50th Blog!

This month celebrates our 50th blog post and in honor of this anniversary we will be revisiting our top three most-popular blogs. To see which blogs made the cut, please follow the links below.

To date, our most popular blog, reaching almost 7,000 people on Facebook with over 30 post shares, was our March 2019 post: Music to Our Ears Mouths: A Jaw Harp Found in Fredericksburg. This blog focused on an artifact that was recovered from the Riverfront Park project focusing on the utility of x-radiography as a tool for identifying highly corroded artifacts. The jaw harp was found within the interior of the brick duplex once located at the corner of Hanover and Sophia streets.

Coming in second was our January 2019 post: Coming Unglued: The Importance of Reversibility in Artifact Conservation. This blog highlighted a poorly mended, mid-nineteenth century whiteware basin with a flow blue Scinde pattern. The object was brought to the Dovetail lab by a Stafford County resident. The vessel was repaired by a family member using an unknown adhesive which was then painted black. At the request of the owner, the archaeology lab at Dovetail not only removed the non-archival adhesive used to mend the basin but also repaired the object using archivally-stable materials.

Lastly, our third most popular entry was our February 2019 blog: When Building Fragments Come Together: Foundations at the Fredericksburg Riverfront Park. This blog was the first of several that focused on the results of our January/February 2019 data recovery at the Riverfront Park. We thought we would set the scene for upcoming installments by discussing the buildings that once dotted the landscape and noting the importance of architectural studies on historic sites.

It’s easy to see that local history wins when it comes to popularity as top three blogs are quite similar! If you have a favorite blog that did not make the top three, send us your feedback!

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

A “Classical” Case—Creamware at the Fredericksburg Riverfront

By Kerry S. González

For our devoted followers, you may remember seeing a blog post back in 2015 on the creamware fragment below, found in 2013 during our Phase I survey of the Riverfront Park in Fredericksburg, Virginia (Photo 1). We are revisiting this piece because a match to the vessel was found during our 2019 Riverfront Park data recovery and an opportunity to showcase this rare circumstance was too good to pass up (Photo 2).

Photo 1: Creamware Fragment with Corinthian Column Capital and Shaft Recovered in 2013.

Photo 2: Creamware Fragment with Corinthian Column Shaft and Base (on right) Recovered in 2019.

These small fragments are a variety of ceramic called overglazed, printed creamware.  Vessels of this type were popular beginning in the 1760s. The use of the decorative Corinthian column indicates it is a ‘classical ruins’ motif typical on bowls as well as trenchers/plates and was a direct reflection of the wholesale American adoption of the Classical Revival style beginning in the mid-eighteenth century (Kaktins 2015). According to the San Francisco Ceramics Circle Newsletter (2014), Italian painters were fond of incorporating ruins into scenes with then-contemporary architecture, a style known as “capricciohas” (San Francisco Ceramics Circle 2014). While the fragments recovered from Dovetail’s 2013 and 2019 excavations do not appear to incorporate contemporaneous architecture they nonetheless highlight the popularity of including ruins in decorative motifs.

The complete plate below illustrates the ‘classical ruins’ pattern and shows the Corinthian columns observed on the sherds recovered by Dovetail. While both of these fragments were recovered from within the interior of the identified 1780 brick duplex at 717–719 Sophia Street, they were recovered roughly 10 feet apart. This distribution highlights how artifacts move around after they are thrown away, particularly on urban sites where filling and earthmoving are fairly common.

Photo 3: Example of Full Vessel with ‘Corinthian Ruins’ Motif (The Fitzwilliam Museum 2019).

 

References:

The Fitzwilliam Museum

2019    Collection Explorer-Corinthian Ruins. Electronic document, https://webapps.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/explorer/index.php?qu=tin%20glazed&oid=11867, accesed July 2019.

San Francisco Ceramics Circle

2014    San Francisco Ceramic Circle: An Affiliate of the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco. Electronic document, http://sfceramic.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2014.3-newsletter-March-2014.pdf,k accessed July 2019.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

 

The Nose Knows: A Perfume Bottle from Fredericksburg

By: Kerry S. González

Often times local residents interested in the history of the area, or more specifically the history of their property, bring us artifacts to identify. Most recently a long-time resident of Fredericksburg brought us some materials found during recent modifications to their home. Most of their items dated to the mid-eighteenth century through the Civil War-era, but one particular artifact really piqued our interest here at Dovetail.

The artifact pictured below is perfume bottle manufactured by Richard Hudnut (Photo 1). This clear, embossed bottle was machine made, as is evidenced by the tell tale Owens machine mark, and post-dates 1919. According to Lockhart and Hoenig (2015), the Owens Bottle Company began using a logo comprising an embossed “O” in a square or box in 1919. This logo fell out of use after the company merged and was renamed the Owens-Illinois Glass Company in 1929. However, the manufacture of bottles like this likely continued to use the former logo until around 1931 (Lockhart and Hoenig 2015).

Photo 1: Richard Hudnut Perfume Bottle.

So why did we find this artifact so interesting if it is a basic perfume bottle from the early-twentieth century? During examination of the bottle we realized the scent of the perfume it once held was still present when the stopper was removed and can best be described as “powdery.”

While Richard Hudnut manufactured cosmetics early in his career, he moved to perfumes by the early-twentieth century (Figure 1). Some of his fragrances include Violet Sec (1896), Aimee (1902), Vanity (1910), and Three Flowers (1915). Based on the manufacture date of the bottle it is believed that the scent Three Flowers was once contained in the Fredericksburg bottle.

The selection of an adornment scent is very personal. The ability to not only identify this bottle type but the exact scent it once contained is a direct testament to one of archaeology’s most important missions—discovering the people in our past.

Figure 1: Richard Hudnut Advertisement From 1916 (www.Cosmeticsandskin 2019)

 

References:

 

Cosmeticsandskin.com

2019    Cosmetics and Skin-Richard Hudnut. Electronic document, https://cosmet
icsandskin.com/companies/richard-hudnut.php, accessed June 2019.

Lockart, Bill, and Russ Hoenig

2015    The Bewildering Array of Owen-Illinois Glass Co. Logos and Codes. Electronic document, https://sha.org/bottle/pdffiles/OwensIll_BLockhart.pdf, accessed June 2019.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

It Was Colonel Weedon With a Candlestick on Sophia Street: Another “Clue” to Fredericksburg’s Past

By Kerry S. González and D. Brad Hatch

This month we are once again highlighting an artifact recovered from our Riverfront Park excavations in Fredericksburg, Virginia. The candlestick fragment pictured below is made of brass and is typical of the late Georgian/early Federal style, popular in the late-eighteenth century. This particular candlestick has been dated to circa 1795.

It is no surprise to read that candlesticks have been used for millenia with the sole purpose of holding a candle. According to Geoffrey Wills (1974) in his book Candlesticks: “a prudent eighteenth-century lady, Mrs. Whatman, noted that the first thing a housekeeper should teach her new servant is to carry her candle upright.” While the Romans are credited with creating the wicked candle, other civilizations were using similar styles of lighting for daily use or ceremonial purposes years before (candles.org 2019). These early forms of the candlestick eventually evolved into very elaborate items often made of precious metals such as gold or silver. These expensive pieces were a sign a wealth for the upper class and were used as status symbols as much as they were for lighting.

However, candles and candlesticks were not only used for lighting. During the seventeenth century the sport of ‘candle jumping’ was quite popular and often practiced at festivals (nurseryrhymesforbabies.com 2019). It reportedly involved a young girl jumping over a lit candle with the intention of trying not to extinguish the flame (nurseryrhymesforbabies.com 2019). Candles have also played a significant role in popular culture through the ages due to their ubiquity in society, particulary before the advent of electricity. The popular nursery rhyme “Jack Be Nimble” features candle jumping and may have originated as early as the seventeenth century, in relation to the sport. The continued popularity of this rhyme helps to underscore the importance of this object in society. Indeed many people still decorate their homes with candlesticks, though their function as lighting devices has declined over the past century. Nevertheless, these familiar objects are able to provide us with important information on the lifeways of people in the past, including those that lived on and near the Riverfront site in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Fredericksburg. Recovering such an embellished object from a Fredericksburg home speaks to the possible affluence of the owner and consumer practices in our early port town.

Photo 1: Brass Candlestick Fragment Recovered From Riverfront Excavations.

Photo 2: Candle Recovered from Dovetail Excavations Beside a Complete Candlestick of the Same Style and Form (Antiques.com 2019).

References:

Antiques.com

2019    Pair of Georgian Brass Candlesticks, c. 1785. Electronic document, http://www.antiques.com/classified/Decorative-Interior/Antique-Candlesticks—Holders/Antique-Pair-of-Georgian-brass-candlesticks–C–1785?fbclid=IwAR1VbZoWa9fLSH2FjT0e7uwnAH0h3ZRfXE0NfrlKn-bLz82Rsri8QaLZeGI, accessed May 2019.

Nurseryrhymesforbabies.com

2019    The History of Jack Be Nimble. Electronic document, nurseryrhymesforbabies.com, accessed May 2019.

Wills, Geoffrey

1974    Candlesticks. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc./Publisher. New York, New York.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

Jaw Harp Found in Fredericksburg

Music To Our Ears Mouths: A Jaw Harp Found in Fredericksburg

By: Kerry Gonzalez

This month’s blog will continue our series on Dovetail’s recent excavations at the Riverfront Park in Fredericksburg, Virginia where over 10,000 artifacts were recovered. Many of these artifacts were personal items, one of which is the focus of this blog. Recovered from an area where a late-eighteenth-century brick duplex once stood at the corner of Hanover and Sophia Streets, this jaw harp speaks to the leisurely activities that took place at the site during the early-nineteenth century.

The iron alloy jaw harp, or “Jew’s harp” as they are often referred to, was identified after a series of x-ray images were taken on over 1,500 metal artifacts recovered during the project (Photo 1). X-ray is often used by archaeologists to help identify severely corroded pieces recovered during a dig. Prior to the x-ray, the team was unable to decipher the use of this iron object.

Photo 1: Top: Highly Corroded Jaw Harp. Bottom: X-ray image of jaw harp confirming identification.

This type of musical instrument is a fairly common find on archaeological sites, with the earliest discovery from Inner Mongolia dating to the eighth and fifth centuries B.C. (Elizabeth Morgan 2008). A 1,700-year-old jaw harp was also recovered from the Altai Mountains in Russia (National Geographic 2018). The Russian mouth harp had a distinctive three-tined shape unlike the more ubiquitous bow-shaped jaw harps seen today (Photo 2). While the shape of the jaw harp may have changed, the manner in which it was played varied little.

By placing the frame against their front teeth and flicking the spring, players can create a distinctive twanging sound. Different notes can be played by altering the shape of the player’s mouth. (Mackinac State Historic Parks 2018).

Photo 2: Image of Intact Jaw Harps (Worthpoint 2019).

In a thesis published on this very topic, Deirdre Anne Elizabeth Morgan (2008) asserts that the mouth harp plays an important and interesting role in courtship and procreation especially in southeastern Asia. It is suggested that the shape of the mouth-played instrument has symbology related to procreation and it may “possess an innately erotic character” (Bakx 1998). It is further suggested that because this instrument is solely played with the mouth it provides a focal point for suitors trying to lure a mate through both their mouth and their musical prowess (Elizabeth Morgan 2008).

Finding musical instruments on sites helps archaeologists understand the vernacular lifestyle of occupants and illustrates how music often helped provide a mental break from their day-to-day activities and create a comforting sense of place.

 

References:

Bakx, Phons

1998    The Jew’s harp and the Hindu God Shiva: Into the Symbolism of Procreation. The Thoughts’ Dispeller Booklet Series 1. Stichting/Foundation Antropodium, Middleburg.

Elizabeth Morgan, Deirdre Anne

2006    Organs and Bodies: The Jew’s Harp and the Anthropology of Musical Instruments. Electronic document, https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~amcgraw/gamelan/ubc_
2008_fall_morgan_deirdre-libre.pdf, accessed March 2019.

Mackinac State Historic Parks

2018    Jaw Harps. Electronic document, https://www.mackinacparks.com/jaw-harps/, accessed March 2019.

National Geographic

2018    1,700-Year-Old Musical Instrument Found, and It Still Works. Electronic document, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/ancient-musical-instrum
ent-mouth-jaw-harp-siberia-russia-spd/, accessed March 2019.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

When Building Fragments Come Together: Foundations at the Fredericksburg Riverfront Park

By Kerri Barile

One of the most exciting finds on an archaeological site are the remains of a building or structure—evidence of people modifying their natural world to create a controlled space. Whether it is a dwelling, store, barn, or other building, the activity of using tools to create construction materials and combining these fragments to craft shelter is one of the hallmarks of humanity. During the Riverfront Park data recovery in Fredericksburg, Virginia, Dovetail Cultural Resource Group found not one but five foundations, each a unique symbol of the city’s evolution (Photo 1). The archaeological work was done at the request of the City of Fredericksburg prior to park development. This blog is the first of several that will focus on the results of our January/February 2019 data recovery at the Riverfront Park. We thought we would set the scene for upcoming installments by discussing the buildings that once dotted the landscape. Future blogs will take the next step and describe the thousands of artifacts once used by area inhabitants and recovered during this incredible dig.

Photo 1: Adriana Moss Excavates a Brick Foundation at the Riverfront Park.

The first European settlement on the Fredericksburg riverfront occurred early in the community’s history. Even before the town had a formal street system, dwellings were being erected along the riverbanks. One of the earliest was a home that we now call the Rowe-Goolrick House, located at the southern end of the proposed park. Built in the mid-eighteenth century, this two-story, three-bay home did not face today’s street grid but rather the original town ferry lane, which ceased use shortly after the home was constructed. The foundation of the house was fashioned of local Aquia sandstone, forming a basement and support system for the frame structure above. The home was demolished in 1973 to make way for a parking lot. During the Riverfront data recovery, Dovetail uncovered the northeast corner of the foundation, still in pristine condition (Photo 2). Possible original support posts were even found in place in the basement fill. Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is being done on these supports to date these incredible building fragments.

Photo 2: The Rowe-Goolrick House in 1933 (left) (Library of Congress 1933) and the Home’s Stone Foundation (right), Found under a Parking Lot.

On the opposite side of the park, in the northern segment near Hanover Street, the team uncovered not one but two incredible foundations. Each featured handmade brick with sand temper made in wooden molds; the foundations were fastened with mud mortar. In the northwest corner was the foundation of a one-story, four-bay brick duplex at 717–719 Sophia Street built around 1780. Interestingly, this home had a central chimney that serviced both sides of the double dwelling—a feature usually seen in New England (Photo 3). In the northeast corner was the brick foundation of the circa 1832 Ferneyhough ice house, a public ice facility. This feature measured over 30 feet in length, dug into a subsoil of very dense clay (so dense that the backhoe could not penetrate the soils) (Photo 4). Excavation of this clay with hand tools to adequately lay the deep foundation would have been incredibly challenging!

Photo 3: Brick Duplex at 717–719 Sophia Street in 1927 (left) (Library of Congress 1927) and the Building’s Foundation and Central Chimney Base Uncovered During the Dig (right).

Photo 4: The West Wall of the Ferneyhough Ice House Discovered 4 Feet Below Ground.

In the middle of the park, archaeologists found the brick foundation of a postbellum home once located at 713 Sophia Street and an antebellum duplex that once stood at 701–703 Sophia Street (Photo 5). Both of these buildings had a timber-frame structural system sitting on brick, stone, and wooden pier foundations. Each was in use for only 50 to 75 years before they were demolished, reflecting the transitory nature of life along the river where repeated flooding and changing transportation needs rendered an ever-changing landscape. All of the buildings found in the park area were someone’s home, someone’s work, someone’s life. When joined, these fragments come together to tell the story of so many who once walked in our footsteps and dwelled at our doors.

Photo 5: The Fredericksburg Riverfront Park Around 1920. From left to right: brick duplex at 717–719 Sophia Street; home at 713 Sophia Street; Home at 705 Sophia Street (not excavated during current fieldwork); and wood duplex at 701–703 Sophia Street (Shibley 1976:137).

 

References:

Library of Congress

1927    Cabin, Water Street, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Frances Benjamin Johnson Collection. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2008675923/, accessed July 2013.

1933    House, 607 Sophia Street, Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Historic American Building Survey. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/va0925.photos.165656p/, accessed July 2013.

Shibley, Ronald E.

1976    Historic Fredericksburg: A Pictorial History. The Donning Company/Publishers, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia.

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

Coming Unglued: The Importance of Reversibility in Artifact Conservation

By Reagan Andersen

In this month’s blog, we are highlighting a whiteware basin with a flow blue Scinde pattern from the mid-nineteenth century. The object was brought to the Dovetail lab by a curious owner from Stafford County.  The vessel had once been broken into several large pieces that someone had attempted to glue back together (Photo 1). With permission from the owner, the archaeology lab at Dovetail conserved the bowl in a more appropriate and safe manner. Through a step-by-step analysis, this blog will discuss the conservation methods utilized to preserve the bowl’s integrity.

Photo 1: The Basin Before Conservation Efforts Began. Notice the giant glob of glue put in place of a missing sherd!

The first step was to remove the adhesive that had been used to refit the bowl when it originally broke. In order to do this, we had to first determine what type of glue was used and how, or if, it could be removed. With its black color, we believed the adhesive to be JB Weld—a high-temperature epoxy adhesive that is not removable. In order to get a clearer answer, we took the bowl to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) in Richmond and with the help of Katherine Ridgway, a conservator at DHR, we received great news. It was not JB Weld, but just a normal, removable, adhesive that had been painted over with either black paint or sharpie in an attempt to blend in with the dark blue pattern.  We quickly got to work removing the black paint and as much of the glue as possible with just cotton balls and acetone. However, the adhesive was not budging. The next step was to put the bowl into an acetone chamber, where the bowl is placed in a bag or container along with acetone-filled jars so that the acetone vapors can break down the adhesive and allow for separation (Photo 2). After a few weeks of being in the acetone chamber, the pieces had finally fallen apart and it was time to start removing the leftover residue and begin re-mending. In order to remove the excess residue we soaked the sherds in acetone and then used scalpels to peel the adhesive off of the fragments.

Photo 2: The Basin After Removal of Adhesive, But Before Acetone Chamber.

To re-mend the basin, we used Paraloid B-72: a clear, thermoplastic resin that is commonly used in conservation and restoration. It is more flexible than most other adhesives and, most importantly, it is dissolvable in acetone! It is highly important that whatever was done to the basin must be reversible; this is true with all conservation and restoration work. In the lab at Dovetail, we regularly use B-72 for labeling artifacts and mending ceramics or glass.

After several months of work, the bowl was finally finished (Photo 3). We hope to continue restoration by filling in the damaged, colorless areas with compatible paint colors. So, next time you break your grandmother’s favorite dinner plate, ask an archaeologist to repair it for you!

Photo 3: The Finished Basin.

 

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

Frog Legs: The Other White Meat

A Wrought Iron Frog Gig Recovered in Randolph County, North Carolina

By Kerry S. González

People have been consuming frog legs for centuries. In 2013 National Geographicreported that 10,000-year-old cooked frog bones were found in England , long before the French were first documented as eating frog legs (Zuckerman 2013). According to cookbooks from the eighteenth century frog legs were part of haute cuisine in France, while in England the idea of eating frog legs “filled the British with disgust” (Zuckerman 2013). In the Americas, frog legs were an easily obtainable source of protein, provided you lived near a water source. Any source of protein was important, especially during hard times. But how do you catch frogs for consuption? Keep reading if you would like to know more. If frogs make you squeemish maybe stop reading here.

Frogs were captured using a tool known as a “gig.” The frog gig shown below was recovered from the Trogdon-Squirrel Creek site in Randolph County, North Carolina. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group conducted data recovery excavations at the site on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Work was guided by the data recovery plan authored by NCDOT (Overton 2014).

The wrought iron frog gig appears to have been modified or hastily made as evidenced through an x-ray image. The gig was heat joined likely as a repair after one of the original three tines broke (pictured below). Heat joining, or forge welding, simply refers to heating two pieces of metal and joining them to create a solid bond. Frog gigs and eel gigs often have this trident shape and were used to pierce the skin of a frog or eel for capture. Frog gigging typically occurs at night when the creatures are most active but can certainly be done during the day.

Photo 1: Wrought Iron Frog Gig Recovered From Trogdon-Squirrel Creek Site. On left is an x-ray image of the frog gig and original is on right.

 

Photo 2: Wrought Iron Frog Gig From Personal Collection of D. Brad Hatch Showing Possible Original Form.

This form of gigging, also used at times to capture fish, has been used for centuries. A watercolor painting titled The Manner of Their Fishingdone by Captain John White in 1585 illustrates Native Americans using spears and traps to catch fish (White 1585) (Figure1). While the spears used in the Mid-Atlantic during White’s time were made of a combination of bone, wood, and stone, the gig-construction method varied over the course of time. As illustrated in Hooks, Rings & Other Things (1988:155–156), there were many styles of spears which varied in shape depending on time period and purpose. The multi-pronged form, such as that found at the Trogdon Squirrel Creek site, was one of the most popular.

Next time you are at a restaurant and you are trying to decide between chicken or the steak, look to see if they offer frog legs, ‘the other white meat.’

Figure 1: The Manner of Their Fishing (White 1585).

 

Figure 2: Various Styles of Frog, Fish, and Eel Spears From the Nineteenth Century (Barnes 1988).

 

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References:

Barnes, Frank T.
1988   Hooks, Rings & Other Things. The Christopher Publishing House, Hanover, Massachusetts.

Overton, Brian
2015  Request for Proposal: Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation, Asheboro U.S. 64 Bypass. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Human Environment Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.

White, John
1585   The Manner of Their Fishing. Electronic document, http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspxassetId=22109001&objectId=753504&partId=1, accessed October 2018.

Zuckerman, Catherine
2013   Frog Legs: A British Innovation? Electronic document, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131107-frog-legs-england-france-food-archaeology-britain-wiltshire-french-english-british/, accessed October 2018.

Making Stone Tools the Hardaway

Making Stone Tools the Hardaway: A Paleoindian Artifact from the Graceland Site, Randolph County, North Carolina

By Joe Blondino

It’s no surprise that archaeologists like old things. That’s why we get particularly excited when we find artifacts dating to the Paleoindian period, which spans from at least as early as 12,000 BC (Carr 2018, Carr and Adovasio 2002, Goodyear 2005) to approximately 8,000 BC (Ward and Davis 1999). This period represents the earliest occupation of North America, when people were settling into new environments that would ultimately shape the way their culture and technology evolved in different parts of the continent.

For September we will look at a Paleoindian artifact that continues our series highlighting materials recovered from the Asheboro Bypass Project in Randolph County, North Carolina. Among the sites identified during this project was the Graceland site (31RD1568). Dovetail Cultural Resource Group conducted excavations at this site on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), guided by the Scope of Work authored by NCDOT (Overton 2015) and coordination between Dovetail, NCDOT, and the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. The majority of the 3,661 artifacts recovered from the site date to the Morrow Mountain and Guilford phases of the Middle Archaic period, spanning a date range from approximately 5,000 to 3,000 BC (Blondino and Proper 2018). However, a Hardaway side-notched point dating to the late Paleoindian period indicates that the site was being used much earlier. Excavations at the Slade site in southeastern Virginia suggest a date range of 8,250–8,050 BC for the Hardaway phase (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997), making these points approximately 10,000 years old!

Hardaway side-notch point photo

Hardaway side-notched point from the Graceland site.

The Hardaway point from the Graceland site is made of a metavolcanic rock common to this part of North Carolina and quarried by the prehistoric occupants of the site as a material from which to make projectile points and other stone tools. The site itself is located on a slight slope near a natural drainage which channels surface water during heavy rain. As a result, there is more erosion here than in nearby areas, exposing the bedrock and making it easier to get to. The distribution of artifacts across the site suggests that people were obtaining stone from near the drainage, where it could be found closer to the surface, and then taking it up to the flatter land above to work it into tools. Prehistoric people would visit sites like this when their stone toolkit was in need of rejuvenation. Stone tools like projectile points and knives can be re-sharpened, but this process removes material, and eventually the tool is too small to be used and simply must be replaced. It is likely that this was the case with the Graceland Hardaway point. You might notice from the photograph that the point is a little lopsided- if you look at the tip of the point, it is not directly above the center of the base. This often happens because the point has been re-sharpened more on one side than on the other, perhaps because it was being used more as a knife than as a projectile point. When its owner visited the Graceland site during the late Paleoindian period, they may have made themselves a new point (or a few of them), and simply discarded this one, only to have Dovetail archaeologists find it again 10,000 years later. Now that’s doing things the Hardaway!

Graceland Excavation Site - Image

Excavations at the Graceland site. The Hardaway point was recovered from the excavation unit under the canopy on the right.

 

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References:

Blondino, Joseph R. and Earl E. Proper
2018    Addendum: Archaeological Survey and Testing of Newly Defined Areas of Potential Effects for the Asheboro Bypass, Randolph County, North Carolina. Dovetail Cultural Resource Group, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Carr, Kurt
2018    Peopling of the Middle Atlantic: A Review of Paleoindian Research. In Middle Atlantic Prehistory: Foundations and Practice, edited by Heather A. Wholey, and Carole L. Nash, pp. 219–260. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Carr, K.W., and J.M. Adovasio
2002    Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by Kurt Carr and James Adovasio, pp. 1–50. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, No. 2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Goodyear, Albert C.
2005    Evidence of Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern United States. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, pp. 103–112. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

McAvoy, Joseph M. and Lynn D. McAvoy
1997    Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report Series n. 8, Richmond, Virginia.

Overton, Brian
2015    Request for Proposal: Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation, Asheboro U.S. 64 Bypass. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Human Environment Section, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Ward, H. Trawick, and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999    Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. The University of North Caroloina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

A Brush with a Hog

A Brush with a Hog: Cleaning Your Teeth in the Nineteenth Century

By Kerry Gonzalez

In 2018, archaeologists from the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA), Applied Archaeology and History Associates, Inc., and Dovetail Cultural Resource Group worked on four sites along Frederick Road (MD 144) in Howard County, Maryland. The survey is part of a stewardship initiative by MDOT SHA to explore the history and development of the MD 144 corridor, known historically as the Baltimore and Frederick-Town Turnpike and the National Road. As part of this work, Dovetail will be processing the field and artifact data, as well as producing a final report on four sites. While the archival research and data analysis is ongoing, the site appears to be a mid nineteenth century dwelling that may have served as a store.

This month’s blog highlights a bone toothbrush recovered from the Poplar Springs excavations (Photo 1 and Photo 2). Mid- to late nineteenth century examples like this one, once contained animal hair bristles held in place by copper alloy wiring (Photo 2). While hog bristles were the preferred hair for toothbrushes, horse and badger hair were also used at various times (Pittman 2018).

Bone Toothbrush Fragment image

Photo 1: Bone Toothbrush Fragment Recovered From Excavations at Poplar Springs Site.

Close up of toothbrush - Image

Photo 2: Image Taken with Microscope Showing Intact Bristles and Copper Wire.

Mid-to-Late 19th Century Bone Toothbrush - Image

Photo 3: Mid-to Late-Nineteenth Century Bone Toothbrush Recovered From Clagett’s Brewery (18BC38) in Maryland (JefPat 2018).

 

The first bristled toothbrush was invented during the Tang Dynasty (AD 619–907) in China (Library of Congress 2013). While the bone or bamboo toothbrush with hog bristles was used throughout China during and after the Tang Dynasty, it was some time before this invention reached Europe. Prior to this, Europeans would clean their teeth (if they chose to do so) with a rag or chew stick (Samford 2002). It was not until 1780 that William Addis reportedly invented what we know today as the toothbrush. The legend says:

Addis became involved in a dispute that got out of control, and was thrown into Newgate prison, charged with starting a riot. Languishing in a dark and dank jail cell, Addis had time on his hands, and a foul-tasting mouth. The story has it that he spied a broom in a corner of a room, and was struck with inspiration. Retrieving a bone from the jail cell floor, he somehow drilled holes into it and obtained bristles from a sympathetic jailer. [Museum of Everyday Life n.d.]

Toothbrushes were being mass-produced across Europe by the 1840s, and by 1857 the first U.S. patent was filed by H.N. Wadsworth. This patent outlines how the new and improved angle of the bristles “keeps the gums healthy and vigorous” among other things (Samford 2002). However, while toothbrushes likely cleaned better than the previously used rag or stick, the bristles often broke off leaving sharp ends that punctured the fragile gum tissue and thus led to nasty oral infections. Animal hair continued to be used in toothbrushes until 1938 when the first toothbrush with nylon bristles was presented to the market (Pittman 2018). The bristles on this new and improved toothbrush were still very coarse and it was not until the 1950s that softer bristles were introduced.  So, while you are brushing your teeth tonight, be thankful that the toothbrush was invented and that you are not using a chew stick or rag to clean your teeth.

 

 

Any distributions of blog content, including text or images, should reference this blog in full citation. Data contained herein is the property of Dovetail Cultural Resource Group and its affiliates.

References:

Museum of Everyday Life
n.d.      Prison, Suicide, & the Cold-Climate Hog. Electronic document, http://museumofeverydaylife.org/exhibitions-collections/previous-exhibitions/toothbrush-from-twig-to-bristle-in-all-its-expedient-beauty/a-visual-history-of-the-toothbrush. Accessed August 2018.

Library of Congress
2013    “Who Invented the Toothbrush and When Was it Invented?” Everyday Mysteries:  Fun Science Facts from the Library of Congress.  Website accessed February 23, 2017 at http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/tooth.html.

Pittman, Bill
2018    Thomas Jefferson’s Toothbrush. Electronic document, http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/may03/iotm.cfm. Accessed August 2018.

Samford, Patricia
2002    Bone Handled Toothbrushes. Electronic document, https://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/SmallFinds/Toothbrushes/index-BoneHandledToothbrushes.html, accessed August 2018.