'I o-Lf j HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT •I Archeological Data Section I Northern Canal Guard Gatehouse Complex Francis Gate Complex I Swamp Locks I Lower Locks I LOWELL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK I ,.I I I I Prepared by Thomas F. Mahlstedt I Division of Cultural Resources North Atlantic Regional Office Boston, Massachusetts for I Denver Service Center Branch of Historic Preservation National Park Service II United States Department of the Interior Denver, Colorado i July 1980 I 1. CCwH®u §©~rm~ 7f!/:;.oo3 ) " ...... ..--~.· •I B2215-DSC-TNE January 30~ 1981 I I Memorandum To: Regional Director, North Atlantic Region I Prom: .Assistant Manager• Mid-Atlantic/Nor.th Atlantic Team, DSC Reference: Lowell, Archeologieal Research, Pkg. 109, Park General, Northern I Canal and Francis Locks Subject: Transmittal of Report I Enclosed is a report entitled. ulll.storic Structure Report, Archeological Data Section, Northern Canal Guard Gatehouse Complex, Francis Gate Complex, Swamp Locks, Lower Locks, Lowell National Historical Park." It was prepared by Tom Mahlstedt, Archeologist with Cultural Resources Division, North Atlantic I Regional Office. This is a very thorough report which assesses the existence and potential for archeological remains along the canal system. It meshes well with ~e ar­ chitectural and historical data section, with which it wi.11 be printed. 'I We appreciate the opportunity to work with your office on this project. I (sgd) Gerald D. Patten Gerald D. Patten I Enclosure cc: I WAS0-560-Mr. Holland, w/enc. Supt., Lowell, w/encs. bee: I NARO-PC, Mr. McManamon, w/enc. NARO-PC, Mr. Mahlstedt, w/enc. NARO-PC, Ms. Booth, w/enc. I FERA-Mr. Robbins, w/enc. \ysc-PG, _w/':11~· ~. D-S1rTNE, Arclieo. Lib., w/enc. DSC-TNE-PIFS, w/enc. 'I TNE:JWPowell:ecs:l/30/81:5545 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS · Page Number •I Introduction • 1 Scope of Work. 4 I Methodology ••. 6 I. Northern Canal Guard Gate Complex. 8 I II. Francis Gate Complex •• 15 I III. Swamp Locks .. 28 IV. Lower Locks. 41 I Sunnnary. 51 APPENDIX I - Outlines of Chronological Development 54 I Bibliography • . 73 I Figures. • • . •. 75 'I I I I I I 'I I I INTRODUCTION • This report contains significant new insight into the development and I existing conditions of the Northern Canal Gatehouse Complex, Francis Gate I Complex, Swamp Locks, and Lower Locks. Research has required inquiries and assessments related to three subfields of archeology: prehistoric, historic, I and industrial archeology. Because of the nature of the nineteenth century development of these sites which represent one of the crowning achievements of I one of America's foremost civil engineers, James B. Francis, the report has a I decidedly industrial orientation. This condition has arisen not by design but from the context of the existing conditions at each specific location. Because I most industrial archeologists are historians of technology, architectural historians, and engineers, Robbins' Architectural Data Section (1980) and the 1975 survey and I drawings completed by Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) could be considered to have completed the industrial archeology of these sites. However, traditionally the study and recording of the physical remains of industry has given little attention 'I to the below-ground evidence of industry. This, too, has been the situation in Lowell. As project archeologist, I have studied the rapidly accumulating data on I I the development of the locks and canals, interpreting the often obtuse language of i 1 the historic record, searching for clues which bespeak of the below-grade components of each site, thus developing a framework for predicting the archeological context I at each location. To more fully appreciate the history and technical achievement of a canal, it I must be thought of as a unit. Canals are systems which, by definition, means that they are the sum of their related parts, not merely a flight of locks or reach of I a canal. A canal may be thought of as one continuous site which is made up of a series of functionally related sites. There, in fact, exists a hierarchy of systems within the overall canal system, for each locking station and guard dam represents 'I its own system. The Francis Gate Complex, Northern Canal Gatehouse Complex, Swamp I I Locks, and Lower Locks each consist of discrete structural and operational •I components which, combined, create functional entities or systems unto them- selves also defining each site's relationship to the overall canal system. I In order to understand the complexitites of the whole, we must first study its component parts. This study, undertaken at the site specific level, I represents such an effort. Insomuch as each site is viewed as a separate system, I the archeological assessment has focused on individual elemental components which may exist in an archeological context. Though such features as lock chamber walls, I wing walls, canal sidewalls, and the like are discussed individually in terms of developmental history, technological functions, and archeological potential, it I must always be remembered that each is inextricably related to the other in time, I form, and function. Interpretation and analysis of the sequential development of Northern Canal Gatehouse Complex, Francis Gate Complex, Swamp Locks, and Lower Locks has revealed ' a salient characteristic which is common to all. James B. Francis and his colleagues I were consummate engineering problem solvers. The existing conditions, both visible as well as below-ground features, is a record of continuous engineering change and I continuity of purpose. The chronological development of each .of these sites rep- I resents the solutions to problems created by the ever-changing needs of Lowell's industrial section. Each site, thus the entire ~anal system, is the product of I recurrent change and adaptions to the development of industrial Lowell. The number of industrial enterprises increased dramatically throughout much of the nineteenth I century. Besides increasing quantitatively, they were also developing qualitatively I as the rate of industrial innovation dramatically increased the technical proficiency of each industry. Though recurrent maintenance was performed to reset shifting wall masonry, repaint deteriorated mortared joints, and replacement of locking and 'I I 2 I ~ guard gates, the principal stimulus for change was the desire to continuously I improve the efficiency and water delivery capacity of the canal system. To this end, canals were straightened and stabilized with massive masonry side- I walls and lock chambers, and dams were modified in shape, fabric, and size. I The potential archeological record may bear witness to this dynamic change, reflecting significant engineering and technological developments through time. I In this light, it is hoped that not only will the identification of potential archeological.features at the specific sites under study be beneficial to park I management and planners but will also enhance the appreciation for the technological I achievements which.the Lowell canal system represents. I • I I I I I I ~ I I 3 I •• SCOPE OF WORK I This report was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Archeologic~.l Data Section of the Historic Structure Report (HSR) for the Northern Canal Gate I Complex, the Francis Gate Complex, Swamp Lock.s, and Lower Locks. The study is classified as a Class C level of investigation. The principal goal of the archeo- I logical data section is to identify, describe, and assess known prehistoric and I historic resources within the specific areas of the project. A summary of results and conclusions provides a statement on the potential integrity and significance I of the archeological resources. Several forces, acting independently as well as in tandem, have combined to I put rather severe limitations on the detail to which this report pursued an assess- I ment of prehistoric and early historic resources. The site-specific nature of the study was greatly constrained by having to focus within the highly restricted boundaries which define each site. Secondly, the extensive nature of land form • modification required in the nineteenth century to develop the sites as part of I the Lowell Canal System has greatly reduced the probability of prehistoric or early I· historic period material remaining in situ. Combined, these two factors all but preclude the likelihood that archeological deposits relating to the period prior I to nineteenth century development exist, thereby confining the archeological potential to the period for which the sites achieve their present historic signifi- I cance. The report is, therefore, biased toward an assessment of in situ below I grade features and fabric which relate to the nineteenth century development and technological evolution of each site in question. I The inherent value of the subsurface remains which have been identified in this report is that they may reveal a wider range of activities and technological I. achievement than the available written record. However, a characteristic of I archeological resources is that their information content cannot be precisely I 4 I • described until they have been at least partially destroyed through excavation. I Therefore, a more precise discussion on the information value of these sites is I difficult at this time. I I I. I I • I I I I I I ~ I I 5 I METHODOLOGY ~ The present archeological study combined two primary tasks: background I research and preliminary field reconnaissance. Background research required the review of data pertaining to three disparate I subfields of archeology; prehistoric, historic, and industrial archeology. I The following specific and general sources were used: 1. Prehistoric site records and archeological reports of the I Massachusetts Historical Commission. 2. Regional, local histories. I 3. Geological, hydrological, and ecological data. 4. Published archeological reports. I 5. Nineteenth Century Canal Engineering and Technology: Method and Theory. 6. Historic Structures Report, Architectural Data Section, John Robbins, 1980.