Skip to main content

Full text of "Archaeology for the Restoration of the McCarthy-Pope House--Clinton, Jones County, Georgia, 1978"

See other formats

Mi (f 




APR S 2 1985 


John R. Morgan 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2013 


John R. Morgan 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 
Parks, Recreation and Historic Sites Division 
Historic Preservation Section 

- 1 - 

Figure 1. The McCarthy-Pope House, Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia, 1978, Looking 

- 1 1 





V Columbus 
f Plains 


[Jones CountyN 


50 Mi. 

1 ) 

80 Km. 



Figure 2. Map: McCarthy-Pope House, 1978, Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia. 

- i i i - 


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, re- 
quiring investigation of other sources of information such as archaeologi- 
cal 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 ex- 
pressions. 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 in- 
dicative of activities which may have preceded the shed room were found 
behind the body of the house. A drip line, in conjunction with other evi- 
dence, along the front of the house demonstrated that the front porch was 
a later addition. 

- IV - 










Identification of Problems 1 

Theoretical Framework 2 

Some Assumptions 3 



Natural Environment 7 

Physiography 7 

Geology 7 

Soil 8 

Climate 8 

Cultural Environment 8 


Means of Data Recovery 12 

Curation 14 


Problem 1: Second Chimney 15 

Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location 19 

Problem 3: Shed Room 22 

Problem 4: Front Porch 27 

- v - 



Second Chimney. ... 
Back Door Gay Location 

Shed Room 

Front Porch 






Problem 1: Second Chimney. . . . 

Problem 2: Back Door Bay Location 

Problem 3: Shed Room 

Problem 4: Front Porch 




Problem 1 
Problem 2 
Problem 3 
Problem 4 

Second Chimney. ... 
Back Door Bay Location 

Shed Room , 

Front Porch , 





- vi - 


Table 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 - 

Figure Page 

1. The McCarthy-Pope House, Clinton, Jones County, Georgia, 

1978, Looking East ii 

2. Map: McCarthy-Pope House, 1978, Clinton, Jones County, 

Georgia iii 

3. Unit 1, Showing Excavated Chimney Base in Relation to 

House Framing 16 

4. McCarthy-Pope House, c. 1940, Showing Pattern of 

Weatherboarding 17 

5. Areas of Excavation and Surface Survey 18 

6. Chimney Base Area, Unit 1, Layer 1 20 

7. Rear of the McCarthy-Pope House, Looking West 21 

8. Search Area for Verification of Door Placement, Unit 2, 

Layer 1 23 

9. Approaching the Juncture of the House and the Shed Room 

from the Rear 25 

10. Foundation of the McCarthy-Pope House after the Disassembly 

of the Framing 29 

11. String Delineating the Juncture of the House and 

the Shed Room 37 

12. McCarthy-Pope House with Front Porch, c. 1929 38 

13. Drip Line Under the Front Porch, Profiles from Unit 3 40 

14. Drip Line Search, Northeast Profile of Unit 4 41 

15. Different Forms of Attaching a Stair to a Sill 43 

16. Distribution of Efflorescence on the Foundation in the 

Vicinity of the Front Door Bay 44 

- VI 1 i 


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 publish- 
ing this report on archaeology and historic preservation at the McCarthy- 
Pope 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 - 


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 investi- 
gated. 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 

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 - 


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-in- 
aid 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 solu- 
tions 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 indetermin- 
able 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 com- 
ponents, 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 anthro- 
pological orientation. Its objective, however, falls short of discerning 
processes of cultural behavior through the identification of patterns of re- 
lationships of behavioral products comprising the archaeological record. 
Archaeology reported here meets the interpretive needs of planning restora- 
tion of the McCarthy-Pope House. A withdrawal from the bank of archaeologi- 
cal 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 state- 
ment of assumptions on which this work was based is made. 

Some Assumptions 

Archaeology is a formal method with a set of techniques for recover- 
ing 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 en- 
vironments 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 

4 - 


Reported historic archaeology on the Georgia piedmont is not volumi- 
nous. 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. Histor- 
ic archaeology was brought in to deal with problems which had been generated 
by historical and architectural research and unsuccessfully treated. Un- 
solved 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 dis- 
cipline must do more. It must contribute to our understanding of the 
behavioral patterns of the people responsible for creating the archaeolog- 
ical record. It must allow us to make explanatory interpretations relating 
to the cultural processes fundamental to those behavioral patterns (South 

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 architect- 
ural 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 be- 
yond 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. 


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 under- 
taken. 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. 

Jones County is physiographically located in the Washington Slope Dis- 
trict 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 Ocmul- 
gee River, which flows in a valley 100 to 200 feet (34 to 68 m. ) below ad- 
jacent land surfaces. Streams drain broad, shallow valleys separated by 
broad, rounded divides with moderate slopes (preceding information from 
Clark and Zisa 1976). 

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. 


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). 

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 pre- 
cipitation data for this larger area, which includes Clinton (Payne 1976:70) 
Given the small scale of this projsct and its purpose, no further discuss- 
ion 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 


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 


temperature 75 78 82 91 87 98 96 98 99 89 85 82 


temperature 14 25 31 34 49 46 58 61 50 39 26 21 

Total pre- 
cip. (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) 




dai ly 




Two years in 10 will have 
at least 4 days with— 

temp. = to or 
higher than 

temp. = to 
lower than 


One year in 10 will 



U F 




July 90.5 69.0 
Year 75.1 50.3 
















(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 build- 
ing 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 pied- 
mont 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 specifica- 
tions, interpretive problems were identified which brought archaeology into 
the restoration of the house. 

- 11 


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 struc- 
ture 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 prac- 
tice. 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 refer- 
ences 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 mea- 
surement 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 investi- 
gation, 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. De- 
partment 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. 


All artifacts, photographs, plats, maps, and other records are curated 
at the Laboratory of Archaeology, West Georgia College, Carroll ton. 

- 14 - 


The problems identified in the introduction to this report were arch- 
aeological ly investigated at the McCarthy-Pope House. This section treats 
the recovery of data with regards to each problem. The order of present- 
ation 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 - 



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 - 



3 Ft. 


Excavation Units 

Surfocc 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 de- 
tected 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 unsub- 
stantiated. 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 indeter- 
minable due to structural deterioration (Figure 7). Architectural analysis, 
nonetheless, discerned some features which approximated the location. On a 

- 19 - 

-5.9 ft. 
-1.80 m. 

-6.4 ft. 


-1.83 m. 


DATUM (assumed)-- 0.00 
Point of Elevation: x 



Brick EPQSS 
0~ "30Cm. Excavation Unit 

CHIMNEY BASE AREA, Unit/, Layer /. 

-5.8 ft. 

-1. 77m. 



L - 

C I i nton, Jones Co., Georgia^ a 

Figure 6. Chimney Base Area, Unit 1, Layer 1. 

- 20 - 


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 traf- 
fic), 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 assum- 
ed, 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 pro- 
blems 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 

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— H 

-Extent of Notching on Header Sill Above- 

Foundation Piers 

1.65 m. 


C£? O 

-1.71 m: 

I Ft. 

30 Cm. 

DATUM (assumed): 0.00 

Point of Elevation; x 

Cut EE3 

Roots CHS 

Excavation Unit — 



■ 5,6 ft. x 

* -5.2 ft. 

-5.3 ft. 





L - 

UNIT 2. 



Clinton, Jones Co., Georgia ^n 

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 archaeol- 
ogy, 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 be- 
gan 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 - 


certain kinds of features existed, they could be detected because of differ- 
ential 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 pri- 
mary 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 im- 
possible 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 inform- 
ation 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 excava- 
tion 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 ex- 
cavation 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 discern- 
ible undulation of ground surface comparable to that observed on the north- 
east 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 per- 
pendicular 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 hori- 
zons, 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. Stratigraph- 
ically, 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 


Most of the data required to solve the interpretive problems identified 
by the architect were recoverable by excavation, observation, and recorda- 
tion. 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. Excava- 
tion of unit 1 exposed an assemblage of brick, the pattern of which is inter- 
preted 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 architect- 
ural 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 discern- 
able (Figure 8). However, the question has to be asked again. What is ex- 
pected 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 expecta- 
tions. 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 pro- 
vided 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 

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 dimen- 
sions 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 


Number of Risers 


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 = 5.7(6) D 

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 = 5.6(6) b 

7 =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 


similar to the one for risers summarizes the information regarding treads 
(Table 4). The figures of Table 4 are informative but still inconclusive. 

Parameters of Total Run 


Minimum Tread Run 

Maximum Tread Run 

Moxon (1703:144) 
Ball (1977:112-113) 
Badzinski (1976) 
Durbahn (1973) 
Kidder & Parker (1956) 
Lair (1953:177) 
U. S. Navy (1970) 















N/G = None given 

Some of the rules are of more help than the specific dimensions previously 

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, 
the total run would range from 50 to 55 inches (5 x 10 = 50; 5x11= 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. 


Problem 3: Shed Room 

As mentioned previously, this problem was investigated at two differ- 
ent 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 investi- 
gations 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 conjunc- 
tion 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. 


Figure 12. McCarthy-Pope House with Front Porch, c. 1929 


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 sur- 
face 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 indi- 
cated 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 mater- 
ials. 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 obser- 
vation 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- 



I I 
I I 

I I 
i I 


Cross Sections of [Front of House 


i I 

■i h T 

Southwest Profile 

SCALE ivd. 

h— h 


North east Profile 

Relation of Profiles to the House, Eave Line, a Front Porch. 

-4 ft. 
1.2 3m. 



-1.24 m. 

\y sy A r-£- 

-4 ft. 

• • •••••••••••••• • • •• • • • • *"■■»<*.■ • • • • •:• • •v^v?*-*^ >^A v -i ?■ 

B ' * "*'' Bf 

SCAi F I Ft. 


Profile Enlargements: Southwest A- A; Northeast B- B'. 

LEGEND' DATUM (assumed): 

Tan/Gray Sandy Loam £w] OOO 

Brick-red (Cecil) Clay Q 

Brick ££J 

Outline of Former Porch I--1 

PROF I L ES from UNI T 3. 

X lUNIT 3 





L, . 

Clinton, Jones Co. t Georgia^ 

Figure 13. Drip Line Under the Front Porch, Profiles from Unit 3. 

- 40 - 

r 8 




■•-••:■:•.; '••;/ ^ 


,• • 

• •. 













5 /- 



c; ^ ^ 

»» £ V. V. 



ill loiQEDim 




























h (£ K 





-* -* — 

« O o 
'»- i_ o 

oo cd cc 


























J CD «, 

X^ — a> 

fE 1 

< £ 






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 sur- 
face of brick directly under the door bay is void of efflorescence , the dis- 
tribution 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 

- 42 - 

No tread at top 




-Total Run 

Part ial tread at top 





-Total Run 

Full tread at top 



Tota I 

Leve I >• 

-Total Run 

Figure 15. Different Forms of Attaching a Stair to a Sill. 

- 43 - 



The results of the investigations of each problem addressed by arch- 
aeology 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 expect- 
ations 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 re- 
covered 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 align- 
ment of a cut stone with a previously identified architectural feature (see 
Figure 8). The problem became one of substantiating an apparent correspond- 
ence 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 informa- 
tion 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, architect- 
ural 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 architect- 
ural 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 object- 
ive 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 re- 
stored 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 sur- 
rounding 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 un- 
sheltered 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 

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 di- 
rectly behind the juncture of the house and the shed room, and the dis- 
covery 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 differ- 
ent 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 discolor- 
ation 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 efflores- 
cence. 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 dis- 
tribution 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 



Based on the results, interpretations, and conclusions of the arch- 
aeological research, the following recommendations are offered for the in- 
vestigated problems. The previous order of presentation continues. 

Problem 1 : Second Chimney 
Elaborate recommendations for the problem of chimney location are un- 
necessary. 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 recom- 
mendation 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 evi- 
dence 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 other- 
wise. 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 ex- 
tended 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 demon- 
strated 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 in- 
formatively 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 - 


Abbott, Frank M. 

1977 History of the People of Jones County, Georgia. 4 Volumes. Lineage 
Unlimited, Macon, Ga. 

Anderson, Nain E. 

1977 Clinton Academy Site and Griswold Cotton Gin Factory Site. Files of 
the Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

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. Journal of 
Forestry 72(1 ) :34-36. 

Bryant, Pat 

1977 Georgia Counties: Their Changing Boundaries. Georgia Surveyor Gen- 
eral Department, Office of the Secretary of State. State Printing Office, 

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. Vol. 2. 4th Edition. Chicago: American 
Technical Society. 

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 - 

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, compart- 
ment 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 7 Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia. 

Glassie, Henry 

1977 Archaeology and folklore: common anxieties, common hopes. In Histori- 
cal 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). Washington, 
D. C. : U. S. Government Printing Office. 

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. 18th Edition. New York: John 
Wi ley and Sons , Inc. 

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 Depart- 
ment 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 Con- 
servation Service and Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture and 
College of Agriculture Experiment Stations, University of Georgia. Washing- 
ton, 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. 2nd Edition. Athens: 
0. H. Prince, Publisher. 

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, solicit- 
ation number R8- 3-77-3, Oconee Ranger District. Files of Historic Preserva- 
tion Section, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta. 

South, Stanley 

1974 Historical archaeology reports: a plea for a new direction. The Confer- 
ence on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 1972 7:151-156. Stanley South, 

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. Technical Leaflet 81, 
History News , Vol. 30, No. 1. American Association for State and Local 
History, Nashville, Tennessee. 

U. S. Department of Interior 

1974 Clinton, Georgia Historic District, National Register of Historic Places 
Inventory-Nomination Form. Historic Preservation Section, Georgia Depart- 
ment 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, Meri- 
wether County, Georgia. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, 

1979b An Archaeological Survey of the Jones County, Georgia, Water System 
Improvement. Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc., Athens, Georgia. 

- 57 - 




fuJl Ji.UU.J.l. . 


17 200) 

DEMCO 38-297 



3 ElDfl OMOflE 7100