The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-11-12 h.a R~1 Q h) yy ~/' ~ r ~ ~ l ~. C' I7 i _. 1 ... s ~~ ~ ~ .._. _ ..' f., IN RE: REAL ESTATE SITUATE AT ~ ~ :COURT OF COMMON P~'EAS OF -' x ;, ~ J ~~ ~' WEST KING STREET, IN THE :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, ~ ~ BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG :PENNSYLVANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND BEING KNOWN AS TAX : NO. 21-12-0636 PARCEL # 34-34-2417-169 ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION AMENDED 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 Solicitor, Samuel E. Wiser, Jr. Esquire of Salzmann Hughes, P.C., and files the within Amended 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 0.39 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, Pennsylvania 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 Bulls Eye, which was formerly considered to be a potential site for Fort Morris. 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 Morns was likely located at 333 East Burd Street in Shippensburg. Attached hereto, and incorporated by reference, as Exhibit "B" are three studies prepared by scholars indicating that the likely site of Fort Morris is 333 East Burd Street, Shippensburg,Pennsylvania. 9. T'he Property is unused by the public and the only improvement thereon is a flagpole. 10. The Borough has determined that the continuation of the original use of the Property is no longer practicable and possible, as the site of Fort Morris has been identified at another location and the Property is no longer of historical value. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13 In accordance with 53 P.S. §3385, a copy of the original Petition was provided to Attorney General Linda 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 of May 2012. T'he Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General did not respond and did not take any action to become a party in this matter. 14. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission has no objection to the relief sought by the Borough in this Amended Petition. A true and correct copy of a letter dated August 20, 2012 from Andrea L. Bowman, Chief Counsel for the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. WHEREFORE, the Borough of Shippensburg respectfully requests that this Honorable Court exercise its powers under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, 53 P.S. §3381 et. seq., to permit the Borough to dispose of the Property and apply the proceeds for public purposes. Respectfully submitted, Salzmann Hughes, PC By Chambersburg, PA 17201 (717)263-2121 Solicitor to the Borough of Shippe»sburg I, Andrea Lage, President of Council of the Borough of Shippensburg, have read the foregoing Order and Amended Petition For Relief Under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, and hereby affirm 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 to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~~ tx drea Lage President of orough Council Borough of Shippensburg CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the ~ day of September, 2012; I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Petition For Relief Under The Donated or Dedicated Property Act by United States first-class mail, postage prepaid to the following: Civic Club of Shippensburg P.O. Box 593 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Bureau of Historical Sites and Museum 400 North Street Harrisburg, PA 17120 The Honorable Linda Kelly Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General 16~' Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 B~ Salzmann Hughes, PC IN RE: REAL ESTATE SITUATE AT WEST KING 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 NO. ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION DECREE AND NOW, this day of , 2012, having considered the within Amended Petition For Relief Under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act, it is hereby ORDERED that the Borough of Shippensburg is permitted to dispose of the Property identified as Tax Parcel #34-34-2417-169 in accordance with Section 1201(4)(1) of the Borough Code, 53 P.S. §46201 (4)(i) and apply the proceeds for public purposes. BY THE COURT: J. 05/23/2012 04:46 7172580862 TRI COUNTV ABSTRACT PAGE 01 Rwrmera Treat Oompwny, Truxree, ,by itn Ae wl dntoA yhs R1 nth any of Aept awbn r, 19~A egrrveyCA,LO- gCLher with Obhar proparL y, to Raf+.igk 4. Ognlahy, ernntar heral n. 9wld deed 1w ra nordOd Ln Lht Re npttlar'a nfftna !n n1M frr Cumhpr]nnA Co+mty nt rnM3aln. vn. in deed Book a6', L'o1. 9, pay,; i 241. - TOrq~tRBR . 'n 11 nM x!nqu lnr LhC hcreA LLnnwhL; eln! xppurtennn nq9 than m+nLO be lenpiny or i aaywLfq nppe rtninin, nl+<1 Lhe Toss!?len and rove rwinnn, ra9n~tt ndar and remni ndera, rpntp. l;oval nM proHte th0*aM'i ari alao•nll the extntq, rl.ght, ttL le, internat, nlntm. or Araand what^geve Of then, the aald port lop o Lh9 flC?t ra rt, .a lther 1n low CT oqW ty, oT. in. and T.o ton nbove- bnr6nlnnd premi re 3, aMi ever/ p~t and parnel Lhoreof. TO AAVlS AIR1 TD u07A tp tho fn party of the ~ne roM l+ar , hla .helrx nM n?o 1gn9, Lo thn ao1 and Only prnpnr uee, Oenef]L, and beh Tot the oa1A pnrLy of }.ha ;C^onA part, h1a nnlrf nni as- \ ff algn^.. forever. \ r! r JR RITbTw93 ARgR30F, the ea1A Fart lag of `th~n ~'~ret pars hove Lc Eheae prC 9q nL^. rYt Lhrt3r hand? apn aanla. Dated Lhn dny anJ yon! f1raL~'bbyn wrtxtcn. BRl[Y-0 Adfl bI:1dVt:]i11D IV '."i6 PBP.SiCRC6 AR \~ P. L. Ellanbe rger a Rnrwlgk N. Ogdlfby (..^.PAh1. • ~ len H. Ofin1L0y~ (60ALll • RECfiIVED Lha day of the dot of tM abort IndenturC of L above nnmod Eugana R:.~Thru ah Lho puy of Pive Aundred and R +nt y-flue (k525 .DU) Dollnra, bethq the ronxideratl6n aenay wh eve o ntio+gd 1n fulls // ~7NESDi P. L. I:1.lnn~fi•pYr NArwl Ck 1(. DRn l;by 6P4Ty. Or PdMRRYT,Va11J.~,~1 1 ~ T RS: COORTY OP DAitp~ r On thta iat day of Jaro+nry, A.A. 1721. hefprn mq, Lha Doha qri MT, h ROLn.ry plibliq Sn nnA for anld ounty anA ELata, paraohally nnga Lhv abOVe named Rnrwi rk W OgeLby and RelCn 8, AgC1LhY, hlf wife. oho in Auo fprm of law aeknvrladgad the tattgofhg Indenture to be their wqt sod Mad, and dealydd Lhp daTeC n1I,hL ba Yegorded as eunh. RITRS8.9/~my/Lhnnd nAM npLnrl-1 teal Oha dny xM yo ~r wlOr paid. 1 f „ ~~.y ~2 P. L. Ellanbarµe r, _I L7 '-n J Rrtary Pub]1 n, (•. Ny CO+mtl ulon ecplrCa aL the end of Lhq na xt an aion pf a. c.. ~'~P.P a:' Ssnata. (DMfb ALLaohed ;, t R0. 41uR B+A:A%~; - THIS DF.}~, 'M:Y:g. , A6E7) ~ ~~S.SD ~ MADE TIfL Tenth Aay of Augv14 1n the year 8: A• ANCLA ~ AL ~ ~ ~ •~ rilnnLnan hued nd and Lwaety, TO 1 tl6TN1i611 9. A. Anp10, mn• M. Rykea, Alt ne Aylce w,~h1; wifa, TR6 SURDEAS k TO:YA COUNCI f. OP ! and Gqprge G. Rykee, and K1lfabeth `Tyke;, Ala wifa, all of THE tlORO11DH 7P Fi!IIPp6R6W RO ( 6Alppenehurq, rpnnt ylvan ia, pxrtlaL of the SireL pnrE hnraln- enke. ~1,uan. i 1 3 F after nulled Eh; frantorT ann Lha tlurgeae ann Tp~m Council of OASED ADR. 1D, 102D T the boreu[h Of Shlbpana bu rp, party Of Lhn xei+ond Fart, hgretn- GTO• PTid. 1., 121 S otter nulled Lhn OrnnLt o/ ~•-~~~ ~iE~____....r,{ MiTp458677[. Lhnt in ennfSdnrnLi eh of Ona Th oupaM Ff.fty el ghL Dollarf and Thi rLY one nnnta (!], D5G..S1), in hand nw1A LRa lera ip6 vheraof is heT qby aqk- howledGod, Lha vatd Rrantnrs do herahy Grunt and oomey nnso tna wwld nrnnt... , I. i. ,f :111` i ~. 05!2312012 04:46 7172580862 TRI COUIJTY ABSTRACT { as Bul In !bye, ^Stunte !h the Wn rt AaM of Ehr bornuvh pr 1mf.rncnaburP, r_vmne rLn nd County, Prnnnyle+nt a, hob hd ~d w:M •Lnytrlhrol rt0 toll nwst' do the PD~~th by ale sL NSnp 5trget: nn the We at by tfie lot formerly the Drnin rty of y+ek I Rniker; D» rbe 31ortP by w puhltr +lley; n.nA an the kn'L by Int. naa a•greA by Nre. Susan Nye-. k00Pa1 void IpL bout np„ A front+ge or. Wgat Y.1 nP 61, Teel oT S1. xt.y three fort ((j~), +tA + al,d th Dn Ehe a]]ry art Eh! ronr of 51xty [eat there Ir rthe~ (Ap' j"}I and era^naing 1n daDEh from the 'DLiseL t.o 'the Willy 4w Rundrtd and PLfEy ;even fpnt (257'). more pr lee el nl9a 61lhN~n and pn!-hn1Y feet nllowad for w pavement nn the Dt rent. Hai ny,. the same per rpl9ea Vhf^h the ^aehoo7 lloard of the 7prpuph of Sh Spprn/burg by UCad dat- ed the 130h d+r of dr.L nher n.b. 1(107. and rp rued ed Sn Cumberland Cm+nt.y 2A SMed Bnak N, Vp1unM •7, yaEa lU Nn., Fnnted and nonveynd to 4he 8e ro nd Sio» Old Snnt lDt ttemnxnht p. 1I Amd pal np, Lte same nrrmi erD whf rth Rev, q, G, Nobi hx on, Pip: td ehE. at ?1., member ai Lb0 + Ho+rd of TruaL nle or Lhx SnrntM ML. Zion old bnptirt Nemha rehtp, ShlppanaburR. SOrovgh by LNnA drttaA Lhm ;td, dny of ,tuly A•13. 391;x, ant rer Drded to cumtie rl and County in L'e as .Flook Z, Vpluma 7, PwEa 41Fi 6^••• P,runted and pamreyed to Lhe said R. A. .ogle, 4m. R. gykeD, and daerpe g. Rykeo, nrantora h,rrin. t Nhlrlsa Ch1a rnnvoyanre has bn an l:rnmtrad. and the r. ed9ldar+tl on tm,ror^ Rnid by tho 01~1c I Club of b'hiypenaburgr Penneylvanits, nM the Nfatortnal Commission ~et Fonnsy]vnrtin fpr,the pur- l ppaD of pronorvl ng the. premimna pprDetually for p+blib and hiatorl Cal purpmD U, the snid Rrnn~ , tCp hr: eby r.tWp»anL to and +Sth the Data Rrnnt nr/, and t0 anal oath the 9afd Civie flub Of Shippdnaburg, Ppnnsylvanln, the snf.d NLvLOrir.:tl Cntnniselon of Fennfylvnntn thnt~tYe ~p1d . ~ nr+ntlo, the DutFC58 tied Town Couneil oC the borrneh of 6311pPDnahhrE ahall and wlh fppj~,ls- t Uity ,D~t nratn Lho prpniaes in geed ronA StlOn for publln }mrpnr. n. a. permit the ere oL!pn on thR ~ same pf r,U Oh historical mnrko rp as mny hp 4Uly nuthorl spd'by t»e •lt dL0rl col Cortm19e1 on of PDnnn%2ra»Ls. pea mnl ntn3n't be D.n:r fdn vnr, t The nw10. DranEore hereby nave Want nna of ren to end aitR tan »nt.d r, rnntlD EheL the y, tho iafd t:rnntpra shall and well ~w<rnnt (!nnarwlly Lhc prnPn rty bar eby runvDyod. ~ In aline sa whlrpof She snid tlrant orD hove her nu ntn fot :hair hands and ranle Ehe any and year f1r9r. above a1'itLan. SI RNI',D, SEAI,PD AND DTU)J~rhRt:O 7N yltN: PRFSPIICF pP J. S• t}CNake ROOap 2a113ng G. A. Anplo (RRAL) am. N. Sykes (RRA1,) Aline Nykn~ (OStAL) f:eo. E. 4ykes (SEAL) R1.laabeth RykeD (tiliAL) Cd111~N1D'yA1fiN CP PNN3tD Y4VANIA 1 i SF. COUNTY Op CUNDL^RLAND I ' Hptpre mp th• /vhaortbet, n Notary PuDlin le. and for aaf.d C:puhty, wed Commorhrealth, p•1~ annally npp meld Lhe +bovC nnond R. A. AnCln, bm• H• Ryknn,~Alicn Hyltoa. CnorEn 8. g1'ka9, and »Jlaabpth Nykn/, nluf Sri due form wnknoalydgpd'Eho foraEok»S Aned do M thllf •M ani aCad aM dasirod the ame nLEht br rp rorda~ an /Ulh. tR TN633 nf! hand and notnrlnl Deal th.a tlJth ddy 01' AuguDt A.U. 1920. Soana la111 nF„ (~,g•R• Notary Pnh11p, vr..? ~- ~'. N.P. ~ My Camrof Cnl Or. Sxpf reo Ap r11 1, tg23: FA ,E 02 The Discovery of Fort Morris: A Report on 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the 333 East Burd Street Site, Shippensburg, PA Stephen G. Warfel Archaeologist January 31, 2010 EXHIBIT Acknowledgments Where to begin? So many people contributed to the success of this project. 1 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 treat 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 total of 3,306 hours. Most had no previous archaeological experience; most proved to be quick learners. Their enthusiasm, motivation, energy, and good company reminded me why I chose to pursue a career in archaeology. I am especially grateful to Patty Hay for coordinating volunteer recruitment and schedules. Patty handled this thankless task with skill and grace. She also provided invaluable 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 investigation 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 and power equipment to quickly accomplish aback-breaking task if done entirely by hand. 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 333 East Burd Street property, for allowing so much of his land to be taken apart in the name of science and history. Not only were extensive excavations conducted in his side and back yards, but he permitted soil to be piled in his driveway and against his garage. 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 19`h century, revealed a buried land surface containing scores 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-18`h 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 ] 987, 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 Warfel 2008: 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 Run just 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 18th century town center. The British Army, under command of General 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 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`h 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 .~, r t ~ from Edward Shippers 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 Hosfeld (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-I 8`~' century plan of the "Fort at Shippensburgh". Knowledge of Fort Morris' location in Shippensburg seemingly faded through time. By the late 19`" 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 19`" 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, 19`" 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 Property line -_~ I N40 EO ' ~~~ GN MN ~I Scale NO EO "i u s~.. IV ls' ~. Garage -- -~ ~~~ ~'', Apartments ~~ I .I ~ , ''~~ i 2009 Back Yard Trench ~ Porch ~ Property line -~ I- ' e I, m z! !z Jn Je '. ~~ __ a= i 1 ~i 1! i! !I 14 . J],I i fi ~,~, N SE ID 1tl (, J-M1 JJJ East Burd Stl_ _ _ 1-_ ~..--~ r _._.I l it I! i N'I ~ !X ~fi } JJ I ~ J II IY Il E-] j i5 ~ Jl i ` ~~ z' l4 ~u%~IJJ+. ~~ ~~, -I} ~ I ~. 1 4 j n ~i zst u I Jl '~~ ~ j' 61 's'^ ! Porch ~f i _ I5~ ^_ _- - _ ---_- ~ -Sidewalk East Burd Stree[ 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 corner 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 vas 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''/4" 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 keepin; 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 l was emplaced after construction of the present house. 9 Levels l 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 postholes (see Figure 6). Each hole measured approximately 16" in diameter and extended to a depth of 20" below undisturbed subsoil. Because some of the postholes were revealed after the limestone concentration was removed, not all holes were mapped at the Level 3 surface. Level 4 map sheets, however, show all posthole features. The row of postholes 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. Alley Bench mark ~ - I _-._.-~ Garage I I I ' T J Apartments I, ' 2008 Trench I I .-- ' I rT t~' 2008 Trench 2 ; j ~ _ _~ ' 2008 T h 3~ ~ ' , renc I ~ 2009 Back Y ard Trench Property line __ I L~ -. I_ ~ -_- ' -~ ', Parch ~'. - ~, '~. ~~ Property line N40 EO ~1 I~`-' _... .... .. ~._I . L, ~'~ -`O I '333 East Burd St. r G G I '~ -`-c-.~y._~_ ~ t ~ ~ C ~IN I C C, ~° 'C I w II- 7 ~ Z_ j Q_. ~l '. ~ ~ O ~ :~ - Scale NO EO i~~ r iir it ~~'~ VC -- ~ Porch .-.. '' ' - - Srdzwalk East Burd Street Ivey © 2008 test holzs ~ Dogwood tree rootball Old property line portholes Figure 6. Site plan depicting old property line postholes 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 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`" 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`" century through the mid-19`" 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"' and 19`h 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 Level 3 exposed a culturally sterile, strong brown (7.SYR5/8) clay loam subsoil. The subsoil, designated Level 4, 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 Leve14 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 Figure 7. Level 4 subsoil, facing southtivest. Note dark soil stains (features) outlined 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 like the one recovered from Leve13. 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 - -~ i Garage ~, - it ~ ' Apartments - 2008 Trench 1 _ I~ i', ~ 2008 Trench 2 ' j I 2008 Trench 3,~~ ~ ; ~I009 Back Yard Trench ~ .. ` 1 \_, -~-' --- I -i I ! Porch i ~, ~ ~ Property line ! Feature 26, L --- _ I ~ U ° -- 333 East Burd St: 1 a p ~o._L_I_ 1 i ~ T Property line ~__ N40 EO ' Feature 32-; GN 1 MN ~~ Scala U' S' lu' li' I ,_ i II °~~ ~ l_._~- i ~ ! I li 4Fr; ~ ~ NO EO Feature 2 ~- ~ Porch --- --- - -- -_ Sidewalk East Burd Street Figure 8. Site plan depicting principal features. 15 Chimney footer depression Figure 9. Feature 25 cellar, facing northwest. 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 N20 E30 NIS E30 N10 E30 NS E30 _ ___ IL44. 3-_-_.~-_ __.._IP 92_~ 692.25' (elevation) I Limestone foundation wall Strong brown clay subsoil ~ I' Scale: i -! Key Level I, dark yellowish brown _~- _-- _ 1 Construction sand ~~ silt loam ~i _~ Level 2, mottled orangish brown ~ Fea. 25 fill Level 3, dark yellowish brown silt °T,tnF~.~ Fea. 23 atone nibble loom (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`I' 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 Level 3 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 l9`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 average 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 18'h Centurv 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 Level 4 subsoil (Figure 11). On the west side of the pit is a shallow (l "-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~2- ~'P_47 , 690.44' (elevation) Rat hole ~ ~~ !~ ,- "1" \ i 1, Strong brown clay subsoil Scale: ~ , Figure 11. North profile of Feature 26. Patch of fire-reddened clay 19 Figure 12. Feature 26, partially excavated, facing north. 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-fired 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 ]9`~' century. Both may be intrusive; that is, they were not part of the original fill and were introduced by more recent site activity. [t 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 Level 3 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`x' 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 of heat-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 offire-reddened earth designate the location of a hearth associated with an oven or some other type of cooking feature? Because the construction of 18`h 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 Leve14 subsoil (Figure 14). It is oriented on the same northwest-southeast axis as the fort period cellar previously discussed. N30.83 N28.58 E 16.25 E9 - --- --~ 690.42' (elevation) ~> Intrusive ~ ~ '~ disturbance ~ ,,, Fea.-3~~iL;' ;,,'J ~~~ ~y_ \ Stron; brown clay subsoil' 1' Scale: ' -I 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. [t 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. [t 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`x' 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`h century artifacts and proved to be portholes, common features on fort sites of the French and Indian War period. Because the project area is physically surrounded by 19`h and 20`h 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 I) 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 19`h 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 1' 11' below grade, sloping towards the garage. It was associated with concrete chunks and limestone pieces. Coa] 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 %"-thick coal ash and cinder layer (Level 2). Both covered an old land surface (Level 3), which, in tum, 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; 18`x' 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 18`h 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`" and 19`" 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 ] 7). 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`" 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, 18`" century wrought nails, and 19`x' 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. [t 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~" 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 (pn 18`h 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 18`h 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 18`h 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 19-21). 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 [ndian 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 18`x' 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 carefiilly 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`x' 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 Level 3 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 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•Ill•DEI•GRATIA (Charles iI[ 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 1ND•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 Figure 23. Coins found in the project area. [Top rorv, Spanish silver; bottom row. left to right_ young head King George II halfpenny, 1757 old-head King George li halfpenny, heavily worn British copper.] 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 I[, 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 Noei 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 Hygiene 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 Gaie, "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`h cenhtry (Noel Hume 1976:174-175). Figure 25. Bone toothbrush and double-sided comb fragments found in the project area. During the mid-18`h century, most people cleaned their teeth by rubbing them with linen cloth dipped in sulfur oils and salt solutions (Sembera 2010). It 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 Pies Clay tobacco pipes were commonly used by both military offtcers 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`" 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"' century.] Dietary Animal Bone Animal bone is a common artifact on 18`x' 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 Figure 27. Iron hay knife and hone stone found in the project area. 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 in case they be obliged to stop here on their march" (Stevens 39 team horses were frequent. 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 18`" 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-liteflints) 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 worn to be of use in a flintlock gun were designated as strike-a-liteflints. 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 18`x' 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 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 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 .66-.72 caliber musket ball .683 l .66-.72 caliber musket ball .679 I .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 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .430 1 .25-.44 caliber buckshot .385 1 .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 1 .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`" 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'/4"-7% long (see Gale 2007:5-18). Figure 30. Iron gun lock recovered from Feature 25. 44 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 Obiects 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 18`h century (Kent 1984:213). The third is a seed bead, so-called due to its diminutive size. Seed beads are particularly common on mid-18`x' 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 l8`h 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 l 890s, 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 10" 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. Si~na2~ 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, 17.13-1758 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. [f 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 Cz~mberland 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 Elzrsive Fort Morris. Beidel Printing House, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Gale, R. R. 2007 "A Soldier-Like Way": The Material Culture of the British Infantry 17~1- 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/ColCoinlnU~os/Sp-S i I ver. intro.html, 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 Szrsgarehanna'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. In 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: AStudy in Historical Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Noel Hume, Ivor 1976 A Gttide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Price, Cynthia R. 1979 19`j' Centany Ceramics... in the Eastern Ozark Border Region. Monograph Series Number I, 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 Of Finite-Element Analysis and a Winning Smile: Evolution and Analysis of the Toothbrush. Electronic document, http://www. asme.org/newspublicpolicy/newsletters/metoday/articles/Evol 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 Bozzgzret, Vol. 2. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Stone, Lyle M. 1974 Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolzztionary 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 Investigations 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. 20096 Earth oven. Electronic document, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth oven, accessed, January 22, 2010. 54 ~~ . ~' ~_~~~ = . A 1. ~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION August 20, 2012 Samuel Wiser, Jr., Esq. Salzmann Hughes, P.C. 79 St. Paul Drive Chambersburg, PA 17201 Dear Mr. Wiser, As Chief Counsel for the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), I am writing to confirm that PHMC has no objection to the relief sought in the Amended Petition for Relief Under the Donated or Dedicated Property Act to Allow the Sale of Tax Parcel #34-34-2417-169, which I understand that you will be filing with the Court today, as Solicitor for the Borough of Shippensburg. This is in accordance with our previous communications regarding this property and also with the assessment provided to me by the Bureau of Historic Preservation, within PHMC. If you have any questions with regard to this or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ .-. ~ ~' Andrea L. Bowman Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission 300 North Street, 5th fl. Harrisburg, PA 17120 300 North St ~ Harrisburg, PA 1~12o-oozq ~ '7i'7.~8~.zS9i ~ Fax ~i~.~83 9924 I www.phmc.state.pa.us ~~ ;.~i4 IBIT