Known at last!

A long missing piece of the Franklin house rediscovery story was finally found this past week. While processing a folder in the Central Files a letter was discovered that lists the names of the four men who assisted NPS Archaeologist Paul J.F. Schumacher in locating and identifying the Franklin mansion ruins....Willie Ransom, Odell Sample, George David, and Wilson Bachus!

(Above) Photographs depicting members of the field crew that located Franklin's house ruins are glued into Schumacher's report (1956:8) entitled "Preliminary Exploration of Franklin Court Archeological Project No. 4, May-Sept. 1953.

Abstracted portion of a 1953 letter (Schumacher to Noonan, May 19, 1953) listing the names of the field crew.

Identifying these individuals has been a concern of mine since 2003, when I learned of their participation in the excavation during research conducted for the Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Consortium (Jeppson 2005). The very first day of that project turned up eight black and white photographs (archaeological site record shots) glued into a preliminary site report written by Schumacher in 1956. These photographs revealed that the field crew who relocated the Franklin house ruins were African American -- something not commonly known today.

The role these men played in the excavation was explained by a contract typed on onion skin paper found in the files alongside the 1956 report. Entitled, "Estimate for Excavation of Benjamin Franklin's Court to locate and record all walls which may give us clues as to the location of Benjamin Franklin's home" (Schumacher 1953a), this document also provided the pay scale for an Archaeologist (GS-9 at $422 per month) and "6 laborers...if at union wages...$1.75 per hour" --along with a recommendation for employing workers from Local 57, the Laborer's International Union which is a construction and industry or building trades union (Schumacher 1953a:1). Schumacher's field notes (1953b), also stored in the Archives, report on the first day of excavation (in May 1953) that four laborers were hired from the union at this pay.

(Top) Schumacher's 1953 typed field notes, page 1. (Middle) The field notes for this date document that when APS funding ran out, the union workers were hired by NPS. (Bottom) Schumacher's field notes are presumably typed up from his handwritten draft after the fact, as attested to by this summary of hours on the last page of the notes.

Secondary research on the history of Franklin Court's discovery undertaken in 2005 provided some context for this labor history finding that the archaeological labor wage paid to Ransom and the others was $1 higher than the then current minimum wage (Jeppson 2007). (The National Average Wage Index for 1953 was $3140, the Median Wage Index for a family was $4100, and the minimum wage was .75 cents an hour.) Wage data for the period also reveals that Black households in the Northern states have two-times the income of those in the South (US Census Bureau Historical Income Table P-53 2004; Full time employee annual wage 1953). Union membership among Blacks in Philadelphia is presumably partly responsible for the higher Northern incomes.

But while the materials in the archaeological documents collection included photographs of, and employment details about, these men, their names remained unidentified --until now. The only hints came from a field note entry dated May 26, 1953, but the notation wasn't clear as to whether monikers or surnames were being referenced: "It poured...two men showed up (Ransom and Sample)".

So now the names of the co-rediscoverers of Franklin's mansion are known! The letter found this week in the Central Files was written May 19, 1953 and is from Schumacher to the Assistant Secretary of the American Philosophical Society (Schumacher 1956c). It summarizes the wages for the field crew -- and in doing so, identifies them by name!

INHP Archives materials referenced in this posting:
Schumacher, Paul J. F.
1953 a. Estimate for Excavation of Benjamin Franklin's Court [Archaeological Project No. 30, renumbered as "4"]. Schumacher, Acc. No. 59, Series 1: Reports, Box 10, Folders 1-3.

1953b. Archaeological Field Notes: Franklin Court Archeology - East Side-- Archeological Project No. 4. Schumacher, Acc. No. 59. Series 1: Reports, Box 10, Folders 1-3.

1953c. Letter (copy) to Julia Noonan (APS) May 19, 1953. Central Files, Box 34: Arch. Structures Franklin Court--Master Plan, 1953.

1956. Preliminary Exploration of Franklin Court Archeological Project No. 4, May-Sept. 1953. Acc. No. 117. Series 1: Reports Box 10, Folder 12.

Other References cited...
Jeppson, Patrice L.
2007. Civil Religion and Civically Engaged Archaeology: Researching Benjamin Franklin and the Pragmatic Spirit. In B. Little and P. Schackel edited, Archaeology as a Tool of Civic Engagement. Pages 173-202. Lanham Maryland: Alta Mira Press.

2005. 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. On file: INHP.

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/

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".

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.