Site Report: Brick Company, Hunting Terrace

FINAL REPORT JANUARY 25, 2018

ARCHEOLOGICAL MONITORING AND

DOCUMENTATION OF SITE 44AX0233

(ALEXANDRIA BRICK COMPANY) AT THE THORNTON,

1199 S. WASHINGTON STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

PREPARED FOR:

FOULGER-PRATT DEVELOPMENT, LLC. 12435 PARK POTOMAC AVENUE, SUITE 200 POTOMAC, MD 20854

R. CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 241 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100 . FREDERICK, MD 21701

Archeological Monitoring and Documentation of Site 44AX0233 (Alexandria Brick Company) at The Thornton, 1199 S. Washington St., Alexandria, Virginia

Final Report

______

Kathleen M. Child, M.A. Principal Investigator

Kathleen M. Child, M.A. and Martha R. Williams, M.A., M.Ed.

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 241 E. Fourth Street, Suite 100 Frederick, Maryland 21701

January 2018

for

Foulger-Pratt Development, LLC. 12435 Park Potomac Avenue, Suite 200 Potomac, MD 20854

Abstract

onstruction of The Thornton, a planned Archeological features associated with the residential apartment building located at Alexandria Brick Company were exposed in the C1199 S. Washington Street in Alexandria, southwestern quadrant of the Hunting Terrace Virginia, exposed portions of three early twen- redevelopment area. Redevelopment efforts for tieth century kiln structures associated with the the parcel included the removal of all existing former Alexandria Brick Company (44AX0233). buildings and infrastructure, and construction Archeological documentation of the exposed of a new multi-story residential complex with structures was undertaken between July 27, 2016 below-grade parking facilities. A previous Phase and September 22, 2016 by R. Christopher Good- IA background study and archeological assess- win and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Foulger- ment indicated a high potential for intact archeo- Pratt Development, LLC. The archeological work logical deposits or features associated with the for- included documentation of exposed cultural fea- mer brick-manufacturing company (Williams and tures and archeological monitoring of mechani- Sanders 2013). The brick-making business had cally-excavated exploratory trenches placed near been established on the property by 1884 and con- the exposed kiln structures; monitoring work was tinued to operate under various names until 1919, performed on an on-call basis during the above- when fire destroyed the engine house and drying cited dates. sheds. The property lay unused until 1943, when All archeological investigations were con- the Hunting Terrace Apartments was built. ducted in consultation with the Office of Historic The Alexandria Brick Company produced Alexandria/Alexandria Archaeology (Alexandria machine and hand-made bricks until 1919, when Archaeology) and Foulger-Pratt Development, the facility was again destroyed by fire. The aban- LLC, and followed updates to the Scope of Work doned kiln complex appears to have been partial- for a Documentary Study and Archaelogical Test- ly dismantled when the Hunting Terrace Apart- ing (dated December 16, 2008) prepared by Al- ments was built. The complex originally consist- exandria Archaeology for the project. All aspects ed of five pairs of freestanding, coal-fired, updraft of the investigation complied with applicable fed- kilns; one of which were examined in detail for eral, state, and local standards. Research methods this project. Archeological monitoring during employed during archeological monitoring work redevelopment, combined with documentation were approved by Alexandria Archeology and of previously exposed kiln structures, provided followed guidelines for archeological investiga- information on the layout of brick kilns used by tions put forth in the City of Alexandria’s Archae- the Alexandria Brick Company during the late ological Standards (Alexandria Archaeology nineteenth and early twentieth century. Project 1996) and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards engineers were able to alter their plans in order to and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic avoid impacting portions of the brick kiln com- Preservation (USDI NPS 1983). plex which now are preserved in place.

ii R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

List of Figures ...... v

List of Tables ...... xv

I. Introduction ...... 1 Project Location and Description ...... 1 Research Objectives ...... 4 Project Personnel (RCGA Staff) ...... 4 Organization of the Report ...... 4 II. Natural and Cultural Setting ...... 5 Natural Setting ...... 5 Geology and Soils ...... 5 Previous Investigations ...... 6 Historic Context ...... 8 Site-Specific Property History ...... 8 Antebellum Period ...... 8 The Civil War Period ...... 11 Post Bellum Period to Present ...... 11 Brick Manufacturing Technology ...... 19 The Brickmaking Industry in Alexandria ...... 27 III. Research Methods ...... 35 Research Objectives ...... 35 Archival Research Methods ...... 36 Archeological Field Methods ...... 36 Laboratory Analysis and Curation ...... 37 Historic Artifact Analysis ...... 37 Records and Curation ...... 37 IV. Results of Archeological Investigations ...... 39 The Thornton Foundation Wall (Trenches 1, 2.1 and 2.2) ...... 42 Trench 1 ...... 42 Trench 2 ...... 59 Trench 2.1 (Trench 2 Section 1) ...... 63 Trench 2.2 (Trench 2 Section 2) ...... 82 Exploratory Trenches (Trenches 3-10) ...... 82 Trench 3 ...... 88 Trench 4 ...... 88 Trenches 5 and 5A ...... 91

iii R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Table of Contents

Trench 6 ...... 100 Trenches 7-10 ...... 102 Elevator Shaft ...... 118 V. Summary ...... 129 Summary ...... 129 Preservation ...... 131 References Cited ...... 133

Relevant Project Correspondence including the Project-Specific Scope of Work (dated December 16, 2008) ...... Appendix I

Resumes of Key Project Personnel ...... Appendix II

iv R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Detail from the Alexandria, Virginia, USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle (1983 photorevised), showing the approximate location of The Thornton development area . . . 2

Figure 1.2 Aerial photograph showing the location of The Thornton development area . . . . . 3

Figure 2.1 Plate 3 of G. M. Hopkins’ 1877 Atlas of Alexandria, showing property owners and proposed street extensions/alignments along Great Hunting Creek. (Image: Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2013:Figure 2) ...... 9

Figure 2.3 Advertisement for the Alexandria Brick Company from Richmond’s 1900 City Directory ...... 14

Figure 2.4 Newspaper article for the 1891 Alexandria Brick Company fire (Alexan- dria Gazette, May 7, 1891) ...... 14

Figure 2.5 Detail from newspaper article for the Alexandria Brick Company depicting the brick-making facility (image: Alexandria Gazette, September 16, 1893) . . . 15

Figure 2.6 Advertisement for the Bromilaw Brick Company (Alexandria Gazette, August 28, 1909) ...... 16

Figure 2.7 Detail from Sanborn’s Fire Insurance Map of Alexandria (1907), showing topography and configuration of the Alexandria Brick Company’s works on Hunting Creek (Digital image from Geography and Map Divi- sion, Library of Congress)...... 17

Figure 2.8 Promotional page from Wedderburn’s 1907 Historic Alexandria, VA, Past and Present (Tercentennial Souvenir, 1607-1907), extolling the virtues of Alexandria’s brickmaking industry, and highlighting Harlow and Agnew’s Alexandria Brick Company. (Image: https://ia600504. us.archive.org/16/items/souvenirvirginia01wedd/)...... 18

Figure 2.9 Detail from Sanborn’s 1921 Fire Insurance map of Alexandria, showing the “dilapidated kilns” of the abandoned Alexandria (Bromilaw) Brick Company facility. (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Li- brary of Congress)...... 20

v R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 2.10 Ca. 1920 photograph of Great Hunting Creek looking southwest across to Fairfax County. What appear to be brick stacks or brick kilns are visible in the middle of this photograph. (Image (scanned from Great Hunting Creek photograph notebook): Creeger Collection, Special Collections, Alexandria Public Library)...... 21

Figure 2.11 Detail from C. W. Bache’s 1863 map of the topography on the north side of Great Hunting Creek, showing possible glory holes. (Digital image from American Memory, Library of Congress)...... 23

Figure 2.12 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing comparison between Alexandria Brick Company, West Brothers Brick company, and Charles Ford’s Estate Brick Yard (Plates 19, 23) (Digital image from Ge- ography and Map Division, Library of Congress; EDR Inquiry 5115974.3) . . . . . 25

Figure 2.13 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing comparison between Alexandria Brick Company, Virginia Brick Company and M.T. Cockey Brick Yard (Plates 19, 23) (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress; EDR Inquiry 5115974.3) ...... 26

Figure 2.14 Detail from Chambers Brothers Company Catalogue No, 21 showing image of updraft kilns (Digital image: Library of Congress, http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/brickmaking-and-brickmakers/chambers-loc/) . . . . .27

Figure 2.15 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing comparison between Alexandria Brick Company, New Washington Brick Company, and the W.T. Walker Brick Company (Plates 19, 23, 24) (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress; EDR Inquiry 5115974.3) . . . .28

Figure 2.16 Image of Brickyard below Mount Vernon showing tracked roofing over brick kiln structures (Image: American Memory Collection, Library of Congress) . . 29

Figure 2.18 Detail from G. M. Hopkins’ 1894 Map of the Vicinity of Washington, showing concentration of brick manufactories near the Long Bridge in (present-day) Arlington County. (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress)...... 34

Figure 4.1 Photograph showing an overview of The Thornton project area from S. Alfred Street, view west (RCGA, July 26, 2016) ...... 40

Figure 4.2 Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches . . . .41

vi R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.3 Composite plan showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches overlain on the projected configuration of the kiln structures . . 43

Figure 4.4 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 44

Figure 4.5 Detail from Sanborn’s 1921 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 45

Figure 4.6 Detail from Sanborn’s 1941Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 46

Figure 4.7 Detail from Sanborn’s 1959 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 47

Figure 4.8 Detail from Sanborn’s 1989 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 48

Figure 4.9 Detail from Sanborn’s 1993 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 49

Figure 4.10 Detail from Sanborn’s 1996 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches ...... 50

Figure 4.11 Photograph showing overview of Trench 1; elevator shaft excavation visible to left, view south (RCGA, July 26, 2016) ...... 51

Figure 4.12 Photograph showing concrete forms and mud mat within the southern portion of Trench 1, view south (RCGA, July 26, 2016) ...... 51

Figure 4.13 Photograph showing close-up of concrete form within the southern portion of Trench 1, view south (RCGA, July 26, 2016) ...... 52

Figure 4.14 Trench 1, Plan showing projected kiln elements within base of trench ...... 53

Figure 4.15 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 1 (0-2 m), south profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016) 54

Figure 4.16 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 2 (2-5 m), west profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016) .56

Figure 4.17 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 2 (4-6.5 m), west profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 57

Figure 4.18 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 3 (0-2 m), north profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016) 58

Figure 4.19 Trench 1, Photograph showing overview of Section 4 (0-12.75 m) (RCGA, July 26, 2016) ...... 58

vii R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.20 Trench 1, Photograph showing overview of Section 4 (0-3 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2016) ...... 59

Figure 4.21 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 4 (3-6 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2016) .60

Figure 4.22 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 4 (6-9 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2016) .60

Figure 4.23 Trench 1Photograph showing, Section 4 (6-9.5 m), profile east (RCGA, July 28, 2016) 61

Figure 4.24 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 5 (0-3 m), profile south (RCGA, July 28, 2016) 61

Figure 4.25 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 6 (0-4 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2017) .62

Figure 4.26 Trench 1, Photograph showing oblique view of Sections 5 and 6, view south-southwest (RCGA, July 28, 2017) ...... 62

Figure 4.27 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing excavation of trench, view north; the concrete foundation has been laid in Trench 1 to the right (RCGA, August 1, 2016) . .63

Figure 4.28 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing the upper extent of the firing floor in the southern portion of trench, view north (RCGA, August 1, 2016) ...... 64

Figure 4.29 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing compacted brick rubble in the northern portion of trench, view south (RCGA, August 1, 2016) ...... 64

Figure 4.30 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing a portion of the brick flue leading to Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2 exposed in the southern portion of trench, view north (RCGA, August 1, 2016) ...... 66

Figure 4.31 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing archeologist cleaning the exposed firebox grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1 located in the southern portion of trench, view south (RCGA, August 1, 2016) ...... 66

Figure 4.32 Trench 2.1, Plan view showing exposed firebox grates and flue structure associated with Kiln Structures #3 (south) and #4 (north)(RCGA, August 1, 2016) . . 67

Figure 4.33 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of exposed firebox grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1 (top left) and the flue for North Fire- box #2 (lower right), view east (RCGA, August 1, 2016) ...... 68

Figure 4.34 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing rubble and ash-filled flue for Kiln Struc- ture #3 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 68

Figure 4.35 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing rubble and ash-fill removed from flue for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016). . . . . 69

viii R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.36 Trench 2.1, Photograph of trench west profile showing cinder and ash in flue for Firebox #3 as it extends beneath the firing floor; base of flue for Firebox #2 visible in foreground (RCGA, August 2, 2016); ...... 69

Figure 4.37 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing iron grate and over-fired brick in location of Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, profile east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) . . .70

Figure 4.38 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail plan view of iron grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 70

Figure 4.39 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of firebox base (grate removed) for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) . . . . .71

Figure 4.40 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of firebox base (rubble fill -re moved) for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) . .71

Figure 4.41 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing oblique view of firebox base (rubble fill removed) for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) 72

Figure 4.42 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of trench with the iron grate for Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #1 in foreground, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 72

Figure 4.43 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing iron grate for Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox # 1, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 73

Figure 4.44 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of exposed kiln structures, view south; iron grate for Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #1 has been removed (foreground); iron grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1 is visible in background (upper left) (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 73

Figure 4.45 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing over-fired brick in location of Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #1, profile west (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 74

Figure 4.46 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing the top of Kiln Structure #4 North Fire- box #2 (left center) as exposed following wall collapse, view northwest (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 74

Figure 4.47 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2, profile north (RCGA, August 2, 2016); south section of firebox chamber and iron grate are missing ...... 75

Figure 4.48 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of rubble-filled updraft chamber of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) . . . . .75

Figure 4.49 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of base of chamber of Kiln Struc- ture #4 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 76

ix R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.50 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing plan view of east edge of Kiln Structure #4, view south; rubble-filled flue for Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #1 visible (center; at photographic scales) (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 77

Figure 4.51 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing deposit of coal residue and soil underlying brick rubble, profile east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 77

Figure 4.52 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing brick floor underlying Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2 (removed), view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 78

Figure 4.53 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing subsoil exposed beneath brick floor (removed), view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 78

Figure 4.54 Trench 2.1, Profile west of interior of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2 after collapse during benching of trench edges ...... 79

Figure 4.55 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing interior of Kiln Structure #4 North Fire- box #2 after collapse during benching of trench edges (RCGA, August 3, 2016) . . . 80

Figure 4.56 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of SAVAGE firebrick used in construction of updraft chamber of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2 (RCGA, August 3, 2016) ...... 80

Figure 4.57 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing stamped firebrick manufactured by Lacledie Brick Company found within rubble (RCGA, August 9, 2016) ...... 81

Figure 4.58 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing stamped firebrick of unknown manufacture found within rubble (RCGA, August 9, 2016) ...... 81

Figure 4.59 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of the Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3 (center left) exposed during benching of trench edges, view north (RCGA, August 3 2016) ...... 83

Figure 4.60 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of Kiln Structure #3 North Fire- box #3, view northwest (RCGA, August 3 2016) ...... 83

Figure 4.61 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3, profile west (RCGA, August 3, 2016) ...... 84

Figure 4.62 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3, view north (RCGA, August 3, 2016) ...... 84

Figure 4.63 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing brick rubble, plan view (RCGA, July 29, 2016) . . .85

Figure 4.64 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing oblique view of brick rubble (RCGA, August 2, 2016); Trench 2.1 intersects Trench 2.2 in upper left of photograph . . . . 85

x R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.65 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing coal residue underlying brick rubble layer, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 86

Figure 4.66 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing natural soil underlying coal residue and rubble layers, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 86

Figure 4.67 Trench 2.2, profile north ...... 87

Figure 4.68 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing ruble and natural soil exposed in profile, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) ...... 88

Figure 4.69 Trench 3, Photograph showing beginning of mechanized excavation, view south (RCGA, August 7, 2016) ...... 89

Figure 4.70 Trench 3, plan view showing Kiln Structure #2 North Firebox #s 2-7 ...... 90

Figure 4.72 Trench 5, plan view showing Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox #s 1-7 (south) and Kiln Structure #3 brick-surfaced firing floor (north) ...... 92

Figure 4.73 Trench 5, Profile south ...... 93

Figure 4.74 Trench 5, Photograph showing exposed fireboxes of Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox #s 1-7 (Photographic scales are placed on rubble fill in interior of Firebox #2) , view west (RCGA, August 8, 2016) ...... 94

Figure 4.75 Trench 5, Photograph showing detail of the Kiln Structure #2 South Fire- box #2, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016); Photographic scales are placed on rubble fill in interior of Firebox #2 ...... 94

Figure 4.76 Trench 5A, Photograph showing overview of brick-surfaced firing floor of Kiln Structure #3, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016) ...... 95

Figure 4.77 Trench 5/5A, Photograph showing brick rubble at mouth of Kiln Struc- ture #3 South Firebox #7, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016) ...... 96

Figure 4.78 Trench 5/5A, Photograph showing brick rubble removed from mouth of Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox #7, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016) ...... 96

Figure 4.79 Trench 5A, Photograph showing hand-cleaning during mechanized excavation to expose Kiln Structure #3 firing floor, view north (RCGA, August 10, 2016) . 97

Figure 4.80 Trench 5A, Photograph showing uneven surface of brick-surfaced firing floor of Kiln Structure #3 with opening of North Firebox #7 in background, view north (RCGA, August 10, 2016) ...... 97

xi R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.81 Trench 5A, Photograph showing overview of area between Kiln Struc- tures #3 and #4 for accessing the fireboxes, view north (RCGA, August 10, 2016); openings of Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #6 (upper center) and #7 (upper left) are visible ...... 98

Figure 4.82 Trenches 5, 5A and 6, Photograph showing overview of exposed portions of Kiln Structures #3 (background) and #4 (foreground) and area between the kiln structures (center), view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016) . . . . . 98

Figure 4.83 Trenches 5 and 5A, Photograph showing elements of Kiln Structure #3, view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016); Exposed elements include the exterior of North Firebox #s 6 and 7 (foreground), the firing floor inside Kiln Structure #3 (upper center), and the interior opening of South Firebox #7 . . . .99

Figure 4.84 Trench 5A, Photograph showing the exterior of Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #s 6 (left) and #7 (right), view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016) ...... 99

Figure 4.86 Trench 5A, Photograph showing overview of Kiln Structure #4 South wall with Firebox #s 5 (right), 6 (center) and 7 (left) exposed, view north (RCGA, August 11, 2016) ...... 101

Figure 4.87 Trench 5A, Photograph showing detail of Kiln Structure #4 South wall with Firebox #s 5 (right), 6 (center) and 7 (left) exposed, view north (RCGA, August 11, 2016); Firing floor for Kiln Structure #4 visible in background through firebox openings ...... 101

Figure 4.88 Trench 6, Plan view ...... 103

Figure 4.89 Trench 6, Photograph showing overview of Kiln Structure #4 South wall, view east (RCGA, August 9, 2016) ...... 104

Figure 4.90 Trench 6, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #s 4-6 prior to excavation, view south (RCGA, August 9, 2016) ...... 104

Figure 4.91 Trench 6, Photograph showing overview of Kiln Structure #4 firing floor and South Firebox #3-6, view south (RCGA, August 9, 2016); ...... 105

Figure 4.92 Trench 6, Photograph showing detail of Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #3, view south southeast (RCGA, August 11, 2016) ...... 105

Figure 4.93 Trench 6, Photograph showing oblique view of a portion of the southern wall of fireboxes (center) and firing floor (right) within Kiln Structure #4, view southeast (RCGA, August 11, 2016) ...... 106

xii R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.94 Trench 6, Photograph showing detail of Firebox #s 5 and 6 in the southern wall of Kiln Structure #4, view south; firing floor of Kiln Structure #4 in foreground (RCGA, August 11, 2016) ...... 106

Figure 4.95 Trench 6, Photograph showing detail of iron grate in base of Kiln Struc- ture #4 South Wall Firebox #5, view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016) ...... 107

Figure 4.96 Trench 7, Photograph showing beginning of excavation of trench, view north (RCGA, September 16, 2016) ...... 107

Figure 4.97 Trench 7, Plan view ...... 108

Figure 4.98 Trench 7, Photograph showing portion of firing floor and northern wall of Kiln Structure #4, view north ; open hole in top center is top of chamber of Firebox #3 (RCGA, September 16, 2016) ...... 109

Figure 4.99 Trench 7, Profile west ...... 110

Figure 4.100 Trench 7, Photograph showing brick rubble and fill soil mounded along the south side of Kiln Structure #4 North Wall Firebox #3 (RCGA, Sep- tember 16, 2016) ...... 111

Figure 4.101 Trench 8, Photograph showing an overview of trench, view northwest (RCGA, September 22, 2016) ...... 111

Figure 4.102 Trench 8, Plan view ...... 112

Figure 4.103 Trench 8, Profile west ...... 113

Figure 4.104 Trench 8, Photograph showing brick wall exposed in northern end of trench, profile west (RCGA, September 22, 2016) ...... 114

Figure 4.105 Trench 8, Photograph showing profile of brick wall exposed in northern end of trench, profile south (RCGA, September 22, 2016) ...... 114

Figure 4.106 Trenches 9 & 10, Photograph showing overview of the locations of Trenches 9 (foreground left) and 10 (background left), view north (RCGA, September 22, 2016) ...... 115

Figure 4.107 Trench 9, Plan view ...... 116

Figure 4.108 Trench 9, Profile north ...... 117

Figure 4.109 Trench 9, Photograph showing profile north (RCGA, September 22, 2016) . . . . .118

Figure 4.110 Trench 10, Plan view ...... 119

xiii R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Figures

Figure 4.111 Trench 10, Profile north ...... 120

Figure 4.112 Trench 10, Photograph showing profile north (RCGA, September 22, 2016) . . . . 121

Figure 4.113 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing overview of the elevator shaft pit and exposed brick rubble (right center), view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016) . . . . 121

Figure 4.114 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing the location of the elevator shaft in relationship to Trench 1, view northwest (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 122

Figure 4.115 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing profile west (RCGA, July 27, 2016) . . . . . 122

Figure 4.116 Elevator Shaft, Plan view of brick foundation ...... 124

Figure 4.117 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing plan view of brick foundation, 82 cm below surface, view southeast (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 125

Figure 4.118 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing coal residue overlying brick pad (foreground); center of foundation has been removed, view south (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 126

Figure 4.119 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing brick pad with coal residue removed, view south (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 126

Figue 4.120 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing brick rubble in L-shaped extension of structure, view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 127

Figure 4.121 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing coal residue underlying brick rubble in L-shaped extension of structure, view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 127

Figure 4.122 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing controlled excavation of brick foundation, view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016) ...... 128

xiv R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release List of Tables

Table 2.1. Soil Profile for Grist Mill Series (NRCS 2011:Accessed 7/2/2015) ...... 6

Table 2.2. Previously Identified Cultural ResourcesWithin 0.5 mi of The Thornton Project Area . 7

Table 2.3. Partial Chain of Title for The Thornton Project Area ...... 12

Table 2.4. Brickmakers in Alexandria, 1860 ...... 30

Table 2.5. Brickmakers in Alexandria (including adjacent Fairfax County) 1870 ...... 30

Table 2.6. Brickmakers in Alexandria County, 1880 ...... 31

Table 2.7. Brickmakers in Alexandria County, 1902 and 1907 ...... 31

xv R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter I Introduction

his report presents the results of archeo- es the locations of four of the five pairs of kilns logical investigations undertaken for his- associated with the Alexandria Brick Company Ttoric features and deposits exposed dur- brick kilns, as well as an unidentified structure ing construction of The Thornton, a 439-unit located immediately east of the kilns. residential complex designed to replace Hunt- ing Terrace Apartments. The newly exposed re- Project Location and Description sources included portions of at least three early The Thornton project area is located in twentieth century kiln structures associated with southern Old Town Alexandria, west of the in- the defunct Alexandria Brick Company. R. Chris- tersection of S. Alfred Street and S. Washington topher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. conducted Street (Figure 1.1). The development area sits on the above-cited work on behalf of Foulger-Pratt a small peninsula of land along Hunting Creek Development, LLC. The work was undertaken that historically was known as Broomilawn in consultation with the Alexandria Archaeology Point. By the late nineteenth century, the spell- and Foulger-Pratt Development, LLC. Research ing of the peninsula’s name had changed to Bro- methods employed during monitoring and docu- milaw. Steep bluffs along Hunting Creek bound mentation work were approved by Alexandria the project area to the west and south, while a Archeology. short access road paralleling the S. Washington Archeological monitoring and documenta- St forms the eastern boundary of the project area. tion work followed the progression of investiga- A high retaining wall topped by eastbound lanes tions outlined by Alexandria Archaeology in their of Interstate 495 (I-495) bound the northern edge Scope of Work for a Documentary Study and Ar- of the project area. chaelogical Testing (dated December 16, 2008). The project area most recently was occupied All work was conducted in accordance with stan- by Hunting Terrace Apartments (Figure 1.2). Built dards established in the Secretary of the Interior’s in 1943, the garden-style apartment complex oc- Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and cupied approximately 12.5 ac (5.06 ha) of land Historic Preservation; Guidelines for Conducting that included wetlands and land lying within the Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (Virginia 100-year floodplain for Hunting Creek. The com- Department of Historic Resources [VDHR] 2011); plex originally contained eight buildings; the and City of Alexandria’s Archeological Standards northern three buildings within the complex were (1996). demolished in 2003 as part of the renovation of Archeological investigations were con- the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the expansion of ducted on an on-call basis between July 27, 2016 I-495. The remaining five buildings were demol- and September 22, 2016. The work followed the ished in 2016 as part of the construction process discovery of substantial quantiles of brick within for The Thornton apartment complex, currently foundation trenches excavated near the south- under construction. New construction will include western corner of the project area. Previous re- a sub-surface parking deck with above-surface search suggested the exposed brick was associat- residential space. Existing infrastructure will be ed with the southernmost kilns of the Alexandria replaced; new infrastructure will include service Brick Company. One new historic archeological utilities, perimeter sidewalks and walkways, and site (44AX0233) was identified during the course landscape plantings. of the investigation. Site 44AX0233 encompass-

1 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter I: Introduction

Figure 1.1 Detail from the Alexandria, Virginia, USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle (1983 photorevised), showing the approximate location of The Thornton development area

2 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter I: Introduction

Figure 1.2 Aerial photograph showing the location of The Thornton development area

3 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter I: Introduction

Research Objectives (dated December 16, 2008) in response to the The primary objectives of this cultural re- planned redevelopment project. sources investigation were to monitor construction activity within archeologically sensitive parts Project Personnel (RCGA Staff) of the development area, and to document any Kathleen Child, M.A., served as Project cultural deposits or features exposed during the Manager and field director. She was assisted in construction activity. The project objectives were the filed by Jordan Riccio, M.A., and Katie Ko- realized through a combination of site-specific sack, M.A. Martha Williams, M.A., Ed., conduct- archival research and archeological field investi- ed the archival research. Graphics were prepared gations. Field investigations were conducted on by Kevin May, M.A. and Alan Potter, M.A., and an on-call basis following strategies established Ms. Sharon Little, A.A. produced the report. in consultation with the Alexandria Archaeology during a series of on-site meetings. Organization of the Report Archeological fieldwork for the project was Chapter I of this report describes the general conducted on an on-call basis between July 27, scope and location of the project area and presents 2016 and September 22, 2016. The strategies the specific research objectives of the study. A employed included archeological monitoring of summary of the relevant Phase IA findings, as well structural footing and elevator shaft excavations as background information on the brickmaking in- within the southwestern portion of the develop- dustry in Alexandria are presented in Chapter II. ment area, photographic and descriptive docu- Chapter III discusses the methods used to conduct mentation of exposed archeological features, and the archeological fieldwork, and the results of the site-specific archival research to provide a com- investigations are described in Chapter IV. Chapter parative context for interpretation of the exposed V summarizes the findings of the study and pres- cultural features. Background archival research ents management recommendations. Appendix I for the project previously was conducted by R. contains relevant project correspondence including Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. in 2013 the project-specific Scope of Work (dated Decem- (Williams and Sanders 2013). The work was pur- ber 16, 2008). The Virginia Department of Historic suant to the City Complied Concept, Stage 1 Com- Resources (VDHR) Archeological Site Record for ments (dated May 14, 2013), and to the Scope of newly identified historic site 44AX0233 is includ- Work for a Documentary Study and Archaelogi- ed in Appendix III, and Appendix II includes re- cal Testing generated by Alexandria Archaeology sumes of key project personnel.

4 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II Natural and Cultural Setting

he Thornton is a new residential develop- Company’s brickworks. The company’s kilns, ment located in southern Old Town Alex- drying racks, brick-making machinery, and stor- Tandria in Alexandria, Virginia. The devel- age sheds were situated on a low, broad terrace opment is located in Block 466, immediately west that overlooked Hunting Creek. The brickworks of the intersection of S. Alfred Street and S. Wash- backed to a sharp bluff that rose upward to the ington Street, and has a street address of 1199 S. east onto a dissected finger ridge historically Washington Street. It encompasses 6.8 ac (2.75 ha) known as Penny Hill, but more commonly re- of developed land bounded by Hunting Creek on ferred to as Broomilawn Point. the south and west, by I-495 on the north, and by an access road along S. Washington Street on the Geology and Soils east. Hunting Towers, a mid-rise apartment com- The project area lies within the Western plex is located east of the project area on the op- Shore physiographic section of the Atlantic posite side of S. Washington Street. Coastal Plain province. This province extends westward from the Piedmont province to the At- Natural Setting lantic Ocean, gradually decreasing in elevation as The Thornton development area is located it nears the ocean. Late Tertiary and Quaternary on the western side of a natural peninsula that juts era sands, silts, and clays cover much of the At- southward into Hunting Creek near the creek’s lantic Coastal Plain, which was formed through confluence with the Potomac River. Historically the rising and falling of coastal water levels. Old known as Broomilawn Point, the peninsula is shorelines frequently are evident as scarps and situated near at the southeastern tip of the City terraces in the eastern portion of the coastal plain of Alexandria. Today the area is locally known as (W&M Department of Geology 2011), while the Hunting Point, a name reflected in the residential western portion of the coastal plain is charac- developments of Hunting Terrace and Hunting terized by gently rolling topography crossed by Towers. The peninsula is bounded on three sides steep-sided stream valleys. by Hunting Creek; I-495 crosses just north of The project area is situated within Potomac- where the peninsula historically joined the main- Shenandoah watershed (Virginia DCR 2017). land. S. Washington Street currently divides the This covers the northern portion of Virginia and peninsula, extending north-south across its cen- includes the Potomac, South Fork of the Shenan- tral portion and connecting the City of Alexandria doah, and North Fork of the Shenandoah Rivers. to the suburb of Belle Haven. It is part of the larger Potomac River watershed, The Thornton occupies land formerly devel- which includes parts of four states and the Dis- oped as Hunting Terrace Apartments, a cluster trict of Columbia. The nearest water source to the of five 3-story garden-style apartment buildings project area is Hunting Creek, bounds the western built in 1943. The apartment complex originally and southern sides of the project area. The project included a total of eight buildings; the northern area includes wetlands and a 100-year floodplain three buildings were demolished in the early associated with Hunting Creek. 2000s during improvements to the I-495 corri- Soils mapped for the project area are Urban dor and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Prior to the Land. These soils denote areas that are largely construction of Hunting Terrace Apartments, the covered by concrete, asphalt, buildings, or other land had been the home of the Alexandria Brick impervious surfaces. Soils of the Grist Mill se-

5 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting ries are mapped along the 100- year floodplain 34.14 ft). Areas designated as the locations for of Hunting Creek, which extends along the west- building foundations, elevator shafts, utilities, or ern and southern margins of the project area. other sub-grade features were furthered lowered These soils, indicated as Grist Mill sandy loam, through discrete excavation. Archeological mon- 0-25 percent slopes, have a representative soil itoring was undertaken during July-September profile that strongly resembles the naturally soil 2016, during excavation of the foundation wall sequence documented in the project area. Grist and elevator shaft for the southwestern building; Mill soils are very deep, well drained marine whole-site grading previously had been com- sediments that are not prone to flooding or pond- pleted. At this point, the construction landscape ing. They are common in upland settings on the within the building footprint was level. Areas of Coastal Plain. A representative soil sequence for higher elevation remained along the perimeter of the Grist Mill series is presented in Table 2.1. the building footprint where an existing sound Geotechnical soil boring data was not avail- barrier for the I-495 corridor was located. able for the project area. Pre-construction plans for Hunting Terrace Apartments indicated the Previous Investigations mid-twentieth century landscape originally Eleven archeological sites and four historic sloped sharply down toward Hunting Creek from properties within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the project a high dissected ridge along S. Washington Street. area are documented in the architectural and ar- The original elevations averaged 10 ft (3.28 m) cheological site files maintained by the Virginia above mean sea level (amsl) on the lower terrace Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) near Hunting Creek to about 36 ft (10.97 m) amsl (Table 2.2). No archeological sites previously on the ridge crest. The bluff separating the terrace have been recorded within the immediate proj- and ridge was steep and highly dissected, with an ect area. One new archeological site, designated average slope of 38 degrees or 78.13 percent. The site 44AX0233 (Alexandria Brick Comany), was pre-construction plans indicate the finished ele- identified within the project area during the cur- vation of the Hunting Terrace Apartments was 20 rent study. ft (6.1 m) amsl. This was to be achieved through The most recent archeological study un- a combination of grading and filling that included dertaken at the Hunting Terrace property was a the addition of at least 8 ft (2.44 m) of soil onto Phase IA assessment of the site conducted in 2013 the terrace and the removal of up to 16 ft (4.88 m) (Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2013). That report of soil from the ridge. presented a chain of title and discussed historic Construction plans for The Thornton called land uses for the property; assessed its archeolog- for site-wide grading that included both the his- ical potential, based upon the results of archival toric ridge and terrace areas. During the initial research and consideration of the topography of stage of construction, all extant buildings and the site; and offered recommendations for further infrastructure associated with Hunting Terrace work as site development site proceeded. The Apartments were removed and the existing land- recommendations called for analysis of soil bores scape was lowered approximately 8-12 ft (2.4- taken within the apartment complex, and excava-

Table 2.1. Soil Profile for Grist Mill Series (NRCS 2011:Accessed 7/2/2015) Stratum Depth Below Surface Soil Description A1 0-15 cm (0-6 in) Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loam C1 15-43 cm (6-17 in) Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sandy clay loam C2 43-102 cm (17- 40 in) Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy clay loam; 10 per cent rounded quartz gravel C3 102-114 cm (40-45 in) Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6) sandy clay loam; common medium light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) iron depletions; 2 per cent rounded quartz cobbles 2C4 114-132 cm (45-52 in) Gray (2.5Y 5/1) clay; common medium distinct yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles; 2 per cent rounded quartz cobbles 3C5 132-147 cm (52-58 in) Yellowish red (5YR 4/6) clay; 2 per cent rounded quartz gravel 4C6 147-152 cm (58-60 in) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) sandy loam; 2 per cent rounded quartz gravel

6 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Table 2.2. Previously Identified Cultural Resources Within 0.5 mi of The Thornton Project Area Site # Site Name Chronology Comments Archeological Sites 44AX0040 St. Mary’s Church 1795-1839 Surface reconnaissance. Church was located in northwestern corner of St. Mary’s Cemetery 44AX0052 Jones Point Lighthouse M. Archaic- Mixed historic and prehistoric occupations Woodland, 1775-1950 44AX0053 Jones Point Park Area A Archaic-Woodland, Mixed historic and prehistoric occupations 19th -20th centuries 44AX0078 Virginia Shipbuilding Corp. 1900-1925 Heavy industrial site located on and north of Jones Point 44AX0104 Dwelling, 713 Fairfax St. 1900-1950 Remains of L-shaped frame house 44AX0149 Civil War fortification 1861-1865 Mechanized trenching failed to find former fortification/earthworks; only 20th century fill encountered 44AX0159 Hospital, 703 S. Fairfax St 1861-1865 One post-hole, possibly related to hospital, found in brief Phase I testing 44AX0165 No name (Jones Point) Mixed Recorded in Stevens (1991) Phase Ib Survey for Wilson Bridge Improvements 44AX0179 Freedmen’s/Contraband 1860-1870 Cemetery established by Freedmen’s Bureau to inter freed slaves Cemetery living in Alexandria; potentially 1800 burials. See Bromberg 2013 for history. 44AX0185 No name Mixed historic and From Phase III investigations at Jones Point (Barse et al. 2006). prehistoric Revealed partially intact prehistoric structures and storage pits, as well as remains of historic ropewalk and a cellar feature filled with faunal remains. 44AX0216 Jones Point roadway feature 1900-1950 Architectural Resources 100-0121 Alexandria Historic District 1749-20th century Boundaries encompass the majority of historic core of city 100-5022 St. Mary’s Cemetery 1795-present Located immediately north and east of the project site 100-5019 Hunting Terrace Apts. 1940s DOE’s: Jan 1999, DHR determined not eligible 100-5165 Hunting Towers Apts. 1949 International style. No formal DOE tion of mechanized test trenches within the floodplain areas along Great Hunting Creek. The his- plain immediately west of the (then-extant) apart- toric remains were related to an early nineteenth ment complex, in an area that previously was the century ropewalk and a cellar that probably was site of a late nineteenth-early twentieth century associated with a nearby tanyard or slaughter- brickyard. house. Numerous Late Woodland artifacts and A number of studies were conducted in as- several features, including refuse pits and post- sociation with the upgrade of the Woodrow Wil- molds associated with a structure, were also doc- son Bridge and the attendant widening and recon- umented (Barse et al. 2004:4.10). figuration of the I-95/495 corridor. Investigations Two major studies also were conducted at the by Parsons Engineering in 1996 (Stevens et al. site of the Freedman’s or Contraband Cemetery, 1996) combined background archival research; which are separated from the present project area visual architectural survey; probing; and mecha- by the I-95/495 corridor. In 1997, a ground-pen- nized and shovel testing within selected areas that etrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic survey were assessed as potentially sensitive for prehis- located anomalies that Stevens et al. (1997) ten- toric or historic resources. In Virginia, this testing tatively identified as intact burial shafts, although regime concentrated on Jones Point, including these anomalies were not ground-truthed at that an area of tidal marsh along the north shore of time. Two years later, URS Greiner completed a Hunting Creek. The report concluded that such more intensive study that combined GPR, earth marshy areas were unlikely to contain evidence conductivity, and soil resistivity surveys across of previous occupation due to the poorly drained the same general area. Although the remote sens- soils (Stevens et al. 1996:5-31, Figure 4.1). ing surveys returned inconclusive results, Greiner During Phase III investigations completed in also followed up with a limited program of tar- 2004, Barse et al. (2004) documented both pre- geted archeological testing, using a combination historic and historic resources east of the present of shovel-testing, mechanized trenching, and test project area, in a setting similar to other flood- unit and block excavation. The study identified

7 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting and mapped nearly 60 grave shafts east of Co- twentieth century. During these early years, parts lumbus Street; the shafts were aligned in north- of Alexander’s property at the southern end of south rows, and all individual burials were ori- Alexandria were used as a potters’ field known ented east-west (Slaughter, personal communica- locally as Penny Hill. Greenly (1996:43, 55), tion, December 2000). referencing the 1861 published reminiscences of the “Old Bachelor,” placed the site of this pau- Historic Context pers’ cemetery “at the extreme south end of Royal Archeological site 44AX0233 encompasses Street, bordering on Hunting Creek (and) nearly a complex of archeological features and deposits surrounded by the marsh,” a location well east of associated with the early twentieth century op- the present project area. After Alexandria’s City eration of the Alexandria Brick Company brick- Council authorized the acquisition of a new cem- yard. Incorporated in 1891, this company manu- etery site in 1795, indigents subsequently were factured red brick and, for a brief period sewage interred in the new “Penny Hill” parcel on the tile, for local markets. The company reincorpo- western edge of town (Moore 1988:137; Greenly rated as the Bromilaw Brick Company in 1907, 1996:43). and continued to manufacture brick until fire de- Nonetheless, the former Penny Hill cem- stroyed the manufacturing complex in 1919. Ar- etery may have been used sporadically through cheological features and deposits exposed during at least the middle of the nineteenth century, and construction of The Thornton were related to this the name continued to be applied to a street in the final period of manufacturing. area through the 1870s (Hopkins 1877)(Figure 2.1). The “Old Bachelor,” mentioned above, also Site-Specific Property History claimed that the victims of Alexandria’s 1803 The following narrative develops the tech- yellow fever epidemic were buried at Penny Hill nological and historical contexts that inform the (Greenly 1996:55), although it is unclear whether interpretation of archeological features associated he was referring to the original Penny Hill or the with site 44AX0233. During the development of new burial ground. Later, the Washington Post, this narrative, it was clear that although the name in an 1892 article concerning the “contraband of the point of land where the brickyard was lo- cemetery” at the end of South Washington Street, cated was firmly established by the nineteenth also mentioned an “old smallpox burying ground century, the spelling of the name was rather sub- and hospital” that was “contiguous” to the Freed- jective. Originally known as Penny Hill, the point men’s Cemetery. The location of the smallpox had been renamed “Broomilawn” by 1800; by hospital (but not the related burying ground) was 1907 at least five different spellings of “Broomi- clearly depicted on C. W. Bache’s 1863 map of lawn” had been used in historic documents, in- the topography north of Hunting Creek (Figure cluding the derivation that Park Agnew chose for 2.2). his rebranded Alexandria Brick Company. These In 1794, William Thornton Alexander leased alternate spellings are included where appropri- 22 acres of land at the southern end of town to ate in the below narrative. Robert Hooe (Miller 1987:1). Hooe’s parcel extended from Royal Street on the east to Alfred Antebellum Period Street on the west, with Great Hunting Creek During most of the eighteenth century, the forming its southern boundary, although the lease landform that encompasses The Thornton devel- excluded a tract that Alexander donated to the opment area belonged to the Alexander family, Catholic Church for the establishment of a cha- who were instrumental in creating the Town of pel and cemetery (now St. Mary’s Cemetery). Alexandria. When the District of Columbia was Hooe’s small farm complex included a dwelling established in 1791, part of this landform fell house, orchards, and a garden, and around 1800, within the boundaries of the newly established he also built (or leased) a tavern on a one-acre capital enclave, but most remained outside of that plot that came to be known as Broomilawn Point. boundary within Fairfax County until the early Various spellings of the point’s name have been

8 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.1 Plate 3 of G. M. Hopkins’ 1877 Atlas of Alexandria, showing property owners and proposed street extensions/ alignments along Great Hunting Creek. (Image: Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2013:Figure 2)

9 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.2 Detail from C. W. Bache’s 1863 map of the topography on the north side of Great Hunting Creek, showing the locations of significant landscape features and the smallpox hospital. (Digital image from American Memory, Library of Congress). 10 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting used, including Brumalaw, Bromilawn, and Bro- the Alexandria Gazette also reported in 1864 that milaw; the latter spelling was the one adopted by a 1½-acre tract of land next to Hunting Creek also the Alexandria Brick Company in 1907, when it was “used as a dumping ground for dead horses changed its name to the Bromilaw Brick Com- and human waste.” The overwhelming stench pany. James Hooe, a relative, purchased the prop- reportedly brought numerous complaints from erty after Robert Hooe’s death in 1808. The new residents in the area until the military cleaned owner continued to use most of the point area for up the area (Henn 1998; Miller to Federico n.d.). farming, raising merino sheep, small grains, and Just north of the Manassas Gap railroad cut, the poultry. George Bowling, a free black man, man- Freedmen’s Bureau also established a cemetery aged the farm and was paid a share of the pro- for the burial of freed slaves that crowded into ceeds. the city. Although several differing estimates A variety of other owners acquired the tract have been offered over the years, it appears that in the years before the Civil War (Table 2.3), in- nearly 1,900 individuals eventually were interred cluding William Fowle, a prosperous Alexan- within the “Negro burying ground” (Bromberg dria commission merchant (U. S. Federal Census 2013:106). By war’s end, all that remained to [Census]1860), whose $800 purchase in 1849 remind folks of the former “pleasure resort” at from George and Margaret Wise included the Broomilawn Point was a “walled-up spring on western half of Robert Hooe’s original tract (Fair- the creek shore.” fax County Land Records [Deeds] Book N3:79- 81). During the 1850s, a right-of-way for the pro- Post Bellum Period to Present posed Manassas Gap Railroad was cut through In the century after the Civil War, as its pop- the property immediately south of the Catholic ulation grew, Alexandria changed in a number of cemetery. In 1882, the Alexandria Gazette con- ways. The town’s economy became more diverse, firmed the presence of this cut (rather than an particularly with the development of its industrial embankment) when it reported that, during the and commercial base Part of this postbellum ex- smallpox epidemic of that year, a frame small- pansion pushed into hitherto undeveloped blocks pox hospital also had been built “in the cut just at the south end of town, which by that time were south of St. Mary’s Cemetery” (Miller 1987:2, owned primarily by William Dennis (Hopkins 3). Bache’s Civil War era topographic map (see 1877)(see Figure 2.1). The most profound chang- Figure 2.2) clearly showed the alignment of the es to the property came in 1882, when John Tuck- railroad right-of-way. er purchased part of the estate of the late William Until the Civil War, Alexandrians used Dennis for $1,680 (Fairfax Deeds Book B5:491). Broomilawn Point for various recreational activi- Tucker’s 20-acre purchase stretched from the ties, including barbecues, picnics, dancing and Tanyard Ditch, a small creek that separated this bowling. A 1884 article in the Alexandria Gazette tract from Jones Point (Barse et al. 2007) on the reminisced that the place was once “the princi- east to Alfred Street on the west, and was bound- pal pleasure resort of the city,” and was situated ed north and south by the Manassas Gap railroad “on a hilltop” that provided a panoramic view cut and Great Hunting Creek, respectively. of Great Hunting Creek and the Potomac River While Tucker may have been the first to (quoted in Miller 1987:2). establish a brick-making enterprise at this location, the 1870 population and industrial census The Civil War Period schedules clearly indicate that he and his partner, Recreational use of Broomilawn Point end- R. L. Lucas, were experienced in the craft. The ed when the Union Army moved to occupy Al- partners’ brickyard, located just across the corpo- exandria during the Civil War. Federal authori- rate boundary in what was then Fairfax County’s ties commandeered the properties of many Al- Falls Church District, occupied the block imme- exandria residents, particularly those belonging diately north of the Freedman’s Cemetery (Soldo to known Confederate sympathizers. The army and Williams 2005). Their steam powered brick clear-cut a tract on the southern limits of town; works, equipped with a tempering wheel and a

11 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Table 2.3. Partial Chain of Title for The Thornton Project Area Date Grantor Grantee Reference Comments 8/12/1839 Daniel Marshall (Dep. George Wise Fairfax Deeds Phineas Janney has access rights through this Marshall of DC) Book N3:79 property 11/19/1848 George and Margaret William Fowle Fairfax Deeds $800. Metes and bounds: beginning n. side Wise Book N3:79-81 of Green St. and Washington; then south w/ Washington St. 661.83 ft; then west parallel to Church St 352ft to Columbia St.; then west across Columbia and south to South St; then west to Hunting Creek; then along meanders of HC east to a line of Washington St. extended; and return 10/16/1867 L. B. Taylor, William Dennis Alexandria Deeds Partition of William Fowle’s estate Commissioner Book Y3:136 1882 John Johnson, John Tucker Fairfax Deeds Follows suit in Alexandria Equity Court: Charles Commissioner of Sale Book B5:491 Taylor et al. vs. William Dennis et al. (William Dennis had died). Tract described as lying south of and adjacent to City of Alexandria, west of the Tanyard Ditch and east of Alfred Street, south of the Manassas Gap RR right-of-way, and bounded by Hunting Creek on the south. 20 ac. $1680 7/17/1890 A. W. Armstrong, M. B. Harlow and Park Fairfax Deeds Auction pursuant to court case in Frank Lucas et Commissioner of John Agnew Book J5:371 al. vs. RT Lucas et al. (May 1882). Land south Tucker estate of Alexandria, beg. 661.83 ft s. at intersection of Green and Washington; then west 352.88 ft to Columbus Street; then south 193 ft to a stone; then west along north side of South St to Hunting Creek; then with meanders of HC to between Royal and Fairfax Sts. $3,800. Land subsequently transferred to Alexandria Brick Company. 10/26/1910 Alexandria Brick Laura Agnew, Admin Fairfax Deeds 26.46 ac. Bounded by Washington St. on east, Company of estate of Park Agnew Book I7:690 Green St. on north, Columbus St. on west (to South St), Hunting Creek on south extending eastward to between Royal and Fairfax Sts; then returning to point of origin. 7/31/1918 Heirs of Park Agnew Gardner L. Boothe Alexandria Deeds Transferred all right and interest in property to Book 67:248 Boothe as trustee 9/8/1926 Gardner L. Boothe, Sun Lumber Company Alexandria Deeds Transfer results from court case of John P. Special Commissioner of West Virginia Book 88:300 Agnew vs. Frederick Martens et al. The property and Trustee belonged to Park Agnew, deceased. $8,000. 2/12/1940 Sun Lumber Company Hunting Terrace Corp. Alexandria Deeds Parcel is bounded by Mt. Vernon Mem. Blvd. on Book 160:592 the east; on south and west by high tide line of Hunting Creek and Columbus Street; on north by South Street to beginning. “It is the purpose and intent of the first party to convey all property lying west of Mount Vernon Highway to sd. Corporation.” 8/31/1942 Commonwealth of Hunting Terrace Corp. Alexandria Deeds 4.43 ac. Adjoining land purchased from Sun Virginia Book 202:425 Lumber Company 12/2/1981* Francis H. Gue (Guy), Hunting Terrace Alexandria Deeds Deed records formation of Hunting Terrace Trustee Associates Book 1061:632 Associates and formal transfer of title *From this point on, all deeds recorded changes in name of governing corporation, changes in terms of deeds of trust, or changes regarding compliance with various state and federal regulations (e.g., regulatory compliance with HUD regs, etc.). Property essentially remains the same.

12 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Franklin Brick machine press, reportedly turned (AG Sept 16, 1893). The three businesses com- out 1 million bricks per year with an aggregate bined were able to produce an estimated 20 mil- value of $8,500 (U. S. Census 1870: Schedule lion bricks annually (AG Sept 16, 1893). of Manufactures for Falls Church Township). In Although the Freedmen’s Cemetery never 1875, Tucker and Lucas sold their business to F. was included in the parcel owned by the Alexan- C. Corbett and I. C. O’Neal for the sum of $7,700 dria Brick Company, some reports about the cem- (Fairfax Deeds Book S4:194-5). The 1880 Fed- etery in the years following the Civil War tangen- eral census listed John Tucker as an unemployed tially involved references to the operations of the brick maker who boarded in the home of Wil- brick company. In 1892, one Washington news- liam Nelson on Washington Street (U. S. Census paper reported that the “bones of defunct colored 1880); his purchase in 1882 of the 20-acre par- people [were] being washed away by the rains, cel on Great Hunting Creek (Fairfax Deeds Book and those not washed into the Potomac were B5:49) could represent an attempt to re-establish ground into fertilizer” (Washington Post 1892). himself as an independent producer. In response to this article, the Alexandria Gazette When Tucker’s estate was settled in 1890, maintained (among other things) that the “deep M. B. Harlow and Park Agnew purchased the cut dug for the ‘independent’ line of the Manassas tract for $3,800. The elevated value suggested Gap Railroad” bordered the [cemetery] property the property had been improved, possibly with on the south; the Alexandria Brick Works bor- another brick works. Agnew and Harlow, who dered it on the west; and that “during the years were major players in Alexandria’s banking, that have elapsed occasionally some bones may real estate, and insurance businesses (Richmond have been brought to the surface by the encroach- 1900), subsequently transferred the property title ments of the brickyard” (quoted in Miller 1991). to the Alexandria Brick Company, of which they In 1907, Harlow and Agnew renamed their were the principal owners (Fairfax Deeds Book firm The Bromilaw Brick Company. The re- J5:371)(Figure 2.3). In April 1891, a fire broke branded brickworks produced “building, paving out at the brickworks destroying “all of the build- and sewer brick” as well as supplied sand for ings and nearly all of the machinery” (AG May construction (AG August 28, 1909) (Figure 2.6). 7, 1891) (Figure 2.4). Harlow and Agnew blamed The 1907 Sanborn map clearly shows that this the Southern Bell Telephone Company for delay- fairly extensive manufacturing facility was locat- ing the fire department’s response to the fire “for ed almost entirely on the low terrace bordering the reason that the night operator failed to answer Hunting Creek (Figure 2.7)(Sanborn 1907); the the call for the fire department, which the brick elevated plateau just east of the brickyard may company claim would have save them $30,000” have provided a convenient and abundant source (AG April 20, 1891). of clay for the operation. The brick works suf- Harlow and Agnew rebuilt and the compa- fered a minor fire in 1907 that did not seem to ny soon was back in business (Hill 1915). Two affect production (AG Sept 10, 1907). years later, the Alexandria Gazette featured the As major business players in the city, Harlow Alexandria Brick Company in a short article that and Agnew made sure that their brickworks occu- included a series of hand-drawn sketches of the pied a prominent place in a tercentennial souvenir brickworks (Figure 2.5; AG Sept 16, 1895). At booklet commemorating the 300th anniversary of that time, the company employed 50 men, and the founding of the Jamestown settlement (Wed- had daily capacity of 60,000 bricks per day. The derburn 1907). A series of photographs showing company owned 30 acres of land on Broomilawn the extensive facilities was included in the publi- Point and had a capital stock worth $50,000 (AG cation. One photograph shows a view of the com- Sept 16, 1893). The Alexandria Brick Company pany’s kilns and drying racks (Figure 2.8). The was one of three larger brick companies operating kilns appear to have been organized into pairs, in or near Alexandria; the other brickyards were with the kiln pairs separated by a narrow open Corbett & Yohe’s brickworks on S. Washington space left between the kiln pairs. Elevated roof- Street, and Pullman & Sons on Washington Street ing covered the narrow space between the paired

13 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.3 Advertisement for the Alexandria Brick Company from Richmond’s 1900 City Directory

Figure 2.4 Newspaper article for the 1891 Alexandria Brick Company fire (Alexandria Gazette, May 7, 1891)

14 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.5 Detail from newspaper article for the Alexandria Brick Company depicting the brick-making facility (image: Alexandria Gazette, September 16, 1893)

15 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.6 Advertisement for the Bromilaw Brick Company (Alexandria Gazette, August 28, 1909)

16 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.7 Detail from Sanborn’s Fire Insurance Map of Alexandria (1907), showing topography and configuration of the Alexandria Brick Company’s works on Hunting Creek (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress). 17 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.8 Promotional page from Wedderburn’s 1907 Historic Alexandria, VA, Past and Present (Tercentennial Sou- venir, 1607-1907), extolling the virtues of Alexandria’s brickmaking industry, and highlighting Harlow and Agnew’s Alexandria Brick Company. (Image: https://ia600504.us.archive.org/16/items/souvenirvirgin- ia01wedd/).

18 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting kiln structures. A frame wall with a broad door- company’s five pairs of brick kilns could clearly way joined the kiln pairs. The frame wall allowed be seen on the USGS 1921 aerial photographs. access to the drying floor; the drying floor could The Hunting Terrace Corporation, which be enclosed by simply closing the door in the constructed the recently demolished garden-style frame wall. apartments on the site of the former brickworks, Review of city directories and the 1910 cen- acquired the land from Sun Lumber in February sus for Alexandria’s First Ward illuminates the of 1940 (Alexandria Land Records [Deeds] Book nature of the workforce employed in the brick- 160:592). The property was enlarged in 1942 yards in the area, including the Broomilaw com- when the Commonwealth of Virginia conveyed plex. The census identified nine residents of Ward an additional 4.43 acres of “adjoining land pur- One as “workers in brickyard.” Five individuals chased from Sun Lumber Company” to the Hunt- were African-American, including Henry Lyles, ing Terrace Corporation (Alexandria Deeds Book Stephen Pritchard, John Butchart, Thomas Pend- 202:425). leton, and Walter Cobert. Of these, only Pritchard held a job that might be classified as “skilled;” Brick Manufacturing Technology he worked as a “brick setter,” as opposed to the The basic brick-making process entailed five other four African Americans, all of whom were distinct stages: mining (known as “winning”); identified as “laborers.” Conversely, only one of preparing the clays; molding (known as “form- the four Caucasian brickyard employees worked ing”); drying; and firing (known as “burning”) as a laborer, while the remaining three were em- (McKee 1974:82). ployed in supervisory or skilled capacities. John Gurcke (1987:5) observed that, to obtain Eberhart managed the brickyard, Horace Talbert raw clays, “digging by hand in shallow pits seems was a foreman, and James Kennon worked as a to have been the common practice in both Great machinist. Perhaps most interesting of all was the Britain and the United States during the nine- discovery that Henry Lyles and his wife Harriet teenth century,” although the “winning” process (Hattie) apparently lived at the brickyard; Rich- also could be carried out by other means. For mond’s 1900 Directory of Alexandria, VA placed example, horse-drawn (later, machine-powered) them at “home on Broomlaw [sic],” while the plows sometimes were used to loosen the clay af- 1910 census provided a specific address of 606 ter overburden soils had been removed; a scraper South Washington Street (US Census 1910; Rich- then removed the suitable clays. In larger opera- mond 1900). tions, clays frequently were removed in “bench- Fire again destroyed the brickyard in 1919 es” ranging in depth from 7 – 9 ft; removal of (Miller 1987:4). Although the kiln structures ap- ever-widening “benches” produced an excava- parently survived the conflagration, the brick- tion that somewhat resembled an open-pit mine. works did not reopen (Figures 2.9 and 2.10) “Glory-hole” mining involved the excavation of (Anonymous ca. 1920; Sanborn 1921). The fa- large, conical pits whose unsupported sides even- cility was completely defunct by 1921, except tually slumped inward (Gurcke 1987:5-6). There- perhaps for the dwelling and outbuildings located after, the raw clay was permitted to weather as along South Street. The heirs of Park Agnew, who it lay exposed during the winter, a process that had acquired sole title of the property following removed soluble salts and broke down the harder his death in 1910, placed the now-vacant prop- lumps in the matrix. erty in the hands of a trustee, Gardner Boothe, O’Conner (1999:12) noted that experts con- who eventually sold it to the Sun Lumber Com- sidered river bottom, or alluvial clays, to be of pany of West Virginia in 1926 (Fairfax Deeds “good quality for building brick or drain tile, Books I7:690; 67:248; 88:300). The lumber com- though sometimes rather difficult to dry.” The pany did not rebuild the brick works. It is likely area at the southern edge of Alexandria, along any salvageable items that had survived the fire Great Hunting Creek, apparently yielded good had been sold long ago. The remains of the brick quality clays for brick manufacture. In fact, close

19 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.9 Detail from Sanborn’s 1921 Fire Insurance map of Alexandria, showing the “dilapidated kilns” of the abandoned Alexandria (Bromilaw) Brick Company facility. (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress). 20 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

21 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting scrutiny of C. M. Bache’s 1863 topographic map of a skilled worker (McKee 1974:82). A top rate (Figure 2.11) depicts several interesting pit-like molder, working the length of a summer day, features along the margins of the steep bank bor- reportedly could turn out between 10,000 and dering Great Hunting Creek; these might have 12,000 bricks, but the norm probably was about been “glory holes,” although they are not identi- half that amount (McKee 1974:92, Note 2). At- fied as such on the map. The 1907 Sanborn map tempts at mechanization began during the late of the brick works themselves (see Figure 2.7) eighteenth century, and numerous patents were depicts a 30-ft high bank into (or onto) which had taken out during the nineteenth century to ex- been built a single story “receiving shed.” This pedite the process and improve the product. For structure presumably housed the excavated clays example, in one automated process, the prepared prior to engaging in the second step of the opera- clay mixture was compressed and forced through tion. When St. Mary’s Cemetery across S. Wash- a shaped opening at the bottom of the machine ington Street was expanded and fenced in 1932, (McKee 1974:84); the shaped clay mixture then parish notes observed that an “old clay quarry had was cut into appropriate brick sizes using a vari- to be filled with 2500 yards of dirt” (St. Mary’s ety of cutting devices. Depending on the method Catholic Parish 1932). used, a mechanized molding operation could pro- Preparing the clay entailed mixing the raw duce between 20,000 and 60,000 unfired bricks clay to render it pliable and to give it an even con- in a 12-hour day (McKee 1974:84-88). A notation sistency. Various materials such as sand, ash, coal, on the 1907 Sanborn map (see Figure 2.7) clearly or ground chalk might be added during this phase. indicates that the molding process at the Alexan- If firebrick was the intended end product, grog dria Brick Company had been mechanized. Coal (ground dry clay) was added to reduce shrinkage fueled a 60-hp engine that powered two brick ma- and cracking (Gurcke 1987:13; Scientific Ameri- chines (Sanborn 1907). can 1886). Complete amalgamation of the raw Molded bricks next were air-dried in low clay with the added tempering agents could be ac- stacks known as hacks. Until processes were de- complished in several ways, depending upon the vised to reduce the time required for this opera- sophistication of the manufacturer. In the simplest tion, brick drying took place either in the open process, the various elements were simply mixed air or underneath open-sided sheds (Gurcke with a shovel or in a ring pit, a circular horse- 1987:25-26). In non-mechanized brickyards, the powered vat containing a wheel. Pug mills, ini- drying process could take as long as three weeks, tially developed by the pottery industry during the depending on the weather, and product losses eighteenth century, differed from ring pits in that due to weather could run as high as 15 per cent paddles rather than wheels were used to mix the of output. To mitigate the problem of inclem- ingredients. At first, these pits were wooden tubs ent weather, brick hacks often were covered by with a rotating mixing blade; motive power most wooden shed roofs that could be adjusted to com- often was provided by harnessing one or more pensate for changing weather conditions (Gurcke horses to a long arm attached to a central shaft 1987:26). Weather constraints also limited the with mixing blades. Pug mills could be built into amount of time that brickyards could remain op- the ground, as was the case with the J. S. Berry erational; in Britain and the United States, most Brick Company in Baltimore (Sanders and Wil- brick manufacturers were able to operate only six liams 1998), or free-standing and above-ground. months during the year. At the Alexandria Brick Company’s works, the Drying time could be reduced by several “clay mill” that performed this step was housed in means. For example, the J. S. Berry Fire Brick a separate room immediately adjacent to the afore- works in Baltimore employed heated brick mentioned “receiving shed.” “floors,” in which heat was introduced beneath The tempered clay then was shaped into its stacks of green bricks via a flue from the nearby final form. In the simplest variation of the pro- kilns (Sanders and Williams 1998:33). In the cess, clay was pressed by hand into wooden or 1890s, Chambers Brothers Company, a Phila- iron-clad molds, a job that required the services delphia steam engine manufacturer, developed a

22 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.11 Detail from C. W. Bache’s 1863 map of the topography on the north side of Great Hunting Creek, showing possible glory holes. (Digital image from American Memory, Library of Congress).

23 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting brick dryer that accelerated evaporation of mois- top to fire the brick, which had been stacked with ture by passing carloads of raw brick into a tunnel narrow spaces between each stack. Although it into which warm air was forced (Gurcke 1987:26; exposed the brick to a more consistent level of McKee 1974:88). By the early 1900s, several lo- heat, the method still failed to produce a reliably cal Alexandria brickworks had added drying tun- uniform final product (Gurcke 1987:32-34; Lafer nels to their brickworks (Figure 2.12). The tun- et al. 2004). nels were typically located in or near the building The Alexandria Brick Company does not that housed the brick machines and clay mills appear to have adopted downdraft technology. and were the next step for freshly molded brick. The Alexandria Brick Company kilns depicted There is no evidence that any exterior heat source in Historic Alexandria, Va. (Wedderburn 1907) was utilized to dry the raw bricks at the Alexandria were open-top “Dutch” kilns that operated on up- Brick Company. At both the West Brothers Brick draft technology. These long, narrow kilns relied Company and the Charles Ford Estate brickyard, on their open construction to draw heat up though where drying tunnels were utilized, the kilns still the brick stack from a series of flues or tunnels appeared to be updraft kilns identical to those at liked to exterior fireboxes or “eyes.” The kilns the Alexandria Brick Company. were organized in pairs, with a narrow open space Firing the molded and dried bricks in a kiln between each kiln pair that would have contained was the final step in the manufacturing process the firebox openings. Elevated roofing sheltered (Gurcke 1987:4). The earliest kilns, known as each kiln pair and any brick placed in the interior “clamps” or “scove” kilns, were updraft kilns. of the structure to dry on the kiln floor. These essentially temporary structures consisted Although the 1907 Sanborn map describes of a series of corbelled arches formed by stack- the roofing over the Alexandria Brick Company ing the unfired brick. After the stacked brick was kilns as “removable board roofs” [sic], the roofing covered with a mixture of clay and straw, fuel was system appears permanent (Sanborn 1907; Wed- introduced into the channels formed by the cor- derburn 1907). This system of removable board belling. Intense (1,800o F) heat built up within the roofing rather than fixed roofing over the kilns passageways and was retained inside the structure appears to have been relatively common and was for several days to complete the firing process utilized by several brickworks in the Alexandria (Rhodes 1968:44-45). The entire clamp then was area. Among these were the Virginia Brick Com- dismantled, and the bricks were sorted. Softer less pany and the then-defunct M.T. Cockey brick well-fired “samel” bricks on the exterior of the yard (Figure 2.13). These brickyards also utilized kiln were utilized for such purposes as “nogging.” drying sheds rather than the more modern drying The most intensively fired bricks closest to the fire tunnels. chambers acquired a shiny glaze, and often were The Chambers Brothers Company Catalogue utilized to create decorative patterns seen on ex- (1902) provides a good comparative example terior walls of eighteenth century buildings. The for the layout of the Alexandria Brick Company remains of such clamps have been investigated kilns (Figure 2.14). The Chambers Brothers kilns archeologically at several sites in Virginia, includ- were updraft kilns. Each kiln building contained ing Shirley and Westover in Charles City County two kilns that were partially enclosed by a frame (Heite 1973) and (closer to home) at Belvoir Man- structure with an elevated roof. The nearest kiln’s or in Fairfax County (Shott 1976). double fireboxes were visible on the exterior of The wider adoption of downdraft kilns en- the kiln structure, which was described as a “10- hanced heat control. These kilns, which could eye” kiln. The fireboxes were set below the inte- accommodate larger quantities of brick (50,000– rior level of the structure, which appear to contain 60,000) at a single firing, consisted of a series the firing floor. Arched flue openings were visible of evenly spaced fireplaces with a flue that ran in the interior of the kiln where the heat from the beneath the kiln floor. Heat initially was directed firebox flues would have been directed upward upward, and then was drawn downward from the into the firing floor. The kiln structures were open

24 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.12 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing comparison between Alexandria Brick Company, West Brothers Brick company, and Charles Ford’s Estate Brick Yard (Plates 19, 23) (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress; EDR Inquiry 5115974.3)

25 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

26 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.14 Detail from Chambers Brothers Company Catalogue No, 21 showing image of updraft kilns (Digital image: Library of Congress, http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/brickmaking-and-brickmakers/chambers- loc/)

at the top to allow additional air circulation and The Brickmaking Industry in Alexandria to further draw the warm air from the fireboxes Nearly all of Alexandria’s surviving eigh- upward and through the bricks in the kiln interior. teenth century historic buildings are either built The “removable board” roofing over the entirely of brick, or have brick foundations. kiln structures at the Alexandria Brick Company Clearly, then, brick manufacturers were at work would have further allowed the control of air flow in the Alexandria area from the mid-eighteenth (Sanborn 1907). Some brickworks, such as the century on, although none of the archeological W.T. Walker Brick Company used track roofing projects conducted in the city during the past four that allowed roofing panels to be slid along metal decades have encountered any brick manufac- tracks (Figure 15). This method of covering the turing sites. Not until the end of the eighteenth kiln structures also was used at the New Washing- century, when city directories began to be pub- ton Brick Company. There, the company’s brick lished, is it possible to obtain some idea of how machines, drying tunnels, and kilns were housed many individuals might have been involved in in a single large frame structure. The kilns were this important industry. Relying on early city di- roofed with “portable roofs on tracks”, while the rectories and other business-related documents, brick machines and tunnels were beneath a fixed Miller (1992:passim) identified five individu- gable-roofed structure. An abandoned brickyard als and one apparent partnership as brickmak- near Mt. Vernon also utilized tracked roofing for ers during this period. They included: Christian its updraft kilns (Figure 2.16). The kiln fireboxes White (1796; Third Ward); Christian Wort (1799; are visible along the exterior of the kiln structure Second Ward); John Krebs (1805; yard on Duke (lower left); the fixed-roof structures in the center Street); Alexander Veitch, brickmaker and car- of the photograph may be drying tunnels, while penter (1809-1812; location unknown); Preston the building in the far upper right likely housed and Anderson (1812; West End); and Charles the clay mill and brick machines. Nevitt (1814; yard on Duke Street).

27 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.15 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing comparison between Alexandria Brick Company, New Washington Brick Company, and the W.T. Walker Brick Company (Plates 19, 23, 24) (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress; EDR Inquiry 5115974.3)

28 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.16 Image of Brickyard below Mount Vernon showing tracked roofing over brick kiln structures (Image: American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)

The next readily available primary documen- the data suggest that largest of them, Thomas and tation is the 1850 Census’ “Products of Industry” Brother, had begun to apply some type of mecha- section; interestingly, that document identifies nization to their operation (Table 2.4). only two individuals--Emanuel Francis and Elihu The 1870 United States Census for Manu- Stanton—as “bricklayers” (not brick makers) in facturing suggested that Tucker and Lucas’ brick- Alexandria (United States Census Bureau [Cen- yard on S. Washington Street (extended) had sus] 1850: Products of Industry, Alexandria, Vir- assumed the mantle previously held by Thomas ginia). The equivalent returns for adjacent areas and Brother, and had become the largest such of Fairfax County in both 1850 and 1860 seem to enterprise within the City of Alexandria and ad- be missing, so it is unclear whether other brick- jacent Fairfax County. The degree to which that yards were operating in the region in those years. firm’s operations were mechanized at that time Research results are far more robust for the seemed to be, if not greater than, then certainly remainder of the nineteenth century and the early equal to, any other brickyard in the vicinity. In twentieth, thanks to more detailed mapping and other words, the firm was reasonably au courant data gathering. These results, presented in Tables in terms of its sophistication. However, Tucker 2.4-2.7 of this report, reflect the general indus- and Lucas had very little competition, given that trial context within which the Alexandria Brick only three other brickyards operated within the Company operated. The number of brickmakers entire city in 1870. The precipitous decline in the operating in Alexandria in 1860 quadrupled, and number of individuals and firms engaged in a for-

29 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting Comments Comments Steam-powered operation, uses coal as fuel. was principal fuel Wood Hand operation; no machinery. was principal fuel Wood Hand operation; no machinery. was principal fuel Wood Hand operation; no machinery. was principal fuel Wood Hand operation; no machinery. was principal fuel Wood Hand operation; no machinery. Coal was principal fuel Hand operation; no machinery. was principal fuel Wood Hand operation; no machinery. Steam-powered operation. Machinery used at site included tempering wheels, a Franklin brick machine, and a press. Operated 6 months out of the year This operation combined brickmaking and bricklaying. Lime some sand probably Operated 6 Operation hand-powered; no machinery. related to production of mortar. months out of year. Operates 3 months out of the year. Hand operation; no machinery. Operates 6 months out of the year. Hand operation; no machinery. Annual Output Annual Output 1 million brick valued at $8,500 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1,600,000 brick valued at $9,600 700,000 brick valued at $4,900 300,00 brick valued at $1,800 350,000 brick valued at $2,100 750,000 brick valued at $6,500 300,000 brick valued at $1,800 800,000 brick valued at $5,000 600,000 brick valued at $3,900 Table 2.4. Brickmakers in Alexandria, 1860 2.4. Brickmakers in Table Inventory 1,000,000 cu yd of clay; 500 cords wood wood, sand, lime, Clay, and 300,000 bricks Clay (40 cu yd), wood, sand, 126,000 brick wood, sand, 250,000 Clay, brick Average # of Employees Average Table 2.5. Brickmakers in Alexandria (including adjacent Fairfax County) 1870 2.5. Brickmakers in Table 25 employees 12 employees 8 employees 8 employees 10 employees 8 employees 16 employees 7 employees Employees Average # of Average 15 over 15 yr. old; 6 15 over yr. children 4 employees 4 employees 8 employees Capitalization $20,000 $300 $500 $50 $500 $100 $2,000 $500 Valuation $15,000 $600 $500 $2,000 Company Name Company Name Thomas and Brother Emanuel Francis Peter Henderson Piper & Brother Samuel Parker Richard Rudd Daniel Collins Samuel Reed Tucker and Lucas Tucker (Alexandria) Henderson George (Alexandria) James Piper (Alexandria) Francis S. German (Alexandria) Source: United States Census, Products of Industry, Alexandria, Virginia, 1860 Virginia, Alexandria, Source: United States Census, Products of Industry, Alexandria and Fairfax Counties, 1870 Source: United States Census of Manufactures,

30 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting Comments Structures mapped on property Structures Drying racks, kilns, clay mill, forming machines, variety of appurtenant 1 – 2 story frame structures Massive complex, apparently automated; clay sheds connected to main plant by covered tramways; brick arched patent kilns, 8 stock sheds; adjacent to railroad siding dwellings Two clay grinding and storage areas; drying tunnels. Four kilns, racks for air-drying; on property small kilns, covered clay mill, dwelling. Two Four kilns, drying tunnels, air areas, office complex on site Four kilns, drying sheds, etc. Six kilns, machine shop, drying sheds, etc. 5 kilns; a clay pit; “dryers” 4 kilns, drying racks and tunnels 6 kilns, drying ovens; adjacent to railroad siding Averages 8 hour days; operates 7 months full time; has 1 coal-fired boiler and engine Averages generating 8 hp Averages 8 hour days; prevailing wages; operates 7 months full time; has 1 coal-fired boiler and Averages 1 engine generating 10 hp Averages 8 – 10 hour days; prevailing wages; operates 7 months full time; has 1 coal-fired boiler Averages and 1 engine generating 8 hp Averages 8 – 10 hour days; prevailing wages; operates months full and 1 month part time; has Averages 1 coal-fired boiler and engine generating 8 hp Average 8 - 10 hour work days; operates months full and 1 month part time; has 2 coal-fired Average boilers and 2 engines generating 65 hp Average 8 hour work day; average daily wage is $1.25; operates 7 months full time and 5 Average months part-time; no boilers or machinery listed Average 10-hour workday; average daily wages $1.25; operates 8-10 months out of year; has Average coal fired steam boiler generating 50 hp. Average 10 hour work day; average daily wage $1.25; operates 8 – months out of the year; Average has coal-fired steam boiler generating 25 hp. Operate 10 hour days; average hourly wage is $1.50; operate months out of the year; has coal-fired steam boiler generating 25 hp. Work day and average wage same as above; no power source or machinery listed; operates 6 Work months out of the year Work 8 – 10 hour days; average wages range between $.90 and $1.50 per day; no power source Work or machinery listed Inventory Value Inventory $5,500 $10,500 $4,000 $7,875 $12,808 $11,330 $300 $4,800 $34,500 Unspecified Unspecified Table 2.6. Brickmakers in Alexandria County, 1880 Alexandria County, 2.6. Brickmakers in Table Company location brick) Table 2.7. Brickmakers in Alexandria County, 1902 and 1907 Alexandria County, 2.7. Brickmakers in Table Inventory (Common & pressed (Common & pressed 350,000 common and 15,000 pressed 1.5 million common and 70,000 pressed 800,000 common and 9,000 pressed 1.2 million common 1 million common; 52,000 pressed 1,415,000 common; 85,000 pressed 50,000 common 800,000 common 4 million common; 50,000 pressed 600,000 common 20,000 pressed 800,000 common South end of Alexandria on Hunting Creek near Jones South end of Point Alexandria City Hall 5 miles north of Alexandria City Hall 5½ mi. north of Alexandria City Hall 5½ mi. north of Alexandria City Hall 5½ mi. north of Hydraulic Press Co. Washington Near Turnpike Columbia Alexandria City Hall 4½ mi north of Alexandria City Hall 4½ mi north of Alexandria City Hall 4 mi north of Employees Average # of # of Average 30 men 30 men 17 men 35 men 50 men/10 children 47 average 4 workers 5 average 50 average 16 maximum; average 6 10 men; 3 children Valuation $7,000 $13,000 $1,800 $1,350 $20,000 $10,000 Unspecified $10,000 $20,000 $1,500 $10,000 Company Name Company Name W. T. Walker T. W. Joseph Heiner John Woodward Amon Woodward Frederick Windsor Frederick Thomas Smithson & Sons Adamanture Brick Works J. P. Appleman J. P. W. H. West and West H. W. Brothers Emmanuel Francis O’Neal and Corbett Alexandria (Broomlaw) Brick Company Hydraulic Press Washington Estate Ford’s Cockey (1902 only) Walker T. W. Brick Virginia Brothers West Potomac Brick Jackson Phillips Brick Company Washington New Source: U. S. Census of Manufactures, Alexandria County, Virginia, 1880 Virginia, Alexandria County, Source: U. S. Census of Manufactures, 1902, 1907: Plates 19-23. Virginia Alexandria, Source: Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 31 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting merly robust industry may reflect, in part, adverse brick). By 1902, under the ownership of Yohe conditions that resulted from the military occupa- and O’Neal, the brickyard on South Washington tion of Alexandria during the Civil War. may have ceased operation entirely, since it was However, Table 2.6 illustrates that, within not identified as a separate corporate entity on the one decade, Alexandria’s brickmaking industry Sanborn map of that year. had rebounded significantly. Not only had the By the first decade of the twentieth - centu number of brickyards within Alexandria County ry, the various maps of Alexandria County (e.g., more than doubled by 1880, but many of them Hopkins 1894; Strum 1900; Sanborn 1902, 1907) also apparently had applied the latest technology show quite clearly that the geographic center of to the brick manufacturing process; 70 per cent Northern Virginia’s brick manufacturing had be- of these firms now employed coal-fired steam come firmly established in what is now Arlington boilers, rather than horsepower, to operate their County. G. M. Hopkins’ (1894) Map of the Vi- machinery. G. M. Hopkins’ 1879 map of Alex- cinity of Washington (Figure 2.18) even showed andria County (Figure 2.17) revealed another a “Brick Haven P. O.” north of Four Mile Run significant trend; many of the firms listed in the on the Washington and Alexandria Turnpike. Of 1880 industrial census (Table 2.6) were located all the firms listed in Table 2.7, only Alexandria near the southern terminus of the Long Bridge Brick held forth along Hunting Creek south of (now 14th Street Bridge), at a location known as town. The geographic shift remained until well Jackson City (Hopkins 1879). The decline of the into the mid-twentieth century; the Arlington formerly dominant O’Neal and Corbett works at County Public Library’s (2016) website noted the southern end of Alexandria was reflected in that “[O]ne of the largest plants (in Alexandria its failure to adopt new technology; its relatively County) was West Brothers Brick Company. low inventory of finished product on hand; the Founded shortly after the Civil War, it remained comparatively short season of operation; the rela- in operation until the land was taken over by the tively low number of employees retained by the federal government in 1942 to build the Penta- firm; and the nature of the firm’s output, which gon. Brick manufacturing eventually ceased in was apparently confined entirely to common the area with the construction of Shirley Highway brick (rather than the more “finished” pressed and the Pentagon.”

32 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.17 Detail from G. M. Hopkins’ 1879 map of Alexandria County, showing concentration of brick manufactories near the Long Bridge in (present-day) Arlington County. (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress). 33 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter II: Natural and Cultural Setting

Figure 2.18 Detail from G. M. Hopkins’ 1894 Map of the Vicinity of Washington, showing concentration of brick manufactories near the Long Bridge in (present-day) Arlington County. (Digital image from Geography and Map Division, Library of Congress). 34 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter III Research Methods

ackground archival research for the cultural surfaces, features or deposits within the project previously was conducted by R. excavated area. Excavation was monitored within BChristopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. the western portion of the project area, in an area in 2013 (Williams and Sanders 2013). The work construction activity had exposed archeological was conducted pursuant to the Scope of Work for deposits associated with the late nineteenth to a Documentary Study and Archaelogical Testing early twentieth century Broomilaw/Alexandria generated by Alexandria Archaeology (dated De- Brick Company brickworks. These features were cember 16, 2008) in response to the planned rede- exposed during excavation of a foundation trench velopment project. The work also was required as and elevator shaft for the southwestern building part of the City Complied Concept, Stage 1 Com- within a planned apartment complex. ments (dated May 14, 2013) of the project, which The objectives of the documentation were required a Documentary Study and Archeological to record evidence for previous disturbance, and Evaluation. to record any potentially intact cultural surfaces, This research indicated that the earliest oc- feature or deposits exposed during construction cupation on Broomilawn Point may have been by activity. Documentation included digital photog- Robert Hooe, who leased 22 acres of land on the raphy and scale drawings, as appropriate. Site- point from William Thornton Alexander in 1794 specific archival research was conducted as part (Miller 1987:1). Hooe established a farmstead and of the documentation process to provide con- tavern on the property. It was not until the late textual data for the interpretation of archeologi- nineteenth century that the property saw intensive cal deposits exposed during construction. This development. In 1882, John Tucker purchased the research supplemented background archival re- property, and by 1884 had established a brick- search provided in the previously prepared Sum- making business on the floodplain along Hunting mary Documentary Study for the Proposed Im- Creek. The property transferred to the Alexandria provements at Hunting Terrace, Alexandria, VA Brick Company in 1910 and continued to operate (Williams and Sanders 2013). until 1919 when fire destroyed the engine house The objectives of the archeological moni- and drying sheds. The property again appears to toring and documentation were accomplished in have lain vacant until 1943, when the Hunting Ter- coordination with Alexandria Archeology and race apartment complex was constructed on the the on-site construction consultant (Foulger-Pratt property. Development, LLC). The objectives were met through project-specific background research, Research Objectives monitoring of archeologically sensitive areas The project included two components: ar- during construction, photographic documenta- cheological monitoring of construction activities tion of exposed soil sequences and potential occurring within a previously defined area of ar- historic features, and preparation of this report. cheological sensitivity; and, the documentation Archeological monitoring was undertaken on an of any exposed cultural features. on-call basis between July 27, 2016 and Septem- The objectives of archeological monitor- ber 22, 2016. During this period, excavations for ing were to observe construction activity; to re- the foundation footprint and elevator shaft for the cord evidence for previous disturbance; and to southwestern building of the complex were moni- investigate and document any potentially intact tored. The results of the archeological monitoring

35 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter III: Research Methods and documentation are contained in this report, Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaf- which also includes a summary of the previous fer and Cole 1994) and in Archaeology and His- documentary results. toric Preservation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines (U.S. Department of Archival Research Methods the Interior, National Park Service 1983), Guide- A preliminary archival research and archeo- lines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey logical assessment previously was conducted for in Virginia (Virginia Department of Historic Re- the proposed project in August 2013 (Williams sources [VDHR] 2011); and City of Alexandria’s 2013). The goal of the study was to assess the Archeological Standards (1996). archeological potential of the project area using A qualified archeological monitor from the available archival and historic cartographic data. staff of R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, The study was conducted as a preliminary compo- Inc. observed excavation within archeologically nent in the planning process and did not include a sensitive parts of the development area. Monitor- detailed land use history or review of previously ing was conducted on an on-call basis between completed cultural resources studies in the vicin- July 27, 2016 and September 22, 2016. Excava- ity of the project area. No archeological testing tions were observed for one segment of the foun- was performed as part of the assessment. dation wall and an elevator shaft located near the Supplemental archival research focused on southwestern corner of the southwestern building developing a site-specific comparative context complex. Archeological monitoring was not con- for the Bromilaw/Alexandria Brick Company. ducted for portions of the project where construc- The archival research included an examination tion or utility installation had already occurred or of historic maps, tax and census records, busi- in areas that were considered to have a low poten- ness directories, and published and unpublished tial for intact archeological resources. All excava- manuscripts. Preliminary consultation about the tion was accomplished using a Gradall XL4200 potential direction of archeological investigations or a John Deere 35G Excavator; both were sup- also was conducted with Dr. Garrett Fessler, staff plied by the construction contractor. archeologist with the City of Alexandria. Data Documentation included recordation of the was obtained online through the Virginia Cul- horizontal and vertical extent of new trenches, tural Resources Information System (VCRIS), examination of the exposed soil sequence, and the Library of Congress and Accessible Archives determination of the presence or absence of cul- (www.accessible-archives.com). Visits to several tural features or deposits. Data recorded included repositories also were undertaken to complete the trench location, stratigraphy, presence or absence research. Those repositories included: Alexandria of exposed cultural materials or features, current Archaeology, the Archived Records Center of Al- construction objectives, and other pertinent infor- exandria, the Alexandria Public Library, as well mation. Trenches were assigned numbers that re- as repositories in Fairfax County. flected their order of excavation and/or documentation. All depths below surface, typically ap- Archeological Field Methods pearing as centimeters below surface (cmbs) on The field strategies employed during the in- detail drawings, photographs and in descriptive vestigation were developed in consultation with text, were taken from the prepared construction the Office of Historic Alexandria/Alexandria -Ar surface, which was an estimated 8 ft (2.4 m) be- chaeology. These strategies included monitoring low the original grade. Digital photography sup- construction excavation occurring in archeologi- plemented hand-drawn plan and profile drawings cal sensitive parts of the development area, and depicting representative stratigraphic sequences documentation of any exposed cultural deposits within new trench excavations. or features exposed in those areas. An Archaeo- When potentially intact features or depos- logical Preservation Certification was not re- its were encountered, the archeological monitor quired for the project. All work followed stan- stopped work in the immediate vicinity of the dards established in Standards and Guidelines for find. When possible, the exposed features or de-

36 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter III: Research Methods posits were examined by hand to determine their organize this information include Group, Class, potential association and integrity. Occasionally, Type, Sub-Type, Modification, and Date Range. trench conditions or time constraints did not per- Certain classes of artifacts are subjected to ad- mit detailed examination of the exposed features ditional descriptive analyses that record specific or deposits. Soil removed during construction measurements, glaze, color, and other relevant activity typically was stockpiled off-site and was morphological aspects. Categories and classifi- not available for inspection. catory types are determined using standard lit- erature in the field, including Miller (1980, 1991; Laboratory Analysis and Curation 2000), Noël Hume (1976), Jones and Sullivan Artifacts recovered during the archeologi- (1989), South (1977), Worthy (1982), and others. cal investigations were placed in bags labeled Where possible, manufacture’s marks are used in with horizontal and vertical provenience data. conjunction with artifact types to refine temporal Artifact bags were inventoried in the field then associations of particular artifact sub-assemblag- transported to the laboratory of R. Christopher es. Goodwin & Associates, Inc., in Frederick, Mary- The primary basis for the classification of land, for cleaning, cataloguing and analysis of the historic artifacts is the material from which they recovered materials. Laboratory procedures were are made. Artifacts initially are designated as performed in accordance with state and federal Ceramic, Glass, Metal, Organic, Stone, Manu- curatorial guidelines. The condition of individual factured, Synthetic, Composite, Other, or Inde- artifacts was assessed for degree of stability pri- terminate material types. More specific informa- or to carrying out any of the processing proce- tion about the material follows, and includes the dures. Artifacts were sorted into those that could basic classes of ceramic (earthenware, porcelain, be wet washed or dry-brushed by hand, cleaned, stoneware), the manufacturing methods of glass air dried, and sealed in clean, archival re-sealable artifacts, the element or alloy of metal artifacts, plastic bags. Provenience data were recorded on the scientific kingdom of non-food organic mate- the outside of each bag as well as on acid-free rials (floral or faunal), and similar classifications paper tags placed inside each bag. of the other group materials. Artifact data was inventoried using Micro- Fields are included for artifact colors, manu- soft Access computer program to permit more facturing method (non-glass artifacts), styles, and expedient manipulation of chronological, func- regional origins of artifacts. These attributes are tional, and distributional data. Each entry includ- presented in the report inventory under the Type ed the material class, artifact type, distinguishing category. Sub-Type identifies the form and/or attribute(s), and functional category, and site and recovered portion of the artifact. This report in- provenience designations. ventory category conflates the fields that report shape, condition, and function of the artifacts. Historic Artifact Analysis The Modification category may include informa- Artifact analysis included basic identifi- tion on intentional modifications such as deco- cation of material type, manufacturing type or rative types (for example, transfer print or hand method, and decorative elements. This informa- painted ceramics, pressed or cut glass), and unin- tion provides data on temporal periods and site tentional modifications such as burning or corro- type. The coded catalogue system for historic ar- sion. While data are recorded using specific fields tifacts used by Goodwin & Associates includes for each attribute, some of these fields have been artifact attribute data, artifact counts, manufac- conflated for presentation in the report. turing information, and temporal range data. It is organized in a manner that permits manipula- Records and Curation tion of different aspects of the artifact data set. Cultural materials and associated field -re The classification system proceeds from the most cords from this project will be donated to the general attributes of an artifact and progresses to Virginia Department of Historic Resources. This the most specific. The basic categories used to repository meets Federal curation standards (36

37 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter III: Research Methods

CFR 79: Curation of FederallyOwned and Admin- mended facility for archeological materials in the istered Archeological Collections) and is a recom- City of Alexandria.

38 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV Results of Archeological Investigations

he facilities of the Alexandria Brick Com- ties may still survive beneath the fill package on pany appear to have been well established the terrace (Williams and Sanders 2013). Those Tby 1890. Purchased by M. B. Harlow and resources were projected lie beneath the south- Park Agnew from the estate of brickmaker John western corner of planned development known as Tucker, the sprawling brickworks was turning The Thornton, and to underlie the current Hunt- out 60,000 bricks a day and employing a labor ing Terrace Apartments parking lot. force of 50 men less than a year after their deal In total, the remains of three of the five pairs was closed. Situated on a low terrace overlook- of kiln structures associated with the Alexan- ing Hunting Creek, the brickworks operated five dria Brick Company were exposed within The pairs of updraft kilns. Bricks were produced by Thornton development area. The kilns initially hand and later by machine, and the company were exposed in a foundation trench excavated maintained two sets of firing racks where green near the southwestern corner of the development bricks were stacked to dry before entering the area (Figure 4.1). In consultation with Alexandria kilns. Sand and clay were plentiful along the Archeology (on-site meeting, July 26, 2016), ar- shores of the creek, and the brickworks turned a cheological monitoring was initiated on July 28, steady business for almost two decades. In 1919, 2016, on an on-call basis for construction-related a fire destroyed the company’s firing sheds and excavation occurring within archeologically sen- engine house. Although the brickworks had re- sitive parts of the project area. Features and de- bounded from earlier fires, this time was different posits exposed during earlier construction activity and the facilities were not rebuilt. The Alexandria were documented and construction was allowed Brick Company was listed as “not in operation” to progress in those areas. Concrete support pil- on the 1921 Sanborn map (Sanborn 1921). ings (auger piles) located within the foundation The property lay vacant for the next two and elevator shaft trenches that were already in decades. The Sun Lumber Company, which had place at the time of the archeological investiga- bought the property from Agnew’s heirs, sold it tion were not subject to archeological monitor- in 1940 to the Hunting Terrace Corporation who ing. redeveloped the land as Hunting Terrace Apart- For clarity, excavation areas that were sub- ments. The steep bluffs behind the old brickworks ject to archeological documentation and/or moni- were cut down and the the creek terrace was filled toring were given temporary numerical designa- to make a level plain for the new residential com- tions (Trenches 1-10) or, when necessary sub- plex. When it was completed, at least six feet of designations (Trenches 2.1 and 2.2) (Figure 4.2). soil had been added to the terrace where the brick These trenches totaled approximately 127.62 kilns once stood, while up to 16 feet of soil was linear m (418.59 linear ft). The initial founda- cut from the bluff top (Alexandria DPW Archives, tion trench where the remains of the kiln struc- personal communication Francine Bromberg). A tures were exposed was designated Trench 1; documentary study and archeological evaluation this trench was previously excavated and was not conducted prior to the planned redevelopment of subject to archeological monitoring. Excavation the property in 2013 determined that some ele- of subsequent foundations trenches (Trenches ments of the Alexandria Brick Company facili- 2.1 and 2.2) and eight exploratory archeological

39 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.1 Photograph showing an overview of The Thornton project area from S. Alfred Street, view west (RCGA, July 26, 2016)

40 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations oximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches oximate locations of archeological Map showing the appr

Figure 4.2 Figure

41 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations trenches (Trenches 3-10) were monitored archeo- structures each contained the visible remains of logically. The remains of brick foundations ex- arched brick fireboxes that would have funneled posed during the excavation of a nearby elevator heated air to flues extending beneath the firing shaft were described by their location (Elevator floor of the kiln. The fireboxes and the configura- Shaft); these resources were not fully exposed tion of the flues beneath the firing floor indicated during construction. the Bromilaw/Alexandria Brick Company kilns The kiln structures exposed during the proj- used a downdraft principle where heated air was ect were numbered sequentially from south to directed upward then drawn back down into the north (1-5), with each kiln structure consisting of kiln to fire the brick. Elements of these structures a pair of updraft kilns linked by a shared firing were exposed in the southwestern foundation floor (Figure 4.3). No evidence of Kiln Structure wall trenches. #1 was found during project and it is likely this structure was destroyed by previous construction. Trench 1 Kiln Structure #5 also was not exposed; due its The southern 33.06 m (108.44 ft) of the projected location, however, it may remain intact foundation trench was designated as Trench 1 outside of the active construction area. For the (Figure 4.11; see also Figure 4.2). This section of purpose of discussion, fireboxes were numbered the foundation trench had been excavated prior to from east to west, with Firebox #1 being the east- the start of archeological monitoring and subject ernmost of in row. Fireboxes were located on the only to documentation of exposed archeological northern and southern ends of the kiln structure features. Approximately one-third of the trench and defined the corresponding northern or south- contained wooden forms and reinforcing bar (re- ern edge of one of two kilns that comprised each bar) in preparation for pouring concrete (Figure structure. Evidence of three kiln structures with a 4.12). A “mud mat” also had been spread across combined total of six individual kilns (two kilns part of the trench base (Figure 4.13). The “mud per structure) was exposed during the monitoring mat” was a thin layer of concrete that was intend- project. ed to preserve the base elevation of the trench in When overlain on historic maps, the archeo- the event of a wall collapse or trench flooding. logical features exposed in the monitored trench- Auger piles, visible as short circular columns of es corresponded well to the layout of the kiln concrete, also were staggered along the center of complex as indicated on early twentieth century the trench base; these foundation elements were Sanborn maps (1907, 1921) (Figures 4.4-4.5). deeply drilled columns designed to help support The landscape also appears to have remained the weight of the foundation wall and provide sta- stable after the construction of Hunting Terrace bility in areas of marginal soil compaction. Kiln Apartments in 1943 (Figures 4.6-4.10). elements projected to lie within the base of the trench were based upon the exposed trench pro- The Thornton Foundation Wall (Trenches 1, files (Figure 4.14). 2.1 and 2.2) Recordation of Trench 1 started from the The southwestern foundation wall of The southern end of the trench and progressed to the Thornton was configured as a series of short and northern end. The southern end was marked by long sections that jointed at various angles, giv- a section of concrete that previously had been ing the wall a zig-zag-type appearance. The por- poured as part of the foundation wall (Figure tion of the foundation trench that was subject to 4.15). Based upon the visible soil profile in the archeological monitoring and documentation had adjacent section of trench, the already poured a linear length of approximately 50.34 m (165.12 section was located south of the kiln structures ft) and had been excavated to an average depth of and had not impacted any kiln structures during 1.15 m (3.77 ft) below the prepared construction its excavation. This profile contained four strati- surface. Five kiln structures along with interven- graphic layers (I-IV). The uppermost layer (I) ing areas of stacked brick and brick rubble were was a pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand mixed with exposed within the profile of the trench. The kiln light gray (10YR 7/2) clay and pebbles. Immedi-

42 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.3 Composite plan showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches overlain on the projected configuration of the kiln structures 43 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.4 Detail from Sanborn’s 1907 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches 44 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.5 Detail from Sanborn’s 1921 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches 45 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.6 Detail from Sanborn’s 1941Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches

46 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.7 Detail from Sanborn’s 1959 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches 47 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.8 Detail from Sanborn’s 1989 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches

48 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.9 Detail from Sanborn’s 1993 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches 49 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.10 Detail from Sanborn’s 1996 Fire Insurance Map showing the approximate locations of archeological monitoring trenches

50 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.11 Photograph showing overview of Trench 1; elevator shaft excavation visible to left, view south (RCGA, July 26, 2016)

Figure 4.12 Photograph showing concrete forms and mud mat within the southern portion of Trench 1, view south (RCGA, July 26, 2016)

51 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.13 Photograph showing close-up of concrete form within the southern portion of Trench 1, view south (RCGA, July 26, 2016)

52 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations rench 1, Plan showing projected kiln elements within base of trench 1, Plan showing projected rench T

Figure 4.14 Figure

53 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.15 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 1 (0-2 m), south profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

54 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations ately underlying this layer was a 2 cm (0.79 in) end wall of the structure was not exposed during thick lens of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sand archeological monitoring and was projected to (II) overlying black (10YR 2/1) sand and char- lie outside of the development area. Brick rubble coal (III). A wedge-shaped deposit of dark yel- was mounded against the southern edge of the lowish brown (10YR 3/4) sand was visible in the kiln structure was loosely coursed and appeared extreme eastern base of the profile, against the to be the remains of toppled chimney stack. The already poured footing section. This soil was in- rubble contained only whole and partial brick terpreted as natural, undisturbed land. fragments. The soil designated as stratum I in Trench 1 The interior edge of an arched firebox cham- was exposed consistently across the monitoring ber is visible in Figure 4.16 as an area of coursed area and was interpreted as a fill material that had brick to the right of the photographic scale. Based been deposited during the construction of the for- upon the locations of other kiln structures exposed mer Hunting Terrace apartment complex in 1943. during monitoring, this kiln chamber was most This fill material directly overlay brick features likely the fifth firebox in a bank that contained associated with the Alexandria Brick Company at least 11 fireboxes. A portion of a second fire- and was interpreted as a single depositional pack- box visible in the eastern profile of Trench 1 was age that had been lain down immediately follow- the remains of the fourth firebox in the wall. Both ing razing of the kiln superstructures. There was fireboxes previously had been impacted by con- no discernable “Ao” horizon or accumulation of struction of a sewage line for the Hunting Terrace organic detritus that would suggest the razed re- Apartments. Visible as an open concrete conduit, mains of the kilns had lain open for a period of installation of this line had impacted the northern time prior to being covered by the fill material. edge of the fireboxes and removed a portion of Brick rubble associated with the remains of the firing floor of Kiln Structure #2 (Figure 4.17). two firebox chambers was visible in the east and The firing floor of the structure was repre- west profiles of Trench 1, near the southern end sented in profile as an area of coursed brick. The of the trench (Figure 4.16). The chambers ap- brickwork included an upper soldier course of pear to have been part of a row of fireboxes that brick underlain by a 6-10 cm (2.36-3.93 in) thick formed the southern wall of Kiln Structure #2 and layer of “brick dust” that overlay several addi- were likely the fourth and fifth fireboxes from the tional courses of brick. The soldier course ap- eastern corner of the structure. Geo-referencing peared to represent the surface of the firing floor, of historic maps with the current project location where sun-dried brick would be placed for firing indicates this kiln structure was the second south- within the kiln. The lower level of coursed brick ernmost in the line of five structures. Exploratory included a series of long open chutes or flues that trenches excavated to assess the horizontal extent extended between the firebox chambers and that of the kiln line did not encounter any additional would have allowed hot air to pass beneath the structural remains south of Trench 1. It is likely firing floor. One flue, filled with coal ash and rub- that the remains of the southernmost kiln were ble, is visible in the northern profile of Trench 1, removed during the 1940s when the land was just north of the firebox remains (Figure 4.18). In graded and filled for construction of the Hunting Figure 4.18, the flue is visible in the lower center Terrace Apartments. of the figure, immediately behind a vertical 2x4 Based on historic photographs, each kiln at the corner of the concrete form. The brick ex- structure was oriented east-west, with the main posed beneath the firing floor was soft brick that opening to the east. The northern and southern did not appear to have been fully fired or to have sides of each kiln structure were occupied by cured. They fractured easily when handled and long, narrow updraft kilns; the center of the struc- typically had a layer of degraded brick or brick ture was open. The remains of a brick wall visible dust on their exterior surfaces. in historic aerial photographs indicated the struc- The firing floor extended between two banks ture was further enclosed by a permanent wall of firebox chambers spaced an estimated 8.4 m along its western side (USDA 1921). The western (27.5 ft) apart (Figures 4.19 and 4.20). The fire-

55 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.16 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 2 (2-5 m), west profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

56 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.17 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 2 (4-6.5 m), west profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

57 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.18 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 3 (0-2 m), north profile (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

Figure 4.19 Trench 1, Photograph showing overview of Section 4 (0-12.75 m) (RCGA, July 26, 2016)

58 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.20 Trench 1, Photograph showing overview of Section 4 (0-3 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2016) box chamber in the central portion of Trench 1 side of at least two coursed brick flue chambers was visible only as an area of glazed, purple-hued (Figure 4.24). One chamber is visible in the lower brick that indicated exposure to high tempera- central portion of Figure 4.24 as an area of dark tures. In Figures 4.20 and 4.21, the chamber loca- gray (10YR 4/1) coal ash and residue; the second tion is directly behind the vertical photographic chamber is located in the lower right corner of the scale. The purple-hued soldier course defining trench and is filled with brick rubble and brown the floor of the firing chamber also is visible in (10YR 5/3) sand. Discoloration from ash depos- Figure 4.21, immediately to the south (left) of the its within the flue remain along the lower extent remains of the firebox chamber. This intervening of coursed brick that originally formed the west- area between the two banks of firebox chambers ern wall of the flue exposed in the trench corner most likely comprised the interior of a kiln struc- (Figures 4.25 and 4.26). The flues continued into ture, as depicted on the Sanborn (1921) map. Trench 2, where they intersected another bank North of the remains of the firebox cham- of firebox chambers that originally formed the bers was a short area of coursed brick that over- northern wall of Kiln Structure #2. lay a deposit of unconsolidated brick rubble. The rubble formed a low mound that suggested it Trench 2 had been dumped in that location as a fill mate- Trench 2 refers to a 17.28 m (56.68 ft) long rial (Figure 4.22). It was overlain by a fill deposit section of The Thornton building foundation of pale brown (10YR 6/3) sandy clay and gray trench that was archeologically monitored dur- (10YR 7/2) clay that occurred across that part of ing its excavation (Figure 4.27). Concrete-filled the project area. The rubble pile was 3.03 m (9.94 auger casts placed to support the new foundation ft) wide and, on its northern side, was overlain wall for the Thornton building complex had al- by a thick deposit of crushed and degraded brick ready been installed down the center of Trench (Figure 4.23). The deposit of crushed brick re- 2. These casts were visible at intervals down the mained visible in the southern profile of Trench 1, length of the trench and extended through the fir- where it was revealed to occur along the eastern ing floor surface.

59 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.21 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 4 (3-6 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2016)

Figure 4.22 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 4 (6-9 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2016)

60 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.23 Trench 1Photograph showing, Section 4 (6-9.5 m), profile east (RCGA, July 28, 2016)

Figure 4.24 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 5 (0-3 m), profile south (RCGA, July 28, 2016)

61 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.25 Trench 1, Photograph showing Section 6 (0-4 m), profile west (RCGA, July 28, 2017)

Figure 4.26 Trench 1, Photograph showing oblique view of Sections 5 and 6, view south-southwest (RCGA, July 28, 2017)

62 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.27 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing excavation of trench, view north; the concrete foundation has been laid in Trench 1 to the right (RCGA, August 1, 2016)

Trench 2 was sub-divided into two sec- the trench, a portion of the ash-filled flue and -fir tions during monitoring. Section 1 (Trench 2.1) ing chamber for Firebox #s 1-2 in the southern describes the portion of the trench that directly wall of Kiln Structure #4 were exposed. The area abuts Trench 1, and Section 2 (Trench 2.2) de- in the center of the trench, between the walls of scribes the portion of the trench that follows an the two kiln structures contained a dense deposit L-shaped turn in the foundation wall to run per- of brick rubble. Later excavation of Trench 5A pendicular to Trench 2.1. Trench 2.1 contained a would show the rubble overlay a brick floor lo- continuation of the firebox and flue structures ob- cated between the kiln structures. served in Trench 1; these structures were related The remains of the kiln walls and the firing to Kiln Structure #3 and #4. floor were overlain by the same deposit of mixed Trench 2.2 contained fill deposits and natu- pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand and light gray (10YR ral strata adjacent to the southeastern corner of 7/2) clay that overlay brick structures in Trench 1. Kiln Structure #4. This majority of this deposit had been removed during the current construction phase and only Trench 2.1 (Trench 2 Section 1) from 0.6-0.9 m (2-3 ft) of soil remained over the Additional details related to the construction brick structures. Although it had been anticipated of the Alexandria Brick Company kilns were re- that the upper extent of the firing floor would have vealed during archeological monitoring of Trench been a smooth brick surface, the portion exposed 2.1. This section of trench exposed flue and firing in Trench 2.1 was rough and fragmented (Figures chambers located along the eastern edge of Kiln 4.28 and 4.29). Some of this damage may have Structure #3 and #4. In the southern portion of occurred during construction of the Hunting Ter- the trench, ash-filled flues that originally extend- race apartment complex in the 1940s, when the ed beneath the firing floor of Kiln Structure #3 remains of the kilns were razed and covered with were exposed, as were the remains of the firing fill soil, but it is likely that the floor was uneven chambers for Firebox #s 1-3 within the northern as a result of prolonged use and natural settling wall of the structure. In the northern portion of of the brick comprising the structure. The brick

63 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.28 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing the upper extent of the firing floor in the southern portion of trench, view north (RCGA, August 1, 2016)

Figure 4.29 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing compacted brick rubble in the northern portion of trench, view south (RCGA, August 1, 2016) 64 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations comprising the firing floor surface was worn and the iron grate. Although this firebox for this flue chipped, and was covered unevenly with a thin was not intact, its location was evident in profile layer of soot. When fully exposed, it had the ap- as an area of mortared, highly fired brick located pearance of consolidated or cemented brick rub- directly above the grate (see Figure 4.37). ble. A second iron grate exposed in the northern Removal of the remains of the upper extent end of Trench 1 was associated with Firebox #1 of the firing floor exposed an area of intact brick- located in the southern wall of Kiln Structure #4 work that contained traces of at least three flues (Figures 4.42 and 4.43). Based upon the align- and their associated fireboxes (Figures 4.30 and ment of the exposed flues, this firebox would 4.31). The most readily visible flue was located in have been the first firebox from the eastern end the southern end of Trench 2.1 and crossed diago- of the kiln structure and would have been located nally down the center of the construction trench; at the southeastern corner of the structure. The it was flanked to the east and west by parallel flue arched firebox chamber that originally covered structures that were only partially exposed within the iron grate was not intact. The exterior wall the trench (Figures 4.32 and 4.33). An area of of the next firebox (Firebox #2) was visible in brick rubble located in the center of Trench 2.1, the profile of Trench 2.1 as an area of discolored between the exposed flue structures, later was (purple-ish), highly-fired brick (Figures 4.44 and found to overlay the remains of a brick-surfaced 4.45). Highly-fired soldier brick comprising the floor between Kiln Structure #3 and #4. firing floor within Kiln Structure #4 was visible The flue structures exposed in Trench 2.1 to the north of the firebox (see Figure 4.45). In were associated with the three easternmost fire- Figure 4.45, the brick rubble visible in the north- boxes in the north wall of Kiln Structure #3. The ern end of Trench 2.1, immediately beyond the flues were located 0.68 m (2.23 ft) apart and were firebox, was associated with the portion of the fir- not visible until the upper extent of the stacked ing floor that was removed during excavation of brick layer beneath the firing floor had been re- the trench. moved. The flues measured 0.34 m (1.12 ft) in During excavation of the northern end of width, were 0.41 cm (1.35 cm) deep and had a Trench 2.1, part of the western wall of the trench brick lined base. Flues exposed in Trench 2 con- collapsed to expose a partially intact firebox (Fig- tained a distinctly stratified combination of soil, ure 4.46). This firebox previously had been vis- brick rubble, and coal waste (Figures 4.34 and ible in the western profile of Trench 2.1 as an area 4.35). This material was visible in the western of overfired, discolored brick. The newly exposed profile of Trench 2.1 as a deposit of black coal firebox was Firebox #2 in the southern wall of waste underlain by brown (10YR 5/3) ash and Kiln Structure #4. It consisted of a long, hori- brick rubble (Figure 4.36). Based upon historic zontal chamber with an attached upward-angled descriptions of kiln operations, the coal residue chamber (Figures 4.47 and 4.48). Both sections in the flues largely was intended to burn off dur- had been constructed separately and were con- ing firing of the kiln. It was unclear why there structed on a mortared brick base that contained was such a large accumulation of coal waste and a continuation of the flue structures previously rubble within the flues. exposed. The firebox had been constructed using An iron grate exposed in the southern end a combination of firebrick and red brick, while of Trench 2.1 marked the location of the north- pedestal containing the flue structures was con- eastern corner of Kiln Structure #3 (Figures 4.37 structed using red brick. Both the horizontal and and 4.38). The grate was removed to expose the angled chambers were partially filled with brick flue vent for the easternmost firebox in the kiln rubble; The interior of the firebox chamber mea- building. Identical to the adjacent flue, the flue sured 0.40 m (1.3 ft) wide and 0.42 m (1.38 ft) covered by the iron grate was filled with a combi- tall (Figure 4.49). An iron plate or bar was vis- nation of soil, brick rubble, and coal waste (Fig- ible at the base of the intact horizontal chamber ures 4.39, 4.40 and 4.41). An iron bar located at and most likely supported an iron grate similar the northern end of the flue opening supported to those previously exposed in Trench 2.1. This

65 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.30 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing a portion of the brick flue leading to Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2 exposed in the southern portion of trench, view north (RCGA, August 1, 2016)

Figure 4.31 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing archeologist cleaning the exposed firebox grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1 located in the southern portion of trench, view south (RCGA, August 1, 2016)

66 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations rench 2.1, Plan view showing exposed firebox grates and flue structure associated with Kiln Structures #3 (south) and #4 (north)(RCGA, August 1, 2016) #3 (south) and #4 (north)(RCGA, associated with Kiln Structures grates and flue structure 2.1, Plan view showing exposed firebox rench T

Figure 4.32 Figure

67 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.33 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of exposed firebox grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1 (top left) and the flue for North Firebox #2 (lower right), view east (RCGA, August 1, 2016)

Figure 4.34 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing rubble and ash-filled flue for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

68 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.35 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing rubble and ash-fill removed from flue for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016).

69 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.37 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing iron grate and over-fired brick in location of Kiln Struc- ture #3 North Firebox #1, profile east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

Figure 4.38 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail plan view of iron grate for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

70 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.39 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of firebox base (grate removed) for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

Figure 4.40 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of firebox base (rubble fill removed) for Kiln Struc- ture #3 North Firebox #1, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

71 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.41 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing oblique view of firebox base (rubble fill removed) for Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #1, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

Figure 4.42 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of trench with the iron grate for Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #1 in foreground, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

72 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.43 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing iron grate for Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox # 1, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

73 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.45 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing over-fired brick in location of Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #1, profile west (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

Figure 4.46 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing the top of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2 (left center) as exposed following wall collapse, view northwest (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

74 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.47 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2, profile north (RCGA, August 2, 2016); south section of firebox chamber and iron grate are missing

Figure 4.48 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of rubble-filled updraft chamber of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

75 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.49 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of base of chamber of Kiln Structure #4 North Fire- box #2, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) firebox would have been the second easternmost Firebox #2 (Figures 4.54 and 4.55). The portion firebox in the southern wall of Kiln Structure #4. of the firebox remaining in the western profile of Also exposed in the northern end of Trench Trench 2.1 clearly showed the different elements 2.1 was an area that would have lain immediately contributing to its construction. The pedestal on outside of the kiln structure. This area was not which the chambers had been constructed was covered by brickwork, but instead had an area of comprised of two sections of dry laid brick that compacted coal cinder bordered by a two courses represented the juncture of the under-floor flue of partial bricks (Figure 4.50). Underlying the ini- system for the firing floor in the interior of the tial layer of coal cinder was a compact very dark kiln building and the firing floor north of the kiln. gray (10YR 3/1) sandy loam with fine brick and The interior of the kiln chambers was clearly vis- coal dust. Visible in the eastern profile of Trench ible as slag-coated, discolored brick. 2.1, this layer extended for 0.52 m (1.72 ft) to end Firebrick had been used in the construction on a brick floor that also formed the base or bot- of the vaulted roof of both chambers; the brick tom for the flue system (Figures 4.51 and 4.52). exposed on the angled section of the kiln were The brick floor was coated with a thin layer of stamped “SAVAGE”, possibly denoting their fine brick and coal dust overlain in some areas manufacture by the Union Mining Company in by a thin lens of brown (10YR 5/3) fine sand. Re- Mt. Savage, Maryland (Figure 4.56). Two ad- moval of the brick floor exposed natural subsoil ditional stamped firebricks recovered during the of pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand mottled with fine course of archeological monitoring of Trench brick and coal dust (Figure 4.53). Excavations in 6 bore the partial marks: “ACL/St. Lo” and the southern portion of Trench 2.1 did not reach “BEACFO” (Figures 4.57 and 4.58). The former the bottom of the flue structure. brick was manufactured by the Laclede Brick Benching of the western wall of Trench 2.1 Company (1844-1907) in their Plant No. 1 in St. resulted in the collapse of additional portions of Louis; the origin of the latter brick was not read- the western wall of the construction trench, in- ily identified. cluding both chambers of the recently exposed 76 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.51 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing deposit of coal residue and soil underlying brick rubble, profile east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

77 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.52 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing brick floor underlying Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #2 (removed), view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

Figure 4.53 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing subsoil exposed beneath brick floor (removed), view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

78 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.54 Trench 2.1, Profile west of interior of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2 after collapse during benching of trench edges

79 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.55 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing interior of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2 after collapse during benching of trench edges (RCGA, August 3, 2016)

Figure 4.56 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of SAVAGE firebrick used in construction of updraft chamber of Kiln Structure #4 North Firebox #2 (RCGA, August 3, 2016)

80 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.57 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing stamped firebrick manufactured by Lacledie Brick Com- pany found within rubble (RCGA, August 9, 2016)

Figure 4.58 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing stamped firebrick of unknown manufacture found within rubble (RCGA, August 9, 2016)

81 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

The newly exposed firebox chamber would deposits of clay and sand, the uppermost was a have been located along the southern wall of kiln thin deposit of coal residue (Figure 4.65). Natu- building 2 and would have been the third east- ral, undisturbed subsoil was exposed across the ernmost firebox. Exposed in profile, this kiln ap- majority of Trench 2.2 beginning at a point just peared to consist of a single horizontal chamber below the level of the firing floor exposed in the (Figures 4.59-4.61). Examination of the exterior northwestern corner of Trench 2.1 (Figure 4.66). top of the firebox revealed the vaulted roof, as Visible in Figures 4.67 and 4.68, the de- well as an adjacent brick pad composed of partial posit of brick rubble in the northwestern corner brick (Figure 4.62). Excavation of supplemental of Trench 2.1 marked the easternmost extent of trenches 3-6 revealed the brick pads occurred be- the firing floor of Kiln Structure #4. Construction tween each of the fireboxes on the firebox wall of the flues underlying the firing floor appears to and may have provided foundation support for have occurred within a pit excavated directly into the brick superstructure of the kiln building. The undisturbed subsoil. No evidence of a builder’s stratified flue deposits previously visible in the trench associated with construction of the flues western profile of Trench 2 were associated with was apparent. Natural, undisturbed soils occurred this firebox, which had its opening directly onto below the level of the firing floor, while thin de- the firing floor. posits of mottled, displaced soils and deposits of brick rubble and coal residue occurred at or Trench 2.2 (Trench 2 Section 2) above the level of the firing floor. This indicates Trench 2.2 extended eastward from the that although the firing floors appear to have northern end of Trench 2.1 for a distance of ap- been even with the natural grade of the property, proximately 7.62 m (25 ft). The trench was a a substantial amount of excavation was required continuation of foundation wall of The Thorn- during construction of flues underlying the firing ton previously excavated in Trenches 1 and 2.1; floor and for the kiln buildings and their associat the eastern end of Trench 2.2, the foundation ated flues. wall turned northward to continue as the foundation for the northern building of the complex. Exploratory Trenches (Trenches 3-10) Trench 2.2 was situated almost directly opposite The excavations of eight trenches placed the southern wall of Kiln Structure #3. Brick between the foundation wall of the Thornton rubble associated with the razing of the structure, apartment building and the existing SHA noise however did not extend into Trench 2.2 and this barrier also were monitored during the course of trench appeared to be primarily located outside of the project. These trenches were placed west of the footprint of the kiln structure. Trenches 1 and 2 for the purpose of determining Excavation of Trench 2.2 began with the re- the horizontal extent of the kiln structures and moval of a thin layer of compacted modern fill associated features within the construction area material followed by a deposit of historic fill soil as an aid to planning construction activity within comprised of mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) those areas. Four trenches (3-6) were excavated sand and light gray (10YR 7/2) clay. The latter perpendicular to Trenches 1 and 2 to determine fill soil was a continuation of the early-1940s the length of the kiln structures by exposing in- fill deposit previously identified in Trench 1 and dividual walls of fireboxes. Trench 5A connected Trench 2.1. These deposits overlay a deposit of Trenches 5 and 6 and exposed a section of the compacted crushed brick that may have been de- working floor located between Kiln Structure #s posited during the demolition of the kiln building 3 and 4. The remaining trenches were excavated or firing floor (Figures 4.63 and 4.64). This was at intervals to the north and south of Trenches a separate deposit of rubble from the rubble ex- 1-6 to determine the presence or absence of brick posed in the northern end of Trench 2.1. The rub- rubble or kiln structures in those locations. ble layer in Trench 2.2 was a maximum of 33 cm The sections of kiln wall exposed during (13 in) in thickness and sloped gradually down monitoring showed a common method of con- to the north. It was underlain by at least six finite struction where each firebox was separated by

82 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.59 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing overview of the Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3 (center left) exposed during benching of trench edges, view north (RCGA, August 3 2016)

Figure 4.60 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing detail of Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3, view northwest (RCGA, August 3 2016)

83 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.61 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3, profile west (RCGA, August 3, 2016)

Figure 4.62 Trench 2.1, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #3, view north (RCGA, August 3, 2016)

84 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.63 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing brick rubble, plan view (RCGA, July 29, 2016)

Figure 4.64 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing oblique view of brick rubble (RCGA, August 2, 2016); Trench 2.1 intersects Trench 2.2 in upper left of photograph

85 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.65 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing coal residue underlying brick rubble layer, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

Figure 4.66 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing natural soil underlying coal residue and rubble layers, view east (RCGA, August 2, 2016)

86 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations rench 2.2, profile north 2.2, profile rench T

Figure 4.67 Figure

87 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.68 Trench 2.2, Photograph showing ruble and natural soil exposed in profile, view north (RCGA, August 2, 2016) a brick pad composed of mortared partial brick. central portion of the wall (Figures 4.69-4.71). Prior grading for the Hunting Terrace Apart- The fireboxes were the second through seventh ments had removed the vaulted upper portion fireboxes from the eastern end of the building; of fireboxes associated with Kiln Structure #2, Firebox #1 previously was removed during ex- but some of the lower fireboxes associated with cavation of Trench 1. The fireboxes immediately Kiln Structure #3 and nearly all of the fireboxes underlay the mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand associated with Kiln Structure #4 remained in- fill material deposited during the mid-twentieth tact. Firebox locations were easily recognized construction of the Hunting Terrace apartment by their discolored, brittle, heat-damaged brick; complex. Grading prior to deposition of the fill while the interior was coated with a thick layer material appears to have removed the upper ex- of black (10YR 2/1) slag. The width of the brick tent of the kiln wall, including the upper vaulted pad between each firebox ranged from 0.42 m portions of each firebox chamber. Based upon the (1.38 ft) to 0.78 m (2.56 ft), suggesting that kiln relative height of the firing floor in comparison performance was not affected by imprecise spac- to the fireboxes, the impacted chambers would ing of fireboxes. At least 11 fireboxes comprised have comprised the upper horizontal chamber in the wall of Kiln Structure #4. The exact number a system of three down-draft chambers leading of kilns is unknown, as the western extent of the to the firing floor in the kiln interior. It is likely kiln wall had been disturbed during ca. 1943 ex- the lower angled and horizontal chambers feed- cavation of a sewer line for the Hunting Terrace ing into the kiln firing floor remain intact. Apartments. Trench 4 Trench 3 This trench was placed 1 m (3.28 ft) north Trench 3 was excavated along the northern of Trench 3. The trench measured 5 m (16.4 ft) in wall of Kiln Structure #2. The trench measured length and exposed a deposit of unconsolidated 7.5 m (24.6 ft) in length and exposed the remains brick rubble immediately beneath the mottled of seven fireboxes located along the eastern pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand fill material. The

88 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.69 Trench 3, Photograph showing beginning of mechanized excavation, view south (RCGA, August 7, 2016)

89 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.70 Trench 3, plan view showing Kiln Structure #2 North Firebox #s 2-7 90 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.71 Trench 3, Photograph showing plan view of Kiln Structure #2 North Firebox #s 3-5 (RCGA, August 7, 2016); Firebox #3 is small hole in foreground, and Firebox #4 is larger hole in center rubble deposit was located between Kiln Struc- leaving only the seventh firebox mostly intact. ture #s 2 and 3 and would have overlain the work- Located near the center of the kiln wall, this ing floor where fuel was loaded into the fireboxes. firebox retained the vaulted brick roof that com- The rubble was not removed to expose the floor. pleted the upper firebox chamber. The remaining kilns exposed within Trench 5 had open firebox Trenches 5 and 5A chambers where the vaulted roof had been pre- These trenches were connected trenches that viously removed by grading (Figure 4.75). Soil extended between the southern firebox wall of covering the kiln wall was a continuation of the Kiln Structure #3 northward across the southern mottled pale brown (10YR 6/3) sand fill pack- firebox wall of Kiln Structure #4. The trench ex- age previously identified across the site. This posed elements of both walls and the firing floor relatively loose fill soil overlay the remains of the of Kiln Structure #3, as well as a portion of the kiln wall, as well as deposits of brick rubble and working floor between the kiln structures. Trench finely crushed brick (brick dust) occurring adja- 5 measured 14.3 m (46.9 ft) in length, and Trench cent to the wall. 5A measured 12.57 m (41.23 ft) in length. These Trench 5A was excavated perpendicular to trenches were excavated separately over the Trench 5, beginning at the seventh firebox and ex- course of two days and included areas of deep extending northward following the flue for the sev- cavation to expose a portion of the working floor enth firebox to intersect the northern wall of Kiln within the kiln structures. Structure #3. The trench then crossed northward Excavation of Trench 5 followed the south- over the kiln wall and continued on to intersect ern wall of Kiln Structure #3, exposing the loca- the southern wall of Kiln Structure #4, which pre- tions of the eastern seven fireboxes located along viously had been exposed in Trench 6. Trench 5A that kiln wall (Figures 4.72-4.74). Previous grad- exposed portions of the firing floor of Kiln Struc- ing for the Hunting Terrace apartment complex ture #3, as well as the working floor between Kiln had removed the upper extent of most fireboxes, Structure #s 3 and 4 (Figure 4.76). Elements of

91 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations rench 5, plan view showing Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox #s 1-7 (south) and Kiln Structure #3 brick-surfaced firing floor (north) #3 brick-surfaced firing floor #s 1-7 (south) and Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox 5, plan view showing Kiln Structure rench T

Figure 4.72 Figure

92 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations rench 5, Profile south 5, Profile rench T

Figure 4.73 Figure

93 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.74 Trench 5, Photograph showing exposed fireboxes of Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox #s 1-7 (Photographic scales are placed on rubble fill in interior of Firebox #2) , view west (RCGA, August 8, 2016)

Figure 4.75 Trench 5, Photograph showing detail of the Kiln Structure #2 South Firebox #2, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016); Photographic scales are placed on rubble fill in interior of Firebox #2 94 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.76 Trench 5A, Photograph showing overview of brick-surfaced firing floor of Kiln Structure #3, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016) these structures were overlain by a combination chambers was evident where brick had settled of brick rubble and loose, sandy fill soil that orig- into the flue chamber. inated from the razing of the kiln buildings and Excavation of the area between the two kiln the preparation of the site for construction of the structures revealed that only part of the firebox Hunting Terrace apartment complex. The brick structures bordering the working floor remained rubble deposit obscuring the northern side of the intact. This area contained a deep, unconsoli- seventh firebox chamber in Trench 5 was exposed dated deposit of sandy fill material that overlay and removed to reveal the chamber mouth and a pockets of brick rubble. Most of the rubble was portion of the adjacent firing floor (Figures 4.77 located close to the kiln walls and likely was de- and 4.78). This deposit contained whole and par- posited there during earlier razing of the kilns tial brick that had been deposited in a single epi- (Figure 4.81). Removal of this material exposed sode, most likely during razing of the kiln wall. the working floor between the kiln structures, Rubble and fill soil overlying the firing floor where access to the fireboxes would have been inside Kiln Structure #3 also was removed to ex- available. This area is visible in the center of Fig- pose the opening for the seventh firebox cham- ure 4.82. The working floor was coated in a thin ber in the northern wall of the structure (Figures layer of soot or coal residue that gave the floor 4.79 and 4.80). Unlike the portions of the firing a blackened appearance. Firebox chambers that floor exposed in Trench 2, the portion exposed fed the kiln structures were long straight cham- in Trench 5A formed an easily identifiable sur- bers that slanted upward to meet the elevated fir- face. Brick used to construct the floor appeared to ing floors inside individual structures (Figures consist exclusively of partial bricks arranged as 4.83 and 4.84). These chambers had deep flues soldiers (on their narrow end); most of the bricks located beneath them that emptied directly onto were well worn and had rounded or smoothed the working floor (Figure 4.85). The flues ranged edges. A distinct depression corresponding to the from 0.43 m (1.4 ft) to 0.52 m (1.7 ft) in depth, as location of the flue linking the seventh firebox measured from the base of the firing chamber and were 0.3 m (1 ft) in width. The firing chambers

95 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.77 Trench 5/5A, Photograph showing brick rubble at mouth of Kiln Structure #3 South Fire- box #7, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016)

Figure 4.78 Trench 5/5A, Photograph showing brick rubble removed from mouth of Kiln Structure #3 South Firebox #7, view south (RCGA, August 8, 2016)

96 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.79 Trench 5A, Photograph showing hand-cleaning during mechanized excavation to expose Kiln Structure #3 firing floor, view north (RCGA, August 10, 2016)

Figure 4.80 Trench 5A, Photograph showing uneven surface of brick-surfaced firing floor of Kiln Structure #3 with opening of North Firebox #7 in background, view north (RCGA, August 10, 2016)

97 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.81 Trench 5A, Photograph showing overview of area between Kiln Structures #3 and #4 for accessing the fireboxes, view north (RCGA, August 10, 2016); openings of Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #6 (upper center) and #7 (upper left) are visible

Figure 4.82 Trenches 5, 5A and 6, Photograph showing overview of exposed portions of Kiln Structures #3 (background) and #4 (foreground) and area between the kiln structures (center), view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

98 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.83 Trenches 5 and 5A, Photograph showing elements of Kiln Structure #3, view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016); Exposed elements include the exterior of North Firebox #s 6 and 7 (foreground), the firing floor inside Kiln Structure #3 (upper center), and the interior opening of South Firebox #7

Figure 4.84 Trench 5A, Photograph showing the exterior of Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #s 6 (left) and #7 (right), view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

99 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.85 Trench 5A, Photograph showing the exterior of Kiln Structure #3 North Firebox #s 6 (left) and #7 (right) with rubble removed from part of North Firebox #7, view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016) also varied in size, with the sixth chamber mea- ft) in width and from 0.40-0.47 m (1.31-1.54 ft) suring 0.31 m (1 ft) in width and 0.52 m (1.7 ft) in in height. Typical of firebox chambers previously height and the seventh chamber measuring 0.37 exposed, the interior of each chamber was thickly m (1.22 ft) in width and 0.6 m (1.97 ft) in height, coated with slag; the slag did not extend into the with the height measured from the top of the flue flue areas. The firebrick forming the chamber also to the peak of the chamber. was over-fired and brittle, indicating extended Fireboxes in the southern wall of Kiln Struc- exposure to high temperatures. A noticeable air ture #4 were more intact. These fireboxes were gap was present between the firebrick forming constructed using four segments: two lower hori- the arched roof the firebox chamber and the sur- zontal chambers at the firing floor, an upward rounding kiln wall; this presumably was to allow angled central chamber, and a horizontal upper for expansion and contraction of the brick dur- chamber at the firing floor. Iron grates remained ing and after firing. In most areas, the air gap had present over the flue openings in the upper hori- been filled with red (2.5YR 4/8) sand. Firebricks zontal chamber, as well as the innermost lower forming the arched roof of the firebox chamber horizontal chamber. Flues entering the kiln from were arranged as headers with a central “key” the northern wall of the kiln building appeared to brick at the top of the arch. The key brick used in both open directly onto the firing floor and to pass construction of the kiln chambers was a normal- beneath the floor (Figure 4.86 and 4.87). Like sized firebrick positioned at the peak of the arch. other flues exposed within the kiln complex, the flues extending from the northern kiln wall were Trench 6 filled with coal cinder and ash capped by brick This trench was excavated in two segments, rubble. over two different periods. The initial excavation The firebox chambers in the southern wall of of Trench 6 followed the southern wall of Kiln Kiln Structure #4 were more regular in their con- Structure #4 from its eastern exposure in Trench struction, measuring from 0.34-0.38 m (1.12-1.25 2 westward to an area of disturbance associated

100 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.86 Trench 5A, Photograph showing overview of Kiln Structure #4 South wall with Firebox #s 5 (right), 6 (center) and 7 (left) exposed, view north (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

101 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations with an existing sanitary sewer line. The trench wall of Kiln Structure #4 (Figure 4.96). The up- measured 9.9 m (32.47 ft) in length and exposed per extent of the kiln wall, as well as a portion the third through eleventh fireboxes within the of the brick-surfaced firing floor was encountered kiln wall (Figures 4.88 and 4.89). The upper ex- beneath a thick deposit of sandy fill material tent of the upper horizontal firing chambers for (Figures 4.97-4.100). The opening for Firebox #3 most of the fireboxes was exposed within the was visible as a void in the upper surface of the trench. The eastern chamber openings appeared kiln wall. Unlike kiln walls exposed in the south- as open voids within the kiln wall (Figures 4.90 ern portion of the project area, the wall section and 4.91). Chambers in the western portion of the exposed in Trench 7 had an eroded appearance kiln wall were not fully exposed; these chambers that suggested greater effort had been made to were filled with rubble and it was unclear wheth- remove the wall during grading for Hunting Ter- er they were intact or had collapsed. race Apartments. Deposits of consolidated brick Trench 6 later was expanded to expose the rubble mixed with sandy fill material occurred northern face of the kiln wall, adjacent to the third adjacent to the wall remnant. through sixth firebox chambers, as well as part of Trench 8 was placed near the VDOT noise the firing floor north of the kiln wall and within barrier, opposite the southern end of Trench the interior of Kiln Structure #4 (Figure 4.92). 1 (Figure 4.101). The trench measured 11.72 During the expansion of Trench 6, the openings m (38.44 ft) in length and was oriented almost of the fifth and sixth firebox chambers were ex- parallel to the VDOT noise barrier. The trench posed where they entered the firing floor (Figure contained the thick deposit of sandy fill mate- 4.93-4.95). Like previously exposed sections of rial common across the project area, but lacked the kiln structures, a deposit of brick rubble ob- the deposits of brick rubble typical of locations scured the chamber openings and partially filled near the razed kiln structures. The only feature the chamber interiors. The northern (interior) sur- exposed in Trench 8 was a narrow section of a face of the kiln structure had been coated with a brick wall (Figures 4.102 – 4.105). The wall was mud-type plaster that covered both the brickwork five courses in width and composed of whole and of the wall, as well as bricks forming the firing partial bricks. It was exposed at 0.82 m (2.69 ft) chamber. Both chamber openings were irregular below the construction surface and measured sizes and were of non-uniform construction. The 0.47 m (1.55 ft) in width. The wall was in align- fifth chamber opening measured 0.32 m (1.05 ment with the southern wall of Kiln Structure #2 ft) in width and 0.64 m (2.1 ft) in height and the and may have been the basal remains of that wall sixth chamber measured 30 cm (0.98 ft) in width of fireboxes. and 0.71 m (2.33 ft) in height. Both chambers had Trench 9 was placed west of Trench 7, in the iron grates covering the flue openings beneath the projected location of the northern wall of Kiln chamber and a coating of slag on the interior of Structure #4 (Figure 4.106). The trench extended the chambers. from the parking lot curb near the VDOT noise barrier eastward for a total distance of 6.06 m Trenches 7-10 (19.88 ft). The edge of the kiln wall for Struc- Trenches 7-10 were excavated as “test pits” ture #4 was exposed in the base of the trench at a along the perimeter of the construction area to de- depth of approximately 1.2 m (3.94 ft) below the termine the horizontal extent of archeological de- construction surface. A void indicating the loca- posits associated with the Alexandria Brick Com- tion of a firing chamber was visible along the kiln pany facility. Excavation of these trenches was wall. Based upon its location, the chamber was halted when brick rubble or structural remains likely Firebox #10. The upper extent of a deposit were encountered; the trenches were not expand- of brick rubble was exposed along the southern ed to explore the nature of exposed archeological side of the kiln wall, at a depth of 1.52 m (4.99 ft) features. below surface (Figures 4.107-4.109). Trench 7 was a 5.4 m (17.71 ft) long trench Trench 10 was placed 11.37 m (37.3 ft) north placed in the projected location of the northern of Trench 9 in the projected location of the south-

102 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations rench 6, Plan view rench T

Figure 4.88 Figure

103 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.89 Trench 6, Photograph showing overview of Kiln Structure #4 South wall, view east (RCGA, August 9, 2016)

Figure 4.90 Trench 6, Photograph showing Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #s 4-6 prior to excavation, view south (RCGA, August 9, 2016)

104 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.91 Trench 6, Photograph showing overview of Kiln Structure #4 firing floor and South Firebox #3-6, view south (RCGA, August 9, 2016);

Figure 4.92 Trench 6, Photograph showing detail of Kiln Structure #4 South Firebox #3, view south southeast (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

105 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.93 Trench 6, Photograph showing oblique view of a portion of the southern wall of fireboxes (center) and firing floor (right) within Kiln Structure #4, view southeast (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

Figure 4.94 Trench 6, Photograph showing detail of Firebox #s 5 and 6 in the southern wall of Kiln Structure #4, view south; firing floor of Kiln Structure #4 in foreground (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

106 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.95 Trench 6, Photograph showing detail of iron grate in base of Kiln Structure #4 South Wall Firebox #5, view south (RCGA, August 11, 2016)

Figure 4.96 Trench 7, Photograph showing beginning of excavation of trench, view north (RCGA, Sep- tember 16, 2016)

107 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.97 Trench 7, Plan view

108 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

109 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.99 Trench 7, Profile west

110 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.100 Trench 7, Photograph showing brick rubble and fill soil mounded along the south side of Kiln Structure #4 North Wall Firebox #3 (RCGA, September 16, 2016)

Figure 4.101 Trench 8, Photograph showing an overview of trench, view northwest (RCGA, September 22, 2016) 111 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.102 Trench 8, Plan view

112 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.103 Trench 8, Profile west

113 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.104 Trench 8, Photograph showing brick wall exposed in northern end of trench, profile west (RCGA, September 22, 2016)

Figure 4.105 Trench 8, Photograph showing profile of brick wall exposed in northern end of trench, profile south (RCGA, September 22, 2016) 114 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.106 Trenches 9 & 10, Photograph showing overview of the locations of Trenches 9 (foreground left) and 10 (background left), view north (RCGA, September 22, 2016)

115 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.107 Trench 9, Plan view

116 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.108 Trench 9, Profile north

117 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.109 Trench 9, Photograph showing profile north (RCGA, September 22, 2016) ern wall of Kiln Structure #5. A deposit of brick mounded appearance as if it had been intention- rubble was encountered beneath a deposit of yel- ally dumped or discarded in that location. lowish brown (10YR 5/6) clayey sand fill mate- Examination of the soil profiles exposed in rial (Figures 4.110-4.112). The rubble occurred at the pit walls showed the rubble deposit was an a depth of 1.25 m (4.1 ft) below the construction isolated occurrence and that it was not a continu- surface. No evidence of intact kiln structures was ation of the rubble deposit exposed in association apparent within the trench location. with the razed kiln structures. Those deposits were discrete deposits concentrated in the loca- Elevator Shaft tion of the brick kilns, where brick from the dis- Excavation of an elevator shaft pit located mantling of the kilns had accumulated around the just east of The Thornton foundation wall previ- remains of the structures. A thin layer of fine brick ously had been halted when brick rubble was ex- mixed with brown (10YR 5/3) sand continued posed during construction (Figure 4.113). The pit into the elevator shaft; this was a continuation of measured approximately 7.4 m (24.29 ft) north/ a deposit exposed in Trench 2.2 that appeared to south by 8.60 m (28.22 m) east/west and was indicate the level of the original ground surface separated from the foundation wall trench by less outside of the kiln structures.(Figure 4.115). The than 1 m (3.28 ft) (Figure 4.114). Excavation of deposit tailed off as it continued eastward into the the pit was conducted in a series of lifts or con- elevator pit and did not appear to be directly as- trolled increments that averaged 1 m (3.28 ft) and sociated with the rubble deposit exposed in the progressed from west to east. The rubble was ex- eastern end of the pit. posed during the first lift. It consisted exclusively Removal of the rubble deposit in the east- of partial bricks and small fragments and had a ern third of the elevator shaft pit revealed the re-

118 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.110 Trench 10, Plan view

119 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.111 Trench 10, Profile north

120 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.112 Trench 10, Photograph showing profile north (RCGA, September 22, 2016)

Figure 4.113 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing overview of the elevator shaft pit and exposed brick rubble (right center), view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016) 121 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.114 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing the location of the elevator shaft in relationship to Trench 1, view northwest (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

Figure 4.115 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing profile west (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

122 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations mains of a brick foundation wall (Figures 4.116 third of the pit. Distinctly rectangular in appear- and 4.117). The wall was two courses in width ance, the deposit appeared to define an L-shaped and ranged from a single course to three courses addition to the main structure (Figure 4.120). The in depth. The foundation was not substantial and rubble deposit overlay a thin layer of coal resi- most likely supported a frame structure. The build- due, which rested on undisturbed subsoil (Figure ing had been constructed at a slight angle to the 4.121). brick kilns and appeared to have been L-shaped, When completed, the pit excavated for the with several internal rooms. The main rooms ap- elevator shaft extended to a total depth of about peared to have had dirt floors; these floors were 3.5 m (11.48 m) below surface. All historic fea- covered with overlapping and occasionally in- tures and deposits exposed within the eleva- termixed deposits of soil, finely crushed brick, tor shaft pit were removed during construction and coal residue (see Figure 4.117). A thick layer (Figure 4.122). The elements were not, and the of coal residue coated a brick pad exposed near dimensions of the structure are unknown. The lo- the northwestern corner of the structure (Figures cation of the structure adjacent to the brick kilns 4.118 and 4.119). Measuring 1 m (3.28 ft) north/ suggests it may have been a drying shed or part south by 1.23 m (4.04 ft) east/west the pad was of the engine house. The coal residue on the brick bordered on the east and north by a brick-sur- pad and in the L-shaped extension of the building faced floor that also was coated with a layer of suggest the building may have had a furnace or coal residue, although this layer was much thin- means of heating, making it more likely that the ner. structure was part of a drying shed. Both struc- In the center portion of the elevator shaft tures are indicated on Sanborn maps (1907) and excavation, the rubble deposit was more substan- were reported to have been destroyed during the tial in thickness and extended below the level of 1919 fire at the Alexandria Brick Company. the brick foundation walls exposed in the eastern

123 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.116 Elevator Shaft, Plan view of brick foundation

124 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.117 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing plan view of brick foundation, 82 cm below surface, view southeast (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

125 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.118 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing coal residue overlying brick pad (foreground); center of foundation has been removed, view south (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

Figure 4.119 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing brick pad with coal residue removed, view south (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

126 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figue 4.120 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing brick rubble in L-shaped extension of structure, view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

Figure 4.121 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing coal residue underlying brick rubble in L-shaped extension of structure, view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

127 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter IV: Results of Archeological Investigations

Figure 4.122 Elevator Shaft, Photograph showing controlled excavation of brick foundation, view north (RCGA, July 27, 2016)

128 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter V Summary

rcheological investigations at The Thorn- construction. Site-specific archival research to ton, 1199 S. Washington Street in Alex- provide a comparative context for interpretation Aandria, Virginia, were undertaken on an of the exposed cultural features was proposed to on-call basis between July 27, 2016 and Septem- supplement previously conducted archival re- ber 22, 2016 by R. Christopher Goodwin & Asso- search. ciates, Inc., on behalf of Foulger-Pratt Develop- ment, LLC. The work was conducted following Summary discovery of archeological resources potentially The Thornton development project is a multi- related to the former brick-making facilities of story residential apartment building complex lo- the Alexandria Brick Company. The work was cated on land previously occupied by Hunting undertaken in consultation with the Alexandria Terrace Apartments, a cluster of five multi-story Archaeology and Foulger-Pratt Development, garden-style apartment buildings constructed in LLC. Research methods employed during the 1943. The apartment complex originally included investigations were approved by Alexandria Ar- a total of eight buildings; the northern three build- chaeology. ings were demolished in the early 2000s during Archeological investigations included ar- improvements to the I-495 corridor and the Wood- cheological monitoring during construction and row Wilson Bridge. The planned redevelopment documentation of previously exposed archeologi- effort entails lowering of the existing parcel el- cal features and deposits. All work was performed evation to accommodate sub-grade parking fa- by professional archeologists from the staff of R. cilities and infrastructure improvements. Areas Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. The in- excluded from redevelopment lie within the 100- vestigations followed the progression of investiga- year floodplain of Hunting Creek; these areas lie tions outlined by Alexandria Archaeology in their outside of an existing VDOT sound barrier. Scope of Work for a Documentary Study and Ar- A previous Phase IA archival background chaelogical Testing (dated December 16, 2008). study and archeological assessment of the proper- All work was conducted in accordance with stan- ty indicated up to eight feet of fill may have been dards established in the Secretary of the Interior’s added to the western edge of the project area dur- Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and ing construction of Hunting Terrace Apartments Historic Preservation; Guidelines for Conduct- (Williams and Sanders 2013). Elsewhere, the ing Historic Resources Survey in Virginia (VDHR landscape was cut and lowered until the modern 2011); and City of Alexandria’s Archaeological elevation was achieved. The addition of fill soil Standards (1996). onto the terrace along Hunting Creek may have Field investigations followed strategies es- preserved archeological resources related to the tablished in consultation with the Alexandria Alexandria Brick Company, whose brick kilns, Archaeology during a series of on-site meetings. drying sheds, and machine-sheds were located on Archeological monitoring of construction activ- the low-lying terrace overlooking the creek. ity within archeologically sensitive parts of the During most of the eighteenth century, the development area, combined with documentation land on which The Thornton was to be construct- of any exposed archeological deposits or features ed belonged to the Alexander family, who were were proposed as mitigative strategies for archeo- instrumental in creating the Town of Alexandria. logical resources that could not be avoided during William Hooe was the first one to lease land on

129 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter V: Summary

Broomilawn Point; he leased 22 acres from the ing Hunting Creek (Sanborn 1907); a small re- William Thornton Alexander in 1794, establish- ceiving shed for clay was located on the elevated ing a small farm and a tavern known locally as plateau just east of the brickyard. Workers at the “Broomilawn Point.” The Manassas Gap Rail- brickyard were a mixture of African Americans road cut a right-of-way through the point during and Caucasians; African Americans were em- the 1850s in preparation for extending their rail ployed as labors or skilled workers, while Cauca- line; although this project never materialized, the sians tended to be skilled workers or supervisors cut came to serve as a property boundary in later (foremen) (US Census 1910). land transactions. The point was clear-cut during The Alexandria Brick Company facilities the Civil War, when the Union Army seized the included five semi-permanent kilns, an extensive property to establish a small pox hospital and dis- drying yard, and a clay mill and receiving build- posal ground for dead Union horses. ing that also housed two brick machines. The The first use of the property as a brickyard kilns, captured in a 1907 photograph for Virgin- may have come in 1882, when John Tucker, an ia’s tri-centennial publication, were at least two- unemployed brick-maker, purchased 20 acres stories in height with ventilated roofs. Each kiln on Broomilawn Point from the estate of William structure housed two small kilns that bordered an Dennis. Just seven years earlier Tucker and his open, brick-surfaced firing floor. The openings business partner R.L. Lucas had sold their brick- of fireboxes used to heat the kiln interior were works on S. Washington Street. When Tucker’s accessed from the outside of the kiln structure; estate was settled in 1890, M. B. Harlow and Park these openings, also called “eyes” were set below Agnew purchased the 20-acre tract, transferring ground-level so as to allow the heated air to rise the title to the Alexandria Brick Company. With- upward into the kiln interior. This configuration in a year, the Company was producing 75,000 indicated the kilns operated on a updraft principle bricks per day and employing 50 men, suggesting where a series of evenly spaced fireboxes con- that Tucker had been successful in establishing nected to flues that ran beneath the kiln floor were new brickworks along Hunting Creek. used to funnel heated air into the kiln interior. The newly formed Alexandria Brick Com- Updraft kilns typically were open at the top pany suffered a fire in 1891 that destroyed nearly of the kiln to allow the air to more effectively be all of the company’s buildings and equipment. drawn upward through the structure. The board The brickworks quickly were rebuilt and by 1893, roofing sheltering the kilns in the Virginia tri- were producing 60,000 bricks a day with a labor centennial publication was described as “remov- force of 50 men. The Alexandria Brick Company able board roofs” (Sanborn 1907), suggesting the competed locally with Corbett & Yohe’s brick- configuration of the roofing could be changed as works on S. Washington Street, and Pullman & needed during the firing process. This system of Sons brickworks on Washington Street (AG Sept removable board roofing rather than fixed roof- 16, 1893). The three businesses together were ing over the kilns appears to have been relatively able to produce an estimated 20 million bricks common and was utilized by several brickworks annually (AG Sept 16, 1893). in the Alexandria area, including the Virginia In 1907, Harlow and Agnew renamed their Brick Company and the M.T. Cockey brick yard. firm The Bromilaw Brick Company. The brick Like the Alexandria Brick Company, both of works had suffered a minor fire in 1907 that did these brickyards also utilized drying sheds rather not seem to affect production, but that may have than tracked roofing or the more modern drying precipitated the renaming of the company (AG tunnels seen at other local Alexandria brickyards. Sept 10, 1907). The rebranded brickworks pro- The Chambers Brothers Company Catalogue duced “building, paving and sewer brick” as well (1902) provided a good comparative example for as supplied sand for construction (AG August 28, the layout of the Alexandria Brick Company kilns 1909). The 1907 Sanborn map clearly shows that (see Figure 2.14). The Chambers Brothers Com- this fairly extensive manufacturing facility was pany kilns were updraft kilns. Each kiln building located almost entirely on the low terrace border- contained two kilns that were partially enclosed

130 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter V: Summary by a frame structure with an elevated roof. De- tent with the methods commonly used to seal the scribed as a “10-eye” kiln, the kiln’s double firebricks in the kiln prior to firing. boxes were located on the exterior of the kiln The layout of the kilns and brickyard at the structure and were set below the interior level of Alexandria Brick Company followed an organiza- the structure. Arched flue openings were visible tion comparable to other early twentieth century in the interior of the kiln where flues would chan- brickyards in the Alexandria area, suggesting that nel heat from the firebox upward into the firing the model employed for operation of the brick- floor. Like the kilns at the Alexandria Brick Com- yard was not an innovative one, but was a proven pany, the kiln structures at the Chambers Brothers one. The kiln structures used at the Alexandria Company were open at the top to allow additional Brick Company each contained two updraft kilns air circulation and to further draw the warm air that bordered an open drying floor heated by air from the fireboxes upward and through the bricks drawn upward from closely spaced fireboxes set in the kiln interior. along the exterior of the kilns. This was a com- Dimensions extrapolated from historic aeri- mon method of kiln construction during the late al photographs and maps suggest the kilns at the eighteenth century, when the brickyard was first Alexandria Brick Company may have been “13- established. Although the Alexandria Brick Com- eye” kilns, which would have been slightly larger pany had changed its name to the Bromilaw Brick than the Chamber Brothers Company kilns. Al- Company in 1907, the company facilities were though the western end of the kiln complex had not upgraded. There was no evidence that the been truncated by previous construction, historic company had begun to switch from updraft kilns documents indicate the company’s kilns were to the more efficient downdraft kilns, or that dry- about 13.7 m (45 ft) long. With fireboxes spaced ing tunnels had been added to the operation. Both approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) apart, this suggests the changes would have increased the company’s ef- kilns contained 13 fireboxes. The eastern 11 fire- ficiency and output and may have made a differ- boxes, or about 11.1 m (36.42 ft) of the kiln wall, ence in the very competitive brick-manufacturing were exposed within The Thornton development market of the early twentieth century. area. The kilns used coal for fuel; the black sooty residue covered the working floor adjacent to the Preservation firebox openings and was found mixed with coal Engineers and architects with Foulger-Pratt ash and cinder that had accumulated in the bot- Development, LLC worked with Alexandria Ar- toms of the flues. chaeology to preserve as much of the remains of The firebox openings documented at The the Alexandria Brick Company facility as pos- Thornton project consisted of pairs of vaulted or sible. Construction activities in areas where the arched brick fireboxes that would have funneled kiln structures could not be avoided were moni- heated air to flues both upward directly onto the tored by archeologists. Exposed features of kiln firing floor, as well as beneath the floor through a construction were documented and excavated un- series of flues. The construction of the flues and der the supervision of archeologists. fireboxes was permanent; these elements of the Engineers were able to preserve portions of kiln design had been excavated into the subsoil the kiln structure in one area by modifying design of the terrace and had not been constructed on elements and using concrete pilings for structural the ground surface as was common in temporary support where previously deep excavation would brick clamps or scove kilns. The brick kilns had have occurred to reach stable ground for con- an average interior width of 8.44 m (27.69 ft) struction. In this area, the structures were covered with an average kiln wall width of 1.67 m (5.78 with the layers of clean sand borrowed from same ft). Kiln buildings were spaced an average of 4.2 terrace that was cut to fill the site in the 1940s and m (13.78 ft), apart and were separated by an area that may also have been sold by the brickworks of lower elevation where the fireboxes were ac- as building sand. Each 6-8 inch layer of sand was cessed and fueled. Clay-based mortar found on compacted using a vibrating roller. The work was the interior of one of the kiln walls was consis- repeatedly checked to ensure the sand reached the

131 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release Chapter V: Summary minimum level of 95% compaction. Once this installed and the next phase of construction could process was completed, support pilings for a new began. access road that would overlay that location were

132 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release References Cited

Alexandria Archaeology 1996 The City of Alexandria Archaeological Standards. Alexandria Archaeology Publications, Alexandria, Virginia.

City of Alexandria, Virginia 1989 Archaeological Ordinance No. 3413. Adopted Nov 18, 1989 (http://tps.cr.nps.gov/pad/ AlexOrdinance.cfm).

1992 Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-411: Archaeological Protection. Adopted June 24, 1992 (http://tps.cr.nps.gov/pad/AlexOrdinance.cfm).

1 201 2011 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Accessed at https://www.alexandriava.gov/ FloodMap. 11 January 2018.

Anonymous 1920? Photograph of Hunting Creek from atop Broomilaw Point (Creeger Collection #1171), Facsimile on file, Edith Moore Sprouse Center for Local History, Alexandria Public Li- brary, Alexandria.

Arlington County Public Library 2016 “Brick Works.” Unboxed: Dispatches from the Center for Local History. Electronic document. Accessed at http://library.arlingtonva.us/2007/11/13/back-pages-brick-works/. 11 October 2016.

Bache, Charles M. 1863 Topography of the north side of Hunting Creek near Alexandria, VA. U. S. Coastal Survey. Electronic image from American Memory, Library of Congress.

Barse, William P., Jeffrey Harbison, Ingrid Wuebber, and Meta Janowitz 2004 Phase III Archeological Mitigation of the Prehistoric and Historic Components of Site 44AX185, Jones Point Park, Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared for Federal Highway Admin- istration, VDOT, and NPS. URS Corporation, Florence, NJ.

Bromberg, Francine 2013 The Faithful Contrabands will be Justly Entitled to Their Share: A History of the Contra- bands and Freedmen Cemetery. Draft on file, Alexandria Archaeology

Chambers Brothers Company 1902 Brickmaking Machinery, Clay Grinding and Mixing Machines. Chambers Brothers Com- pany, Philadelphia, PA (Electronic document from Library of Congress, http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/brickmaking-and-brickmakers/chambers-loc/)

City of Alexandria, Virginia 1918-1944 Land Records. Alexandria City Circuit Court, Alexandria, Virginia.

133 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release References Cited

Fairfax County, Virginia 1839-1910 Land Records. Fairfax County Judicial Court Archives, Fairfax, Virginia.

Flemming, Tony 2008 Geologic Atlas of the City of Alexandria, Virginia and Vicinity—Overview. Tony Flem- ming, Licensed Professional Geologist.

Greenly, Mark 1996 Those Upon Whom the Curtain Has Fallen: Pas and Present Cemeteries of Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria Archaeology Publication No. 88. Alexandria Archaeology, Office of Historic Alexandria, Alexandria, VA. On file, Edith Moore Sprouse Center for Local His- tory, Alexandria Public Library.

Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 2013 Summary Documentary Study for the Proposed Improvements at Hunting Terrace, Alex- andria, Virginia (Letter report). Prepared for Foulger-Pratt Development, LLC. R. Christo- pher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD.

Gurcke, Karl 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

Heite, Edward 1973 Several Virginia Brick Clamps: A Summary of Brickmaking. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 28(1):48-55.

Henn, Stephen 1998 Reviving Lost History. Alexandria Journal. June 1. Copy on file, Freedmen’s Cemetery Vertical Files, Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria.

Hill Directory Company 1915 Alexandria, Virginia, Directory. Hill Directory Co., Alexandria and Richmond. Facsimile copy on file, Edith Moore Sprouse Center for Local History, Alexandria Public Library.

Hopkins, G. M. 1877 City Atlas of Alexandria, Virginia (Plate 3). In Stephenson, Richard. The Cartography of Northern Virginia (Plate 61). Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fair- fax, VA.

1879 Alexandria County, Va. Atlas of Fifteen Miles Around Washington. Electronic image. Ac- cessed at https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3883a.ct000165/. 12 October 2016.

1894 Map of the Vicinity of Washington. Electronic image. Accessed at https://www.loc.gov/ resource/g3850.ct003624/. 12 October 2016.

Laefer, Debra, Justin Boggs, and Nicole Cooper 2004 Engineering Properties of Historic Bricks: Variability Considerations as a Function of Stationary and Nonstationary Kiln Types. Journal of the American Institute for Conserva-

134 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release References Cited

tion 43(3):255-272. Electronic document, accessed online at http://cool.conservation-us. org/jaic/articles/jaic43-03-004_3.html. 20 September 2016.

McKee, Harley J. 1974 Brick and Stone: Handicraft to Machine. In Building Early America: Contributions toward the History of a Great Industry, edited by Charles E. Peterson, pp. 74-95. Chilton Book Company, Radnor, PA.

Miller, Michael n.d. Letter to Jean Federico, Office of Historic Alexandria. Copy on file, Freedmen’s Cemetery Vertical Files, Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria.

1987 Fun and Frivolity at Broomilaw Point. The Fireside Sentinel I (3). Copy on file, Hunting Terrace Vertical File, Alexandria Archaeology.

1991 Historical News Flash: Freedman and Contraband Burial Ground Identified in Alexandria, Virginia. Facsimile on file, Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria, VA.

1992 Artisans and Merchants of Alexandria, Virginia, 1780-1820. Heritage Books Inc., Bowie, MD.

Moore, Gay M. (transcriber) 1988 Alexandria, Virginia, City Council Minutes, 1792-1800. Facsimile on file. Edith Moore Sprouse Center for Local History, Alexandria Public Library, Alexandria, VA.

O’Conner, Richard 1999 Historic American Engineering Record: Jenkins Brick Company (HAER No. AL-185). Manuscript provided by the author.

R. E. Sanborn and Company 1907 Fire Insurance Map of Alexandria, Virginia (Plate xx). Electronic image accessed from www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/sanborn.

1921 Fire Insurance of Alexandria, Virginia (Plate xx). Electronic image accessed fromwww. loc.gov/rr/geogmap/sanborn.

Rhodes, Daniel 1968 Kilns: Design, Construction, and Operation. Chilton Books, Philadelphia.

Richmond, W. L. (manager) 1900 Richmond’s Directory of Alexandria, VA. Richmond & Company, Washington. Accessed online at Ancestry.com.

1907 Richmond’s Directory of Alexandria, VA. Richmond & Company, Washington. Facsimile copy on file, Edith Moore Sprouse Center for Local History, Alexandria Public Library, Alexandria, VA

135 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release References Cited

Sanders, Suzanne L., and Martha R. Williams 1998 Archeological Mitigation of the J.S. Berry Brick Mill (18BC89) and Pawley Stoneware Kiln (18BC88), at the Proposed Ravens’ Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland. Prepared for Maryland Stadium Authority, Baltimore. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD.

Scientific American 1886 Brickmaking. Scientific American 55(3):343. Electronic document. Accessed at http:// www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v55/n22/pdf/scientificamerican11271886-343. pdf. 19 September 2016.

Shott, George C, Jr. 1976 U.S. Army Engineer Museum Archaeological Investigations of Belvoir Historic Site, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Master’s thesis, George Washington University.

Soldo, David, and Martha R. Williams 2005 Phase I Archival and Archeological Investigations at the Gunston Hall Apartments, Alex- andria, Virginia. Prepared for Gunston Hall Realty, Inc., Springfield, VA. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD.

Stevens, J. Sanderson, Alice C. Crampton, Diane E. Halsall, Elizabeth A. Crowell, and J. Lee Cox 1996 Woodrow Wilson Bridge Improvement Study Integrated Cultural Resources Technical Re- port. Prepared for Virginia Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Adminis- tration. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Fairfax, VA.

Stevens, J. S., Diane E. Halsall, and Ronald J. Bowers 1997 Addendum Woodrow Wilson Bridge Improvement Study: Documentary Research and Re- mote Sensing Investigations Freedmen’s or Contraband Cemetery, Alexandria. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Fairfax.

Strum, G. P. 1900 Map of Alexandria. In Stephenson, Richard. The Cartography of Northern Virginia (Plates 100, 101 ). Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax,V A.

United States Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 1 201 Web Soil Survey and Soil Series Descriptions. Electronic documents, http://websoilsurvey. sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm and https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname. asp.

United States Department of the Census 1850 Seventh Census of the United States: Population Schedule and Products of Industry, Alex- andria, Virginia. Electronic document accessed at www.Ancestry.com.

1860 Eighth Census of the United States: Population Schedule and Products of Industry, Alex- andria, Virginia. Electronic document accessed at www.Ancestry.com.

1870 Ninth Census of the United States: Population Schedule for Alexandria Virginia; Schedule of Manufactures for Falls Church Township, Fairfax County, Virginia. Electronic document accessed at www.Ancestry.com.

136 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release References Cited

1880 Tenth Census of the United States: Population Schedule and Schedule of Manufactures, Alexandria, Virginia. Electronic document accessed at www.Ancestry.com

1900 Twelfth Census of the United States: Population Schedule for Alexandria, Virginia. Elec- tronic document accessed at www.Ancestry.com.

1910 Thirteenth Census of the United States: Population Schedule, Ward One, Alexandria, Vir- ginia. Electronic document accessed at www.Ancestry.com.

United States Department of Interior, National Park Service (USDI NPS) 1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Federal Register 48, No. 190 (29 September 1983). Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) 1 201 Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in Virginia. October 2011 (http:// www.dhr.virginia.gov/pdf_files/Survey%20Manual-RevOct.2011Final.pdf)

Washington Post 1892 Alexandria Affairs. 29 March. Copy on file, Alexandria Archaeology, Alexandria, VA.

Wedderburn, Alex 1907 Historic Alexandria, VA, Past and Present (Tercentennial Souvenir, 1607-1907). Electron- ic document, Accessed 3 October 2016 at https://ia600504.us.archive.org/16/items/souve- nirvirginia01wedd/souvenirvirginia01wedd.pdf.

William and Mary Department of Geology 1 201 Geology of Virginia. (web.wm.edu/geology/Virginia).

Williams, Martha and Suzanne Sanders 2013 Summary Documentary Study for the Proposed Improvements at Hunting Terrace, Alexan- dria, VA. Prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. for Foulger Pratt Devel- opment, LLC. Copy on file, Alexandria Archeology, Alexandria, VA.

137 R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. Contains Privileged Information -- Do Not Release

APPENDIX I

RELEVANT PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE INCLUDING THE PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK (DATED DECEMBER 16, 2008)

APPENDIX II

RESUMES OF KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL

KATHLEEN M. CHILD, M.A. PROJECT MANAGER / ARCHEOLOGIST

Ms.

Kathleen Marie Child, M.A., Project Manager, has served as Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager for R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. (RCG&A) since 1989. She was awarded a M.A. in Historical Archeology from The College of William and Mary (2009) and a baccalaureate from St. Mary’s College, Maryland (1989). While at RCG&A, Ms. Child has worked on numerous cultural resource surveys, archeological evaluation and mitigation/data recovery projects, and cemetery relocation projects. The geographic range of the projects under her supervision spans the Mid-Atlantic and southeast regions and she has worked for a wide range of private, state, and federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore and New Orleans Districts; Maryland State Highway Department; the Veterans Administration; and NASA Langley. Her experience includes investigations conducted on properties managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Navy, the Air National Guard, the Veterans Administration, and NASA. Ms. Child has supervised cultural resources investigations at a diverse range of prehistoric and historic period sites within challenging settings that have ranged from undeveloped wilderness areas to inner-city urban sites. She has supervised Phase I through Phase III level investigations on prehistoric and historic archeological sites spanning a diverse range of temporal periods. Her expertise is in historical archeology and includes investigations on sites ranging from the early colonial period through modern period. She has served as field director for investigations undertaken in diverse settings ranging from inner-city areas of major cities such as New Orleans, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and the District of Columbia to rural sites situated within undeveloped wilderness areas. Recently, Ms. Child served as a field director for Phase II-III investigations for the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in downtown New Orleans, and as project manager for a Phase I studies conducted within the City of Alexandria, Virginia and the City of Frederick, Maryland. Ms. Child also has supervised mortuary excavations at nineteenth century historic cemeteries ranging from a single interment to 84 individuals interred within a multi- family plot. Her mortuary experience includes investigations at a prehistoric contact period site, as well as with Middle and Late Woodland period interments in isolated settings. Ms. Child has authored and co-authored many technical reports while employed with RCG&A. She has presented two original research papers at the Mid-Atlantic Archeological Conference, including one on the regional significance and research potential of two historic sites related to the early development of Leonardtown, Maryland. She also has prepared public information presentations for the Maryland State Highway Administration and for local historical and preservation societies.

MARTHA R. WILLIAMS, M.A., M.ED. RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Martha R. Williams, M.A., M.Ed., Research Associate, holds a B.A. (1960) from Lebanon Valley College; a Master of Education, with emphasis in the Social Sciences, from the University of Pennsylvania (1965); and an M.A. in History, with emphasis in Applied History, from George Mason University (1987). She was a Coe Fellow in American Studies at SUNY Stony Brook in 1982 and 1989. While completing her internship with George Mason University, she co-authored the original Heritage Resource Management Plan for Fairfax County, Virginia. Ms. Williams’ experience in cultural resource management and in historical archeology began in 1972 with a field school at Colonial Williamsburg, under the direction of Ivor Noel Hume. From 1973 to 1987, she co-directed the Fairfax County Seminars in historical archeology for high school students, a program that investigated 15 archeological sites in Fairfax County. Her archeological experience also includes extensive volunteer work with the Fairfax County (VA) Heritage Resources Branch; the City of Alexandria, VA; the Virginia Division of Historic Resources; and the Museum of the Albemarle in North Carolina. She has been a member of the Lost Colony archeological team since its inception in 1991. Following her retirement from teaching, Ms. Williams joined the professional staff at R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. in 1989. Until her retirement from full-time employment in 2007, Ms. Williams served as historian, project archeologist, project manager, and public interpretation specialist for the company. Her historical research supported both terrestrial and underwater projects in a states ranging from Louisiana and Illinois to Maine and Florida. She also managed all types of archeological projects, including preparation of archeological predictive models and disturbance studies; Phase I and II archeological surveys and evaluations; Phase III archeological data recovery projects; and preparation of cultural resource planning documents for Federal agencies and local governments. As public interpretation specialist, she designed and executed a wide range of public information activities, including two public information and training booklets and a CRM training video for the Legacy Program of the Department of Defense. Since 2007, she has continued to support projects for Goodwin & Associates as a Research Associate. Ms. Williams has been and remains actively involved in the field of historic preservation. She has contributed articles and reviews to the Yearbook of the Historical Society of Fairfax County, Museum News, Interpretation (NPS), the Quarterly Bulletin of the ASV, American Antiquity, and the Journal of Mid-Atlantic Archaeology. She presently sits on the Board of Directors of the Archeological Society of Virginia, and serves on the Society’s Kittiewan Plantation Committee, which manages the cultural resources of the ASV’s 18th century plantation property. Williams also continues to work with the First Colony Foundation, a group committed to archeological research at the Lost Colony, and was recently appointed as its Education Coordinator. These efforts have led to several awards, including the Fairfax County History Commission’s Distinguished Service Award (1991); the Archeological Society of Virginia’s "Professional Archeologist of the Year" (1996) and “Out of State Professional of the Year” (2008); and the Society for Historical Archaeology’s Award of Merit (2001) for her contributions to archeological education. In 2011, Ms. Williams received a Ben Brenman Outstanding Professional Archaeologist award from the City of Alexandria, VA, for “her nearly 40 years of outstanding teaching, historic research, and archaeological investigations in and near Alexandria.”