Week 2 at the FBC
Today was my second day excavating at the FBC site, and I remained at site C2 in the NE corner of the site for the duration of the day. I arrived a bit late due to a long harvesting morning, but was early enough to enjoy the mixture of sun and shade provided by site C2. I worked with Maia, who just joined the class, and we had a great time exploring the depths of the SU2 and SU3 layers of the trench. We came upon some interesting sand deposits, one that seemed to be in the shape of a lock and another that followed the entire depth of SU2. I was convinced that they would lead to something more interesting, but alas my sandbox fantasy only carries so far in the real world.
However, we did find some interesting pottery chards and a button, which were my favorite finds of the day. One chard in particular was interesting because I could see a floral design painted on it, similar to pottery I recall seeing in my grandmother's cluttered china chest (oh nostalgia for the old days.... ). Also, the button was simple but humanized the whole experience of finding just small pieces of what is a complete past; someone actually used that button for something. Somehow that is more real to me when I find a whole object.
Overall it was an outstanding day, the weather cooperated and we found some interesting things. I look forward to the digs to come!
Dates are good. I really should remember to use dates. Yesterday was our second day at FBC and I stayed at Trench D1 for the entire 4 and a half hours. As much as I'm fond of that trench, sitting on the hill for that long tends to make my back hurt a lot. Yesterday I finished SU2 and started SU3. Whit was with me for the first half of the time and then he got switched to another trench. Digging by yourself is not quite as entertaining as having a partner, but it does give you some introspection and daydreaming time. Yesterday was a pretty good day for finds. We found the usual million and a half pieces of broken glass and corroded metal but we also found a piece of stonewear, what looks like a piece of tile and most excitingly (to me anyways) was the piece of pipe bowl I found in SU3. Kate and Michelle said that if we found the pipe stem we'd be able to date the pipe, but it was towards the end of the class and there wasn't really time to dig into SU3 more. It was clean-up time. I'm starting to get a handle on all the paperwork that needs filling out and that's a nice feeling. So far the weather for our digs has been incredibly beautiful but I don't like to think how it will feel towards the ends of october.
The second day of digging at the FBC was decidedly less hectic than the first. Upon arrival, I began excavating trench D2 with Scott, hoping to penetrate at least one more 10cm layer into the ground before the period ended. We got this far and more; keeping what Kate described as "a trench she would eat out of," we worked our way into the trench leaving intact certain portions that seemed to be of a different composition than the soil around them. While we have yet to conclusively figure out what these areas are, we suspect they might be holes that once contained wooden posts, or perhaps root structures of plants that were once there. In digging around these areas, we were also fortunate enough to uncover two terra cotta sherds, what looks like a piece of china pottery, and various small rocks that appear as though they were altered by human contact.
One thing that has interested me alot is how little we know--at least right now--about how old each layer we encounter actually is. We have little basis for assigning ages to anything we find, and until we learn those techniques and enter the lab we will probably not know the degree to which our depth in a trench corresponds to an historical period. As such, we are totally in the dark as to whether what we find should or should not be notable; if a rusty nail in our trench is from the 1970's, it's probably not going to pique our interest as much as if it were from the 1870's. I look forward to determining and contextualizing the ages and relative ages of each layer of our trench and the items that we find there.
This past Monday was the second day of digging at the FBC. I was working in trench D4 this time, which is on the north edge of the property, just west of trench C1 where I had worked the previous week. SU 1 and 2 had been excavated last week, and Cindy and I finished SU3. SU4 was a large clay lump in the center of the trench that cut through SU 2 and 3. As we dug through SU3 we found a lot of relatively modern looking nails, chunks of coal, and pieces of brick or tile. We also found a number of large chunks of what initially appeared to be rocks, but upon closer inspection turned out to be chunks of slag, presumably left over from near-by smelting. It appears that the area contains a great deal of construction waste, but we can't be sure from which period the constuction dates from without further analysis. After we were through with SU3 and had dug to a depth of 30cm (around the SU4, the large clay lump) I began to dig through SU4, the clay pedestal. Somewhat suprisingly, the clay contained artifacts similar to those found in the dirt surrounding it (SU3). I only dug through a small portion of the clay (which is very compact and difficult to dig up) before it was time to clean up, but I found nails, cement, mortar, and brick in this layer. It will be exciting to see how far down in the trench these construction-related artifacts continue to appear.
This week I started off at 1 pm working with Cindy on trench D4. We were trying to dig around a clay layer in the middle of the trench, and attempting to determine where its layers were. I hadn't worked long, though, before I had to leave again for my Chinese class at 2. Once I got back, I was placed at the same trench I had worked on the first week, trench C1. Much to my surprise, when I pulled the tarp off that was covering the trench, a little mouse scurried out from underneath! Luckily, that was the one and only mouse I saw that day. I started to dig SU2, which definitely proved to be more interesting than SU1. After a while, when Whit came over to help me and keep me company, we started to find a lot of interesting items. There were plenty of glass sherds, as well as some rusty nails, coal, asphalt, a piece of pottery, and much more. I must say, the most interesting of the things we found were two glass sherds. One sherd was a relatively large chunk of a base of some sort of medicine bottle, definitely an interesting find! The other was a piece of glass with some kind of painted or enameled design on it, mostly red. It was difficult to determine what the design was, but I was curious whether, with any research done, we could find another example of that kind of design. Last semester in a class on material courses, I wrote my final paper on glass tableware artifacts from the site of Smith's Castle in Rhode Island; hence, I have some previous knowledge about and interest in these pieces of glass we are finding now.
The weather was quite nice once again, and I enjoyed sitting with Whit and talking while we dug. The rest of the day was just enough time to flatten out the bottom of SU 2, finish sifting our dirt, take some pictures, and record notes in the journal. We were starting to hit a layer that might be different and muddier than the first (we weren't sure), so we stopped SU2 at about 18.5 cm down from the surface. I am hoping that I get to work in the same trench again because I am eager to see if we find any more of the same vessels from which the two interesting glass sherds came from. However, Whit was also telling me about the multitude of interesting artifacts that came out of another trench he was working on, so maybe I will get to spend some time in there as well.
I am looking forward to our next dig; the deeper we get, the closer we get to the past and what it has left behind for us! So far, this class has only reinforced my interest in archaeology and discovering amazing things about the past through a fascinating method!
This was our second day of excavations. This time I was again at trench D3, though with Mark as my partner. We concentrated on finishing up SU2 and honing our troweling skills once we had reached the 20cm depth to get it consistently level across the whole trench. You can somewhat see in this picture the degree to which we progressed at the end of SU2:
Good enough to sleep on, according to one of my fellow excavators, who will remain nameless.
SU3, at least as much of it as we got through, proved to be a rewarding arbitrary level, if those can reasonably be given such characteristics. I personally found multiple artifacts: some terracotta chips, a sherd of porcelain with some blue painting on it, a rusty and corroded nail, and some glass fragments. The porcelain was the most exciting of them all, because that one is instantly recognizable as evidence of some cultural occupation at the site and human presence. Those things don't just grow on trees!
Furthermore, while we continued to remove dirt around the mystery "features," another one began to appear. Unlike the other three, this one does not fall on a rough diagonal line, but instead is off on its own in the SE quadrant of the trench. They may be mysterious, but they are undeniably present.
Field Day #2: The Soul of a Site
Is it acceptable to destroy that which we archaeologists seek to understand? Of course it is ironic and lamentable in some ways, but is it necessary? Is it respectful?
As I stood amidst the lazy emanations of dust (see photo in 9.24.2007 photolog), wafted into the hazy afternoon by my sifting, such thoughts crept into my mind. The soil heapped on top of my feet, and from it seemed to escape the sacred spirit of the site. Can we ever expect to understand that which we disassemble in this manner, overlooking the humanity of our site in our persnickety attention to measurement and detail. I suppose a machinist would answer in the affirmative - that a unit's overall function can be described as the simple sum of its parts and their function, and that if we understand the functioning of the individual parts and their relation to the whole, we can fully understand the whole. But machines are very different from humans, I think - just look at the way a computer functions compared to a brain. Likewise, I wonder if we are letting an integral part of the site slip through the sieve and into thin air...
Or is the archaeologist's excavation the ultimate show of respect? In is our meticulous record taking on each stratigraphic unit, our precise measurements of arbitrary levels, and the time and emotion we invest in extracting artifacts the ultimate show of our veneration for the story that was the reality for our ancestors? Investing so much time in preserving the destroyed reality of the site - is that consummate respect?
What does it say about the humanity that connects to our ancestors and to our posterity across time, that what one culture created must be dismembered to be understood in the context of our own culture?
Our field archaeology text by Hester states that there is no current technology that would allow for the archaeolgist's investigation to be non-intrusive. Would we benefit from seeking such a science, or would that take away a degree of intimacy that we get from pulling the barebones of a civilization from the ground? Or would it be desirable to find a way around what may be a disrespectful exhumation of our ancestor's archaeological legacy?
Is the lost "site soul" what we try to recreate from our records? Perhaps archaeological records are like a gravestone, recording the human spirit that once existed in a site or a human being but whose presence is no longer tangible.
Maybe the swirling dust was getting to me, but as Maddy and I brushed back the soil from charcoal, picked pieces of brick from the sieve, and displayed the delicate ceramic fragment (see photo in 9.24.2007 photolog) to Kate and Michelle today, I couldn't help but wonder if we were separating these fragments of the past from their soul in the context of the site. I was exceedingly excited to have found the curious tiny - whose leaf design and minute features suggest a passionate hand - but I wonder if the dust of our destruction contained stories just as important.
We've dug down 27 cm in trench D2 - well into our third stratigraphic unit. If the spirit of a man or woman must be buried six feet under, I wonder how far we have to go to reach the soul of the church site. Is it even in the stratigraphy?
Yikes! Off to find an exorcist to rid me of this riddling, pesky poltergist of the past,
Tyler
Week 3:
Monday was my first day excavating at the First Baptist Church, which was co-founded by the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams. This was also my first time participating in an archaeological excavation - I was so excited! Although I thought that we would uncover very little after digging only 10 cm down, I was pleasantly surprised to discover with Nicole some pieces of porcelain, glaze-ware and a pearly, white button on my first day. I am particularly curious about the piece of blue and white porcelain (a sherd approximately half a centimeter across), which had an intricate vegetal / floral design on it. I wonder what the rest of this artifact looked like? And if we found more sherds, could we trace this kind of pottery to a certain import from China? Hopefully, we'll uncover more pieces this next round.
The site which Nicole and I worked on was called C2, located on a hill, on the northeast of the church. Since I joined the class in the second week, most of the initial trench work had already been completed. On Monday we dug 10 cm more and started on the next level. The site itself is supposed to contain colonial and Native American remains (alledgedly, a path ran close to the church). So far, most of the remains look colonial or more recent. I would be excited to discover something from the Native Americans (knock on wood...).
All in all, there's something so rewarding and remarkable in unearthing an object from the past that once was touched, used, discarded, and lost. I can't wait to see what we discover next!
Monday was my second day digging, and it was a rough one at that. Positioned at trench D2, I and my partner were faced with a veritable dustbowl, accentuated by the wind and direct sun on us. To my surprise somewhat, we both ended up wearing safety masks. I, in fact, had dimissively left mine at home, and had to use an extra one to keep from coughing. Besides concerns of comfort, we were digging around a large root that cleaves the trench, and we dug through some fifteen centimeters to find only a sherd of pottery and an dime-sized shred of fabric. I was glad to find both items, and, although I still do not know of their archaeological importance, they were very pleasing to my eye after cubic feet of dust. Concluding the dig that day, I narrated to myself, "Archaeology... it has its up and it has its downs!" This "gap" in the record of this trench only whets my appetite for the even older things that I might find further down. Additionally, I enjoy digging for the variety it produces in my otherwse clean, sedentary and theoretical lifestyle. Being in the position to, potentially, make discoveries for myself, rather than reading about them, gives a different perspective to my intellectual life in ways that I have not yet fully appreciated.
Posted 30 October 2007: Last Monday's field work was still fun, but rather uneventful compared to the first week of excavation. I have to admit that this week's digging was much more uncomfortable than last time's. I got really dirty too. Trench D1 had no tarp on it all week, so it was exposed to the sunlight even more than the other trenches. It was so dusty! When I got back to my dorm, I saw my reflection in the mirror -- it looked as if I had bruises all over my face, but it was just dirt. Chelsea and I didn't find too much in this trench, but after I left to work on C1, she found a pipe! Stephanie and I found some pretty cool objects in C1, though. We found a piece of glass (probably the bottom of an old bottle) larger than any other I had found in the two days of field work. Stephanie also found an interesting piece of glass with a nice design on it. So far, D1 may have produced many more objects, but the few artifacts we've found in C1 are more exciting. While we were digging, I remember Michelle asking us if the cars driving down Angell Street were freaking us out (we were literally right next to the bend in the street, which gave us the illusion that cars were driving straight at us). I actually hadn't noticed until she pointed this disconcerting fact out. Thanks, Michelle!
Week 2
For the second week, I stayed in D4, this time working with Stephanie and Dan. Starting up went much faster this week since the trenches were already started and we had more of an idea of what was going on. For SU3, we dug around the large lump of clay in the center, taking the remainder of the trench down to 30 cm. We finally got the remaining grass up at the south end of the trench. It was slower work in SU 3, partially because of the clay that we were trying to avoid, and partially because there were a lot of rocks. Some of these rocks turned up later to be pieces of slag. It's also messier trying to get dirt out of a corner where the level is so much lower than the clay surrounding it. We found a bunch of little nails, about an inch long, more glass, some pieces of ceramic and brick. There was only one sifter for everyone, so there were a few times when we had to wait around for it. We'd just about finished SU3 when I had to leave early. We took a photo, in which I am extremely dirty.