Mi (f iHEJV' ARCHAEOLOGY FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE McCARTHY-POPE HOUSE CLINTON, JONES COUNTY, GEORGIA, 1978 By John R. Morgan 1984 APR S 2 1985 UUOUlViCtHlb J GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES !5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION SECTION/270 WASHINGTON ST. S.W. ROOM 704/ATLANTA GA. 30334/404-656-2840 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/archaeologyforreOOmorg ARCHAEOLOGY FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE McCARTHY-POPE HOUSE CLINTON, JONES CO., GEORGIA - 1978 by John R. Morgan 1984 Georgia Department of Natural Resources Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Division Historic Preservation Section -1 - 1 Figure 1. The McCarthy-Pope House, Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia, 1978, Looking East. -1 550 i \ .Atlanta V Macon; V Columbus C f Plains [Jones CountyN Savannah \ 50 Mi. 80 Km. 1) MC CARTHY-POPE HOUSE, 19 78 CLINTON, JONES CO., GEORGIA Figure 2. Map: McCarthy-Pope House, 1978, Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia. - iii - ABSTRACT In 1978, during the restoration of the McCarthy-Pope House in Clinton, Jones County, Georgia, archaeology supplemented preceding research. Four interpretive problems generated by restoration planning were identified by historical and architectural investigations. Solutions were tenuous, requiring investigation of other sources of information such as archaeological ones. Information about a second chimney, the location of a back door bay, and the contemporaneity of a shed room and front porch with the body of the house was sought. The problems all had assumed archaeological expressions. Each was investigated with results aiding the solution of the problems and the completion of restoration planning. The location and basal dimensions of a second chimney were ascertained. A stone pad for the stringer of a step frame was evidential of back door bay location, confirming architectural indications. A residual ground surface under the house extended beneath the shed room. No drip line or other features indicative of activities which may have preceded the shed room were found behind the body of the house. A drip line, in conjunction with other evidence, along the front of the house demonstrated that the front porch was a later addition. - IV - TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES FOREWORD PREFACE CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Identification of Problems Theoretical Framework Some Assumptions 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3. SETTING Natural Environment Physiography Geology Soil Climate Cultural Environment 4. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES Means of Data Recovery Curation 5. DATA RECOVERY Problem 1: Second Chimney Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location Problem 3: Shed Room Problem 4: Front Porch -v- Page iv vii viii ix x 1 1 2 3 5 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 12 12 14 15 15 19 22 27 ANALYSIS Problem Problem Problem Problem Second Chimney. ... Back Door Gay Location Shed Room Front Porch RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Problem 1: Problem 2: Problem 3: Problem 4: Second Chimney. . . . Back Door Bay Location Shed Room Front Porch 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Problem 1 Problem 2 Problem 3 Problem 4 Second Chimney. ... Back Door Bay Location Shed Room , Front Porch , REFERENCES CITED Page 30 30 30 36 39 45 45 45 47 48 51 51 51 52 52 54 - vi - Table LIST OF TABLES Page ... 1. Climatic Statistics of Macon, Georgia, By the Month - 1972 9 2. Temperature and Precipitation Data for Baldwin, Jones, and Putnam Counties 9 3. Number of Risers 33 4. Parameters of Total Run 34 - VI 1 - LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The McCarthy-Pope House, Clinton, Jones County, Georgia, 1978, Looking East 2. Map: McCarthy-Pope House, 1978, Clinton, Jones County, Georgia 3. Unit 1, Showing Excavated Chimney Base in Relation to House Framing 4. McCarthy-Pope House, c. 1940, Showing Pattern of Weatherboarding 5. Areas of Excavation and Surface Survey 6. Chimney Base Area, Unit 1, Layer 1 7. Rear of the McCarthy-Pope House, Looking West 8. Search Area for Verification of Door Placement, Unit 2, Layer 1 9. Approaching the Juncture of the House and the Shed Room from the Rear 10. Foundation of the McCarthy-Pope House after the Disassembly of the Framing 11. String Delineating the Juncture of the House and the Shed Room 12. McCarthy-Pope House with Front Porch, c. 1929 13. Drip Line Under the Front Porch, Profiles from Unit 3 14. Drip Line Search, Northeast Profile of Unit 4 15. Different Forms of Attaching a Stair to a Sill 16. Distribution of Efflorescence on the Foundation in the Vicinity of the Front Door Bay Page ii iii 16 17 18 20 21 23 25 29 37 38 40 41 43 44 - VI 1 i FOREWORD Archaeology plays an important role in historic preservation. But archaeology is frequently misunderstood by preservationists, and its role in preservation projects is often less than fully appreciated. By publishing this report on archaeology and historic preservation at the McCarthyPope House in Clinton, Georgia, we hope to foster a better understanding of archaeology and its relation to historic preservation. Elizabeth A. Lyon, Chief Historic Preservation Section State Historic Preservation Officer IX - PREFACE This report of archaeology conducted at the McCarthy-Pope House in Clinton, Georgia is being published to serve two audiences. The first audience is the archaeological community. Only through a published report can the methodology, results, and conclusions of this work be usefully disseminated. By publication, the archaeology of the McCarthy-Pope House will become an accessible part of our knowledge of Georgia's history, and thus an aid to the professional community. The second audience is composed of citizens who are actively working to preserve vestiges of Georgia's architectural heritage. As they identify, interpret, evaluate, and plan restoration of the state's historic buildings, their success depends in part on the thoroughness of their research. Often, records and documents are incomplete or missing, informants are unavailable or unsure, and the structures themselves do not readily succumb to clear, precise interpretation. Restoration planning in these cases may resort to well-intentioned guessing, with the aid of analogy, or with the ease of ignorance. All sources of information are assumed to have been investigated. As this report documents, such thinking limits the potential of restoration. One remaining source ma> not have been considered - the archaeological resource. Human behavior results in activities which leave material remains on or in the ground, e.g., building, disposing, interring, demolishing, etc. These remains, if properly recovered and studied by professional archaeologists, can supply much information of interest to the preservationist -x- However, in order to know which archaeological resources to investigate, well -identified problems (information needs) must be formulated. This may be done by previous researchers (historians, architectural historians, architects) or by the archaeologist. The archaeological resources may then be evaluated, selected, and investigated in terms of the problems to be solved. As archaeology at the McCarthy-Pope House illustrates, valuable, untapped resources exist below the surface of the ground. When appropriately investigated they aided the planning of restoration of the house by supplying critical and otherwise unobtainable interpretive information. To all of the preservationists attempting to accurately interpret Georgia's architectural heritage, this report hopefully will serve by bringing to you an awareness of the potential of archaeological resources which your properties may contain. - xi - CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Identification of Problems In 1977, the Old Clinton Historical Society, as a part of its program of preserving and interpreting historic Clinton, undertook the restoration of the McCarthy-Pope House, c. 1809 (Figure 1). The Society was awarded a grant-inaid from the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (now the National Park Service) of the U. S. Department of Interior through the State Historic Preservation Office of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources with which to contract for restoration plans and specifications. The architect employed to prepare these documents encountered some interpretive problems during his work. Investigated historical and architectural resources provided no solutions for these problems, so other sources of information were sought. Four problems were identified by the architect which required solutions for completing restoration plans and specifications. They are as follows: 1. The location and basal dimensions of a second chimney, which had been documented historically and indicated architecturally, were uncertain: 2. A back door bay was indicated architecturally, but due to structural deterioration its exact location was indeterminable and the form of access to the ground was unknown; 3. A shed room on the rear was interpreted as contemporary with the main body of the house, but structural differences in the former caused uncertainty about when it was built; 4. A front porch was interpreted as a recent addition, but evidence was insufficient. In the absence of substantive historical and architectural evidence, these problems were recognized as having archaeological components from which -1 - pertinent information might be recovered. The data potential of these components, however, was assumed as no previous archaeology at the McCarthy-Pope House had been reported. The purpose of conducting archaeology at the McCarthy-Pope House was to aid the planning of restoration by supplementing interpretation. Funds and time were limited; therefore, only a small amount of archaeology could be done. The focus and direction of archaeology were sharpened and guided by three factors which permitted a minimum expenditure of effort for a maximum return of data. 1. The frame and foundation of the house were extant giving focus. 2. Preceding research had generated some evidence giving direction. 3. Architectural documents provided a record of the structure, ob- served present and interpreted past, on which to formulate and implement strategies and tactics for data recovery. These factors reduced the need of much planning and preparatory research, maximizing funding and time. In conjunction with well-defined problems, they enabled archaeology to begin with clear, specific objectives. Theoretical Framework No elaborate discussion of theory follows. The intent here is to offer some insight to the theoretical perspective of this author. Desirable in anthropological archaeology is the formulation of problems which result in solutions elucidating processes of cultural behavior. These processes may be inferred by means of well-formulated problems which focus on spatial, temporal, and contextual relationships of material remains comprising the archaeological record. For archaeology, the problem is one of discovering patterns of relationships among those remains; that is, the products of human behavior. Any inferred process, of course, must be substantiated by -2- archaeologically retrieved evidence in addition to support from preparatory and comparative research. Archaeology at the McCarthy-Pope House was conducted with an anthropological orientation. Its objective, however, falls short of discerning processes of cultural behavior through the identification of patterns of relationships of behavioral products comprising the archaeological record. Archaeology reported here meets the interpretive needs of planning restoration of the McCarthy-Pope House. A withdrawal from the bank of archaeological knowledge is made, but no return in the form of a deposit follows (see South 1977:308-13). The account, nevertheless, remains open. A brief statement of assumptions on which this work was based is made. Some Assumptions Archaeology is a formal method with a set of techniques for recovering information from resources beneath the surface of the ground. Resources of information to which archaeology is applicable are those products of past cultural behavior surviving in the ground. Segments of past cultural behavior are preserved in products of that behavior and their contexts. The investigation of surviving products of cultural behavior by means of archaeology uses concepts and theory of anthropology. The anthropological approach was an evolutionary one based on the goal of understanding cultural processes inferred from demonstrated patterns and laws derived archaeologically. Behavioral processes active in the past are still active today. Some human behavior is patterned. -3- The next section of this report addresses the natural and cultural environments of the McCarthy-Pope House. This is followed by a review of pertinent literature providing a research context for the archaeology. Methods and techniques of archaeology used to recover information at the house are discussed next. The recovery of data for each problem is then presented, followed by sections on analysis, results and conclusions, and recommendations. 4- CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Reported historic archaeology on the Georgia piedmont is not voluminous. Early reports are similar to this work in orientation; that is, they supplement other forms of investigation (see DeBaillou 1954). Even much recent work, in spite of South's admonition (1974) that historic archaeology must do more than serve other forms of inquiry, is supplementary in thrust (see Morgan 1981, Table 1). This role, however, developed as archaeology began addressing research in a secondary posture at historic sites. Historic archaeology was brought in to deal with problems which had been generated by historical and architectural research and unsuccessfully treated. Unsolved problems, or unanswered questions, required that other kinds of resources be investigated, namely, archaeological ones. The supplementary role of archaeology in historic site research continues today, as this report documents. As historic archaeology has developed, some have argued that the discipline must do more. It must contribute to our understanding of the behavioral patterns of the people responsible for creating the archaeological record. It must allow us to make explanatory interpretations relating to the cultural processes fundamental to those behavioral patterns (South 1974:156). As suggested, the supplementary role of historic archaeology has grown in spite of South's plea for a new direction. This project is another example of that growth, part of which is a consequence of certain -5 funding programs. One such program providing preservation funding calls for survey and planning at the first level of work, including appropriate background research. When interpretive problems arise for which architectural or historical research lines of investigation are unproductive of solutions, archaeology may be called upon, usually in a supplementary role (see Garrow 1979, 1980; Kelso 1971; Mistovitch and Blair 1979; Wood, W. 1979a; Wood, K. 1980). Seldom are funds sufficient to permit research beyond the scope of the project which usually has been cast in architectural or historical objectives. This situation does not appear to be diminishing. For the McCarthy-Pope House, no previous archaeology has been reported. A single instance of archaeology in Clinton involved the widening of highway U. S. 129 (Anderson 1977). For Jones County, a number of small scale resource-management projects have been reported (Ferguson and Schneider 1977a, 1977b, 1977c; Schneider 1977; Wood, W. 1979b), all of which occurred outside of the Clinton-Gray area. Of reported historic archaeology which was reviewed, none treats a site similar to the McCarthy-Pope House. Houses of this type, single-family dwellings on the Georgia piedmont frontier, have not been the subject of archaeology in Georgia. In this case, there is little with which to compare this site or from which to glean insight for preparing a plan of investigation. Direction, however, was provided by the data needs of problems identified by preceding architectural and historical investigations conducted at the house. CHAPTER 3. SETTING Natural Environment As the McCarthy-Pope House is a relatively recent (c. 1809) structure, no elaborate discussion of the history of the natural environment was undertaken. Although the vegetative context of the house has been altered by Euro-American settlement (Brender 1974), other environmental factors are assumed to have been insignificantly affected. Physiography Jones County is physiographically located in the Washington Slope District of the Southern Piedmont. The district is characterized by gently undulating surfaces descending from about the 700-foot (238 m. ) elevation on the north to the 500-foot (170 m. ) elevation on the south. Relief in most of the district is 50 to 100 feet (17 to 34 m.)> except near the Ocmulgee River, which flows in a valley 100 to 200 feet (34 to 68 m. ) below adjacent land surfaces. Streams drain broad, shallow valleys separated by broad, rounded divides with moderate slopes (preceding information from Clark and Zisa 1976). Geology Geology is treated on a broad scale. The Georgia piedmont consists of deeply weathered bedrock which is composed of ancient sediments. These are intruded by granites and related basic and ultrabasic rock. Once shales 7- and sandstones, they are now quartzites, schists, and slate (Hunt 1967) This generally applies to Jones County. Soil The soil around the McCarthy-Pope House is classified as a Davidson clay loam with 6% to 10% slopes which are eroded. Erosion may be severe unless the surface is protected. The soil has a plow zone of dusky-red clay composed mainly of subsoil material. Much of the original surface layer has been eroded away. From the base of the plow zone to a depth of about 60 inches (1.6 m. ) is a dark-red clay (preceding information from Payne 1976:15). Present soil varies, but on the whole it consists of material weathered from igneous and metamorphic rock (Payne 1976:67). Climate No climatic data pertaining directly to Clinton was readily available. A weather-recording station is located at Macon, eleven miles southwest of Clinton. Table 1 gives some climatic data for Macon by the month in 1972 (Sanders and Hudgins 1974:128). On a broader scale for Baldwin, Jones, and Putnam counties, the climate may be described as temperate with warm summers and moderately cold winters. Table 2 gives temperature and precipitation data for this larger area, which includes Clinton (Payne 1976:70) Given the small scale of this projsct and its purpose, no further discussion of the natural environment is warranted. Cultural Environment No elaborate preparatory research regarding the history of Jones County, Clinton, or the McCarthy-Pope House was undertaken for the TABLE 1 CLIMATIC STATISTICS OF MACON, GEORGIA BY THE MONTH - 1972 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Average temp. 51.9 47.9 56.5 65 69.6 75.5 79.4 80.5 77.3 65.8 54.5 55.1 Average max. temperature 62.8 53 69.6 78.9 81.1 87.6 90.5 92.3 91.1 79.3 65.7 65.9 Average min. temperature 40.9 31 43.3 51 58.1 63.4 68.2 68.6 63.4 52.3 43.2 44.2 Highest temperature 75 78 82 91 87 98 96 98 99 89 85 82 Lowest temperature 14 25 31 34 49 46 58 61 50 39 26 21 Total precip. (in.) 7.5 4.3 2.7 .5 2.1 6.2 3.2 3.5 1. 9 3.7 10.4 Average rela- tive humidity 76 70 65 67 75 62 74 76 73 73 75 78 (from Sanders and Hudgins 1974:128) TABLE 2 TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA FOR BALDWIN, JONES, AND PUTNAM COUNTIES Month Average dai ly maximum Average daily minimum Two years in 10 will have at least 4 days with-- Maximum temp. = to or higher than Minimum temp. = to lower than Average One year in 10 will have- Less than- More than- U F F F Jan. 57.2 33.2 74 F Inches Inches Inches 19 3.99 1.3 7.2 July 90.5 69.0 98 62 5.32 2.3 8.4 Year 75.1 50.3 100 15 46.42 37.1 60.2 (from Payne 1976:70) -9 archaeological phase of this project. These subjects have been addressed by others more qualified to deal with them (Abbott 1977; Old Clinton Historical Society 1975; U. S. Department of Interior 1974; Williams 1957). These sources should be consulted for detailed information. For our purpose, a brief background sketch will suffice as a historical -contextual setting. The McCarthy-Pope House is located in Clinton, Jones County, Georgia (Figure 2). The present area of the county was a part of the 1805 Creek cession (Kappler 1904:85-6). In 1807, from Baldwin County, Jones and three other counties were created by the state legislature (Bryant 1977:58). Through the nineteenth century, the original boundary changed a number of times (Bryant 1977:58-9). Despite these changes, a centrally located town was chosen as the county seat and was referred to in early county records as Albany (Old Clinton Historical Society 1975:1). The General Assembly, in 1808, clarified the situation by legislating "that the site of public building in and for the county of Jones, shall be in the town called and known by the name of Clinton. .. "(Prince 1837:953). By 1809, Clinton became an incorporated town. In this community of eighty-five residents, the McCarthy-Pope House was built between 1809 and 1810. Roger McCarthy was probably the builder of this small, frame structure. Subsequent residents included the Pope sisters. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, they operated the town's post office in the house. While not elaborate, the house is a good example of the simple frame dwell inns constructed across the Georaia piedmont in the eighteen-hundreds . Little is known about these structures or their builders (Glassie 1977:29). It is one of the few original buildings of Old Clinton which remains. The McCarthy-Pope House was acquired in 1975 by the Old Clinton - 10 - Historical Society. The objective of acquisition is to restore the house as a museum, visitor center, and headquarters for the Society. When the Society employed an architect to prepare restoration plans and specifications, interpretive problems were identified which brought archaeology into the restoration of the house. - 11 CHAPTER 4. METHODS AND TECHNIQUES As the purpose of archaeology at the McCarthy-Pope House was generated by preceding architectural and historical research, methods and techniques of recovering data were to address non-archaeological research problems. These problems were givens, a product of the preceding research at the house The subject of investigation, the house, was also a given, a consequence of restoration planning. Selection of methods and techniques, therefore, was a matter of addressing previously identified problems at the site of their origin. With limited funds and time because of restoration priorities, only resources assessed as having a high potential for data return were investigated. Appropriate methods and techniques were selected and used. When this process of selection began, the frame of the house was still standing -- at least some of it (see Figures 1 and 7). The extant structure aided selection by reducing the scale of surveying and testing. Areas of high data potential were obvious when the house was assessed in the context of the identified problems under investigation. The collapsing framing, however, did pose a hazard to health. This, in turn, affected the selection of methods and techniques as well as areas to be investigated. Means of Data Recovery The means of data recovery were those of standard archaeological practice. Some elaboration of them follows. To objectively control space, two means were used. First, an assumed datum of zero was established away from - 12 the deteriorating house on a large cut stone to the northeast. All references to vertical space (elevation) at the site were so many inches, feet, etc. , above or below this point (use of the U.S. Customary System of measurement maintained consistency with preceding work at the site). Second, no grid was imposed on the site for controlling horizontal space. Units of excavation were consecutively numbered as each was opened. References to horizontal space were tied to the house itself. Within a unit of investigation, the walls of excavated units were the bounds of horizontal reference. For the control of time, all units opened were excavated according to observable stratigraphy. As a layer of soil was removed, it was assumed to have been more recently deposited than the one beneath it. Elevations of layers of soil and their contents were referenced to the assumed datum. The placement of units of excavation was judgmental and depended on two sources of information. One, preceding researchers (Greene 1977; U.S. Department of Interior 1974) had investigated the site and identified problems. This research gave direction to archaeological strategy, that is, knowing what information was needed. Two, with an extant structure, the selection of areas with highest potential for data recovery was expedited. The element of search and discover was reduced, saving time and money, while increasing the efficiency of data recovery. All units were excavated manually with shovel, spade, trowel, or other tool which permitted the appropriate scale of recovery. Unit size was judgmental, based on needs of data recovery, on architectural parameters imposed by the extant structure, and on personal convenience. All artifacts were collected and features recorded according to the layer of soil and unit of investigation to which they pertained. 13 Curation All artifacts, photographs, plats, maps, and other records are curated at the Laboratory of Archaeology, West Georgia College, Carroll ton. - 14 - CHAPTER 5. DATA RECOVERY The problems identified in the introduction to this report were archaeological ly investigated at the McCarthy-Pope House. This section treats the recovery of data with regards to each problem. The order of presentation of problems is the same as in the introduction and will remain as such throughout the report. Analysis of the recovered data is presented in the next section. Problem 1 : Second Chimney The location of a second chimney, which had been removed at some unknown time prior to this project, was indicated by three sources. One, a pile of bricks adjacent to the house had no other apparent source than a former chimney. Two, floor framing on the side of the house near the brick pile was of such a form to have once incorporated a chimney (Figure 3, notice the partial sill extending to the left from the top of the brick pier on the right-hand side). Three, a photograph of the house (c. 1940) shows a pattern of weatherboarding which indicated a chimney had a least been planned for, if not built and removed later (Figure 4). Based on these indications, a unit of excavation, designated #1, was placed and bounded (Figure 5) after the ground had been probed with a quarter-inch-diameter metal rod. The purpose of probing was to detect and locate brick or other materials beneath the surface of the ground. A concentration of objects was detected in the area indicated by previously mentioned sources to be the location of a 15 - 16 A Figure 4. McCarthy-Pope House, c. 1940, Showing Pattern of Weatherboarding (Original print in the collection of Mary Callaway Jones, Wash- ington Memorial Library, Macon, Georgia). - 17 - SCALE: LEGEND: 3 Ft. Excavation Units IM. Surfocc Survey Lv Foundations Chimneys m Steps * MCCARTHY-POPE HOUSE, 1978 AREAS ofEXCAVATION andSURFACE SURVEY Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia x,'?* Figure 5. Areas of Excavation and Surface Survey, . second chimney. The bounds of the unit were established to encompass these detections in conjunction with the previously identified indicators. The sod was removed by spade and trowel. Subsoil was not screened as the tools of excavation were of a scale to permit recovery appropriate to the data needs. Just beneath the sod, the detected concentration of objects--bricks--was uncovered. It did not appear to be the result of disposal or demolition. The bricks were fully exposed in order to determine the origin of their disposition (Figure 6). All data and artifacts collected were recorded and bagged as associated with unit 1. Additional probing outside of the bounds of unit 1 detected bricks on the northeast side. To incorporate them, the unit was expanded (Figure 6). A corresponding area on the north end of unit 1 lay inaccessibly beneath the framing (Figure 3). Bricks, detected here by probing, were assumed to mirror the pattern exposed in the expansion of unit 1. Numerous objects, assumed to be bricks and brick fragments, were detected by probing around unit 1, but no attempt was made to identify them or their origin. They were assumed to be building debris. Excavation revealed an uneven ground surface around the exposed bricks which was probably the result of preparing the area for constructing the chimney. This is unsubstantiated. The objective of locating and exposing the base of a second chimney was achieved. Figure 6 is a plat of the archaeologically exposed bricks of unit 1 Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location The exact location of a door bay on the back of the house was indeterminable due to structural deterioration (Figure 7). Architectural analysis, nonetheless, discerned some features which approximated the location. On a - 19 - i -5.9 ft. -1.80 m. DATUM (assumed)-- 0.00 Point of Elevation: x -6.4 ft. -1.95m. -6.0fl -1.83 m. D -5.8 ft. SCALE: LEGEND-- -1. 77m. UNIT I. Ft. Brick EPQSS / L- 0~ "30Cm. Excavation Unit MCCARTHY-POPE HOUSE, 1978 CHIMNEY BASE AREA, Unit/, Layer /. CI nton, Jones Co., Georgia^ a Figure 6. Chimney Base Area, Unit 1, Layer 1. - 20 - 21 header sill across the rear of the house, the spacing of mortises and the presence of notching were thought to indicate door bay location (Greene 1977: Sheets 3 and 10). A collapsing house, unfortunately, had distorted the original positions of framing members critical to interpretation, generating uncertainty. Based on these architectural indications, in conjunction with extant foundation piers (assuming more support at a focus of pedestrian traffic), a unit of excavation was placed. In addition to the problem of locating the door bay was the lack of information regarding the means of reaching a doorway 3.5 feet above the ground. No means existed at the time of this project, and no information about any had been found. Steps, perhaps with a stoop or porch, were assumed, but their form and dimensions were unknown. A unit of excavation, designated #2, was bounded (60 in. x 57.2 in.) and aligned with the notched sill and the foundation piers (Figures 5 and 8) The objective was to recover evidence about back door bay location and access to the house. Unit 2 was excavated to the top of red-clay subsoil. Numerous bricks, brickbats, stones and pieces of board were exposed (Figure 8). An apparent pattern was discerned which provided information about these problems and will be discussed in the section of analysis. Some probing was conducted around the margins of the unit for the purpose of detecting other resources. Problem 3: Shed Room The architect during his investigation recorded structural differences between the main body of the house and the shed room on the rear (Greene 1977: Sheet 3). These differences indicated that the house and the shed room may not have been products of the same phase of construction. For - 22 K Door Boy Location as Indicated by Mortises-- -Extent of Notching on Header Sill Above- Foundation Piers "5.4ft. ^58ft. 1.65m. -1.77m. 5,6 ft. x * -5.2 ft. 1.71m. -1.58m. O C? -1.71 m: -5.3 ft. -1.62m. Ft. I 30 Cm. D DATUM (assumed): 0.00 Cut EE3 Point of Elevation; x -- Roots CHS Excavation Unit SEARCH AREA for VERIFICATION i /E LUNIT 2. MC CARTHY-POPE HOUSE of DOOR PLACEMENT, UNIT 2, LAYER I. 1978 ^n Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia Figure 8. Search Area for Verification of Door Bay Placement, Unit 2, Layer 1. - 23 - planning restoration, these differences raised an interpretive problem. If the shed room was not contemporaneous with the house, then perhaps it should not be restored. In the architect's opinion, however, the shed room and the house were built during tne same phase. By means of archaeology, other sources of evidence besides architecture and history were sought and investigated. If the house predates the shed room then activities in the area of the latter may have left features about which archaeology could be informative. This work was conducted in two phases. The first phase was undertaken with the frame of the house in place. The second phase began after the frame had been disassembled and removed from the site. Both phases will be discussed. With the framing standing, access to the ground at the juncture of the shed room and house was obstructed. Much of the ground was covered with collapsed flooring and other debris (Figure 7). In some areas, regardless of ground exposure, the unstable framing seemed dangerous. In lieu of this area, the first attempt to investigate the juncture was from outside of the foundation of the house. On the northeast side of the house, some bricks of the foundation were removed in the vicinity of the juncture. Access to the area, however, was of insufficient size to permit the recovery of needed information, Another option was to cautiously approach the juncture from the rear of the house (Figure 9), seeking exposed ground surface. Two such areas were reached and examined, each providing about six square feet of ground-surface coverage. After removing debris, the surface of the ground of each area was swept with a whisk broom. The moisture content of the ground beneath the structure was high makinq the soil soft, as the ground had been sheltered from the drying effects of sun and wind. The assumption was made that if - 24 - 25 certain kinds of features existed, they could be detected because of differential compaction of the soil. Assumed, also, was the fact that the shed room would have aided the preservation of such features by sheltering them from subsequent destructive activities. Brisk sweeping of the surface of the ground might define features such as drip lines or postholes which contained softer, secondary deposits of soils. These secondary deposits would be less consolidated than the primary ones surrounding them and, therefore, more subject to removal. No features were discerned by sweeping, nor were artifacts recovered during this first phase. Unfortunately, test excavation in these areas was impossible as a follow-up due to restricted space and hazardous conditions imposed by unstable framinq. The second phase was carried out three months later after the frame of the house had been disassembled (Figure 10). Correlating the architect's drawinas of the house and shed room (Greene 1977) with the extant foundations, the juncture was delineated. A zone about four feet wide along the line of the juncture as defined by a string was investigated (Figure 11). This zone was swept with a whisk broom, then the surface of the ground was examined for evidence of other uses of the area beneath the shed room as might be indicated by surface anomalies. Undulations or other variables might be the result of previous activities behind the main body of the house. None, however, were discerned. A more intense sweeping of the zone was conducted with the same results. Observed, nevertheless, extending from beneath the area sheltered by the main body of the house was what appeared to be a residual ground surface. It will be discussed in the section on analysis. Giver the absence of any discernible evidence of activities behind the house and other needs of the project, a decision was made not to excavate a test unit, - 26 - Problem 4: Front Porch A deteriorating porch extended across the entire front of the house when the architect began his work (Figure 12). His interpretation was that the porch was a recent addition, probably post-1900. As with the shed room, a question arose of whether the front porch should be restored. In the absence of substantive historical and architectural evidence, other sources of information were investigated. The purpose of archaeology was to recover data pertaining to the event of the porch being added. As the house did not presently have gutters, and the architectural interpretation did not indicate them in the past, drip lines (Fairbanks 1974:69) and landscaping features might be present along the front of the body of the house. Units of excavation were opened in searcn of features which might assist the interpretation of whether the porch was an original component of the house or a subsequent addition. In the absence of gutters and the porch, the probability o f the occurrence of features along the front of the house was felt to be high. Under present conditions, a drip line would have formed, given the manner in which the roof was gabled (see Figure 12; Greene 1977). Two units of excavation were opened along the front foundation. The first of these units, designated #3, was placed near the northeast corner of the house (Figure 5). Initially, Unit 3 was 2 ft. x 1 ft. 8 in., but later, the longer axis was extended to 3 ft. 4 in. The objective was to recover data regarding drip lines which might be exposed in the profiles of the unit. All artifacts and data were collected with the proveniences of "Surface of Unit 3" and "Unit 3." In the northeast profile evidence of a drip line was observed and recorded (Figure 13). The stratigraphy exposed in the profiles of the unit was simple, consisting of an "A" horizon of tan-gray sand loam with Cecil clay just a few inches below. The southwest - 27 - profile was less informative regarding the apparent drip line. No discernible undulation of ground surface comparable to that observed on the northeast side of the unit was visible (Figure 13). The unit was extended away from the house, but nothing more about the absence of the drip line was learned. With conflicting data, opening another unit was deemed necessary. The second unit, designated #4, was opened on the other side of the front door bay (Figure 5). It was 2 ft. x 3 ft., with the long axis perpendicular to the front of the house. As the objective was the recovery of profile data, all artifacts were collected and recorded with the provenience of only unit 4. Due to extreme dryness of the soil, a manual sprayer was used to dowse the profiles to enhance color separation. This technique aided in distinguishing subtle color differences of soils. Because of this problem of distinguishing colors and, thus, soil horizons, unit 4 was extended to obtain additional stratigraphic data. The three-foot axis was lengthened to a total of 8.2 feet. Provenience of artifacts and data from the expansion remained that of unit 4. Stratigraphically, the profiles of the long axis of the unit mirrored each other; therefore, only the northeast one was recorded (Figure 14). No other units were opened for the purpose of recovering data about the front porch. 28 - - 29 CHAPTER 6. ANALYSIS Most of the data required to solve the interpretive problems identified by the architect were recoverable by excavation, observation, and recordation. Each of the problems will be presented and discussed in the order given in the introduction. Problem 1 : Second Chimney Little discussion of analysis is required for this problem. Excavation of unit 1 exposed an assemblage of brick, the pattern of which is interpreted as the bottom course of a masonry feature. This feature is identified as the base of a chimney by its characteristic form, chimney jambs (Moxon 1703:265, Plate 4). The pattern of bricks aligns with a remnant architectural feature. An outer edge of a jamb lies directly beneath the end of a sill (Figure 3). This sill would have been partial only if interrupted by some other structural feature such as a chimney (Stoddard 1946:120-1). Also, the pile of brick mentioned previously was located about a yard from the chimney base. Form, location, and association, therefore, were the basis for the interpretation of this feature as the bottom course of brick of a second chimney. Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location Analysis of recovered data pertaining to the location of the back door bay is more complex than that of the chimney base. Excavation of unit 2 30 - uncovered brick, stone (cut and uncut), boards, and roots. Lookinq at the plat of this unit, no obvious pattern of the exposed materials is discernable (Figure 8). However, the question has to be asked again. What is expected as we have no idea of the exact form by which access to the door bay was gained? No postholes or post molds were encountered during excavation. This absence of evidence of supporting members for a porch or stoop indicates that access may have been by other means, perhaps a set of steps. If this was the situation, then nothing more than pads on which stringers of a set of steps rested may remain. Some historical and contemporary literature about steps and stairs was consulted for the purpose of developing some expectations. These were then applied to the archaeological data in an attempt to identify a pattern indicative of the form of access to the back door bay. Enough of the house remained standing from which to recover accurately the distance from tne qround to the floor served by the steps. This provided a starting point (Ball 1977:114). The total rise, 3.5 feet (vertical distance from the ground to the floor served by the steps), was measured in the area thought by the architect to be the site of the back door bay (Greene 1977; Figure 8). The problem, then, was to figure out how far from the house a set of steps would meet the ground. Information was needed about dimensions of steps, so that some expectations could be formulated. An early builders' guide gave these dimensions for the components of steps, risers and treads. "The first and second pair of stairs the steps shall be about 7-1/3 inches high [riser], and 9-1/2 inches broad [tread]" (Moxon 1703:144). Contemporary literature is less specific. For example, Ball states that treads are seldom made less than nine inches or more than twelve inches wide (1977:112-3). Badzinski states that a unit of rise should be between 6-5/8 inches and 7-3/4 inches (1976:13). Another source - 31 - asserts that a unit of rise for stairs is about 7 inches (U.S. Navy 1970: 365). Finally, Durbahn says that the maximum heiqht of a riser is 8 inches and the maximum tread width (also called run) is 9 inches (1973:473-4). Obviously, some latitude regarding the dimensions of risers and treads exists. In addition to the specified latitudes, some guidelines have been established. A number of rules have been set down which consider the problem of riser and tread dimensions more generally. Some of these are as follows: 1. A unit of rise plus a unit of tread equals 17 to 18 inches (Badzinski 1976:13; Durbahn 1973:473; Lair 1953:179; U.S. Navy 1970:365; Wilson and Werner 1973:34); 2. Two units of rise plus a unit of tread equals 24 to 25 inches (Badzinski 1976:13; Ball 1977:112; Lair 1953:179; Wilson and Werner 1973:35); 3. A unit of rise multiplied by a unit of tread equals 72 to 75 inches (Badzinski 1976:13; Ball 1977:112; Lair 1953:179). Again, there are no absolutes, but some well-defined parameters for dimensions of risers and treads. Some of these rules were applied to the known total rise of 3.5 feet of the McCarthy-Pope House. The objective was to find out how far from the house stringers supporting steps would extend to meet the ground. At the point of contact, one might expect to find some evidence of steps, perhaps, some pads on which stringers rested. The problem was to approximate the total run; that is, the number of steps needed to get to the ground from the floor of the house. With a known total rise (42 inches), an examination of the literature for information about a unit of rise is necessary. Table 3 summarizes the results of this effort. After rounding off the fractions, the results totaled 5.8, which was rounded off to 6. For a total rise of 3.5 feet, a 32 TABLE 3 Number of Risers Source Total Rise Computation Unit of Rise Moxon (1703:144) 42" Ball (1977:112) 42" Badzinski (1976:13) 42" Durbahn (1973:474) 42" Kidder & Parker (1956:2060) 42" Lair (1953:177) 42" U. S. Navy (1970:365) 42" 7-1/3 = D 5.7(6) 7 to 7-1/2 (7-l/4) a = 5.7(6) b 6-5/8 to 7-3/4 (7-l/4) a = 5.7(6) b 8 (maximum) = 5.2(5) b 7 to 7-1/2 (7-l/4) a = 5.7(6) b 7 to 8 (7-l/2)a 7 = 5.6(6) b =6 a The average of the parameter figures was used as the divisor. The dividend was rounded off to the nearest whole number as risers must be even in height. stair ought to have six risers, each 7 inches in height (42" t 7" = 6"). To find the total run of a stair (horizontal distance from the face of the house to the end of the stringer contacting the ground) is more subjective. The only material exposed in unit 2 which may indicate the dimension of the total run was a cut stone. This stone aligns with remnant architectural features in the sill the architect identified as indicative of door bay placement (Greene 1977; Figure 8). Measured from the face of the house, the distal edge of the cut stone is 49 inches. This dimension must be compared to those normally obtained for a stair with a 3.5-foot total rise. To approximate where a stringer may have contacted the ground, or a pad such as a cut stone, the total number of treads must be calculated. A table 33 similar to the one for risers summarizes the information regarding treads (Table 4). The figures of Table 4 are informative but still inconclusive. TABLE 4 Parameters of Total Run Source Minimum Tread Run Moxon (1703:144) Ball (1977:112-113) Badzinski (1976) Durbahn (1973) Kidder & Parker (1956) Lair (1953:177) U. S. Navy (1970) 9.5" 9" N/G N/G N/G 10" N/G N/G = None given Maximum Tread Run 9.5" 12" N/G N/G N/G 12" N/G Some of the rules are of more help than the specific dimensions previously mentioned. Taking the dimensions of an average unit of rise, 7 inches, and plug- ging it into identified rules (see Badzinski 1976:2; Ball 1977:112; Durbahn 1973:474-75; Kidder and Parker 1956:2060-61; Lair 1953:179; U. S. Navy 1970:365; and Wilson and Werner 1973:9), some range of tread run is derived. 1. 7" (unit of rise) + (unit of tread) = 17" to 18" 7" + 10" = 17" 7" + 11" = 18" 2. 14" (two units of rise) + (unit of tread) = 24" to 25" 14" + 10" = 24" 14" + 11" = 25" 34 - 3. 7" (unit of rise} x " (unit of tread) = 72" to 75" 7" x 10.3" = 72" 7" x 10.7" = 75" The results give a range of 10 to 11 inches for a unit of tread. Even with this range, the point at which a stringer contacts the ground has another variable to be considered. The point also depends on how the stair is attached to the house. The form of attaching the stringers to a sill determines the number of units of tread run (Figure 15), affecting the length of the total run. Notice that in Part A (Figure 15), there are only five units of tread on the stringer (A-E). With a range of 10 to 11 inches per unit of tread, 5x11= the total run would range from 50 to 55 inches (5 x 10 = 50; 55). For Part C (Figure 15), the stringer has six full units of tread (A-F). Using the same procedure, the total run would range from 60 to 66 inches (6 x 10 = 60; 6 x 11 = 66). Part B (Figure 15) depicts a partial tread at the top (F) as a form of attachment for which the dimension is a continu- ous variable. The dimension of this tread (F) may vary, depending on the carpenter and the setting. The dimension of the total run then varies between the forms of attachment illustrated in parts A and C. For the cut stone discussed earlier, the results of these calculations are informative. The distal end of the stone is between 49 and 50 inches from the face of the house. The minimum total run based on five units of 10-inch tread is 50 inches (Figure 15, part A). The cut stone falls within the minimal range of the distance from the house a stringer pad could be placed, according to common building practices. If the stone were a pad, the treads were narrow, the steps steep, and there was no tread at the top as illustrated in Figure 15, part A. 35 Problem 3: Shed Room As mentioned previously, this problem was investigated at two different times. The first was while the house was still standing--to some degree. The second was after the framing had been disassembled, but the foundation remained in place. During the first investigation, only two exposures of the ground beneath the juncture of the house and shed room were attained. After the framing was disassembled, a second investigation of the area of ground beneath the juncture was undertaken. These investigations will be discussed in some detail. Due to hazardous conditions resulting from the collapsing framing, the ground beneath the juncture of the house and shed room was not tested by excavation. The surface of the ground was cleared of fallen framing debris in two areas and examined. Evidence which might indicate the shed room was a later addition such as unusual surface changes, foundations, walkways, posts, etc. were sought. Anything indicative of other functions in the area behind the house would suggest the shed room was added at a later date. The surface of the ground in both exposures was swept with a whisk broom. An assumption of differential soil compaction was made. If features such as drip lines, etc., existed, then sweeping might remove less compact soil from them, demarking their presence and form. No evidence, however, was found of such features which would indicate the area covered by the shed room had served functions other than the location of this appendage. Later, when the framing had been disassembled, the area of juncture was readily accessible. Using the architect's drawings of the house in conjunction with the extant foundations, a string marking the point of juncture was placed across the site (Figures 10 and 11). The ground was examined, then - 36 - Figure 11. String Delineating the Juncture of the House and the Shed Room. 37 Figure 12. McCarthy-Pope House with Front Porch, c. 1929 38 swept lightly with a whisk broom in an attempt to discern features as before. No features were identified. The area was swept more intensively a second time, still no features were detected. However, a feature indicating the house and shed room were coterminous was observed. The original ground surface beneath the house extended under the shed room (see foreground in Figure 11). Given the absence of features indicating other functions behind the house and the presence of a feature indicating the contemporaneity of the house and shed room, no subsurface testing was done. Problem 4: Front Porch Evidence was recovered from the excavation of units 3 and 4, which indicated the front porch was not contemporaneous with the house. A date for the porch could not be derived due to the lack of diagnostic archaeological materials. However, evidence of an erosional pattern indicative of drip lines was observed in the profiles of both units. Regrettably, the original position of the eave of the house was unknown because of structural distortion of the collapsing frame. Nevertheless, based on observations made at the site in conjunction with the architectural drawings, the original position of the eave was approximated. The approximation correlated well with the erosional pattern of surface undulations exposed in units of excavation (Figures 13 and 14). The erosional pattern is interpreted as a product of eaves directing the flow of rain from the roof to the ground creating drip lines. No other archaeological information pertinent to this problem was recovered. An observation made sometime later substantiated the results of this analysis. After the framing of the house had been disassembled, an observation was made. On the exterior of the front foundation, two discolorations occurred beneath the margins of the front door bay (Figure 16). These discolorations - 39 - Dripping Eaves- 1 J T I I I I I I i I l Cross Sections of [Front of House 1 i I i hT Southwest Profile h--SCALE ivd. h North east Profile IM Relation of Profiles to the House, Eave Line, a Front Porch. -4 ft. 1.2 3m. \y ~Elev: 4.1ft. -1.24 m. sy A r-- -Elev: -4 ft. -1.23m. *"<*. : v^v?*-*^ >^A v -i ? B SCAi F I Ft. 30Cm. Profile Enlargements: Southwest A- A; Northeast B- B'. ' * "*'' Bf LEGEND' Tan/Gray Sandy Loam w] Q Brick-red (Cecil) Clay Brick J Outline of Former Porch I--1 DATUM (assumed): OOO ZWP Z.//VF UNDER the FRONT PORCH, PROFIL ES from UNI T 3. X lUNIT 3 D i / L, . MCCARTHY-POPE HOUSE 1978 Clinton, Jones Co. Georgia^ t Figure 13. Drip Line Under the Front Porch, Profiles from Unit 3. - 40 - z&\ r8 o o ro d <1> E (/) O O-LO 3 < UJ 5 a CO * o3 o X o> k. i UJ o a Q_ O OOO - I -- J CD X^ , a> ^ fE 1 /- < 5 ^ ^ -::.; ';/ '; c; ^ ^ o-I V. V. v. Ua II K v. CO , . ill loiQEDim c kj :. o> Co o o >s o o ki O O k. >> "o i- D c o E o o c o W o Q. > CO _J a a oa o uJ aj o k. o\ to co >- \ T3 ki I -* -O* -- o c 0) h K CD o ( UJ o 0> '- i_ X oo cd cc UJ were a consequence of efflorescence, the crystallization of soluable salts on the surface of the brick (Phillips 1974:26; Thomas 1975). These salts may exist in the brick, the mortar, the ground, or the atmosphere. They may be transported within the masonry in water solution and precipitated as crystals when evaporation occurs (Phillips 1974:26). As the efflorescence, in this instance, is localized beneath the margins of the front door bay somethinq appears to have altered the flow of moisture in the foundation. As the surface of brick directly under the door bay is void of efflorescence , the distribution indicated that some feature, such as a stoop or steps, had shedded or directed the flow of moisture to the margins of the door bay. At the same time, the surface of the foundation directly below the door bay seems to have been protected from the concentrated flow of moisture as no efflorescence occurs. - 42 - No tread at top Sill Total Rise -Total Run Part ial tread at top B. Level Sill Total Rise -Total Run Full tread at top Level Sill Tota I Rise L -Total Run Leve I > Figure 15. Different Forms of Attaching a Stair to a Sill. - 43 - 44 CHAPTER 7. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The results of the investigations of each problem addressed by archaeology at the McCarthy-Pope House are presented and discussed. This is followed by conclusions drawn from the results and some discussion of them. Problem 1 : Second Chimney The results of the effort to locate a second chimney at the house were obvious. Excavation of unit 1 (Figure 5) exposed brick which met expectations of location, association, and form. Architectural and historical evidence indicated the location of a second chimney, quidinq the placement of the excavation unit. Proximity of a brick pile suggested a source such as a former chimney. The arrangement of the brick in unit 1 was a pattern typical of a chimney base (Figure 6; Moxon 1 70J : 265 , Plate 4). Given these results, the conclusion is that the bricks exposed in unit 1 comprise the base of a second chimney at the McCarthy-Pope House. Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location Architectural analysis of the rear sill of the McCarthy-Pope House recovered evidence of the location of the back door bay. Collapsing framing, however, had distorted the original position of framing members. Unit 2 (Figure 5) was opened in search of features which might confirm location or indicate the means of access to the house. Archaeoloaical evidence of a porch or stoop was sought. The result was the exposure of brick, uncut and - 45 - cut stone, boards and roots, but nothing evidential of a porch or stoop was recovered, not a posthole or post mold. Noted, nonetheless, was the alignment of a cut stone with a previously identified architectural feature (see Figure 8). The problem became one of substantiating an apparent correspondence between architectural and archaeological evidence. In the absence of evidence of a porch or stoop, perhaps, access to the rear of the house was by means of a set of steps. The cut stone may have functioned as a pad on which rested a stringer of a stair to the back door bay. Historical and current carpentry literature was examined for information about the dimensions of such of set of steps. The distance of the cut stone from the rear face of the house may indicate whether the stone could have served as a pad. With the elevation of the floor of the house above the ground a known (42 inches), the problem was to determine how far a stair might extend from the house. Numerous prescriptions for constructing stairs were studied for the purpose of deriving this dimension. Even knowing the elevation of the floor served by the stair, the distance from the house where the stair rested on the ground could not be precisely determined. Latitude in the dimensions of the height (rise) and depth (tread) of steps made the distance from the house to the point of contacting the ground (total run) a continuous variable. Deriving some parameters was possible. The distal edge of the cut stone from the rear face of the house was about 49 inches. A minimum total run of a set of steps comprised of five treads of 10 inches and six risers of 7 inches each is fifty inches. This minimal parameter was derived from carpentry manuals studied for this research. Based on evidence obtained by the literature search, architectural evidence of door bay location, and archaeological evidence of pad - 46 - location, the conclusion is that the cut stone functioned as a pad on which a stringer of a set of steps rested, serving the back door bay. Obviously, such a set of steps had two stringers. Based on architectural and archaeological evidence, the other stringer would have rested on the ground, or a pad, outside of unit 2. The margins of the unit were probed with a metal rod, including the area to the southwest. The objective here was to detect a pad for the stringer which would have met the ground in this area. The result was that no stone or other object was detected. This, however, was not a surprise as pads often rest on the surface of the ground. Once a supported stair has been removed, such a pad could be easily relocated or removed. Problem 3: Shed Room Architectural analysis demonstrated structural differences between the main body of the McCarthy-Pope House and the attached shed room on the rear. The contemporaneity of the shed room with the house appeared uncertain. For restoration, the question arose as to whether this shed room should be restored if it were a later addition. The architect, however, interpreted the differences as insignificant to the issue of contemporaneity. He argued that the shed room was built during the same phase of construction as the main body of the house (Greene 1977). Additional evidence regarding this interpretation was sought from the investigation of archaeological resources behind the main body of the house. The ground beneath the juncture of the house and the shed room was examined (Figure 5). From the area beneath the shed room, evidence of activities which predated the room was sought. Perhaps a porch or stoop, even another room, had been removed prior to the construction of the shed - 47 - room. Other features as well, such as a drip line, a walkway, a well, or an outbuilding, may have occurred in this area. The result was that archaeology recovered no evidence of features which predated the construction of the shed room. In fact, the opposite occurred. Evidence was recovered which indicated the shed room was constructed in the same phase as the main body of the house. Beneath the house, a portion of the ground surface was at a higher elevation than the ground surface surrounding the house. This residual surface (Noel Hume 1969:132) survived due to the protection offered by the house. The erosive consequences of rain, wind, treadware, etc., were deterred by the house from this surface, while the ground surface surrounding the house remained subject to them. The unsheltered surface eroded at a faster rate than the one beneath the house, leaving the latter surface elevated above the former. At the McCarthy-Pope House, this residual ground surface is significant for interpreting the shed room. This elevated ground surface extended from beneath the main body of the house to the area under the shed room (Figure 11). No interruptions of this residual surface were observed as it extended from beneath the house under the shed room. In the absence of archaeological evidence of activities directly behind the juncture of the house and the shed room, and the discovery of this residual surface, the conclusion is that the shed room is contemporaneous with the house. No evidence was recovered which could be interpreted as indicating the house and the shed room were built in different phases of construction. Problem 4: Front Porch The McCarthy-Pope House had remnants of a front porch when architectural - 48 - investigation began. This porch was interpreted as a recent addition (post-1900) with a recommendation that it not be restored. Archaeology was conducted to recover evidence pertaining to this recommendation. As the house apparently had no gutters, features such as drip lines, etc., were sought along the front of the house by opening units 3 and 4 (Figure 5). The results in both units were observations of erosional patterns on buried ground surfaces near the house's front (Figures 13 and 14). The location of these patterns led to the conclusion that they were a consequence of rain running off the eave; that is, a drip line. The presence of this feature indicates the porch was added to the house later in time. Unfortunately, neither excavated unit yielded diagnostic artifacts which permitted dating the construction of the porch. A subsequent observation provided additional evidence concerning the front porch. Upon returning to the site one morning, two areas of discoloration on the exterior of the remianing brick foundation were noticed (Figure 16). The source of this discoloration appeared to be some form of efflorescence. Besides its presence, the distribution of the discoloration was significant. Using the architect's elevation drawing of the front of the house, the front door bay was found to have been situated just above and between the two areas of discoloration. Something had apparently shielded a portion of the foundation between the discolorations, while altering the conditions affecting the foundation in the areas of efflorescence. As the living floor served by the front door is about 36 inches above the ground, some means of climbing to this elevation must have existed. Given that the areas of efflorescence are on the margins of the location of the front door bay, a stoop or steps must have provided access to the front door. If the porch had been original to the house, the entire foundation - 49 - across this side of the house would have been protected from the source causing the efflorescence. Under such conditions, the occurrence and distribution of the efflorescence would have been most unlikely. From this evidence, and the presence of a drip line, the conclusion is drawn that the front door bay of the McCarthy-Pope House was originally served by another means of access prior to the front porch, which was subsequently added. 50 CHAPTER 8. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results, interpretations, and conclusions of the archaeological research, the following recommendations are offered for the investigated problems. The previous order of presentation continues. Problem 1 : Second Chimney Elaborate recommendations for the problem of chimney location are unnecessary. The base of the chimney was located intact, providing evidence of form and horizontal dimensions. Given the location of the exposed brick in relation to the house and a partial sill, this pattern has to be the base of the second chimney which was sought. Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location The results of the search for evidence regarding the location of the back door bay were less conclusive than those for the second chimney. An archaeological ly exposed feature, a cut stone, aligned with an architectural feature identified as being indicative of door bay placement (Greene 1977). Based on calculations derived from carpentry manuals, this cut stone was found to be within the range of a set of steps serving this door bay. The cut stone may have served as a pad on which the stringer of a set of steps rested. Assuming this Interpretation of the stone is correct, this recommendation is made. The interpretation of notching on the header sill identified as - bl - indicating the location of steps (Greene 1977: Sheets 4 and 10) is supported by the occurrence and location of a cut stone. This stone functioned as a pad for a stringer of a set of steps. The door bay is assumed to be located at the top of the steps. Based on this correspondence of data, a simple set : steps is recommended as the form of access to the back door bay. No evidence of a porch or stoop was recovered. Problem 3: Shed Room For the problem of whether the shed room was built in the same phase of construction as the house, no evidence was recovered which indicated otherwise. The area just behind the main body of the house located beneath the shed room contained no features or other evidence of previously occurring cultural activities. In fact, a residual ground surface demonstrated that the shed room was of the same phase of construction as the house. It extended from under the house uninterrupted to beneath the shed room. The shed room, therefore, is recommended for restoration as an integral part of the McCarthy-Pope House. Problem 4: Front Porch Evidence regarding the lack of contemporaneity of the front porch with the house came from two sources. First, archaeology recovered evidence of a drip line along the front of the main body of the house. This feature demonstrated that the porch had been added some time after the house was built. Second, an examination of the exterior of the front foundation noted an informatively distributed discoloration. The brick beneath the margins of the ront door bay were discolored by efflorescence, soluable salts deposited on the surface of the brick (Thomas 1975). Its distribution indicated that some - 52 - feature had shedded or directed the flow of moisture to the foundation directly below the margins of the door bay. The form of this feature, which altered the flow of moisture, perhaps a stoop or steps, is unknown. Evidence was recovered of features which could not have occurred if the porch had been an original component of the house. Based on this evidence, the porch is not recommended for restoration. - 53 - REFERENCES CITED Abbott, Frank M. 1977 History of the People of Jones County, Georgia. Unlimited, Macon, Ga. 4 Volumes. Lineage Anderson, Nain E. 1977 Clinton Academy Site and Griswold Cotton Gin Factory Site. Files of the Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources Atlanta. Badzinski, Stanley, Jr. 1976 Stair Layout. Chicago: American Technical Society. Ball, John E. 1977 Carpenters and Builders Library: Millwork, Power Tools, Painting. Vol. 4. Theodore Audel and Co., Indianapolis: Howard W. Sams & Co., Inc. Brender, E. V. 974 Impact of past land use of the lower piedmont forest. Forestry 72(1 ) :34-36. Journal of Bryant, Pat 1977 Georgia Counties: Their Changing Boundaries. Georgia Surveyor General Department, Office of the Secretary of State. State Printing Office, Atlanta. Clark, William Z. , Jr. and Arnold C. Zisa 1976 Physiographic Map of Georgia. (1:2,000,000) The Geologic and Water Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. De Baillou, Clemens 1954 The White House in Augusta. Early Georgia 1(3) : 1 0- 12. Durbahn , Wal ter E. 1973 Fundamentals of Carpentry. Technical Society. Vol. 2. 4th Edition. Chicago: American Fairbanks , Charles H. 1974 The Kingsley slave cabins in Duval County, Florida. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1972 7:62-96. Stanley South, editor. Ferguson, Terry A. and Kent A. Schneider 1977a Cultural resource survey: Union Hill Road, number 1040-C, compartment 127, Jones County, Georgia. Files of the Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. - 54 - 7 Ferguson, Terry A. and Kent A. Schneider 1977b Cultural resource survey: Union Hill Road, number 1040-C, compartment 127. Jones County, Georgia. Files of the Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 1977c Cultural resource survey: Forest Service Road, number 1042, compartment 137, Putnam and Jones Counties, Georgia. Files of the Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. Garrow, Patrick H. 1979 Archaeological considerations. In The Rock House, McDuffie County, Georgia , Norman Askins, pp. 19-33. The Wrightsboro Quaker Community Foundation, Inc., Thomson, Georgia. 1980 Archaeological Investigations of the Elisha Winn House, Gwinnett County, Georgia Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. Glassie, Henry 1977 Archaeology and folklore: common anxieties, common hopes. In Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things , edited by Leland Ferguson, pp. 23-35. Special Publication Series, Number 2, Society for Historical Archaeology. Hunt, Charles B. 1967 Physiography of the United States. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. Kappler, Charles J., compiler and editor 1904 Laws and Treaties: Indian Affairs. Vol. 2 (Treaties). D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington, Kelso, Wi 11 iam M. 1971 Historical archaeology in Georgia, 1968: two nineteenth century sites. In The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1969 , Vol. 4, pp. 16-25. Stanley South, editor. Kidder, Frank E. and Harry Parker 1956 Architects' and Builders' Handbook. Wi ley and Sons , Inc. 18th Edition. New York: John Lair, E. A. 1953 Carpentry for the Building Trades. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. Mistovich, Timothy and Roy Blair, Jr. 1979 Archaeological Investigations at Overlook Mansion, Macon, Georgia. Cultural Resource Services, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. Morgan, John R. 1981 A Report of Archaeology at the Robert Toombs House Historic Site, Washington, Georgia - 1976. Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. Moxon, Joseph 1970 (1703) Mechanick Exercises. New York: Praeger Publishers. - 55 - Noel Hume, Ivor 1969 Historical Archaeology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Old Clinton Historical Society 1975 Clinton, Georgia, An Early Nineteenth Century County Seat. Payne, Harley H. 1976 Soil Survey of Baldwin, Jones, and Putnam Counties, Georgia. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture and College of Agriculture Experiment Stations, University of Georgia. Washington, D. C. Phillips, Morgan W. 1974 SPNEA - APT Conference on mortar, Boston, March 15-16, 1973. Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology , Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 9-39. Prince, Oliver Hi 11 house 1837 A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia. 0. H. Prince, Publisher. 2nd Edition. Athens: Sanders, Adolph and Carolyn Hudgins 1974 Georgia Statistical Abstract 1974. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Schneider, Kent A. 1977 Cultural resources survey: mechanical site preparation project, solicitation number R8- 3-77-3, Oconee Ranger District. Files of Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. South, Stanley 1974 Historical archaeology reports: a plea for a new direction. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1972 7:151-156. Stanley South, editor. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Stoddard, Ralph P. 1946 Brick Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. Thomas, James Cheston 1975 Restoring brick and stone: some dos and don'ts. History News , Vol. 30, No. 1. American Association History, Nashville, Tennessee. Technical for State Leaflet 81, and Local U. S. Department of Interior 1974 Clinton, Georgia Historic District, National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form. Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. U. S. Department of the Navy 1970 Builder 2 & 3. Bureau of Naval Personnel, Washington, D. C. - 56 - Williams, Carolyn (White) 1957 History of Jones County, Georgia, for One Hundred Years, Specifically 1807-1907. Macon: J. W. Burke Co. Wilson, J. Douglas and S. 0. Werner 1973 Simplified Stair Layout. Albany, N. Y. : Delmar Publishers. Wood, Karen G. 1980 Archaeological Investigations at the Crawford W. Long House, Daniels- vine, Georgia. Southeastern Wildlife Services , Inc., Athens, Georgia. Wood, W. Dean 1979a Archaeological Investigations at the Historic Site of Twin Oaks, Meriwether County, Georgia. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia. 1979b An Archaeological Survey of the Jones County, Georgia, Water System Improvement. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia. - 57 - DATE DUE fuJl Ji.UU.J.l. . Returned \ 0C1 17 200) DEMCO 38-297 NIVFRSITY OF GEORGIA UEJRARI liliiii 3 ElDfl OMOflE 7100 l^o