Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-12R.~tt~R[~EC ~~ICE R~GiS~~? ~`~= ;~15 2Q12JUN -6 PM 3~ 40 ATE SITUATE AT G STREET, IN THE BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND BEING KNOWN AS TAX PARCEL # 34-34-2417-169 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER THE DONATED OR DEDICATED PROPERTY ACT TO ALLOW THE SALE OF TAX PARCEL #34-34-2417-169 NOW COMES, Petitioner, the Borough of Shippensburg, by and through its Counsel, Samuel E. Wiser, Jr. Esquire of Salzmann Hughes, P.C., and files the within Petition and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. The Borough of Shippensburg, Cumberland and Franklin Counties, Pennsylvania is a Pennsylvania Borough having been chartered pursuant to the Act of 1834, April 1, P.L. 163 with its principal office address at 111 North Fayette Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania (hereinafter the "Borough"). 2. The Borough Council is the elected governing body of the Borough of Shippensburg. 3. On August 10, 1920, the Borough received by donation certain property within the Borough's limits at West King. Street and consisting of approximately 2.32 acres and being identified as Tax Parcel #34-34-2417-169 (hereinafter the "Property"). 4. The Property was conveyed to the Borough by deed dated August 10, 1920 and recorded in the Recorder of Deeds office at Deed Book 9G Page 223 (hereinafter the "Deed"). A true and correct copy of the deed is incorporated by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit «A„ 5. Consideration for the Property was provided by the Civic Club of Shippensburg, Pennsylvjania and the Historical Commission of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of preserving the premises, perpetually for public and historical purposes. 6, The Deed identifies the Property as the site of Fort Moms. 7. The Deed requires the Borough to, "in perpetuity maintain the premises in good condition for public purposes, permit the erection on the same of such historical markers as may be duly authorized by the Historical Commission of Pennsylvania, and maintain the same forever." 8; Modern scholars have determined that Fort Morris was likely located at 333 East Burd Street in Shippensburg. Attached hereto, and incorporated by reference, as Exhibit "B" are three studies pi~epazed by scholazs indicating that the likely site of Fort Morris is 333 East Burd Street, ShippenSburg, Pennsylvania. 9 The Property contains no historical rnazkers or any other markers indicating that the Property lis the site of Fort Morris. 10. All historical markers indicating the site of Fort Moms aze located at 333 East Burd Street, Siflippensburg, Pennsylvania. 11. The Property is unused by the public and the only improvement thereon is a flagpole. 1 ~. The Borough has determined that the continuation of the original use of the Property is no loner practicable and possible, as the site of Fort Morris has been identified at another location end the Property is no longer of historical value. 1$. The Borough has determined that the Borough's possession and use of the Property has ceased to serve the public interest, as the Property is subject to no use by the public, contains no historical value and is a maintenance burden to the Borough. 1',4. The Borough requests to, in accordance with 53 P.S. §3384, sell free and clear of any use restrictions the Property and apply the proceeds for public purposes. 1'S. In accordance with 53 P.S. §3385, a copy of this Petition was provided to Attorney General ~.inda Kelly, at the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, 16th Floor, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120 by United States Certified Mail, postage prepaid on the 11th day May 2012. WHEREFORE, the Borough of Shippensburg respectfully requests that this Honorable Court exjercise its powers under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, 53 P.S. §3381 et. seq., to permit tl~e Borough to dispose of the Property and apply the proceeds for public purposes. Respectfully submitted, Salzmann Hughes, PC By~ uel E. Wis r, Jr., quire Attorney ID N . 665 79 St. Paul Drive Chambersburg, PA 17201 (717) 263-2121 Solicitor to the Borough of Shippensburg VERIFICATION I„ Andrea Lage, President of Council of the Borough of Shippensburg, have read the foregoin~ Order and Petition For Relief Under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, and hereby a~lirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating ~ unsworn falsification to authorities. ea Lage President of Borough Council Borough of Shippensburg CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ hereby certify that on the 11`h day May 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition For Relief Under The Donated or Dedicated Property Act by United States Certifie~ Mail, postage prepaid to the following: The Honorable Linda Kelly Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General 16th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Salzmann Hughes, PC By: el . Wis r, Jr., quire r 05/23!2012 84:46 7172500862 TRI COl1JTY ABSTRACT PAGE 01 pwrmere Trost Oempany, Truntae, ,hy 1.1.n Aw M dwtOd the P1nth dny Of 8aptemDar, 192D vwnrey00,t0- gather with ether PT09erty, 60 1-af'ei nk Y. Oy{elaby, granter Aerein. Aaid dead 1^ reasrded ;n the Renorder'n Dffice in wnd fa* Cumbnrlwnd Cmmby at rwrli alw. Pw. in Doed Hank •D°, uol. 9. paps i 241. TODRTgiTt 'w11 war! dinwlnr the horeAlLamefrte wnq appurtanan nee Uherennto helOnplnP or 1 aayw;fe hppartwlnin, whd the rw•arsLOn the rerereinner *Mealndar wnd raaadndere, ront0. lssvas wM prafito thereld'i a alw~nll the edtwtn, rl[ht, title, internat, nlnim, or demand +hnte oer of them, the sold pwrtina o the ftTat Bart, .either 1n law oT rOW tY. of, in, wnd f.o Lhe wb oYr bwrgnlned preminaQ, wMl ever' t esd y parcel 6hereof. TO HAVg Ailfl TO NO3',D SO the sn pwrty of tlm .road Pwr , bin .hairw and nee lgna, to the sol' sad drily prapnr nsr, Mnafit, and bob ~ of th0 said pally bf thw so^ond pan, hie noire and as- s1gOS. fOrerar. ~ J!! `\ TM 1RTIfRHH 114M.iSOP, the said parti.s of `E n t'~rat P+rt have Lc therm prasdnta aat thn lr hello wnA sesle. Dated thw dny abd yewr firm wrlftan. BRA[RTl Adn DIiL[VEldtD IH '.aiE P@3gRk CR OP P. h. Elleribergsr \~ llnrwl Ok 31 D b ^ • YHCgiYHD the esy of tl» ant tke sum of Aire gvndred wnd nt as ati0ned in full. sS77EHH: P. ),. I'•llap rger NaTw10k M. 0pn lahy GTATK OF PdHNAY7NA$I''A ' 000PTY OP pAliptlrlf/ Ag: On Dols 1sa dwy df JwfuaTy, A.D. 1971, hafOre ma, tM suberri MT, a POtwry YYblic Ln wnd .tot ewld aunty and Gtate, rerwhally Dome the above naewd •nrwi nk W OgeLby wxd gelcn B, ~Sge ld Dy, hie vile, vha in due form of law wcknovl adgnd the fertg of ng Indenture to ho theln eat and Aesd, wntl deeirdd the dame might be raaorded is such. tITS489 ny/thwnd wM notarial aawl the dwy .~M yo4r wfdr owid. q f :. -a~,2 P. L. Ellanbargsr, _. J Notwry P4b]ie, (; ~,~. Aq COm¢Luion eTplres at the emi of the next session Of •'~P.P.:• Bemts. • (D1vft Abtaahed i. H0. Allhi .~,Y:A:;1a; S .~•••••• THIS DEi:p, _,~ ,~.., D8~7 .. ~1.5t7~~ f1ADE TRg Tenth dwy of august in the yewr E: A. ANGLE g'i' AL ~ nineteen huatlrad and twenty, 'f0 1 lOCil'NSRS 9. A. Angle, yho. M• gYkae, AIiM lfykn e,~h;a wife, Tq$ HGiftE83 k TOZi dOtlNOIL OF =and George E. gyka ^, wnd hllatheth 'lykea, hie wife, ell of TIIE 1fOR0UD'i 7P R!IIPPEyGE0A0 r 6hlppeneburg, POnnsylrania, pwrtiea of the first Hart hereln- COHS. ~1, U3ef.jf ; aftdr wwlled bha frsnterj Znd the tlurgeaa wml To+n Council of OATR(1 A4ts. 10, SQ20 ~ thn borough of SDinpeneburP, party of thw ee0ond pnrL. hcre111- ZifTO. Pkd. 2~, 1<J21 (wfLlT galled thw DrwnLCa{ --~L~CE@L ~ MITp~3&6G1R, that in rnnaidarwti an Of Ohe Th auaand ?i fty eight DOllals all Thirty one eenis (I1, 06A.j1), Sn hand nafA the rece Lpt vhaHOS is hereby wnk- sOwlsdged, Ehe ea>d RrwntOrs d0 herany grant and Cowey unto the ^wid arnhtee, AIL thwt sort nib lot or pteoe of ~grournf, heinv Lhe site of ' Fort Worri s, and nooemrily knaan ~ • Eels 7 (..RAh1, • ~en H. Ogwld Dy~ (,ggu,) at the above Indenture et ~~~\~\t~la where nengd Hugoha Vy•Thruah y-lira (1625.00) pallnrs, using the nonsideratl0n mOhey ad ae i' r 05/23/2012 04:46 7172580862 TRI COUNTY ABST/~RA~CT gf guile Sys, altuwte in. tha Wrtat Watd of t/:e pornuph Of Rhipponsbur¢. Cunhe*lnnd Coubty, Prnnrylvanta, hnUlded a:1d deesrl had w0 fallnwn:' f)n the South by Wadt Hinp Rtrpt: An the Wast dy the let formerly E1fe prornrL> of Jack ~Wwlkar: Cn the xartb ryy w puh)trt ~1)ay; rand bra the P.nnL by ]M. now ovr~d by 1Arb• 1SLaah Wyh-. I koopoi said lot hnvf rap, n front wire, an Waat finR Rt fact of fizzy thrie font (63'), wrd n width Ion Lhe alloy xh th+ renr of SLxLY feet throe lrehea fF0' je ); wnd axLcnding Sn doPth from tlue lLreet~ 1.o 'the wYle9 '4+v Rundr [d rand Fifty seven fe0t (25T ), nnrs at lese; nlbo RSghte~n and Ono-h.~1I fact elldertl for w parenwnt nn tha atrant. 1lelnp the same pramiasa wRi^.h Lhe Saho07. xaard of the norouph OS 3hlppenehurg by paed dnM ed the 3+}bh dwy of Ont nber A.C. 1birJ, wpd ronoftled in Cumbwrlwnd Cm,nty le Lfaed 5nok 11, Voluew '7, page. 10 HC., granted nnrl o0nreyad f.0 the Beyond Zio:f Old gnptlaL ifemherahtp. ~ Apd Ierting the ewes+ prrml eea whf ah Re+. C. 8. Robinepn, Pror tOent, rat al., member of Lhe Bawrd OS Tia,vtnea o1 the 9erond HL. Zt on pl.d xwptirt NcIDt.erahip, Sh]ppanalmrR, gOrOUgh by Mad jdntsd Lha 7Mr dwy Of .tu 19 A.D. 1918. nM raeordad in Cumbarlnnd COUnty So L•OSd.9o04 Z. VOlunp 11 7, pn6~ ,p.6 kr.., g~wnted and o03ri+yad to the said $. A. :~npiw, qq. Y. Aykaa, wnd Psorga B. I Rykea, ICfamtOrO Kerala. ~ 181arng0 Lhis e01n0ywnC: hwa brtan iraapreA, wnd tha noaaideration thnra0^ paid by tha CSVie (Club oft fpiippenaburg, Pennaylveniw, rand the H1 eLOrt owl COmmiacion of Pennaylrwntn for. the pvr- i POSa o~ propeYVl3:g tha preadaaa pcrpetunlly for pablic and hicLOrlewl pvrpoDel. the avid RMn- I~ Loo hahehy r. peanwnt to and +ich Lhe avid Crnnt ors, wnd to and +ith th0 braid CivLc flub of { Bhippaff`aburg, pOhrisylvwnla, bhe antd xiatorirnl Cnmmiawiap of pennaylranln Lhat ~t'fa ne f.d ~ Rntnte0, Lhe Wrp:o6a wnd Town Council of the borrnth of BhippenahurC annll rand will }ppy~},:t- ~ di4y mwkntnlh tho promises in g00d ,wnd itl Otf fOr publirt purppsC,p, permit thn are etivn on the ~ saran ofd, eUOh hiatori oal mtrkaro w^ nny po truly wut hprlaod'by Lha 'tl Otorf cal Coheiiaelon of IPenna%11raSif, nrA maintnln'tna awnm forevar, ~ Th! raid CYantore Aereby nor^nwnt wnd ngrsa to wnd with Lha antd rrantee that they, Sh0 sdd trrATLOra shall wnd will vwrrwnt 1rGnerally the prOpe rty het*_by eomoyotl. ~ In~, w3tped^ .har0of the avid Crsbtors Kayo heYauntn sot Lhair hpridd wad gaols the Jay sad i year f1#pt. wbcro wlelLtan. B7 CNP.0, ~~,BBAI,PJ7 AWC ~JuaxBC IW P11fs PRRBPACR CW J• S. Cmwwke 8. A. Anf!la (RaALI gpane lwllfn$ Rm. V.. 9ykee flIRA1,) . Aline Aykaa (BgAL) ' ReO. E. 9ykea (86AL) R1l fabeth Rykea (SkAL) CCAfil01111#All1'It CW PldglgrLYANIA Y 6gt couN1'v br cgfAgf:RS.Axn 80~'Ore M the aubaeri ber• a Nptlry Publ Se Le. and for awf.d County, wnd CO®Onwewlth, p+t~ anaally ~,,wgpaafad Lha wlnve nwaafd A. A. Affeln, Wm• N- flyken,~Ali nn Rykoa. Cnor~s 6. A}4ea, -tq ylltuhet/k gykaa, afW !ri duo fO1Me waknOwledgOd~too forngolag daed to De their e^t and dCed aM deelsod ~Ithn acme tdghL hs re yarded as aubh. W['fla8g8 my hand sad hotnrlnl Baal this lUth day Of Augnat A.Q. 1926, eaobe WaAling, ~~r.g'R•... votary Ptf bile. pro:.. •~ x.P.• Yy Cam,d Oaf on Szp1 yea April 1, t92g: PAGE 02 Acknowledgments Where to begin? So many people contributed to the success of this project. I sincerely thank the Shippensburg Historical Society, especially John McCorriston and Dr. Steven Burg, for giving me the opportunity to help them search for the site of Fort Morris. My association with the Historical Society, the citizens of Shippensburg, and members of the Shippensburg University community has been most rewarding. What a troat to work with so many who value archaeology and share an interest in discovering the past. The amount of work achieved during the 2009 field season far exceeded my expectations. Eighty-two (82) volunteers, including citizens, Shippensburg University interns, a Gettysburg College intern, and Shippensburg High School students, contributed a tptal of 3,306 hours. Most had no previous archaeological experience; most proved to be quick learners. Their enthusiasm, motivation, energy, and good company reminded m$ why I chose to pursue a career in archaeology. I am especially grateful to Patty Hay for coordinating volunteer recruitment and sclhedules. Patty handled this thankless task with skill and grace. She also provided inWaluable assistance in the field and lab. Shippensburg University's Department of Geography-Earth Science kindly provided laboratory space for artifact processing after the close of field activities. Dr. Paul Marr, liaison between the Department and the Historical Society, assisted with site in~lestigation and provided insights that only a geographer could bring to the project. Jeff Nitterhouse, a faithful excavation volunteer, deserves special recognition for assistance with backfilling the dig and site restoration. He kindly donated his expertise angt power equipment to quickly accomplish aback-breaking task if done entirely by hard. Finally, I thank all of the East Burd Street property owners who permitted us to disturb their yards in search of Fort Morris. I especially thank Dave Ferry, owner of the 33 East Burd Street property, for allowing so much of his land to be taken apart in the na a of science and history. Not only were extensive excavations conducted in his side an back yards, but he permitted soil to be piled in his driveway and against his garage. it it Dave assisted with excavation and lab work, provided secure space for tool storage, and was a consummate host. He stored drinking water in his refrigerator and allowed us to use his porch at the close of each workday to relax and socialize. Dave is commended for his, generosity, civic-mindedness, curiosity, quick wit, and good company. Shippensburg can be proud to call him one of its own. iii Introduction What a difference a year can make. At the end of the 2008 excavation season the Shippensburg Historical Society's quest to find the site of Fort Morris (1755-1764) was in full swing. Independent reviews of primary documents and geographic data all pointed to Shippensburg's East Burd Street neighborhood as the most likely spot for the French and Indian War fort site (see Marr 2004; McCorriston 2004). Archaeological testing at 333 East Burd Street, a property reported to have produced fort artifacts when the present house was constructed in the late 19th century, revealed a buried land surface containing scares of mid-18th century artifacts (Warfel 2008). Discovered English pottery types, wrought nails, hand-blown bottle glass fragments, metal buttons, an English musket flint, and lead balls and shot were identical to ones found at contemporary French and Indian War fort sites, such as Fort Loudoun, Fort Ligonier, and Fort Augusta. Furthermore, intriguing but poorly understood below-ground soil disturbances, referred to by archaeologists as features, were discovered beneath the buried land surface. Did they represent evidence of the fort's wall or, perhaps, interior buildings and activity areas? Although tempting to announce that the fort site was found, test results were simply insufficient to state with complete certainty that Fort Morris stood there (see Warfel 2008). The Historical Society's excavation team, lead by the author and infused with renewed commitment, returned to 333 East Burd Street during the spring and summer of 2009. The intent of the project was to undertake a full scale investigation where testing the summer before produced tantalizing results. If the fort once stood there, many more mid-18th century artifacts, including military items, and structural features were sure to be found. As expected and hoped, the 2009 archaeology project produced conclusive evidence in the form of fort artifacts and features. Indeed, a sliver of Fort Morris was found and proved to be located on the 333 East Burd Street property. The purpose of this report is to provide a detailed account of a thirty-eight day archaeological investigation conducted on and around 333 East Burd Street, Shippensburg, between May 4, 2009 and July 17, 2009. Artifact processing, which involved cleaning and labeling recovered artifacts, immediately followed fieldwork at Shippensburg University's Department of Geography-Earth Science laboratories between July 20, 2009 and August 3, 2009. Historical Background Detailed histories of Fort Morris have been assembled and written by others (see Eschenmann 1987, Hunter 1999, Marr 2004, and McCorriston 2004); hence, an attempt to reiterate these works is not made here. Likewise, a synopsis of the site's development and use was previously offered in the 2008 excavation report (see Warfe12008: 2-5). A revised summary is provided here for those readers unfamiliar with the story. Following General Edward Braddock's unsuccessful campaign to remove the French from their stronghold at Fort Duquesne in 1755, French-supported Indian attacks intensified on Pennsylvania's frontier communities. In response to this threat the provincial government authorized the construction of a line of forts designed solely for defense. The line paralleled the eastern foot of the Blue Mountain and served as a boundary between settlement and hostile Indian country (Hunter 1999:33). Orders to construct a fort in Shippensburg were given by Governor Robert Morris on July 9, 1755 (Hunter 1999:171). Over the next year, several buildings, a 70'-deep well, and a log palisade enclosure were erected. Although the fort's location within the Shippensburg settlement is not noted on contemporary maps or in historic documents, it is certain that it was built on Edward Shippen's land. Shippen instructed his son-in-law, James Burd, to obtain the necessary wood from his "Saplin Land," a tract with pine and oak located along present-day Burd Runjust northeast of the old town center (Marr 2004:49). Reason dictates that the fort site was located close to this source of timber. In 1762, Lieutenant Colonel William Eyre, a British military engineer, visited Shippensburg and described Fort Morris as a small fort made of stockades which stood on high ground (Reece 1944:41). The Burd Street neighborhood is located on a hilltop just west of and near the 18`" century town center. The British Army, under command of General John Forbes, mounted a second ca~paign to remove the French from Fort Duquesne in 1758. Forbes was quite ill when his,army marched to western Pennsylvania. He convalesced at Fort Morris during most 2 of August 1758 (see Stevens et al 1951:366-477). In a Memorandum dated August 13, 1758, Fort Morris is described in considerable detail. "The fort is a regular square with four Bastions, and one Gate in that Curtain which fronts due East towards the Town" (Eschenmann 1987:98-99). In addition to providing dimensions, a description of armaments, and recommendations for improvements, Forbes notes that the fort has "nine Huts and Houses... sufficient for Barracks, Magazine and Storehouse for about 150, or 200 men, A good Draw-well, and an Oven" (Eschenmann 1987:98-99). This description of Fort Morris is largely consistent with details illustrated on a mid-18`h century plan entitled "Fort at Shippensburgh" (Figure 1). The plan, identified as Catalog Number Add. 57714, is part of a military maps collection housed in The British Library. It is noteworthy that the Memorandum and plan vary with respect to dimensions of the fort's walls. For example, as drawn on the plan, the curtain measures 88 feet. Yet, the Memorandum specifies the curtain is "about 63 feet." Hence, the plan illustrates a fort footprint which is nearly 40% larger than stated dimensions. Implications of this discrepancy are discussed later in the report. Fort Morris was maintained and garrisoned through the early 1760s. According to Hunter, an officer and eighteen provincial troops were stationed in Shippensburg during the winter of 1763-1764 (1960:461, fn. 387). And, as late as 1764, Edward Shippen advised the inhabitants of the town to dig a ditch around the fort (Hunter 1999:462). Following Pontiac's War (1763-1765) and the cessation of native hostilities on the Pennsylvania frontier, most of Pennsylvania's frontier forts were no longer needed. Some were abandoned and left to decay; some were torn down; others were adaptively reused for domestic or agricultural purposes. Historical evidence does not indicate what happened to Fort Morris. Continued habitation of one or several fort buildings is suggested by the results of archaeological testing in 2008. Artifacts dating from the end of the fort period through the mid-19`" century clearly demonstrate that people continuously lived on the site until about the 1860s (Warfel 2008:19, 33-34). Deed and property/lot research compiled by Paul Barner, a Shippensburg historian, notes conveyance of title for an East Burd Street tract, which includes the 333 East Burd Street house lot, in 1813. The tract was transferred 3 t M from Edward Shippen to Thomas McCammon, a cabinet maker (Barner database, Deed # 1-V-588, on file at the Shippensburg Historical Society). Importantly, an April 15, 1860 transfer of the same East Burd Street tract from R.P. McClure to Levi K. Donavin refers to the property as the "Fort Field" (Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, PA, Deed Book S 2:408). This reference surely denotes the former fort site. Extant structures were not built on 333 East Burd Street until sometime after March 30, 1893, when title was transferred from Elizabeth Graybill to John Hosfeid (Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, PA Deed Book L 5:74). Years later, Hosfeld reported the discovery of fort artifacts when the cellar was dug for his house at 333 East Burd Street (Eschenmann 1987:91). Regrettably, the collection of objects does not survive. 4 Figure 1. Mid-18th century plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh". Knowledge of Fort Morris' location in Shippensburg seemingly faded through time. By the late 19th century, it became intertwined with so-called Fort Franklin, which was purported by some local historians to be contemporary with Fort Morris and also located in the East Burd Street neighborhood. A monument commemorating the site of Fort Franklin and its well was placed at 335 East Burd Street by the Daughters of 1812 in 1937 (Eschenmann 1987:21-22). Hunter persuasively debunks the Fort Franklin myth and states that 19th century references to a colonial fort in that part of Shippensburg can only be attributed to provincial Fort Morris (1960:462-463). In summary, the site of Fort Morris was unfortunately lost to time. Although several Shippensburg locations have been identified as the fort site over the past century, reexamination of primary documents, 19th century deed descriptions, anecdotal evidence, and the results of 2008 archaeological test excavations focus attention on the East Burd Street neighborhood. Investigation Methods Archaeology is a destructive science. Once a site has been excavated, objects, soil layers, and features can never be returned to original discovery positions. For this reason, much time is spent carefully recording observations about the relationships of objects and the context or specific environment from which they are removed. It is important to record where objects are found by noting their position with respect to a fixed horizontal point, called a datum, and a fixed vertical point, called a bench mark. Because 2008 testing established that fort period artifacts and soil disturbances were contained in and below a buried land surface located in the west side yard of 333 East Burd Street, a 30' x 40' grid, consisting of 48 five-foot squares [referred to hereafter as Test Pits (TPs)], was laid out on the modern ground surface (Figure 2). The datum, designated NO E0, was placed at the southwest corner of the excavation block. The grid was positioned so that it paralleled the orientation of the 333 East Burd Street residence. Grid North (GN), the orientation of north/south grid lines, is 34°23' West of Magnetic North (MN). A bench mark of known elevation (690.04') was established on top of a protected wooden stake installed during the 2008 excavation season. The stake is located 5 on a property line at the northwest corner of a concrete sidewalk at the rear of the 333 and 335 East Burd Street properties (see Figure 2). Alley ~ Bench mark - I Garage Apartments I '. Property line - ', :: 2009 Back Yazd Trench -~, H I i SJ I 5x Porch ~ Property line JI s° i N40 EO r B I6 IJ )2 JU {8 ' ] I) ]) )1 J4 J] I i i 6 N Sx i JO JI Jfi 333 Ea$t Baid S ~ aN ', 5 U 21 '! 39 J] J! ~ I ~ l ~~~11 xU ~. x8 J6 JJ MN ' ) u IU i n v JJ ~ 2 IU It ~_ Efi JJ JE i ~ ' I 9 ~11 ~ 35 J) AI fio ~~~ Scale NO EO ~ fil s 56 Porch iii ~ s]' i o' S' IU' IS' i Sidewalk East Burd Street Figure 2. Test pit locations in side yard of 333 East Burd Street. As the investigation progressed, exploratory trenches were laid out and excavated as extensions to the primary grid block (Figure 2). The so-called North Extension Trench extended 35' north of the northeast corner of the excavation block. It consisted of TPs 49-55, each measuring 5' x 3', and intersected with Trench 3, dug during the 2008 investigation. The so-called South Extension Trench extended 10' south of the southeast 6 comer of the grid block. TPs 56 and 57 measured 5' x 3'. TPs 58 and 59 measured 5' x 2'. TP 60 measured 3' x 3 ;and TP 61, irregularly shaped, measured nearly 4' x 6'. Additional trenches were eventually laid out and investigated at other locations in search of the fort's palisade trench. A so-called Back Yard Trench, measuring 16'x 3', was located on the east side of a concrete sidewalk which connects the 333 East Burd Street house to its garage (Figure 2). A 32' x 3' trench was excavated 2' parallel to and west of a concrete sidewalk in the back yard of House Lot 327 East Burd Street (Figure 3). The trench began at a distance of 34' 3" north of the main house. Figure 3. Exploratory trench in back yard of 327 East Burd Street, facing south. A final exploratory trench was excavated in the east front yard of 335 East Burd Street to search for evidence of a palisade trench and determine if a stone monument, erected there by the Daughters of 1812 in 1937, actually marked the site of an 18`h century well (Figure 4). The trench measured 14' 8" x 3'. 7 facing north. Excavation of the main grid block first required removal of a dogwood tree. The sod was then mechanically stripped, exposing modern topsoil. In all other trenches sod was removed by hand, using sod shovels. In the main excavation block, the North and South Extension Trenches, and the Back Yard Trench the upper two soil layers (Levels 1 and 2) were removed by spade shovel and placed directly on spoil piles. Because 2008 tests determined that the layers dated from the time the house was constructed in the 1890s to the present day, Levels 1 and 2 and their artifact contents were not considered relevant to the project's main objective -discovery of the Fort Morris site. Aside from the afore-mentioned modern soil layers, all other distinct soil layers, distinguished by color and texture, were scraped and removed with sharpened mason's trowels and miniature picks. Soil color was determined by comparison of samples with Munsell Soil Color Charts (1975 edition). Soil texture determinations were subjectively 8 Figure 4. Location of exploratory trench in east front yard of 335 East Burd Street, made by the author, relying on prior training and experience. Excavated soils were dry- screened through''/a" hardware cloth. Recovered artifacts were collected and bagged by layer and/or feature within designated grid or test units. The southwest grid coordinate of each test pit was systematically used as the identification coordinate for recording purposes. Excavation units (TPs and trenches) and features were carefully mapped and recorded in plan view. Select units and features were drawn in profile. Detailed field measurements recorded soil layer changes observed in the Back Yard Trench, the 327 East Burd Street Trench, and the 335 East Burd Street Trench. All measurements were recorded in feet and inches except for stadia (vertical) measurements which were recorded in feet and tenths of feet. Digital photography documented excavation progress and findings. The author maintained a written daily field journal, and numerous specially-designed recording forms were used to preserve a permanent record of observations and site investigation. All artifacts were cleaned, cataloged, and inventoried in keeping with standard archaeological procedures. The artifact collection, field records, journal, and photographs are curated at the Shippensburg Historical Society, 52 West King Street, Shippensburg, PA. They are available for use by researchers upon request. Findings: Main Excavation Block and Trench Extensions Leve13, a Buried Historic Land Surface Level 3 is the designation given to a buried historic land surface present in the side yard of 333 East Burd Street. The soil layer consists of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) silt loam. It is encapsulated by Level 2 mottled strong brown (7.SYR5/8) and dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) clay fill. The clay fill is a mixture of topsoil and subsoil dug from the basement and foundation footings of the current house at the time of its construction in the 1890s. Level 1, in turn, is a modern topsoil layer consisting of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) silt loam; it blankets the entire side yard. Level 1 was emplaced after construction of the present house. 9 Levels 1 and 2 were removed by shovel in the main excavation block and trench extensions; they were not screened. The top of Level 3 was hand-scraped with small tools to fully expose the layer and eliminate, to the extent possible, contamination from overlying layers. Any remnants of overlying soils bear the potential for containing recent artifacts that may alter dating and interpretation of underlying surfaces. Stadia measurements (elevations) were taken at each grid point to document the exposed historic land surface. Obvious and expected intrusions in the old soil layer were circular disturbances marking locations of the previous excavation season's shovel test holes and the root system of a former dogwood tree. An unexpected discovery was a Figure 5. Top of old land surface (Level 3), facing southwest. Note limestone concentration between tree root and west edge of excavation block. The concentration was affiliated with a line of nearly circular mottled soil stains. Upon investigation, the soil stains proved to be portholes (see Figure 6). Each hole measured approximately 16" in diameter and extended to a depth of 20" below undisturbed subsoil. Because some of the portholes were revealed after the limestone concentration was removed, not all holes were mapped at the Leve13 surface. Level 4 map sheets, however, show all porthole features. The row of portholes represents a fence 10 concentration of limestone pieces observed along the East 10 grid line (Figure 5). line that once marked property boundaries. An 1858 Atlas of Cumberland County (Bridgens 1987) shows a property line at this location, separating tracts of land owned by W. McConnel and D. McClure. Allry r Bench mark I I Garage Apartments '~ 2008 Trench l ~ - i 2008 Trench 2~ i __ ~, 2008 Trench 3 -- Property line --_ 2009 Back Yard Trench ', Porch ; ~-, i I ~ Property line I~ r N40 EO,I1 I I, a p it - L I O ~ 1 ~' O ~~ O ' 333 East Burd S ~: GN ~ O _~~ IOC Q b 40 V N ~ &alc ND EO I Porch v r ur u' +ff ~ I Sidewalk East Burd Street Key 2008 test holes © Dogwood tree roo[ball Q Old properly line portholes Figure 6. Site plan depicting old property line portholes and 2008 test holes. The contents of 2008 test holes were removed and discarded before the historic land surface was excavated. Again, this was done to prevent contamination of the 11 Level 3 layer with more recent objects that may have been introduced when the test holes were backfilled. The historic land surface was excavated with small hand tools and carefully screened. A total of 10,044 artifacts were recovered. Principal artifact types found in the soil layer include architectural materials (window glass, brick fragments, clay daub, plaster, roof slate fragments, wrought and cut nails, iron spikes, oil lamp pieces, mortar); plain and decorated red earthenware; plain and decorated porcelain; 18`h century ceramics (English combed slipware, plain Staffordshire ware, plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, creamware, Whieldon, Jackfield, plain and decorated white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware, red dry-bodied stoneware, English brown/gray stoneware, Westerwald stoneware); 19`" century ceramics (plain and decorated pearlware, transitional whiteware, hard white earthenware, American domestic stoneware, Albany-slip stoneware, Rockingham); clothing items (brass straight pin; copper, brass, tombac, pewter, and bone buttons; three brass thimbles; metal buckles; cuff links; glass beads); dietary animal bone and shellfish debris; upholstery tacks; glasswares (squat, case, and other bottle pieces; tumbler and goblet fragments; vessel glass); household items (two-tine fork, cast iron caldron fragment); coal and wood charcoal; personal items (coins, a hawk bell, bone tooth brush fragment, strike-a-lite flints); clay tobacco pipe bowl and stem pieces; recreational items (clay marbles, pocket knife, lead pencil); tools (hay knife, hone stone, horseshoe nails, bridle/harness pieces, barrel hoop pieces); weapons (trigger guard pieces, brass ramrod pipe fragment, lead musket balls and shot, gunflints); and a prehistoric spear point. (An in-depth analysis of special artifact types associated with the fort period is presented later in this report.) The most recent artifact in the Level 3 assemblage is a single sherd of hard white earthenware pottery, sometimes referred to as ironstone. Although this ceramic type was first produced in 1820, it did not achieve popularity until the 1860s (Price 1979:11). Hence, it is likely that the old land surface was last inhabited at around that time. The incredible array of objects found in Level 3 is the product of people living and working on the old land surface, particularly during the mid-18`h century through the mid-19`h century. Throughout this period people disposed of their trash in the same 12 manner as their Old World ancestors -they simply cast it out the doors and windows of houses and workplaces. It was not until the 1870s and 1880s that the germ theory of disease was accepted and efforts were made in American towns and cities to intentionally bury refuse or remove it to locations distant from living areas. A Mean Ceramic Date analysis of 821 ceramic sherds, representing twenty-five dateable 18~h and 19th century ceramic types found in Level 3, was conducted to evaluate the influence of fort period activities on the old land surface artifact assemblage. The analysis yielded an average habitation date of 1782.9. The calculation gives particular weight to the quantity of a ceramic type and its median date -the midpoint between the times when a type was entered into and taken out of production (see Deetz 1977:17; South 1977:207-218). In this particular case, the calculated date is earlier than the assumed midpoint of site occupation, 1807.5 (assuming habitation from 1755 through 1860). The calculated date suggests dense habitation associated with fort period activities on the site. A separate independent dating calculation was done with clay tobacco pipe stems found in Level 3. Archaeologists have long observed that the bore (hole) diameter of English tobacco pipes decreases through time at a measured/predictable rate (see Binford 1978:66-67; Deetz 1967:41; Noel Hume 1976:296-302). Based on the hole diameters of 28 pipe stems found in Level 3, calculation yielded a Mean Pipe Stem Date of 1762.75. This date is even farther from the assumed 1807.5 mid-point of site habitation than the Mean Ceramic Date. Falling near the end of the fort period (1755-1764), the Mean Pipe Stem Date again indicates that fort occupants were numerous and had a significant impact on the site assemblage. The complete removal of Leve13 exposed a culturally sterile, strong brown (7.SYR5/8) clay loam subsoil. The subsoil, designated Leve14, contained several dark soil stains or features (Figure 7). All are the result of activities that occurred on top of the old land surface, penetrated it, and disturbed the subsoil below. Evidence of former agricultural activity, for example, is seen in plow scars that cut into Level 4 and trended north to south in parallel lines across the site. It is thought that site habitation was suspended between the 1860s and 1890s, when the project area was actively farmed. Had 13 the site never been disturbed by plowing, layers associated with different site occupants would be neatly stacked one on top of the other. On the contrary, plowing systematically mixed the refuse of all site occupants, yielding a diverse but mixed artifact assemblage like the one recovered from Leve13. with white string. Feature 25, a Fort Period Cellar Feature 25 is the designation given to a large feature discovered in the southeast corner of the main excavation block (Figure 8). The deposit was detected by several test holes during the 2008 investigation. The feature consists of a stone-lined cellar that marks the site of a fort period structure. Cellar walls are made of dry-laid limestone and measure 18"-22" in width. The full dimensions of the cellar are unknown. A rectangular depression along the exterior face of the cellar's north wall is believed to be a gable end chimney footing (Figure 9). If the chimney was centered on the wall, the gable end of the 14 Figure 7. Level 4 subsoil, facing southwest. Note dark soil stains (features) outlined structure (building width) measures approximately 19', twice the 9' 6" distance from the foundation's northwest corner to the midpoint of the depression. Excavation of the south extension trench, which tracked remnants of the west cellar wall, demonstrates the building measures more than 23' 6" long. No return wall was found in the extension trench. Alley ~ Bench mark ~_ Garage Apartments 2008 Trench 1~ ~ ', 2008 Trench 2 J 2008 Trench 3~-_ ~, J ~ ~~J 2009 Back Yard Trench Property line -___,ti I Porch I ~ Property line N40 EOy Feature 26 I Feature 32 ~ of ;.~ ,; ~~ i ~ 333 East Burd Stl: GN ~ a n ~° I MN i I o i era '~ I ° i ~ Scate NO EO ~ Feature 2 ~~~ Porch Sidewalk East Burd Street Figure 8. Site plan depicting principal features. 15 Chimney footer depression Feature 25 fill consists of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) clay and silt loam. It lies directly on top of limestone rubble, which, in turn, rests on the cellar floor (Figure 10). The cellar floor is composed of native clay into which limestone pieces and cobbles were intentionally set, presumably to keep stored goods above damp earth. Traces of mortar found on floor stones suggest the floor may have once been covered with a crude finish. The limestone rubble layer consists of collapsed foundation walls which were pushed into the cellar when the structure was demolished. Feature fill is artifact-laden topsoil that once surrounded the structure. It was pushed into the cellar to close the hole. 16 Figure 9. Feature 25 cellar, facing northwest. N20 E30 NIS E30 N10 E30 NS E30 _.___TF_94._- //692.25' (elevation) ` a- a- r y y L y y y y y i a. Y~ Limestone foundation wall w ~~ r Soong brown clay subsoil I' Scale: ~-1 Key Level I, dark yellowish brown ~""-~~_ ~ Construction sand silt loam ~ " "" ~~ ~' ~' Level 2, mottled orangish brown l... ~ T~ Fea. 25 611 - Level 3, dark yellowish brown silt Fea. 25 stone rubble loam (original land surface) Figure 10. Partial east profile of Feature 25. Five thousand two hundred and eleven (5,211) artifacts were recovered from Feature 25. Principal artifact types found in the deposit include architectural materials (window glass, brick fragments, plaster, wrought and cut nails, wood lath, mortar); plain and decorated red earthenware; plain and decorated porcelain; 18`h century ceramics (English combed slipware, plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, creamware, Whieldon, Jackfield, plain and decorated white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware, red dry-bodied stoneware, Nottingham stoneware); 19`h century ceramics (plain and decorated pearlware, hard white earthenware); clothing items (brass straight pins; brass, tombac, pewter, and bone buttons; metal buckles; cuff links; a glass bead); dietary animal bone and shellfish debris; glasswares (squat, case, and other bottle pieces; tumbler and goblet fragments; vessel glass); household items (pewter spoons, cast iron caldron fragment, iron ladle); coal and wood charcoal; personal items (coins, bone comb pieces, strike-a-lite flints); clay tobacco pipe bowl and stem pieces; a slate pencil; tools (saw blade, horseshoe nails, iron harness buckles, barrel hoop pieces); weapons 17 (gun lock, iron trigger, lead musket balls and shot, gunflints, knife scabbard tip); and a single ornamental coastal marine shell. The Feature 25 artifact assemblage is remarkably similar to the Leve13 assemblage. This is to be expected, if we consider that feature fill was part of the historic land surface before it was pushed into the cellar hole. The most recent artifact found in the fill is a sherd of hard white earthenware pottery. Its presence suggests the structure standing over the cellar was demolished ca. 1860, a time when this pottery type was in common use. A Mean Ceramic Date based on 487 ceramic sherds, representing seventeen dateable 18`h and 19`h century ceramic types found in Feature 25 fill, was conducted for comparison with the Level 3 assemblage. The calculated date is 1767.06. The result, which approximates the averaee date of habitation, identifies a time just after the fort period. It is earlier than the Level 3 date and indicates the structure at this location was used more heavily during the fort period than any time thereafter. Calculation of a Mean Pipe Stem Date, based on a sample of 19 pipe stems, yielded a date of 1768.87. The date mirrors the Feature 25 Mean Ceramic Date and further underscores the impact fort period occupants had on the artifact assemblage. Their refuse simply overwhelmed that disposed by those who lived on the site after them. Feature 26, an 18th Century Oven? Feature 26 is the designation given to a complex soil disturbance uncovered in the northeast corner of the main excavation block (see Figure 8). The principal component of the feature is a 6' 6" diameter circular pit. The pit is bowl-shaped with a flat bottom and extends to a depth of 16" below Leve14 subsoil (Figure 11). On the west side of the pit is a shallow (1 "-deep) depression, riddled with rat holes. Immediately south of the pit is a patch of intensely reddened and scorched earth (Figure 12). Feature 26 pit fill consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silt loam mixed with yellowish red (SYRS/8) burnt silt loam. A concentration of limestone rubble, some pieces of which were heat-treated, was found near the bottom of the pit (Figure 13). Wood charcoal (133 pieces) was mixed throughout the fill. 18 N33.5 E20 N33.5 E25 N33.5 E30 __TP 39 TP 47 690.44' (elevation) - /, Rat hole's Strong brown clay subsoil Scale: Figure 11. North profile of Feature 26. Patch offire-reddened clay Figure 12. Feature 26, partially excavated, facing north. 19 Figure 13. Feature 26, exposed stone rubble in pit, facing north. The feature yielded 843 artifacts including architectural materials (window glass, brick, wrought and cut nails, mortar); ceramics (plain and decorated red earthenware, over-Fred redware, English combed slipware, plain Staffordshire ware, plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt- glazed stoneware, decorated porcelain); a metal buckle; a cuff link; dietary animal bone; glassware (case bottle, other bottle, vessel glass); a small tombac sugar spoon; coal; wood charcoal; and a kaolin tobacco pipe bowl fragment. These objects represent refuse generated by site inhabitants. They were in the soil that was pushed into the pit to close the hole. The most recent artifacts in the assemblage are fourteen pieces of coal, found near the surface, and a single cut nail. Both artifact types generally date to the early 19`h century. Both may be intrusive; that is, they were not part of the original fill and were introduced by more recent site activity. It is noteworthy that no 19`h century ceramics were found in the deposit, suggesting the pit was closed shortly after the fort was abandoned. 20 A Mean Ceramic Date calculation based on 19 ceramic sherds, representing six dateable 18`h ceramic types found in Feature 26 fill, was conducted for comparison with Leve13 and Feature 25 assemblages. The calculated date is 1749.5. This date is obviously earlier than ones calculated for the historic land surface and the fort period cellar. The result is influenced by the small ceramic sample used for calculation and does not provide an estimated average date of site habitation. It does, however, emphasize the early nature of activities at this location on the site. The pit was first thought to be the remnant of an oven, associated with an adjoining grain or flour storage area where rat holes are concentrated. Ovens were commonly used in 18`h century military campaigns for baking bread and biscuits. Colonel Henry Bouquet's Orderly Book, dated June 17, 1758 -September 15, 1758, includes several references to Oven Makers, Bakers, and Biscuits (Stevens et al 1951:655-690). The structure or form of Feature 26 and the interpretation that it is an oven is problematic. Traditional masonry ovens were constructed of brick or stone and covered with clay, daub, or mortar (Wikipedia 2009a). They date to Roman times and would be the most typical form in use during the 18`h century. Such ovens, however, do not require a subterranean pit; the masonry structure or baking chamber is built at ground level or higher. Earth or pit ovens, on the other hand, are the earliest types used for baking (Wikipedia 2009b). These ovens are characterized by rock-lined pits. Because it is necessary to superheat the rocks for the oven to work properly, one would expect the pit's wal Is and floor to be scorched from frequent use. Yet, the only scorched earth observed in Feature 26 was a 1' 3" diameter circular area immediately south of the pit. The pit itself showed no evidence ofheat-treating. These findings raise many questions about the interpretation of the feature. Does Feature 26 represent a nontraditional form of oven? Is stone rubble found in the fill the remnant of a masonry oven built over the pit? Does the patch of fire-reddened earth designate the location of a hearth associated with an oven or some other type of cooking feature? Because the construction of 18`" century military ovens is not well documented, it is impossible to answer these questions. It is reasonable to conclude, however, that 21 Feature 26 is affiliated with food storage and preparation. This conclusion is further supported by the observation that dietary animal bone (n=347) makes up 41 % of the feature assemblage. Feature 32, a Fort Period Root Cellar Feature 32 is the designation given to a rectangular, tub-shaped feature located only five feet west of Feature 26 (Figure 8). The deposit measures 10' 6" x 6' 6" and extends to a depth of 20" below Level 4 subsoil (Figure 14). It is oriented on the same northwest-southeast axis as the fort period cellar previously discussed. N30.83 N28.58 E16.25 E9 ~ II690.42' (elevation) - -,-- >~- - - - Intrusive ~ - - - ~ - -~~ disturbance ~-,;;-,;;,F~a,3~~rll,; ` ~~~-~ Strong brown clay subsoil 1' Scale: r~ Figure 14. South profile of Feature 32. Feature 32 fill consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) clay and silt loam. Wood charcoal pieces (n=256) were strewn throughout the fill. One thousand, two hundred and forty-seven (1,247) artifacts were recovered from the deposit. They include architectural materials (window glass, brick, wrought nails, mortar); ceramics (plain and decorated red earthenware, plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, plain white salt- glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware, decorated porcelain); clothing items (brass button, pewter cuff link); dietary animal bone; glassware (bottle glass, goblet stem, vessel glass); a carved bone utensil handle; one piece of coal; wood 22 charcoal; a brass trigger guard fragment; and a lead musket ball. The most recent object in the assemblage is a single piece of coal. It is believed to be intrusive, especially since no diagnostic 19`h century ceramic types exist in the assemblage. The date of the deposit or estimate of when the feature was closed is based on the presence of Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware. This English ceramic type was first made in 1744 and taken out of production in 1775. The absence of more recent ceramic types indicates Feature 32 was closed shortly after the fort's abandonment, ca. 1764. A Mean Ceramic Date calculation based on 27 ceramic sherds, which represented only four ceramic types, yielded a date of 1751.9. This date precedes the fort period and does not suggest the time of site habitation. It does underscore the early nature of the deposit. Feature 32 is interpreted to be a root cellar dug under an ephemeral fort period structure (Figure 15). Root cellars were often dug under building floors in the 18`h century for the purpose of storing vegetable crops. Unlike the Feature 25 structure which stood on a stone foundation, this building probably rested on stone corner piers stacked on the ground surface. Plowing of the site in the 19`h century would have forever erased evidence of the piers. Figure 15. Feature 32, completely excavated, facing southeast. 23 The close proximity of Features 26 and 32 is intriguing and probably not haphazard. The structure that stood over Feature 32, for example, could have been a barracks that was served by a nearby food preparation area. Regrettably, there is no way to confirm their functional relationships without knowing the internal layout of the entire fort. Other Features By no means were Features 25, 26, and 32 the only disturbances observed in the subsoil of the main excavation block. Many others, all of which were small, were delineated and carefully mapped (see Figure 8). Time and manpower constraints simply did not permit investigation of each. Those that were excavated usually produced 18`" century artifacts and proved to be postholes, common features on fort sites of the French and Indian War period. Because the project area is physically surrounded by 19`h and 20"' century development which destroyed or obscured adjacent portions of the fort site, it is impossible to determine what the posts represent. Hence, small features were assigned a low excavation priority. No features were found in the north extension trench. Consequently, that portion of the site was likely void of structures and possibly reserved for special use, such as a parade ground. House Lots 327 and 335 East Burd Street and the Back Yard Trench Test trenches were laid out and dug in the back yard of 327 East Burd Street, the back yard of 333 East Burd Street, and the front yard of 335 East Burd Street with hopes of uncovering evidence of the fort's palisade trench. Superimposition of the British Library plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh" (Figure 1) on an aerial map of the East Burd Street neighborhood suggested that segments of the fort's palisade trench might exist at those locations. The results of testing at each follow. A 32' x 3' trench was located 2' west of and parallel to a concrete sidewalk in the back yard of House Lot 327 (Figure 3). The south end of the trench was 34' 3" from the rear of the main house. Excavation revealed a 9"-10'/z"-thick topsoil layer that lay directly on strong brown clay subsoil. No buried land surface was evident. The only 24 feature observed in the excavation was a terra cotta drain or sewer pipe that crossed the excavation trench near its north end. The purpose of the pipe is unknown, but it may be associated with a back yard septic system in use before the installation of town sewers. The investigation produced 456 artifacts, most of which date to the late 19th and 20`h centuries. No 18`h century ceramics or other diagnostic fort period artifacts were found. A brass thimble and iron mouth harp recovered from the trench are both similar to ones used during the 18th century but cannot be dated to that period alone. Both artifact types persist unaltered into the 19`h century. The Back Yard Trench excavated in the rear of 333 East Burd Street measured 16' x 3' and revealed dramatic soil disturbance (Figure 16). A terra cotta sewer pipe was found at a depth of I' 1 I' below grade, sloping towards the garage. It was associated with concrete chunks and limestone pieces. Coal ash and cinder were mixed throughout the fill. The disturbance, designated Feature 59, postdates construction of the house and may have been a back yard septic system used before the installation of town sewers. Figure 16. Back Yard Trench, 333 East Burd Street, facing west. 25 A single sherd of Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware, a fort period ceramic type, was recovered from the deposit. Although it does not shed light on the fort palisade trench location, the sherd does imply fort period activities occurred nearby. Test trenches dug in the west back yard of 333 East Burd Street in 2008 also unearthed a small but distinct sample of fort period objects (Warfel 2008:18). On House Lot 335 East Burd Street a 14' 8" x 3' trench was excavated in the east front yard (Figure 4). The trench uncovered three soil layers. An 8"-thick modern topsoil layer (Level 1) blanketed a 1 %z"-thick coal ash and cinder layer (Level 2). Both covered an old land surface (Level 3), which, in turn, overlaid undisturbed subsoil. The trench was interrupted by a terra cotta drain pipe as well as a stone monument erected by the Daughters of 1812 in 1937 to mark the site of a well, associated with what they thought was Fort Franklin. Five hundred and four (504) artifacts were recovered from the trench. One hundred and ninety-two (192) of the objects were found in the old land surface. They included architectural materials (window glass, brick, roof slate pieces, wrought and cut nails, mortar); plain and decorated red earthenware; plain porcelain; 18th century ceramics (plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, plain and decorated creamware, Whieldon, Jackfield, plain white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware); 19`h century ceramics (plain and decorated pearlware); a scissors; dietary animal bone and shellfish debris; glassware (squat and other bottle, vessel glass); a cast iron pot fragment; coal; astrike-a lite flint; and a clay tobacco bowl fragment. This assemblage includes artifact types repeatedly found in the soils and features of the 333 East Burd Street project area. No evidence of the fort's palisade trench was discovered in the test excavation. Comparable artifact types contained within a buried land surface indicate the 335 East Burd Street house lot also sits on or near the fort site. No evidence of an 18th century well was found directly under the stone monument erected by the Daughters of 1812 in 1937. In summary, supplemental archaeological testing at 333 East Burd Street, 327 East Burd Street, and 335 East Burd Street did not uncover segments of the fort's palisade trench as hoped. The test locations were selected by superimposing a copy of the British 26 Library plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh" on an aerial map of the East Burd Street neighborhood. Because there is a discrepancy between fort dimensions depicted on the plan and measurements provided in a 1758 Memorandum, the true size of Fort Morris is unknown. This only becomes a problem when we try to predict where fort wall trench remnants are likely to exist on East Burd Street properties. The recovery of fort period artifacts in the back yard of 333 East Burd Street and the front yard of 335 East Burd Street, however, does indicate those test areas are situated somewhere on or near the fort site. Artifacts Artifacts are the byproducts of human behavior. They inform us about technology, social customs, use/consumption, and disposal. In some cases they allow us to access former thought processes. Artifacts are the link to understanding people who lived in the past. A wide variety of 18`h and 19`h century artifacts have been referenced throughout this report. All result from people living at the site during the fort period (1755-1764) and thereafter. Special attention is given here to those objects clearly associated with fort life. Artifact counts and statistics used in the discussion were derived from an analysis of assemblages recovered from the buried land surface (Level 3), Feature 25, Feature 26, and Feature 32 -all located on House Lot 333 East Burd Street and referred to in this section as the "project area." Architectural Materials Most colonial sites contain architectural materials, such as window glass, brick fragments, iron nails, clay daub, plaster, mortar, etc. (Figure 17). They provide clues about the makeup of former structures. The building that once sat over Feature 25, for example, was likely a log house with glass windows and interior plaster walls. It probably had a brick chimney on its north gable end and was repaired numerous times throughout the first half of the 19`h century. By 1850, it was nearly a century old, in poor condition, and a candidate for demolition. This reconstruction is based on the recovery of 27 clay daub, plaster, wood lath, window glass, brick fragments with creosote, 18th century wrought nails, and 19th century cut nails from feature fill. Figure 17. Examples of brick, window glass, and iron nails [(cut (left) and wrought (right)] found in the project area. Wrought nails were the only type of nails available during the fort period. They makeup 70% (n=384) of all identifiable nails (n=547). This is a strong indication of fort period construction in the project area. Ceramics Pieces of pottery, known to archaeologists as sherds, are commonly found on colonial American sites and can be important indicators of time and social status (Figure 18). Porcelain, for example, has always been the most expensive ceramic type and is often found on military sites inhabited by officers, who were the gentry of English society. One hundred and forty-four (144) pieces were recovered from the buried land surface and Features 25, 26, and 32. 10.4% (n=15) represent a type called Batavian ware. It is distinguished by an opaque brown glaze on one surface and either plain or a blue-on- 28 white hand-painted underglaze decoration on the other (Miller and Stone 1970; Noel Hume 1976:259-260). The ware was produced between 1740 and 1780. Figure 18. Select pottery types found in the project area. [Top row, left to right: plain red earthenware, slip-decorated red earthenware, Staffordshire ware, blue-on-white tin-glazed earthenware, Whieldon (2 pieces), Jackfield; middle row, left to right: plain white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware, molded white salt-glazed stoneware, hand-painted white salt-glazed stoneware, red dry-bodied stoneware, blue-on-white hand-painted porcelain; bottom row, left to right: feather-edged creamware, blue shell-edged pearlware. All but the pearlware sherd are 18`h century pottery types.] The most common types of pottery found on colonial American sites are plain and decorated red earthenwares. They were inexpensive and used for food storage, preparation, and service. Ironically, they are not useful dating tools because their forms, glazes, and decorations changed slowly through time. Three thousand five hundred and 29 fifty-six (3,556) pieces were recovered. This represents 69.1% of all ceramics (n=5,149) found in the project area. Fortunately, the records of many British pottery manufacturers survive, providing production dates for various types used during the fort period. Dateable 18`h century types found in the project area and the quantities of each are listed in Table 1 below. Ceramic Type Production Production Median Quantity Begin Date End Date Date Found English combed slipware; 1670 1770 1720 10 plain Staffordshire ware Plain tin-glazed 1640 1800 1720 120 earthenware Decorated tin-glazed 1600 1802 1750 94 earthenware 18`h (on c sites) Whieldon ware 1740 1770 1755 67 Whieldon/Wedgwood 1759 1775 1767 1 fruit and vegetable ware Jackfield 1740 1780 1760 19 Creamware 1762 1820 1791 221 Plain and decorated white 1720 1805 1762.5 344 salt-glazed stoneware Scratch Blue white salt- 1744 1775 1759.5 113 glazed stoneware Molded white salt-glazed 1740 1765 1752.5 16 stoneware Red dry-bodied stoneware 1763 1775 1769 10 Nottingham stoneware 1700 1810 1755 2 Westerwald stoneware 1660 1775 1717.5 3 Brown/gray English 1690 1775 1732.5 3 stoneware Table 1: Dateable 18`" century ceramic types found in the buried land surface and Features 25, 26, and 32. 30 Although produced late in the fort period, creamware is included in the list because it is found on colonial American sites as early as 1762. Its presence in the assemblage surely reflects both fort and post-fort period habitation. Considered as a whole, these 1,023 18th century ceramic artifacts makeup 72.8% of all dateable pottery sherds (n=1405) found in the project area. This statistic is testimony to the number of people living on the site during the fort period and their influence on the archaeological record. The majority of ceramic types listed above are considered refined wares. Many represent vessel forms associated with the tea ceremony. The practice of taking tea at an appointed hour was an English custom, particularly observed by English gentry and the social elite in Britain's North American colonies during the first half of the 18th century (Martin 1994:172; Roth 1961:66). Officers staying or serving at Fort Morris participated in this social behavior. Clothing Artifacts A variety of objects related to clothing and clothing maintenance were recovered from project area soils (Figures 19-2t). The assemblage consists of 26 buttons, 12 cuff links, and 22 buckles -all types or styles dating to the fort period and comparable to ones found on other French and Indian War fort sites (see Grimm 1970; Stone 1974). Buttons are made of brass, copper, pewter, tombac, and bone. Tombac is a white metal alloy of copper and zinc which imitates more expensive metals. Cuff links are made of brass, copper, and pewter. Some are quite ornate and have glass insets. Buckles are made of brass, tombac, or iron. The uniforms or dress of 18th century officers and soldiers are elaborately decorated with buttons and buckles on coats, waistcoats, breeches, and gaiters (see Gale 2007:35-50). Shirt cuffs were closed with buttons or cuff links; shoes were secured with buckles. The appearance or look of a regiment's uniforms was fixed by royal warrant; uniforms were not made in any particular size (Gale 2007:39, 43). Regimental tailors altered them to fit individual soldiers. According to Gale, "The soldier's clothing and accoutrements were examined weekly by the company officers. Any broken or lost 31 buckles, straps, buttons, or other items were immediately replaced and deducted from the offender's pay" (2007:49). Figure 19. Select buttons and cuff links found in the project area. 32 Figure 20. Select buckle frames, prong hook, and iron tongues found in the project area. Thimbles, straight pins, and parts of scissors are all items required for clothing maintenance. If regimental tailors were not present or available, women who followed the army might be called upon to wash, press, or mend clothing (Gale 2007:51). Figure 21. Brass thimbles and straight pins found in the project area. The appearance of the British soldier was not haphazard; it was carefully monitored. "The king's army was a symbol of his grandeur and power, and thus the better the appearance of his soldiers, the more prestige it brought the monarch (Gale 2007:vi). Glasswares Numerous fragments of 18`h century glasswares were recovered from the project area (Figure 22). They include fragments of squat and case bottles as well as pieces of tumblers and stemware. Squat and case bottles most often contained alcoholic spirits, such as wine, rum, and gin. These bottles were probably the personal possessions of officers. Likewise, stemware and glass tumblers would have been available to officers but not enlisted men. Officers traveled with accoutrements befitting their social rank. 33 Figure 22. Select glasswares found in the project area. [Top row: case and squat bottle pieces; bottom row, left to right: goblet base fragment, goblet stem, tumbler base.] Personal Items: Coins Six coins were recovered from project area soils. Four were found in the Leve13 buried land surface and two were unearthed from Feature 25 fill (Figures 23 and 24). Three coins are Spanish silver and three are British coppers. Spanish coinage was widely distributed throughout the colonies because it was valued for its consistent weight and purity (Jordan 1999). Louis Jordan, Department of Special Collections, University of Notre Dame notes, "It has been estimated that half of the coins in colonial America were Spanish reales" (Jordan 1999). Archaeological excavations on colonial era sites frequently unearth coins made in Spain or its New World colonial mints (cf. Warfel 2005:39). 34 Figure 23. Coins found in the project area. [To row, Spanish silver; bottom row, left to right_ young-head King George II halfpenny, 1757 old-head King George lI halfpenny, heavily worn British copper.] About the size of a modern dime, the only whole Spanish silver coin in the collection is dated 1774. It depicts the bust of the king and the Latin inscription CAROLOUS•III•DEI•GRATIA (Charles III by the Grace of God) on the obverse side. On the reverse side, the crowned shield of Leon and Castile is flanked by the two Pillars of Hercules with the inscription HISPAN•ET IND•REX (King of Spain and the Indies) positioned around the circumference. Neither the denomination nor mint mark is legible. The coin is well-worn and intentionally pierced. Coins were pierced so that they could be sewed or pinned into the lining of a coat for safe-keeping until needed (Jordan 1999). The two other Spanish silver pieces are both clipped or cut from whole coins to make change. According to Kays, "Cut pieces of whole coins were known as 'sharp- shins' or 'sharp silver' since the cut silver pieces did have sharp edges and points" (2001:2176). One is a sliver that bears the date 1742. It is an example of the original milled or pillar series, first minted in 1732. The other is apie-shaped wedge and an 35 example of the so-called "new plate" series minted in Spain (Jordan 1999). Also known in the English colonies as a "pistareen," the new plate coin was not intended for use in the New World because it was twenty percent lighter than Spanish colonial coins, i.e., ones minted in New World Spanish colonies (Kays 2001:2170). The wedge is likely a piece of a two reale coin. The British coppers are all halfpennies. One is so heavily circulated that it is worn smooth. The other two bear images of King George II, who reigned from 1727 to 1760. One, missing its date due to wear, is an example of a so-called young-head, issued during the years 1729-1739. The other is in very good condition, dated 1757, and an example of an old-head King George II halfpenny (see Noel Hume 1976:157, 162). A British coin dated 1757, of course, is fortunate find on a colonial American fort site constructed in 1755-1756. Figure 24. Reverse side of 1757 old-head King George halfpenny. Personal Items: Personal Hv ig ene Several bone artifacts relating to personal hygiene were found in the project area (Figure 25). Three are pieces of double-sided bone hair combs; one is a bone tooth brush fragment. Bone combs were issued to British soldiers. According to Gale, "The soldier's hair was regularly combed in the morning and evening, a frequent combing was believed to promote hair growth" (2007:52). He further notes that "Any soldier who neglected his hair by letting it become tangled, dirty, or over-run with vermin, was liable to be 36 punished" (Gale 2007:52). Double-sided hair combs were used to remove head lice and, hence, are sometimes referred to as lice (cootie) combs in the 19`" century (Noel Hume 1976:174-175). Figure 25. Bone toothbrush and double-sided comb fragments found in the project area. During the mid-18`" century, most people cleaned their teeth by rubbing them with linen cloth dipped in sulfur oils and salt solutions (Sembera 2010). [t was not until 1780 that the first mass-produced toothbrush was made by William Addis of Clerkenwald, England (Library of Congress 2010). Only educated gentlemen of English society, such as military officers, were likely to have knowledge of and access to a bone toothbrush during the French and Indian War period. Personal Items: Tobacco Pipes Clay tobacco pipes were commonly used by both military officers and enlisted men (Figure 26). They were inexpensive and readily acquired from sutlers or merchants who followed the army (Gale 2007:67). Twenty-one (21) kaolin clay pipe bowl pieces and forty-seven (47) pipe stems were found in the project area. As previously discussed, pipe stem bore (hole) diameters decreased at a predictable rate throughout the 18`h century. 36.2% (n=17) of the stem bores measure 5/64" in diameter; whereas, 63.8% 37 (n=30) measure 4/64" in diameter. The calculated Mean Pipe Stem Date for the project area is 1765.04. For all intents and purposes, the result coincides with the end of the fort period and implies that most of the pipe stems were deposited by fort residents. Figure 26. Select clay tobacco pipe bowl and stem fragments found in the project area. [All except for the red clay stem at the bottom date to the 18`h century.] Dietary Animal Bone Animal bone is a common artifact on 18`h century sites. It informs us about butchering practices and diet. During the Forbes campaign, soldiers were given both fresh or salt-preserved beef and pork as part of their ration when available. Herds of cattle, sheep, and hogs were driven to western Pennsylvania with the British Army. By the time they arrived, the animals were often in poor condition and yielded little meat (see Guilday 1970:177-186). Hunting for wild game provided dietary supplement, but was restricted, especially at advanced outposts (see Stevens et al 1951:659). Two thousand eight hundred and eight (2,808) pieces of animal bone were found in the project area. This represents 16.18% of all artifacts (n=17,345) recovered from the buried land surface and Features 25, 26, and 32. Many were calcined, an indication they were tossed in the fire after meat was removed from the bone. Many exhibit butchering 38 scars. Unfortunately, it is impossible to sort bones that resulted from fort period occupation from those deposited by post-fort inhabitants due to soil disturbance by the plow in the 19~h century. Consequently, a detailed faunal analysis of the present collection will not yield a reconstruction of fort period dietary behavior. Tools An iron hay knife and a hone stone found in the project area are of particular interest, for they relate directly to a problem experienced by the British Army during the Forbes campaign (Figure 27). Horses, cattle, pigs, and sheep all required forage. John Guilday aptly notes that "Hay was as big an item to a horse-drawn army as gasoline to a modern military force" (1970:177). Grasslands were sought wherever the army went, but the campaign was stymied by a general lack of forage. Complaints of starving pack and team horses were frequent. In response to concerns voiced by senior staff, General Forbes wrote from Shippensburg on August 18, 1758, "This same affair of the Forage has given me infinite inquietude..." (Stevens et al 1951:383). He further states, "I have set this Garrison [the Fort at Shippensburg] and most of the inhabitants hereabouts a mowing and cutting down all they possibly can with the instruments they have, so that I hope to have always wherewith to feed a Convoy incase they be obliged to stop here on their march" (Stevens 39 Figure 27. Iron hay knife and hone stone found in the project area. et al 1951:384). Many of the army's supplies passed through Shippensburg on the way to western Pennsylvania. Strike-a-lites and Gunflints Throughout the 18th century flints were struck against steel to make fire and produce a spark in flintlock shoulder arms. Soldiers carried fire-starter kits (with strike- a-lite flints) as personal items. Gunflints were issued to troops and carefully monitored to guard against wasteful behavior. Flints were often in short supply during the Forbes campaign (see Stevens et al 1951). Classification of the two types of flints is problematic and subjective, because exhausted gunflints were often reused as strike-a-lites. For the purpose of this report, flint chips and flints that appeared to be too badly wom to be of use in a flintlock gun were designated as strike-a-lite flints. Eleven strike-a-lite flints and eight gunflints were recovered from the project area in 2009 (Figure 28). All but two were made from English or French flint and represent two common styles found on 18th century sites -the Clactonian gunspall style and the French blade style (see Kent 1983:27-40). The Clactonian gunspall flint commonly occurs on sites dating between 1700 and 1775; whereas, the French blade style flint is more frequently found on sites dating between 1775 and 1825 (Kent 1983:31, Table 2). It is noteworthy, however, that all French and Indian War fort site collections surveyed by Kent did include French blade style flints (1983:30, Table 1). Ten of the flints found in the project area were complete enough to assess style. Seven (7) or 70% are made in the Clactonian gunspall style. [A Clactonian gunspall musket flint made from English flint was also found in the project area during the 2008 test excavation (see Warfel 2008:23)]. All but two of the Clactonian gunspall flints are fashioned from English flint; the other two are made from French flint. On the contrary, all three French blade flints are fashioned from French flint. Two pieces of local chalcedony, a microcrystalline variety of quartz, were classified as strike-a-lite flints. High quality chalcedony struck against a piece of steel will produce a spark but not as quickly or efficiently as English or French flint. The use (or attempted use) of a locally available mineral may be testimony to the shortage of appropriate flints experienced during the Forbes campaign. 40 Figure 28. Select flints found in the project area. [Top row: Clactonian gunspall style flints made from English flint; piece at far right is local chalcedony; middle row: Clactonian gunspall and French blade style flints made from French flint; bottom row: chalcedony, French flint, and English flint chips.] Lead Musket Balls and Shot Lead musket balls and shot are common finds on French and Indian War fort sites. Thirty-four were recovered from the project area (Figure 29). Table 2 below lists the classification, diameter (caliber), and quantity of each. Classification Diameter (caliber) in inches, comments Quantity .66-.72 caliber musket ball N/A, deformed by impact 2 .66-.72 caliber musket ball N/A, deformed, incised line around circumference, used as weight? 1 .66-.72 caliber musket ball .694 1 .66-.72 caliber musket ball .692 1 .66-.72 caliber musket ball .689 1 41 .66-.72 caliber musket ball .683 1 .66-.72 caliber musket ball .679 1 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .634, chewed 1 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .630 2 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .629 1 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .606 1 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .595 1 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .581 1 .58-.64 caliber musket ball .580 1 .47-.56 caliber musket ball .567, scarred, possibly chewed 1 .47-.56 caliber musket ball .564 1 .47-.56 caliber musket ball .563, scarred, possibly chewed 1 .47-.56 caliber musket ball .540 1 .47-.56 caliber musket ball .474, scarred l .25-.44 caliber buckshot .430 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .385 I .25-.44 caliber buckshot .370 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .366 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .314 3 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .290 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .270 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .266 I .25-.44 caliber buckshot .261 1 .06-.21 caliber birdshot .189 1 .06-.21 caliber birdshot .181 1 Table 2. Classification and measurements of lead musket balls and shot. 42 All of the .66-.72 caliber musket balls could have been used in a .75 caliber musket, such as the Brown Bess, which was standard issue for the British Army. Hanson and Hsu, writing about musket balls recovered from Fort Stanwix, New York, note, "The smaller diameter ball was necessitated by the black powder used to fire the piece, which left a carbon deposit in the bore, and the paper cartridge used to seat the ball against the powder" (1975:80). Musket balls measuring .58-.64 caliber may have been used in non- standard muskets carried by some Provincials. Balls measuring .47-.56 caliber were likely used with American rifles or pistols (Hanson and Hsu 1975:80). Both British Army regulars and Provincial soldiers garrisoned Fort Morris during its history (see Hunter 1999:461). Figure 29. Select lead musket balls and shot found in the project area. [Piece at far end of third row is a trimmed sprue. Chewed and deformed balls are in the bottom row.] Buckshot and birdshot also occur with frequency on French and Indian War fort sites. Shot was wrapped in paper cartridges and fired from muskets. It had a spray effect similar to that of a modern shotgun shell. 43 Several of the musket balls appear to be chewed. Chewed lead balls, that is, balls bearing human tooth impressions, have been recovered from a variety of 18`h century military sites in North America. Hanson and Hsu, citing from a Revolutionary War account, note that two privates who were whipped "...did not utter one word of complaint; but each taking a leaden bullet in his mouth, bit upon it as the punishment was inflicted" (1975:79-80). Chewed musket balls have also been found at field hospital sites, where they were clenched during painful treatment. Gun Parts An iron gun lock plate and several gun part fragments were found in the project area (Figures 30 and 31). The gun lock plate measures 5'/4" long. It is heavily corroded and appears to be nested with part of a hammer/cock (missing the top jaw), a frizzen, main spring, and pan. This is not an intact lock. The frizzen is reversed and out of place; the hammer/cock lower jaw rests below the pan. It is thought the parts were stored together and then rusted, yielding the present configuration. The type of gun for which the lock plate was made is not known. It is too short to fit a Brown Bess, which has a lock plate that measures between 6'/a"-7%z long (see Gale 2007:5-18). 44 Figure 30. Iron gun lock recovered from Feature 25. Other gun parts found in the project area include an iron trigger, three brass trigger guard pieces, and a brass ramrod pipe. One of the trigger guard pieces has a distinctive hole, designed for attachment of the rear sling swivel. Figure 31. Brass trigger guard fragments and iron trigger (second row) found in the project area. The life expectancy of a musket during the mid-18`h century was eight to ten years (Gale 2007:22). Companies were supplied with repair parts, and repairs were made by military armorers or contracted blacksmiths. If a soldier's musket broke as a result of neglect, the cost of repair was deducted from his pay (Gale 2007:23). Soldiers were responsible for all issued weapons and accoutrements. Native American Trade Objects Five objects, related to trade with Native Americans or the presence of Indians at Fort Morris, were recovered from the project area (Figure 32). Three are European-made glass beads. Two of the beads are wire-wound, a type characteristic of the first half of 45 the 18th century (Kent 1984:213). The third is a seed bead, so-called due to its diminutive size. Seed beads are particularly common on mid-18th century sites. Glass beads were attractive trade items and quite popular with native peoples. They were strung and used as bracelets and necklaces or sewed into garments. Figure 32. Possible trade objects found in the project area. To row: limpet shell; middle row: brass bell, wire-wound beads (2); bottom row: seed bead.] Another possible trade item is a fragment of a brass bell. Bells are often found on 18th century native sites (see Kent 1984:398). Alternatively, the bell might be associated with the many pack and team horses that passed through Shippensburg (see Stevens et al 1951:230). Several references in Colonel Henry Bouquet's Orderly Book specify that at night "their Bells [must be] Stopp'd" (Stevens et al 1951:658, 666). The final item is a southern coastal marine shell, known as a limpet. Native peoples used all types of shells for ornamentation. It is entirely possible that this shell was worn and lost by a Southern Indian at Fort Morris. On May 30, 1758, Captain Bosomworth, writing from Shippensburg notes that "Capt. Trent came here last night 46 with Wahatchee & a Party of 25 warriors..." (British Museum Additional Manuscripts, Series #21655:2). Wahatchee was the chief of "about 30 southern Cherokee towns, and reputed to be a great rogue, interested only in presents to be secured from the English" (Stevens et al 1951:20, fn 10). The Southern Indians were particularly encouraged and recruited to assist the British Army with removal of the French and their native allies from the Ohio River Valley. Conclusions The discovery of fort period features and an impressive quantity of mid- eighteenth century domestic and military artifacts in the side yard of 333 East Burd Street demonstrate without doubt that a part of Fort Morris once stood there. Although fort artifacts are mixed with ones from later site habitation, detailed analyses of ceramic sherds and kaolin clay tobacco pipe stems demonstrate that site occupation was denser during the fort period than any time thereafter. General Forbe's illness in 1758 became our good fortune in 2008 and 2009. Because he and his men were forced to remain at Fort Morris for a month while he convalesced, they inadvertently enriched the archaeological record with more refuse than would result from a brief stay. The types of objects found in the project area are entirely consistent with ones recovered from contemporary French and Indian War period fort sites garrisoned by the British Army. Archaeological findings presented in this report are independent confirmation of conclusions drawn from the examination of primary documents by McCorriston (2004) and geographic data by Marr (2004). Considering the density of housing development and ground disturbance that has taken place in the East Burd Street neighborhood since the 1890s, it is remarkable any intact evidence of the fort survives. Unsuccessful attempts to locate segments of the fort's palisade wall trench do not diminish the importance of the project's findings. They only make it difficult to accurately place the fort on the modern landscape. Discrepancies between fort dimensions cited in a 1758 Memorandum and a British Library plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh" add to the confusion. It is not known which, if either, is accurate. Attempts by the author to reconstruct a fort plan using Memorandum dimensions were unsuccessful without altering stated measurements. By default, it is assumed the British Library plan most closely replicates the fort's size. 47 Figure 33 below illustrates superimposition of the British Library fort plan on an aerial view of the East Burd Street neighborhood. The Library plan is aligned to correlate position of the west corner of the guard house (see Figure 1) with the northwest corner of the fort period cellar, Feature 25. It affords a view of properties surrounding the project area that might yield fort period objects and features. The future discovery of two or more segments of the palisade trench is required to resolve questions regarding the fort's size and position on the modern landscape. Figure 23. British Library plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh" superimposed on an aerial map of the East Burd Street neighborhood. 48 Recommendations Curation of Collections Archaeological investigations at 333 East Burd Street during the summers of 2008 and 2009 produced a large, important artifact collection. If it is to survive for the benefit of present and future generations, certain measures need to be taken as soon as reasonably possible. All artifacts have been appropriately cleaned and labeled with assigned catalog numbers. Objects are sorted according to artifact type within catalog units and are presently housed in zip-lock plastic sandwich bags. This type of bag is thin and disintegrates over time. It is inappropriate for long-term storage. Instead, artifacts need to be transferred to archival quality 4-mil-thick polyethylene bags with zip-lock closures. Site catalog numbers and artifact classification codes written on each sandwich bag need to be transferred onto archival quality bags, using permanent ink marking pens (e.g., Sharpies). Artifact catalog labels, written on acid-free paper, have already been inserted into existing plastic bags and must be transferred with artifacts. Following the transfer of artifacts and labels, archival bags should be stored in archival quality, acid-free storage boxes (buffered or unbuffered), such as those made by Hollinger. Standard Hollinger boxes measuring 15" x 12 %" x ] 0" are recommended. Boxes should not be overloaded; fragile artifacts should be placed at the top of the box. Labels, indicating the range of catalog numbers contained in each box, should be applied to visible exterior box panels. An important condition of long-term care is a safe, dry storage environment. Ideally, the collection should be housed in a controlled environment where temperature and humidity remain relatively constant. Metal artifacts are particularly sensitive to high humidity. Plastic bags used to house metal items should be pierced several times with a single-hole paper punch to allow air flow or circulation. Professional conservation should be considered for heavily-corroded artifacts, like the iron gun lock, or unusually fragile items, like bone comb pieces. Collection access should be limited to knowledgeable staff members who can retrieve the collection on demand and monitor use. 49 Future Archaeological Testing Future archaeological testing in the East Burd Street neighborhood is the only method that can locate fort wall trench segments if they survive. Investigation should seek to identify which properties, surrounding 333 East Burd Street, have soils containing mid-18`h century artifacts. House lots that produce fort period objects then become the targets of more extensive excavation, designed to expose palisade trench segments in the subsoil. Adequate funding needs to be secured to pay for professional archaeological services and curate resulting artifact collections. Unfortunately, the exercise is a bit like looking for a needle in a hay stack and entirely contingent upon acquiring landowner permissions for access to private properties. Success also depends on good fortune. S~~ Historical markers and monuments concerning Shippensburg's French and Indian War history are located at several places in the community. They provide confusing and sometimes contradictory information. Since William Hunter published Forts on the Pennsylvania Frontier, 1753-1758 in 1960, it has been established that there never was a Fort Franklin in Cumberland County. Yet, visitors to the East Burd Street neighborhood still find a monument commemorating the site. Likewise, more than one historical marker proclaims "Fort Morris stood here." Sufficient information is now available to correct the town's historical signage. The Fort Franklin marker should be removed. The bronze Fort Morris marker/plaque mounted in limestone bedrock on East King Street should be removed. The Fort Morris marker located at the corner of King and Queen Streets can remain, for it correctly states that the fort "lies a block to the north on Burd Street." Given the findings of the present project, new signage should be considered for placement at 333 East Burd Street. An outdoor exhibit panel with text and photographs, depicting the archaeological excavation and select fort period artifacts would inform and satisfy the curiosity of visitors and citizens alike. More importantly, a sign at this location demonstrates consistency. If one's interest is stimulated by the King and Queen Street marker, they can go to Burd Street and learn more about the site. Indeed, correction of misinformation may be one of the most enduring products of the present project. 50 References Cited Binford, Lewis R. 1978 A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples. In Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 66-67. Baywood, Farmingdale, New York. Bridgens, Henry F. 1987 Atlas of Cumberland County, Penna., 1858. Originally published 1858. Reproduced, Cumberland County Historical Society, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. British Museum Additional Manuscripts Bouquet Papers, Series #21655:2. Photostatic copies in Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Deetz, James 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 1977 In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life. Anchor Books, Garden City, New York. Eschenmann, Hayes R. 1987 The Elusive Fort Morris. Beidel Printing House, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Gale, R. R. 2007 "A Soldier-Like Way": The Material Culture of the British Infantry 1751- 1768. Track of the Wolf, Elk River, Minnesota. Grimm, Jacob L. 1970 Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier, 1960-1965. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Vol. 42. Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh. 51 Guilday, John E. 1970 Animal Remains from Archaeological Excavations at Fort Ligonier. In Archaeological Investigation of Fort Ligonier, 1960-1965. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Vol. 42, pp. 177-186. Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh. Hanson, Lee and Dick Ping Hsu 1975 Casemates and Cannonballs: Archaeological Investigations at Fort Stanwix, Rome, New York. Publications in Archaeology 14. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. Hunter, William A. 1999 Forts on the Pennsylvania Frontier, 1753-1758. Reprinted. Wennawoods, Lewisburg. Originally published 1960, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Jordan, Louis 1999 Spanish Silver: General Introduction. Electronic document, http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/Co ICoinIntros/Sp-S i Iver.intro.htm I, accessed January 7, 2010. Kays, Thomas A. 2001 When Cross Pistareens Cut Their Way Through the Tobacco Colonies. The Colonial Newsletter, April 2001:2169-2199. Kent, Barry C. 1983 More on Gunflints. Historical Archaeology 17(2):27-40. 1984 Susquehanna's Indians. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Library of Congress 2010 Who Invented the Toothbrush and When Was It Invented? Electronic document, http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/tooth.html, accessed January 26, 2010. Marr, Paul 2004 Finding Fort Morris. Middle States Geographer 37:45-52. 52 Martin, Ann Smart 1994 "Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Latest Fashion Ware": The Creamware Revolution in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake. [n Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, editors, pp. 71-102. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware. McCorriston, John 2004 An Analysis of the Known Facts Regarding the Location of Shippensburg's Colonial Fort Morris. Unpublished manuscript on file, Shippensburg Historical Society. Miller, J. Jefferson and Lyle M. Stone 1970 Eighteenth-Century Ceramics from Fort Michilimackinac: A Stzrdy in Historical Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Noel Hume, Ivor 1976 A Guide to Ar[ifacls of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Price, Cynthia R. 1979 19`h Century Ceramics... in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Monograph Series Number 1, Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri. Reece, Frances R. 1944 Colonel Eyre's Journal of His Trip from New York to Pittsburgh, 1762. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 27:37-50. Roth, Rodris 1961 Tea Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Contributions to the Museum of History and Technology Bulletin No. 225 (Paper 14). Sembera, Kyle W. 2010 OfFinite-Element Analysis and a Winning Smile: Evolution and Analysis of the Toothbrush. Electronic document, http://www. asme.org/newspublicpo l icy/newsletters/m etoday/anti cles/Evo l ution_Analysis_Toothbrush.cfm, accessed January 26, 2010. 53 South, Stanley 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Stevens, S.K., Donald H. Kent, and Autumn L. Leonard 1951 The Forbes Expedition. The Papers of Henry Bouquet, Vol. 2. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Stone, Lyle M. 1974 Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. Publications of the Museum, Anthropological Series Vol. 2. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Warfel, Stephen G. 2005 Historical Archaeology at Ephrata Cloister: A Report on 2002 & 2003 Investigations. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 2008 In Search of Fort Morris: A Report on 2008 Archaeological lnvestigations at the 333 East Burd Street Site, Shippensburg, PA. Unpublished manuscript on file, Shippensburg Historical Society. Wikipedia 2009a Masonry oven. Electronic document, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry_oven, accessed January 22, 2010. 2009b Earth oven. Electronic document, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth oven, accessed, January 22, 2010. 54 t THE DISCOVERY C}F FORT MORRIS, SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA STEPH~IV G. WAKFEL ANC7 PAUL (i. MAXR ABSTRACT Over the years multiple locations in Shippensburg, Penttsylxania have been dentitied by local and state authorities as the. site of Fort Morris, a French and Indian War period fortification. Recent analyses of geographic and primary historical dots suggested that one location was more likely than the others. At'cha~alagical, investigations, sponsored by the Shippensburg Historical Society in 2008 and 20Q9, were conducted to test the hypothesis. Discovered artifacts and features are comparable to ones Found at contemporary British fort sites and clearly demonstrate that Fort Morris Duce stood in Shippensburg's East Burd Street neighborhood. CN'f RUDUCTTON For aver a century Shippensburg, Pennsylvania (Fig. 1) residents have disputed the number and location of French and Indian Vl'ar era forts erected in the town. Controversy intensific¢ during the past twp decades in-.large- measure due to the publication pf IacaI historian Hayes R. Eschenmann's 1.98? hook, 7'hc~ Elersvc~ Fort Mi~ra•is. Prior to Esehenmann's work the debate centered around two locations and two forts, The locations were at opposite ends of xhe town, one at the western end on a sma11 hiH known. locally as the :Bulls Eye and the other at the eastern. end on a small rise near Shippensburg University (Fig. '?). The two forts were Fort Morris, a known. British provincial fact built in 1755 at the request of Governor Robert Morris fallowing Braddaek's defeat in western Pennsylvania, and an earlier "settler's fort" believed' to have been constructed sometime in the early 174Qs. Over the years sanity fairly elaborate arguments bath far .and against every conceivable permutation of the number and location of :forts .had been put forward. Eschenmann added fuel to this fire by proposing. a third location for Fort Morris, with the earlier settler's fort being Located at one of the other two sites. Fi};ure t. The lvcatian of'the town of Shippensburg in south-central Pennsylvania. 2 PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST 80(2) Independent investigations by'Marr (2004] and MaCorriston (2004) suggested that u~hippensburg had only ane fort ,Fort Morris - aiad that the mast likely site for that fort was in the East Burd Street neighborhood. In 2008 the $hippensburg I3istorcal Society decided to test the proposition and funded an archaeological investigation. of the site proposed by Marr and McCorriston. This paper summarizes the findings of field investigations carried out in 2008 and 2009. 'The excavations focused primarily on_333 East :Burd Street in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, and additianal exploratory trenches were opened on two additional. nearby cesidenfial lots. 1~'igure 2. The'town of Shippensburg with the location of rumored fort sites noted. HISTUR[CAL BAGKGROUNd On February 14, 1737, Edward Shippers II1 received a patent for 908 acres of land in Hopewell Township of what was then western Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: Spanning .the upland. area. between two. small streams that flow into the Canodoguinet Creek, Shippen's "plantation" became the nucleus of a small settlement that would eventually bearliis name.. As a proprietary town, land. transactions in Shipper's Ta~~n (Shippensburg}remained tightly controlled by Shippers and his sons, Edward IV and .laseph, throughaut their lifetimes. Following General F..,dward Braddock's unsuccessful. campaign to remove the French from their stronghold at Fort Duquesne. in 1755, French-supported :Indian attacks. intensified on' Pennsylvania's frontier communities. In response to this threat the provincial government authorized the construction ofa line of forts designed solely for defense. The,line paralleled the eastern foot of the Blue Mountain and served as a boundary between settlement and hostile Indian country (Hunter 1999:33). Orders to construct a fort in Shippensburg were given by Governor Robert Morris on July 9, 1755 (lfunter 1999:171). Over the next. year, several buildings, a 70' deep well, and a log palisade enclosure were; erected. Although the fort's location within the. Shippensburg settlement is not noted on contemporary maps or in historic documents, it is certain that it was built. on Edward Shipper's THE DISCO`JERY OF FART MORRIS, SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA land.: Shipper .instructed his son-in-law, Jarnes Bwd~ to obtain the necessary woad t'rotn tiffs "Saptin Land", a tract with pine and :oak located along present-day Burl Run just northeast of the old town center (Harr 2004:49}. Reason dictates that the fort site was located. close to this source of timber. In 1762,- Lievzenant Colonel William Eyre, a British m'[litary engineer, vzsitud Shippensburg and described Fort :Morris as s small fort made of stockades which stood on high gtbund tReece .1444:41); 'fhe Burd Streetneighborhood is l~catedonahilltop just west ofand.nearthe t8~s century town center. The;British Army, :under command of Generat john Forbes, mounted a second campaign to remove `the. French from Fort Duquesne. in 1758. Forbes was quite ill when his army marched to western :Pennsylvania. He convalesced at Fort Morris during most of August 1758 (see Stevens et al. 1951.366.477}. In a Memorttnclum dazed August 13, 1758, Fnrf Matxis is described in considerable detail "The fort is a regular square -with four Bastions, and one Gaze in that Curtain which fronts doe East towards the 7-awn" (Headquarters Papers 1758}. In addition to providing dimensions, a description of armaments,- and. recomrnendatians for;impravemct-ts, it is Hated that the fort has `"nine Huts and Houses... sufftcient far Barracks, Magazine. and Storehouse`for about I S0, ar 200 men,. A goad Draw=well, and an C3vcn" ~Haadquartcrs Papers 1758}. This description of Fart. Mortis is largely consistent with details illustrated an amid-l gch century plats: entitled "Fort at Shippensburgh" (Fig. 3). The plan, identified as Catalog Aluinber Add. 577 t4, is part of a military maps i:oilection housed in .'The British Library. It is noteworthy that the Memorandum and plan vary-with respect zo dimensions of the fort's waAs. For example, as drawn an the plan,. the curtain measures 88;feet. Yet, the Memorandum specifies the cartain is "about 63 feet." Hence; the plan illustrates a fort footprint which is nearly 40°la larger thanstated dimensions. Implications of this .discrepancy are discussed later in the report. Figure 3. Mid-lStb century plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh". 4 PENNSYI,YANIA ARChtAEOGCJGIST 130(2) Fort Morris was maintained and garrisoned through the early 1760s. According to Hunter (19GU:4b 1, fn. 387), an officer and eighteen provincial trogps were stationed in Shippensburg during the winterof 1763-1764. As late as 1764, Edward Shippen advised the inhabitants. of the town to dig a ditch around the fort (Hunter 1999:462).. Following Pontiac's War (1763-1765) and the cessation of native hostilities nn the Pennsylvania frontier, most of Pennsylvania's frontier forts were no longer needed. .Soma were abandoned and left to decay; some were torn dawn; others were adaptively reused for domestic or agricultural purposes. Historical evidence does not indicate what happened to Fort Morris. Continued habitation of one or several fort buildings is suggested by the results of archaeological testing in 2008. Artifacts dating from the :end of the fort period through the mid-1911' century clearly demonstrate that people continuously lived an the site until abouYthe l$60s (Warfe12008:19, 33-34). Deed and property/lot research compiled by Paul Warner, a Shippensburg historian, notes conueyance of title far an Ease Burd Street tract, which includes the 333 Bast Burd Street. house lot, in :1813. The tract was transferred from Edward Shppen to Thomas McCammon, a cabinet maker (Warner database, Deed 1-V 588, on file at the Shippensburg Historical Society), Importantly, an April 15, 2.860 transfer of tlxe same East Burd Street tract from R,P. McClure to Levi K. Donavin refers to the property as the "fort Field" (Cumberland C.ounty'Caurt House, .Carlisle, PA, Deed :Book. S 2:408). This reference surely denotes the former-fart site. Extant structures were not built on 333 East Burd. Street antic sorrrerime afterlvfarch 30; 1893, when title was transferred from llizabeth Graybill to John Hosfeld (Cumberland County Court t{ouse, Carlisle, PA Deed Book L 5:74). Years. lacer, Hosfeld reported the discovery of fort artifacts when the cellar was dug far his house (Eschenmann 198T:91). Itegrettab'(y, this collection of objeetscannot be located. Knowledge of Fort Morris' location in Shippensburg seemingly faded through-dine. By the1ate 19th century, it became intertwined with sa-csiAed Fort Franklin, which wes putparted 6y some .local. historians to be contemporary with Fort Morris and. also .located Cn Shippensburg.. A monument commemorating the site of Fort Franklin and its weld was ,placed at 335 East Burd Street by the Daughters of 1.$12 in 1937 (Eschenmann 1987:21-22), helping to perpetuate the idea that Shippensburg was the site of two colonial forts. Hunter (1999;462-463) persuasively debunked the Fart Franklin myth and stated that 19th :century references to a colonial .fort. in that part of Shippensburg can only be attributed to provincial Fort Morris. in summary, the site of Fort Morris. was unfortunately lost to time. ACthough several Shippensburg locations have been identified as the fort site over the past century, reexamination of primary documents, 19th century deed descriptions, anecdotal evidence, and the results of 2008 archaeological test excavations focused attention on the East Burd Streek neighborhood. 2008 EXPLORATORY EXCAVATION The site proposed by Marr and McCorriston is located at 333 East Burd Street in Shippensburg and became the focus of excavations. Three 14 ft long trenches were initially laid out in the northwest quadrantof the back yard (Fig. 4; a). Trenches 1 and 2 were three feet wide; trench 3 was two feet wide. The trenches were large enough. to :accommodate a sizeable volunteer excavation team, expose a significant portion of the back yard area unaffected by landscaping, and remove a sufficient volume of sail to recover artifacts. After the trenches were completely excavated and recorded, twenty-six shovel test holes (STH) were. laid out in the west side yard of the property. The two feet-diameter holes were spaced at six feet intervals on a southeast-aarthwest axis paralleling the west wall of the house. and positioned according to a systematic unaligned. sampling design. This sampling strategy is more precise than. a simple random design and more. sensitive to the detection of linear trends (Berry and Baker 1968:94). The staggered placement of test units prescribed by the design maximized the chance that a linearsubsurface disturbance, such as a buried fort trench, would be detected if present. Five snit disturbances or features were obse~vedra the trenches. Two of the features represented 'the installation of wood posts during the 20th century, while an additional two features contained 19th century fill, altltaugh it is not known why or when they were dug. The fifth feature was an iron water pipe trench which bisected each back yard excavation unit. This feature appears to date to the time THE DISCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA S of the present house"s construction and ikely delivered water from a well, located. under the floor of the present garage, to the house before the installation of a public water system. A total of 2,878 artifacts, representing 64.6% of all artifacts recovered during the investigation, were found in the back yard. The majority of these artifacts (2,228 objects} dated to the 20th century. biagnostic fort period artifacts found in back yard excavation units included hventy-two ceramic sherds, three kaolin tobacco pipe bawl fragments, one kaolin tobacco pipe stem, and two metal buttons: Apiece of lead buckshot, recovered froth french t, and seven wrought iron nails likely date to the fort period. $ath artifact types, however, persist into the early l9th century. Alley AJIry. ~6eneh mart Mrch marts 1 1 i I 1 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Ap~rtmnKf ~ Apartrarlh 1 1 1 1 I , ~ail[S•afd I haMh~ 1 itend+ I Pnpan,~Wel TnnA) 1 1 1 hOpeRy IIMI Nath 116 1 ~1 1 ~ aY(aAjbll ~. I 1 1 y Lwuh 1 1 I Path ~ Proplnylin• ( \ ter.. s~ ~~ I i o ~gwAY lqx. -~ i , , , y i Nyo Fo l ~ ~} 1 I I 0 O ~ I ` a ,a at 1i 1 I O o 4 I GsiW tl L I xa+)rl e I i O r l 371 ! a u' a l H is 171 ~.~ GN O ` 1' l3 'u i) l7 4T t ~ ~~~~. ~ ® O 0 0 I ~ t u y a n'at ie 6 s VVV I I p A O ~ ® ) s m a t q. > ! q H vra c. 1 ~ / r Ponh I Poidl / u 1 200~rM1tHb44 1 ~ No FS ~. ~ 16, . ~ 1 1 ; ! I Sidernik ~ ~ ~ EeM Bwdsueet uice«a s~r.« 240t{ 10tl~ Fgwe 4, Site ma.p: (a; left.} 2008 exploratory excavations; (b; right} 20Q9 excavations. The excavation of twenty-two shovel test holes in the west side yard revealed numerous soil layers, including a preserved section of original land surface encapsulated by clay fill and other discontinuous soil deposits. The fill, a mixture of tnpsoil and subsoil, i believed to have been dug from the cellar of the presen. t house and possibly East Burd Street during its construction. Thirteen. features were found under the buried land swface, yielding 410 arfifacts. All contained mid-18th century. fort period artifacts; some also contained coal.. and artifacts dating to the first. half of the.l9th century.. Two patterns. emerged as a result of feature. analysis. A cluster of deep features occurred in the southeast quadrant of the side. yard, where recovered artifacts indicate features were not closed. or filled until the 19th century. A linear pattern appeared. to be present along the northern edge of the side yard, where artifact density is less and objects dated to the end af'the fart period. A total of 1,574 artifacts were found inside. yard tests, representing 35% of all artifacts recovered during the investigation; however, 62.2% of all neramics recovered during the investigation were excavated from. the side yard. Diagnostic fort period artifacts found. in shovel test holes include ninety ceramic sherds, one kaolin tobacco pipe bawl fragment, two kaolin tobacco. pipe stems, one metal button, and a Clactonian style English musket .flint. Two lead musket balls, a piece of lead buckshot, forty-three wrought iron nails, and numerous fragments of dark green and olive hand- blown bottle glass likely date to the fort period as well, These artifact types, however, persist into b AENNSYLVANIA. ARCHAFpGOGIST 8(1(2) the early 19th century. The recovery of thirty-seven. ceramic .sherds dating from the end of the fort period through the middle of the 1.9th century complements -back. yard findings. These objects indicate people lived on the site after the fort was closed but before the East Burd Street neighborhood was developed in the late 1$90s. 2009 SITE 11XCAVATION Testing n2t)08 established that fart period artifacts and soil disturbances were contained in and below a buried land. surface located in the west side-yard of 333 fiast Burd Street; therefore, 2009 site excavation focused an this area. A 30' x 40' grid, consisting of 48 five-foot test pits (TPs) was laid out on the modern ground surface of the side yard (Fig. 4, b). -The datum, designated. NU E0, was placed at the southwest corner ofthe excavation block. The :grid was positioned so that it paralleled the orienfatian of the 333 East Burd Street residence. Grid north (GN), the orientatiar- ofnorth/south grid lines, is 34°23' west of magnetic north (MN). A bench mark of known elevation (b9004') was established on top of a protected wooden stake installed. during the 2008 excavation season. The stake is located on a property line ac the northwest corner of a concrete sidewalk at the rear of the 333 .and 33S East.Burd Street properties. As tine.investigation progressed, exploratory trenches-were laid out anti excavated'as extensions to the primary grid block. The so-called north extension trench extended 35' north of the northeast corner of the excavation block. .I1 consisted of TPs 49-55, each measuring 5' x 3', and intersected with trench;3 dug during the 2008 investigarian. The sa-called south extension trench extended IO' south a,f :the southeast earner of the grid block. TPs 56 and 57 measured S' x 3'. TPs 58 and S9 measured S' x ?'. TP 60 measured 3' x 3'; and TP G1, irregularly shaped, measured nearly #' x 6'. Additional trenches were eventually laid out and investigated at other locations in:search of the fort's palisade trench.. A so-called back .yard trench, measuring 1 b' x 3', was located on the east side of a concrete sidewalk which connects the 333 :East Burd. Street house. co its garage. A 32' x 3'trench was excavated 2' parallel tq and west of a concrete sidewalk in the: back. yard of house lot 327 East $urd Street. The trench began at a distance of 34'.3" north of the main house. A final exploratory trench measuring 14' 8" x 3' was excavated in the east front yard of 335 East Burd Street to search for evidence of a palisade trench and determine if a tone monument, erected there by the Daughters of 1.812 in 1937, actually marked the site of an i 8th century well Level 3, a Buried Historic. Land Surface Level 3 is the designation given to the buried historic land surface present in -the side yard. The soil layer consists of dark :yellowish brown (lOXlt4/b) silt loam.. Tt is covered by L;eve12 mottled strong brown (7.SYR5/8) and dark. yellowish brawn. (10YR3/4) clay fill. 'The clay fill is a mixture of topsoil and subsoil. dug from the basement and foundation footings of the cutxent house at the time of its construction in the. 189Qs, Level 1, in turn, is a modern topsoil layer consisting of dark yellowish brown (1 DY123/6) szlt loam; it blankets the entire side yard. Level l was emplaced after construction of the present house. Levels 1 and 2 wereremovedby shovel in the main excavation block and trench. extensions and were not screened. The top of Level 3 was hand-scraped to fully expose the layer and eliminate, to the. extent possible,. contamination from overlying layers: Elevations were taken at each grid point to document the exposed historic land surface, Obvious and expected intrusions in the old sail layer were circular disturbances marking locations of the previous excavation eason"s shovel test hales and the root system of a former dogwood tree. An unexpected discovery was a concentration of limestone pieces observed along the East 10 gridline (Fig. 5). The concentration was affiliated with a line of nearly circular mottled sail stains that prayed to be postholes. Each hole measured approximately l fi" in diameter and extended 20" below undisturbed subsoil. Because some of the postholes were revealed afer the limestone concentration was removed, oat atI holes were mapped at the Level 3 surface, Level 4 map sheets, however, show all posthole features. The row of postholes represents a fence line that once marked property boundaries. An 1858 Atlas of Gu-nberland County {Bridfens 1987) shows a .property line at this location, separating tracts of land awned by W. McConnel and D. McClure. THE DISCOVERY OF FART MORRIS, SHI1'PENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA ~ The historic land surface was excavated with small hand foals aitd carefully screened. A fatal of 10,044 artifacts were recovered. Principal artifact types found. in the soil layer include architectural. materials'(windaw glass, brick fragments, clay daub, plaster} roof slatefragments, ~vcaught and cut nails, icon spikes, oil lamp pieces, mortar);plain: and decorated red earthenware; plain and decorated porcelain; 18th century ceramics (English combed slipware; plain Staffordshire warn, plain and. decorated tin-glazed earthenware, creamware, Whielcion, :lackf eld, plain and decorated white salt- glazcd stoneware, Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware, red. dry-bodied stoneware, Cnglish brownyray stoneware, Westerwald stoneware); 19th century ceramics (plain and. decorated. pearlware, transitional. whiteware, hard v<~hite earthenware, :American domestic stoneware, A:lbany- slip stoneware, Racknghani); cletiting items (brass straight pin; copper, brass, tombac, pewter; and bone buttons; three brass thimbles; metal. buckles; Gaff links; glass beads); dietary animal bone and shellfish debris-, upholstery tacks; glasswares (squat, case, and ether battle pieces; tumbler and goblet fragments; vessel glass); household items (two-tine fork, cast iron caldron fragment); coal and. wood charcoal;.-persona! itett~s (coins, a brass bell, bane tooth brush. fragment, strike-a-life #]ants}; clay tobacco pipe bowl and stem pieces;'recreatianal items (clay marbles, pocket knife, lead pencil); foals (hay knife, hone stone, horseshoe nails, bridley9~arness pieces, barrel hoop pieces); weapons (trigger guard pieces, brass ramrodpipe fragment, lead. musket. balls-.and shot, gunflints); and a prehistoric spear paint. An in-depth analysis of special artifact types associated with the fott period is presented later in this paper. The mast recent artifact in the Levo13 assemblage was a single sherd of hard white earthenware pottery, sometimes. referred to as ironstone. A,ltktough this ceramic type was first produced in 1820, it did not.. achieve popularity until. the 1860s (Price 1979:11). Heitcc, it is likely that the old land surface was last inhabited at around that time. A mean ceramic date analysis of $21 ceramic sherds, representing 25 dateable 18th and 19th century ceramic types found in Level. 3, was conducted toevaluate the influence of fort period. activities on the old larid surface artifact assemblage. The analysis yielded apt average habitation date of 1782.9. The calculation gives particular weight to the quantity of a ceramic type and its median date -the midpoint between the times when a type was entered into and taken out of'production {see Figure 5. Tap of old. land. surface: (Level 3}, facing southwest. Note: limestone concentration between h•cc root atld west edge of excavation block. 13 PF.NNSYLYANIA ARCFI.9FQLDGIS'T ~40(2J Deetz 1977:1.7; South 1977:2t)7-218). In this particular case, the calculated date is earlier .than the assumed midpoint of site occupation, 1807.5 (assuming habitation.from 1.755 through 1$60). The calculated date suggests dense habitation associated with fort period. activities on the site. A separate independent dating catGulatian was done with clay tobacco pipe stems found. in Level 3. Archaeologists have long observed Ghat the .bore (hole) diameter of English tobacco pipes. decreases through time at a measurnble and predictable rate (see Binford 1978:66-67; Deetz 1967.41; Noel Hume 19:76:296-362). Based. on the hole diameters of 28 pipe stems found in Level 3, calculation yielded a mean pips stem date t~f 1762.75. This date is even. farther from'the assumed 1$07.5 told-mint of site habitation than Yha mean ceramic date. F~IItng near the end of the fort period (I755-1764), the mean pipe stem date again indicates that fort occupants were numerous and had a significant .impact on the site assemblage. The complete removal of Level 3 exposed a culturally sterile, strong brown (7.5YR5/$) clay loam subsoil The subsoil,. designated Level. 4, contained several dark-soil stains or features: All of these features were the result of activities that occurred on top of the old land surface, penetrated it, and disturbed the subsoil below. Evidence of former agricultural activity, for example, was-seen in plow scars that cut into Level 4 and trended north to south in parallel lines across: the sites.. Tt is thought that site habitation was suspended between the 1860s and i 890s, when. the project'area was actively farmed. Had the'site never been disturbed by plowing, layers.associated with differesnt site occupants would be neatly stacked one an tap of the other. Plowing systematically mixed the refuse of-all site occupants, yielding a diverse artifact assemblage like the one recovered from Level 3. Feature 25, a Fort Period Cellar Feature 2S is the designation given to a large feature discovered in the southeast corner of the main excavation block (Fig. 6), The deposit was detected by several test hales during the 2408 investigation. The feature consists of astone-lined cellar that marks the -site bf a fart period shucture. The cellar wal Is were made of dry-laid limestone and measure t 8"-22" in width. The full dimensions of the cellarare unknown. A rectangular depression along the exterior face of the cellar's north wall is believed to be a-gable end chimney footing (Fig. 7). if the chimney was cantered on the wall, the gable end. of the structure (building width) measured approximately l9', twice the 9' 6" distance from the foundation's northwest carnet to the midpoint: of the depression. Excavation of the south extension trench, which. tracked remnants of the west cellar wall, demonstrates .the building measures store than 23' 6" lang. No return wall was -found in the extension trench, Feature 25 fill consisted of a dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) clay and silt loam.. It lies directly an tnp of linrestane rubble, which in turn rests an the cellar floor. The. cellar'floor was composed trf native clay into which limestone pieces and cobbles were intentionally set, presutnahly to keep stored goods above damp earth. Traces of mortar found. on float stones suggest the floor may have once been covered with a crude finish. 7'he'limestone rubble layer consisted of ccillapsed foundation walls which were pushed into the cellar when the structure was demolished. Feature f'-Il is artifact-laden topsail that once surrounded. the structure And was pushed-into the cellar to close the hole. Five thousand two hundred and. eleven (5,211) artifacts- were recovered Pram Feature 2S, Principal artifact types found in the deposit include architectural materials (window glass; brick fragments, plaster, wrought and cut nails, wood lath, mortar); plain and decorated red earthenware; plain and decorated porcelain; 18t~ century ceramics (>rnglish combed slipware,plain and decorated tin-glazed- earthenware, creunware, Whieldon, Jackfield, plain and decorated white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch I31ue white salt-glazed. stoneware, red dry-bodied stoneware, Nottingham stoneware); 19~h century ceramics {plain and- decorated peaclware, hard white earthenware); clothing items {brassstraight pins; brass, tombac, pewter, and bone buttons; metal buckles; cuff links; a glass bead); dietary animal bone and shellfish debris; glasswares (squat, case,. and other bottle .pieces; tumbler and goblet fragments; vessel glass); household :items .(pewter spoons, cast iron caldron fragment, iron ladle); coal and wood charcoal; personal items (coins, bone comb pieces, strike-a-life flints); clay tobacco pipe bowl and stem pieces; a slate pencil; tools {saw blade; horseshoe nails, iron harness buckles, barrel hoop pieces); weapons (gun lock,. iron .trigger, lead musket. halts and shot, gunflints, knife. scabbard tip); and asin.gle ornamental coastal. marine s11eIL THE I3I:SCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, SHIPPEN5BIJRG, PENNSYLVANIA ~~~ Back yard ' trench 1 Proper~lyline ,A North i i ~--r, e~ension i i trench i F 1 ~ ~ Vorch i Property line i 1 1 1 N4o E~ feature z6 r F 1 1 1 feature 3z F ° 1 1 ~ F GN i i 3.33 East Burd St. 1 1 r MN 1 ° 1 1 1 1 1' I t 1 F t [ 1 t .F Pnrch 1 feature F Feet No Eo F ~S 1-t-t-1 1 1 a S so as 1 1 1 F I [ ~„ 1 I $IdeWalk -East Burd Street Figure G. Excavation map of site showing major features. v Figure ?. Feature 25, facing northwest. Note ehiinney footing depression outsi~c of narthwc;st wail. !ll PENNSYLI'A1YIA ARCH,4EOLUGIS'T 80(2) The Feature 25 artifact assemblage is remarkably similar to dte Level 3 assemblage. This is to be expected, if we consider that feature fill was part afthe historic land surface before it was pushed .rota the cellar hale. The mast. recent artifact found in the fill was a sherd of hard white ear[henware pottery. Its presence suggests the structure standing over the cellar was demolished ca. 186Q, a tune when this pottery type was in,comman use. A mean ceramic date based on 487 ceramic sherds, representing seventeen dateable 18th and 19~t' century ceramic types found in Feature 25 fill, was conducted for comparison with the. Level 3 assetnbtage. The calculated date is l'7G7A6. The result, which approximates the average date of hobnation,sdentifies atime just after the #'ort period, 'I( is earlier than the Level 3 date and indicates the structure at this location was used snare heavily 'during the fort period than any time thereaftet•. Calculation. of a mean pipe stem dale, based on a sample of i9 pipe stems,. yielded a date of 1768.£37. The date .mirrors the Feature 2S mean ceramic date and further underscores the impact fort period occupants had on the artifact assemblage. Their refuse simply overwhelmed that disposed by those who lived on the site ak3ner them. Featut'e 26, an 18th Century Oven? Feature 26 is the designation given to a canrplex sail disturbance uncovered in the northeast corner of the main excavation black. (see Fig. G). The principal component of the feature is a &" 6" diameter circular pit. The pit isbowl-shaped with a flat bottom and extends to a depth of !b" below T.eve14 subsoil (Fig. 8). On the west side ofthe pit is a shallow (1"-deep) depression, riddled with rat holes. Immediately south of the pit is a patch of intensely reddened and scorched earth. Feature 26 pit fill consisted of dark yellowish brown (I OYR4/4) silt loam mixod with yellowish red (SYRS/8) burnt silt loam. A concentration of limestone rubble, some pieces of which were heat- treatcd, was found near the bottom of the pit. Wood charcoal (133 pieces} was mixed throughout the fill. Figure 8. Feature 26, exposed stone rubble in pit, facing north. TI3E DISCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, SHIPPEIVSBURC;, PENNSYLVANIA !1 "fhe.feature yielded 843 artifacts including architectural materials (window glass, brick, wrought and cut nails, mortar); ceramics (plain and decorated red earthenware, over-fired redware, English combed slipware, plain Staffordshire ware, plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, white salt- glazed stoneware, Scratch Blue white saltglazed stoneware, decorated porcelain); a metal buckle; a cuff link; dietary animal. bone; glassware (case. bottle, other battle, vessel glass); a small tombac sugar spoon; coal; wand. charcoal; and a kaolin. tobacco pipe bawl fragment. These objects represent refuse generated by site inhabitants and were in the soil that was pushed into the pit to close the hole. The. most: recent artifacts in the assetnblage are l4 pieces of coal, found near the surface, and a single cut nail. .Both artifact types generally date to the early 19~h century and may be intrusive. It is noteworthy that no 19~h century ceramics were found in the deposit, suggesting the pit was closed shortly after the fort was abandoned.. A. mean. ceramic dace calculation based. on 19 ceramic sherds, representing six dateable I$~h ceramic types found in Feature 2b fill, was conducted .for comparison with Level 3 and Feature 25 assemblages. The calculated date. is 1749.5. This date is obviously earlier titan ones calculated for the historic land surface and the fort period cellar. 'T'he result is itrfluenced by the small ceramic .sample used for calculation anddoes not provide an estimated. average date of site habitation. ]t does, however, emphasize the early nature of activities at this location on the site. The pit was first thought to be the remnant cif an oven; associated with. an adjoining grain or dour storage area where the rat holes were concentrated. `Ovens were commonly used in 18~h century military campaigns for baking bread and. biscuits. Colonel. Henry Bouquet's Orderly .Hoak, dated.. June 17, 1.758 -September 15, 1758, includes several references to "Oven Makers", "Bakers", and "Biscuits" (see .Stevens: et a[. 19S 1 X655-690). The .structure or form of Feature 26 and the interpretation that it is an oven are problematic. Traditional tnasan.ry ovens were .constructed ofbrick or stone and covered with clay, daub, ormartar (Wikipedia 2009a). They date to Itotnan times and would be the mast. typical farm. in use during the [ gih century. Such. ovens, however, dq not require a subterranean pit; the masonry structure or baking chamber is built at ground level or higher. Earth ar pit ovens, on the other hand, are the earliest types used for baking (Wikipedia 2n09b). These ovens are characterized by rock-lined pits: Because it is necessary to superheat the racks for the oven to work properly, one would expect the pit's walls-and. floor to be'scorched. Yet, the only scorched earth observed in Feature 26 was a 1' 3" diameter circular area immediately south of the pit.. The pit itself showed no evidence of heat-treating. These findings raise many questions about the interpretation of the feature. Rocs Feature 26 represent a nontraditional form of oven? Is the stone rubble found in the fill the remnant of a masonry oven built-over the pit? Does the patch of fire-reddened earth designate the location of a hearth associated with. an oven ar some other type of cooking feature? Because the construcuan of 18~h century military ovens is not well documented, it is impossible to answer these questions; however, it is reasonable to conclude. that Feature 26 is affiliated with food storage anti preparation. Ttts conclusion. is further supported by-the observation that dietary animal bone (n=347) makes up 41°,~~ of the feature assemblage. Feature 32, a Fort Perlad [toot Cellar Feature 32 is'the designation given to a rectangular,, tub-shaped feature located only live feet west of Feature 26 see Fig, 6). The deposit measures 10' 6" x G' 6" and extends to a,depth of 20" below Level. 4 subsoil. It is oriented an the same northwest-southeast axis as the fort period cellar previously discussed ~'ig. 9). Feature 32 Fill consisted of dark yellowish brown (10YR3/6) clay and silt loam. Wood charcoal pieces (n=256) were strewn throughout the fill One thousand, two hundred and (arty-seven (1,247) artifacts were recoveeed from the deposit. They included architectural .materials (cvindaw glass, brick, wrought nails, mortar}; cerarics (plain and decorated red earthenware, plain and decorated tin- blazed earthenware, plain white salt-glazed stoneware, Scratch Btuc white salt-glazed stoneware, decorated porcelain); clothing items (brass button, pewter cuff link); dietary animal bone; glassware (bottle glass, gabiet stem, vessel glass}; a carved bone u.tcnsil handle; one piece of coal; woad charcoal; a brass trigger guard fragment;. and a lead musket ball. The most recent abject in the 7Z PENA/SYGY.4NIA ARC`I~~1~i7C~UGIS2' t~0(2) assentbta$c is a singte piece of coaC. It is'be[ic;ved to be intrusive, cslaeciakly since tta diagnostic I9~h century ceramic types exist in the assentbiagc. The date of the deposit or estimate of when the feature. was closed is based an tl~e presence of Scratch Blue white salt-glazed stoneware. This Engiish ceramic type was first made in 1744 and. taken out. of production in C 775, The absence of more recent ceramic types indicates Feature 32 was closed shortly after the fort°s abandonment, ca. L 7G4. A mean ceramic date caC¢u{atian based on 27 ceramic sherds, which represented aniy four ceramic types, yielded a date af` 1751.9. This date. precedes the fort period and does not suggesf the time of site habitation, but rather underscores the early nakure of the. deposit. Feature 32 is'intcrprcted to be a root cellar dug under an ephemeral fart period structure. Root cellars wea•e often dug .under building floors in tlyc 1$ih century fqr the purpose of storing vegetable craps. Unlike the Feature 25 structure which stand on a stone foundation, this but{ding probably rested on stone earner piers stacked on the ground surface. flawing of the site in the 19~h century ~vouid have forever erased evidence of the piers. The proximity afFeatures 26 and 32 is intriguing and probably not haphazard.. The sU-uctttre that stood over Feature 32, far example, cou{d have been a barracks that was szrved by a nearby food preparation area, Reyrettably, there is noway to confirm their functionalydatiat~shps without knuwi~lg the internal Cayout ofthe entire fart. House Lots 327 and 335 East Burd Street and the Back Yard Trench Test trendies were .laid out and dug in the hack yard of 3~7 East Surd Street, the back yard of :133 bast Burd Street, and the frantyard of-335 East E3urd Street with hopes ofuncavering evidence of the fart's palisade trench. Superimposition of the British Library plan of the "Fork at Shippcnsburgh" (sec -Fig. 3:) an an aerial map of the East 13urd Street neighbarhoad -suggested that segments of the fart's palisade trench might. have existed at thane locations. Figure 9. Feature 32, campCetaty excavated, facing southeast. THE DISCOVERX OF :PART MOPItIS, SHIPPENSHURG, PENNSYLVANIA ~-~ A 32' x 3' trench was located 2' west of and parallel to a concrete sidewalk in the .back yard of house lot 327. The south end of the trench was 34' 3" from the rear of the main house.. Excavation revealed a 9"-t0"-thick topsail layer that lay directly on strong brown clay subsoil. No buried land surface was evident. The only feature observed was a terra cotta drain or sewer pipe that crossed the excavation trench near its north end. 'Che purpose of the pipe is unknown, but. it may be associated with a back yard septic system in use before the installation of town sewers. The investigation produced .456 artifacts, most of which.. date to the late k9rt" .and 20~ centuries. No 18r~ century ceramics. or other diagnostic fprt period artifacts were found. A brass thimble and itan mouth harp recovered from the trench are both. similar to ones used during the 18th century but cannot. be dated to that period alone. as both artifact types persist unaltered into the 19~h century. The back yard trench excavated in the rear of 333 East Burd Street measured l6' x 3' and revealed dramatic soil disturbapces (E'ig. 10). A terra cotta sewer pipe was found at a depth of 7' I I" below grade, sloping towards the .garage. It was associated with concrete chunks- and limestone pieces. foal ash and cinder were mixed throughout the fill. The disturbance, designated Posture 59, postdates construction of the house and may have been a back. yard septic system used before the installation of town sewers. A single sherd aP Scratch Blue while salt-glazer] stoneware, a fort period ceramic type, was recovered from the deposit. Although it does not shed light on the fart palisade trench location, the sherd does imply fort period activities occurred nearby. Test trenches dug in the west back yard of 333 East Burd Street in 2008 also unearthed a small but distinct sample of fort period. objects (Warfel 2008:18). Figure 10. Back yard trench, 333 East Burd Street, facing west. ~~ PENNSYLV,4NIA ~lRC1~AEOCOGlS7' 84(2) On house lot-335 East Burd Street a 14' 8" x 3' trefnch was excavated in the easffront yard. The trench uncovered three soil layers. An 8'"-thick modern topsoil layer (Level 1 }blanketed. a l"-thick coal ash and cinder layer (Level 2). Bath covered an old land surface (Level 3), which overlay undisturbed subsoil. The trench was interrupted by a terra cotta drain pipe as well as a stone manumenterected by the .C-aughters of 1812 in 1937 to mark the site of a well, associated with what they thought was Fart .Franklin. Five hundred and four (S04) artifacts were recovered froth the trench. One hundred and ninety- two (192) of the objects were found in the old land surface. They included architectural. materials (window glass, brick, roof slate pieces, wrought and cut nails, mortar); plain and decorated red. earthenware; plain porcelain; 18th century ceramics (plain and decorated tin-glazed earthenware, plain and decorated creamware, Whieldon, .lackfield, plain white -salt-glazed stoneware; Scratch Blue white saltglazed stoneware); l9~ century ceramics (plain and decorated pearlware); a scissors; dietary animal bone and shellfish debris;.. glassware (squat and outer bottle, vessel:glass); a cast iron. pot fragment; coal; astrike-a life flint; and a clay tobacco bowl fragment. This assemblage includes artifact types repeatedly fdund in the soils and features of the 333 East Burd Street rprgject area.. Na evidence of the Eon's palisade trench was discovered in the test excavation. Comparable artifact types contained within a buried land surface indicate. the 335 East Burd Street house. tot also sits on or near the fort site. No evidence of an 1.8th century welt was found directly under the stnne monument. erected by the I7aughtersof 1$12 in 1937. In summary, supplemental archaeological testing at 333, 327, and 335 last Burl. Street did not uncover .segments of the fort's .palisade trench as hoped.. The test locations were selected by superitnpasing a copy of the. British :Library plan of the "Fart at Shippensburgh" on an aerial map of the East. Burd' Street neighborhood. Because (here is a discrepancy between fart dimensions depicted on the plan and measurements provided in a 1"758 Memorandum,. the true size of Fart Morris is unknown. This only. becomes a problem when we try to predict where fort wall trench remnants. arc likely to exist an' East Burd Street properties:.. The recovery of. fort period artifacts in the back yard. of 333 East Burd Street and. the tiont'yard of 335 Bast Burd Street indicates that Chase test areas are situated satnewhcre on or near the fart site. ARTIFACTS A wide variety of 18~h and 19th century artifacts have. been referenced throughout this paper and. all result from people living at the site during the fort ,period (1755-1764) and thereafter. Special attention: is given hereto those. objects. clearly associated with fort life: Artifact counts:and statistics used. in the discussion were derived from an analysis of assemblages recovered from the tarried land. surface (Level 3), Feature 25, Feature 26, and Feature 32 -all located on house lot 333 East Burd Street and referred to in this section as the "project area." Architectural 117atecials Most colonial sites contain architecturalntaterials, such as window glass, brick fragments, iron. nails, clay daub, plaster mortar, etc: (Fig. Ll). They provide clues about the makeup of former structures. The structure. that once sat over Feature 25, for example, was likely a log house with glass windows and interior plaster walls. It probably had a brick chimney on its north gable end and was .repaired numerous times throughout the first. half of the 19ib century. By .1850, it was nearly a. century old,. in poor.condition, and:a candidate for demalt'ron. This reconstruction is based an the recovery of clay daub, plaster, woad lath, window glass, brick fragments with creosote, 18'h century wrought nails, and 19t~~ century cut nails 'frgm feature fill. Wrought nails Were the-only type of nails available during the fort period and they make up ?0% (n=384) ofalt identi$able nails (n=S47), This is a strong indication of fort period construction in the project area. TI-Il/ DISCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, 5MIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1~ Figuro 11. Examples of brick, window glass, and iron nails [(cut (left) atxd wrought (right}]. Ccrxmics Pieces of pottery are commonly found an colonial American sites and can he impot4ant indicators of time and social status (Fig. 12). porcelain, for example, has always been the mast expensive ceramic type and is often found on military sites inhabited by ofticrts, Yr~'ho ~~°crc the gentry of Gn~lish society. Une hundred and forty-four (:144.) pieces were recovered from the buried land surface and Features 25, 26, and 32: 13atavan-ware, distinguished by an opaque brawn glaze on one surface and :either plain. or ablue-on-white. hand-painted tinderglaze decoration an the other (Miller and Stone 197U; Noel :Hume 1976:259-260), represents 10:.4°l0 (n=t S) of porcelain found in the project area. The ware was produced between 1740 and 17$0.. Figure 12. Select pottery types found in the project area. [Top raw, left to riglu: plain red earthenware, slip-decorated red earthenware, Staffordshire ware, blue-on-white tin-glazed earthenware, Whieldon (2 pieces), Jackfield; middle row, left to right: plain white salt-glazed stoneware, Scrateh F31ue white salt-glared stoneware, melded white salt-glazed stoneware, }tand- painted white salt:-glazed stoneware, red dry-bodied. stoneware, blue-an-white hand-painted porcelain; bottom row, left to right: feather-edged creamware, blue shell:-edged pearlware. All but the pearlware sherd are 1$th century pottery types.] !b PENNSYZ:I/ANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST 80{2) The mast common types. of pottery found an colonial American sites are. plain. and decorated red earthenwares. They were inexpensive and used far food storage, preparation, and service. Ironically, they are not useful datingtools because their fonrl$, glazes, and decorations chaiaged slowly through time. Three thousand five hundred and fifty-six (3;556) pieces were recovered. This reptesents 69.1 % of all ceramics (n=5;149) found in the project area. Fortunately, the records of many British pottery manufacturers survive, providing production dates far various types used during the fort period. Table 1 lists datable 1 Sth century types found in the project area and. the quantities of each. Table 1. Datable 18th Century Geranctic Types Found In the Burled Land Surface and Features 25 Zt% and 32. Frodncti on Date Median Qtwntity C'.CrAm.IC T, Be n land Date round En ish combed sli ware; lain. Staffordshire ware 1 G70 1770 1720 I0 Plain tin- 1a~.ed earthenwxi>r 1h40 180t) 172p 120 Uecoratcd tin- azed earthenware 1600 1$02 1750 94 Wlueidon ware 1740 1770 1755 67 liVhicldon/Wed wood Emit and ve etable ware 1759 1775 1"7.67 1 Jacktield 1740 1'780 1760 19 (.`,r+eamware 17G2 1820 1791 221. Plain and decorated rtihte salt- azed stoneware. I'720 .1803. 1762.5 3~4 ScraCCh Blue white salt- azed sionetvare 1'744 1775 1739.5 '113 lvlolded white salt- lazed staueware 1740 1:765. 1752:5 16 Red -6acfied stone>?vare J 763 1775 1769 ] 0 Nottin ham. stoneware 1700 1810 1755 2 VVesten;~ald stoneware. 1660 1775 1.717.5 3 Brown/ ra li lish stoneware 1690 .1775 1732.5 3 Although produced late in the. fart period,. creamwarets included in the list .because it is found on colonial Arr-erican sites as earlyas 1762.. '.Its presence in Ehe assemblage surely reflects both fort and post-fact periodhabitxtibn. Considered as a whale, these 1,023 I8th century ceramic artifacts makeup 72.8% of all datable pottery sherds (n=14Q5) found in the project area. Thys statistic is testimony to the number of people living on the site, during he fort period and their influence on the archaeological record_ The majority of ceramic types listed above are colisidered refined wares. Many represent: vessel forms associated. with the ritualized Fng1ish consumption of tea. The practice of taking. tea at an appointed hour was an Pnglish custom, particularly observed by English gentry and the. social elite in Britain's North. American colonies :during the first. half of the l $th century (Martin 1994:172; Roth 1961:66). Officers staying ar serving at Part Morris participated in this social behavior. Glasswares Numerous fragments of 18th century glasswares were recovered from the project area. They include fragments of battles, tumblers, and stemware (Pig. 13). Squat and case battles most atien contained alcoholic spirits, such as wine, rum, anal gin. These bottles were probably personal possessions of officers. Likewise, stemware and glass tumblers would have been available to officers, who traveled with accoutrements befitting their social rank, but not enlisted men. TI-E DISCOVI/RY ©F FORT MORRIS, SHIPPENSBUR~, PF.NNS1'LVANIA 1~ Figure I3..Select glasswares found at the site,. Tap raw: case and squat bottle pieces; bottom row, left fa right: goblet base fragment, bc~blct stem, htmblcr base. Clothing Artifacts A variety of objects related to clothing and clothing maintexianee were recovered from project ..area. soils (Figs. 14-16). The asscinbtage consists of 2fi buttons, 12 cufflinks, and 22 buckles -- all types or styles dating to the fort period and comparable to ones found on other krench and Indian War fort sites (see Grimm 19'70; Stone 1974). The buttons were made of brass, copper; pewter, tombac (a white. metal alEOy of copper and zinc which imitates-more. expensive metals), and bone. The cuff links were made of brass, copper, and pewter: Some are quite ornate and have glass insets. The buckles. were made of brass, tombac, or iron. Figure lit. Select cuff links and buttons found in the project area.. !x P[°~r4'~~'Sf't,[;~INI~ ARC'f~AFt31.t7CrlS'T rS'Cl(?J Tltc nntfonus ,or dress of 1 nth century offie~rs and soldiers were elaborately decorated with buttons and buckles on mats, waistcoats, breeches, and gaiters (see Gale 20U7:3~-SU). Slott cuffs were closed Hith buitcrrts <rr cuff links; shoes were sacured with truckles, 7'Itc appearance of a regiment's unifortns ~~~as fix.ed by retya! wanetttt; unit~trms were not m7c[eio,tny particular size (Csalc 20(37:3f}, 43), so rc~iaitcitia! tailors altered t~tern tci Iit individttat se~Idiers. According to Cali (2()Qi:4r}), "1"he soldier's cloth[stg and acccrutrentents were ex:tmimd weekly by the company tafticcr5. any broken nr lost hackies, straps, button,, or other items were iatmadiately replaced and cicducted ~frerrn thcof'"ender"s pa}>_" F"igtrrc~ I ,S. [3ut;kle #'rttane~, prong hc~pk, anti iron tc7ttgues fuunet in the project strca. Fi~urc Ili. E3rttss thimbles and straight pins found in the prraject arcs. 1'l-i[ D75CCJ~'EitY C7h FQR'C MC~RRI~, SF~If'PE~aS13t1RC~,'PENN~S~`C:VANlA , t9 Thirnblcs, pink, and scissors arc all items recitiired for clothing maintenance. 1f'regirncntal tailors ~W~ere not present f>r available, women ~i~ho folfow~ed the army might he called union to ~c-asti, press. or mend clothing {Ga1c 2tlU7a I ). The appearance ofthe E3ritislr soldier 4vasttot ht+phaxard: it was carefully monitored. "The :king's army was a symbol of his f;randeur €~nd power, ana #ht-s the better the appearance of his soldiers, the mare prestige it brought the monarch" ((talc 2UU7:vi). Personal items: Coins Six rains ~+~cre recovered froth project area snits. hour wire foundin'tbe L.cvel 3 G~uried [and surface a-~td Iwp were unearthed from k~eantre 25 I~ifl (Figs. t 7 and I ~}. 'T'Itree egins arc Spauish sihrer and three a3re (3ritish coppers. Spt-nisb coinage was widely dtstrit~uted throughput .the ct~la-ties because it was valued for its consistent wcigltt pnd }itarity. As noted by Jordan (l'~99), "lt bas beeu estimated that half of the coins iu colonial America were Spanish reales.'~' Archaeological excavations on colonial era_site~s freyttently unearth coins made in Spain or ifs New 't~orld calanial mints (cf: N'arfet ~()OS:3~). Fif;urc Ik. 'Thr reE=erse~ side of1757 old-h~ad King Cicorgr halCp~nny. Figure t 7: C;oinz found in the projectarea.Top rowrSpanish silver; bottom rr)w, Icft to right:. young- hcad Kind; Cicorge I! halfpenny, 177 c-td-head King Ci~orge II halfpcrrny, want E3ritish copper. ?tt !'>Giti':!VSYLI~Ir~-'IA ARGH~F_4LUGIST 8()("2) About the size of a .modern. dime, the only whale Spanish silver cain in the collection avas dated 1774. It depicts they boat of the kiia~t; and the Latina in~eriptian CARULUUS•IIl•l»t~CiRATIA (Charles 111 by tlae Grace af'Ciad) an the obverse side. Un the reverse side, the crowned shield a1' lean and Castile is I]ianked by the two Pillars of Hercules with the inscription. HISI'AN~ET liVp•REX (Kinl; of Spaiaa and the Indies) pasirianed arauncl the circumference. Neither the denanainatian nor mint mark is legible. The coin is well-warn and intentionally pierced. Coins were pierced sa that they could be sewed ar pinned into the lining of a cant far safe-keeping until needed (Jordan 1999j. The two other Spanish silver pieces are both clipped or cut. Pram whole coins to make change. AcGarding to Kays (2U01:21?(z}, •`('ut pieces ofwhale coins were known as 'sharpshins' or `sharp sih~er' since. the cut silver pieces did hark sht-rp edges'anci points." One is a sliver that bears ttae date 1742, an rxarnple of the original milled ar pillar series, first. minted in 1732, 7`hc other isa pie-±thapcd wedge and an example tif the sa-called "`new plate" series minted in Spain 4Jordan 1999). Alsca known in the English colonics'as a "pistarcen", the new plate cain was not intended far use in the New World. because it was twenty percent lighter than.Spanish colonial troins, i,e~, ones minted in New World Spanish colonies (Kays ~t)UI :2 { 7U}. Tlac wedge is likely a piece of a two rerxle coin. 'I"he British coppers are all halfpennies. f)ne is so hcavilycircutated that it is warn smooth. "fhe other tlvo bear images of King Gearge`I:i, who reigned Pram 1727 to f 76t). Une, missing its. date due. to wear, fs an exanaplc of a sa-called :young-head, issued during the years t729-1739: The;athcr is in very good condition, dialed 1757,-and an example-af an old-ltead'King George Il halfpenny (see Noel Hume 147Ea:157, 16~}. A British coin dated 1fi57, of caur5c, is a fortunate find an a colonial American faM site canstrucied in 1T55-1756. P'crsnnai ifrm~c. Hygiene Severijl'bane arfifacts relating Ea personal hygiene were found ira the project area (Fig. ly}. 1"hree are pieces afdnu[ite-sided bone hair eambsa one is tt'bane loath brush fragment. Stine Iambs were issued to 13ritsla soldiers, According to Galc (2UU7:52), "`fhe soldier's hair was regularly earrlbed in tlae naarning and evening, a freclucnt combing was believed to promote hair growth," Hc. further notes that °'Any soldier who neglected his hair by letting it bceorne tangled, dirty, arovcr-ntn With vermin, eras liable to be punished" (Gate ZOUZ:S2). Daulale-sided haircambs were used 'Yo remcave head lice.and, hence, are sotnctimes rcfcrrail tea as lice' (cootie} Iambs in the 19th century tNael I-t~me 1976:174-175 j, During the mid-18th century, mast people cleaned their teeth. by rubbing them with linen cloth dipped in sulfur oils and soh solutions (Sctnbcra 2UIU}, It was not until 178U that the first mass-produced toothbrush was rnadc by William Addis of C}erkenwald, England (library ofCangress ?t?IU}. Unly educated gentlemen of English society, such as military officers, ~vcrc likely to havekniswle'dgo afancfaceess#a a bone taattibnish during theFrench andIndianV4'ar. Figure 19. F3anc toothbrash and double-sided eambfragments found at the site. THE DISCC7VERY OF FDRT MOIt12I5, SHIPPENSBUItG, PENNSYLVANIA ~~ Personal items: Tobacco Plpes Clay tobacco :pipes were commonly used by $oth military officers and enlisted Wien (Fig. 20}. They were inexpensive and readily acquired from sutlers or merchants who fa[lawed the army jGale 2007:67}. Twenty-one (2l) kaolin clay pipe bowl pieces grid forty-seven (47} pipe sterns :were found in the project area. As previausiy discussed, pipe stem bare (hole) diameters decreased at a predictable rate throughout the 18~h :century: Thirty-six percent (n=17} of the stem .Bores measure 5164" in diameter; whereas, 63.8°lo{n=30} measure 4164" in diameter. The calculated mean pipe stem date far theproject area is 1765A4: For all intents and purposes, the result coincides with the end of the fort period and implies that most of the pipe stems were deposited by fort residents. Dietary Animal Bone Animal bone is a common artifact on l8ttt century sites and informs us about butchering pract-ces and .diet. During the Forbes campaign, soldiers were given Both fresh and salt-preserved beef and pork. as part of their cation when available. Herds of cattle, sheep, and hogs were driven to western Pennsylvania with. the British Army. By the time they arrived, the animals were often in poor condition :and yielded little meat (see fiuilday !970:.177-1.86}. Hunting far wild game .provided dietary supplement, but was restricted, especially at advanced outposts (see Stevens et al. 1951:659}. Twa thousand eight :hundred and eight (2,808}pieces of animal. bone were found in the project area.. This represents lfi.l8% of all artifacts (n-17,345.) recovered from :the buried land surface and Features 25, 26, and 32. Many were calcined, an indication they were tossed in the fire after meat was removed from the bone. Many exhibit butchering scars. Unfortunately, it is impossible to sort bones that resulted from fort period occupation from thast deposited cby post-fort inhabitants due to soil disturbance by 'the plow in the 19th century: Consequently, a detailed faunal analysis of the present collection will not yield a reconstruction of fort period dietary behavior. Tools An iron hay knife and a hone stone found in the ,project area are of pat~ticular .interest for they relate directly to a problem experieneecl by the British Army during the Forbes campaign (Fig.2l). h'iguxe 20. Select clay tobacco pipe bowl and stem fragments. All except for the. red cloy stem at the botfarn date to thel8th century. ?~ PE.'VNSYL~ANIA ARCHAEQLUGIST R~(2) Horses, Cattle, pigs, and sheep all. required forage. Jahn C:ruilday aptly notes that "Hay was as big an item to a horse-drawn army as gasoline to a modern military force" (1.970:177}: Grasslands were sought wherever the army went, but the campaign was stymied by a general tack of forage and complaints of starving pack and team horses were fregucnt. In response to concerns voiced 6y senior staff, General Forbes wrote from Shippensburg on August 1:$,.1758, "This same affair of the Forage has given me infinite inquietude...." (Stevens et al. 1951:383.}, He futtlier states, "I have set this Garrison. [the Fort. at Shppettsburg] and :mast of the inhabitants hereabouts a mowing and cutting down. all they possibly can with the instruments they have, so that I hope to have always wherewith to feed a Convey in case they be obliged fia stop :here on their march" (Stevens et al. 1951.:384). Many of the army's suliplies :passed through Shppensburg oa the: way to western Pennsylvania. StriKe-a-cites and G~untlints Throughoat the 18th century steel was struck against flint to make fire and produce a spark in flintlock firearms. Soldiers carried fire-starter kits (with strike-a-lice flints) as personal items. Gunflints were issued to troops and carefully moxtitared to.guard .against wasteful"behavior. Flints. were often in short supply during the Forbes campaign (see Stevens et al. 1951). Classification. of the two types of flints is problematic and subjective, becauseexhausted gunflints were oflentcused as strike-a-lites. Far the purpose of this repprt, flint;chps and flints that appeared to be too badly worn to be of use in a flintlack.gun were designated as strike-a-life flints. Eleven strike-a-life flints and... eight gunflints were recovered from the project area in 2009 (Fig. 22). All but-two were made from: English. or French flint and. represent two. common styles found on 1$th century sites -the C'lactanian gunspall style and the French blade style see Kent 1983:27-40}. The Clactonian gunspall flint catnmonly occurs on sites :dating between. 1700 and 1775'; whereas, the Frencb blade style flint is more frequently found onsites dating between .1.775 and 1825 (Kent 19Ei3:3 [, Table 2). Ttis noteworthy, however, that all French and Indian. War fort site collections surveyed by Kent. (1983:3(1, Table l}did include French blade style flints. Ten of tltc flints fauttd in the project area were complete enough to assess style. Seven (7) or 7p% are made in'the Clactonian ,gunspall style. [A Clactonian gunspall musket flint made from [;nglish flint was also fauttdin the project area during the 240£; test excavation (see Warfe12008:23}j. All but two of the Clactonian gunspall flints are fashioned from English flint; the other two are-made from French flint. On the contrary,. all three French blade flints are fashioned from French flint. 'Two pieces of local chalcedony, a microcrystalline variety of quartz, were. classified as strike-a- lite flints. Apiece of steel struck :against high quality chalcedony will produce. a spark. brit not as quickly or efficiently as English of French flint. The rise (or attempted use) of a locally available mineral may bc; testimony to the shortage of appropriate flints during. the Forbes campaign. Figure 2I . An iron hay knife and hone stone found in the project area. THE DISCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, SH:IPPENSBURG, PC:NNSYI.UANIA 23 .Figure 22. Select flints frpm'the site. Top row: ~'.laetoniarr gunspall style flints made :from English flint; pier;e at far right is local ehalccdotty; rttiddle raw: Claetonian gunspall and 'E^rench baade style flints made from French flint; bottom row: chalcedony, French flint, and Irnglish flint chi}is: Lead M14uskct balls and Shot Load musket balls and shok are cpmmon finds on French and Indian War tort sites. Thirty-four were recovered from. the project area (Fig. 23). "Cable 2 below lists the classification, diameter (caliber), and quantity of each. Cigure 23. Select lead inuskef balls and shpt found in the project area. Piece at far end of third rp4v is a trimmed spree. Ghe~ued and deformed balls are in the bcmpm row. 24 PENNSYLVANIA ARCI~AEOLIUGIST 80(2) Table 2. Classification of Lead Musket :Balls aad Shot. A 2 deformed by impach 1 w/ 8 1 chewed .6,¢-.Z2 caliber musket ball .58-.G4 caliber trtusket ball ,47-.5G caliber musket ball ,25-.44 caliber buckshot .06-.21 caliber brdshot. line around 5 1 scarred; 2 scarred and possibly chewed Il All of the .66-,72 caliber musket balls-could have been'used in a .75 caliber musket, such as the Brown Bess, which was. standard issue far the British Army. Hanson and Hsu (1975:80), wrking about musket balls recovered from ..Fort Stanwix, New York., note, "The smaller diameter ball was necessitated by the black powder used to fire the piece, which left a carbon deposit in the bore, and the paper cartridge used to seat the ball-against the powder." Musket balls measuring .58-.G4 caliber may have been used in nonstandard; muskets carried by some Provincials. Balls measuring .47-,5¢ .caliber were Iikely used with American rifles or pistols (Hanson and Hsu 1975:80). Both :British .Army regulars and Provincial soldiers garrisoned Fort Morris during its history {see Hunter 1999:461). .Buckshot and birdshot also occur with frequency on French and Indian War fort sites. Shot-was wrapped in paper cartridges and fired from muskets. It had. a spray et;<'ect similar to that of a modern .shotgun shell.'Several of the musket balls appear to be chewed. Chewed Icad balls; that is; balls bearing human tooth impressions, have been recovered from. a variety of 1$~ century military sites in North America, Hanson and Hsu (1975:79-80), citing from a Revolutionary War account, note that two privates who were whipped "...did :not utter one ward of Complaint; but each taking aleaden bullet in his mouth, bit upon it as the punishment was inflicted:" Chewed musket balls have also been found. at field hospital sites, where they were clenched during painful treatment. Gun Parts An iron 'gun lock. plate and several gun part fragments were found. in the project area (Figs. 24 and. 25}. 'The gun :lack plate measures 5" 14ng. It is heavily corroded and appears to be nested with part of a hammer/cock (missing the top jarv}, a frizzen, main spring, and pan. This is not an .intact lock. The frizzen is reversed and out ofplace; the hammer/cook lower jaw rests below the-pan. It is thought the parts were stored. together and then rusted, yielding.: the present configuration. The type of gun for which the lock plate was .made is not known. It is. toa'short to fit a Brawn Bess, which has a lock plate that measures between 6"-7" long (see Gale 2007:5-1$). Figure 24. "Iron gun lock recovered from Feature 25. THE DISCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, SI-IIPP1rNSBLJRG, PENNSYC:VAN[A 2S Figur© 2~. Brass trigger guard fragments and iron trigger (second row}. C)ther gun parts found in the project area include an iron bigger, three brass trigger guard preees, and a brass ramrod pipe. One of .the trigger guard pieces has a distinctive hole, designed for attachment of the rear sling swivel The life eXpectancy'af a musket during the`mid-18th century was eight to ten years (Gate 2QU7:22}. Companies ~v~~re supplied with repair parts, and repairs were made by military arntorers or contracted. blacksmiths. If a soldier's musket broke as a result of neglect, the cost of repair was deducted from his pay (Gale 2007.23.}. Soldiers were respo~~sible far all issued weapons and accoutrements. Native American Trade Objects: Five :objects; related to trade with Native Americans or the presence of Indians at Fart :Harris, were recovered fram the project area (Fig. 26}. Three are European-made glass beads, fiwo of the beads are wire-wound, a type characteristic of the first half of the 18th century (Kent 1984:213). The third isa seed bead, so-caned because of its diminutive size. Seed.beads are particularly common on mid-18~h century sites. Glass beads were attractive. trade items and gaite popular with native peoples. They were strung and used :as bracelets and necklaces ar sewed into garments. Figure 26. Passible trade objects found in-the project. area.. Top raw.: limpet shell; middle raw: brass bell, wire-wound beads (2} bottom raw: seed bead. 2b PENNSYLI!ANIA,4RCHAE~LOGIST 80(Z) Another passible trade item is a fragment of a brass belt. -Bells are often found on 18~h century native sites (see Kent 19$4:398). Alternatively, the bell might be associated with the many pack and team horses. that passed through Shippensburg (see Stevens et al. 1951:230). Several references in Colonel Henry Bouctuet's orderly Book specify that. at night "their Sells [must bej 5topp'd" {Stevens et al. 195.1;558, 556).. The final item is a southern coastal marine shell, known as a limpet. Native peoples used all types of shells for ornamentation. It is entirely possible that this shell was worn and cost by a southern Indian at Fort Morris. On May 30, 1758, Captain Bosomworth, writing from Shippensburg Hates that "Capt. Trent Caine here Inst night with Wahatchee & a Party of 25 warriors..." {British Museum Additional :Manuscripts, 5cries #21655.2). Wahatchee was the chief rif "about 30 southern. Cherokee towns, and reputed to be a great rogue, interested only in presents to be secured from the Epglislt" {Stevens et al. 1.951:20, fn 10). The southern Indians were particularly encouraged and recruited to assist the British Army with removal of the French and their native allies from the Ohio Raver Valley. CbNGLUSION5 The discovery of fort period features and an impressive quantity of mid-eighteenth century domestic and military artifacts in the side yard of 333 East Burd Street demonstratethat a part of Fort Morris once stood there. Although fort artifacts are mixed w%th artifacts from later site habitation detailed. analyses of ceramic sherds and kaolin clay tobacco pipe stems demonstrate that site occupation was denser during the- fort period than any time thereafter. Ueneral Forbe's illness in 1758 proved. fortunate in 2008 and 2009. Because Izc and. his 'men were forced to remain at Fort Morris for a month while he convalesced, they inadvertentlyenriched the archaeological record with more refuse than. would result from a'brief stay. The types of objects: found in the project area are entirely consistent with ones ;recovered Pram contemporary French and Indian War period fort sites garrisoned by the British Army. Archaeological findings-presented in this paper are ndependene confirmation of conclusions drawn from die examination of primary documents by McCorriston (2004) and geographic data by Marr (2004). Considering the density. of'housing develaprttent and: ground disturbance. that has taken place in the I:;ast Burl Street'neighborhood since the 1890s; it is remarkable That any intact evidence of the fort survives. llnsuccessful attempts to [orate segments of the fort's palisade wall trench do not diminish the importance ofthe project's findings; rather, they make it difficult to accurately place the fork on the modern landscape.- Discrepancies between fort dimensions cited in a 1758 Memorandum and a British Library plan of the "Fart at Shippensburgh" add to the confusion. It is not known. which, if either, is accurate. Attempts by the senior author to reconstruct a fort plan using Memorandum dimensions were unsuccessful withouraltering stated measurements. By default, it is assumed the British Library plan most closely. replicates the fart's size. Figure 27 illustrates superimposition oftheBritish.Library fort plan'on an aerial vieti~ of the [cast Bard Street neighborhood. The. Library. plan is aligned to correlate position oftee -v+est corner-of the guard house (see Fig. 3) with the northwest corner of the fort period cellar; Feature 25. Tr affords a view of properties surrounding the project area that might yietdfort period objects and. features. The future .discovery of two or .more segments of the palisade trench is required to resolve questions regarding the fort's size and position on the modern landscape. The discovery of Fort Morris settles acentury-old debate within the Shippensburg community and enables the correction of erroneous historical markers placed at various locations throughout the town. This practical outcome maybe the mast enduring product of the. 2008 and 2009 Fort Morris archaeology projects. T'I3E DiSCOV.ERY OF FORT MaRRIS,.SHIPPEN5BURG, PENNSYL`VAI`lIA 27 Figure 27. British [.ibrary plan. of the "Fort at 3hippensburgh" superimposed on aerial photograph. of the East Burd .Street neighborhood: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We sincerely thank the Shippensburg Historical. Society for undertaking and supporting research required to .identify the Fort Morris site. The project renewed interest in Shppensburg's colonial history and:brought together members of the university and. local communities.. The amount of work achieved as a result:of volunteer effort under direction of the senior author is tn-ly extraordinary. Mare than one hundred people donated 4,;144 hours in the field and lab. Shippensburg University's Departmant of Geography and Earth:Sciettce kindly provided laboratory space f'or artifact processing after the `alone of field activities. We are especially grateful to David'Ferry .owner of the 333 East $urd Street property: lIe selflessly gave consent to disturb his yard and donate discovered artifacts to the Hista~•iaal 'Society. Without ltis support the location of Fort Morris. would have remained a mystery. Paul Raber is also thanked for rcviewingthis manuscript. REFERENCES Berry; Brian 7: L., and Alan M. Baker f 9fi8 Geographic Sampling. Itt Spatial Analysis: A Reader In Statisti~trt Geography, edited by Brian J.L. Berry and I}uane F. Marble, pp. 91-100. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 13inford, Lewis R. 1978 A New Method of Calculating hates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples. ht flirtorical Aichacology: ~! Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 66-fi7. Haywood, Farmingdale, Tlew York. Bridgens, Henry F. 1987 Atlas of C«mberlarrd County; Aenna., 185J. Originally published 1858. Reproduced, Cumberland County Historical Society, Carlisle, Pcnnsylvattia. British Museum Additional Manuscripts 13ouyuet Papers, Series #?1655:2. Photostatic copies in Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 18 PIsNNSYLPANIA ARCHAEOLOGIST 80(2) Deets, Jarnes 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. 'Ilse Natural I-listory Press, Gau•den City. New York. 1977 In Small Things Farnotten: The Archaeolagv of ,Early American Life. Anchor Books, Garden City, New Yark. Eschenmann, Hayes R. 19$7 The Ehesive Fort Morris. Beidel Printing House, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Gale, It, R. 2407 "A Soldier-Like I3'ay": The Material G`ultrtre of the British ItIJantty I T51-17tS8. 'T'rack of the Wolf, Elk River, Minnesota. Grimm, Jacob L.. 1970 Archaeolog{ca! Investigatior: of Fort Ligonier, 1960-I96S. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Vol. 42. Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh. Guilday, John E. 1970 Animal Remains from. Archaeological Excavations at Fart Ligonier. In Archaeological Investigation of Fort,Ligonier; 1960-1965. Annals of Carnegie Museum, Vol. 42, pp. 177-t$6. Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh; Hanson, Lee, and Dick Ping Hsu 1975 Casernates and Cannonballs: Archaevlogica! Investigations at Fort Stanwix, Rome, New York. Publications in Archaeology t4. U.S. Department'af the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, b:C; Headquarters Papers 1758 Memorandum of the Fort at Shippensburg (August 13~ t 73$). Headquarters Papers of Brigadier-General John ~'orfies Relating to the F..xpedition agaittsf Fvrt Duquesne in 1758: Caltecfian 10034, Txacy W. McGregor Library. University of Virginia, Charolettsvilte, Virginia. Hunter, William A. 1999 Fortson the Pennsylvania Frontier, 1753-175$. Reprinted. Wcnnawoods; Lewisburg. C)riginally published 1960, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, I-larrisburg. Jordan, Louis 1999 Spanish Silver: General Introduction. :El.ectranic document, http:!/www.coins:nd.edu/CalCoin/ ColCoinlntrosJSp-Slver.intro.html, accessed. January 7, 2010. .Kays, Thomas A. 2001 When. Cross Pistareens C`ut Their Way Through .the Tobacco Colonies. The G'vfoniat Newsletter, April. 2001:2-1.69-21-99. :Kent, Barry C. 1983 Mnre an Gpnflnts. Historical Archaeology 1.7(2):27-40. I984 Susquehanna's Indians. The. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, I~arrisbutg. Library of Congress 2010 Who Invented the Toothbrush. and When Was 1t Invented? Electronic document, httpJ/www.lbc.gav/ rrlscitech/mysteriesltooth.hfml, accessed Jtinuary 26, 2010. Marr, Paul 2004 Finding Fort. Morris. t~tit/dle Stntes Gevgraph~r 37:45-52. Martin, Ann Smart 1994 "Fashionable Sugar Dishes, Latest I`ashion Ware"; The Creamwarc Revolution in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake. In NistvricalArrhaeo/vgy af'the Chesapeake, Paul. A. Shackel and Barbara J. I:ittle, editors, pp. 71-102. Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware. McCnrriston, John 2004 An Analysis of the Known Pacts Regarding the Location of Shippensburg's Colonial Fort lvlorris. Unpublished manuscript on file, Shippensburg Historical Society. THE DISCOVERY OF FORT MORRIS, SHIPP:ENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA '~ Miller, J. Jefferson, and Lyle M. Stone 1970 Eighteenth-Cenlrtry C`eramics,jrYrrn Fvr9 A~lic{rilimackinac: A Study in Hstpr•ical Archaeolvg}: Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Noel Humc, Ivor 1976 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopt; New Yvrk. Price, Cynthia R. 1979 l9th Century Cerarnies... in the Eastern Uzark .Border Region. Monograph Series Number 1. Center for Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri. Reece, Frances R. 1944 fblonel Fyre's Journal of His Trip frnm New York to Pittsburgh, 1.762. l~estern Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 27:37-50. Roth, Rodris 1961 Tea Drinking in Eighteenth-Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Contributions to the hluseurn of history and Tecfrnology Bulletin Nv. 225 (Paper 14). Smithsonian Institution, Vashington, D.Q. Sembera, Kyle W. 2010 Of Finite-Element Analysis and a Winning Smile: Evolution. and Analysis of the Toothbrush. Electronic document, http:/,%www.asme.org/newspubl icpolicylnewsletters/metaday~'articles/Ev~lution_Analysis . Toothbrush.cfm, accessed January 26, 2010.. South, Stanley 1977 ,L~etltvd and Theory in Ilistvrical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York_ Stevens, S. K., Donald H. Kent, and Autumn L. Leonard. 1951 The Forbes Expedition. The Papers of Henry Bvuyaet, Vol. 2. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Stone, :Lyle M:. 1974 Fort .1-tichilimrickinac 1715-.lilil: An Archrteril~gicrxl Persvective un the Rcwvlulionpry Frontier. Publications of the Museum, Anthropological Series Vol. Z. Michigan State University, East Lansing. Warfel, Stephen G. 2005 Historical Arrhaevingy at Ephrata Cloister: A Report nn 2(1Ql & 2l)p.1 Investigations. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Qomniission, Harrisburg. 2008 In Search of Fort Harris: A Report an 2008 Archaeological Investigations at the 393 Fast I3urd S#reet Site, Shippensburg, PA. Unpublished manuscript on file, Shippensburg Historical Society. Wikipedia 2009a Masonry oven. Electronic document, http:/Jen.wikipedia.orgfwikiJMasonry_oven, accessed January 22, 2010. 20096 F:;arth oven. Electronic document, http:!ien.wikipedia.org/wki/f;arth_oven, accessed, January 22, 2010. STEPHEN G. WARFEL 619 HALDEMAN BLVD. NE1V CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 PAUL C. MARK DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRr1PHY AND EARTH SCIENCE SH:[PPENSBUKG UNIVERSITY SHIFPENSBURG, PA 17257 Essay In Search of Fort Morris By Paul Marr Department of Geography-Furth Science Shippensburg University Abstract On July 31, 1755 following the defeat of General Braddock's army at the opening of the French and Indian war, Governor Robert Morris commissioned the construction of two stockade forts, one in Carlisle and one in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Constructed under the guidance of Colonel William Burd, 5hippensburg's Fort Morris was one of a line of frontier defenses erected to protect local settlers and garrison provincial troops. For over 100 years local historians have debated the location of Shippensburg's small fort. Using extant documents, a site for the fort was proposed and investigated in 2008-09. This essay will relate my experiences in how a small academic project blossomed into a project embraced by the entire community, eventually leading to a full-scale archaeological excavation of the site. A Curious Walk This project began due to my initial confusion over a couple of historical markers in the town where I teach. In the late 1990s, as a new faculty member in the Geography-Earth Science department and a new resident of Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, I decided to walk around town to get acquainted with its layout. Just down the street from my house I came upon cwo markers. One, installed on a rocky outcrop called the `Bull's Eye' along the town's main road (King Street) by the local Civic Club, stated that it was the site of an old French and Indian War fort called Fort Morris. Not five feet away was another marker installed by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC, who are responsible for all of Pennsylvania's official historical markers) stating that this was the site of a block house used during the retreat of General Braddock's ill- fated campaign to Fort Duquesne. As I walked to the center of town, I came across another PHMC marker noting that Fort Morris was about a block north at the site of an old "soldier's well:' However, when I arrived at the site I was greeted by a small stone monument stating that this was the site of Fort Franklin. I guess my curiosity got the better of me, because over a decade later, I am still trying to figure it out. It turns out that local historians have been trying to find the location of Fort Morris for over 100 years. As far back as 1896, when the Commission to Locate 70 Material Culture the Site of the Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania published its findings, there was confusion over the location and number of forts in Shippensburg (Weiser 1896). The site of Fort Morris has been variously placed on the western end of town on a low hill; the eastern end of town, again on a low hill; and more recently, on the southern end of town on a somewhat higher hill. Each of these locations has also been attributed to Fort Franklin, with each fort swapping places, depending on the writer. What is clear is that for the past 100 years state and local historians believe that there were either one or two forts in Shippensburg and that the location of neither is known. Over time, two camps emerged regarding Shippensburg's colonial era forts: the first believing that the town had two forts, one earlier settler's fort constructed around 1740 and a provincial fort constructed in 1755 in response to the hostilities of the French and Indian War; the second believing that only one fort (Fort Morris) ever existed. I consider myself to be in the latter group. According to local tradition, Fort Franklin was named after Benjamin Franklin. Franklin, although awell-known printer, had not achieved international fame by the 1740s and attaching his name to a remote settler's fortification seems unlikely. Local tradition also has the settler's fort as being about 500 square feet, a substantial piece of construction that would have been well beyond the needs for the settlement's small population. Finally, in the 1740s there were no hostile local natives. The native and European population in the area was very small, and without an immediate threat to their livelihoods, building a fort on such a scale would be completely unwarranted. It is my belief that there was only one fort in Shippensburg -Fort Morris - and that the appearance of a second fort in the local histories was simply a misreading of the extant documents. Yet once the myth of Fort Franklin took hold it became so intertwined with the true local history that separating fact from fiction became extremely difficult, so much so that period documents were forged to "prove" the existence of a second fort (Hunter 1960, 437). To-date there have been three sites seriously proposed as that of Fort Morris: the King Street site on the far western end of town, the Ridge Avenue site on a hill on the eastern side of town (Eschenmann 1987), and the Burd Street site on the northern side of town. So where was Fort Morris? Luckily, the extant documents give us some clues as to the location and layout of the fort, and using geographical techniques we can narrow the search for Shippensburg's elusive fort. However, in the process of finding Fort Morris it became clear that many people were heavily invested in these local traditions and upending these traditions can lead to hard feelings and acrimony. Narrowing the Search Several documents were used to narrow the search for Fort Morris, specifically letters between the principals involved in the fort's construction; however, the most important were a 1758 memorandum written by General John Forbes concerning specific Features of the fort (known as the Forbes memo) and an Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 71 undated fort plan showing its layout (Figure 1). Using clues in various letters, the Forbes memo, and the British Library map, a defensible argument for the site of the forts can be compiled (See Marr 2004). Early in the fort's construction, Charles Swaine, who while in Shippensburg, wrote to Governor Morris on July 20`h, 1756 that: "I suppose the people will now come fast into these parts & I shall use all possible expedition in forwarding the Fort. I have pitched on a piece of Ground of Mr. Shippeys [Shippen] ~ the timber about here is all his, therefore should be glad he was wrote to about it, if your Honour thought proper that there may be no claps on his part" [Italic added] (Charles Swaine to Robert Morris. July 20, 1756). Swain has laid out the fort on land owned by Shippen and was obviously concerned about using Shippen's timber in its construction. Shippen apparently wanted to save his timber for other uses, and in August of 1755, as the fort was being constructed, wrote to James Burd, "I hope the people will all get together immediately to build the ffort (sic) and You will get pine Logs and black Oaks from Saplin Land..." (Shippen to James and Sarah Burd, August 7, 1755). Shippen's "Saplin Land" was a portion of his original 1737 patent located north of the old town site along a small creek that is now called Burd Run. Since oak and pine are upland species, Shippen would have been referring to an elevated section of his land. It is also interesting that Shippen specified his "Saplin Land" since trees found here would have been smaller, second growth trees. Apparently Shippen did not want the fort built using his higher value timber. Colonel William Eyre, who visited the fort on February 13, 1762, described the area and the fort as follows: "This Part of the Country is remarkable for being ill water'd, for there is not above two small Streams from Yellow Breeches Creek to Shippensburgh, being near thirty Miles in Length. This is a small Place, tho' it appears, as if it were going on to do well. Its not ill situated, and has two small Streams of Water running thro' it at each End. There is a small Fort made of Stockades here, but no one in it. A Well within Side [is] seventy Feet deep, and very good Water; it stands high" (Reese 1944). Perhaps the best evidence for the location of Fort Morris is found in the first line of the Forbes memorandum, where he writes, "The Fort is a regular Square with four Bastions, and one Gate in that Curtain which fronts due East towards the Town" [Italic added] (John Forbes, General. Memorandum of the Fort at Shippensburg, August 13`h, 1758). Of the three proposed sites, only one Fits all of criteria laid out in the extant documents. Shippen did not purchase the 109-acre tract of land at the western end of town that encompasses the King Street site until 1762, at the end of the hostilities. This location is also 30 feet from the groundwater and over a mile south of the original town site, too far away to be of any real use in an emergency. The Ridge Avenue site, while within Shippen's original land purchase, is nearly one-half mile east oftown -rather far to be of use in an emergency - and in the 72 Material Culture pI/Ir.9N[dOtrA. I'..fBiJL / r.~ .Ir+•.Al.rw~:Fl/„!/.£r~j,/rOulq ~y.nrlJS/.. r+b wx .!w/r,µ..N /,~. -~~ y dlprl,,.f'~X:. ....R..1f. ..r /ti /. /.:wr 4/ /w:.~ .r„~e,r.A...•....»..w .OY.,a.I.+a-•A' 3....i.t~.... eG~r...drn:!( d./J;~e.. ~:..... a..w f.wW.. AG..t.:sh ~.~nrF.:....rf.+/J..•••s.~. :X~. ....k'... SGw.c w-..r 1~3..+re....M.• J.nw.. ..: ~.. d•.r . ...~.. ~.-! .,c'na. e ~.Y'(I./4~r.. /N'~ dom. i o~..l`.r6....,lr,! fir: t~ <wFr ~ L ~ /.u.~. 4r J.Y.: r .....L.?w rv ::,rt 4. ,..r ..., ..... r•.. d-!.. ` ; /.. .I.,~.1/, f+" J-, ... .. ~.. r..+ fi . N...:" f A...d..p r ..... r ..t...,.. ~a~.i g+ +(.../. /r..Grw/.+a. ~S Jfn... t+• rri~'~°~ _{; E - I a.'. -.,r .. ., r a ., Figure 1. The 1758 Forbes memo (left) and the British Library map (below). ® ~~~ AR M~^r ~, . t, .s= `_~... Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 73 opposite direction of the perceived danger to the west. The Ridge Avenue site is also too elevated, being over 100 feet above the groundwater, and quite distant from Shippen's "Saplin Land," so the timber would have to be hauled uphill a great distance. Only the Burd Street site is close to the "Saplin Land," within Shippen's original land purchase, approximately 70 feet from the groundwater, and only about 700 feet west of the old town site. The Search Begins Unbeknownst to me, John McCorriston -president of the Shippensburg Historical Society -had also been giving the Fort Morris issue some thought. John had contacted Steven Burg from the university's History Department to discuss Fort Morris, and Steven contacted me. Together we decided to try to establish where the fort was situated. Although the most likely site of the fort had been identified based on the available evidence, the only way to be certain would be to perform an archaeological excavation. Unfortunately, the Burd Street site is now a residential neighborhood. The lots in the neighborhood are long and the houses are packed rather tightly together. Many of the houses were built in the late 1800s and there are a substantial number of outbuildings occupying the back portions of the lots. There simply was not much open space on which to dig. There was also the issue of funding: performing a professional archaeological excavation is expensive. We could find volunteers to do much of the heavy work, but hiring an expert on French and Indian War archaeology would probably put the price tag out of reach of a small town historical society. However, our greatest concern was the excavation itself: who would let us dig up their yard looking for a fort that most residents thought was on the other side of town? Our luck could not have been better. The Shippensburg Historical Society, with the help of the local Chamber of Commerce, submitted two grants through Representative Rob Kauffman's office, which were then funded through the Department of Economic and Community Development. Together these two grants totaled $12,000 and gave us just enough funding to do test excavations and hire Steve Warfel. Steve had retired from his position as the state archaeologist recently and is an expert on French and Indian War sites, especially fortifications. As to where we would dig, given the limited space available, once again luck was on our side. While the majority of the area is covered by either structures or pavement, one house on the proposed site sat on a double lot. That house belonged to Mr. David Ferry and we could not have asked for a more accommodating landowner. A French and Indian War buff himself, Dave was gracious enough to allow us to put three test trenches in his backyard and 21 two-foot diameter test pits in his nicely manicured side yard. We then assembled a team of volunteers made up of students, faculty (current and retired), and residents, who we worked in two shifts. Equipment for the project was donated by local businesses or individuals. 74 Material Culture As we opened the first three trenches in the backyard the project seemed to gain momentum (Figure 2). Local newspapers began to appear at the excavation on a regular basis and every week or two we would make the front page. Residents would stop by and ask if we had found anything of interest. Both Steve and Dave were always willing to take a few minutes to explain the project and show what we'd found. Unfortunately, the initial excavations in the backyard trenches were... disappointing. Although we uncovered numerous 19`h century artifacts, there was very little from the 18`h century and nothing that could be definitively connected to a fort. The most important of the artifacts, at least from Dave's perspective, was finding some children's toys and tools that his son had lost 25 years earlier. After weeks of excavating and moving tons of dirt, we were no closer to determining whether or not we were on the right track. Steve decided that in order to save time and cover a larger area, we would dig a series of two-foot test pits in Dave's side yard. Although we were able to dig down to the subsoil -the point in the soil profile that is undisturbed by human activity - in many of the test pits, there were a few where we surpassed four feet without reaching the subsoil (Figure 3). While the back yard trenches yielded little in the way of colonial artifacts, the side yard appeared to be much more promising. We had found several sizes of musket balls and thousands of fragments of fort-period pottery; however, after a dozen test pits there was still nothing that would suggest we were excavating a military installation. We knew Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 75 Figure 2. The backyard 2008 trenches. The features on the left side of the right-hand trench are small cement footing for a children's swing set. we were on a colonial period site, but it could just as easily have been home-site. As the days passed and no military-specific material emerged from the test pits, doubt began to crowd out our earlier enthusiasm. The situation ultimately turned on a single, small artifact. One of our student workers held up a small, gray piece of chipped rock and asked if it should go into her test pit's artifact bag. I thought it might be a gun flint and called Steve over to have a look. "That's an English flint:' We finally had a tenuous connection to a military site. English flints were quarried at Brandon or Norwich and used by the British military all over the world. We thought there was a chance that there was a military presence on the site, but we were by no means certain. Flint cobbles were often brought over to America as ship's ballast and sold to colonists, and trade in English flints occurred up and down the eastern seaboard, but at least it was something. When Steve analyzed the data gathered in the three trenches and 21 test pits he found that while there was nothing that specifically pointed to a military operation, some of the subsurface features we were seeing might be indicative of an old fort, and a few of these may even have been mentioned in the Forbes memo. For example, in one test pit there was a small patch of fire-reddened earth visible, and Forbes mentions an oven at the fort. In another test pit a large number of rocks and limestone mortar were excavated. Given that it was found over four feet below the surface, maybe it was part of a collapsed foundation? We ended the season and took stock of what we had. 76 Material Culture Figure 3. The test pits on the east side of the property proved to be very deep. Even after a heroic effort by student volunteers, undisturbed subsoil was not reached. A Second Season By the time we refilled the trenches and test pits and reseeded Dave's yard, we did not have a lot to go on. While the test pits gave us a window into the past, it was a small window, a little like trying to describe the interior of a house by looking through one keyhole in one room. What we needed was a much larger excavation - we needed to open the door rather than look through the keyhole. Although we had some evidence of a possible military presence, our evidence looked pretty slim given that we were going to need much more than $12,000 to do a full archaeological excavation. I was a little depressed that we had not found something more concrete with which to go after larger grants, but what I had failed to realize was how much interest in the project had spread amongst the residents and local politicians. Steve and I "hit the lecture circuit" and gave a series of presentations on what had been found and what we thought could be found. Dave Ferry, who had since become an active volunteer, greeted nearly every visitor to the historical society with "Have you seen our Fort Morris exhibit?" Although belt-tightening seemed to be the order of the day in late 2008, John McCorriston was able to use what we had found and capitalize on increasing local interest in the project to acquire additional funds from the state, the borough, local businesses, and even individual donors. By early 2009 we had almost tripled our original excavation budget. Steve signed on for a second season as archaeologist and Dave agreed to allow us to fully excavate his side yard, even though this meant losing a beautiful dogwood and piling his backyard with tons of excavated material. By the end of Apri12009 we had all of the volunteers in place and were tearing out Dave's sod a month later. The second season of excavating was an order of magnitude larger than the first, both in size and complexity. The plan was fairly simple: we would excavate Dave's entire side yard, join that excavation to the previous year's trenches in the backyard with a long connecting trench, and if we had time and money, put test trenches in neighboring yards. The volume of excavated material during this season would be many times what was excavated previously, so a 35'x15' area behind Dave's garage was set aside for the `spoils' pile. A portable toilet was rented and we commandeered one of the bays of Dave's garage for storing equipment. A local rental center donated a sod cutter/remover and a chainsaw, and within an afternoon we had the side yard prepped for digging. Patty Hay, a Shippensburg University graduate student in the Applied History program and the historical society's intern for the project, organized the volunteers into two daily shifts. She also arranged for daily deliveries of bottled water donated by the Borough of Shippensburg. After laying out the excavation grid, we quickly removed the modern soil surface to expose the 18`h century surface -the 2009 excavation had begun (Figure 4). Digging went along at a fairly reasonable rate since many of the 2009 volunteers had worked on the site in 2008. Each volunteer was assigned to a grid and was responsible for any artifacts recovered. While larger artifacts were often recovered and bagged immediately, most were picked up in the soil screens. Each Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 77 ~'1'laser{Q! culture - - -a.ared so the size volunteer would load a bucket with excavated soil and sift it through the shaker screens located in Dave's backyard. Each soil horizon within each grid square had a unique identifier and artifact bag, so we could map artifacts by type and density in the lab. At the end of each day Steve would clear the excavation site and compile notes on where important artifacts were found, any subsurface features that were exposed, and various characteristics of the subsurface soil layers. As the excavation proceeded it became clear that we were onto something. In weeks of digging in 2008 we had uncovered two musket balls, while we had half a dozen in the first few days of digging in 2009. Thousands of pottery shards and animal bones were also being unearthed, as well as trade beads, buttons, belt and boot buckles, and eating utensils. Within the first two weeks of excavating we were convinced that, given the density and volume of 18`'' century material being found, we were on a site that saw a significant amount of activity. With each passing week the hints of subsurface features we initially saw in 2008 began to take form. On the west side of the main excavation site we appeared to have uncovered a root cellar, but it was unclear if this was contemporary with Fort Morris or a later feature. On the north side of the site, the fire reddened earth we saw in one of the 2008 test pits extended about five feet in diameter in a circular depression filled with rocks and a large number of animal bones. The stones found in one of the test pits on the east side of the site formed a great pile, encompassing an entire corner of excavation. Eighteenth-century items poured from the site and there were enough animal bones to, quite literally, feed an army. The pile of stones on the east side of the site really captured everyone's attention. These stones were large, and though not reworked or surfaced, were obviously the remains of a structure. As we continued to carefully remove stones not buried in the subsoil, a flat surface took shape: this was clearly a foundation wall that had been pushed in from the outside. Within a week we had cleared the interior of the structure and revealed that it was the corner of a building foundation (Figure 5), the rest of which extended under Dave's porch and was probably destroyed when his house was built. Being so close to his house and the street it is a miracle that any of the structure survived. Some of the project's most important artifacts were removed from this structure: several large caliber (0.75) musket balls, a ladle for pouring molten lead into shot molds, large and intact pieces of pottery and dinnerware, and a damaged firing mechanism from a flintlock (Figure 6). With the building foundation uncovered we could now try to position a fort on the site based on the map from the British Library and fort description in the Forbes memo. Positioning the fort on the landscape using the map and description was very important, in that if we could predict and excavate feature's location based on British Library map, it would remove all doubt that we were excavating Fort Morris. Unfortunately, this is not an easy task and there are many variables and unknowns involved. For example, the scale on the British Library map or the Forbes descriptions could be off by a few feet and we could miss the feature during our excavation. The map may represent what was supposed Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 79 80 Material Culture Figure 6. A sample of 18'" century artifacts including a ladle, gun Hints (left), musket balls (right), and an arrowhead. Figure 7. The partially excavated oven pit. The stones may have formed the upper portion of the oven. Note the darkened soil caused by intense heating. to be built, rather than what actually was built, in which case we would be hunting for features that never existed. After days of work we thought we had a reasonable interpretation of the fort's position and size, and with maps in hand, got permission from one of Dave's neighbors to excavate a 25 foot trench in his backyard. If our interpretation was correct we should have excavated across one of the fort's palisade walls, a feature so distinct that it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we had found the missing fort. It was a serious setback when, after two days of excavating down to undisturbed subsoil, we came up empty-handed: no palisade wall. With both time and money running low, we opened two more trenches in an effort to uncover other features shown on the British Library map: a fourth trench in Dave's backyard in the only place we had not excavated, and a trench near the marker purported to sit atop Fort Franklin's "soldier's well:' The well inside Fort Morris is mentioned in several documents, but unfortunately does not appear on the British Library map. In a one-day excavation blitzkrieg we once again came up empty-handed: as it turns out, the well also does not appear underneath the marker. To add insult to injury, our final excavation trench in Dave's backyard came down on top of an old sewer pipe trench - if a feature existed there, it was destroyed decades ago. Fort Morris Found? We were beginning to think that even with all of the time and money we had put into the project, we might still not know if this was the fort site. The number of military items found certainly pointed to this as being the site of the fort, but during the French and Indian War large numbers of troops passed through Shippensburg on their way west. For all we knew, we could have been excavating a local gathering place, a butcher's shop, or a house here that was pressed into military service. It was with some measure of relief that once the stones had been removed from the circular depression found on the north side of the site, it became apparent that we were excavating an oven (Figure 7). Beehive ovens have a firebox or pit below a baking chamber, and the fire-reddened earth in circular depression was a clear indication that this was once an oven. In his memo Forbes describe the fort as having an oven and this one was outside and freestanding. Aside from a fort, there was really no reason for this oven to be there, and this oven was simply too big for a residential use. While it may be open to some interpretation, this circular depression was the best evidence that we had found the site of Fort Morris. Although we feel we have found the fort site, one key question remains unanswered: how the fort was positioned on the landscape? The British Library map does not depict the well or the oven, both of which are mentioned in the Forbes memo, which could mean that the map represents the intended design and not what was built. On the other hand, Forbes also notes that there was no defensive trench around the fort, and this peculiarity is clearly depicted on the map. My own interpretation is that the map and memo are contemporary but not by the same hand, based on the writing. Forbes was at the fort only briefly, Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 $~ and his memo was aimed at recording its assets and strengthening its defenses. His descriptions of what he found there are probably accurate, but I am still puzzled by the rather large discrepancy between his measurements of the fort and the scale shown on the British Library map. Under his command a road was being constructed westward toward Fort Duquesne and it seems strange that this group of soldiers and engineers would have mismeasured the fort so badly. Given that we have two very different measurements, laying out the fort on the landscape has been particularly challenging. We still have not found any trace of the palisade wall, the one unique characteristic of a provincial fort. Though the preponderance of the evidence points toward this as being the site of Fort Morris, some doubt still remains. Although there is little chance of us being able to raise enough money for a fully funded third season, we may still be able to find some evidence of the palisade wall. The Department of Geography-Earth Science at Shippensburg University recently acquired subsurface imaging equipment. In the fall of 2009, my undergraduate Historical Geography class conducted a subsurface survey of 15 houses near the proposed fort site and several interesting features were identified. Most importantly, we are gaining a better sense of the 18`h century landscape and have already mapped two or three locations where small test trenches could be excavated. There is enough local support for this project that we expect to be able to continue our work, although at a reduced scale, until Fort Morris is definitively found. In looking back, I am amazed how a small project of primarily academic interest could be taken up by everyone with such enthusiasm. While I thought that funding would be the most challenging aspect of the project, our greatest (and most rewarding) challenge was training the volunteers to be archaeologists. Our student interns worked closely with local volunteers, so that within a few weeks our volunteers could distinguish salt-glaze from porcelain (no easy task!). Although we upended some long-held beliefs concerning colonial Shippensburg, disagreements never became personal. While there will probably always be some small measure of `town and gown' friction between the community and university, this project was a great example of university-community cooperation. References Eschenmann, Hayes R. 1987. The Elusive Fort Morris. Shippensburg: Beidel Printing House. Marr, Paul. 2004. "Finding Fort Morris." Middle States Geographer. 37: 45-52. Weiser, Jay G. 1896. "The Frontier Forts in the Cumberland and Juniata Valleys:' In Report of the Commission to Locate the Site of Frontier Forts in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: Commission to Locate the Site of the Frontier Forts of Pennsylvania. Hunter, William A. 1960. Forts on the Pennsylvania Frontier: 1753-1758. Harrisburg: The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 82 Material Culture Reece ,Francis R. 1944. "Colonel Eyre's Journal of His trip from New York to Pittsburgh, 1762." Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine. Volume 27, 37-50. Manuscripts James Burd to Edward Shippen (November 2, 1755). Pennsylvania Archives. Series 1, Volume 2. 455. Harrisburg: The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Charles Swaine to Robert Morris (July 20`h, 1756). Minutes of the Provincial Council. Volume 6, 493. Harrisburg: The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Shippen to James and Sarah Burd (August 7`h 1755). Shippen Family Papers (1701-1856). Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Manuscript Group 595. Shippen Land Survey (908 acres). Penn Family to Edward Shippen. Patent A-8-338. February 17`h, 1737. Carlisle: Cumberland County Historical Society. John Forbes, General. Memorandum of the Fort at Shippensburg (August 13`'', 1758). Headquarters Papers of Brigadier-General,John Forbes Relating to the Expedition against Fort Duquesne in 1758 . Charolettsville, Virginia: University of Virginia, Tracy W. McGregor Library. Collection 10034. Vol. 42 (2010) No. 1 83