Roots That Time Has Redefined

Field Report photograph, 1953 excavation of Franklin Mansion (Schumacher 1956:8).

Before there was an Independence National Historical Park there was archaeological research undertaken for what was to become the park. The first work (depicted above in an archived report) was conducted just over fifty years ago at the site of Benjamin Franklin’s Philadelphia mansion by the American Philosophical Society (APS) and the National Park Service (NPS).

At that time, APS undertook the excavation both as a memorial tribute to their founder (Franklin) on the 250th anniversary of his birth and as a research endeavor not unlike the expeditions APS sponsored, a half century earlier, that fostered Americanist Archaeology in its incipient period. NPS interest in the house site served the needs of the Master Plan for a national shrine to democracy (the soon to be Independence National Historical Park) which would include a park unit dedicated to local Philadelphia history and, in particular, to Franklin.

Franklin Court as the site became known (and interpreted) in Independence Park is a seminal urban archaeology site – and, until recently, the historical archaeology understandings that emerged in its early excavations have continued to shape the trajectory of Independence Park archaeology --and hence the understandings of early American history.

One of these very early dating assumptions about the Independence Park archaeological record has now been overturned. It involves the preservation of the archaeological evidence below ground in those areas with susequent building construction. The Independence Park Archive Archeological Records Collection reveals how this - an early understanding about the area's archaeological resource base --emerges and then transitions into a set principle determining the development and maintenance of archaeology in the park over time.

This past month I have been processing early archaeology-related administrative files in the Park Archives. In this collection I have come across what is likely the first time a recommendation is made regarding the state of the archaeological evidence buried below the city streets. It is a recommendation in a report detailing the results of the first episode of work at Franklin Court. It is written by Paul Schumacher, the archaeologist in charge of the 1953 and 1955 excavations at the site of Franklin’s mansion:

“It may well be that any future archeology of Old Philadelphia would give the best results by merely excavating underneath sidewalks and smaller streets or alleys. The properties where modern structures have been razed are very poor for archeology because of the deep basements these buildings usually had….”

I was already familiar with this report from earlier research on

Franklin-related archaeology that I conducted for the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium (work commissioned as part of the federal celebrations to honor Franklin on the 300th anniversary of his birth in 2006). But coming across Schumacher’s report again in the Central Files –where they are evidence of park administrative history related to archaeology --made me see the report’s recommendations with a slightly different set of eyes.

I undoubtedly also saw this documentation differently today because of the recent understandings about urban historical archaeology gleaned from the excavation of the President’s House site in 2007. That recent park research revealed that the basements of nineteenth century buildings do not necessarily entirely obliterate the evidence of the colonial period landscape. This surprise finding in the case of the President’s House site has led to a rethinking about Independence Park's archaeological resources --namely, that the archaeological evidence can survive the ravages of time more than archaeologists thought it could.

But why was this survivability ever in doubt? The documents in the Central Files reveal that this (now often erroneous) assumption appears in the earliest days of the park’s creation when, in 1956, archaeologist Schumacher reports up the administrative chain-of-command with recommendations for future excavation in Old Philadelphia. Schumacher posits a logical conclusion at the time given the circumstances (the earliest excavation) but his recommendation reflected only limited exposure to the archaeological record in-situ (as it appears in the ground).

Schumacher was excavating an unusual example for colonial Philadelphia archaeology. The Franklin house was located in the middle of a city block. Deep basements are usually on the outside edges of the block along the streets but, in this case, a small street bisecting the block was built over top of the (razed) Franklin house remains. Nearly all of the foundation walls for Franklin’s house remained unimpacted by the street construction and by the two rows of homes that lined this street. Schumacher did explore parts of the adjacent house lots and one can only surmise that he is hypothesizing what might remain under the 19th century structures as he and the excavation team were not tasked with finding anything other than the Franklin ruins and were involved in following out the foundation walls that were encountered (leaving other areas largely unexcavated). The most relevant sought after discoveries at the time happened to be found under the street and sidewalks where their survival rate was very high.

In a future post I will report on other documents in the archive that show how this early recommendation transforms into a baseline assumption that holds for 50 years of Park development and management --until 2007 and the President’s House findings.

One note: It was likewise long assumed that archaeological evidence of the Native American experience was obliterated by the development of the city. In past decades, when archaeological artifacts were encountered during excavations they were considered to be 'out of context' (removed from their original place and time of deposit/use by subsequent city buildings). It is now understood, in part from the National Constitution Center excavations in Independence Park, that evidence related to the Native American past can be found in intact archaeological deposits in the city. For more on this change in thinking see the brilliant, online presentation, Native American Sites in the City of Philadelphia: Elusive but not gone. This web offering was created by archaeologist Doug Mooney and it is archived at the web site of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum.


INHP Archive materials used in the preparation of this posting:

Jeppson, P.L. Historical Fact, Historical Memory: An Assessment of the Archaeology Evidence Related to Benjamin Franklin: Historical Archaeology research undertaken for the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2005)

Letter, Anderson to INHP Regional Director, Region One (Cox or Lisle), Feb. 20, 1953, [D18 FRCW as quoted in Grieff 1985:374]

Philadelphia National Shrines Report to the United States Congress (1947)

Schumacher, Paul. Franklin Court, Preliminary Exploration of Franklin Court Archeology Project No. 4, May-Sept. (1956)

See also:

Fowler, Don D. and David R. Wilcox. Philadelphia and the Development of Americanist Archaeology. University of Alabama Press (2003)

Philadelphia Archaeological Forum. http://www.phillyarchaeology.org/

Sharing and Learning

A possible exciting opportunity has arisen. The Archivist Assistant for the National Register of Historic Places/NPS contacted us about participating in an archaeology, archives, and blogging-themed workshop being proposed for a conference next summer. The workshop, entitled After the Dig: How Federal and State Institutions Manage Archaeological Collections will bring a range of individuals together to discuss the archival challenges facing state and federally-funded institutions, the need for archival best practices, and the use of blogs as a tool to create a dialogue between archivists, archaeologists, and the public.

If accepted, the workshop will be presented at the 2010 Joint Meeting of the Council of State Archivists, National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, and Society of American Archivists in Washington, DC.

My part of our contribution to the proposed workshop includes a presentation entitled, Blogging Toward an Archaeological Records Collection Guide: A Case Study on Using Web 2.0 Technology to Build a More User-Sensitive, Management-Enriched, Archival Tool. A summary statement provided to the session organizer follows below.

“Digging In the Archives” is an internet blog associated with an archival management project underway at Independence National Historical Park. This federal repository houses 50 years worth of field notes, maps, artifact logs, photographs, and reports generated during the development and continuing management of the national park. These record the development of ideas related to the preservation, presentation, and interpretation of both American history and American historical memory, and they document the evolution of urban and historical archaeology within the federal government and within the discipline of US anthropological archaeology more generally. This collection is routinely drawn upon for NPS needs (e.g., compliance measures, interpretation and education, cultural resources planning) and is accessed more widely by outside scholars and interested members of various publics (including historic preservation and material culture specialists). This blog extends access to this archived collection while the interactive nature of its Web 2.0 platform allows for a collaborative relationship between the Archives and its users. Input from diverse audiences is helping us to craft a Guide that will improve ease of the collection’s use while also assisting in the Archive’s continuing management.

Cross your fingers that the workshop is accepted for the conference. This would be an invaluable opportunity to learn new strategies from others working with archaeological records collections and we in turn could share what has been learned in processing the INDE Archeological Records collection and from this associated blog project.

New Methods -- and forthcoming Records!...

Mended bowl (left), 3D digital scan of same vessel (right).

Computer-assisted vessel reconstruction technology is in the works!

INDE ceramic artifacts are the data set for this research and technological development. Once operational, this new technology will have significant implications for archeological artifact mending, collections management, and site interpretation.Records from this research and development project will be archived as part of the INDE Archaeological Records Collection.

Beyond discovering, preserving, and interpreting American history, Independence Park's archaeologists and archaeological sites have helped to shape the discipline of archaeology. Records in the Park's Archives document the creation and testing of various field and lab methods that have gone on to become a standard part of archaeological practice. This includes the ultrasonic cleaning of artifacts, early application of electrolysis to conserve metals, and various geophysical surveying methods including metal detecting and proton magnetometer prospecting.

As the field of archaeology continues to grow and change the archaeology at INDE continues to contribute new methods. All such developments of course generate a trail of documentation that become part of the archived archaeological records collection.

I blogged previously about the cutting-edge, geospatial survey techniques used at the President's House site in 2007. In that development, Erdman Anthony undertook a 3D laser scanning survey that produced a highly detailed and accurate map of the excavation. By shooting 4,000 laser points a second, the laser technology also created enhanced visuals of the discovered ruins that are useful for interpreting the site.

Now a new project is underway at INDE that will have significant implications for archeological artifact mending, collections management, and site interpretation. It involves the development of computer-assisted vessel reconstructions. Once operational, this technology will allow for more efficient laboratory work and will produce a significant time and money savings. Computers (not just people) will be able to match up the decorative markings on, and the shapes of, ceramic fragments so as to 'piece back together' broken vessels. Such vessel reconstruction is a vital first step in the laboratory processing of artifacts. Speeding up this phase means faster advancement to the analysis phase of study (as artifact identification precedes site analysis). Computer-assisted vessel reconstructions will furthermore allow for remote research capabilities as a collection of ceramics will be able to be studied off-site via digital proxies. Moreover, the digital images created during the reconstruction process will be a useful resource for virtual history presentations.

This particular research and development is part of a three-year effort by researchers from Drexel University. The work is supported by a grant from the Information Integration and Informatics division of the National Science Foundation [NSF no. o803670] entitled, “The 3D Colonial Philadelphia Project—Digital Restoration of Thin-Shell Objects for Historical Archaeological Research and Interpretation”. Principle Investigator Dr. Fernand Cohen (computer vision; Electrical and Computer Engineering) and co-PI's Dr. Ko Nishino and Dr. Ali Shokoufandeh (computer vision; Computer Science), Dr. Patrice Jeppson (archaeologist, Visiting Researcher: Media Arts) and Dr. Glen J. Muschio (anthropologist and media art expert; Media Design) are working with NPS Archeologists Jed Levin, Willie Hoffman, and Deborah Miller.

The project is using the ceramic artifact collection recovered from the National Constitution Center site as a data set. Several Drexel University graduate and undergraduate students are assisting with the research by making 3D scans of mended --and then unmended -- ceramic vessels in the Independence Living History Center Archeology Lab while other students at Drexel are writing computational algorithms for developing the new technology.

Drexel Computer Engineering Graduate student Ezgi Taslidere and Undergraduate, STAR Scholar, student David Myers scan pieces of a pedestaled saucer.

Undergraduate, STAR Scholar Program, student Girish Balakrishnan and Dr. Glen Muschio (Program Director, Digital Media Antoinette Westphal College of Media Arts & Design Drexel University) examine the 3D camera images.

Dr. Ali Shokoufandeh and graduate student Patrick Smith photograph decorated ceramic fragments in preparation for testing computational procedures for pattern matching.

Not just new methods but new methodologies....

In assisting the Drexel University grant project, Independence Park, through its archeology program is engaging with community partners. This and other civic engagement activities at INDE are some of the developments transforming archaeology's stewardship and interpretation methodologies. For example, the recent President's House site excavation was undertaken in response to local community group concerns and was conducted in partnership with the City of Philadelphia Office of the Mayor. Likewise the James Dexter site excavation was a project which emerged in consultation with descendant church leaders from the Episcopal Church of St. Thomas and the African Methodist Episcopal Church (Mother Bethel). Both these INDE projects have been used as case studies exemplifying the NPS Directive on Civil Engagement and they are considered best examples of Public or Community Archaeology.

This blog project is one small step in developing archaeology's stewardship and interpretation methodologies. It aims to help the INDE Archives make the Archaeological Records Collection more accessible to researchers and the interested public.

Oral History!

Great News! Jackson Ward "Smokey" Moore Jr., has emailed with some recollections about the early use of electrolysis and ultrasonic cleaning methods at INDE...

Smokey is an archaeologist whose work at Independence Park almost four decades ago was the focus of a previous posting. His rememberances clarify and deepen our understanding of the history of archaeological practice in Independence Park, in NPS (the federal agency), in the subdiscipline of historical archaeology, and in archaeology in general.

NPS Public Affairs photo of Jackson Ward 'Smokey' Moore Jr.

in the archeology lab in the Second Bank, circa 1960.

I couldn't be more pleased about this! I had high hopes that this blogging project would operate collaboratively. We have now had instructive commentary and invaluable suggestions from a museum curator, a Pennsylvania-based archaeologist, an archivist from the city, a tour guide specialist, and various members of the interested public -- each of whom has helped to inform this INDE Archives Finding Aid project. Now we are fortunate to hear from someone who helped create the materials that comprise the INDE Archeological Records Collection. He is a wonderful writer to boot!

Smokey has given his permission for this correspondence to be treated as oral history so it too will be preserved as part of the INDE archaeological records collection. The following are excerpts from his correspondence (edited to the topic of archeological lab methods).

Jackson Ward "Smokey" Moore writing to V-I-P Patrice L. Jeppson on Aug. 7th, 2009:

The letter about my magic machine from San Francisco was probably from Paul J.F. Schumacher. He was referring to the electrolysis set up. I introduced it to INDE but it wasn't my idea. At Fort Fredericka NM Joel and I had a lab assistant named Bob Taylor. We had been cleaning iron artifacts by heating them in a pot-bellied stove, dunking them and pounding the crusts off, followed by brass and/or steel brushing. Then we would coat them oil to minimize rusting. After Joel left, I got down a copy of Plenderlieth's volume on museum object treatment. I saw a very complex arrangement of electrical equipment that Plenderlieth used for metal objects. Shaking my head I showed it to Bob. Bob was an island man, part of Cap'n Taylor's clan [deleted bio data] whose background was shrimpboating. After about 15 minutes he turned me and exclaimed "Hell, Cap'n, that ain't nothin but a gussied up batt'ry charger!". He also believed that sodium hydroxide was "plain ole lye." I got the stuff and we used a small aquarium tank to clamp the anodes to. It worked beautifully! I sent one of those [NPS] forms to credit Bob. I think Stan South was fielding those then. A downside-- I'm not sure I didn't uffer some detriment from the gas that the process gave off. [sic ;) ? ]

The Ultrasonic Cleaner was Bruce's [B.B. Powell] introduction. It was great for encrusted button and ceramics and other materials. It worked on small metallic objects too. We had to pare down our expectations for many metal objects though: the transducers sometimes broke! It's hard to recapture exact scenes so I don't remember how well we coped with continuing to use process. Maybe Bruce remembers.

NPS Archeologist Paul Schumacher, circa 1955 (top), NPS Archeologist B. Bruce Powell, circa middle 1960's (bottom).

On August 13th, Smokey added:
...My discussion of the ultrasonic device [in the last email communication excerpted above] was in terms of the circumstances that then prevailed. Our appliance was quite small; I would guess about 8"x11" at most. (Bruce may remember it differently). I haven't kept up those babies. I have seen the ones jewelers use to clean diamond rings, and my Braun 7800 electric razor's head cleaner is a mini ultrason. When I saw the illustration in your blog of the ultrasons used today, I realized that the puny tasks we required then would be pieces of cake. now.

Another ‘First’?!

The Archives at Independence Park have yielded yet another discovery related to the history of American archaeology! The Park’s buried cultural resources were used in the early testing of geophysical surveying methods for archaeological research!

These methods --which are a routine part of practice today – involve the use of non-invasive, non-destructive, physical sensing techniques that detect buried archaeological evidence. The resulting underground 'site imaging' is useful for mapping archaeological remains as they exist in the ground. These geophysical studies also guide archaeologists in planning their excavations. More recently, the resulting map images are employed in interpreting historical landscapes to the public.

Correspondence archived in the Park’s Central Files (Box 23, Folder H22: Archeology and Historical Research - Independence Square) indicates that in 1961, Dr. Elizabeth Ralph, then of the Physics Research Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, requested permission to conduct surface tests and demonstrations "with a proton magnetometer and other archaeological searching equipment” on Independence Square.

Ralph is today credited with pioneering the use of geophysical surveying in American archaeology. Her research developed and improved several instruments for underground exploration. The archived Independence Park archaeological documentation indicates that she tested some of these devices, and trained others in their use, using the historical archaeology remains buried in Independence Square.

At the time, Ralph was researching the archaeological potential of geophysical methods then being used in the fields of geology, engineering, and mineral exploration. She experimented with electrical resistivity instruments that used wave projections to detect metals in the ground (metal detecting) and seismic detectors that employed wave propagation to find soil layer changes. She advanced archaeology's use of sonic detectors and magnetic contrast research, building upon nuclear science research that had led to the development in Europe of proton magnetometers and varian rubidium magnetometers. These instruments allowed for “archaeological prospecting” by measuring very small energy level changes in protons when they are subjected to magnetic charges. (Click on this circa 1965 image of Ralph to link to The Electronic Detective and the Missing City, an article written for Expedition [Winter 1965, 7(2):4-8], the magazine of the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Ralph went on to become Director of the Museum's Applied Science Center for Archaeology).

Ralph's magnetometer studies were designed to pick up magnetic contrast readings between ancient buried walls and the earth around them. She crossed paths with the archaeology in Independence Park in 1963, when, in preparation for Old World (European-based) research, she tested instruments, and trained their operators, using the buried ruins of colonial and federal era America.

(Photo: Archeological test trenching at Independence Square in 1959. Early excavations at the square provided information about the historical landscape south of the State House [Independence Hall]. [Image: INDE Archives].)

Letters archived in the Central Files record that Ralph was provided with park archeology maps and drawings to assist her in her equipment testing. These documents detailed the locations of 18th and 19th century house walls and garden pathways, and late 19th and early 20th century utility pipelines. These had been discovered in the 1950's during archeological investigations at Independence Square.

It is unknown at this time (at least as far as my cursory research indicates) whether Ralph’s instrument testing at Independence Park produced any additional research findings. This may have occurred -- although her objectives involved determining whether the instruments could reliably re-locate already identified features. And if so, it is quite possible that any results were not recorded for historical archaeology’s sake: Beyond being another kind of specialist, there was no field of historical archaeology yet in 1963--although historical sites had been investigated archaeologically for decades for historical architecture needs (even recently in the creation of Independence Park), and the first Conference of Historic Sites Archaeology had only just met for the first time (in 1962). The archived correspondence does report that Ralph offered her assistance to the Park archaeologists. If early geophysical findings do exist from this time they could be of use to present day archaeological recovery efforts at Independence Square.

Today geophysical studies are commonplace in archaeology, including at historical archaeology sites in Independence Park. For example, ground-penetrating radar studies were undertaken in recent years at both Independence Square and the Deshler-Morris House property prior to restoration/renovation activities. Systematic collection of geophysical data for spatial studies has also included the use of other new technologies: In 2007, a geospatial laser survey was used to record the excavated ruins discovered at the President’s House site.

(Photo, top: Kitchen sub-cellar, President's House complex. Bottom, 3D laser scan survey image made by Erdman Anthony company [ Photos: Jed Levin, INHP].)

Beyond the park boundaries, geophysical archaeological studies make use of drones and satellites to conduct infra-red and other light spectrum scanning that penetrates the earth’s crust (and the forest canopy) to locate evidence of past human activity (e.g., roadways, trade routes, lost cities, sunken cities).

Such options were yet to be imagined when, in October 1962, the journal American Antiquity reported on “new developments in [archaeological] field and laboratory research” from Independence Park. This included a notice that “the first extensive field tests following preliminary testing at Independence Square, Philadelphia, were made of a new sonic echo underground searching device developed by Elizabeth Ralph and her associates at the Physics Department at the University of Pennsylvania” (emphasis mine). This same "Current Research" column also remarks on the implementation of the new method of “sonic cleaning of ceramic and glass pioneered by B. Bruce Powell and Jackson W. Moore for the National Park Service at Independence Hall" (sic). I blogged on this other Park 'First' in July after coming across archived correspondence related to experiments with ultrasonic cleaners for the processing of archaeological artifacts.

Once again, this finding aid project has uncovered ‘buried’ history about the role Independence Park archaeology has played in the development of American Archaeology.

Other...

[For more on early archaeology in Independence Park]

Cotter, J.L. (1960) Digging an Historical Shrine: Philadelphia’s Independence Park. Expedition 2(3): 28-32.

[For more on the history of magnetometer use in historical archaeology]

Sillimen, S., P. Farnsworth, and K. Lightfoot (2000) Magnetometer Prospecting in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 34(2)89-2009.

[For more on the geospatial laser surveying of the President's House]

Merritt, B., Surveying Technology, 3D Laser Technology: Delivering Real Time Examples and Virtual Demonstrations. Government Engineering, May/June 2008: 37-39. [Erdman Anthony company web page]

Ultrasonic Cleaning, 2009

A follow up to the recent discovery about ultrasonic cleaning of artifacts at INDE circa, 1960:

This photo, shot a few weeks ago, shows a park volunteer removing a basket of ceramic fragments from the ultrasonic cleaner at the Independence Living History Center Archeology Lab. Today an ultrasonic bath is often the first step in the artifact washing process. (Photo Credit: Jed Levin, 2009.)

Ultrasonic cleaning of archaeological remains is accomplished through 'inertial cavitation' - an explosion of tiny vapour bubbles that collapse and produce sound waves that remove particles. Modern ultrasonic cleaners are also equipped with a heater which improves the cleaning action.

A pH-balanced detergent is used to achieve cavitation. The ILHC Archeology Lab uses a mild horse shampoo called Orvis in its ultrasonic bath.

The ceramic, glass, and metal artifacts recovered from the archaeological sites at Independence Park are often processed in the ultrasonic cleaner. Depending on their composition and decoration, objects may stay in the bath anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour. Careful cleaning by hand is used for all items that are not suitable for ultrasonic cleaning.

A historical glance into the methods of American archeology - courtesy of the Independence Park Archives!

Could they have invented it?

"None of our employees have experienced any effects on their hearing from using the ultrasonic cleaner." (INDE Superintendent D.C. Kurjack, writing to the Regional Superintendent in September, 1961).

A wonderful discovery! While inventorying a file of History Office correspondence I came across a 1961 letter from the Park Superintendent that reports on "an ultrasonic cleaning device in use for cleaning archeological artifacts" (above right, click to enlarge). I wondered: Could it be that archaeologists working at INDE came up with this artifact processing method? Today it is common to find ultrasonic cleaners in archaeology labs. For example, the Independence Living History Center Archeology Lab down the street uses one for the first step in the washing of (suitable) artifacts. An ultrasonic cleaner loosens dirt caked onto artifacts minimizing the abrasion from brushes or picks.

The correspondence in this folder is not in chronological order and an earlier letter, dated 1960, is a request from a west coast archaeologist asking "Would [INDE] be kind enough to have Smokey [archaeologist Jackson Ward Moore, Jr.] clean these nails [from a Glacier Bay Cemetery] by his "magic process"..." (emphasis mine). I can check with Smokey and see if this reference is to the ultrasonic cleaning idea. If so, it would be the earliest date recorded for this method among these papers.

Further on in the file I came across a letter and its response relating to archaeologists at Mesa Verde National Park who sent a ceramic sample to INDE for a test cleaning. This correspondence too made me think the idea of ultrasonic cleaning originated at INDE. Then I found the clincher, a letter from an employee at Circo Ultrasonic Corporation (in New Jersey) asking how their device -- a Model PG 60 generator and 60 T transducerized tank of 1-gallon capacity -- had fared when put to this "unusual" task. The response from archaeologist B. B. Powell describes the INDE experiments trying different cleaning agents and the "excellent" results". Also described are the various applications experimented with (the processing of different categories of artifacts -- shell, ceramic, metal, etc.). The artifacts are mentioned as coming from the site of Franklin Court. I have posted some abtracts of that letter below (click to enlarge):

Lastly, I found something that makes it clear that this was indeed a new idea for archaeology!

In the file was an NPS Suggestion Form (10-63, 1955, 99219) with delightful 1950's-era graphics. This form, filled out with a date of October 1960, is a formal suggestion for the use of ultrasonic cleaning in archaeology laboratory work based on experiments done at Independence National Historical Park (click to enlarge):

This folder of History Office correspondence in the INDE Archives documents the administration of park archaeology circa, 1955-1975. As such, it contains artifacts of the archaeological process. In this case, among other insights, these two-dimensional artifacts document some important (forgotten) history about the field of archaeology. Specifically, these archived documents record the investigation of a new method for archaeological laboratory work that has since become a standard of practice. This advancement in the field of archaeology comes courtesy of INDE archeologists working on historical period sites.

The above referenced materials all come from Folder 1, of a box still being processed at the INDE Archives that is entitled "History Office Correspondence Related to Archeology".

The City Tavern Site Excavation

I have started tackling my first box of archaeological records for this summer Archives project. The materials relate to an excavation undertaken in 1974 on a strip of sidewalk on the West side of 2nd Street, near Walnut, in Old City, Philadelphia. (Photo above, view South. Excavation mid-photo.) The dig was in advance of Independence Park's recreation of City Tavern, an establishment built 1772-73 that served as an important gathering place for social, political, and economic leaders. (See City Tavern History .)

City Tavern was partially burned in 1834 and was demolished in 1854. The site was built on again and that subsequent construction was, in turn, torn down sometime after 1960 (presumably when the park acquired the land). In building Independence Park (circa 1960s-70s) a plan was made to recreate the tavern. Toward that end extensive historical and architectural research was undertaken. Part of this preparation included contracted archaeological research at the property to be built upon. This work was done by a team from Temple University's Anthropology Department under the direction of researcher Dan Crozier.

In this 1974 photo you can see the property with a City Tavern historic marker sign, taken prior to the archaeological fieldwork and prior to the construction of the tavern on the property (View West toward the Merchant's Exchange Building. Folder 11, color slides 1, row 1, column 1). This image (another view looking West) is a modern Internet photo of the City Tavern structure that was recreated at this location. City Tavern is a famous restaurant serving 18th century dishes created by culinary expert Walter Staib.

In compiling a 'box list', or inventory, for this batch of records, I examined D. Crozier's exceptionally fine field log where he recorded daily activities taking place on site. I also evaluated the associated site maps and photograph collection flagging any items that are glued in place. The adhesives in use 40 years ago can sometimes now be unstable.

During the examination of the field log I read some interesting 'corridor talk' (insider tidbits) about visitors to the site, including a news team which aired a story about the excavation. The public was interested in archaeology excavation then too! Crozier notes on May 21st that a back hoe operator who was 'driving by' helped to back fill the site.

I have yet to peruse the final report for this project but in viewing the photographs I was struck by the limited extent of the excavation at this property prior to construction. The sidewalk area - the region of the front of the building -- was focused on. This would firm up the position of buildings fronting 2nd Street. More to follow...

Getting Started...

"Don't do anything that can't be undone". This could be a motto for work done in the archives. The Archivist summed up my introduction to the project this week with these wise words of advice. This was just one of the important things I learned during my orientation.

That first day began with all the necessary basics. Safety issues were addressed (fire exits and extinguisher locations) and paperwork was signed (e.g. volunteer hour tracking sheet). Expectations were shared, confidentiality aspects were recognized, and appreciations (sent in both directions) were expressed. I was introduced to the other volunteers and to Bert, the Archives mascot (see sidebar image).

Then work began in earnest with a review of the existing 'working files' for building a finding aid for the INDE archaeology records. Several volunteers overtime (between 2000-2005) have laid the foundations for this project by organizing hundreds of folders full of archaeological site information. Photographs and maps were pulled for re-sleeving in archive-quality materials or for flat curatorial-standard storage. Dozens upon dozens of boxes were inventoried to find out what specifically they contained. With this overview of previous efforts (re achievements) I gained some understanding about the levels of scale of cataloguing that are involved in organizing the records in this repository (e.g., box lists, shelf lists, control files, central files, series storage locations, finding aids).

I also learned about some of the guidelines directing the archives work and which will also be used for generating the finding aid ...for example, Directors Order 28 (NPS Records Management), Park archaeology standards produced by the NPS Records Management Program, and the 2008 NPS Museum handbook Appendix D, Part II (pages 126-141, Manuscripts and Archives 'How to do it').

It was determined that I will first get some hands-on practice by dipping my toe into the different levels of scale of archival processing. This will involve processing some items that need to be brought into the archive system. These are stored at the moment on 'Truck 23' -- a massive rolling set of shelving in the 'Archives Storage' area. Among other items, 'truck 23' contains some 1970s-era field documentation for the City Tavern excavation that was recently transferred from Temple University and also some records for a project undertaken in conjunction with a sprinkler system added to Independence Square. These records had been previously housed in the Park's museum collection.

I will begin my work by drawing up box lists for this field documentation (creating an inventory of the items in each of the boxes). While at it, I will identify curatorial issues (photos needing re-sleeving, maps needing to be pulled, etc.), note any duplicates of files, and consider whether these records could be intra-filed in extant stored collections. I will also take notes for characterizing the nature of the records for use in the forthcoming finding aid.

Photo: The "Archives Processing" room where I will be working. Right, part of 'truck 23' with materials awaiting processing. Photos by P.L. Jeppson

Wondering about Archival Repositories?

A good online treatment of archeological repositories can be found at the 'Managing Archeology Collections' web pages of the National Park Service Archeology Program. These links 'cut to the chase':

Types of repositories
Examples
Types of records related to archeological projects
Function and Programs of Repositories (including Archives)
Collection Management Links
The Future

Broader ‘context’…

The on-line world of Archival Science includes blogs relating to news and services from archival repositories as well as personal blogs written by people working, volunteering, and researching in archives. Identifying these genres helps make clear the broader context for this blog project, as does the museum perspective comment contributed yesterday by INDE Curator K. Diethorn:

I'm very interested in how users (particularly students at all levels) would like to access the park's archeological reports and for what purposes. Ultimately, this kind of information can suggest potential program ideas (e.g. exhibits) that really speak to what visitors (real and virtual) want to know about archeological material culture.

Where do archaeological records come from?

Archaeological research generates a lot of documentation. Even before a site is excavated there is either a contract or agreement, a request from a private or public entity, and or a written research proposal produced by an archaeological researcher. In this initial stage, and in response to it, background research is conducted, laws and regulations are consulted, and a plan of action (including a budget) is drawn up. All this planning generates documentation before any dirt is even touched.

Once on site, the archaeologists record every bit of information possible. Why? Because we get only one chance to dig a site. Once a site is dug it is gone -- it no longer exists (except for features that might be left in place in the ground). Archaeological sites are non-renewable resources.

Proper archaeological work therefore produces, as accurately and comprehensively as possible, a detailed descriptive picture of the excavation. This description is compiled as the site is excavated -- as it is, effectively, taken apart and removed (i.e., destroyed). We only get one chance to make this description complete.

While excavation is underway, the archaeological field crew recovers artifacts and locates features (perhaps walls, privies or wells, fire rings, etc.). The location and position of such finds are closely measured and recorded --and these actions are themselves, in turn, recorded in bag lists, feature number logs, etc. There are also many field sketches and maps drawn to show what has been discovered. Drawings also document for posterity the soil layers encountered while excavating (each of which represents a different time period or activity episode), and the associations between artifacts discovered at the site. Photographs and other imaging mediums (e.g., video, laser scans) are employed to document each stage of the exploration, and these activities too are themselves documented --for example in photo logs, GIS records, etc. And finally, from day one, before the first shovel full of dirt is made, until the last (after the site is back-filled), the field crew members working at the site rigorously and religiously record every step of their actions, all observations, and each working conclusion in a field notebook.

All this documentation is what is used to make sense of the site and its evidence once the site is finished and analysis has begun in the lab. Without the archaeological site documentation to accompany the artifacts, all you have is a bunch of objects 'lost in space'. You don't know where anything was found, nor what it was found next to, and you will never be able to decipher 'what' happened 'where', or 'why'. You can't identify activity areas nor changing behaviors over time. With maps, photographs, sketches, and notes you have archaeology and thus human history. Without them you have only treasure hunting or collecting. The artifacts become a set of objects stripped of cultural context with no way to reconstruct their role or purpose in the past.

The archaeological records are more important perhaps than the artifacts found at a site. On the other hand, archaeological records are themselves artifacts: Archaeological records are the 'artifacts' of the 'archaeological process'. They stand in for the archaeological site after the excavation is done when the site no longer exists.

Image caption: "Archaeological Remains of Benjamin Franklin's House" mapped by B. Bruce Powell and Jackson Ward Moore. Area C, NHPP-IND 2772, 11 Dec. 61. National Park Service. Independence National Historical Park Archives.

Some Say Tomayto...

Most archaeologists spell archaeology with two ‘a’s (‘aeo’) but, generally-speaking, federally-based archeology does not (being spelled instead as ‘eo’). However, not even the feds are consistent in this. For example, the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 used ‘eo’ but it was followed by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 with ‘aeo’.

In blogging personal thoughts and observations here I will be using ‘aeo’ as I am not a federally- based archaeologist. But others commenting informally here may do otherwise. I will of course retain the shorter ‘eo’ version where appropriate -- namely in recording literary references and official titles and when transcribing original text.

I will likewise conform to the National Park Service standard of ‘eo’ in making the finding aid at the base of this project – except in those cases where to do so is inappropriate. For example, if the early dating archaeological documentation under study uses the more common ‘aeo’, then their original form will be retained – that is, unless the INDE archivist wishes otherwise. Cataloguing systems are cultural artifacts and collections are routinely accessioned within larger inventory structures (central repositories) under the nomenclature and organizing principles of that host.

There is a lot of speculation within the field about why there are the different spellings for archaeology/archeology. My own favorite rumor (which is erroneous) has the government taking the action to save money because dropping the second ‘a’ eventually means a large savings of ink and paper. If you want to dig deeper into this weird aspect visit the following:

K.C. Smith (1995) I say Tomayto: You say Tomahto. In Archaeology & Public Education 5(4):7.

Little, Barbara (2006) Why are there two different spellings: archaeology and archeology? at "Archaeology for the public".

K.K. Hirst Archeology VS. Archaeology: A Poll at archaeology@about.com.

Looking Forward...

In just a few days I start a new 'excavation' into the history of the making of Independence National Historical Park, and I couldn't be more jazzed! Yes, I am an archaeologist, but this time around I am going to be digging into documents, not the ground. This is not as odd as it seems as I am an historical archaeologist and we study the more recent past using material culture, including written evidence, that has been left behind by people in the past.

For the next several weeks I will be turning that historical archaeology methodology up a notch by 'excavating' artifact residues left by some of my own colleagues. I will be trolling through documentary artifacts created during their archaeological fieldwork. Specifically, I will be evaluating and organizing the documentary evidence of a generation of archaeologists, active circa 1950-2000, who helped to locate, identify, and interpret colonial American history in Philadelphia.

I refer to this type of endeavor as 'the archaeology of archeology'. I have an on-going, research interest in the archaeological history of Independence Park and I jumped at the chance when I learned that the Archives at Independence Park wanted to create an archival finding aid for a vast set of early dating archaeological records.

You see, our nation decided to develop a national park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that would commemorate the birthplace of American democracy. Some of the earliest historical archaeology, also some of the first urban archaeology, ensued in the development of this National Park Service (NPS) unit. Since the time of the American Bicentennial in 1976, millions of US and foreign residents have annually viewed the end results of these historical archaeology efforts and those of their like-minded colleagues -- among others, historical architects, historical landscape architects, historians and curators. These cultural resource specialists brought to life a landscape with several historical sites and buildings that now serves as an important touchstone for understanding how 'we became us', the U.S.

I will be blogging as I bring my historical archaeology training (a BA in Anthropology at UC Berkeley and the MA PhD Program in Historical Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania) to the task of developing an archival tool that others can use to access this archaeological documentation. I will evaluate a heaping pile of file boxes and create a descriptive catalogue, or inventory, of this specialized, documentary collection. These descriptions will be contextualized, or placed within the history of Independence Park's development and within the history of historical and urban archaeology. The final product, the finding aid, will be a guide to this archived collection of fieldwork documents. Included will be a summary of the collection's composition and size, a history/biography for the collection, a list of the subject matter involved, and a key for locating items.

This effort could in many ways be seen as regular old archaeology in that it is akin to an archaeological study (of sorts). It includes a site description and location, boiler plate regional historical context, an artifact catalog, and an interpretation. The finding aid will ultimately be published online at the NPS web pages so that current and future researchers and interested members of the public can find their way to and through this primary documentation.

More about this blog...

The Independence Park collection of archaeological documentation includes, among other items, field notes, site map sketches, reports, and photographs -- all of which are housed at the Park's headquarters in the Merchant's Exchange Building. These residues of archaeological practice tell stories about the search for colonial American history and also about the creation of Independence National Historical Park.

Like the finding aid under development, the intent of this blog is to help make the history of this archaeology more accessible to researchers and the interested public.

This blog is part diary and part professional brain-storming platform. It comprises a working space for collaborative archaeology and archival science. We muse about the archaeological history under study and we post copies of the interesting discoveries we find while we dig through the boxes and files.

We welcome all those with an interest in archival science, archaeology, public history, and Philadelphia history to participate in this online forum.