mean sea level (AMSL) (Figure 6). The highest elevations, as one would expect, are in the fortification itself in the center of the park at 280 ft. The land on the south side of the park along Braddock Road drops off slightly to 270 ft. AMSL. From the south side of the park and the fort the elevations fan out to the west, north and east. The topography slopes to approximately 250 ft. AMSL on the west and north edges of the property; to 230 ft. AMSL in the northeast corner of the park; and to roughly 235 ft. AMSL into a ravine on the east (see Figure 6). The landscape around the fort area is generally flat to gently rolling. The property is dissected by several minor tributaries that have carved out ravines along the edges of the landform. The side slopes of the ravines are steep, but not excessively so, and make for a varied landscape setting.

B. HYDROLOGY

Two unnamed tributaries have the greatest hydrologic effect on the project area. To the west from Fort Ward is an unnamed tributary that feeds into Lucky Run to the north, which in turn drains into Four Mile Run some distance to the north (see Figure 1). A second tributary was once an offshoot directly from Four Mile Run that was coopted by the construction of Highway 395. Essentially, the northeast face of the Seminary Terrace overlooks a stream valley formed by Four Mile Run. The most prominent possible source of water on the property—perhaps forming a springhead in the distant past—is a ravine along the east boundary of the park. Otherwise, the property is a distinctly upland setting with no obvious water resources in the close vicinity.

C. SOIL MORPHOLOGY

Surface soils are formed by several factors including the weathering of parent material and the subsequent processes of plants and animals, and topographic relief over time. Prior to modern disturbances, the character and type of soil would have had a direct effect on the kind of vegetation and hydrology of an area, and on the potential for human habitation and usage. For instance, there is a strong correlation between settlement density and soil fertility. A study of regional settlement patterns in relation to soil types indicates that historic settlement closely correlated with prime farmland (Lukezic 1990).

Kingstowne-Sassafras-Neabsco complex on 2 to 7 percent slopes is the primary soil type found at the park (Figure 7). This soil type is well drained, comprised of sandy loam and sandy clay loams, and is not considered prime farmland. In the sloping northwest corner of the property a small area of Sassafras-Marumsco complex on 7 to 15 percent slopes is present with similar characteristics to the Kingstowne-Sassafras-Neabsco complex, but rated as farmland of statewide importance. A small bulbous area of Sassafras-Neabsco complex on 2 to 7 percent slopes is on the west side of the property, and considered to be prime farmland (Soil Survey Staff 2011). Overall, the soils on the Fort Ward property are quite average in terms of agricultural productivity.

9

Figure 6. Elevations at Fort Ward Park at 10 ft. and 2 ft. contours.

200 100 0 200 400 600 ~Fl__,__J_F---3___._ ___ ___L_I ___ -1I ___ _JI Feet

10

Figure 7. Soil types at Fort Ward Park (City of Alexandria, Soil Survey Staff 2011).

D. NATURAL RESOURCES

Prior to European contact, the local environment consisted of a mixed climax forest of oak, hickory, and pine (primary species: hickory, longleaf pine, shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, white oak and post oak). This forest provided a variety of resources for Native Americans. In addition to burning wood for warmth and cooking, nut-bearing trees such as hickory, chestnut, black walnut, and oak were an important source of food. Fibrous elm and poplar tree bark was used for clothing and as a building material (mostly as a covering for longhouses). Another important Native American use of trees was hollowing out trunks from pine, chestnut, and polar trees for canoes.

At the time of initial European contact the native climax hardwood forest of oak, hickory, and pine continued to prevail and had remained relatively stable for several thousand years. Native peoples in Virginia used fire to “manage” the forest environment. Periodic burnings restored nutrients to the soil, helped to maintain a dynamic ecological environment of woods interspersed with meadows which promoted biodiversity, and cleared out undergrowth so that forests were open and easily traversed (Williams 1992:43-44). As John Smith famously observed of early Virginia, “a man may gallop a horse amongst these woods any waie, but where the creekes and Rivers shall hinder” (Smith 1907:64). Indeed, these old growth forests were unlike most forest settings we see today.

Throughout the eighteenth century as European colonists began to populate the area, a slow process of deforestation took place. Swathes of forest were cleared primarily

11

for farming, but also for use as building materials (housing and for boats1), for firewood, and for export. Pine pitch (resin) also was a commodity that contributed to the decline of forests as it was collected and used for sealing boats and for other waterproofing.2 Even the harvesting of sassafras for its medicinal qualities caused localized forest depletion, at least for a short time in the seventeenth century when its exportation was second only to tobacco.

Episodes of clearing and cultivation continued to take place on the Fort Ward property until 1861 when Union forces built the fort that forms the basis for today’s historical park. Most Virginia farmers adopted a field rotation farming system where forests were cleared, planted for several years, and then allowed to revert back to forest to regenerate soil fertility, albeit as second-growth forests with different characteristics compared to the original old growth timber stands that John Smith described. The wooded tracts that overtook abandoned agricultural fields were much denser, often with thick undergrowth. Pine species came to dominate in these second generation forests with deciduous hardwoods becoming subordinate to the conifers (Kirby 1991:481; Silver 1990:171).

With these significant ecological changes to the landscape, the vegetative and animal habitats were altered, sometimes dramatically. Migratory patterns changed for many species. Deer and other large mammals adapted to new environments, which in turn changed the methods that settlers used to hunt them. Wolves, bears, and other predators once roamed the area, but were systematically eliminated (localities often placed bounties on them) and those that remained migrated to less populated areas. Moreover, as the numbers of game animals steadily dwindled, this necessitated a gradual dietary change for settlers who came to rely more on domesticated animals and less on wild sources of meat.

Four years of civil war had a significant impact on Virginia forests. Large areas were cleared to provide fields of fire, particularly around fortifications. A case in point is at Fort Ward where the general vicinity around the fort was virtually denuded during the Union occupation (Plate 2).3 After the war came to a close the Fort Ward property became home to a community of African American families who continued to occupy the area until the mid-twentieth century when the City of Alexandria bought up the land to create Fort Ward Historical Park. Portions of the property reverted back to forest after the war, but for the most part much of the 36.5-acre project area remained open, intermittently populated with trees as it is today. A 1927 aerial map of the area shows most of the park as open land with plots here and there under cultivation (Figure 8).

Throughout the course of time the landscape at Fort Ward Historical Park has changed many times over. Some of the changes occurred naturally, whereas other

1 Tall, straight loblolly pine was favored for ship’s masts for instance (Mohr 1923:120).

2 The bulk of pine tar harvesting occurred in southern Virginia and North Carolina and probably had a lesser impact on Alexandria.

3 Also note on a Civil War period map that all the timber is depicted as cut surrounding Fort Ward (see Figure 4).

12

Plate 2. Barracks of the First Battalion, Companies C, E, and L, 1st Connecticut Heavy Artillery, at Fort Ward (National Archives ca. 1863).

changes were brought on by human activity. The evolving environment helped to determine how different cultural groups used the acreage at Fort Ward. While the ecology of the land transformed significantly from the prehistoric era to modern times, some aspects of the property remained constant, offering both opportunities and limitations. For instance, the property occupies one of the highest elevations in the City of Alexandria, and thus was chosen for the location of an important fortification. Nearby tributaries provide access to water, although it is unlikely that these water courses would have been navigable in the past by anything larger than a canoe, and even that might have been a stretch. The soils on the property are fertile enough to generate tree growth and support a rich biotic community of plants and animals that both prehistoric and historic peoples exploited for their benefit. Thus, depending upon a particular need, the Fort Ward property was a good place to defend oneself from attack, provided a variety of natural resources, was used for agricultural purposes, and was a place that at least by the late nineteenth century people called home.

13

Figure 8. Fort Ward as shown on a 1927 aerial map.

170 85 0 170 340 510

~Fl~~Fl-~--~l ___ ~I __ ~I Feet

14

III. PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC CONTEXT

Although the impact of the proposed walkway and the possible demarcations of the two cemeteries is relatively small in comparison to the 36.5 acre park, the possibility exists that the project could impact significant cultural resources. The proposed walkway, after all, is to be located inside a preserved Civil War fort, and the proposed demarcations are intended to encircle the two main historic cemeteries that have unmarked graves. Therefore, any potential findings generated by this project must be placed into a cultural context. First we will address the prehistoric context, and from there review the historic events that have had the most impact on the archaeological resources at Fort Ward Park.

A. PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

For thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, Native Americans roamed the hills and valleys of what eventually became the City of Alexandria. Despite the past 250 years of construction and development, remnants of the Native American past still remain buried within the City. To date, archaeologists have identified more than 30 sites containing American Indian materials in the City of Alexandria, including one site on the Fort Ward property. The types of artifacts discovered indicate that Native Americans visited the area beginning about 13,000 years ago, and historical documents suggest that some tribal groups continued to reside in the area until about 1675 (Adams et al. 1993:57-59). Our interest herein is to consider the types of Native American sites and resources that might be present on the 36.5 acre Fort Ward property, and more directly, within the footprint of proposed walkway and proposed cemetery fences.

Approximately 15,000 years ago the global environment began to change dramatically, and in turn Native Americans adapted to these changes. As the first human beings settled into the Chesapeake region around 11,000 B.C., a major glacial epoch (an Ice Age) was coming to a close. As global temperatures rose, glaciers melted causing sea level to rise significantly. Before the rise, sea level was several hundred feet lower than today, meaning the shoreline of the Potomac River in the Alexandria area was considerably east of its present location. A warmer climate and sea level rise changed the lifecycle and growth patterns of flora and fauna. Coastal zones were inundated; grasslands turned into forest. As a result plant and animal habitats shifted to new settings and the environmental landscape was remade. As the environment changed, Native Americans modified their settlement systems in order to continue to exploit available natural resources.

Traditionally, regional archaeologists have divided Native American history into three major periods of occupation: Paleo-Indian (ca. 11,000 B.C. - 7,500 B.C.), Archaic (ca. 7,500 B.C. - 1,000 B.C.) and Woodland (ca. 1,000 B.C. - 1600 A.D.). The arrival of Europeans in large numbers during the seventeenth century marks the beginning of what is called the Contact Period. Recent discoveries (including at the Cactus Hill site near Petersburg, Virginia) may help to establish that people spread into North America by 12,000 B.C. or even earlier. The earliest evidence of human occupation in Alexandria found to date is a broken spear point recovered on a bluff overlooking Hunting Creek at

15

the southern edge of the City.4 The characteristic shape of this find, with a flute (i.e. groove) removed from each of its faces, identifies it as a Clovis point—the earliest Paleo-Indian type, named after a site in New Mexico where these types of spear points were first discovered.

In the Paleo-Indian period, small bands of Native Americans moved frequently within territories throughout the area, hunting game and collecting plant resources in the spruce/pine forests and grassland environments which predominated as the Ice Age ended. Clovis spear points served as the primary hunting tool. The hunting and foraging lifestyle of the Paleo-Indians persisted into the Early Archaic period, as the climate warmed and oaks and other deciduous trees began to invade the evergreen forests. By the Middle Archaic, sea level rise caused by the melting of the glaciers created ponds and inland marshes which became focal points for settlement. Archaic peoples developed new types of tools for exploiting the changing environments, such as ground stone axes for chopping wood, mortars and pestles for grinding nuts, and weighted spear throwers called atlatls, which increased the velocity of the spear. A more sedentary lifestyle emerged in the Late Archaic, as Native Americans began to settle in seasonal camps to exploit the shellfish and spawning fish resources. The first manufacture and use of pottery ushered in the Early Woodland period, and by the Middle Woodland, Native Americans began to gather in more permanent settlements on the shores of the larger rivers. The beginnings of agriculture brought maize, squash and beans into the Late Woodland diet and resulted in permanent year-round settlements near the fertile soils of these riverine floodplains. When Captain John Smith sailed up the Chesapeake Bay and into the Potomac River from Jamestown in 1608, he visited the villages and hamlets along the shoreline, including Tauxenent on Mason Neck and Namoraughquend on the grounds of what is now Reagan National Airport.

1. Prehistoric Potential at Fort Ward Historical Park

Fort Ward Park is located in northwest Alexandria in what would be considered an upland setting. At an approximate elevation of 250 ft. AMSL, environmental changes would have been less pronounced than on the floodplain. Nevertheless, elevations span from 230 ft. AMSL along the north edge of the property to 280 ft. AMSL on the ramparts of Fort Ward itself. The center of the property where the earthen fort sits is pinched on the east and west by small tributaries. Overall, the property presents a variety of potential settlement zones including those adjacent to water courses, a broad upland terrace, and contexts of varying degrees of slope in between.

One archaeological site dating to the prehistoric period has been previously identified on the Fort Ward property. In 1980 while conducting an archaeological survey, City archaeologists observed approximately a dozen pieces of chipped quartz on the glacis of the fort. Assigned site number 44AX0036, the quartz flakes evidently had been displaced from their original location nearby during construction of the fort in the 1860s and exposed by more recent erosion. Thus, site 44AX0036 has extremely poor contextual integrity and no viable research potential. However, the presence of this

4The Clovis point was found during archaeological work at Freedman’s Cemetery, a burying ground for more than 1,700 African Americans established during the Civil War.

16

small, displaced grouping of lithic flakes does confirm that prehistoric activity of some sort did take place on the property in the distant past.

While there is the greatest likelihood for the prehistoric use of the Fort Ward area to have occurred in the Archaic and Woodland periods along the stream benches, there has been a great deal of nineteenth- and twentieth-century movement of soil. Such activities may have compromised the integrity of the prehistoric sites, although some of these types of sites may still survive on the property. An enormous amount of excavation occurred to build the fort itself, and this process probably disturbed all Native American sites that might have been located within its 7-acre footprint. Indeed, the one identified prehistoric “site” at the park was shoveled into the glacis of the fort in the 1860s, most likely as the dry ditch surrounding the fort was created. Therefore, the potential for intact, significant prehistoric sites to be encountered within the APE of the walkway is minimal. Also, the APE for the Jackson Cemetery is situated on the glacis of the fort, and therefore it has no meaningful potential for significant prehistoric sites.

The terraces overlooking two small tributaries, one to the west of the fort and the other to the east, hold some amount of promise for prehistoric materials. The APE for the Old Graveyard is located on a sloping terrace above one of those small drainages. However, subsequent use in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries has reduced the potential for intact Native American sites considerably, meaning any prehistoric artifacts recovered from the APE around the Old Graveyard will probably be from displaced contexts.

B. HISTORIC CONTEXT

As opposed to a more generalized approach to the prehistoric potential for the Fort Ward property, there is copious historic information about the use of the park property in the years during and after the Civil War. We know the sequence of ownership for the lots at Fort Ward from early historical times to the present. The park is situated on lands that were conveyed to Henry Awbrey by a land grant in 1729 from the proprietor Thomas, sixth Lord Fairfax, the son of Catherine and Thomas (Mitchell 1977:116-117). Awbrey’s original grant consisted of 1,261 acres of land bounded on the north side by Four Mile Run. This tributary of the Potomac River connected a series of plantations in the Northern Neck that depended upon this waterway for trade and provisions. Over the course of the eighteenth century the land changed hands several times, including being owned by William Ramsay a Scottish merchant who served as mayor of Alexandria, and later Robert Allison who divided the tract into smaller parcels (Fairfax County Land Records, C-1:16-19; O-1:425; P-1:9; P-1:10; P-1:12; P-1:256; P-1:348; P-1:380) Activities on these large tracts of land throughout the 17th and 18th centuries would have been tied to the plantation economy of the colonial period. Planting tobacco or large fields of grain on the coarse gravelly soils of the uplands that characterized most of the Fort Ward property would not have been that successful. Given the soil conditions, it is possible that Fort Ward remained a wooded upland area or perhaps pastureland throughout much of this period. By 1843 Phillip Hooff acquired 86 acres that included what would eventually become Fort Ward Park and continued to own it after the Civil War (Fairfax County Land Records M3:355-357). There is no

17

documentary evidence that Hooff or anyone else for that matter, occupied the property prior to its acquisition by the Union Army to build a fort.

Construction of Fort Ward began in earnest in September 1861. Because of immediate concerns for the vulnerability of the seat of government at Washington, D.C., the fort was built rather hastily. This initial fort had a perimeter of 540 yards, but in their haste the engineers failed to adequately protect a nearby ravine, making the fort vulnerable to attack. Renovations of the fort began in 1863 and were completed in early 1864, increasing the perimeter of the fort to 818 yards and creating 12 additional gun emplacements (Cooling and Owen 2010:40-42) (Figure 9). In 1865, at the war’s end, the wood used in the fort (gun platforms, bombproofs, subterranean rooms, etc.) was sold; salvagers caused considerable disturbance to areas of the fort during the removal of the wood.

Figure 9. Fort Ward Engineer Drawing, 1864 (National Archives) with approximate location of the proposed ADA-compliant walkway.

Earthen fort construction involved moving and displacing a tremendous amount of soil to form the walls of the fort as well as subterranean features such as magazines and bombproofs for protection and for storing ammunition, supplies, and weapons. The fact that Union engineers changed the layout and radically increased the size of Fort Ward two years after originally building it increases the complexity of the archaeological remains. When the wood for much of the fort was sold and subsequently extracted, this too added to the complexity of the archaeological record.

FORT WARD

~/g '~ . ~ •- liilll J,1 - I r .II'

iii-..,~- .. . u- • , g,

~ -

18

In the years following the Civil War, a legal dispute ensued between the Hooff family and other parties concerning the Fort Ward property. As a result, portions of the property were divided and sold off, and several African American families purchased parcels, prominent among them the Miller family, the Jackson family, and the Shorts family. By 1884 Burr and Harriett Shorts owned the land that encompassed the Old Graveyard, while Phillip Hooff continued to own the parcel containing what would become the Jackson Cemetery (Figure 10). In 1886, John Miller acquired the property that included the east bastion and ¾ of an acre in the central portion of the fortification (Fairfax County Land Records, E-5:579). He sold this property to Cassius and Rachel McKnight (Figure 11) (Fairfax County Land Records Z-5:101). In 1894 James Jackson acquired the land that contained the area that would become the Jackson Cemetery (see Figure 11) (Fairfax County Land Records Q-5:466). In 1919 Amanda Clark inherited the land encompassing the Old Graveyard, and James Jackson continued to own the Jackson Cemetery (Figure 12) (Fairfax County Land Records, N-8:404; Fairfax County Will Book 6:391).

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, some additional parcels within what is now the park were sold to African American families, while landholdings that had been purchased earlier were sometimes sold and increasingly subdivided (Figures 13 and 14). James Walter Craven acquired the land that included the northeast bastion of the fort in 1921 (Fairfax County Land Records, Y-8:431). The land on which most of the Old Grave Yard is situated was sold to Richard Ruffner in 1935 after Amanda Clark’s death in 1933 (Fairfax County Land Records, 286:479). Archaeological excavations indicate that a portion of the Old Graveyard also extended to the west into property that Clark sold to Wallace Smith in 1930, who then sold it to Alfred Collins in 1937 (Fairfax County Land Records, V-10:142; R-12-343).

The 1945 and 1956 US Geological Survey (USGS) maps appear to roughly depict the Old Graveyard lot (Figure 15). The USGS maps do not show the Jackson Cemetery. The Jackson Cemetery remained part of the property owned by the Eagle Crest developers (Figure 16).

1. Historic Potential at Fort Ward Historical Park

The historic eras at Fort Ward Park can be divided into three periods in time: prior to the Civil War, the Civil War itself, and post-Civil War activity. As with any prehistoric evidence, so much earth was moved for the construction of the fort in 1861 and for a major renovation in 1863 that it is likely that most historic cultural resources that might have predated the fort were significantly impacted, if not completely, destroyed at that time. The fort engineers of course chose the highest and most advantageous location in the general vicinity and the landform slopes away from the fort in most directions (Larrabee 1961:5). Had a house or habitation site of some sort predated the construction of Fort Ward, the builders most likely would have chosen the same location on the landscape—the top of the hill rather than on a side slope. Therefore, the construction of Fort Ward would have probably displaced and erased most archaeological evidence of historic settlement in the fort proper if it existed before 1861. Similarly, digging graves would also have caused disturbance to any earlier resources.

19

The potential for encountering artifacts or buried features that predate 1861 is very unlikely at all three project areas.

Figure 10. Land ownership at Fort Ward Park in 1884.

D Areas of Poten tial Effect

D Fort Ward Historical Pa r1<

OaKland Baptist Church Cemetery

0 175 350 700

'---------'------'-----------' Feet

20


Legend




0 175 350 700

~---~----~--------~ Feet

21


Legend


D Fort Ward Historical Par1<

0 175 350 700

~----'-----....L---======::j Feet

22


Legend


D Fort Ward Historical Par1<

0 175 350 700

'-----.L.._ ___ ...1---=======::j Feet

23


Legend




0 175 350 700

~---~----~--------~ Feet

24

Figure 15. The Old Graveyard overlaid on the 1945 (left) and 1956 (right) USGS Alexandria quadrangle maps.

It goes almost without saying that the entire park property retains a high level of potential for archaeological evidence of Civil War activity. The proposed walkway is to be built inside the existing fort structure and it will have an impact on the archaeological deposits in the fort that were created during the Civil War era (see Figure 9). The Jackson Cemetery is located on the west glacis of the fort meaning any archaeological testing in this area will by virtue of this location come into contact with soil stratigraphy created during construction of the fort, although it was not a habitation zone. The Old Graveyard is located to the east of the main fort, thereby “inside” the ring of protective entrenchments surrounding Washington. Historic maps do not indicate that any Civil War related buildings were constructed in the vicinity of the Old Graveyard, but temporary encampments could have been located there during the war.

After the war the property gradually evolved into a small community that came to be known as “The Fort,” predominantly inhabited by African-American families. In 1890 Cassius and Rachel McKnight acquired ¾ of an acre located in the center of the fort area, and later built a home there (see Figures 11-15; Plate 3). Archaeological testing for portions of the proposed walkway likely will uncover evidence of the McKnight household. Other portions of the walkway cross property owned by the Jacksons, Millers and Cravens, but there are no known structures on these properties in the alignment of the path. At the Jackson Cemetery and the Old Graveyard the primary concern is to ensure that no human graves are located within the footprint of the proposed fences.

12.1 625 n 12-i ~,o 125 62.5 0

Fl =---t 125 250 375

lteet

25





0 175 350 700

~---~----~--------~ Feet

26

Plate 3. Overview of the McKnight house lot, facing north.

27

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN

A. OBJECTIVES

The objective of the archaeological testing efforts for this project is to identify any potentially significant archaeological resources that might be impacted by the proposed ADA-compliant walkway in the fort or the proposed demarcations or fences to be erected around the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery.

B. FIELD METHODS

Fieldwork for this project consisted of shovel testing at 30 ft. intervals within the linear APE for the ADA-compliant walkway, metal detecting in the path of the proposed walkway, and mechanical trenching within the paths of the proposed fences at the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery. By happenstance, as part of a park-wide archaeological survey funded by the Alexandria City Council, six test units of varying sizes were excavated in the vicinity of the intersection of the proposed teardrop path in the center of the fort. Four the test units were used to seek evidence of the purported well and flagpole. One of the units was excavated in the center of the former McKnight house, and one unit was located along the edge of the east wall of the fort in an effort to identify any drainage features. The results of the test unit excavations are included in this report, but not comprehensively interpreted.

1. Shovel Testing

Archaeologists excavated shovel test pits at 30 ft. intervals, with the interval reduced in some locations based on the discretion of the field director. Each shovel test pit was at least 1.0 ft. in diameter and excavated into sterile subsoil or re-deposited subgrade. 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.

2. Metal Detecting

Veteran metal detector operators Jo Balicki (John Milner Associates), Kerri Holland (John Milner Associates), and Michael O’Donnell volunteered their time and equipment to metal detect along the length of the APE for the proposed walkway in the fort.

3. Mechanical Trenching

A mechanical backhoe with a 4.0 ft. wide smooth bucket blade was used to strip off the overburden to the level of subsoil or subgrade along the path of the proposed demarcations or fences around the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery. Archaeologists monitored the backhoe trenching at all times, directing the operator to remove soil to the top of the subsoil at the Old Graveyard and to the top of a buried surface under the fill that formed the glacis at the Jackson Cemetery. Stripping the soils

28

to these levels in each location allowed for the identification of grave shafts, or other subsurface features, at the highest possible elevation. Following the mechanical exposure at these levels, archaeologists hand-troweled and shovel-shaved the exposed surface in order to identify and define subsurface features.

C. LABORATORY METHODS

All artifacts were washed, sorted, and cataloged using the cataloging system developed 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 context number was written on the exterior of bags with permanent black marker, and provenience information on acid-free labels was inserted into each bag. Bags were then placed in archival-quality acid-free “Hollinger” boxes for curation.

D. PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED RESOURCES

A number of archaeological sites within Fort Ward have been registered with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (Figure 17a). Site 44AX0090 includes the entire 35-acre historical parcel of the park, while other sites registered within this parcel focus on specific types of resources. As mentioned, during an archaeological survey in the early 1980s Alexandria Archaeology identified site 44AX0036, a small grouping of Native American artifacts just to the north of the fort’s northeast bastion, most definitely displaced out of context by construction or reconstruction of the fort. 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.

Outside the boundaries of the park, a variety of cultural resources have been identified. Within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park there are 25 identified and registered archaeological sites, including Fort Ward itself (Figure 17b; Table 1a). There are 16 registered architectural sites within a one-mile radius of the park (Figure 17c; Table 1b).

29

Figure 17a. Previously identified sites at Fort Ward registered with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.

200 100 0 200 400 600 ~Fl____._ _ _._F---3____._ ___ __,_I ___ _.l ___ ___,I Feet

30

Figure 17b. Registered archaeological sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park.

a 500 1 ooo 1500 2000 1 :18 056 / 1 "=1 505 Feet

31

Table 1a. Registered Alexandria archaeological sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park.

DHR_ID Site Name Site Types Evaluation Status 44AX0012 Camp, temporary

44AX0013 Camp, temporary


44AX0016 Camp, temporary DHR Staff: Not Eligible 44AX0031 Camp, temporary



44AX0090 Fort Ward Fort NRHP Listing, VLR Listing

44AX0121 Cemetery, Military camp


44AX0150 Church

44AX0151 Cemetery

44AX0152 Dwelling, single, Outbuilding

44AX0153 Cemetery

44AX0155 Fort Ward barracks, Mess Hall, Trash Dump

Military base/facility NRHP Listing, VLR Listing

44AX0162 null DHR Staff: Not Eligible 44AX0166 null

44AX0167 Dwelling, single

44AX0173 Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia

Farmstead, Hospital, Military camp, School

44AX0174 null


44AX0177 Camp, Dwelling, single

44AX0198 Syme Property Other, Trash pit, Trash scatter

44AX0200 EHS Housing Camp, School

44AX0205 Lithic workshop

32

Figure 17c. Registered architectural sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park.

a 500 1 ooo 1500 2000 1 :18 056 / 1 "=1 505 Feet

33

Table 1b. Registered architectural sites located within a one-mile radius of Fort Ward Park.

DHR_ID Jurisdictions Property Names Historic District

Name Evaluation

Status

000-0022 Arlington (County)

Boundary Markers of the Original District of Columbia (NRHP Listing)

Boundary Markers of the Origional District of Columbia

NRHP Listing, VLR Listing


House, 5029 23rd Street South (Function/Location)

Claremont Historic District


Fairlington Historic District (Current)

Fairlington Historic District



Claremont Historic District (Function/Location)

Claremont Historic District; Historic Residential Suburbs in the United States, 1830-1960 MPS


100-0113 Alexandria (Ind. City)

Fort Ward (Historic/Current), Fort Ward Park (Current)



Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary (Historic/Current)



Parkfairfax Historic District (Historic/Current)

Parkfairfax Historic District



Oakland Baptist Church (Historic/Current)


House, 4130 Lawrence Ave. (Function/Location)


House, 4150 Lawrence Ave. (Function/Location)


1200 Quaker Lane, North (Function/Location), Hoxton Hall (Alleged), Hoxton House (Historic/Current), Mount Washington (Historic), Protestant Episcopal High School (Current)

100 Year Old Building List

DHR Staff: Not Eligible


House, 4103 Seminary Road (Function/Location)



House, 4112 Seminary Road (Function/Location)



House, 4135 Seminary Road (Function/Location), Howard Hall (Historic/Current)


Seminary Post Office (Historic)


Bryan Library (Alternate Spelling), Episcopal High School (Historic/Current), Joseph Bryan Memorial Library (Historic/Current)

34

V. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING RESULTS

Archaeological results are presented below for each of the three project areas. In reporting the results, each project area is presented as a separate entity, each with a unique background history of ownership and use. This chapter first covers the work conducted for the proposed walkway, then the work in the Jackson Cemetery, and lastly the work at the Old Graveyard.

A. ADA-COMPLIANT WALKWAY

The path of the proposed ADA-compliant walkway forms a teardrop shape that loops around the north-central portion of the fort (see Figure 3). The APE for the walkway is 5.0 ft. wide and approximately 1,000 ft. long. In addition to the elements of the fort itself (i.e. bombproofs and a powder magazine), archaeologists also were aware that members of the McKnight family established a residence in the center of the fort in the late nineteenth century (see Figure 3 and Plate 2). Additionally, two potential Civil War resources—a well and a flagpole—are thought to have been located near the proposed intersection of the teardrop path (see Figure 9).

1. Background History Fort Ward was built hurriedly in late 1861 as one of many links in a chain of forts

intended to protect the country’s capitol city from Confederate incursion. There were flaws in the initial design of the fort that were addressed two years later in 1863 when a major renovation took place, expanding its size from 540 yards in circumference to 818 yards (Cooling and Owen 2010:40-42) (see Figure 9). The changes to the fort focused on its western side, leaving much of the eastern side of the fort intact (Larrabee 1961:11). In 1865 the wood used for the gun platforms and subterranean rooms was sold off, and the process of salvaging the wood had an impact on the archaeological record of the fort to an unknown degree.

After the war, a number of African American families purchased the land that contains the fortification. The proposed walkway traverses land that was owned by James Jackson, John and Lavinia Miller, and James Walter Craven. In 1894, James Jackson acquired 11.5 acres in the western section of what would become Fort Ward Park; he deeded ¼ acre of this property to his son Robert in 1913 (Fairfax County Land Records Q-5:466:Q-7-272). Aerial photographs from 1927 and 1937 show a small structure in the rear of Robert Jackson’s lot near the location of the gate into the fort, just outside of the embankment. Another nearby structure was on James Jackson’s lot on top of the magazine southwest of the beginning of the proposed walkway. The Millers purchased their land in 1887 (Fairfax County Land Records F-5:608), while Craven acquired his property in 1921 and owned it for about 5 years (Fairfax County Land Records Y-8:431,U-9:416).

In 1890 Cassius and Rachel McKnight purchased a ¾ acre lot (0.7517 acres) for $25 that encompassed much of the middle of the Civil War fort (Fairfax County Land Records Z-5:101) (Figure 18). Shortly thereafter the McKnights built a house in the center of the lot on top of what had once been a bombproof when the fort was active. The house is depicted on an 1894 map of the area (Figure 19). The McKnights appear on

35

Figure 18. Location of the lot belonging to Cassius and Rachel McKnight in relation to the proposed ADA-approved walkway.

50 25 0 50 100 150

~Fl~~Fl~---~I --~l __ ~IFeet

36

Figure 19. The house belonging to Cassius and Rachel McKnight as depicted on an 1894 map (top), and a 1927 aerial photograph (bottom).

37

the 1900 and the 1910 Censuses as living at Fort Ward. Cassius is listed as a laborer and gardener, while Rachel worked as a laundress. A daughter Viola was living with her parents at Fort Ward in 1900, but by 1910 she had died. One of Cassius’s and Rachel’s cousins, a 14 year old girl named Odesa H. Hansberg (Hansborough)5 was living with the McKnights in 1910. By the 1920 Census the McKnights were living elsewhere and had vacated their house at Fort Ward. Cassius McKnight died in 1924 at the age of 72. The house remained standing, presumably occupied by a tenant in 1927 when an aerial map of the region shows the house and a driveway leading up to it (see Figure 19). Ten years later the house again is visible on a 1937 aerial photograph, but it does not appear on an aerial photograph dated to 1949. The date of Rachel McKnight’s death is unknown. In the late 1950s the City of Alexandria began the condemnation process to acquire the McKnight property and eventually settled with the McKnight heirs for a sum of $5,610 after the resolution of a protracted chancery case.

2. Shovel Testing Archaeologists excavated 48 shovel test pits (STPs) within, or within close

proximity to, the proposed APE of the proposed ADA walkway (Figure 20). Thirty-four of the 48 shovel test pits produced artifacts, while 14 of them yielded no cultural items. From the 34 positive test holes, a total of 324 artifacts were recovered as well as material that was weighed instead of counted such as brick (n=220.5 g), coal (n=29.0 g), and burned coal (n=34.0 g) (Table 2). Bottle and container glass account for more than one-third of the shovel test pit artifacts (n=124, 38.3 percent). Window glass fragments (n=69, 21.3 percent) and iron nails (n=62, 19.1 percent) make up the next largest categories of artifacts collected from the shovel test pits. Ceramic sherds (n=33, 10.2 percent) comprise the only other category that exceeds ten percent of the assemblage. These four types of artifacts—bottle/container glass, window glass, nails, and ceramics—together account for 88.8 percent (n=288) of the 324 artifacts in the shovel test pit assemblage (Table 3). Notably, no artifacts with a confirmed provenance to the Civil War period, such as military uniform buttons, personal equipment, bullets, or parts of firearms were recovered from the shovel test pits. It is possible that a few of the machine cut nails could pertain to the Civil War fort, but they just as easily could relate to the late nineteenth-century when the McKnight family built their home inside the fort.

There is no natural, original stratigraphy within the path of the proposed walkway. All the soil layers encountered in all 48 STPs had at one time or another been altered during construction of the fort in the 1860s. Archaeologists stopped digging each shovel test hole when they encountered thick clay fill, usually at a depth of between 1.0 ft. and 2.0 ft. below the current ground surface (Figure 21). Although technically not subsoil, excavations stopped at this mostly sterile underlying clay fill because it had been deposited in place when the fort was built. The layer is mostly sterile of artifacts, and the Civil War and post-war occupation levels rest on top of this fill. Had we dug the shovel test pits to a depth of the actual subsoil (i.e. a layer of soil untouched by human activity), this would have required excavating to a depth of perhaps as much as 5.0 ft. below grade or more (see Larrabee 1961:8-9). Nevertheless, it is possible that Native American

5 Rachel McKnight later listed OdessaH.BollingandSolomonS.Hansborough(probably

Odessa’sson)asheirs.

38

Table 2. Total artifacts recovered from STPs excavated for the proposed walkway.

Count Weight (g) COARSEWARE 2 EARTHENWARE 16 PORCELAIN 14 PORCELAIN OBJECT 1 STONEWARE 1 BRASS 2 COPPER ALLOY 4 IRON ALLOY 76 QUARTZ 3 GLASS 201 PLASTIC 3 SYNTHETIC OTHER 1 BRICK 220.5 BURNED COAL 34.0 COAL 29.0 TOTAL 324 283.50

artifacts, as well as those from the early historic periods prior to the war, could be present in the natural soil layers under the fort fill. Obviously, the impact of constructing the proposed walkway will have no bearing whatsoever on any deeply buried deposits.

In the shovel test pits between the entrance gate and the center of the fort (STPs A1-A10) archaeologists encountered evidence of the former gravel driveway that once served the McKnight household (see Figures 19 and 21). In each of these shovel test holes hard-packed, compacted clay and gravel was observed at a depth of between 0.5 ft. and 0.8 ft. below grade (see Figure 21). Elsewhere, the typical stratigraphic profile consisted of two layers above the sterile clay layer. The uppermost layer is generally a yellowish brown (10YR4/3) to dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silty loam topsoil between 0.2 ft. to 0.5 ft. thick. This topsoil layer seals a strong brown (7.5YR4/6) to yellowish brown (10YR5/6) clay loam fill layer that varies between 0.4 ft. and 1.0 ft. thick. As mentioned, once excavators reached the level of a yellowish brown (10YR5/6 or 5/8) clay fill that was originally deposited during construction of the fort, excavation ceased.

The findings from the shovel test pits can be divided into three basic spatial groups (Figure 22):

Group 1: Transect A (on the James Jackson and John Miller land, including an area adjacent to the location of a structure on Robert Jackson’s property) from the fort entrance gate to where the proposed walkway forks into a loop;

Group 2: The shovel test pits located in the Cassius McKnight lot and immediately to the south of the lot up to the fork in the proposed walkway loop;

39

Figure 20. Locations of shovel test holes within the proposed walkway APE.

Group 3: The north section of the proposed walkway loop (on J. Walter Craven’s lot) north from the McKnight lot.

pos-neg

0 neg

0

60 30 0 60 120 180

'.:::Fl==::==a==========l-i=::::_-==--==-_J~1~=====:::::;1 Feet

40

Figure 21. Representative shovel test pit profiles.

Table 3. Categories of artifacts recovered from the walkway STPs as divided into groups.

All Artifacts Layers B and C Container Glass Ceramics

Group 1 139 42.9% 92 57.1% 88 66.67% 10 30.3%

Group 2 173 53.4% 62 38.5% 41 31.06% 22 66.7%

Group 3 12 3.7% 7 4.3% 3 2.27% 1 3.0%

Total 324 161 132 33 All Nails Cut Nails Wire Nails Window Glass

Group 1 17 27.4% 5 33.3% 12 26.7% 25 33.8%

Group 2 43 69.4% 10 66.7% 31 68.9% 46 62.2%

Group 3 2 3.2% 0 0.0% 2 4.4% 3 4.1%

Total 62 15 45 74

STP A-1

A =yellowish brown silty loam topsoil

B =yellowish brown sandy clay fill with 20% gravel

( =light yellowish brown sandy clay fill

2.SY8/2 D =paleyellowsllt roadbed with 80% gravel

STP B-1

A =yellowish brown silty loam topsoil

B =strong brown compacted silty clay fill

( =yellowish brown compacted sandy clay fill

o:~ ·~~ 1.5':~

STP A-6

A =dark yellowish brown silty loam topsoil

B =strong brown sandy clay fill with gravel inclusions

1 0YR7 /2 ( =light gray sandy clay fill

STP E-8

A =dark yellowish brown silty loam topsoil

B =yellowish brown sandy clay fill

( =yellowish brown clay fill

41

Figure 22. The proposed walkway APE as divided into three distinctive use areas.

Walkway Shovel Tests

pos-neg

o neg

pos

D McKnight_lot

D Areas of Potential Effec t

60 30 0 60 120 180

Fl~~~Fl-~--~I ---~I --~IFeet

42

Distribution of All Artifacts in Walkway STPs

Groups 1 and 2 contained the vast majority of the 324 total artifacts recovered from shovel test pits in the proposed walkway (Figure 23). The nine STPs in Group 1 generated 139 artifacts (n=42.9 percent) and 71 grams of brick (Table 3). This translates to an average of 15.4 artifacts from each of the nine shovel test pits in Group 1, with 61 artifacts (nearly half of the Group 1 total) coming from one shovel test pit located at the fort gate (STP A-01) (see Figure 23). These are likely associated with the small structure on Robert Jackson’s property just to the east of the APE. There was also a house built on top of one of the magazines of the fort to the southwest of the start of the proposed walkway; association with this latter structure is less likely given the greater distance from the APE.

The 16 STPs in the McKnight lot (designated as Group 2) produced 173 artifacts (n=53.9 percent) and 115 grams of brick (see Table 3). The Group 2 shovel test pits averaged 10.8 artifacts per hole, with STP I-02 (n=45) and STP B-03 (n=41) particularly productive, together generating half of the Group 2 artifacts.

Group 3 on J. Walter Craven’s lot to the north of the McKnight lot was by far the least productive of the three groups with its 19 STPs yielding a paltry 12 artifacts (n=3.7 percent) and 34.5 grams of brick (see Figure 23 and Table 3). With an average of less than one artifact per test hole, Group 3 is nearly devoid of artifacts. A 1927 aerial photograph suggests that this section may have been cultivated. Documentary evidence collected to date do not show any structures in this area of the Craven property.

43

Figure 23. Counts of all artifacts in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

(Note: positive STPs that show no number contained only brick or coal, which was weighed, not counted.)

Legend

Walkway Shovel Tests pos-rneg

o neg

pos

D McKnigfll_lot

c::J Areas 01 Poten tial Effect

60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl~---~l ___ ~I ___ IFeet

44

Distribution of Artifacts in Layers B and C in Walkway STPs

In an attempt to discriminate between artifacts associated with use of the park over the past 50 years and those that were deposited in the archaeological record prior to the park opening, the artifact distributions were mapped without Layer A, although it is evident that Layer A contains some amount of artifacts that predate the park (Figure 24). Layers B and C generated 161 total artifacts, almost exactly half of the entire shovel test assemblage (n=49.7 percent) (see Table 3).

By eliminating Layer A in the Group 1 assemblage, the distribution of artifacts did not change dramatically from the distribution of all the layers. The STP at the fort gate (A-01) continued to yield the highest amount of artifacts (n=56) in the group (see Figure 24). This suggests that the concentration of debris recovered in STP A-01 made its way into the archaeological record prior to the creation of the park in the 1960s. It is probably associated with the structure at the back of Robert Jackson’s lot just outside of the gate into the fort, but could also relate to the more distant house on top of the magazine adjacent to Braddock Road southwest of the start of the proposed walkway. It should be noted that there has been considerable disturbance near the gate location with the reconstruction of the gate at the time of the creation of the park and its more recent replacement. It is possible that the scatter of artifacts from this household inside the fort is a product of this disturbance for construction of the gate.

The Group 2 assemblage noticeably changed by the elimination of Layer A, reducing the collection from 173 artifacts to 62 artifacts (see Figure 24 and Table 3). While some of the artifacts in Layer A can be attributed to park visitors, the majority of the Layer A materials pertain to the McKnight household, meaning that the integrity of the McKnight site remains quite good and park activities have not markedly impacted the archaeological resource.

The small number of Group 3 artifacts is evenly distributed between Layer A and the layers below (see Figure 24 and Table 3). As previously mentioned, plowing may have occurred in this location.

45

Figure 24. Counts of artifacts in Layers B and C in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


pos-neg

o neg

pos

D M cKnight_lot

D Areas ot Potential Effect

60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl-~--~l ___ ~I --~IFeet

46

Distribution of Container Glass in Walkway STPs

Fragments of container glass (n=132, 40.7 percent) comprised the largest type of artifact recovered from the walkway shovel test pits (see Tables 1 and 2). Most of the fragments came from glass bottles with a few jar pieces mixed in. The majority of the bottle fragments were clear and colorless, with a lesser number having an aqua tint to them, as well as a few examples of brown glass and green glass.

Two-thirds of the container glass was collected from Group 1, particularly from two shovel test pits: A-01 and A-06 (Figure 25; see Table 3). Concentrations of container glass often indicate the location of a household. However, in this case the container glass (and other artifacts) probably was dumped from a nearby household, probably the structure in the rear of Robert Jackson’s lot, just outside the gate.

As would be expected, the container glass fragments in the Group 2 assemblage (n=41) are concentrated in and around the site of the McKnight house (see Figure 25). Broken glass could be a hazard if left lying around the yard, and in all likelihood the residents of the household deposited their trash away from the house. Nevertheless, the occasional broken bottle could have been discarded on a piecemeal basis and been kicked around the yard.

The three glass container fragments in the Group 3 assemblage simply reinforce the fact that this area of the fort saw very little activity after the Civil War (see Figure 25 and Table 3).

47

Figure 25. Counts of container glass fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


pos-neg

o neg

pos

D M cKnight_lot


60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl-~--~l ___ ~I --~IFeet

48

Distribution of Ceramics in Walkway STPs

Compared with container glass (n=132), the amount of ceramics recovered from the walkway shovel test pits is rather small (n=33), outnumbered by container glass by a ratio of 4:1 (see Table 3). The ceramics collection consists mainly of whiteware (n=15) and porcelain (n=14), with a few fragments of stoneware (n=2) and plain coarse earthenware (n=2). While it is possible that some of the ceramic fragments could have been deposited into the archaeological record during the Civil War, this scenario is unlikely given the locations of the materials in close proximity to the McKnight house structure on Robert Jackson’s lot (Figure 26).

The 10 ceramic fragments collected from the shovel test pits in Group 1 were mixed in with other domestic debris, most likely associated with the structure at the rear of the Robert Jackson lot (see Figure 26).

Like the container glass, the 22 ceramics sherds recovered from the Group 2 shovel test pits are massed in and around the former foundation for the McKnight house (see Figure 26). The only outlier is eight porcelain fragments (that appear to be from the same vessel) recovered from STP E-04 situated on the west side of the bombproof (see Figure 26). Because these ceramic fragments are located in close proximity to the McKnight house, we feel confident that most—if not all—of them relate to occupation of that house.

The one piece of transfer printed whiteware recovered from Group 3 is almost certainly scatter from the McKnight household (see Figure 26).

49

Figure 26. Counts of ceramic fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


o neg

pos

D McKnigfll_lot


60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl~---~l ___ ~I ___ IFeet

50

Distribution of Nails in Walkway STPs

Archaeologists recovered 62 nails and nail fragments during the walkway shovel testing (see Table 3; Figure 27). Throughout most of the nineteenth century the most common type of nail was cut by a machine and can be identified by its square shaft and square head. By the end of the nineteenth century wire nails (round shaft, round head) began to gradually supplant cut nails (Noel Hume 1969:252-254). The majority of the nails in the walkway assemblage are made from wire (n=45), with a smaller number of machine cut nails (n=15) (see Table 3). Machine cut nails were used during the Civil War and the possibility exists that some of the 15 machine cut nails pertain to construction projects at the fort. However, machine cut nails were quite common in the late nineteenth century when the McKnight family built their house on the property.

Specimens of both machine cut and wire nails are present in the Group 1 assemblage (n=17) (Figures 28 and 29). Four of the five cut nails are from STPs near the Group 2 area and could be dispersed scatter from the McKnight lot (see Figure 28). The wire nails in Group 1, again, appear to be associated with the house in the rear of the Robert Jackson lot.

The majority of the nails from the walkway shovel test pits—both cut and wire—were collected in the Group 2 area within the McKnight house lot (n=43). Since the house was built during a period of time when both cut and wire nails were available, finding both types is to be expected. The majority of the nails in Group 2 are bunched together within an area 25 ft. in diameter at the location of the former McKnight house (see Figures 27-29).

In Group 3 two wire nail fragments were recovered from STP G-01 near the reconstructed north bastion (see Figure 27) and simply represent field scatter that cannot be attributed to a specific context.

51

Figure 27. Counts of all nails and nail fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


pos-neg

o neg

pos

D M cKnight_lot


60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl-~--~l ___ ~I --~IFeet

52

Figure 28. Counts of all machine cut nails and nail fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


pos-neg

o neg

pos

D M cKnight_lot


60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl-~--~l ___ ~I --~IFeet

53

Figure 29. Counts of all wire nails and nail fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


pos-neg

o neg

pos

D M cKnight_lot


60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl-~--~l ___ ~I --~IFeet

54

Distribution of Window Glass in Walkway STPs

The distribution of window glass throughout the walkway APE is nearly identical to that of nails (see Table 3; Figure 30). Given that nails and window glass both represent architectural evidence, a similar distribution pattern between the two types of artifacts makes perfect sense. Aside from container glass, window glass (n=74, 22.8 percent) was the second most prevalent artifact type in the walkway assemblage.

Along with the other trash in Group 1, the window glass (n=25) was strewn just inside the fort walls (see Figure 30). The fact that nine window glass fragments were mingled with container glass, ceramics, nails, and other detritus in STP A-01, supports the interpretation that these were associated with the structure in the back of the Robert Jackson lot.

Group 2 generated the most window glass (n=46), again most of it in the immediate confines of the location of the McKnight house (see Figure 30). Most notably, STP B-03 yielded 32 window glass fragments from a location that was approximately 12 to 15 ft. from the east wall of the house.

The three stray fragments of window glass recovered from the Group 3 area can be attributed to general field scatter (see Figure 30).

55

Figure 30. Counts of window glass fragments in the shovel test pits within the proposed walkway APE as arrayed in groups.

Legend


o neg

pos

D McKnigfll_lot


1 0 1

0

0

32 0

60 30 0 60 120 180

~Fl~~Fl~---~l ___ ~I ___ IFeet

56

3. Metal Detecting Over the course of several hours three experienced metal detector operators swept

the full length of the proposed walkway along a swath approximately 20 ft. wide. As a result of this work a total of 51 artifacts were collected, a mixture of Civil War artifacts, community debris, McKnight household materials, and artifacts from park users (Figures 31-33). The majority of the metal detected artifacts came from the Group 1 area that follows the path of what was once the McKnight entrance road (see Figure 32). In the Group 2 area, mostly around the McKnight house site, the operators did hear metal signals, but they were able to tune their machines to filter out those signals generated by aluminum, tin, and other likely non-Civil War objects. Granted, within the 5.0 ft. wide APE a small number of the artifacts that pertain to the McKnight household were left in place, but we do not believe that the potential loss of this small amount of data will effectively impact the significance of the McKnight site.

At least 11 of the metal detected artifacts are directly associated with activity at the fort during the Civil War (Figure 34). These items include: Minie balls (n=8), lead round shot (n=1), an Enfield rifle bullet (n=1), and a brass sword hanger (n=1) (Plate 4). Three of the Minie balls are known as Williams cleaner bullets; these had a plunger on the back and were intended to be fired once every ten rounds to clean out the barrel of the gun. One of the other Minie balls is of French manufacture having a telltale hollow, triangular-shaped base. The other four Minie balls are standard Union issue projectiles. Only one of the eight Minie balls shows evidence of having been fired. The lead round shot is an unfired 0.64 caliber ball. The Enfield bullet is an unfired, 0.50 caliber shell, with a conical shape and a hollow bottom. The sword hanger is rather simple and plain, and therefore probably belonged to cavalry soldier rather than an officer.

Fifteen coins were recovered during the metal detecting process along the path of the proposed walkway, all but one dating to the second half of the twentieth century. The one older coin is a copper 1883 Indian Head penny that is in poor condition. The remaining coinage dates between 1954 and 1998 and consists of eight pennies, three dimes, and three quarters which add up to a total of $1.13. Except for the Indian Head penny, the 14 more modern coins all seem to have entered the archaeological record from the pockets of park visitors.

The remainder of the artifacts recovered via metal detector consists of a hodgepodge of materials including a modern 0.32 caliber lead slug (n=1), a brass medallion (n=1) emblazoned with “AHS 1915” (presumably Alexandria High School) (Plate 5), a Model T Ford hub cover, ca. 1914 to 1921 (n=1) (Plate 6), an iron pulley apparatus (n=1), a lead toy faucet (n=1), a copper thimble (n=1), a carbon rod for a “D” battery (n=1), the iron lock and slide bolt for a door (n=1), and other miscellaneous metal items (n=7). Also in process of recovering metal objects, the detector operators collected a small number of ceramic fragments (n=4) and glass bottle fragments (n=6).

57

Figure 31. Metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE.

58

Figure 32. Metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE, Group 1.

59

Figure 33. Metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE, Groups 2 and 3.

60

Figure 34. Civil War metal detector finds within the proposed walkway APE, highlighted in orange.

61

Plate 4. Civil War artifacts recovered from within the general vicinity of the proposed walkway APE during the metal detector survey.

Plate 5. Brass medallion during the walkway metal detector survey commemorating the opening of Alexandria High School in 1915.

62

Plate 6. Model T Ford wheel hub recovered during the walkway metal detector survey.

63

4. Test Units Archaeologists excavated seven test units of varying sizes in the vicinity of the

proposed walkway (Figure 35). Test Unit 49 was excavated within the foundations of the McKnight house and has little bearing on the walkway project. Likewise with Test Unit 45 which was located along the base of the earthen berm that forms the east wall of the fort (see Figure 35). Four test units were placed in close proximity to the proposed path of the walkway as it passes through the gap between the north and south bombproofs (Figure 36). Ostensibly, the purpose for these four test units was to identify the location of the well and flagstaff that period engineering maps indicate once stood there. No evidence of a well or a flagstaff was observed in the four test units. However, portions of a privy feature were uncovered in Test Unit 43 (Plates 7 and 8).

Archaeologists encountered the top of a wood-lined privy at a depth of 1.2 ft. below ground surface in Test Unit 43. A modern utility trench cut through the feature along the north edge of the test unit (see Plate 7). The feature was sampled and produced artifacts that dated to the 1920s and 1930s, at about the time we believe the McKnight house ceased to exist. The materials retrieved from the privy feature include whole bottles, canning jars, a bicycle tire, plastic eyeglasses frames, and a variety of other household debris (Plate 9). At the time of testing the water table was high and the privy feature filled with water periodically (see Plate 8).

To further examine the privy feature a second test unit—Test Unit 50—was opened up to the north of Test Unit 43 (see Plate 7). At a depth of approximately 1.0 ft. below grade archaeologists uncovered five utility trenches crisscrossing through the unit. Because of these disturbances, excavation of the test unit was terminated. The privy feature remains sealed below the network of utility trenches.

As currently planned, the path of the proposed walkway will cross over a portion of the privy feature (see Figure 36). At least 1.0 ft. of soil seals the privy feature. A maximum of 0.5 ft. of soil will be cut in this area to build the walkway. Therefore, the integrity of the privy feature will not be compromised as at least another 0.5 ft. of fill will continue to protect it.

64

Figure 35. Location of test units in the vicinity of the proposed walkway APE.

65

Figure 36. Location of test units in the vicinity of the proposed walkway APE, close up.

66

Plate 7. Overview of completed Test Unit 43 with privy feature visible in plan, and Test Unit 50 in progress.

Plate 8. Close up view of the wood side wall of the privy feature.

67

Plate 9. A sample of some of the artifacts recovered from the privy feature.

68

B. JACKSON CEMETERY FENCE INVESTIGATION

With funds provided by an SAT grant, a demarcation or enclosure of some sort may be erected along the west and south boundaries of the Jackson Cemetery. The earthen rampart walls of Fort Ward form boundaries on the north and east sides of the cemetery (Figure 37). The APE for the proposed enclosure is 4.0 ft. wide and 235 ft. long.

1. Background History The Jackson Cemetery is located on the western glacis of Fort Ward in the center

of the park property (see Figure 3). The recorded presence of the Jackson family in Fort Ward begins with a deed dated February 5, 1894, which indicates that James F. Jackson purchased 11.5 acres of land at Fort Ward for $300 (Fairfax County Land Records Q-5:466) . The deed makes reference to the western slope of a bank of Fort Ward, as well as to John Miller’s corner. A survey that was made of an adjacent parcel in 1913 (recorded in 1920) identifies a burial ground on the Jackson land, at the corner of the property owned by Cassius and Rachel McKnight (Fairfax County Land Records P-8:17). A map prepared by the City of Alexandria’s Engineering Department drawn in 1962 in conjunction with the development of the area as Fort Ward Park identifies a small plot of land in approximately this same location as being a “Grave Area” (Figure 38). According to oral history accounts from family descendants Edmonia Smith McKnight and Dorothy Hall Smith, they confirm the presence of an “Old Jackson Cemetery” on the Fort property, that received members of the Jackson family and others. Ms. McKnight also thought that the graves had been moved at some point, although she was unsure of where they were reinterred (Alexandria Legacies 1994a; 1994b).

The death certificate of James Jackson identifies his grave location as “Ft. Ward Cem.” although as with several other individuals identified as being buried at Fort Ward, there is no known grave marker on the property and the exact location of Jackson’s grave is not known. Prior to the mid-1920s William Carpenter purchased a burial lot in the Jackson Cemetery, indicating that the burial ground was not used exclusively by the Jackson family.

Recent exploratory excavations conducted by the Ottery Group in 2010 and 2011 and by Alexandria Archaeology in 2012 have verified the presence of 20 graves in the Jackson Cemetery (see Figure 37). A more detailed discussion of the City-funded archaeological excavations in this cemetery is forthcoming in a separate document produced by Alexandria Archaeology. Thus far all the graves are located above the 274 ft. contour on the highest portion of the mount formed by the glacis. All of the identified graves are about 15 feet or more from the proposed enclosure or demarcation (see Figure 37). Another possible location for the enclosure would be farther from the graves with the demarcation at the base of the glacis below the 272 ft. contour.

2. Mechanical Trenching Archaeologists monitored the excavation of a 4.0 ft. wide and 140 ft. long trench

placed along the probable boundary of the Jackson Cemetery on its west and a portion of its south side (see Figure 37). No subsurface cultural features were observed within the trench. The stratigraphic profile remained similar throughout the length of the trench and consisted of three layers resting on top of a fourth layer which appears to represent

69

Figure 37. Location of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed fence around the Jackson Cemetery.

f.:.'.::.::.::.::J Fence APE Jackson Cemetery Fence Investigation

0 - Inspected Area

2 ft. contou r

D Jackson Cemetery

- Burials

Excavation Units

-- Trench, Alexandria A rchaeology

Trench, Ottery Group

N

A ,..,,,,,. ,.. .. ,.e,eo»v1

0 1!'.U l!l! HS» n<:""'x-r•

TU , Alexandria Archaeology

TU , Ottery Group

0 4.5 9 36 -==-=---===---Feet 18 27

70

Figure 38. Location of Jackson Cemetery survey parcel as overlaid on a City of Alexandria 1962 contour map.

r···········i Fence APE

- Inspected Area

D Jackson Cemetery

- Burials

Contour Map of Fort Ward, 1962

N

A 0 4.5 9 18 27 36 -=-=i--====--• Feet

71

original grade that was present prior to the construction of Fort Ward (Figure 39). Layers B and C represent soil that was used to form the glacis for the fort. Similar in texture, the layers may signify the two construction episodes of the fort—Layer C laid down in 1861 and Layer B added during the 1863/4 improvements to the fort (see Figure 39). Scheduling issues and maintenance problems with the City backhoe prevented the archaeologists from completing the trench on the southern side of the Jackson Cemetery.

Figure 39. Example of the typical soil stratigraphy encountered in the boundary delineation trench at the Jackson Cemetery.

Facing North

• ■ =layer A: Dark brown (1 0YR3/3) sandy loam topsoil

■ =layer B: Reddish-yellow (SYR4/6) silty clay loam with 30% gravel (glads fill)

D =layer C: Pale yellow (2.SY7 /4) compacted clay with 10% gravel (glads fill)

D =layer D: Tan-orange (2.SYB/6) thick clay loam (original pre-Civil War grade)

72

C. OLD GRAVEYARD FENCE INVESTIGATION

The Old Graveyard area is a triangular plot located on the eastern edge of the park adjacent to and immediately to the south from the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery (Figure 40). With funds provided by an SAT grant, an enclosure of some sort may be erected along the east, west and south boundaries of the Old Graveyard. The north side of the graveyard is bounded by the fence surrounding the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery. The APE for the proposed fence is 4.0 ft. wide and 260 ft. long.

Presently, two upright headstones mark graves within the cemetery, and there are also two overturned and displaced stones. The two upright grave markers are inscribed, and belong to Virginia Fitzhugh (Virginia Fitzhugh died Jan. 18, 1918 aged 65 years Well Done good and faithful servant.) and W.E. Javins (W.E. Javins June 15, 1878- Feb. 27, 1907).6 One of the displaced markers is inscribed and refers to Cornelia Spence (Our Mother Cornelia Spence Born in Jefferson Texas in 1842 Died at the Episcopal High School Oct. 13, 1892) while another footstone marked “V.F.” likely belongs to the Virginia Fitzhugh grave.

1. Background History

The land on which the Old Graveyard sits was originally part of land acquired by Burr Shorts in 1884 (Fairfax County Land Records E-5:578). This land was passed to Burr Shorts’ wife Harriet Stuart McKnight Shorts, and was then deeded to their daughter, Amanda “Mandy” Shorts Clarke ((Fairfax County Will Book H-2:37; Fairfax County Land Records, Deed Book N-8:404).).. A 1930 deed in which Clarke sells approximately 1 acre of her land provides the following description and reference to the Old Graveyard:

“…Beginning at a point on the east side of the general outlet road for the use of all abutting properties running from the Javins property into said Old Braddock Road, at the corner of the real estate of said Amanda Clarke and the Oakland Church lot, at an Iron Pipe, and running thence in an eastward direction along the lines of said property 200 feet to a pipe driven in the ground; thence in a southward direction along Amanda Clarke’s line and the line of the Old Grave yard 210 feet to another Iron Pipe in the line of Laura Ball; thence in a westward direction along the line of Laura Ball and cutting across the lands of said Amanda Clarke 182 feet to another Iron Pipe in the east side of said outlet road, and thence along the east side of said outlet road in a northward direction 210 to the beginning, containing slightly less than one acre of ground…” (Fairfax County Land Records, Deed Book V 10:142)

From this record it appears as if the western edge of the cemetery can be found approximately 200 feet east of the common access road. In 1962, the Alexandria Recreation, Parks and Cultural Affairs department created a topographic map of the land that was to become Fort Ward Park. Included on this map, on what had formerly been Amanda Clarke’s land in the location mentioned above, is a small rectangle marked

6 Note that the “8” in 1878 is cracked and the date of birth could be 1873.

73

“Grave Area,” approximately 30 ft. by 40 ft. in size (City of Alexandria Engineering Department) (Figure 41).

Figure 40. Location of the APE for the proposed fence around the Old Graveyard.

Old Grave Yard 2010-2012 Investigations Fort Ward Park N

Legend

LJ oa1<1an<1 Cemetery Excavation Units

~ Verified Grave A rea _ sacred Grollld - TR, A lexandria Archaeology

- Burials - TR, Ottery Group

- Possit)e ferce/Demarcatioo Location LJ TU, Alexandria Archaeology

TU, Ottery Group

A 02.55 10 15 20 ■■- - Feet

74

Figure 41. Location of Old Graveyard survey parcel overlaid on 1962 City of Alexandria contour map.

Old Grave Yard 2010-20112 Investigations Fort Ward Park N

Legend

- Burials - lR, Ottery Group

- Possible Fence/Demarcation Location LJ lU,Alexandria Archaeology

Excavation Units

- lR,Alexandria Archaeology

n lU, Ottery Group 0 45 9

A ...,.,. ,.. .. .,.,o,-..0"'9J ()~QIH!$001'C,. ,:,,,a,o~•

18 27 36 -=-=---c::::=---Feet

75

In addition to this evidence, which corresponds with the visible headstones, is the oral history of Sgt. Lee Thomas Young. Sgt. Young recalls that there were 17 or 18 grave sites between his house and the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery, and that they were old and broken by the time he lived at the Fort, beginning in 1947 (Alexandria Legacies 1996; 2009). Indeed, Sgt. Young’s memory may be spot on. A total of 17 graves have been identified in the Old Graveyard as a result of exploratory excavations conducted by the Ottery Group in 2010 and 2011 and by Alexandria Archaeology in 2012 (see Figure 40). A more detailed discussion of the City-funded archaeological excavations in this cemetery is forthcoming in a separate document produced by Alexandria Archaeology.

Based on the positions of the grave shafts, there appears to be three, possibly four, rows of graves. Row 1 is the longest row of graves and may represent the earliest burials of the group, with Rows 2 and 3 filled in later. It is interesting to note that Cornelia Spence’s displaced gravestone (d. 1892) is located closest to Row 1, W.E. Javins’s gravestone (d. 1907) is located in Row 2, and Virginia Fitzhugh’s gravestone (d. 1918) is located to the east of Row 3, suggesting that the graveyard expanded from west to east. Indeed, the rows may roughly date to decades of use: Row 1 in the 1890s, Row 2 in first decade of the twentieth century, and Row 3 in the second decade of the twentieth century.

The apparent presence of organized rows of graves strongly suggests that a community of people used this as a final resting place (as opposed to a single family) and the individuals were interred in an orderly fashion that conformed to a preconceived plan. Perhaps the most unique aspect of the Old Graveyard is the unconventional orientation of 16 of the graves at an angle that is between 45 to 55 degrees west of north (between 305 and 315 compass degrees). Throughout history the standard practice in the Western world is to bury individuals on an east-to-west axis, with the head in the west and the feet in the east. The thinking behind this burial practice is linked to Christian theology and to the symbolic connection with the rising sun (Jordan 1982:30-31).

There are two factors that might have influenced the orientation of the graves at the Old Graveyard. One, in rural settings most people did not carry magnetic compasses that would allow them to determine a true eastern orientation. Instead, when the first grave was dug at the Old Graveyard, it was the perceived location of the rising sun at that time that determined the orientation of the burial shaft.7 This first burial then set the direction for all that came after. Secondarily, the landform at the Old Graveyard slopes gradually downward from the southeast to the northwest. The graves are angled in line with the contour of the sloping landform. Had the graves been placed in the ground positioned with true east, they would have deviated from the natural contours of the landscape, thereby possibly creating the illusion that the burials were out of kilter.

7 The position of the sun on the eastern horizon will change by as much as 23 degrees to the north

and to the south of true east throughout the year. Given the fact that the burials in the Old Graveyard deviate to the south of east, we could postulate that the first burial was dug in the winter when the sun is at its farthest divergence from east toward the south.

76

2. Mechanical Trenching

Archaeologists monitored the excavation of a 4.0 ft. wide and 265 ft. long trench placed along the proposed west, south, and east boundary of the Old Graveyard (see Figure 40). No subsurface cultural features were observed within the trench. A small section of the trench, about 10 feet long, was not excavated because it was paved with asphalt. The stratigraphic profile throughout the entirety of the trench remained consistent with only slight variations in the depths of the three primary layers (Figure 42). The three layers were similar in color and texture, mostly different gradations of brown clay loam. A decidedly hardpan clay subsoil was encountered at approximately a depth of 2.0 ft. below grade although in some areas the soil column was shallower and subsoil was found at depths ranging between 1.2 ft. and 2.0 ft. below current grade.

Figure 42. Example of the typical soil stratigraphy encountered in the boundary delineation trench at the Old Graveyard.

Subsoil

■ =Layer A: Brown (1 0YR4/3) compacted silt loam topsoil

■ =Layer B: Yellow-brown (1 0YRS/4) sticky clay loam

D =LayerC: Brownish-yellow (10YR6/8) compacted clay with 10% gravel

Subsoil: Pale yellowish orange (1 0YRB/6) thick clay loam

77

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS

The City of Alexandria plans to build an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant walkway at Fort Ward Historical Park as well as erect enclosures around two historic cemeteries, the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery. The three projects are funded under a Save America’s Treasures Grant (No. 51-10-ML-2047). Fort Ward Park is located on Braddock Road, not far from one the area’s most important transportation arteries, the Henry Shirley Memorial Highway (395) (see Figures 1 and 2). The historical section of Fort Ward Park consists of 36.5-acres and contains a Civil War-era fortification, the Fort Ward Museum, as well as a variety of amenities—picnic areas, walking paths, a playground—for the enjoyment of park visitors (see Figure 3).

Since 2010, with funding from the Alexandria City Council, Alexandria Archaeology has conducted archaeological testing and historical background research for the park. The primary focus of this work—which is on-going—is on an African American community that was founded on the property after the Civil War and continued as a neighborhood until the creation of the park in the 1960s. Known as “The Fort,” the community included a dozen or more homes, a schoolhouse that later became a chapel and then a residence, and several cemeteries.

The grant monies will help the City of Alexandria enhance the visitor experience at Fort Ward Park. Specifically, the proposed walkway will open up visitation into the reconstructed north bastion of Fort Ward, a place that heretofore has been inaccessible to non-ambulatory visitors. Moreover, it will guide all visitors to move through the fort in a systematic manner. Currently, because there are no formal pathways, some visitors may not be entirely aware of the reconstructed north bastion. The walkway will serve as a passive instrument to steer people through the fort. Outside of the fort, the proposed enclosures at the Old Graveyard and the Jackson Cemetery are a crucial step toward ensuring that these two sacred places are properly memorialized for future generations. And the two cemeteries can anchor the future interpretation of The Fort community at the park.

A. RECOMMENDATION: ADA-COMPLIANT WALKWAY

The APE for the proposed ADA-compliant walkway was 5.0 ft. wide and approximately 1,000 ft. long, forming a teardrop shaped loop around the north-central portion of the fort (see Figure 3). The final design of the walkway has eliminated the loop and instead it will travel from the fort entrance gate, take a jog through the center of the fort, and lead directly to the north bastion (Figure 43). For the majority of its length, construction of the path will cause disturbance to the existing ground surface for a maximum depth of 2.0 inches. In the center of the fort where the path jogs to the northwest toward the north bastion, the path will be imbedded to a maximum of 5.0 inches below grade.8

8 Maintenance vehicles periodically cross through this portion of the fort and the added depth will

reinforce the walkway to prevent vehicular damage.

78

Figure 43. Final design of the proposed ADA-compliant walkway at Fort Ward.

! I

--~-

79

There are two “planes” of disturbance to consider here—the horizontal impact and the vertical depth of the proposed walkway. Based on observation, the 5.0 ft. width of the proposed walkway obviously will not disturb any above-ground features, nor in our opinion will the walkway mar the appearance of the fort landscape. An earth tone composite material will be used to build the walkway which will be laid at-grade. It is expected that it will largely blend in with the existing turf throughout the fort.

As for the vertical impact, based on shovel testing, a small number of test units, and systematic metal detecting, the proposed walkway will have a limited impact on the topsoil context of the fort. Shovel test pit profiles throughout the walkway APE reveal that the fort is covered by a topsoil layer that is at least 5.0 inches deep in most places (see Figure 21). Since the maximum depth of the proposed walkway is 5.0 inches, its construction will displace in most locations only topsoil contexts. In those few places where the walkway construction might penetrate below the topsoil layer, the underlying layer is a re-deposited clay fill that was created during construction of the fort. While this second layer technically is “historic,” it is nearly entirely devoid of artifacts and simply represents a vast quantity of earth that was shoveled into a pile when the fort was built (see Larrabee 1961).

The topsoil does contain artifacts that were placed into the archaeological record during the Civil War, or by later residents living at the McKnight house or in the structure on Robert Jackson’s property. Let us address these situations in order:

Within this topsoil context, we believe that we have recovered the majority of any metal Civil War artifacts due to be displaced by construction of the walkway. A small number of non-metallic Civil War artifacts may still reside in the topsoil layer, but the walkway will not significantly impact the integrity of the archaeological record that pertains to the Civil War.

A small percentage of topsoil artifacts related to the McKnight household may be dislodged by the walkway construction, but the impact will be minimal to the resource and not diminish the site’s overall integrity. This is especially so considering that the eastern loop of the proposed walkway has been eliminated from the project, meaning the walkway will not pass by the location of the house itself, and generally skirts around the house area to the west.

The proposed walkway will pass overtop a portion of one subsurface feature, the privy that dates to the early twentieth century and was in use during the McKnight era at the site (see Figure 36). Installation of the walkway will entail digging to a depth of no more than 5.0 inches below current grade over the top of a portion of the privy feature. Thus, the only soil contexts that will be displaced by walkway construction in relation to the privy feature will be topsoil and utility trenches. The privy feature will remain intact and unharmed by the walkway. Elsewhere along the proposed walkway, if there are additional subsurface features that eluded our testing—the fort well or flagstaff, for example—these too will remain untouched beneath the shallow walkway.

80

Recommendation:

As a result of background research and field testing, we believe the proposed ADA-compliant walkway will have no adverse effect on any significant archaeological resources. We recommend that no further archaeological mitigation is necessary in the path of the proposed walkway and that it may proceed as planned.

B. RECOMMENDATION: JACKSON CEMETERY FENCING

Twenty graves have been archaeologically identified at the Jackson Cemetery, an unmarked burial ground located at Fort Ward Park. The City of Alexandria is pursuing some funding for an as yet unspecified enclosure to be placed on the west and south perimeter of the Jackson Cemetery. The earthen walls of Fort Ward form the north and east boundaries of the cemetery and therefore no fencing is necessary on those sides of the burial ground (see Figure 37).

Recommendation:

Archaeologists monitored the mechanical excavation of a 4.0 ft. wide trench for a length of 140 ft. along the west and a portion of the south perimeter of the Jackson Cemetery (see Figure 37). No grave shafts or subsurface cultural features were observed within the excavated trench. However, completion of the trench around the perimeter of the cemetery is needed prior to placement of any enclosures to ensure that no burials will be disturbed if and when it might be put into place. In addition, if the enclosure is moved to the bottom of the glacis, then additional archaeological work will be needed to check this area and ensure that no graves are present in the areas that will be disturbed by fence construction.

C. RECOMMENDATION: OLD GRAVEYARD FENCING

The Old Graveyard is located on the east side of Fort Ward Park, adjacent to the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery (see Figure 40). To date, 17 graves have been identified within the confines of the Old Graveyard, two of which are marked by headstones. Inscriptions on the few gravestones in the Old Grave Yard suggest that it was used ca. 1890 to ca. 1920, prior to the establishment of Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery. The City of Alexandria has applied for a grant to provide some funding for an enclosure on the east, west and south boundaries of the Old Graveyard. The north side of the graveyard abuts with a fence surrounding the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery (see Figure 40).

Recommendation:

Archaeologists monitored the excavation of a 4.0 ft. wide and 265 ft. long trench placed along the proposed west, south, and east boundary of the Old Graveyard (see Figure 40). No grave shafts or subsurface cultural features were observed within the trench. There is a small 10-foot long section of the perimeter that has not been checked. Additional archaeological work or monitoring will be needed in this small section to ensure that no graves will be disturbed by the placement of the enclosure.

81

VII. REFERENCES CITED

Adams, Robert M., Martha W. McCartney, Michael F. Johnson, and Lawrence E. Moore 1993 Archaeological Investigations of the Stonegate Development (Including Sites

44AX31, AX166 and 167), City of Alexandria, Virginia. International Archaeological Consultants, Rawlins, Wyoming. On file at Alexandria Archaeology.

Alexandria Legacies Project 1992 Interview with Charles H. McKnight. Alexandria Legacies, Oral History

Program, City of Alexandria, Office of Historic Alexandria. Electronic source: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/historic/info/history/OHAOralHistoryMcKnightCharles.pdf

1994a Interview with Edmonia Smith McKnight. Alexandria Legacies, Oral History

Program, City of Alexandria, Office of Historic Alexandria. Electronic source: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/historic/info/history/OHAOralHistoryMcKnightEdmonia.pdf

1994b Interview with Dorothy Hall Smith and Barbara Ashby Gordon. Alexandria

Legacies, Oral History Program, City of Alexandria, Office of Historic Alexandria. Electronic source: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/historic/info/history/OHAOralHistorySmithDorothy.pdf

1996 Interview with Sgt. Lee Thomas Young. Alexandria Legacies, Oral History

Program, City of Alexandria, Office of Historic Alexandria. Electronic source: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/historic/info/history/OHAOralHistoryYoung1996.pdf

2009 Interview with Sgt. Lee Thomas Young. Alexandria Legacies, Oral History

Program, City of Alexandria, Office of Historic Alexandria. Electronic source: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/historic/info/history/OHAOralHistoryYoung2009.pdf

Bromberg, Francine 1991 1991 Excavations at Fort Ward. Alexandria Archaeology Abstracts, No. 1. On

file at Alexandria Archaeology. City of Alexandria 1927 Aerial map of the City of Alexandria Cooling, Benjamin Franklin III and Walton H. Owen II 2010 Mr. Lincoln's Forts: A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington. The

Scarecrow Press, Lanham, Maryland.

82

Fairfax County v. City of Alexandria 1951 68 S.E.2d 101 (1951) [193 Va. 82].

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=1&xmldoc=195116968SE2d101_1167.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7

Fleming, Tony 2008 Surficial Geology and Landforms—Expanded Explanation City of Alexandria,

VA and Vicinity. Electronic reference: http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/recreation/parks/Plate5SurficialGeologyExpandedExplanation.pdf

Fort Ward Historical Park and Museum 1864 Fort Ward Engineer Drawing. National Archives, Washington, D.C. On file Fort

Ward Historical Park and Museum, Alexandria. Hopkins, Griffith M. 1894 The Vicinity of Washington, D.C. Library of Congress Geography and Map

Division Washington, D.C. <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g3850.ct003624> Jordan, Terry G. 1982 Texas Graveyards: A Cultural Legacy. University of Texas Press, Austin. Kirby, Jack T. 1991 Virginia’s Environmental History: A Prospectus. Virginia Magazine of History

and Biography 99(4):447-487. Larrabee, Edward M. 1961 Fort Ward, Alexandria, Virginia: Exploratory Excavation of the Northwest

Bastion, June-July 1961. On file Alexandria Archaeology. Lukezic, Craig 1990 “Soils and Settlement Location in 18th Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia.”

Historical Archaeology 24(1): 1-17. Mohr, Charles 1923 Timber Pines of the Southern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Division of Forestry, Bulletin No. 13. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

National Archives 1863 Fort Ward Barracks of the 1st Battalion. National Archives files 111-B-415

“General Hospital” in Mathew Brady Photographs of Civil War-Era Personalities and Scenes. Washington, D.C.

Noel Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf, New York.

83

Silver, Timothy 1990 A New Face on the Countryside: Indians, Colonists, and Slaves in South Atlantic

Forests, 1500-1800. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. Smith, John 1907 The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles, Together

with the True Travels, Adventures and Observations, and a Sea Grammar, Vol 1. James MacLehose and Sons, Glasgow; Macmillen, New York.

Soil Survey Staff 2011 Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of

Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed December 1, 2011.

United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) 1945 7.5’ Alexandria topographic quadrangle map. On file Alexandria Archaeology.

Electronic reference: http://www.maptech.com 1956 7.5’ Alexandria topographic quadrangle map. On file Alexandria Archaeology.

Electronic reference: http://www.maptech.com 1983 7.5’ Alexandria topographic quadrangle map. On file Alexandria Archaeology.

Electronic reference: http://www.maptech.com 1986 1:100,000 scale Washington West topographic quadrangle map. On file

Alexandria Archaeology. Electronic reference: http://www.maptech.com Williams, Michael 1992 Americans and Their Forests: A Historical Geography. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge and New York.

84

APPENDIX A: FINDS LIST

Shovel Test Findings

Provenience Material 1 Material 2 Form Portion/Elem Count Weight Notes Artifact #

1404 -ST A01 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 scratched and degraded

1404 -ST A01 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 hard-angle bend (not rounded)

1404 -ST A01 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 scratched

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS YELLOW TABLE GLASS FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 molded hatching

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 possible soda pop bottle fragment

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE/BODY FRAGMENT

1 0.0 raised banding - probably molded

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 possible container/drinking glass fragment

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 5 0.0 1 fragment aqua light; 4 fragments colorless

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 2.0

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 deteriorating

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 6 0.0 deteriorating

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B CSTONEWARE STONE ALBANY SLIP

UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 thoroughly crazed

1405 -ST A01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

23 0.0

1406 -ST A01 Walkway C SPLASTIC DIE COMPLETE 1 0.0 burned

1406 -ST A01 Walkway C SGLASS GLASS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 3 0.0 2 fragments aqua light; 1 fragment colorless

Page 1 of 9Alexandria Archaeology


1406 -ST A01 Walkway C SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0

1406 -ST A01 Walkway C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

5 0.0

1407 -ST A02 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0


7 0.0 1 possible base fragment

1407 -ST A02 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 embossed "TO"

1407 -ST A02 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 degraded


RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1407 -ST A02 Walkway B CCOARSEWARE COARSE HOLLOWWARE FRAGMENT 2 0.0

1407 -ST A02 Walkway B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 7.0

1407 -ST A02 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE BASE FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1408 -ST A03 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0

1408 -ST A03 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1408 -ST A03 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 possible drinking glass fragment

1409 -ST A04 Walkway A CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1409 -ST A04 Walkway A PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 3.0


11 0.0

1410 -ST A04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY HARDWARE UNIDENTIFIED

1 0.0 possibly complete; deteriorating

1410 -ST A04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0

1410 -ST A04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0




1411 -ST A05 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS LAMP CHIMNEY FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 frosted


2 0.0

1411 -ST A05 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0

1411 -ST A05 Walkway B PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 3.0

1411 -ST A05 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA CONTAINER FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 probable drinking glass fragment

1412 -ST A06 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 thick like a bolt; deteriorating


20 0.0 1 base/body fragment; 1 rim fragment

1412 -ST A06 Walkway A CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 62.0

1413 -ST A07 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

LIP/NECK FRAGMENT

1 0.0

1413 -ST A07 Walkway B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 2.0


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 painted mustard

1413 -ST A07 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT SHANK 2 0.0


1414 -ST A08 Walkway SGLASS GLASS AQUA WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 3 0.0

1414 -ST A08 Walkway SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 scratched and degraded

1414 -ST A08 Walkway MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 1 0.0 deteriorating

1414 -ST A08 Walkway CEARTHENWARE WHITE TRANSFER-PRINTED BLUE

UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 floral decoration

1414 -ST A08 Walkway MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT SHANK 2 0.0



1415 -ST A09 Walkway A PBURNED COAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 3.0

1415 -ST A09 Walkway A RQUARTZ FLAKE COMPLETE 1 0.0

1415 -ST A09 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 5 0.0 2 fragments aqua light; 3 fragments colorless

1415 -ST A09 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 scratched

1416 -ST A10 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 probable soda pop bottle fragment

1417 -ST A10 Walkway C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 2 0.0

1417 -ST A10 Walkway C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0

1417 -ST A10 Walkway C MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 1 0.0 deteriorating

1417 -ST A10 Walkway C CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 green glaze; darker green line around edge

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 1 fragment tempered

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM


1418 -ST B01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT SHANK 1 0.0

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 2 0.0

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 1 0.0 heavy for its size

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 flat; faded pink floral decoration

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 1 fragment probably burned

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B CEARTHENWARE ROCKINGHAM/BENNINGTON

UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1418 -ST B01 Walkway B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 11.0



1418 -ST B01 Walkway B PBURNED COAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 3.0

1419 -ST B02 Walkway A CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 24.0

1419 -ST B02 Walkway A CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1419 -ST B02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0

1419 -ST B02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 1 0.0 deteriorating

1419 -ST B02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1420 -ST B02 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0 deteriorating

1420 -ST B02 Walkway B PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 4.0

1420 -ST B02 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS OLIVE GREEN

BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0

1420 -ST B02 Walkway B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 10.0

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 possible bottle/container glass fragment; possibly burned

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A MBRASS CARTRIDGE CASE COMPLETE 1 0.0 .22 caliber

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A MBRASS SCREW COMPLETE 1 0.0 modern

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A MCOPPER ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 4 0.0 thin; flat; curved

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 flat; deteriorating

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 32 0.0

1421 -ST B03 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 unidentified design etched on surface - resembles sunburst

1422 -ST B04 Walkway B PBURNED COAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 20.0 partially burned

1422 -ST B04 Walkway B PBURNED COAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 4.0

1422 -ST B04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 3 0.0 deteriorating



1422 -ST B04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 1 0.0 deteriorating

1422 -ST B04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 deteriorating

1422 -ST B04 Walkway B CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 thoroughly crazed

1422 -ST B04 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 deteriorating

1423 -ST B05 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1423 -ST B05 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0

1423 -ST B05 Walkway A RQUARTZ FLAKE COMPLETE 2 0.0 1 rose quartz flake; 1 white quartz flake

1425 -ST C02 Walkway B CEARTHENWARE WHITE TRANSFER-PRINTED BLUE

FLATWARE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 blue and white floral decoration

1426 -ST C03 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 2 0.0

1428 -ST C05 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 possible bottle/container glass fragment

1430 -ST D01 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 cracked

1430 -ST D01 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1435 -ST E02 Walkway C SGLASS GLASS OLIVE GREEN

BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 possible flask

1436 -ST E03 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM


1437 -ST E04 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1438 -ST E04 Walkway C CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN HOLLOWWARE FRAGMENT 8 0.0 2 base/footring fragments

1438 -ST E04 Walkway C CPORCELAIN OBJECT

PORCELAIN BUTTON FRAGMENT 1 0.0 worn

1438 -ST E04 Walkway C CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 12.0 possibly partially burned



1440 -ST E06 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0

1440 -ST E06 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1441 -ST E06 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 1 possible base fragment

1441 -ST E06 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0

1442 -ST E07 Walkway A CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 3 0.0

1442 -ST E07 Walkway A PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 9.0

1442 -ST E07 Walkway A SPLASTIC UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 thin; flat; clear; cracked

1443 -ST E08 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 slightly purplish tinge; possible base/body fragment

1443 -ST E08 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 1 0.0 highly corroded

1443 -ST E08 Walkway B PBURNED COAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 2.0

1447 -ST G01 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0

1448 -ST G02 Walkway B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 34.5 brick not collected

1450 -ST H01 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 glass missing

1451 -ST I01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 1 0.0 deteriorating

1451 -ST I01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED


1 0.0 deteriorating

1451 -ST I01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 1 0.0 deteriorating

1451 -ST I01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0

1451 -ST I01 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 1 0.0

1451 -ST I01 Walkway B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 degraded



1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS MILK UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 thin

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A PBURNED COAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 2.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 degraded

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 thin

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 embossed with unidentified lettering


1 0.0 scratched and degraded

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS CONTAINER RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 probable drinking glass fragment; hatching

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A SSYNTHETIC OTHER

RECORD FRAGMENT 1 0.0 vinyl; black; striated


12 0.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0 deteriorating

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

4 0.0 deteriorating

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 4 0.0 deteriorating

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT SHANK 1 0.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 1 0.0

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY KEY COMPLETE 1 0.0 highly corroded

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY BOTTLE CAP 1 0.0 highly corroded



1452 -ST I02 Walkway A CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN HOLLOWWARE FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 2 fragments would make 1 rim/body fragment if mended; polychrome banding at edge

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0 deteriorating; thick like bolts

1452 -ST I02 Walkway A PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 4.0

1453 -ST I02 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 3 0.0 2 fragments thick like bolts

1453 -ST I02 Walkway B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 1 0.0 thick like a bolt; heavily corroded

1454 -ST J01 Walkway A CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 23.0 1 fragment probably burned

1455 -ST J02 Walkway A CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 0 35.0

1458 -ST J05 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY BAR COMPLETE 1 0.0 deteriorating; pierced with hole at one end

1458 -ST J05 Walkway A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 1 0.0

1458 -ST J05 Walkway A PCOAL COAL FRAGMENT 0 4.0

1459 -ST J06 Walkway A CEARTHENWARE WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 thoroughly crazed; probably burned

1459 -ST J06 Walkway A SGLASS GLASS AQUA WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0

1459 -ST J06 Walkway A SPLASTIC AUTOMOBILE PART

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 red; blinker lens; embossed with dots


Test Unit FindingsState Site #


TU 043 A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7458

TU 043 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 7459

TU 043 A SPLASTIC BOTTLE TOP CAP 1 0.0 7460

TU 043 A MALUMINUM CAN FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7461

TU 043 A RQUARTZ FLAKE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7462

TU 043 B PCOAL COAL 2 13.0 7472

TU 043 B PBURNED COAL COAL 4 14.0 7473

TU 043 B MALUMINUM CAN PULL TAB 1 0.0 7471

TU 043 B MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7470

TU 043 B CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7469

TU 043 B CCERAMIC WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7468

TU 043 B SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7466

TU 043 B SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7465

TU 043 B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

8 0.0 7464

TU 043 B SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 5 0.0 7463

TU 043 B SGLASS GLASS MILK UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7467

TU 043 FE43-1 SPLASTIC EYE GLASSES FRAMES 1 0.0 7479

TU 043 FE43-1 MLEAD ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7490

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY HOOK COMPLETE 1 0.0 7489


State Site #


TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY WRENCH FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7488

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY BUCKLE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7487

TU 043 FE43-1 MBRASS SHOTGUN SHELL BASE 1 0.0 7486

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY BOLT AND NUT FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7485

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

SHANK 33 0.0 7484

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED


5 0.0 7483

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7482

TU 043 FE43-1 CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN FLATWARE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7475

TU 043 FE43-1 SRUBBER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7480

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORED MARBLE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7478

TU 043 FE43-1 CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN FLATWARE FRAGMENT 5 0.0 7477

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7491


FRAGMENT 5 0.0 7525

TU 043 FE43-1 CCERAMIC WHITE FLATWARE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7476


FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7481

TU 043 FE43-1 MCOPPER ALLOY CLASP FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7518

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS DRINKING GLASS FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7510

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7511


FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7512

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS MILK UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7513


State Site #


TU 043 FE43-1 CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN FLATWARE FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7514

TU 043 FE43-1 CCERAMIC WHITE FLATWARE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7515


FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7509

TU 043 FE43-1 MBRASS UTENSIL UNID HANDLE 1 0.0 7517

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY WHEEL, MACHINE FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7522

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY KNIFE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7519


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7520


FRAGMENT 6 0.0 7521

TU 043 FE43-1 SSYNTHETIC OTHER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7492

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY BAR FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7523

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 20 0.0 7474

TU 043 FE43-1 SSYNTHETIC OTHER ASPHALT/TAR FRAGMENT 4 0.0 7524

TU 043 FE43-1 RMARBLE TROPHY BASE 1 0.0 7516

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7496

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS JAR FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7508

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7495


TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7498


TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS AQUA DARK JAR COMPLETE 1 0.0 7500


State Site #


TU 043 FE43-1 CSTONEWARE STONE UNIDENTIFIED MUG/TANKARD COMPLETE 1 0.0 7501

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS AQUA UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7503


BASE 2 0.0 7504

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS AQUA DARK JAR FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7505

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7506

TU 043 FE43-1 SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

FRAGMENT CURVED

6 0.0 7507


FRAGMENT CURVED

53 0.0 7502

TU 043 FE43-1 PCOAL COAL 7 41.0 7494

TU 043 FE43-1 MIRON ALLOY BAR FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7493

TU 044 A MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 0.0 7003

TU 044 A SRUBBER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7004

TU 044 B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 3 4.0 7027

TU 044 B MALUMINUM CAN PULL TAB 1 0.0 7019

TU 044 B MIRON ALLOY SPRING FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7020

TU 044 B MIRON ALLOY WIRE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7021


FRAGMENT 8 0.0 7022

TU 044 B MTIN ALLOY CAN FRAGMENT 4 0.0 7023

TU 044 B CEARTHENWARE FLOWERPOT RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7024

TU 044 B SCEMENT 1 169.0 7026

TU 044 B PCOAL COAL 13 38.0 7028


State Site #


TU 044 B MCOPPER ALLOY BUTTON COMPLETE 1 0.0 7018

TU 044 B SPLASTIC UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7011

TU 044 B SSYNTHETIC OTHER TILE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7025

TU 044 B SGLASS GLASS OLIVE GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7007

TU 044 B SSYNTHETIC OTHER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7013


27 0.0 7006

TU 044 B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7017


4 0.0 7008


1 0.0 7009

TU 044 B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7010

TU 044 B SPLASTIC CLIP COMPLETE 1 0.0 7012


FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7014


FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7015

TU 044 B CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN TILE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7016

TU 044 B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 2 0.0 7005

TU 044 B-South MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 2 0.0 7039

TU 044 B-South CPORCELAIN OBJECT PORCELAIN TOY LEG 1 0.0 7037

TU 044 B-South PCOAL SLAG COAL SLAG 1 19.0 7043

TU 044 B-South MIRON UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 5 0.0 7042

TU 044 B-South MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 2 0.0 7040


State Site #


TU 044 B-South CCERAMIC WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7038

TU 044 B-South MTIN ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7041

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE 1 0.0 7035

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS YELLOW UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7034

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 3 0.0 7029

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS AQUA DARK UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7033

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

13 0.0 7030

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7032

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7031

TU 044 B-South SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS JAR RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7036

TU 045 A SMORTAR MORTAR 1 3.0 7046

TU 045 A SGLASS GLASS GREEN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7045

TU 045 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 7044


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7061


7 0.0 7058

TU 045 B PCOAL COAL 2 12.0 7067

TU 045 B PCOAL SLAG COAL SLAG 1 17.0 7066

TU 045 B MCOPPER ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7065


FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7064


State Site #



FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7062

TU 045 B CCERAMIC WHITE FLATWARE FRAGMENT 10 0.0 7060

TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS BROWN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7059

TU 045 B SSYNTHETIC OTHER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7068


51 0.0 7049


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7063


2 0.0 7057


TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS GREEN LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7050

TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7051

TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS GREEN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7052

TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS BLUE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7053


FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7054

TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS AMETHYST UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7055

TU 045 B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7056


17 0.0 7047

TU 045 C SMORTAR MORTAR 1 5.0 7105

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7090


State Site #


TU 045 C SPLASTIC UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7098

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7092

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

14 0.0 7093

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

9 0.0 7094

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7095


2 0.0 7096

TU 045 C CCERAMIC WHITE FLATWARE FRAGMENT 7 0.0 7097

TU 045 C SSYNTHETIC OTHER BATTERY CORE 2 0.0 7099

TU 045 C MCOPPER ALLOY SPOON COMPLETE 1 0.0 7100

TU 045 C MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 4 0.0 7101

TU 045 C MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

SHANK 10 0.0 7102

TU 045 C SSYNTHETIC OTHER ASPHALT/TAR FRAGMENT 2 2.0 7104

TU 045 C PCOAL SLAG COAL SLAG 1 12.0 7106

TU 045 C PCOAL COAL 4 67.0 7107

TU 045 C CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 3 135.0 7108

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE/BODY FRAGMENT

2 0.0 7089


COMPLETE 2 0.0 7103

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7076



State Site #



171 0.0 7069

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 18 0.0 7070


21 0.0 7071

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS OLIVE GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7072

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7073

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE BASE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7088

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COBALT BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7075

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS JAR RIM FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7077

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE UPPER FRAGMENT

1 0.0 7084


TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7074

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE UPPER COMPLETE 1 0.0 7085


RIM FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7078

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE UPPER FRAGMENT

3 0.0 7083


FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7082


3 0.0 7081

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS JAR RIM FRAGMENT 17 0.0 7080

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORED DRINKING GLASS RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7079

TU 045 C SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE 1 0.0 7086


State Site #


TU 045 Cleanup ASHELL ANIMAL CLAM SHELL FRAGMENT 2 1.0 7116

TU 045 E SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7109

TU 045 E SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7110

TU 045 E SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7111

TU 045 E MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

SHANK 1 0.0 7112

TU 045 E MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

COMPLETE 1 0.0 7113

TU 045 F MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 1 0.0 7114

TU 045 F CBRICK BRICK COMPLETE 5 3,042.0 7115

TU 046 B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS DRINKING GLASS FRAGMENT CURVED

7 0.0 7118


FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7119

TU 046 B SGLASS GLASS GREEN LIGHT UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7120


1 0.0 7121


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7122


TU 046 B SPLASTIC UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7124


TU 046 Cleanup MIRON ALLOY WIRE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7133

TU 046 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE 1 0.0 7127

TU 046 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS AMETHYST BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7126


State Site #


TU 046 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

7 0.0 7125

TU 046 Cleanup CCERAMIC YELLOW UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7129

TU 046 Cleanup CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7130

TU 046 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS MILK UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7128

TU 046 Cleanup MIRON ALLOY WIRE FRAGMENT 8 0.0 7132

TU 046 Cleanup MIRON ALLOY PIPE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7134

TU 046 Cleanup PCOAL COAL 3 5.0 7135

TU 046 Cleanup MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 7131

TU 047 A CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN BONE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 11 0.0 7323

TU 047 A SPLASTIC UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7324

TU 047 A MCOPPER ALLOY COIN COMPLETE 1 0.0 7325

TU 047 A MIRON ALLOY UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FOOT 1 0.0 7326

TU 047 A PCOAL COAL 3 3.0 7327


FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7322


FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7331

TU 047 B PCOAL COAL 3 18.0 7338


2 0.0 7329


TU 047 B SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7330


State Site #


TU 047 B SGLASS GLASS COBALT BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7332

TU 047 B MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

SHANK 2 0.0 7333


FRAGMENT 6 0.0 7334

TU 047 B PWOOD OBJECT PENCIL FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7335

TU 047 B CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 1 19.0 7337

TU 047 B RQUARTZ FLAKE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7336

TU 047 FE47-2 MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 1 0.0 7344

TU 047 FE47-2 CCERAMIC WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7343

TU 047 FE47-2 SGLASS GLASS MILK MASON JAR LID LINER

FRAGMENT CURVED

8 0.0 7342

TU 047 FE47-2 SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 7341

TU 047 FE47-2 SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7340


3 0.0 7339

TU 047 FE47-2 SPLASTIC COMB FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7346

TU 047 FE47-2 CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 2 2.0 7347


FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7345


2 0.0 7349

TU 047 FE47-3 PCOAL SLAG COAL SLAG 1 4.0 7353

TU 047 FE47-3 MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 7352

TU 047 FE47-3 MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7350


State Site #



1 0.0 7348


TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

15 0.0 7364

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

7 0.0 7365

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

23 0.0 7366

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

55 0.0 7367

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS BROWN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7368

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS BROWN BOTTLE NECK FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7369

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS COBALT BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7370


2 0.0 7375

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS PURPLE BEAD COMPLETE 1 0.0 7371

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7372

TU 049 A CPORCELAIN OBJECT PORCELAIN BUTTON COMPLETE 1 0.0 7402

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS BROWN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7373

TU 049 A MSTEEL SCREW COMPLETE 1 0.0 7395


FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7396

TU 049 A MALUMINUM UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7397


FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7398

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY STAKE COMPLETE 3 0.0 7399


State Site #


TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY TACK HEAD 1 0.0 7393

TU 049 A CPORCELAIN OBJECT PORCELAIN BUTTON COMPLETE 2 0.0 7401

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 21 0.0 7392

TU 049 A ABONE OBJECT ANIMAL UNID BUTTON COMPLETE 1 1.0 7403

TU 049 A ABONE ANIMAL UNID UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 1.0 7404


TU 049 A PBURNED COAL COAL 4 29.0 7406

TU 049 A CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 1 63.0 7407

TU 049 A CBRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 1 19.0 7408

TU 049 A CEARTHENWARE UNIDENTIFIED UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7400

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 9 0.0 7385

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS DRINKING GLASS RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7376


5 0.0 7377

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7379

TU 049 A SSYNTHETIC OTHER RECORD RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7380

TU 049 A CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN CHINESE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7381

TU 049 A CCERAMIC WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7382

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY WASHER COMPLETE 2 0.0 7394

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 4 0.0 7384

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

BASE FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7374

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 19 0.0 7386


State Site #


TU 049 A MSTEEL SCREW COMPLETE 1 0.0 7387

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY SCREW HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

3 0.0 7388

TU 049 A MCOPPER ALLOY WIRE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7389

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY WIRE FRAGMENT 5 0.0 7390

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

8 0.0 7391

TU 049 A MIRON ALLOY STAPLE COMPLETE 1 0.0 7383

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 23 0.0 7363

TU 049 A SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS JAR RIM FRAGMENT 3 0.0 7378

TU 049 B MIRON ALLOY WASHER COMPLETE 1 0.0 7419


5 0.0 7411


FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7413

TU 049 B SGLASS GLASS MILK-COLORED BOTTLE BASE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7414

TU 049 B SSYNTHETIC OTHER BATTERY CORE 1 0.0 7415

TU 049 B CCERAMIC WHITE FLATWARE FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7416

TU 049 B SGLASS GLASS GREEN LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 25 0.0 7409

TU 049 B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT COMPLETE 2 0.0 7418

TU 049 B SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7410

TU 049 B MIRON ALLOY WASHER COMPLETE 1 0.0 7420

TU 049 B MIRON ALLOY SCREW COMPLETE 3 0.0 7421

TU 049 B MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

6 0.0 7422



State Site #



SHANK 24 0.0 7424

TU 049 B MIRON ALLOY HARDWARE HANDLE FRAGMENT

1 0.0 7425

TU 049 B MCOPPER ALLOY BOTTLE TOP CAP 1 0.0 7426


TU 049 B SGLASS GLASS MILK UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7417

TU 049 B SGLASS GLASS PURPLE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7412


12 0.0 7432

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY WING NUT COMPLETE 1 0.0 7443

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED


9 0.0 7448

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 30 0.0 7447


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7446


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7445

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY WIRE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7444

TU 049 C SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 2 0.0 7428

TU 049 C SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

3 0.0 7429

TU 049 C MALUMINUM BOTTLE TOP CAP 2 0.0 7449


6 0.0 7431

TU 049 C PWOOD OBJECT PENCIL FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7450

TU 049 C SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7433


State Site #


TU 049 C CEARTHENWARE UNIDENTIFIED UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7434

TU 049 C MCOPPER ALLOY BOTTLE TOP CAP 1 0.0 7435

TU 049 C MCOPPER ALLOY TOY FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7436

TU 049 C MCOPPER ALLOY BUTTON COMPLETE 1 0.0 7437

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE COMPLETE 9 0.0 7438

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY HINGE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7439

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY RING COMPLETE 1 0.0 7440

TU 049 C MALUMINUM NAIL UNIDENTIFIED


3 0.0 7441

TU 049 C MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

3 0.0 7442


3 0.0 7430

TU 049 C SCLOTH UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7451

TU 049 C ABONE ANIMAL LARGE MAMMAL LONG BONE FRAGMENT 5 26.0 7452

TU 049 C CBURNED BRICK BRICK FRAGMENT 1 6.0 7453

TU 049 C CBRICK BRICK 1 41.0 7454

TU 049 C PCOAL COAL 4 18.0 7455

TU 049 C PCOAL SLAG COAL SLAG FRAGMENT 2 13.0 7456

TU 049 C PBURNED COAL COAL 2 5.0 7457

TU 050 A MIRON ALLOY BOLT COMPLETE 1 0.0 7143

TU 050 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 7136


TU 050 A MIRON ALLOY NAIL UNIDENTIFIED

SHANK 4 0.0 7144


State Site #


TU 050 A CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 2 0.0 7141

TU 050 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7137


FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7138

TU 050 A SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7139

TU 050 A CCERAMIC WHITE UNIDENTIFIED FORM

BASE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7140

TU 050 A SPLASTIC UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7142

TU 050 B SCLOTH ELECTRICAL LINING

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7156


3 0.0 7147

TU 050 B SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE BASE FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7148


1 0.0 7149


1 0.0 7150

TU 050 B SPLASTIC PEN CAP 1 0.0 7151

TU 050 B SRUBBER TUBE/TUBING FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7152

TU 050 B MIRON ALLOY NAIL CUT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 7153

TU 050 B PCOAL COAL 4 19.0 7157

TU 050 B MIRON ALLOY BOLT HEAD AND PARTIAL SHANK

1 0.0 7155




SHANK 2 0.0 7154


State Site #


TU 050 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS BROWN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT FLAT 1 0.0 7177

TU 050 Cleanup CPORCELAIN PORCELAIN UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7178

TU 050 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS AQUA UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7176

TU 050 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS AMETHYST BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7175

TU 050 Cleanup SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

14 0.0 7174

TU 050 Cleanup MIRON ALLOY NAIL WIRE SHANK 6 0.0 7179

TU 050 FE50-1 SSYNTHETIC OTHER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7172


FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7171


TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS MILK-COLORED UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7169

TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS AQUA UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7166


FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7168


FRAGMENT CURVED

4 0.0 7167

TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS AMETHYST UNIDENTIFIED FORM

FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7165

TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS MILK MASON JAR LID LINER

RIM FRAGMENT 1 0.0 7164


1 0.0 7163

TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS COBALT BOTTLE PHARMACEUTICAL

FRAGMENT CURVED

2 0.0 7162


State Site #


TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT BOTTLE FRAGMENT CURVED

1 0.0 7161


14 0.0 7160

TU 050 FE50-1 SGLASS GLASS AQUA LIGHT WINDOW GLASS FRAGMENT FLAT 3 0.0 7159

TU 050 FE50-1 ASHELL ANIMAL OYSTER SHELL FRAGMENT 1 1.0 7173


Metal Detecting FindsState Site #


SA150 MBRASS FASTENER COMPLETE 1 screw-type fastener, possibly for 1920s era car upholstery

SA150 MLEAD MINIE BALL (WILLIAMS CLEANER)

COMPLETE 1 missing plunger on back; flattened on one side, slashed in two places

SA151 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 badly decayed Lincoln penny, date not decipherable

SA152 MCOPPER COIN COMPLETE 1 Lincoln penny dated 1976

SA153 MCOPPER COIN COMPLETE 1 1883 Indian Head penny in poor condition

SA154 MBRASS MEDALLION COMPLETE 1 "AHS 1915" presumably Alexandria High School


COMPLETE 1 unfired

SA156 RCARBON BATTERY ROD COMPLETE 1 carbon zinc battery rod

SA156 SGLASS GLASS GREEN BOTTLE BODY FRAGMENT 1 probably modern

SA156 CEARTHENWARE WHITE CUP BASAL SHERD 3 three fragments mend

SA156 MIRON PULLEY COMPLETE 1 possible pulley wheel

SA156 CPORCELAIN PORCELANEOUS UNIDENTIFIED FORM

BODY FRAGMENT 1

SA157 MLEAD MINIE BALL COMPLETE 1 fired, badly mishapen

SA158 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 1986 Roosevelt dime

SA159 SGLASS GLASS AQUA BOTTLE BASAL SHERD 1 round bottle base with "V" embossed on bottom


State Site #


SA159 SGLASS GLASS COLORLESS BOTTLE FRAGMENT 4 flask fragments, one base has a "6" embossed on it, another base has "D-2" and "40-5" embossed on it.

SA160 MSTEEL HUB COVER COMPLETE 1 Model T Ford hub cover, ca. 1914 to 1921, embossed "Ford Made in U.S.A." on top with Ford in script.

SA161 MBRASS SWORD HANGER COMPLETE 1

SA162 MLEAD BULLET COMPLETE 1 cylindrical slug with flat top and bottom, probably a 20th century .32 caliber fired slug

SA163 MLEAD TOY COMPLETE 1 toy faucet


COMPLETE 1 unfired

SA165 MCOPPER COIN COMPLETE 1 1969 Lincoln penny

SA166 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 1988 Lincoln penny


SA168 MCOPPER COIN COMPLETE 1 1971 quarter

SA169 MLEAD BULLET, ROUND COMPLETE 1 0.64 caliber round ball, unfired


SA170 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 Lincoln penny 1998

SA170 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 Lincoln penny, date unreadable




State Site #


SA173 MLEAD BULLET COMPLETE 1 Conical bullet with a hollow bottom, unfired, .50 caliber Enfield rifle bullet.

SA174 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 1976 Washington quarter

SA175 MIRON DOOR HARDWARE

COMPLETE 1 possible door lock apparatus with slide bolt

SA176 MLEAD FITTING COMPLETE 1 flat head, stubby shank, possibly a rivet, 1.4 cm long

SA177 MLEAD MINIE BALL COMPLETE 1 unfired, three grooves

SA178 MCOPPER UNIDENTIFIED FORM

COMPLETE 1 hollow copper ball-like object with decorative opening on the top. 4.5 cm in diameter

SA179 1

SA179 MCOPPER STRIP FRAGMENT 1 thin copper strip piece; broken into two fragments, and folded over in one place

SA180 MZINC COIN COMPLETE 1 1988 Washington quarter

SA181 MBRASS BOLT COMPLETE 1 threaded brass bolt passing through a piece of iron, 3 inches long

SA182 MBRASS HARDWARE COMPLETE 1 brass top possibly for a tank of some sort, 2.5 inches in diameter, with a slot on top for a screwdriver, threaded edge.

SA183 MLEAD MINIE BALL COMPLETE 1 mashed minie ball

SA184 MLEAD FAUCET HANDLE COMPLETE 1 handle for an outdoor hose faucet


State Site #


SA185 MLEAD MINIE BALL COMPLETE 1 unfired

SA186 MCOPPER THIMBLE COMPLETE 1 squashed

SA187 MLEAD MINIE BALL COMPLETE 1 unfired, hollow base is triangluar shaped; french design by Thouvenin.


phase i a t an americans with d a (ada)- a w cemetery d ... · jackson cemetery are a crucial step...

Documents