This week was our last time working on the Coleman Farm. But before we headed to the field we presented our findings at the Coleman Farm. We spent the whole week meeting for this day preparing and discussing with each other how and what we were going say. Even after spending all that time preparing we were still somewhat nervous. The first challenge was making sure we got to Odessa on time, today was not a day we could afford to be late. So with my stead fast driving we were able to make it promptly on time at 9am.

Once we arrived we took the time to rehearse the presentation one more time to make sure everything would flow smoothly. The guests began to arrive and Professor De Cunzo led us off with introductions and speaking about our experience. Then Claire started off the presentation talking about the history of archaeology along the Appoquinimink and within the region. Michelle showed our sampling methods and how we surveyed the area.  I discussed our findings on the Coleman Farm such as ceramics, nails, and different forms of redware just to name a few things. Matt used images to show the density of our metal detection hits , surface collection, and nails found. Alexandra and Dan discussed what comes next after our work is done and how we can work with the community in the future. Finally Molly closed our presentation with a discussion period to take suggestions from the audience what they think should be done in the future and how we can work together again with the Odessa community. We’re all encouraged from what we heard.

After finishing our presentation we had snacks and cake while chatting with everyone in the lobby of the Odessa Bank. We were happy the presentation went well and all our preparation paid off. Then we changed clothes and headed to the field one last time. At the field Matt, Molly, and Alexandra continue to excavate a larger unit at the south end of the site (photo below). Claire, Michelle and I closed out our excavation unit and helped clean up.  We left one excavation unit on the hill open for Professor De Cunzo and some of the volunteers to come back and look at. Lastly we all gathered up for one last group photo to commemorate our time here at the Coleman Farm.

Jay Arnold

On May 11th, students and ASD members met on-site, and continued to carefully excavate test units. The weather, for once, was not too windy, too cold, or too bug-friendly; leading to happy archaeologists who could get right to work! Lots of dirt was moved during the morning hours before lunch. After lunch, however, was when students and ASD members had the opportunity to walk around the site and “take tours” of the other units being excavated that they were not assigned to work on.

These tours were exciting! Up on the higher ground, there are several plow scars, emphasizing how much this landscape has been cultivated and worked over time. Additionally, there are some interesting stone formations popping up in the same test unit. Is it a foundation? a very small portion of a stone fence or wall? a place-marker? or just stones tossed around from the plow we know was being used right next to these stones, missing it by inches? Is it simply too soon to know? Right now your guess are as good as ours! Hopefully more excavation on the high land will lead to a better understanding of these stones.

While there were interesting plow scars and stone formations found in one test unit on the high land, one test unit at the bottom of the slope closer to the water was also finding stone features. In the wall of one test unit at the bottom of the slope was a large water-rounded cobble. A slightly rougher-looking stone can be seen peaking out from the next layer to the excavated in this same unit. Is this evidence of rocks washed down the slope with erosion? or is is possible evidence of some sort of old path or drain? or is it, once again, simply too soon to know? Although hypothesizing is part of the fun, in order to know for sure, and to better understand the significance of these stones, more digging must be done.

Overall, the artifacts being discovered on this site, both on the high land and down the slope, appear to be similar in type – there are a lot of small brick fragments, wrought nails, flakes and other lithic affiliated with Native American tool-making processes, red lead-glazed earthenwares, delftware or tin-glazed earthenware, and tobacco pipe stems.

On Saturday May 4 the team finished the STPs and started new, larger units, planned the week prior. We finished the STPs on the southern slope of the grid, although not finding many artifacts. Then we started on four units. One was placed right in the center of the highest concentration of ceramics and metals, as shown on our GIS maps.

Another unit laid out over one of the GPR anomalies contained tobacco pipe stems, nails, red kitchen ceramic ware, brick fragments, and lithics. As we continued to dig a feature began to appear. One 3’x3’ unit expands an STP with a potential buried archaeological feature. Although not many artifacts were found the first day, the stratigraphy of the soil is helping us interpret the unit. Overall the day was very successful. Except for some rain in the morning, the team accomplished a lot and is beginning to understand the layout of the land and prepare to present our artifacts and findings to the community.

Dan Ricigliano

While some students were taking a tour facilitated by one of the members of the Odessa Historic Foundation, others gathered at the IEC lab at the University of Delaware alongside professional archaeologists to continue washing and drying artifacts found with metal detectors as well as the ones found on the surface of the field.

Students that were discovering historic Odessa learned more about the time period we are hoping to identify at the Colemans Farm. Some of them highlighted certain characteristics of the changes through time at the town and the importance of the Appoquinimink creek during the 1700-1800 time period.

During colonial times Odessa was a grain shipping port called Cantwell’s Bridge. Now, houses from the 18th and 19th century remain almost intact at Odessa. Students also had the opportunity to visit the Corbit-Sharp house which is a good example of a Philadelphia-Georgian style. They visited the Wilson Warner House and walked inside smoke rooms or spaces that were used for smoking activity in the past. Furthermore, they visited the Collins-Sharp House and learned about different cooking recipes as well as earthenware ceramics from the 18th and 19th century. Finally, students walked twice through the main street and observed from the outside the bank as well as the Brick Hotel where most merchants and ship captains stayed through the busy days of the Cantwell’s Bridge.

Back at the IEC lab, students had another opportunity to look at the artifacts more closely and better identify their physical characteristics, the possible origins and time periods of objects found.

Most of  the artifacts consisted on nails, brick and earthenware.

During the afternoon session at the lab, students discussed what were going to be the next steps for opening test units. Some suggested we should open both of the anomalies located by the GPR just to make sure we are not skipping any important data that might be relevant. Other students suggested opening STPs with features located at (N0, W125 and N0 W50) because they are located within the high nail/brick concentration areas and were already identified as potentially interesting.

It is interesting how the collection of blogs from people working on the field helps broaden the knowledge gathered by the experience of exploring an archeological site.

Michelle Ramirez

While our students languished on the beach (or somewhere) during spring break, the intrepid Archaeological Society of Delaware team returned to the farm. We were delighted to be joined by Dan Griffith, former Director of the Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs and Director of the Avery’s Rest Archaeology project for the ASD, the most extensive excavation of a 17^th-century site in Delaware, in Sussex County near Rehoboth. We completed the 1.5’ diameter shovel test pits placed every 25’ on the flat upper terrace and down slope to the west and began slowly working our way from the east down the south slope toward the Appoquinimink. The soil deposits are deeper, and consist of eroded soils washed down the slope by water and wind.

After a week of break for all of us, we returned to the site in mid-April. By day’s end, we’d finally tested all of the 270+ metal detecting hits and mapped them and the 200 artifacts we’d found visible on the surface. About 80% of the metal finds are nails; those not too corroded to identify are of types made in the 1600 and 1700s. What building(s) are they from, you ask? We are asking ourselves the same question, with no answers to offer yet. We dug 8 more STPs, continuing to work our way west. They are yielding small artifacts, consistent in type: mostly brick, nails, stone shatter and waste from stone toolmaking, red earthenware kitchen ceramics, and tobacco pipe stems.

On the  16th of  March, one half of the students on the team went to Odessa to take a tour of the old historical houses and sites with John Bansch, to learn more about the  context behind our dig and the types of preservation that have occurred in the past.

Over the next two weeks, the team continued to map the area and record the locations of surface collections and  metal detector hits, as well as continuing Shovel Test Pits (STPs). We’ve slowly been moving toward the marshlands on the “south” side of our site (the cardinal directions are arbitrary, and based on where we set up the Total Station as the origin). So far, we have found that the area’s soil mostly consists of sandy clay loam, and the untouched-by-humans soil starts a foot or two down, depending on the location of the pit. In one instance, the team found an anomaly, right near the edge of the marsh. It was a collection of cobble stones, possibly indicating the existence of a pier on the shore of the river/marshland. We are moving our way down along the shoreline with STPs, so if we find any more collection of cobble stones, that could imply that there was some  sort of road along the bank of the river.

STPs are not only good for discovering the layers of soil and the makeup of each layer, but they also help us locate small nonmetal artifacts that the metal detector wouldn’t pick up. While one person digs the hole and discerns the levels of soil, the other sifts the soil through a ¼ inch screen into a wheelbarrow. This  allows us to locate pieces of brick (which can also show up on the surface), pieces of old pipes, pieces of pottery, and more. The pottery is very difficult to tell the origins of, even for our team members with specific experience in that area of study.

In addition to STPs, the team worked diligently to continue truthing every metal detector hit. As we mentioned in the first blogpost, we found a combination of relevant and irrelevant artifacts. These  ranged from old rusty nails (relevant) to soda cans (not relevant). In some cases,  the team found strange pieces of metal that were difficult to identify: possibly a part of allow or some  other farming tool. Some of the pieces are long and flat, while some are more like giant  nails or stakes. Once, we even found two links of a chain still connected, but it was difficult to tell what it might have come from. Whenever there is any inkling of doubt, the team bags the artifact, writes the data on the bag and on the data sheet, and sends it in to the lab to be cleaned and analyzed.

With the locations of the bricks (from surface collections and STPs) and nails (from metal detector hits), Curtis created a map showing the locations of each find, and also a density map to see where everything is concentrated. Once we  get more data, we should be able to make educated guesses the location of a building or other anomaly in the soil.

Matt Waverczak

Now that things have really gotten underway at Coleman Farm, I guess it’s time to start updating our readers. Our first three weeks in the field involved lots of measurement, collection, and documentation. We scoured the site from top to bottom for artifacts that had found their way to the surface, and marked, then collected and documented them. We also went over the area with metal detectors, marking hits, then later coming back to dig them up and, surprise, collect and document them. We found both relevant and irrelevant artifacts, everything from prehistoric stone chips from tool making and arrowheads, to pieces of ceramics and nails (we found a truly ungodly number nails). The locations of all of our finds were marked with flags, which we then scanned into the total station. Along with recording the locations of our artifact finds, we used the total station to map out our site and plan out the locations of our shovel test pits. By scanning in both measured and arbitrary points around the area from a set position (marked by a piece of rebar that we drove into the ground), we set up an axis and marked out a grid on the site.

We also got the chance to work with USDA soil scientist Phil King, who taught us a little bit about how Ground Penetrating Radar works, and how it can be helpful in an archaeological setting. The technology, as long as the soil composition is favorable, can “see” anomalies beneath the surface. The readings are a bit hard to decipher without some help, (they look a bit like technicolor tv static), and it’s impossible to tell what exactly it is that the machine has found, but for our purposes, it, along with the distribution of our artifacts and our findings in the of STPs, it can help us narrow down possible locations where a structure used to be.