Field Day 5

Today we continued the excavation of the dry well, which I should more properly call Feature 1, considering that we are not 100% sure that it is a dry well (although the evidence seems to point that way). Before we began to dig, we made an effort to recreate one of the old photographs of St. Mark's Church, taken around the 1890s. This was the result:

The view is partially obstructed by the tree in the new photo, but I think it came out pretty well. In both pictures you can see the Caroline Carpenter stone (left foreground) and the pointy Gothic Philip and Nancy Sarles stone (to the right of the church in the old photo, partially blocked by the tree in the new photo). You can also see the two stones slightly to the left of the center of the photo that lean toward each other. One of them was given a new base after the old photo was taken.

 

After taking the photograph and before continuing with Feature 1, we took a few minutes to mark out extensions of STP 3, where we had found the possible foundation wall. These new STPs, which will be called STP 3-A, -B, and -C, will hopefully tell us whether the stones continue and help us to determine whether they are actually a foundation wall. The newly discovered photograph of St. Mark's Church which I posted last night supports our foundation wall theory. In that photograph, the church appears to be located far more to the east than we had previously believed.

Above are the new STPs we marked out. I am not sure if we should keep the unit divided into 20" x 20" squares or combine them into one 40" x 40" unit. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches (as always). Keeping the divisions will allow for more precise recording of strata, features, and artifacts, but will take more time. Eliminating the divisions will save time but sacrifice some precision.

Finally, on to Feature 1. As you can see, there are a lot of rocks, and it only got rockier as we went down. Along with the rocks, we found abundant artifacts: nails, pieces of glass (fancy and non-fancy), charcoal, coal, slate, and pieces of metal and concrete. As we uncovered larger and larger pieces of slate, someone (not me - I think it was Pat?) observed that the shape and size of the slate seemed to resemble the hexagonal slate shingles on the church's steeple, which we were only able to view clearly after scanning the photograph that Laurie found yesterday.

This photograph also provides a better view of the windows of the church (below). Could these windows be the source of some of the glass we were finding? We have uncovered several types of glass - a large quantity of clear, thin pieces; a large quantity of clear pieces with an opaque brown patterning; and a few miscellaneous pieces.

Could the patterned glass pieces (a.k.a. fancy glass) have come from stained glass windows? Were the windows in the photograph above stained glass or not? Upon seeing the photograph above, Laurie and I wondered whether the criss-cross pattern in the windows could have been the same as this brown pattern. However, my father, whose repository of random knowledge is infinite, suggested that the criss-cross pattern was made up of wires that held the panes in place.


There is another possibility for the brown patterned glass - it could have come from the window in the middle of the steeple, which is partially blocked by a tree branch in the photo (below). OR it could not be window glass at all! Whatever it turns out to be, I have to say that the interplay between archaeological and documentary evidence is one of the best parts of historical archaeology. Wouldn't you love to see a photograph of Stonehenge when it was still in use?

One thing I can say about St. Mark's Church is that I don't think I've ever seen a church like it in real life. I would be interested to know if there are any similar churches still standing in the area.

The work of sifting goes on, with both the shaker screen ...


... and this smaller screen. Note the nails and pieces of glass (one clear and one blue) on the frame of the screen. I think I see a nail poking out of the dirt in the middle of the screen too.

Towards the end of our work day, we discovered this white crumbly stuff in two corners of the unit. Is it mortar?

Here's Feature 1 at the end of the day, showing the bottom of Level 1. As Pat observed, the stones we encountered farther down in the feature are more angled, that is closer to perpendicular with the ground surface than parallel to it. You can see some of the angled rocks in this picture, as well as the quarrying mark on the big stone. I am very curious to see if we ever see the bottom of that stone.

As you can see in this photo, we have bisected the feature in order to gain a profile view. This means we will be able to see the strata not only on the sides of the feature, but through the middle of it. This was Eugene's suggestion and so far it seems to be working out very well.