Volume 2: 2009 Fieldwork Results, Faunal Report, Artifact Analyses, and Final Site Interpretation

305 Pages·2014·24.26 MB·English

by  Shannon Dawdy

Archaeological Investigations at
St. Anthony's Garden (16OR443), New Orleans, Louisiana

Volume II: 2009 Fieldwork Results, Faunal Report,
Artifact Analyses and Final Site Interpretations

by: Shannon Lee Dawdy, Claire Bowman, Zachary
Chase, Susan deFrance, D. Ryan Gray,
Kristen Gremillion, and Lauren Zych

(with contributions by: Adela Amaral, Joe Bonni,
Megan Edwards, Christopher Grant, Matthew Reilly
and University of Chicago students in enrolled in the
Archaeological Lab Practicum course 2008-2011)

report prepared by: Shannon Lee Dawdy
University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology

for: Cathedral of St. Louis King of France, The
National Science Foundation and The National
Endowment for the Humanities

March 2014
Archaeological Investigations at
St. Anthony's Garden (16OR443), New Orleans, Louisiana

Volume II: 2009 Fieldwork Results, Faunal Report,
Artifact Analyses and Final Site Interpretations

by: Shannon Lee Dawdy, Claire Bowman, Zachary Chase, Susan deFrance, D. Ryan
Gray,
Kristen Gremillion, and Lauren Zych

(with contributions by: Adela Amaral, Joe Bonni, Megan Edwards, Christopher Grant,
and Matthew Reilly; and with contributions in analysis by Adrienne Frie, Alanna Warner,
Alex Menaker, Andrew Leith, Anna Akers-Pecht, Augusta Gudeman, Berenice
Fernandez, Blaise Murphy, Brian Wilson, Christine O'Neill, Crystal Croyl, David Nasca,
Elora Henderson, Ian Goller, Jason Ramsey, Jill Waller, Katia Chaterji, Kevin Garstki,
Kirsten Madsen, Leah Reisman, Lise Truex, Marilee Goad, Marjorie Bush, Matt Reilly,
Natalie Reinhardt, Rebecca Aguilar, Stephanie O'Brien, Sydney Rosebraugh, Ted Gold,
and Victor Kessler)

report prepared by: Shannon Lee Dawdy
University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology

for: Cathedral of St. Louis King of France, The National Science Foundation and The
National Endowment for the Humanities

Draft of March 2014

i
Abstract

This is volume II of the report presenting results of archaeological research conducted at
the St. Antoine’s Garden Site (16OR443, also known as St. Anthony's Garden), located in
the back of St. Louis Cathedral in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana. The
site, which presently is used as a formal garden for the Cathedral, is bounded by Royal
Street to the northwest (lakeside) and by Pirate's Alley and Père Antoine Alley to the
sides. It is a multi-component site that contains extraordinarily well-preserved and
artifact-rich deposits from the French colonial (ca. 1717-1768), Spanish colonial (ca.
1769-1804), and antebellum (ca. 1804-1860) periods.

Volume I (Dawdy et al. 2008) reported results of the first season of fieldwork and the
initial ethnobotanical analysis, which took place in the summer of 2008. Volume I was
completed rapidly to facilitate an anticipated Getty Foundation restoration grant in 2009.
In the meantime, the Principle Investigator applied for, and received, grants from the
National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities to return to
the site for a second season and to expand the results into a three-year comparative
investigation of colonial period sites in the French Quarter. Volume II reports the results
of the expanded investigation, which comprised a second field season in early fall of
2009 and full-scale artifact analysis, including zooarchaeological analysis, additional
ethnobotanical analysis, Neutron Activation Analysis on selected ceramics and the
identification, recording, photographing, and curating of the entire artifact inventory. A
detailed artifact inventory of the cultural artifacts is provided in Volume III of the report,
published simultaneously with this one.

Between 15 September and 20 October 2009, the field team (consisting of the PI,
consultant deFrance, and 13 research assistants and students, and 6 volunteers) conducted
archaeological fieldwork at St. Anthony's Garden which included 100% surface
collection and excavation of 4 excavation units ranging from 1x2 m to 1x5 meters in area
and depths of 1.5 to 2.5 meters below ground surface. Units were opened to further
investigate features uncovered in the 2008 season and to test new areas of the site. The
artifact yield from the 2008 season was 30,434 cultural artifacts while for the 2009
season it was 40,228 (not including floral and faunal artifacts) due to richer deposits
encountered and the addition of 1/16" waterscreening of French colonial deposits. In
August of 2011, the P.I. personally delivered the entire artifact collection from this site to
the Archdiocese of New Orleans (the owners and trustees of the collection), where it is
now stored in a secure climate-controlled space in the Ursuline Convent.

ii
Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. vi
List of Plates .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Site Occupation History ....................................................................................5
Chapter 3: 2009 Field Methods and Results .....................................................................27
Chapter 4: Lab Methods and Results ................................................................................75
Chapter 5: Interpretations and Conclusion .....................................................................115
References Cited .............................................................................................................119
Appendix A: Louisiana Site Form .................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Lot Inventory ..............................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Archaeobotanical Report ............................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Faunal Data ............................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Handmade Ceramics Report ....................................................................... E-1
Appendix F: Crucifix Conservation Report ..................................................................... F-1
Appendix G: Student Artifact Highlights ....................................................................... G-1

iii
Acknowledgements

Sadly, the one person most responsible for this extraordinary project, Msgr. Crosby Kern,
passed away before we could share with him the full fruits of our research. He did,
however, live to see the restoration of his beloved garden, which was the instigation for
the undertakings reported here. The second person who directly or indirectly helped make
this project happen is Bettie Pendley, who did more than any other person to promote the
archaeology of New Orleans. Her passion was evident in her excitement at the excavation
screen, and she put in her time at St. Anthony’s Garden, as she did on dozens of other
projects. Both Msgr. Kern and Ms. Bettie are deeply missed by myself and the crew.

Assisting Msgr. Kern and acting as a key liaison between the needs of research and
public outreach, was Dr. Alfred Lemmon, whose support is hard to measure or repay.
During the fieldwork, staff members at the Rectory, especially Stephen Swain, were
patient and helpful.

The second season of fieldwork and the expanded scope of artifact analysis was made
possible by grants from the National Science Foundation, Archaeology Division, and by
the National Endowment of the Humanities Collaborative Research Program: National
Science Foundation Award # 0917736. 2009-210: "Grounding Creolization: Ecology and
Economy in Colonial New Orleans" and National Endowment for the Humanities Grant #
RZ-50992-09, 2009-2012: "The Roots of Creole New Orleans: Archaeological
Investigations at St. Louis Cathedral and Ursuline Convent."*

Only of handful of the University of Chicago students who worked on this project did so
with any remuneration, and they certainly worked long, hot hours for it, as did those who
came strictly as volunteers. They include: Adela Amaral, Joe Bonni, Claire Bowman,
Zachary Chase, Megan Edwards, Genevieve Godbout, Rebecca Graff, Christopher Grant,
Kate Jacobsen, Julia Haines, D. Ryan Gray, Sarah Kautz, Matthew Reilly, Richard
Weyhing, and Lauren Zych. I want to single out especially Ryan Gray who served as
Project Manager and Lab Super in 2010-2011, Matthew Reilly who served as Lab Super
in 2009-2010, and Claire Bowman who served as Lab Supervisor extraordinaire 2011-
present. Without Claire, this report may not have ever seen the light of day. Joe Bonni
produced the final renditions of the field drawings.

At the University of Chicago, the list of students contributing to laboratory processing
and analysis (most as unpaid volunteers) continues to grow, but presently their names (in
addition to those above) are: Adrienne Frie, Alanna Warner, Alex Menaker, Andrew
Leith, Anna Akers-Pecht, Augusta Gudeman, Berenice Fernandez, Blaise Murphy, Brian
Wilson, Christine O'Neill, Crystal Croyl, David Nasca, Elora Henderson, Ian Goller,
Jason Ramsey, Jill Waller, Joe Bonni, Katia Chaterji, Kevin Garstki, Kirsten Madsen,
Leah Reisman, Lise Truex, Marilee Goad, Marjorie Bush, Matt Reilly, Natalie Reinhardt,
Rebecca Aguilar, Stephanie O'Brien, Sydney Rosebraugh, Ted Gold, and Victor Kessler.
These dedicated students have shared their research on select artifacts from the project,
presented in Appendix G.

iv
In New Orleans, many volunteers helped us in the field, especially in the desperate last
days as we extended the fieldwork to deal with new discoveries. I may not have taken
everyone's names, but I know the following were there to help at least one day: Dan
Leard, Kathy Lemberg, Dr. Chip McGimsey, Mary Robert-Barton and Abraham Santa
Cruz. I also want to thank my collaborators Susan de France and Kristen Gremillion, who
took time out of their harried schedules to work with us on the site and whose good-time
collegiality can at least in part be explained by their shared roots in New Orleans.

-- Shannon Lee Dawdy

*Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report do not
necessarily reflect those of the National Endowment of the Humanities.
v
List of Figures

2. 1 Plan Pauger ..................................................................................................................6
2.2 Plan Broutin ..................................................................................................................8
2.3 Plan de la Ville de La Nouvelle Orleans Capitale de la Province de la Louisiana .....10
2.4 Plan de la Ville de la Nouvelle-Orléans avec les noms des proprietaries ...................15
2.5 Detail. Robinson’s Atlas of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana ................................21
2.6 Detail. Historical Sketch Book and Guide to New Orleans and Environs ..................22
2.7 "The Spring Fiesta Art Show" ....................................................................................24
2.8 “Cathedral Dynamited” ...............................................................................................25
3.1 Site Plan ......................................................................................................................28
3.2 EU 1X East Wall Profile .............................................................................................36
3.3 EU 1X South Wall Profile ..........................................................................................37
3.4 EU 1X West Wall Profile ...........................................................................................38
3.5 EU 1X Plan Map 3 ......................................................................................................39
3.6 EU 1X Plan Map 4 ......................................................................................................40
3.7 Harris Matrix of EU 1X stratigraphy ..........................................................................45
3.8 EU 2X East Wall Profile .............................................................................................48
3.9 EU 2X South Wall Profile ..........................................................................................49
3.10 EU 2X Plan Map Ctx 33 Lvl 2 ..................................................................................50
3.11 EU 2X West Wall Profile .........................................................................................51
3.12 EU 2X Plan Map .......................................................................................................52
3.13 Harris Matrix of EU 2X stratigraphy ........................................................................55
3.14 EU 3X South Wall Profile ........................................................................................59
3.15 EU 3X West Wall Profile .........................................................................................60
3.16 EU 3X Plan Map .......................................................................................................61
3.17 Harris Matrix of EU 3X stratigraphy ........................................................................65
3.18 EU 5, Section 2 Profile .............................................................................................68
3.19 EU 5, Section 2, selected plan views ........................................................................69
3.20 EU 6 South and West Wall Profiles ..........................................................................71
3.21 Harris Matrix of EU 6 stratigraphy ...........................................................................73
4.1 Stained glass frequency across site .............................................................................87

vi
List of Photographic Plates

3.1 Site view from Royal Street (facing Site South) .........................................................29
3.2 Site view facing Royal Street (facing Site North) ......................................................29
3.3 E.U. 2X in progress .....................................................................................................30
3.4 Surveying ....................................................................................................................30
3.5 EU 1X excavations near completion ...........................................................................35
3.6 EU 2X showing sewer line and remnant of granite slab after removal ......................47
3.7 EU 2X showing trash pit .............................................................................................47
3.8 Brick architectural features exposed ...........................................................................58
3.9 Trench excavation in progress, showing banquette ....................................................67
3.10 Trench excavation near completion ..........................................................................67
3.11 EU 6 ..........................................................................................................................70
4.1 Representative artifacts from Component I ................................................................85
4.2 Representative artifacts from Component II ...............................................................88
4.3 Ceramics from Component III ....................................................................................89
4.4 Personal and miscellaneous artifacts from Component III .........................................90
4.5 Whole hand-blown pharmaceutical bottle from Component III .................................90
4.6 Liquor bottle from Component IV ..............................................................................92
4.7 Rum jug from Component IV .....................................................................................92
4.8 Miscellaneous artifacts from Component IV ..............................................................93
4.9 Ceramics from Component V .....................................................................................94
4.10 Ceramics from Component VI ..................................................................................95
4.11 Molten glass and copper items from Component VII ...............................................97
4.12 Buckle from Component VII ....................................................................................97
4.13 Smoking pipes from Component VII ........................................................................98
4.14 Representative ceramics from Component VIII .....................................................101
4.15 Miscellaneous artifacts from Component VIII .......................................................100
4.16 Personal and small artifacts from Component VIII ................................................100
4.17 Tin-enamel ceramics from Component IX .............................................................102
4.18 Personal adornment and miscellaneous artifacts from Component IX ...................102
4.19 Miscellaneous artifacts from Component X ...........................................................104

vii
List of Tables

3.1 Excavation Unit 1X context descriptions ...................................................................41
3.2 Excavation Unit 2X context descriptions ...................................................................53
3.3 Excavation Unit 3X context descriptions ...................................................................62
3.4 Excavation Unit 6 context descriptions ......................................................................72
4.1 Historic Ceramics Commonly Found in Louisiana ....................................................77
4.2 St. Antoine's Garden Components ..............................................................................80
4.3 Artifact Distribution across Components by Functional Category without
Construction Materials ......................................................................................................82
4.4 Artifact Distribution across Components by Functional Category with Construction
Materials ...........................................................................................................................83
4.5 Minimum Number of Ceramic Vessels by Component ............................................105
4.6 Minimum Number of Glass Vessels by Component ................................................109

viii
Chapter One
Introduction

This volume follows volume I of a report series on the 2008 and 2009 excavations at Saint
Anthony’s Garden (16OR443), an archaeological site consisting of a present-day green space
located directly behind St. Louis Cathedral, in the French Quarter of New Orleans. The site of St.
Anthony's Garden preserves a dense palimpsest of urban life in New Orleans. Lying in the rear
shadow of the Vieux Carré’s centerpiece, the space has served as a campground, a kitchen
garden, a colonial era market, a busy streetscape and domestic space, an antebellum public park
with concessions, and a garden for quiet contemplation and religious observances.
Archaeological components identified with each of these chapters in the site’s history revealed
themselves over the course of fieldwork and laboratory analysis. Some of these were expected
from the historical record, some were illuminated primarily through the archaeological evidence.

The site is located on a level lot of urban fill and natural alluvial soils with site elevations not
varying more than 30 centimeters. It is located in a high-traffic area in the heart of the French
Quarter, bounded by Royal Street on the “north” or lakeside (the French Quarter’s grid is about
48 degrees west of true north), Pere Antoine Alley on the downriver side, Pirates Alley on the
upriver side and the rear wall of St. Louis cathedral on the south (Figure 1.1 and 1.2, Volume I).
The lot measures 31 meters wide by 43 meters long (NE/SW). It has been recorded with the
Louisiana Division of Archaeology as "Antoine Garden" and given the site number 16OR443
(see Appendix A for Site Update Form). The property is owned by the Archdiocese of New
Orleans. In this report, it is referred to by its colloquial name, “St. Anthony’s Garden.”

Field results of the 2008 fieldwork were reported in Volume I of this report series, which also
provided a detailed report on the ethnobotanical results of the investigation and a review of
relevant previous investigations in New Orleans and the French Quarter. Volume I was
produced with great expediency due to the funding structure of the original 2008-2009 Getty
Foundation Conservation Survey Grant which required archaeological investigation prior to the
second phase of funding for a re-design and restoration of the historic garden. As the cultural
artifacts were still being processed at the time the report was submitted, Volume I did not include
an artifact inventory or the additional site interpretations enabled by the artifact analysis. In
archaeological terms, it was a preliminary report with specific short-term goals.
Other collaborators on this first project, overseen by the Catholic Cultural Heritage Center of the
Archdiocese of New Orleans included historians Sally Reeves, who researched the property
history and Gilles-Antoine Langlois, who researched the site’s early colonial history in the
context of French gardening and botany. These investigators submitted independent reports at
the end of 2008.
The Getty Foundation’s grant program was cancelled in 2009 and additional support was not
forthcoming. However, the spectacular archaeological results from the 2008 season encouraged
the principal investigator to apply for other funds to support an additional field season and full
laboratory analysis. Successful grants were submitted to both the National Science Foundation
and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The refined research design aimed to expand
1