The excavations of Fort Harrison began with basic documentary research. JMU students looked at maps of Dayton, probate inventories, Daniel Harrison’s will, and the town of Dayton’s maps and early history. Although there is not a plethora of documentation about the site, there was enough information about Fort Harrison to allow them to pose questions and propose that there was more activity that happened on the site in the past. There were specifically two main research questions that arose from the site’s historical and architectural documentation, as well as traditions regarding Fort Harrison (Wayland 1953; Sease 1970). The students wanted to know if the original orientation of the stone house changed, because evidence from shovel tests in the fall of 2016 showed that there was a higher concentration of older artifacts in the front yard of the house than the back yard. This evidence was unexpected because early eighteenth and nineteenth century homes used the back of their yards to discard their unwanted materials. This find led to the following questions: If the orientation of the house changed, what else would have changed? Were there other buildings located in the present front yard? In order to answer the research questions, the archaeological field work methods focused on selecting specific areas where there would be a potential for finding artifacts and features to identify the age, structure, functions, activities, and integrity of the lots. Units 4, 5, 6, and 7 were selected for excavation.

 

      The JMU students followed a general field investigation procedure for evaluating and surveying the site. The students first established a reference point and grid in a site plan. Then summarized the results of the previous shovel tests conducted in the fall of 2016 on the site plan, identifying where there were high concentrations of artifacts. After locating promising areas for artifacts and/or features on the Fort Harrison site, students excavated three 1 x 2-meter test units to recover a representative sample. The three units were excavated by natural strata to define the stratigraphy and integrity, collect a sample of artifacts, and evaluate the lot’s potential for a possible feature. In the fall of 2017, the students hand excavated four 1 x 1-meter units using according to the natural stratigraphy with shovels, trowels, brushes and dustpans. The natural stratigraphy was removed in layers by unit, using color and textural changes in soil to identify new stratum and possible features. The matrix from each unit’s strata was sifted through quarter-inch wire mesh screens to find small artifacts. Student excavation team member responsibilities were rotated, as all students experienced the roles of the coordinator, excavators, screeners, and scribes. The final stages of the field work methods included different forms of record keeping. These records included lot inventory records with running lists of each sample, a unit level form, profile drawings, level plan view drawings (example of drawings in Figures 1 and 2 in appendix), photographs, and daily journal style paperwork (included team members, location, methods used, and findings).

       

     The artifacts that were unearthed were taken to the JMU Archaeology Lab for washing, categorizing, inventory, and analysis. In the field, students placed all artifacts into labeled paper bags with the unit’s number and level. A new bag was used for each unit’s natural strata. Artifacts were washed separately according to their unit and level they were excavated from to keep the samples’ integrity and context. After all artifacts were washed, the students identified artifacts and organized them into basic manageable categories. The students organized and separated ceramics, bones and shells, brick, glass, nails, pipe stems, nails, miscellaneous objects, debitage, stones, coal, modern materials, and Native American artifacts from each sample for further data processing. The basic artifact categories were then bagged and labeled with the lot number, unit, level, and artifact type. When all the artifacts were separated and labeled, students further analyzed and classified the artifacts into specific types. For example, students obtained the bag with all of the nails that were found in unit 7 level II. They took the sample of nails with the same context and grouped them by nail type: hand wrought, machine-cut, wire, and unidentifiable. This identification process was repeated for all nails that were found from each unit. A similar process was used to identify other material types for the ceramic types, glass (bottle glass from window glass), and other metals. After all material types were organized into their respective sub-categories, individual artifacts’ attributes were recorded. The form, color, and embellishments of each piece of bottle glass was recorded to be processed and analyzed. Window glass pieces was recorded with information on its thickness and color. Pipe-bore diameters were recorded. Bone and shells were each counted and weighed. All artifact data was recorded and processed into Excel inventory tables.

 

     Sketches of unit plan views and profiles provide a visual representation about the unit’s stratigraphy, soil attributes, and spatial patterns that might lead to indications of features within the unit. The stratigraphy of unit 5 had very thin layers. The first level consisted of the grass and root mat, a bit of silty loam top soil (Munsell 10YR 3/2), with pebbles and stone present. Level II of unit 5 contained a large amount of artifacts. Its stratigraphy was also thin and consisted of three different soil types. The majority of the stratum was clay (7.5YR 5/6) with common architectural chips and a blended clay hash. In the upper northern section of the unit, a silty clay loam was present (10YR 3/1) with common artifacts. In the eastern side of the unit a soil description of 10YR 3/2 clay with common limestone chips.

 

      Unit 6 contained thicker strata than unit 5. Level I of unit 6 consisted of a baked silty loam (10YR 4/2) with minimal pebbles and stones. Level II had silty loam (10YR 3/2) with little to no gravel. Level III consisted of a strong brown colored (7.5YR 3/3) silty clay with abundant small stones and pebbles. Unit 4 was comprised of similar stratigraphic patterns and soil descriptions as unit 6. Level I of unit 4 demonstrated two different types of soil. The northern side of the unit had 10YR 6/5 colored clay. The majority of the unit was a silty clay loam with a soil color of 10YR 3/2. Level II also contained two areas of different soils. A silty loam with a color of 10YR 6/4 with clumps of 10YR 5/8 clay, concretions, and abundant gravel covers most of the unit. The middle of the southern side of the unit is a silty loam with a color of 10YR 4/2 with occasional artifacts and less gravel.

Units 2 and 7 had the most interesting stratigraphy out of the excavated units. Unit 7 had four strata. The first level had a 10YR 3/2 colored silty loam matrix with occasional stones. Level II was primarily made of 10YR 4/3 colored silty clay loam with abundant small stones. Level III was a feature fill and had midden, with 10YR 2/2 colored silty loam with a moderate quantity of small stones, common burned wood, and unburned bone. The fourth stratum was unexcavated but contained the subsoil, 7.5YR 4/6 colored silty clay loam with abundant small stones. Unit 2 had the most unique stratigraphy out of the units. There were five stratum, each containing different Munsell colored matrixes. The first level had 10YR 3/2 colored silty loam. Level II was 10YR 4/3 silty loam with a sheet of midden. The third level consisted of 10YR 5/4 colored silty clay loam, which transitioned into subsoil. Level VI consisted of an ash layer with common grey charcoal flakes. Level V had orange heat-altered soil.

     Unit 6 is located on the lower side of a hill and demonstrates signs of reverse stratigraphy. Reverse stratigraphy is apparent because of the thick layers that were recorded in the profile view and the large amount of artifacts were uncovered in level II. Rain and erosion might be the cause for the thicker levels, where topsoil and artifacts could have washed down from the top of the hill and collected at the site of unit 6 over time. Level II of unit 6 contained a large amount of artifacts what were similar to the artifacts found in stratum I and II in units 4 and 5. Other evidence to demonstrate the similarities between the two units is the reoccurring soil description from the Munsell Color Chart. 10YR 3/2, which is a very dark brown color, was found in stratum I of units 2, 4, and 7, and stratum II of units 5 and 6. The soil from the units’ strata is identical, as they consist of silty clay loam with few pebbles present. Units 4 and 5 were subdivided and what was level I was excavated as level I/II because they were extremely similar in layer, artifact, and soil composition.

         

     Units 2 and 7 are extremely similar in their stratigraphy. Level II for both units were the Munsell color 10YR 4/3. This shows that there is a relationship between the two units, as they are right next to each other. The change in soil colors when excavating the units showed signs of a feature. Figures 1 and 2 in the appendix are the profile view sketches of the two units. These figures exhibit characteristics of a feature and activity within the feature. The profile view in Figure 2 illustrates the midden layer that was found and labels the ash, coal flakes, burned wood, orange heated soil, and unburned bones. The evidence of these factors indicate that there was once a hearth within the feature. Unit 7 consisted of a visible difference between soil colors. In the plan view of the units second stratum, there is a straight line that divides the dark soil and the lighter topsoil. Units 2 and 7 are approximately 30 meters away from the stone structure of the Harrison house, and 3 meters away from units 4 and 6. Units 4 and 6 do not show any signs of similar stratigraphy found in units 2 and 7. This information will help JMU students discover the possible size of the feature and what the feature may be if it is an outbuilding.

           

     Unit 4 and unit 5 each exhibited evidence of features. The features of each unit showed a soil color change that are indicative of a related feature. Although their Munsell colors are different, the features in their plan views show they each have a post hole and round shaped figure in the stratum. The features correspond to the Harrison stone house and the possible structure/ feature in units 7 and 2.

     

     There was an abundant amount of material culture that was found on the Fort Harrison site. Material culture included ceramics, nails, bottle glass, window glass, pipe stems and bowls, bones and shells, and personal items. The majority of the artifacts found were ceramic pieces. There were a total of 984 ceramic pieces that were recovered from shovel test pits and excavated units throughout the site. A total of 393 ceramic pieces were found in units 4, 5, 6, and 7. Unit 7 contained the most ceramic pieces. It was important for the JMU students to find the mean ceramic date to understand the chronology of activity for each unit. The mean ceramic date for the ceramic pieces found units 4, 5, 6, and 7 is 1811.97. In unit 7 level I there were a total of 158 pieces and in level II there were 105 pieces of ceramic. The most common ceramic type that was found was redware, as there were 191 pieces of it that were recovered. Out of the 191 pieces of redware, 72 were found in unit 7 level III and 63 were found in unit 6 level III. Redware was available in throughout the eighteenth century and into the twentieth century, and has a median date of 1800. The redware was abundant in unit and the TPQ for the unit could be 1748 during the onset of constructing the stone house. Out of the 40 pieces of creamware that was found in the units, 29 of the pieces were found in unit 7. Creamware was manufactured in England in 1762 through 1820 and this information demonstrates that there could have been activity happening near the unit during that time period.

     

     There was also a large quantity of architectural materials such as nails, window glass, and brick and stone. The exact year of the construction of the brick addition is uncertain; however, Dr. Wayland (Wayland 1953) and Fort Harrison History Architectural Overview discuss in their findings that it was built between 1850 and 1860. JMU students collected and categorized each nail by lot number and nail type. Figure 3 compares the total number of nail types that were found in each unit. It is evident that the units with the most nails are units 2, 3, 6, and 7. Stratum II of units 2 and 7 have large quantities of machine-cut nails. There are also adequate quantities of hand-wrought nails that are within the same strata of the units. Machine-cut nails were manufactured in the beginning of 1790 through 1830 (Wells 2000). The quantity of wrought nails may provide evidence that there was early construction activity before or shortly after the stone house was built and possibly around the time the brick addition in the mid-nineteenth century.

           

     JMU students organized and measured the thickness of window glass to find an approximate date for the glass that was found in the excavated units at Fort Harrison. JMU students organized and measured the thickness of window glass to find an approximate date for the glass. Students created a table to record the thickness, color, and the quantity for each lot and location the window glass was found in. There were 174 pieces of window glass that were found on the site. Most of the window glass was found in unit 2 level II (lot 20), where there were 23 pieces, followed by unit 7, level II (lot 77) with 20 pieces. Even though the stratigraphy in stratum II was the same, the glass in each unit contained different average thicknesses and colors of glass. The average thickness for lot 77 was 1.57mm and there were 10 clear pieces and 10 aqua-green colored. The average thickness for lot 20 was 2.00mm and had 11 clear pieces and 12 aqua-green colored pieces of glass. Students measured the thickness of each window glass piece so they could use the Moir Regression Formula to date the window glass. The date of construction for the window glass found at Fort Harrison was 1871.88 (± 7 years). The date of construction, including the uncertainty of 7 years corresponds to Wayland and the Fort Harrison Architectural Review’s assumptions about the construction of the brick addition in the 1850s and the renovation and replacement of the windows for the stone house.

         

     Brick and other stone materials were counted and weighed at the archaeology lab. The results show that there was a significant quantity of brick in stratum II for units 2 and 7. Unit 7 level II had the most limestone and other stone materials, as the limestone altogether weighed 1580g and the other stone materials weighed 583.5g. Unit 2 level II contained the most brick, as it weighed a total of 923.1g. Unit 4 level I also contained an adequate amount of brick, 192.4g. The amount of brick and architectural stones may indicate activities involving construction or a debris pile from the constructions of the brick addition and renovation on the stone house.

           

     Other material culture items that were found included bottle glass, smoking pipe stems, and other miscellaneous objects. Bottle glass was predominantly found in unit 2 level II, unit 4 level II, and unit 6 level III. It was difficult to date the bottle glass because most of them were fragments, deformed, or decaying; however, one way to date them was to identify their color. Most of the glass bottles found in the mentioned units were made of clear glass, which was a more developed and recent product of the early twentieth century.

           

     Smoking clay pipe stems were also found. There were 5 pipe stems located in unit 7 level II and 4 stems in unit 2 level II. J.C. Harrington in the 1950s made the hypothesis that the bore diameter of pipe stems decreased over time. According to the data that was recorded in the lab, stem bore diameters consisted of two sizes, 4/64mm and 5/64mm. There was not a large enough sample size to apply the Binford dating formula; therefore, the students had to apply their knowledge of the Law of Superposition and the graphs made by Harrington to date the pipe stems. Harrington’s initial results in his graph demonstrates that the stem hole diameter at 5/64mm was popular from 1717 to 1750 and the diameter for 4/64mm was popular from 1750 to 1800. The data from Fort Harrison corresponds to the dates from Harrington’s chart, as the lower strata of units 2 and 7 contain older artifacts than higher strata. The assumed pipe dates from the sample relate to the dates of activity on Fort Harrison.

         

     Miscellaneous objects were found throughout the site. The most interesting results that were found from the misc. materials were from units 4 and 5. The features in units 4 and 5 appear to be in the shapes of poles and the features create a straight line from one to the other. Units 4 and 5 contained items such as clothespin tinges, coil hinges, and buttons.

     

    The stratigraphy, features, and material culture that were found in each unit varied. It can be interpreted from the findings and results that each unit had its own unique functions and activities on the site over the last two centuries. JMU archaeology students developed their surveys and conducted their fieldwork around a research question: “Did the orientation of the stone house change, and if so, what else on the property changed?” These research questions can be answered through looking at the location of the features, the material culture found in and around the features, and by the lack of significant samples in the current front yard at Fort Harrison. If the location of the pasture today was originally located in the back of the stone house, it would be expected to find additional outbuildings and trash deposits.

The material culture and stratigraphy in and around feature found in units 7 and 2 indicates that there was once a simple structure there at one time. This feature provides the evidence that is needed to support the claim that the orientation of Fort Harrison did change.

           

     The findings indicate that the feature was a simple structure because there was no foundation that was discovered and because there was evidence of a simple hearth. From the results, it can be theorized that the structure was a temporary home/structure for the Harrison family as their house was being built, a slave quarters, or an early kitchen to the original house. The parameters of the feature do not extend into the nearby units 4 and 6, which are approximately 3 meters from units 7 and 2. The evidence from the architectural materials (brick, stone, nails, and window glass) suggests that the structure was built before or shortly after the stone house was built. To support this claim, there were hand-wrought nails that were found in stratum II of units 7 and 2. The structure also contained pipe stems with bore diameters that matched the date to the occupation and building of the stone house.

 

     Through the analysis of the listed items on Daniel Harrison’s probate inventory, it can be assumed that Harrison’s house was on a farm because of the amount of livestock, farm equipment, produce, and grains that were listed. The evidence shows that Harrison grew two fields of corn, wheat, oats, barley, and rye because he owned stacks of the grains on his property at the time of his death. It can also be assumed that at one point of time the Harrisons grew cotton or a fibrous plant because they owned a “ginnery” and cotton cards. Daniel Harrison also owned five slaves, two females and three males. The structure in units 7 and 2 could have been a slave quarters because it was simple and there were not many expenses that were put into it. The structure was only 20 meters away from the Harrison house, so Daniel and his family had the opportunity to keep surveillance on them to make sure they were doing their domestic chores and the work on the field (Neiman 2008). It would also be logical for the slave quarters to be close to the house and not in the front yard because the slaves and servants would generally enter the house through the back door to not interrupt or insult the master and mistress of the house.

The feature located in units 7 and 2 indicates that there was a lot of activity near the feature. Evidence of a hearth, midden, pottery, and other material culture indicates that people spent their time inside the possible structure. Neiman, surveillance for slaves. Slave quarters, slaves needed to work in the house as well.

     

     The feature in units 4 and 5 strengthens the local tradition that there was a stockade or palisade which surrounded the stone house during the French and Indian War because of the evidence of posts in the ground and the modern gravel fillings in unit 4. The feature could also be an indication of the feature being a clothesline. The miscellaneous items that were found in the units included several springs, tinges, hinges, and buttons. These material objects strengthen the argument that the feature was once a clothesline.

​

     The Daniel Harrison House  has gone through many changes over the last two centuries. JMU students had the opportunity to conduct hands-on field work to learn more about historical archaeology. Participating through the field work, data processing, and analysis, the class was able to unearth some of the past histories of the house and surrounding land. The findings from a feature suggest that there is a simple structure and a possible stockade or clothesline in the four units that were excavated over the fall semester. Research of historical documents, such as Daniel Harrison’s probate inventory and material culture findings indicated the architectural and socioeconomic changes that Fort Harrison went through, such as the change in orientation of the front of the house. It would be recommended to continue to excavate features near or next to units 7 and 2 to find spatial patterns and discover the dimensions of the structure. Further research questions might include: What was the function of the structure? Why is it located near the house? Are there other outbuildings and structures in the pasture?

​