Port and market archaeology of the central waterfront, Newburyport, Massachusetts

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

LO
COASTAL.10 -NE
1- TER
'@iw-ORT AND MARK T

7 L"
7,- 7 1`7 1-17

'2A

ARCHAEOLOGY.
OF TH E CENTRAL: WATERFRONT..
NEWBURYPORT 9'MASSACHUSETTS

Prepared for the- National Park Service
---,,cy Archeological Services-Atlanta

74 kner, Kirn -Mark Peters, David P. Sell, and Edwin, S. -Dethlef8en
@N5
67
1978

2. 1 I(ecipient's Accession No.
SHEET
BI 8L 113GRAP I port No.

4. Tilc anj Subtitle eporE Ditce
PORT AND MARKET: ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT March 28,-1978
NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 6.
7. Author(s )Alaric Faulkner, Kim Mark Peters, David P. Sell, and W. Performing Organizaclon Rept.
No.

9. Performin ss lo. Proiect/Task/Work Unit No.
g OrganizaL on Num,:@ and Adare

Franlkin Pierce College 11. Contract/Grant No.
Rindge, New Hampshire 03461
CX 5880-7-0084
12. Sponsciring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period
Interagency Archeological Services-Atlanta Covered Final;
National Park Service Summer, Fall 1977
1895 Phoenix Blvd. 14.
GA 30149
15. Supplementary Notes A cultural resource evaluation in partial response to CIVIL ACTION
No. 3209-G, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts: Friends of the
---Newburyport Waterfront vs. George Romney et al.
16. Abstraccs
Although pre-settlement remains apparently have been disturbed or obliterated
along the Newbur@port Central Waterfront, important historic structures and associ_
ated refuse are preserved intact. Of several former wharfside business complexes,
the brick Merchant's Row, built in stages from 1770 to 1820, was best represented.
Also identified were probable areas of Colonial goldsmithing, wigmaking, and comb and
button manufacture, as well as 19th century foundry work and machining. Domestic
refuse from an 18th century home and a 19th century boardinghouse provided a unique
contrast of waterfront residential life in the Colonial and Industrial periods.

Archaeological and historical information reveal a changing pattern of land use.
Parcels allotted for 17th century port facilities on the Merrimack River were sub-
divided and developed in the 18th century as 'maritime commerce attained importance
[cont'd next page]
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors

17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

Market Square; Central Waterfront; Merchant's Row; land use, changing patterns of.

17c. COSATI Field Group
Availa'-@ility Staremenr 19. Security (Aasq (This 21. No. of Pages
r17c Report
COS

A va @ la

I 'C I , A @ 'S I II I '. D 271
2 ty ( lass (I his 22. Price
PaFe
ITNCLAS'@IFIFD
F
0
o Fi" P. r 15- 0% 1HEv. 10.7j, ENIX)RSED BY A N" II I i THIS FOPM %$.A) fW R1-Piit)Dt;C1-A) L)5COMM-DC A.'6!5-P74

16. [cont'd] which surpassed that of shipbuilding. Profits from privateering and
neutral trade and destruction caused by the fire of 1811, all led to episodes of
new construction. The unspecialized Colonial market area was replaced with a
Federalist business district, functionally segregated by zone and floor. This
district still stands. As maritime industries declined, wharfside properties were
consolidated, and by 1876 were dominated by a railroad and coal pocket. Today,
this property is vacant.

-ult

COASTAL ZONE
WORMATION CENTER

PORT AND MARKET:

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT

NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS

Alaric Faulkner, Kim Mark Peters, David P. Sell, and Edwin S. Dethlefsen

CN_

A report submitted to the National Park Service, Interagency
Archeological Services-Atlanta, of work performed
under contract CX 5880-7-0084.

Property of CSC Library

March 1978

-A.

US T),-@nnrtment of Commerce
-4-
Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413
C:)

The authors would appreciate any comments on
Port and Market. Correspondence should be sent to:

Dr. Alaric Faulkner
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
University of Wisconsin
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901

Printed 1978, Newburyport Press

Cover: Newburyport Central Waterfront from the southwest, ca. 1886.

nozdo'""

ABSTRACT

Although pre-settlement remains apparently have been disturbed or ob-
literated along the Newburyport Central Waterfront, historic structures and
associated refuse are preserved intact. Of several former wharfside business
complexes, the brick Merchant's Row, built in stages from 1770 to 1820, was
best represented. Also identified were probable areas of Colonial goldsmith-
ing, wigmaking, and comb and button manufacture, as well as 19th century
foundry work and machine fabrication. Domestic refuse from an 18th century
home and a 19th century boardinghouse provided a unique contrast of waterfront
residential life in the Colonial and Industrial periods.

Archaeological and historical information reveal a changing pattern of
land use. Parcels allotted for 17th century port facilities on the Merrimack
were subdivided and developed in the 18th century as maritime commerce attained
importance which surpassed that of shipbuilding. Profits from privateering
and neutral trade and destruction caused by the fire of 1811 all led to
episodes of new construction. The unspecialized Colonial market area was re-
placed with a Federalist business district, functionally segregated by zone
and floor. This district still stands. As maritime industries declined,
wharfside properties were consolidated, and by 1876 were dominated by a rail-
road and coal pocket. Today this property is vacant.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was funded under contract no. CX 5880-7-0084 issued by the
Interagency Archeological Services branch of the National Park Service at
Atlanta. Franklin Pierce College deserves credit for administering contract
funds, supplying equipment and facilities for the project, and providing student
help. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh is thanked for granting leave of
absence to the principal investigator for the fall semester of 1977, for pro@_.
moting a summer field school, and providing certain key pieces of equipment.

In gathering background data, we are especially grateful for the special
attention given us by personnel at the Newburyport Public Library and the Essex
Institute. Also, Russell Barber shared with us his current research on the pre-
historic sites of the Merrimack estuary., and Steven Pendery the results of his
excavations at the historic Strawberry Banke area of Portsmouth, N.H. Many
citizens--unfortunately too many to name--showed us photographs, artifacts, and
early newspapers, expressing their interest in Newburyport's history.

In the field, we were grateful for the cooperation of the Newburyport Re-
development Authority, who have made their facilities available to us. Also
the contractors and construction crews, for whom we provided many hours of enter-
tainment, altered their plans so that there was minimal interference with our
excavation. George Rossi & Co. arranged for us to procure certain pieces of
heavy equipment, while the Fire Department generously loaned us hose for our
drainage pumps. The field crew members, who worked for college credit or
modest renumeration, deserve special thanks for adhering strictly to excavation
procedures, for keeping to the excavation schedule, and for producing excellent
field maps and records.

Because much of this report had to be completed in the field, we are
especially indebted to Woodman Associates, who provided professional drafting
facilities and valuable technical assistance. We are also grateful to The
Newburyport Press for the rapid turnover afforded us in reproducing our artwork.
Finally, we thank Christine Pienciak Peters for preparing most of the line
drawings and typing initial drafts of this report, and Bonnie L. Williams for
typing this final draft.

i
I

vii

e PREFACE

In many respects, our research along the waterfront behind Market Square
was unusual, if not unique. The archaeological study came about after nearly
ten years of legal controversies concerning the urban redevelopment of New-
buryport's Market Square district. While the architectural integrity of the
Federalist business district was recognized, there had been no formal attempt
to study the archaeology of the waterfront area behind Market Square, an area
which had been the economic focus of this once thriving New England seaport.
The fact that the archaeological record was threatened by redevelopment was a
matter of genuine concern to the Friends of the Newburyport Waterfront. Yet,
the existence of potentially significant archaeological finds was disputed by
the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority. In the face of recent legislation
governing the assessment of archaeological sites,which are threatened by fed-
erally funded projects, both parties ultimately agreed that an archaeological
study of the waterfront was necessary. The responsibility for conducting the
archaeological work was taken on by the Interagency Archeological Services
branch of the National Park Service at Atlanta.

This study was performed for the Interagency Archeological Services as a
technical assessment of the waterfront's cultural resources. The report was
written primarily to satisfy certain specific legal requirements stemming from
litigation between the Friends and the Redevelopment Authority. In particular,
the significance of any archaeological remains was to be evaluated according
to criteria established for nominating sites to the National Register of HiS7
toric Places. The extent of preservation of archaeological remains and their
historical significance are documented in parts I and II respectively, and
have been summarized in a report submitted separately. In order to free the
narrative from some of the technical detail of this assessment, some of our
supporting data is relegated to appendices, where we hope it will prove useful
to future researchers and other interested parties.

The task of evaluating the archaeological potential of the Central Water-
front was complicated by progress already made in initial stages of redevelop-
ment. Except for the Federalist architecture fronting on Market Square, all of
the buildings along the waterfront (recent and Federalist alike) had been razed
by 1971. Although covered with massive piles of rubble and granite blocks, the
project area was otherwise featureless. We found ourselves attempting to re-
construct and evaluate buildings which had been standing only a few years earlier.

In spite of the belated decision to excavate at Newburyport, the project
offered exceptional opportunities for research. A wealth of historical back-
ground material was available, including some major works relevant to the his-
tory of Newburyport's commercial development. Historic records of property
transfers and probates of estates were intact and accessible. Nearly complete
sets of city directories were available, as were insurance maps of the project
area. A large number of 19th century photographs of the study area were also
at hand.

The very location of the project lent itself to making good use of this
commercial data. The study area was, after all, the central business district
of the early port, through which traveled most of the goods which made up the
early merchant and later industrial economies. The history of the development

viii

of this waterfront must therefore reflect the economic well-being of the town.
Finally, the waterfront promised to be archaeologically productive. It had ,
expanded vertically, as buildings were demolished and new structures erected on
top of them, and horizontally, as wharves were extended to meet the requirements
of expanded shipping and larger ships. Each episode of landfilling tended to
preserve the subsurface record of the port's development.

The investigators brought to the field a broad background of research in-
terests useful in interpreting the project area. Included were an archaeologist,
an historic geographer, an historian/sociologist, and a demographer. All have
been in continuous day-to-day contact, and have worn each other's hats in con-
stant collaboration. The result had been a continuous feedback of information,
from the initial research phase when historical records guided the selection of
excavation sites, to the final stages of synthesis of archaeological and histori-
cal information.

Our probes into the Central Waterfront were met with only a few disappoint-
ments. On *e hope was that we might encounter archaeological remains which ante-
dated the Colonial Period. We did indeed find prehistoric, aboriginal materials
here, but these were found in areas which had been disturbed by Federalist con-
struction, and were therefore of limited interpretive value. Also we uncovered
no evidence for occupation during the period of European contact, such as the
supposed trader's cache known in local histories and property descriptions as
"Watts His Cellar." The chance for finding such materials in undisturbed con-
texts is remote because of subsequent disturbances-during the development of the
early waterfront. Although the aboriginal encampments and Watts's Cellar are
both discussed in the text, the majority of the study deals with the Colonial,
Federalist, and 19th Century Industrial histories of the Central Waterfront. It
is for these periods that significant, useful data exist.

A major requirement of the archaeological contract was preparation of a
series of overlay maps showing how the study area has changed. The owners of
the buildings were to be identified, as were-their occupations and the changing
function of individual residences and businesses. We have taken the changing
pattern of commercial and residential land use as the major focus of our analy-
sis, and have concentrated on those changes which occurred from the middle of the
17th century through the end of the 19th century. It was in this time span that
the waterfront and Market Square took its basic form, preserved, in part, today.

In one sense, our work is consistent with the comparatively recent trend
toward explaining major events in America through developments in local, rather
than regional, history. Two examples of this approach stand out, for they are
based specifically on Newburyport.

Benjamin Labaree (1975) has dealt with changes in American political atti-
tudes from.the end of the Colonial Period through the War of 1812, studying the
changing social and political structure of Newburyport. His work Patriots and
Partisans considers the attitudes of Newburyport's seafaring merchant class.
These men were affected directly by the regulation of trade in colonial markets,
the economic hardships of the revolution, the high profits of neutral trade
during the Napoleonic Wars, and the crushing blow of Jefferson's Embargo.
Labaree describes the responses of the merchant class to these events and shows
how they reflect the changing-makeup of the class itself.

Similar in approach to Labaree's work is that of Stephan Thernstrom (1964).
PoVety and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City tests the
concept of the American self-made man by examining local history.- Like Labaree,
he deals with a specific social class, in this case the unskilled manual laborers
of Newburyport.

In another sense, the approach of this study is unique among the literature
on Newburyport. While previous histories have focused their attention on per-
sonages, historical events, economic histories, and social classes, our thesis
concerns a single piece of real estate at the city's center, and examines how
that land was divided up and occupied. We are, in purport, striving to define@
the origins and spirit of the present landscape.

CONTENTS

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part I -- Excavation

2. Archaeological Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Changing Panoramas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4. Old Families and Immigrants at the Watkins Site . . . . . . . . 61

Part II -- Historical Review

5. Pre-Colonial Visitors and Settlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

6. Farming, Commerce, and Shipbuilding, 1635-1700 . . . . . . . . 95

7. Colonial Prosperity and the Spoils of War, 1700-1790 . . . . . 103

8. Evolution of the Federalist Business District, 1790-1815 117

9. Images and Industry,'1815-1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

10. Epilog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Appendices

A. Profile Descriptions and Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . 161

B. Property Title Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

C. City Directories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

D. Historic Earthquakes of Newburyport, Massachusetts . . . . . . 247

E. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

References

Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Public Records Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

Books and Articles Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

TTX

PORT AND MARKET: ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CENTRAL WATERFRONT
NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS

1. INTRODUCTION

Newburyport, a small city of about 16,000 inhabitants, lies at the mouth of
the Merrimack River, 40 miles north of Boston (Fig. 1.1). Here, in 1655, a port
was established for the settlement of "Newberry," centered some three and a half
miles to the south (Currier 1896:10). As commerce and shipbuilding grew, a sub-
stantial new settlement emerged on this site. Inevitably the maritime interests
of these inhabitants diverged from those of their farming neighbors, and in 1764
the "New Town" became incorporated under the name "Newburyport" (Cushing 1826:1).
By 1800, Newburyport had become one of the leading commercial ports in New Eng-
land.

In 1811, a devastating fire broke out which destroyed most of the central
business district. During the period of reconstruction which followed, a
building code was enacted which prohibited the construction of any wooden build-
ing over ten feet high (Currier 1906:154). Although this legislation was repealed
in 1832, most of the brick buildings which survive today date from the period
when this code was still in force.

Newburyport's maritime economy went into a decline during the Jeffersonian
Embargo and the War of 1812, and although the city experienced a brief period of
industrialization in the 1840's and a subsequent resurgence of its shipbuilding
industry, it never regained its former economic prominence (Thernstrom 1964:10-
11). The economic forces of the Industr*ial Revolution which reshaped so many
other American cities, had a lesser effect on Newburyport. The architecture and
flavor of its Federalist Period have remained essentially intact.

Today the city is in the process of being refurbished, adapting these early
buildings to suit the modern needs of the community, while preserving the Feder-
alist atmosphere of the downtown area. Most of the buildings fronting on Market
Square, at the center of the business district, have been salvaged. Yet, the
wharfside structures immediately to the north of Market Square have not been
saved. This area, once the heart of the Federalist port, was substantially
altered by late 19th century railroad and coal pocket construction, and only a
few early Federalist buildings survived into the 20th century. Unfortunately,
,these buildings together with more modern structures, were razed in the course
of current redevelopment. Our purpose here is to assess and interpret the
archaeological remains of this area--the Central Waterfront.

Physical Setting

The Newburyport harbor is set in a nearly landlocked estuary (Fig. 1.2).
Longshore currents have built up huge sand bars--Plum Island and Salisbury
Beach--which protect the harbor. The channel through the bar is narrow and
quite shallow, with several navigation hazards.

The hydrology and topography of the area derive from Late Pleistocene
glaciation. Kames and kettles dot the unddlating terrain, indicating clearly
that the majority of the native surface features are glacial outwash. The coast

MAINE

NEWRURYPORT

mou
th
Massachusetts

N
0
IL

NEW HAMPSHIRE
A'MESBURY*
SALISBURY

000, W.NEWBURY
If HAVERHILL NeW uryport
NEWBURY,

Lawrence

J
IPSWICHO
E0 S S E X
ANDOVER
Lowell 0
ESSEX eGLOUCES TER

DANVERS

BE
PEABODY al
0
0
OLARiLEHEAD

OLYNN

Massachusetts
EVER"
Bay
-/@:BO'T*N

S U FT 0 L

0 6
L---------------j
Miles
N 0 R F 0 L K

kmp
WaURY
E@@

Fig. 1.1. Massachusetts' North Shore.

CITY
OF
N
EWBURYPORT
MASSACHUSETTS

Y
S A L I S B U R Y

>
W-0
Fln

CENTRAL
E
_-;j @P
WATERFRONT
A C
I / Ild-11

La
"x
%, q-N
Vp@

N E W B U R Y

Fig. 1.2. Newburyport and the Merrimack estuary. Base map courtesy of the Newbi
Redevelopment Authority.

and the Merrimack River show the effects of drowning as a result of a relative
rise in sea level after the melting of the continental ice sheet. According to
Hartwell (1970), the stratigraphy of the marshes in the Merrimack estuary shows
a gradual marine transgression beginning about 6300 years ago. At Boston, the
bay and rivers have been submerged 5 meters since about 4500 years ago, as in-
dicated by a prehistoric fishweir discovered below Boylston Street (Johnson
1942). In nearby coastal Maine, similar submergence is noted for the last 4200
years, affecting the location of clam and other shellfish beds (Snow 1972:212).

For all periods of its settlement, the configuration of Newburyport's drowned
coastline has been significant. The expansion of the river into the estuary
and thence into the Atlantic, has created ecotones--junctions of major ecosys-
tems--offering a wide variety of plant and animal resources. Undoubtedly these
resources had considerable appeal to the area's aboriginal inhabitants. The
estuary itself provided abundant wildlife. Alewives and salmon could be netted,
or entrapped and speared in the channel. Migratory and non-migratory waterfowl
could be taken by net or projectile in the marshlands. Extensive clam, quahog,
and oyster beds could be harvested in the tidelands. At the same time, the
river gave access to other interior resources. Riverine hunting along the for-
est margins must have included large herbivores such as white-tailed deer and
moose, or carnivores such as wolf and bear. Numerous small game species were
available too, including beaver, fisher, marten, muskrat, red fox, and many
others. Sturgeon and other freshwater fish were surely exploited. Then, too,
were marine resources such as shad, swordfish, sea urchin, and perhaps harbor
seal, all available to those with appropriate hunting and fishing know-how.
Finally, the plant life throughout these areas showed comparable variety and
abundance. This vegetation was probably-of equal importance in making the area
an attractive place to visit or settle.

Although the requirements of white settlement were somewhat different from
those of the aboriginal inhabitants, they also took advantage of various
ecotones. The river provided access to the developing hinterland and its pro-
ducts, including produce for export and timber for the town's early shipbuilding
industry. Protected from the Atlantic surf by Plum Island and Salisbury Beach,
the estuary made a snug harbor, and supported commercial shellfishing. Offshore
fisheries could easily be reached in small boats in the course of a day's sailing.

However suitable the mouth of the Merrimack may have been in Colonial times,
its potential for growth as a harbor was limited. Sand bars at the mouth of
the Merrimack were difficult to negotiate, even with the assistance of Captain
Furlong's American Coast Pilot:

I would recommend to all masters, whether they belong to New-
buryport or not, to avoid going into that port in a gale of easterly
wind, except they are well acquainted, and have a good prospect of
getting in, as every person acquainted with the harbour knows that
no pilot can get over the bar when it blows a gale from the eastward
(Furlong 1812:144).

Finally, like other coastal towns, Newburyport's location was a hindrance
to her industrialization. Below the fall line, she lacked the waterpower ne-
cessary for early manufacturing. It was not until the perfection of steam-
powered industry in the 1840's that this problem was overcome.

The Project Area

The Central Waterfront grew up around land granted to Captain Paul White in
1655, some 20 years after the settlement of Newbury. His was a comparatively
small parcel, less than half an acre, located on a point of rocks jutting into
the Merrimack River (Currier 1896:151). Captain White, a merchant from Pemaquid,
Maine, built here the nucleus of Newbury's early port facilities: a wharf, a
warehouse, a distillery, and a dock (Currier 1877:16). Other merchants soon
moved into the area, adding their houses, wharves, and warehouses to the
scattering of farms already established near the waterfront. Through the re-
mainder of the 17th century and into the 18th century the port grew in size and
importance, first prominent in shipbuilding and later in commerce. The Central
Waterfront remained the focus of the settlement which in 1764 became Newburyport.

In the 1790's, Newburyport's Colonial merchants, many of whom lived
near the waterfront, were replaced by a new group of businessmen. At the inter-
section of Water and State streets, immediatelysouth of Captain White's grant,
they built a strictly commercial business district. With a greater sense of
tradition than geometry, Newburyporters called the district "Market Square," for
the configuration of 'the intersection was clearly triangular. By 1811, many
shops were organized into multiple units or "row houses," most of which were
constructed of brick. In May of that year, "The Great Fire" leveled this
business district, sparing only a few structures at the westernmost end. New-
buryport's selectmen enacted the building code mentioned previously, and Market
Square was rebuilt entirely in brick and stone (Fig. 1.3).

Most of the buildings around Market Square are long three-story row houses
having stores on the bottom floor. Division into individual units is apparent
only at the roofline, where fire partitions emerge as stepped gables. Along the
Central Waterfront, however, construction was limited to shorter row buildings
and individual structures, interrupted by numerous public and private "ways"
which once provided access to wharves, warehouses,-and other wharfside stores.
Although harmonious with the architecture of Market Square, the surviving
buildings of the project area are distinctive, and differ as much from each
other as from the surrounding row houses.

The Central Waterfront is bounded by two important public buildings. On
the west end stands the Market House, which today serves as a fire station.
Construction of the first floor of the Market House began in 1822, and the upper
story was added the following year (Currier 1906:187). This is a tall, two-
story structure with a hip roof extending over its nine-bay length. The main
facade is ornamented with a three-bay pavillion having a large fan window at its
center. The first floor of the Market House served as a market until 1864 when
the butchers' stalls were removed and the area was taken over by the Fire De-
partment (Currier 1906:190).

At the eastern boundary of the Central Waterfront is the Custom House,
designed by the first American-trained architect, Robert Mills, and built in
1835. The tall, monolithic structure is also only two stories high, and con-
trasts with all other buildings in Market Square in its form and its granite
construction. The imposing monument retains the rectangular lines of a Greek
temple in the uncluttered form of neoclassic architecture. A small portico
shelters the entrance, while a widow's walk stands on the ridge. The Custom
House remained in operation into the first decade of the 20th century, but was

CO CD
rt c

cn
CD
LL

-77

r-A

taken over for manufacturing and storage thereafter. The recently restored
Custom House today houses the Maritime Museum of the Newburyport Maritime Society.

Between these two buildings stand four privately owned brick structures.
Adjacent to the Market House is the compact, three-story North Row, the longest
row building standing along the Central Waterfront. The eastern three-
fifths of North Row was built prior to the 1811 fire, and is one of the earliest
remaining structures in Market Square. Unlike the later row houses, North Row
has a hip roof, and lacks the characteristic stepped gables of the buildings on
the other side of Market Square. The southwestern corner of the building is
truncated, a common Federalist technique used to finish brick walls which inter-
sect at an acute angle. In this case, it also provided an entrance to the only
basement store known in the project area. This entrance was obliterated when
the west end of the building was converted into a gas station (by "Bossy" Gillis,
Newburyport's notorious rough-neck mayor). Beyond restoration, this western bay
was torn down in the 1960's and rebuilt in 1976 in simulation of the original.

The Davenport Building next door is unusual as it is the only structure
having its gable end facing Market Square, and so is oriented parallel to the
wharves. This saddle-roofed, three-story structure is divided on the first floor
into two separate businesses running the length of the building. A central door
and stairwell provides access to the upper stories--a pattern which has its
antecedent in pre-fire structures.

The Ferry Wharf Building is actually a recent amalgamation of two structures.
The principle component is a three-story hip-roofed building which fronts on
Water Street. United with this is a single bay of a three-story saddle-roofed
complex, Merchant's Row. Although at one time Merchant's Row was eight stores
long, all but this last bay has been razed.

There is today a large open area between the Ferry Wharf Building and the
Gunnison Building. Until recently this was occupied by a modern trucking
terminal, and previously by a series&of coal pockets, coal sheds, scales, and
coal yard offices. Apparently no large Federalist structures were ever built
on this parcel.

The last of the existing structures is the mansard-roofed Gunnison Building;.
This is considerably newer than its neighbors, and may have been built as re-
cently as 1847. It was apparently originally designed to replace two previous
structures, a blacksmith-machine shop and a grain dealership owned by William
Gunnison. Although the upper floors of the building have been gutted by fire
at least twice, destroying the slate-covered roof, the building apparently has
retained its original external appearance.

The area behind these buildings formerly comprised the central port facili-
ties. Until the 1870's, the waterfront was lined with a series of stone and
'wooden wharves which jutted into the Merrimack, and were crowded with stores
and warehouses. Many of these buildings were removed nearly a century ago when
the slips between the wharves were backfilled to make way for a railroad and a
coal pocket. Yet several Federalist stores, some built on Colonial foundations,
survived into the 1960's. Here they stood side by side with mid-20th century
structures: printing plants, welding shops, storage sheds, and a large trucking
terminal. In the current redevelopment project, dilapidated Federalist stores
and modern cement block buildings alike were razed, and today a parking lot

replaces them. This open area, together with the ways leading to it from Market
Square, was the focus of archaeological testing.

Scope of Research

The primary research goal--assessing the archaeological value of subsurface
remains at the Central Waterfront--naturally included any prehistoric or proto-
historic occupations existing before the development of the port. In view of
the considerable ecological advantages afforded by its setting, the Central Water-
front was likely to have hosted a number of camps for aboriginal hunters and
gatherers. This general vicinity was also supposed to be the site of a 17th
century trader-fisherman's cache known locally as "Watts's Cellar." Our tests
were designed to search for these components, and to determine the likelihood of
finding these early materials in context, undisturbed by subsequent construction.

Also to be assessed were the historic components of the waterfront, including
those which dated before the construction of the existing buildings. For these
periods, the archaeological record was supplemented by a number of primary and
secondary historical sources. The town records of Newbury and Newburyport, were
of great value, as were numerous town histories written from 1826 to 1909.
Of key importance were records of the probate court and registry of deeds.for
Essex county, which contained state inventories and property transfers going
back to the early days of settlement. Since 1761, Newburyport has been mapped
periodically in varying degrees of detail, often showing structures which we
were able to identify in our excavations. Particularly useful were insurance
and assessors maps made early in the 20th century. Early photographs of the
project area, some dating to the Civil War, were found in collections of the
Newburyport Public Library, Essex Institute, and numerous private citizens.
An almost continuous succession of local newspapeKs, dating, from 1773, was
available on microfilm at the Newburyport Public Library. Here, also, was a
nearly complete set of city directories, giving names, addresses, and occupations
of Newburyporters from 1849 to 1935.

With these extensive records, it was possible to construct a series of maps
showing the growth of the waterfront since first permanent white ' settlement.
Stage by stage, we have attempted to identify contemporaneous structures, their
function, and their owners or occupants. Our approach to this problem was
holistic; archaeological, demographical, geographical, and other historical data
have all contributed to our analysis of the development of the Central Waterfront
and its component parts.

For convenience and simplicity, the following material is divided into two
sections of narrative. Part I is a discussion of the physical remains--buildings,
features, artifacts, and buried land forms--which came to light in excavations
conducted in the spring and summer of 1977. Here the structures and features
which we uncovered are located on a sequence of maps showing general changes in
the landscape as the port developed. The presumed extent of these structures,
their accessibility, their general state of preservation, and their immediate
significance are discussed in this section. Also described are those assem-
blages of artifacts which were found in primary, undisturbed contexts. In most
cases, these clusters of artifacts can be directly associated with a building
and a particular occupation or activity, and therefore are used to characterize
certain aspects of life along the waterfront at various periods in its growth.

While Part I concentrates on particular discoveries at individual exca-
vations, Part II is a synthesis, setting off these finds against the detailed
historical background of the entire project area. Theseries of maps introduced
in Part I are discussed one by one, outlining changes in the makeup of the
waterfront, its buildings, its wharves, and its occupants. To this framework
are added many key episodes of social and economic change not immediately ap-
parent from the physical layout of the waterfront, but which are readily dis-
cerned from newspaper accounts, census data, and local histories. Finally,
this chronology of Newburyport's waterfront development is compared to the
history of the port area.at a neighboring community.

PART I

EXCAVATION

iEV-

UU,

-@V

qZq!q@

2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK.

Site Locations

The project contract, following legal stipulations derived from a lawsuit
over the development of the waterfront, called for archaeological testing in 11
specific locations. Five test excavations were to be placed behind each of the
surviving buildings and the site of the former trucking terminal. The remain-
ing six pits were to be dug in the ways between structures from the Market
House to the Custom House. These plans were slightly modified and excavations
expanded as historical research revealed the sites of former buildings, and
areas of known disturbance (Fig. 2.1). In five cases, it proved impractical
to sample the ways between the existing buildings because of the myriad of
electrical, water, and gas utilities serving the present structures (Faulkner
1977). Instead, the ways were sampled closer to the waterfront. In most cases,
the samples of the ways were fused with the excavations behind the buildings.
This not only served the practical expedient of condensing the number of
separate excavations in operation at any one time, but also provided a logical
link between the ways and the wharves and buildings which they served.

Once the primary areas were tested or accounted for, excavations were
expanded and new pits were added to provide a more complete sampling of the
project area. Ultimately four major stratigraphic test trenches (Tl-T4) were
prepared by machine, and six areal excavations (Al-A6) were dug by hand.
Associated with the areal excavations were a number of preliminary backhoe
trenches dug to locate specific foundations; these are shown in Fig. 2.1 merely
.1 to document all areas of archaeological disturbance.

4@ Test Trenches

. Backhoe trenches at Tl-T4 were dug in order to gain a rapid assessment of
wharf construction, to test in areas thought to be slips, and to examine places
which might yield evidence of earlier prehistoric or proto-historic occupations.
They had in common the fact that they were in areas of loose, unstable sand fill
which would have been dangerous and unproductive to excavate by hand. Because
they were placed over or adjacent to previous slips, it was not possible to
continue these excavations to bedrock. Tidal water, which rapidly invaded
these holes, was pumped out where practicable, and the sediments were profiled
as far below the low-tide mark as possible. The principal data retrieved were
stratigraphic records, reported in detail in Appendix A, p. 209.

The few artifacts recorded for these trenches were taken directly from
the profile in stratigraphic context. Because such finds were too few to con-
stitute meaningful assemblages, they were analyzed purely for their chrono-
logical value. Pieces of bottles, pipestems, hand forged nails, and similar
bits of diagnostic refuse and debris were used to assign broad limiting dates
to the associated strata.

Trench I -- City Wharf A

Trench 1 consisted of an overlapping three-pit sequence excavated in an
attempt to locate the 19th century granite perimeter of the westernmost wharf
in the study area, City Wharf. Subsequent interpretation of the stratigraphic

M E R R A C K R I V E R

Vk. 1AI.
bUlkhead':i.:',-

a
of stud'j._ a'!!_
T4

T3=

Al
2

T1
Gunnis n
Building

T2
A5 13 A3 Custom House

Ferry Wharf
Building
Dawnport
Building

OA6

Central Waterfront

Market House
(Fire Station) %%0IIVI 1977 Archaeological Excavations
MARKET NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS
SQUARE
Merri,,,,C Street 25 0 25 FEET 50 100
METERS
5 0 10 20 30 40

map no. i of 7
@F-
ry
Id,r
@
s 'Lle

@entral at
aeolo@@
1977"A h al'

Fig. 2. 1. Central Waterfront excavation sites.

Fig. 2.1. Archaeological Excavations -- Key

Test trenches Areal excavations

T1 City Wharf A Al Merchant's Row
T2 City Wharf B A2 Gunnison Annex
T3 Custom House Slip A3 Granger
T4 Gunnison's Wharf A4 Watkins
A5 Furniture Warehouse
A6 Dole

Note: In the series of five historical maps which follow,- these excavations
appear in light shading.

profiles revealed that this trench was actually located within the slip behind
the Market House, an area which was filled for construction of a railroad in
the 1870's. Consequently this trench recorded only the filling of Market Slip,
and episodes of construction and demolition which occurred after 1872.when
this land surface was first created.

Trench 2 -- City Wharf B

Trench 2 was dug to find the remains of a warehouse owned in 1775 by mer-
chant Benjamin Greenleaf, location of which was given in an early survey
(Currier 1906:131). Once identified, this structure was to be excavated by
hand. When it became apparent that evidence for the Greenleaf warehouse had
been destroyed by subsequent construction, trenching was continued to search
for early precursors to City Wharf. A small section of late 18th century
pilings were identified, as were the footings for an early 19th century frame
warehouse. However, these features.had been badly disturbed in railroad con-
struction, and so no further excavation was undertaken at this site.

Trench 3 -- Custom House Slip

Trench 3 was excavated to sample the way past the Custom House. Inspec-
tion of the profile, however, revealed that this section cut through the head
of the Custom House slip. The profile revealed the record bf slip filling in
the 1870's and subsequent accumulations of coal, ash, and btilding demolition
debris. This was followed by slag accumulations from an adjacent foundry. In
order to get a clearer picture of the slip, the way along the adjacent wharf,
and the foundry building, a new trench was excavated further out along the way
at T4.

Trench 4 -- Gunnisonts Wharf

Trench 4 succeeded in identifying the remains of a wharf thought to have
been constructed in the early 19th century. The superstructure of the wharf
was apparently razed to the waterline when the adjacent slip was filled. Slag,
broken castings, and the footings of a late 19th century foundry building were
found on the site of the former wharf. No other remains of the foundry were
recovered, as the site was levelled in the second quarter of the 20th century
to build a one-story cement block shed for storage of construction equipment.

The areas selected for backhoe trenching produced few sub-surface
structures which would be worthy of further exposure, or which would be likely
to yield meaningful historic or prehistoric artifact assemblages. In retro-
spect, the reasons for this dearth of well-preserved information are clear.
The wharfside buildings in these areas were predominantly frame structures
with no basements, for they were built on reclaimed land, close to the high
water mark. These areas were all thoroughly reworked, directly or indirectly,
by the construction of the City Railroad in 1872. When such buildings were
razed, at best only fragmentary remnants of their footings were preserved.

Although the quality of preservation in these locations was disappointing,
each trench yielded primary information useful in keying early maps of the
waterfront to identifiable features. They also presented sequences of develop-

ment, demolition, cutting and filling, drainage, and other alterations of the
waterfront relevant to the history of land use here during historic periods.
These detailed chronologies are presented separately in Appendix A, and con-
tribute to the discussion of changes in the landscape of the Central Water-
front in Chapter 3.

Excavation Procedure

Naturally the most productive sites, those showing significant structural
details or undisturbed deposits, were excavated by hand. Generally these sites
were located in areas which were former high points on the landscape before
wharf expansion and landfilling. Excavations were initially laid out in 3 m
by 3 m pits or 2 m by 5 m trenches as called for in contract stipulations,
although in most cases they were subsequently expanded. Heavy equipment was
used only in the preliminary stages of work to locate foundations, and to re-
move recent paving and overburden. otherwise the deposits were dug with
trowels or short handled hoes. Backdirt was carefully examined as it was
trowelled, for the high fraction of coarse particles in most sediments made
sifting impractical.

Having a thorough record of property transfers and descriptions, supple-
mented by numerous 19th century maps, we were able to locate specific sub-
surface structures with considerable confidence. Generally it was possible to
identify most major structures in the early stages of excavation, and all arti-
facts were segregated accordingly. Within these broad spatial divisions,
associations with other recognizable features such as window openings, founda-
tion and utility trenches, and burned areas, were noted. Horizontal position
was also recorded on a one meter grid to provide redundancy in artifact lo-
cation.

Vertical control of excavated units was established by using both arbi-
trary and stratigraphic levels. All data were segregated at 20 cm intervals,
and individual artifacts were associated with recognizable stratigraphic breaks
where possible. Because the deposits often contained large samples of materials
which fit together and could be dated-, it was usually a simple matter to
correlate arbitrary levels with the stratigraphic profiles and sort out the
sequence of events which were implied.

In general, then, field recording procedures were geared to allow rapid
excavation with small hand tools, using recording precision and resolution
appropriate for such a large, urban site. For certain unusual or diagnostic
finds such as coins or projectile points, however, special care was taken to
record elevations and horizontal coordinates to the nearest centimeter. The
materials were then photographed in situ to establish positively the strati-
graphic position and physical association of these artifacts.

Stratigraphic Records

These few probes made into the sub-surface history of the Central Water-
front, are but tiny windows looking into the complex succession of scenes of
of its past. A primary objective was to identify these events and place them
in order. Careful recording of stratigraphic succession then was of great
importance.

In Newburyport's brief history, natural agencies have had comparatively
little effect on the landscape, and the sediments encountered in excavating
the Central Waterfront were almost all deposited by man. Since first settle-
ment, the value of this waterfront property has been recognized, and the land
has been used intensely. By 1810 buildings were constructed here cheek by
jowl on the ruins of their predecessors. The resulting accumulations are so
rich in cultural debris that even the absence of artifacts in a particular
stratum is significant, representing not the abandonment of a site, but the
preparation of a new building or working surface.

The sequence of deposition here, as a result of the intensity of land
use, is complex. The stratigraphic record is not generally a regular accumu-
lation of trash from period after period, with sediments superimposed one on
top of another like the layers of a cake. Profiles from the Central Water-
front, like those taken from many other urban sites, show repeated episodes of
disturbance: intrusions, backdirt accumulations, and stratigraphic inversions.
In a few locations, as much as 80% of the sediments proved to have been re-
worked or redeposited. The problem in interpretating stratigraphy was not
just separating primary deposits from redeposited fill, but often required
demonstrating how these sediments were reworked and when.

The difficulty of this task is lessened somewhat by the abundance of clues
appearing in these strata. These clues were recorded for each test trench and
areal excavation wall using conventions adapted from soil morphology. Color
and texture were important criteria for identifying the parent materials in
which artifacts were imbedded. Degree of mottling suggested the effects of
disturbance or alternate wetting and drying of the profile. Sediment contents,
such as coal, slag, shell, cobbles, and others help to earmark individual
deposits and suggest their origin. Such profile details, together with other
relevant documentation, appear in Appendix A. These data form the basis
interpreting the development of the land surface in Chapter 3.

Artifacts, Assemblages and Local Chronology

For the purpose of cataloging field data, "artifacts" were considered to
be specimens, whether whole or fragmentary, which presented useful information
regarding their age, mode of manufacture, function, or place of origin.
Specifically excluded from individual cataloging were cut nails, window glass,
and other mass produced construction materials which were pobled together by
level and provenience-. Also excluded were common bricks, coal, shell, ash,
etc. which were described in profile analysis.

Although some prehistoric remains were discovered here, by far the majority
of artifacts discovered at the Central Waterfront were from historic periods.
Of this historic refuse, ceramics and bottle glass dominated the artifact
inventory. In laboratory analysis, emphasis was placed on reconstructing glass
and ceramic specimens and noting the distribution of the component parts. In
several instances, levels were identified which contained numerous matching
pieces from which artifacts could be reassembled. In these cases, particularly
when the fragments were large, it was presumed that the artifacts belonged to
primary deposits or deposits which had undergone minimal disturbance. When the
fragments showed marked vertical displacement, it was assumed that they reflect-
ed an episode of rapid filling. On the other hand, heterogenous, fragmentary
artifacts, widely displaced in date of manufacture, were taken to represent

secondary deposits. Using these principles, it was possible to isolate meaning-
ful assemblages of interrelated artifacts from aggregates of specimens whose
origin and association were uncertain. The contents of 18tb century privy,
refuse from a 19th century boarding house, and the tools and supplies of an
early 20th century sailmaker are among the assemblages discussed in detail in
the following two chapters.

Artifacts from redeposited fill, except for prehistoric items, were too
many to be covered adequately and profitably in this account. Historic items
from secondary deposits were generally used in early stages of analysis to
supplement other data sources. They proved to be particularly useful in
distinguishing residential, commercial, and industrial properties, and in
giving broad, limiting dates for construction of foundations, installation of
drains, and episodes of paving and landfilling.

There remain in the Newburyport collections, now housed in the Custom
House Maritime Museum, large samples of clay pipestems, bottle glass, ceramics,
bone refuse, and building materials. Naturally all of these materials could be
analyzed further, and could contribute information on various subjects of his-
torical interest. Here, however, we have confined our analysis to questions
directly concerned with the structures and occupants of the CentralWaterfront.

Most diagnostic artifacts retrieved were coins, bottles, glassware,'pipe-
stems, and other items whose origins are well understood and for which numerous
reference works have been published. Generally, manufactured items from the
Colonial Period were imported from Great Britain and can easily be traced and
dated. Later, locally produced items may often be ordered by the rapid tech-
nological changes in manufacturing. In these excavations, however, there were
also a few unusual dating considerations which reflect local history and de-
serve special note.

Fortunately, some of the history of Newburyport's local potters has sur-
vived. A noted ceramics expert, Lura Woodside Watkins, excavated a pottery
waster site on High Street in 1934. Although this was a salvage project
brought about by highway construction, Watkins (1950:46) was able to recover
a representative sample of ceramics produced there by Daniel Bayley and his
sons between 1763 and 1799. Eventually, with information from another
site, she was able to record the works of three generations of the Bayley
potters, spanning the period 1723 to 1799.

Many of the ceramics produced by the Bayleys are unidentifiable. The red
earthenware milk pans, lard pots, jugs, and other undecorated work-a-day ob-
jects are indistinguishable from the products of dozens of other American
potters. Nevertheless, the slip decoration on certain chamber pots, the color
of glazes, and the forms of mugs and bowls seem to reflect some individuality
of the makers. While the Bayley products are not so distinctive that their
works can be positively identified, numerous examples have been found of
specimens which strongly resemble those specimens collected by Lura Watkins
(Fig. 2.2). The-Bayleys frequently used a nearly black, mahogany glaze as
well as a brown dipped or streaked glaze, similar to those represented here.
Bayley-like ceramics were commonly found in the trash of the Hale-Watkins
household unearthed in Area 4, which is presented in Chapter 4.

Another important local industry was the manufacture of nails. The first
manufacture of cut nails is placed by most authorities at the close of the 18th
century (e.g. Noel Hume 1970:253), suggesting an approximate limit to the anti-
quity of any structure incorporating them. In Newburyport the introduction of
machine cut and headed nails is well understood, for it was here in 1795 that
Joseph Perkins was granted a patent for the first machine in America to cut
and head nails in a single operation (Currier 1902:298). An account of
Perkins' first "Nail Manufactory" appeared that year in a local newpaper:

The Cutting-Engine (ten of which may be attended by one boy)
will turn out 16,000 brads in.an hour completely headed.
The Slitting Machine will cut Iron sufficient for 1,100,000
Brads in twelve hours--And the Machine for heading nails, by the
attention of one boy only, will head 6000 in an hour.
The nails have been used and approved of by Carpenters, who
find them equal to wrought Nails.
Mr. Perkins has procured a Patent for the exclusive right of
this valuable Improvement (Impartial Herald: May 26, 1795).

Mr. Perkins established a thriving business at the site of a former woolen
mill innearby Amesbury, -Massachusetts in 1796.

The conversion to machine cut nails was not made overnight, for in the
probate of the estate of Joseph Plummer, merchant, there is the following
listing:

... 243 1/2 wt Cut Nails $25.97
14 1/2 m Wrt Nails $23.22 ... (ECPC 50432).

Note that the wrought nails were counted individually and listed by the
thousand ("m!'), whereas the mass-produced cut nails were listed by the pound
("wt"). Undoubtedly far fewer wrought nails were sold than cut nails, but
they were still used for mounting hardware. Notwithstanding the carpenters'
approval of the new nails mentioned above, they were generally too brittle to
be successfully clinched. Wrought nails were probably not completely aban-
doned in construction until it became fashionable to fasten doorhardware and
similar fittings with screws. This may not have occurred until the 1820's or
even later. The presence or absence of cut nails was noted in dating the
period of construction of all structures revealed in areal excavation.

A particularly unusual and misleading local assemblage appeared in the
fill of a cellar hole in Area 4 (Fig. 2.3). One item was initially mis-
identified as a "rectangular lead seal", another as a "stove ornament", and a
third as a '.'metal label." Still other fragments were not recognized as arti-
facts at all, and appeared in level bags of "miscellaneous metal". All of
these items were of an alloy of lead, and bore fragmentary hand or machine
engraved inscriptions.

The first clue came from a piece which upon cleaning revealed the inscrip-
tion "...yrs 4 mos...." Attention then turned to another specimen, thought at
that time to represent a fragment from a stove made by the "Horton" company,
or some such manufacturing firm. It was then obvious that instead this was a
label of some kind, belonging to a person named Horton. Fragments assembled
later showed this to be a casket plate of one Joseph T. Horton.

& U

8 Q n@ w @,fq p

4 "JUNI

fhil@
'IM
ifoggpda.-if PgJup
2 jr p tp 'g, jpv g
tKI
Wffp

@figx A, "Wf" 49, -jI,,,Z,%
-F CIII.
M,
B Ar AV

D
q
AS, M Y
NA,

@Y D@-

Y 5C" -0

Fig. 2.2. Bayley-like earthenware: A, Cream-on-brown slip-decorated chamber pot;
E, brown glaze-dipped chamber pot; q, fine mahogany glazed bowl; D, brown glazed por-
ringer; E, tall mahogany glazed mug fragment. Specimens A-C were found in the 18th
century Hale-Watkins household trash, immediately outside a privy in Area 4; D came
directly from the privy. Specimen E came from redeposited 18th century fill at Area 3.

in.,
CM.11

Fig. 2.3. Lead alloy casket plates and sinker from boardinghouse cellar fill,
Area 4.

At this point, identifying Mr. Horton was a simple matter. City records
show that Joseph Torrey Horton died at the Home for Aged Men on June 6, 1925,
of chronic heart disease at the age of 77. Further research into his back-
ground in the city directories revealed that in 1866 at age 19 he was a
hosteler, and that after a long absence from Newburyport he returned to become
a clerk at the famous WolfeTavern. By 1906 he was running Horton Home, the
family-run almshouse, Newburyport's "poor farm". There was no evidence, how-
ever, to connect Mr. Horton with the study area.

Three other casket plates turned up in the artifact assemblage, and it
appeared that they all had in common the fact that their inscriptions had been
intentionally defaced, as if to obliterate some engraving error. In inter-
viewing a local undertaker, the son of the man who buried Mr. Horton, we were
assured that there was no engraver at that time in our study area, and at this
time casket plates were engraved by a jeweler named Lunt, a few blocks away on
State Street. Lunt, too, apparently had no direct connection with the study
area.

The most probable explanation for the presence of these items is that to-
gether with some associated pieces of lead flashing, they represent salvaged
scrap, perhaps derived from a junk dealer then occupying Merchant's Row, an
adjacent building. Interestingly, two lead fishing sinkers were found with
these materials, both showing impurities which suggest that they were products
of this salvage. Whatever their source, the casket plates proved to be part of
a'20th century fill, deposited in the cellar hole of a boarding house shortly
after its demolition. The most recent inscription indicates that this demo-
lition occurred after 1927.

Areal Excavations: General Findin

Areal excavations generally-provided one or more of three basic types of
information. Like the test trenches, some presented sequences of landscape
development. Others offered specific details of building construction and
function. Also recovered were several recognizable assemblages of artifacts,
most of which could be associated with particular activities on the waterfront.
The essential findings are listed below only to characterize the archaeological
potential of each area. The following two chapters show the results in greater
detail, and in spatial and temporal perspective.

Area 1 -- Merchant's Row

In Area 1, a 2 m by 6 m trench was positioned to straddle the western side
of the foundation of Merchant's Row. This was a long complex of brick stores,
some of which may have been constructed prior to 1773. These buildings extended
along Ferry Wharf@ where ferry service connected Newburyport to Salisbury, on
the opposite side of the Merrimack. As this section of Merchant's Row was torn
down only recently, the foundation and a long abandoned basement were undis-
turbed. Excavation revealed many construction details of the Merchant's Row
complex, particularly early attempts at waterproofing the basement storage
area. Also noted was clear evidence for partial destruction of this building
in the fire of 1811, and its,subsequent rebuilding. It is significant that
Merchant's Row grew to become one of the most substantial wharfside buildings

on the waterfront during the period of Federalist prosperity, and that today no
such waterfront structures survive in Newburyport.

The westernmost segment of the Merchant's Row trench included a 2 m by
2 m portion of the public way leading to the ferry landing. Here, all in
situ discoveries of aboriginal materials were made. These were f laked
stone projectile points and bifaces. Unfortunately, all of these artifacts
were found in areas of historic disturbance. Discussion of the aboriginal
components represented is reserved for Chapter 5. In sum, 327 artifacts were
catalogued for Area 1, most of them coming from the ferry way. As this way
was the site of two foundation trenches and a utility trench, it was impossible
to isolate meaningful primary assemblages from these deposits.

In the process of excavation, bedrock was encountered both within Mer-
chant's Row and along the ferry way. This proved to be a section of bedrock
ledge which was formerly a high point on the landscape. Subsequent analysis
of property records indicated that this was the point of land on which the
first wharf and warehouse were built in 1655.

Area 2 -- Gunnison Annex and Way

The excavation at Area 2, like that of Area 1, was positioned to sample a
portion of a known structure and an adjacent way. The building in this case
was a former annex to the William Gunnison Building, built in the 18401s. The
associated way gave private access to the Gunnison Building, Gunnison's Wharf,
and a lumber and coal yard immediately to the west. A 3 m by 6 m trench was
placed along the way, while an adjoining 3 m square was dug within the annex,
forming a L-shaped excavation. In all, 570 artifacts were retrieved, 407 of
which were found in the way, and 163 in the annex.

Excavations of the annex revealed that the small basement of this struc-
ture was preserved intact, and was built at the same time as the Gunnison
Building. The fieldstone footing of the north wall was tentatively identified
as an isolated remnant from an 18th century outbuilding of which little is
known. Sandwiched between this outside wall and an interior partition was a
coal bin. Few artifacts were recoverd from this basement, but heavy rust
stains and iron scraps were found in deposits within and immediately outside
the annex. This debris apparently derived from the building's use in the
third quarter of the 19th century first as a blacksmith shop, and then later
as a machine shop. Remodelling early in the 20th century included installa-
tion of a wide,door facing the way. Accumulations immediately outside this
door suggest that the annex was then used successively as a stable and as an
automobile garage.

In Gunnison's way, the bedrock ledge was uncovered similar to that found
at Merchant's Row, Area 1. Though deep enough to provide a shallow basement
for the annex, this ridge of rock rose to within 25 cm of the surface in the
way. The overlying sediments were predominantly mid-19th century gravel pave-
ments mixed with coal dust from the coal pockets next door. Intruding into
these former road surfaces were water, gas and fuel utilities, some dating to
ca. 1885.

The Gunnison excavations, like the trenches 3 and 4, show some evidence
for Newburyport's industrial development. In the 19th century, these areas of

foundry work, machining, and similar fabrication were concentrated in the area
east of Ferry Wharf. Some reasons for this pattern of land use will become
apparent in Chapter 3.

Area 3 -- Granger

The Granger excavation, placed along Water Streetjust west of the Gunnison
Building, provided further information about 19th century industrial development
in this portion of the waterfront. It sampled the southern end of the same way
exposed in Area 2, as well as the 19th century lumber yard and coal pocket
facilities immediately to the west. Two 2 m by 5 m trenches were laid out in an
"L" configuration. Remnants of four separate structures were recovered here,
as were some 404 artifacts. The same rock ledge which extends into Area 2 was
exposed throughout this excavation at depths from 0.3 m to 1.6 m.

The choice of excavation sites was fortuitous, for here were exposed.the
isolated remnants of three structures which.have otherwise been obliterated by
consecutive episodes of construction. Earliest was the corner of an 18th
century residence, apparently burned in the fire of 1811 and subsequently
scavanged for building stone. At the time of the fire, this was one of several
properties owned by one Offin Boardman, a local Revolutionary War hero. The
redeposited 18th century fill which covered the remains of this structure, con-
tained not only household ceramics and glass, but also scattered evidence for
early crafts and industries apparently carried on in this neighborhood.

The next surviving structure was a weigh scale, apparently built partially
within the private way to the waterfront. This scale may have served the lumber
yard owned by George Granger in 1850, as well as the coal pockets which succeeded
this business shortly thereafter. All that survives today is the complete
eastern wall of this structure.

Immediately to the west of the scale was exposed the corner of an adjacent
one-story brick coal office, built ca. 1872. This is known from maps and
photographs to have been the most recent of at least three such structures
associated with the scales. Here, however, the depth to bedrock was less 'than
30 cm, and no evidence for earlier footings or foundations was recovered Con-
struction of the huge Graf Bros. trucking terminal in 1949 destroyed all but
these few remnants of the coal office and scale, and undoubtedly destroyed the
remains of other residences and outbuildings which once stood in this vicinity.

The Granger excavations have nearly exhausted the archaeolokical potential
of the immediate surroundings, because these shallow deposits were confined on
three sides by areas of comparatively recent disturbance. Utility trenches
flanked the way and Water Street, while the concrete footings of the truck
terminal intruded on the north side. Only to the west, where bedrock was as
shallow as 30 cm, could there be future testing.

Area 4 -- Watkins

The Watkins site was selected to sample a small enclosed area where Mer-
chant's Row, the Ferry Wharf Building, and a frame boarding house once stood
back-to-back. This, it was thought, would be a prime area of rubbish accumu-
lation. The deeply stratified sediments.encountered here were excavated to a

depth of 2.4 m, yielding well-preserved remnants of five structures. Associated
with some of these structures were significant artifact assemblages. Ultimately
2773 artifacts were recorded at this excavation, more than 60 percent of the
total number of artifacts recovered from all sites on the Central Waterfront.

Although a shallow wedge-shaped area was dug to define the boarding house
foundation, the major section of excavation was a 2 m by 7 m trench which ex-
tended diagonally across the opening between the boarding house and Merchant's
Row. At a depth of 2.4 m, well below the current water table, the trench inter-
cepted sediments from a cove which extended into this area at the time of
colonization. Immediately above, in later fill, was a wooden framed privy con-
taining a substantial assemblage of glassware and china. This was attributed
to the household of Dr. Nathan Hale and Elizabeth Hale Watkins, and dates be-
tween 1745 and 1780. Details of this remarkable assemblage are presented in
Chapter 4.

Although the granite footings of a small outbuilding were discovered above
the privy, most of this structure was disturbed by the subsequent excavation of
the boarding house cellar, and little could be learned of this structure. The
fieldstone foundation of the boarding house, however, was well preserved and
its construction was dated within the period 1851 to 1859. Trash which could
be attributed to the occupants of the boarding house filled the alley between
this building and Merchant's Row. This assemblage and the earlier privy con-
tents show significant changes in residential life on the waterfront, also seen
in Chapter 4.

The other side of the alley showed additional details of the construction
of Merchant's Row. An original basement entrance, for example, extended some
1.3 m below the present land surface, indicating the degree of refuse accumu-
lation over the past two centuries. As in Area 1, evidence for the,fire of
1811 was noted, after which the brick complex was expanded by two more bays.

The upper levels of fill in the boarding house cellar hole contained items
derived from the demolition of a portion of Merchant's Row. Included was a
significant assemblage of supplies and stencils from sail makers who occupied
the third floor lofts. The history of Merchant's Row and the sail maker's
assemblage is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Also found in this refuse
was the curious collection of scrap casket plates mentioned earlier, which dated
the demolition of the boarding house after 1927.

The Watkins trench has proved to be the most productive and informative
of all waterfront excavations. It is apparent that the foundations of Mer-
chant's Row are preserved intact, and could be excavated in their entirety in
the future. Also the deep 18th century deposits are well protected, and show
promise for future testing. In particular, the Hale-Watkins privy, less than
30 percent of which has been sampled, remains to be completely excavated.
Remnants of the Hale-Watkins residence might also be found.

Area 5 -- Furniture Warehouse

As in Area 4. the Furniture Warehouse pit sampled an open area behind
buildings where trash related to these structures could be expected to accumu-
late. A 3 m by 3 m square was placed between foundations of a four-story

Federalist brick store complex and a three-story frame warehouse, both of which
had been razed within the last decade. Only 317 artifacts were recovered, some
in apparent stratigraphic succession, spanning the period 1780 to 1900. Yet
the space between buildings was too narrow to wor 'k in effectively and sort out
meaningful assemblages. The pit also proved to be directly in the path of sur-
face runoff from Market Square and State Street. In one storm, water rose
approximately 50 cm above the top of the excavation, flooding the adjacent
parking area (Faulkner 1977).

The pit location was unfortunate in other respects as well. The exposed
portion of the Furniture Warehouse foundation was dominated by a 20th century
concrete and brick footing for an elevator drive mechanism. Unfortunately,'
little else was recovered of this structure. The basement of the adjacent
Federalist store complex was preserved intact, and was identified as part of
the Abner Wood Building,constructed ca. 1810. However, the foundation was filled
to the brim with large boulders. Evidence of granite rubble in the alley sug-
gests that this foundation intrudes into, or was built upon, the ballast of an
18th century wharf.

Although structures appear to be well preserved in Area 5, they are not
readily accessible or particularly productive. The comparable remains of Mer-
chant's Row, revealed in Areas 1 and 4, show much greater archaeological poten-
tial.

Area 6 -- Dole

When tests at Trench 2 failed to locate the warehouse of Benjamin Greenleaf,
a trench was begun in Area 6, an alternative site located further inland along
the same wharf sequence. This excavation was named for Richard Dole, who was
the first to build a wharf and dock in this area shortly after 1678. An east-
west trench measuring 2 m by 5 m was positioned to test for structures which
may have stood near the head of Market Slip. The lowest levels produced wood
chips and shavings from the Middle Ship Yard, where privateers were constructed
and outfitted during the Revolutionary War. Also recovered were very frag-
mentary remnants of two episodes of wharf construction. Transecting the
excavation were five drains leading into Market Slip, two of which were wooden
troughs dating to the early 19th century.

In spite of a leak in a recent concrete storm sewer which backed up at
high tide, excavation extended well below the water table into former slip
sediments. In all, 323 artifacts were retrieved from the trench, although the
numerous episodes of cutting and filling made it impossible to isolate any
primary deposits. The Dole excavation was helpful in characterizing the Market
Landing; however, it is unlikely that further excavation here would reveal sub-
stantial structural remains or significant artifact assemblages.

3. CHANGING PANORAMAS

If Captain Paul White were alive today, he would be hard pressed to locate
the point of land which the town of Newbury granted to him more than 300 years
-ago as a site for a warehouse and wharf. As a contemporary of Captain White
remembered this property, it contained:

a half and acre of Land Laid out at ye point of Rocks Near Watts
his Cellar in Newbury now known by-ye name of Captain Whites ware-
house point... by ye Great Rock & Gutter & River so to take in ye
whole point of rocks & ye Cove therein ... where ye said Captain
White had his Dock (ECRD 23:110).

The point of rocks, the gutter, the cove, the dock and the enigmatic Watts's
Cellar vanished long ago under wharves, homes, warehouses, stores, coal pockets
and railroad embankments. These structures too have been razed in the ir turn.
Today the landscape around the former waterfront is essentially featureless,
save for a few large heaps of demolition rubble which even now are being re-
moved to make way for a parking lot.

Surely more has happened in the course of,,the past three centuries to alter
the character of this land than in several previous millenia. Yet drastic as
these changes were, Newburyport's history and archaeology are sufficiently well
understood to permit a remarkably complete reconstruction. It was a tedious,
but relatively straightforward task to piece together the physical appearance
of tue waterfront at representative stages in its growth.

Recharting the Central Waterfront

Mapping the waterfront throughout its historical development required infor-
mation from a variety of sources. For periods between 1655 and 1850, the major
pieces of this puzzle were provided by title traces of all properties in the
project area. In addition to recording the area and dimensions of parcels,
deeds and probate records often enumerated and described associated buildings
and wharves. Occasionally, when a property underwent a complex subdivision,
accurate surveys of the parcel and adjacent properties were included in the
land description. Modern property lines commonly include distinctive vestiges
of early boundaries, and it was possible to key early surveys to a recent base
map of the waterfront. Ultimately, reasonably accurate property boundaries
were constructed, extending back to the original land grants.

After 1851, when Newburyport had become a city, detailed maps were made of
the port (see map listing'in References, p. 253). These maps varied in quality,
but most showed individual buildings and wharves, and in some cases the owner
of a building or its function was indicated. The earliest plans were rather
schematic, but many details could be recognized on later, more accurate surveys,
and the positions of nearby features interpolated.

Business addresses and descriptions were indicated in newspaper accounts
and advertisements dating from the mid-18th century. One particularly useful
account was a list of property destroyed in the 1811 fire, compiled immediately
thereafter for a local newspaper (Gilman and Gilman 1811). This inventory in-
cluded a complete list of buildings damaged or destroyed on the waterfront, and

was invaluable in reconstructing the port facilities as they existed at the
height of mercantile prosperity.

Although the waterfront and Market Square in the second half of the 19th
century were not particularly picturesque, they were common subjects of many
photographers. The.surviving collections document well the sequence of con-
struction during Newburyport's industrial expansion. No clearer record exists
of the waterfront structures of this period, and no other representation makes
the changing atmosphere more familiar.

Ultimately the-mapping effort both guided and was guided by archaeological
excavation. The final plans, which will be reviewed singly in later chapters,
are presented in sequence below to illustrate the excavation results in context
(Figs. 3.1-3.5). They show, in addition to historical findings, the changes in
the configuration of the landscape which have been discovered or verified by
first-hand observation of archaeological remains.

The mapping intervals were selected to represent peaks of physical develop-
ment between episodes of widespread reconstruction. The map of 1700, for example,
represents the first known structures in the project area two decades after all
the harborside properties had been granted by the town of Newbury to merchant
developers. The 1770 map then shows the newly autonomous Newburyport at the
height of Colonial prosperity, when the town had proven successful both in ship-
building and West India trade. The port at 1810 shows the expanded commercial
facilities at the culmination of Federalist prosperity, and immediately before
the devastating fire of 1811. In 1850, Newburyport was becoming a city, and the
wharf facilities had reached their maximum development. The map reveals all the
permanent buildings constructed under the post-fire building code, but little of
the industrial reorganization which soon transfigured the waterfront. The 1900
plans show the completed effects of industrialization when the former wharves
and many warehouses were obliterated by railroad and coal pocket construction.

The place names given in this map sequence follow contemporary usage for
the time represented, and are intended to sort out the complex history of names
used for essentially the same structure. For example, Brown's and March's
Wharf, Greenleaf's Wharf, Tracy's Wharf, and Hale's Wharf all are forerunners of
City Wharf, which bordered the public landing at the western end of the study
area. Dotted lines are used to indicate that the size or precise location of a
structure was uncertain. The configuration of many such features were adapted
from better known examples in Newburyport.

The First Land Grants

The Central Waterfront was originally granted to three merchants in four
separate parcels (Fig. 3.1). First, of course, was the parcel given to Captain
White in 1655, which was located in the center of the proi-ect area. To the west
of White's Grant were two parcels presented to Richard Dole, the first in 1675
and the second in 1678 (Coffin 1845:116, 120). A subsequent grant was made to
Nathaniel Clark in 1680 to the east of White's property (Currier 1896:157). The
lands of Captain White and his neighbors were all located at the break in topo-
graphy where the gently rolling uplands adjoined the tidal flats. This lowland
was interrupted by projections of bedrock extending into the Merrimack River,
breaking the shoreline into coves. Springs, following the contours of the bed-

MERRIMACK R I V E R

Captain White-
T4.
Wareho-e Pbint

Ferry
>

A2
o
T 1

A 4
-A5

ol
to
7 Clark (1680)
Ve
'P
garden

White (1655)

`Vl@'

cj@
Dole (1675)
z
Middle Shipyard Central Waterfront
Dole (1678) circa 1700

NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSI=S

2S-- 0 25 FEET 50
Commons ME MRS
5 0 10 20 30 40

---F-mapno. 2 of 7
Dole

le (1618

Fig. 3.1. Central Waterfront, ca. 1700.

M E R R I M AC K R I V E R

.... .. T3
'3@

A2
Al
@t 0

LP I A
TV

:k
............
T 2
Y A5

"S,
tan yard

lop

Middle Shipyard Central Waterfront
circa 1770

NEWBURYPORT MASSACHUSETTS

FEET
Street 25 o 25, swo
Irs,
METERS
5 o to 20 30 40

map no. 3 of 7
C
(NEWF

Fig. 3.2. Central Waterfront, ca. 1770.

..........

............

Z@
..........:

. .... ... .

rt
CD
Y

cn
>
0
un

WHARF
F@ VFPPy
V..
00

. ...........
zz@

C@ BOARDMAN'S WHARF

.. . .......

> 00
cn
cn
04

gu
O'BRIEN'
.. ... s WHARF v.-A

town landing
(A):"" jo. wq Aq psAoisap
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

M ERRIMACK R I V E R

...............

T3
r -
<
A?.
Al

custom
House
%
x, f'v
y
4
A5
arket kl@1\11
)Landing
A"

'-N
10, NC@ @A.
'm
3P

CIL
$V-
A6
%
N,
............
market House ....... Central Waterfront
circa 1850

NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS
Afe"i Mac FEET
Street MARKET 25 0 25 50 ISO
SQUARE METERS
5 0 10 20 30 40

- map no. 5 of 7
v"A

Fig. 3.4. Central Waterfront, ca. 1850.

-006T 'PO '3uOJJa-aTeM Tu-':IU91) -9-C .2-rd

L jo 9 -ou drT F-

oc oz OL 0 9
SWIM awflos
oot OR sz 0 sz
1333

S,LIHSnHDVSSVW 'XHOcIAdfl9M3N
0061
IUOIJJ;Illm! IEJIU;ID L'0481S qj!:J

L I
asnoN
..........
Luoisno
Aem alemid
jod8P

Mood leoo

jeoo

jolood 180a

X 21 A I 'd

rock, joined to form at least two tidal rivulets or "gutters." These ran along
the extreme east and west boundaries of the Dole property on either side of a
natural promontory. It was apparently on such natural projections, where access
to the deep water of the Merrimack was most direct, that Dole, White, and Clark
built the first wharves and warehouses.

A bedrock ledge fitting the property descriptions of Captain White's Ware-
house point was revealed in excavating the public way of Merchant's Row (Area 1).
The "Great Rock" here rose to within 1.1 m of the modern land surface, running
nearly perpendicular to the south bank of the river. Evidently Captain White
was not the first to occupy this former promontory, for here were found relics
of aboriginal settlement. These were the only prehistoric artifacts we were to
unearth: three Late Archaic projectile points and two small bifacial knives.
Unfortunately, all of these stone tools' were found in backfill from three sepa-
rate episodes of 19th century construction. Because all specimens were found
within a 2 m square area, it is likely that they were derived from a single
source, and were originally deposited near this site. The styles of the pro-
jectile points suggest that they were left here as early as 3500 B.C. What
little is known of these tools and the people who used them is reviewed in
Chapter 5.

The original grant to Paul White mentions a second "Great Rock" as his
eastern boundary, a promontory which eventually went to Nathania.1 Clark.
According to Coffin (1845:61), this landmark "... stood where George Granger's
store now stands, and was at least twenty feet high." Although the height of
the rock-may have been exaggerated, the location of this feature corresponds
directly to that of the Granger excavation (Area 3). This pit did indeed en-
counter a bedrock ledge within 30 cm of the surface, which, like Warehouse
Point, extended at approximately a right angle to the river. This same out-
cropping was encountered twice more, in the Gunnison excavation (Area 2) and
its associated test pit. Together, the first and second Great Rocks were
probably the only major rock exposures in the study area at the time of historic
contact.

Colonial and Federalist Landfilling

The most obvious changes in the topography of the harborside were caused
by filling. In the Colonial and Federalist periods, this was partially the by-
product of wharf construction, building demolition, and refuse disposal. Cer-
tain areas, however, appear to have been intentionally filled to provide more
real estate as waterfront property became more valuable.

One of the first areas to be reclaimed was the cove lying immediately to
the east of Captain White's Warehouse Point (Fig. 3.1). The original cove
bottom appeared in Area 4 as alternate layers of sterile muck and gravel, 2.4 m
below the modern surface. The muck was composed of bands of twigs and decom-
posed organic matter, and showed a definite slope toward the Merrimack River.

A subsequent accumulation suggests that the excavation site was very close
to the shoreline, and that 17th century buildings may have stood on adjacent
high ground. Brick rubble from one structure was covered by wood scraps and
shavings from the construction of another. Fragments of a diamond-paned case-
ment window, common in 17th century construction, were probably derived from

the former structure, although they appeared in a more recent intrusion. Both
sediments were thoroughly waterlogged, and dipped toward the river like the
muck and gravel beneath them. This part of the cove, at least, was still wet-
lands.

By about 1760, however, this area was levelled with a dense accumulation
of rubbish dominated by bone from butchered livestock: sheep, cattle, and
swine. The land ,was clearly useable thereafter, for intruding into this refuse
was a privy. This contained numerous broken household items, including ceramic
and glass artifacts manufactured between 1745 and 1780. Shortly after the privy
was abandoned, ca. 1780, a small outbuilding was erected above it, of which only
the scattered footings survive. Surely by this time a major portion of the cove
had been reclaimed.

Somewhat different circumstances occasioned landfilling in the vicinity
of the Granger excavation (Area 3). Here the ragged contours of the eastern
"Great Rock," were exposed above thie- surrounding land until well into the 18th
century. Upon this bedrock were the remnants of a mid-18th century foundation
and a thin layer of associated debris. The sample of diagnostic artifacts was
small, but included examples of delftware and f ree-blown bottle glass dating to
ca. 1760. Originally the residence of a local merchant, this building came
into the hands of Offin Boardman, a local Revolutionary War hero, and was
listed as one of several of Boardman's holdings which were destroyed in the
fire of 1811 (Gilman and Gilman 1811).

In the subsequent rebuilding of the waterfront, the irregular surface of
the bedrock was deliberately buried. The ashes of Offin Boardman's house were
covered by a single deposit more than a meter deep, consisting of sandy fill
and redeposited trash from 18th century households and businesses. The fill
served as a suitable base for a 20 ft wide private right-of-way, and access to
the waterfront reserved in 1813 (F@CRD 202:48). The new surface was also suit-
able for storing bulk items, and in subsequent years the yard to the west of
the way was used to sell lumber, cordwood, and coal.

Wharves

The wharves and the structures on them, once the essential components of
the waterfront, have suffered greatly from industrial development. Yet the
wreckage of their sub-structure can often be located. There appears in Area 5
a pocket of granite ballast or fill from one of the earliest wharves (Appendix
A, p. 197). This probably represents the eastern wharf of Richard Dole, con-
structed prior to 1681 (ECRD 10:171) and later owned by Lt. Col. John March
(Fig. 3.1). The northern end of this structure is indicated as a property
boundary in a probate record of 1769, and from this account can be keyed directly
to this site (ECPC 15281). Undisturbed sediments which abut this granite rubble
include white saltglaze stoneware, delftware, combed-slip decorated earthenware,
Chinese porcelain, and some pearlware, all dating to the second half of the 18th
century. By this time, the original wharf had apparently fallen into disuse,
and was used by local residents as a dump.

The other Dole wharf, several meters to.the west, was first in a long
series of constructions which eventually grew to become City Wharf. Trench 2
(Appendix A, p. 164) verified the location of one segment, constructed for John
Kent between 1718 and 1743 (ECRD 84:262). Unfortunately, all that was preserved

of the structure were the stubs of vertical planks which once lined its perime-
ter. The trench shows a clear break in topography between upland and lowland,
which probably reflects the original low tide mark (Fig. 3.1). In the 19th
century, this formed the boundary between a brick warehouse built on high
ground and a frame warehouse built above the former tidal flats (Figs. 3.3 and
3.4). The rubble of these former structures also appears in the trench.

The most extensive exposure of an 18th century wharf was made accidentally
by a contractor while building a section of a seawall in the northwest corner
of the Central Waterfront (Fig. 3.6). The cribwork at the end of City Wharf
had been ripped out in order to install steel bulkheads to "reconstruct" a
small portion of the former Market Slip. Undermined, and soaked with heavy rain,
the unstable walls of the excavation collapsed, exposing the line of pilings
shown. This was another precursor to City Wharf, built between 1775 and 1800
for John Greenleaf (Currier 1906:131; ECRD 168:174).. Like Kent's Wharf (Trench
2) this structure showed a simple line of staves acting as a retainer for the
wharf fill. During the Revolutionary War, this property was owned by Patrick
Tracy, one of Newburyport's wealthiest merchants, and by his son Nathaniel, who
captured a fortune in British ships and cargo through privateering.

During the 18th century, the publiclanding on the west end of the study
area was frequently leased by the town to local shipbuilders, and became the
Middle Shipyard (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2). The larger ships of the 19th century were
built further upstream, however, and this site then served the business district
as Market Landing (Figs.3.3 and 3.4). The Dole excavation (Area 6) exposed a
portion of the Middle Shipyard and two periods of lateral expansion of City
Wharf (Appendix A, p. 201). In the lowest sediments exposed, were dense layers
of partially decayed wood chips, shavings, and sawdust presumed to be ship-
building debris. In association with this deposit were a few late 18th and
early 19th century potsherds, some of which may have been incorporated into
this sediment from above as the wooden debris settled.

The wharf remains, such as they are, appeared above the shipyard sediments,
in the eastern end of the pit. These were minor retaining walls which ran along
the edge of the landing and held wharf fill made up of loose sand and granite
boulders. The fill was well preserved, but the pilings were not. The first
stage of construction was represented by a single surviving oak stave, like
those found at the Kent and Greenleaf wharves near by. The piling was a re-
used rectangular timber, indicated by a mortised hole in its buried end. This
end had been hewn to a point, and driven into the shipyard sediments. The
piling later was burned to the waterline, and then buried under the second con-
struction. The primary historic account of the Great Fire specifically states
that this area was spared (Gilman and Gilman 1811). Although no historic veri-
fication of another waterfront disaster has been found, a second fire must have
occurred within a few years of 1811. The date of construction of the next
wharf expansion is not known, but it is likely that the first retaining wall
was quickly replaced. All that survived were granite boulders and the stub of
a single pole piling, both of which can be identified in a photograph of Market
Slip taken ca. 1870.

The clearest picture of 19th century wharf construction appearedin Trench
4, (Figs. 3.7B and 3.8A). Here were remnants of Gunnison's Wharf, so identified
on the 1851 Plan of Newburyport. This was built immediately to the east of the
second Great Rock, and until 1872 formed the western boundary of the slip behind

elik
344
7 17

CA-

Fig. 3.6. Section of an 18th century wharf exposed accidentally in
seawall construction. One of many structures contained within City Wharf,
this was once owned by the prosperous Colonial merchant Patrick Tracy and
his son Nathaniel. The younger Tracy was famed for his success in pri-
vateering during the American Revolution, and many of his prizes were
auctioned at this site.

-S-N@ @W-E-

UNIT I

UNIT 11

UNIT ill

FEATURE 1

FEATURE 2
3

UNIT IV

ER LEVEL

@W-E-

77,

...... ..... ..
UNIT I
W
.. . ... .. ....
UNIT 11 UNIT 11
PPATI IPP 1

X1
FEATURE

UNIT Ill
....... . ...
NIT IV @eRoo
NO
UNIT IV
-61) 0 o 10 - a - -

01@ 0
FEATURE 4 ii r
ER LEVEL
0,
A
UNIT VI
B

RE7 FINEISAND RECENT COAL
OR S LT RCBBLE FILL
MEDIUM SAND ASHDORS CONCRETE
GIN ER

COARSE SAND SHELL SLAG

Fig. 3.7. Stratigraphic sections of Custom House slip. A, Trench 3 section taken
at the head of the slip, showing slip sediments (Unit IV), building footings (Fea. 2),
slag accumulation (units II and III), and a drain installation (Fea. 1). B, Trench 4
section through Gunnison's Wharfshowing wharf cribbing and ballast (Fea. W), foundry
footings (Fea. 2), foundation of a shed for heavy equipment storage (Fea. 1), and builder's
trench for drain (Fea. 3).

Q@vu

Y", -
It 'k -

7@
4

Fig. 3.8. Early 19th century wharf and jeLty details. A, Cribwork of Gunnison's
Wharf; B and C, Plum Island breakwater, built in 1831. Note trunnel construction.

the Custom House. Although wharves are known to have existed in this area
since shortly after Nathaniel Clark acquired the property from the town in 1680,
this construction probably dates no earlier than 1800. Feature 4 in the pro-
file shows a corduroy cribwork of rough-sawn timbers ballasted by granite field
stones.

The construction of Gunnison's Wharf can be more easily understood by
examining another structure of apparently identical design, a breakwater some
two miles away on Plum Island (Fig. 3.8B and Q. This barrier was constructed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1831, at great cost, in an attempt to
divert the Parker River channel in such a way that it would keep the channel of
the Merrimack open at Newburyport. Although this venture failed, some remains
of the breakwater have been preserved. Note that the corduroy of cross-pieces
were pegged to longitudinal sills with trunnels, forming a semi-rigid framework.
This cribbing was probably floated into position, and gradually loaded with
granite field stone ballast until it sank. Staves were then driven into the
sediments at the side of the structure and pegged both to the corduroy and to
the sills.

Wharfside Construction: Merchant's Row

The sites of several stores and warehouses along the wharves were probed,
but few showed promising results. The warehouse of Benjamin Greenleaf, clearly
depicted on a plan of the Market Landing in 1775 (Currier 1906:131), was appar-
ently obliterated, together with subsequent structures in that vicinity, when
the City Railroad was constructed in 1872 (Trench 2, Appendix A, p. 164). The
Abner Wood Building, a four-story Federalist structure between Ferry Wharf and
City Wharf (Fig. 3.3), had only recently been razed when Area 5 was dug. Yet
the basement was filled with granite boulders, and the water table rose to with-
in a meter of the surface (Appendix A, p. 198). A similar building, erected by
John Greenleaf, once stood behind the North Row. Unfortunately this was covered
by a mound of recent rubble more than five meters high, and was not practically
accessible. Merchant's Row, however, proved to be well-drained, reasonably
accessible, and extremely well-preserved. Notwithstanding the installation of
gas lines and sewers which have damaged these foundations since our excavation,
these subsurface remains may prove of interest to archaeologists in the future.

The site of Merchant's Row was Ferry Wharf, where since 1688 March's Ferry
and its successors provided transportation across the Merrimack to Salisbury
(Currier 1896:44; 1906:366). The row's foundations were set on the east side of
the Great Rock, formerly Captain White's Warehouse Point. The complex of brick
stores and warehouses built here was one of the oldest to survive into the 20th
century, and was the last to be demolished (Fig. 3.9).

The nucleus of Merchant's Row was apparently a three-story warehouse or
store, two or three bays long, constructed ca. 1773 (Currier 1906:177). The
northern end of this building, exposed in Area 1, shows that elaborate pre-
cautions were taken in the original construction to waterproof the basement
(Figs. 3.10 and 3.11). A layer of gravel covered the bedrock to provide a
stable footing for the floor joists. Between these heavy timbers was placed a
water barrier of sandy clay, very much like the mixture used to make bricks.
The joists and the plank flooring were all pegged firmly together with hardwood
trunnels, but the floor as a unit was structurally separated from the surrounding

Mff RK fn- -
@T
*AU711,14 r,
fil 2! 4,=' 'I'MUN, f"I
. -

I J
-N

Fig. 3.9. Merchant's Row, ca. 1934. A, Boardinghouse(far left) and Mer-
chant's Row (right) from the northeast; Area 4 excavation was between these
two structures. B, West side of Merchant's Row; Area 1 excavation was located
between the nearest two sections (center). Photos courtesy of The Essex In-
stitute, Salem, Mass.

J tO

am,4 mr Jp@

UNIT I 7@

W V_
F

UNIT III

9!@F_ =7_@=@
U

UNIT 11 _gl,
7@-J/ I%: ,-ell ay

FEATURE 3a

...........

ra ,[email protected]

III 1INI

tE @01
KEY

CLAY RECENT
RUBBLE FILL

FINE SAND ASH OR
I
OR S LT CINDER S

MEDIUM SAND COAL
I IIN

COARSE SAND DECAYED WOOD N=-m

GRAVEL BEDROCK
L�RP,@N015-N

CHARRED WOOD

Fig. 3.10. Area 1, Merchant's Row in plan and profile. Construction de-
tails include clay lined flooring (Fea. 3a), foundation waterproofing (Fea. 3b),
builder's trench for foundation additions (Fea. 2), and builder's trench for Z
utilities (Fea. 1). Note the flooring, burned in the fire of 1811.

-7f

A-1

N
7;
X
A

MAI

j4
16

C
If
kJ1

D
Fig. 3.11. Area 1 excavation, Merchant's Row. A, Ferry Way, showing out-
cropping of the Great Rock; B, clay seal waterproofing for foundation; C, base-
ment of store no. 4 looking south;.R, partition between stores 3 and 4 Tright).

foundation walls. In the intervening space at the base of the foundation was
another clay barrier which extended well above the flooring, and was held in
place by a low wooden wall.

Similar precautions against high tides and storms were taken in preparing
the outside of the foundation. Because the building was set on the east side
of the Great Rock, well below its crown, runoff and ground water would have
tended to flow directly under the foundation and into the basement. To counter-
act this problem, a clay seal was installed which sloped slightly in the opposite
direction (Fig. 3.11B). This was apparently intended to carry surface water
over the opposite si7de of the rock where it would drain through Ferry Wharf.
The seal was made up of a sandwich of wood, now decayed, and the same sandy
clay used to waterproof the interior. Incidentally, the foundation trench fill
immediately below this seal yielded one aboriginal artifact, an Otter Creek
projectile point.

There is some indication that the attempt to provide dry storage here was
ineffective. An addition was constructed to the northern end of the principal
building which was open for business by 1803 (Newburyport Herald:April 22).
The foundation for this annex truncated a segment of the clay seal surrounding
the earlier building, and no attempt was made to repair it. Although the in-
terior of the southern addition was not excavated, there was no evidence outside
the building that the new addition was waterproofed at all. Incidentally, two
more aboriginal artifacts were found in the builder's trench for this addition:
a small chert biface and a side-notched Normanskill point of the same material.

Merchant's Row was gutted in the fire of 1811, but apparently was not
totally destroyed (Gilman and Gilman 1811; Currier 1906:177). The basement
flooring was partially burned in this catastrophe, and covered with some ash and
brick rubble. Although the building was reconstructed within months after the
fire, this basement was never rebuilt. Apparently it was not used again until
later in the 19th century when a layer of sand was spread'over the charred re-
mains, and the space was used for a coal bin.

Further details of Merchant's Row were discovered in Area 4, near the
southern end of the complex. Originally the structure had a rear access facing
away from Ferry Wharf. The granite foundation was notched to accommodate an
entrance to the basement (Fig. 3.12). This was partially bricked up after the
Great Fire, and the space fitted with a small basement window and a wrought
iron grate. The rear access may have been rendered unusable by construction of
adjacent buildings in the early or middle 19th century. In any event, the space
between buildings was filled with trash, and eventually the new basement window
was itself covered. At the time of excavation, the bottom of this feature was
buried nearly a meter below the land surface.

Foundation details in Area 4 also indicated periods of expansion in the
first quarter of the 19th century. Two brick bays were added on the southern
end of the complex, probably upon the footings of an earlier wood frame annex.
In its maximum extension, Merchant's Row stretched in a continuous line of
eight stores from the rear of the Ferry Wharf Building to the head of a slip on
the east side of the wharf (Fig. 3.3). only the eighth and most recent store
remains, now a part of the Ferry Wharf Building.

Xz?

A @y
Y

WC,

Nin

jr,

Sal
M

Fig. 3.12. Basement window in east wall of store no. 6, Merchant's Row,
exposed in Area 4 excavation. The window, protected by an iron grate, replaces
an original basement doorway. The burned area in the foreground may date to
the fire of 1811.

The periodic additions to Merchant's Row indicate that whether or not the
complex had functional basements, there was a growing need for floor space and
-storage along this section of the waterfront. In 1803, Newburyport was near the
height of commercial prosperity and the row had recently been expanded. The
stores were retailing and wholesaling a broad sample of the goods which regu-
larly passed through this port. Closest to the river, in store No. 1, Ebenezer
Stocker sold everything from Havana sugar and "segars" to iron, window glass,
and duck (Herald:May 6, 1803). His neighbor, Richard Foster, advertised a wide
variety of foodstuffs, hardware, and building supplies. West Indies rum, wines,
gin, brandy, as well as tea, coffee, sugar, pork, and "country produce" (flour,
butter, etc.) were sold along with cotton, iron, steel, window glass, nails, and
shovels (Herald:April 22, 1803). Abner Wood, in store No. 3, was evidently more
specialized, advertising only codfish.

Surely the longest tenants of Merchant's Row were the Davis family, who
used portions of the upper stories, where floor space was unobstructed by verti-
cal supports, to make sails. Currier (1906:177) indicates that Ambrose Davis
first leased a brick store on this site in 1773. Throughout the 19th century a
succession of later Davises, working with their sons, occupied the top two
floors of the 5th and 6th stores (4 Ferry Wharf). By 1889, William A. Davis and
his son Benjamin G. Davis had expanded their business to include awnings (NCD
1889). The family business continued until 1915 when Benjamin was bought out by
another awning maker (Cheney 1964:310).

When the sail loft was torn down ca. 1935, much of the sail and awning
debris was pushed into the cellar hole of an adjacent boarding house. Here,
in Area 4, were unearthed fastenings, grommets, hardware, and other relics of
the Davis business shown inFig. 3.13. Of particular interest were two copper
stencils used to ink the maker's mark on the finished product. The stencils
were ideally diagnostic, as they identified the owners, and gave their address
and occupation. This information led to the discovery of a photograph of
Benjamin G. Davis (son of W. A. Davis) at work in his loft (Fig. 3.14).

Merchant's Row survived intact into the 20th century because, in a sense,
it never became obsolete. The shops and warehouses still served the modest
needs of commercial activity existing after Newburyport ceased to be active in
international trade. While newer frame warehouses further out along the wharves
succumbed to railroad and coal pocket construction, the Merchant's Row location
never became sufficiently valuable to warrant the building's replacement. Its
demise, instead, was gradual deterioration, hastened by periods of total neglect.

Drainage of the Uplands

In the 17th century, runoff and ground water from the uplands must have
passed through the east and west "gutters," repeatedly mentioned in describing
the land grants made to Richard Dole and Captain Paul White (Fig. 3.1). These
were probably natural spring-fed rivulets, rather than man-made storm gutters.
Where they emptied into the tidal area, they evidently had carved deep channels,
for they served to mark property boundaries. The channels were flushed twice
daily by the tide, which probably kept them clear in the same way that man-made
ditches through the nearby salt marshes remain open today after decades of
neglect.

.. ..... ...
RAY 4sv
IVIIAMv 4. Perrv Wkarf
URV

B
0 ff In

C
D

wN,

Fig. 3.13. Sail making and awning supplies from boardinghouse cellar fill,
Area 4. A and B, Sail maker's stencils; C, grommets; D, awning frame section;
E, cleats; F, pulley;.@j, awning pull release; H, release mechanism; I, mounting
1@rackets.

iVL_-

NXIX10, %
N', @61

IN-
@E

Fig. 3.14. Benjamin G. Davis at work at the sail loft in Merchant's Row at
"4 Ferry Wharf," ca. 1908. Photo courtesy of Newburyport Press.

Whatever the form of the original gutters, they have long since been re-
placed by individual, private drains and by successive networks of public storm
sewers. While we did not intentionally seek out these features, several examples
were exposed in the course of testing the ways between buildings and the edges
of former wharves. Other drains were brought to our attention by construction
crews, as utilities were installed for the newly renovated buildings on Water
Street, and as the seawall around the Central Waterfront was being constructed.

Early drains were apparently privately maintained, and served the practical
expedient of keeping individual cellars dry for storing merchandise. Wet base-
ments were not confined to low lying buildings such as Merchant's Row, but also
plagued the Federalist buildings on Water Street. Rutsch and Peters (1977) have
shown in a preliminary archaeological study that the cellar of the North Row had
at least two floors, one brick and one stone, beneath the rubble surface existing
at the time of renovation. In raising the floor above the water table, the cellar
was reduced to little more than a crawl space. A brick drain in the uppermost of
the two floors must have emptied into Market Slip.

Our excavations at the head of Market Slip, in Area 6, uncovered a rectan-
gular wooden drain leading directly from this building (Fig. 3.15 and Appendix
A, P. 202). At its mouth, where the drain crossed over the granite fill of City
Wharf, it showed clear evidence of having been re-excavated, taken apart, and
cleaned. This was probably a periodic necessity for many similar conduits. Al-
though this wooden section may have connected with the brick outlet identified
within the North Row, it was probably an earlier installation, dating to the be-
ginning of the 19th century. The water problem at this particular site comes
as no surprise, for the east end of this building apparently straddles the site
of a 17th century gutter (ECRD 140:79).

Because the drainage systems through the early 19th century were maintained
privately, the legal arrangements between the many property owners affected were
quite involved. One complex agreement was recorded between owners of the immedi-
ate forerunners of the Davenport, Ferry Wharf, and Abner Wood buildings. In 1811,
just two months before the Great Fire, John Greenleaf granted to nine storeowners:

*** the use, privilege and liberty of using, making, constructing and
supporting at their own expense a convenient drain through the said
Greenleaf's land from Market Square to the dock between his two
wharves called Greenleaf's Wharf and Ferry Wharf... for the purpose,
use and convenience of draining the water from the cellars of their
respective stores.

It was also stipulated that the drain:

.:.shall never exceed five inches in diameter, and no water from any
sink or vault or any other source except the water of their respec-
tive cellars shall ever be carried through said drain forever (ECRD
191:26).

Greenleaf also reserved the right to extend his dock at any time, thus termi-
nating the agreement. Yet his rent for the drainage easement was reasonable
enough: one barleycorn per year, payable on demand.

70,

W @'P

"Al
"S
Q'i

UU,

7 4
Z Xg
Nv'
Al,

S Fig. 3.15. Early 19th century wooden drains. A, Section leading from
North Row to Market Slip, exposed in the Dole excava7tion, Area 5;.j@, comparable
drain exposed in seawall excavation; note trunnel construction. Tops removed
in both cases for inspection.

A much more substantial conduit, perhaps publically owned, was exposed in
the process of seawall construction. This was a granite-lined rectangular
structure, having a cross-sectional passage 30 cm or more square, which ran
along the former site of the Ifeast gutter" and emptied at the end of Ferry
Wharf. Minor cleaning of its wooden outlet proved that the drain was still
functional. With the escaping water, out rushed the straight sole of a one-
last shoe, the common form of footwear made prior to the Civil War. -

The most serious drainage problems of the waterfront, and indeed all of
Market Square, began with the construction of the City Railroad in 1872. The
slips were blocked and then backfilled, occluding the outlets of active drains,
many of which probably had been forgotten. Excavation showed that serious
attempts were made to drain Market Square as a whole, as well as individual
buildings. A well-crafted brick storm sewer, approximately 1 m in diameter,
was exposed in Trench I (Appendix A, p. 162). This was installed in the sterile
fill of the former Market Slip shortly after the railroad was built. Also from
this period were smaller cast iron drains, no more than 10 cm in diameter, which
were encountered behind the Custom House in Trench 3 (Fig. 3.7), and along the
side of Merchant's Row (Fig. 3.10). Fully modern drains were also revealed in
Trench 2 and in the Dole excavation, Area 6 (Appendix A, p. 167 and p. 202),
and an extensive storm sewer system has been planned for the parking area which
is to cover the former wharf sites.

Industrial Development

The occupants of the Central Waterfront in the Colonial Period were not
just resident merchants and persons with related maritime interests. Part of
the eastern section, at least, was devoted to a few local crafts and small
scale manufacturing. Some evidence for these activities comes from redeposited
18th century fill in the Granger Excavation, Area 3 (Fig. 3.16). Although the
fill was intentionally placed here after the Great Fire of 1811 destroyed the
house of Offin Boardman, the materials contained in the fill were derived from
earlier occupations, dating from at least 1775 (Fig. 3.17).

A few one-hole discoidal bone buttons of a type commonly found in middle
to late 18th century refuse were discovered in this trash (Fig. 3.17T)).
Considering the dispersed and fragmentary nature of associated ceramics and
glass, it was unlikely that these buttons could have come from a single gar-
ment. Although this handful of bone buttons outnumbered the total retrieved
from all other 18th century deposits on the waterfront, the discovery of these
items was not remarkable by itself. However, the same fill also contained the
sawed tip of a horn. This particular find is intriguing because it duplicates
the waste produced in comb manufacturing, an industry known to have been active
in Newbury in 1759. Although the evidence is circumstantial, these bone and
horn items probably were connected with one historic figure:

Some time this year [17591, Mr. Enoch Noyes, a self-taught mecha-
nic commenced, without instruction, making horn buttons and coarse
combs, of various kinds, and continued the business till 1778,
when he employed William Cleland, a deserter from Burgoyne's army,
a comb-maker by profession and a skillful workman. This was the
commencement of the comb-making business in Newbury and various
other places (Coffin 1845:225).

* 7. 7 @ 7-77777
.3r UNIT I

FEATURE 4
'ORE 1
UNIT 11
EA. 3'! FEATURE 5 t U IT
UNIT III'

X
IIV
R0 AIMPRE
W
W
W
WYKW,
FEA1 0\
'URE 61,

�
-7/'

W,
ILU*-*- V;
ri, @,yg
@onFrete footing i

'a
w., Oz, Y,

steei
--rete f

-FM
LZ
LL KEY

MACADAM
BEDROCK

FINE SAND
in
. @ @'. .-@ - %; ASHUORS
OR SILi CIN ER

COAL
MEDIUM SAND

COARSE SAND CONCRETE

Granger excavation, in plan and pro-
Fig. 3.16. Area 3,
file. Episodes of construction include Offin Boardman house
ation (Fea. 6), platform scale foundation (Fea. 5), coal
found
V
office foundation (Fea. 4), utility trenches (Feas. 2 and 3),
and truck terminal foundation (Fea. 1). Unit III is redepos-
ited 18th century fill, covering the Boardman house foundation.
Z >
t
z
D

a _A1

W
wl
P

91-

-@q AK@"'
M"'

oj&
fv@ AW "ff"
W"

441fqA
ar
-N -pg-

VVI
f;'wev m, @ @i , j'n
C

Nf'f'%

PINZY
@W
rlll_@-l OWN

0,
E

A,
414&y-_@'@ 4a*q
in

CM.

Fig. 3.17. Middle to late 18th century artifacts from fill covering the
Offin Boardman.house foundation, Area 3. A, Incised bone knife handle; B,
creanware sherd thought to be a whetstone or burnishing tool; C, defective
bronze casting fragment (pump cylinder?); D, horn tip (comb ma7k-ing waste) and
single-hole bone buttons; E, pipe clay wig curler fragment, with the stamp "WB"
on its end; F, single fold lead seal, inscribed "1998" on reverse side.

Comb making continued in the Noyes family into the 20th century, and developed
into an important industry in Newburyport. For a brief interval during the
1870's a William H. Noyes occupied a shop on Water Street on the other side of
the Custom House, but this could not possibly have been the source of the refuse
in question, as it was in operation fully a century later. These pieces proba-
bly came from the original comb and button shop. A Deacon William Noyes, one of
Enoch's ancestors, owned property directly across the street from the Granger
site in 1700 (Currier 1896:118), and this may have become the site of the first
comb works.

Another fascinating artifact was the broken end of a wig curler made out of
white pipe clay (Fig. 3.17E). The fragment is clearly identifiable as a late
18th century British-made curler by the initials "WB" printed on its end, al-
though it is not known what these initials stand for (Noel Hume 1970:321). Like
the buttons, this might just represent another item of household refuse, as wigs
were commonly worn in the period 1700 to 1780. However, in a city of Newbury-
port's stature a curler is more likely to be associated with a barber or a wig
maker, as home hair setting was probably not in fashion. Furthermore, the par-
cel of land immediately to the east of this excavation was sold in 1739 to
Joseph Parker, "perriwig maker" (ECRD 78:36), who kept this land until 1762
(ECRD 115:210). In all likelihood, the fill that was pushed over the Boardman
foundation was derived in part from the land of this wig maker.

It should not seem unusual that a lead seal was found here, within a few
dozen paces of the 18th century custom landing (Fig. 3.17F). The figure "1998"
clearly scratched on one side is a mystery, but the "13/07Z@' on the reverse face
indicates that the material so tagged was packaged in small amounts, and may
have been of considerable value. That it was tagged by weight, suggests that
this may have represented a quantity of precious metal. To this day Newburyport
is renowned for silversmithing, a craft which has been carried on here since
1690 (Currier 1906:169). A gold and silversmith, appropriately named Joseph
Moulton, was in business in the third quarter of the 18th century on State
Street, near the project area. Perhaps this seal was his.

Also of interest was a brass casting fragment from a thin-walled cylindrical
object, perhaps a pump (Fig. 3.17C). The fragment was riddled with bubbles, and
probably represents the trash of a brass foundry. While no historic record of
an 18th century brass foundry was found, this business was probably a necessity
in a community heavily committed to shipbuilding.

The success of early crafts in Newburyport was ultimately dependent on the
commercial prosperity of the seaport. When Newburyport failed to recapture the
international trade after the War of 1812, her craftsmen must have suffered
economically along with her merchants and tradesmen. Undoubtedly a considerable
number of them were forced to close their doors. True industrialization, which
was rapidly progressing along the fall line of the Merrimack, went wanting_for
a power source in Newburyport until the 1840's. It was steam power which finally
set the town back on its feet, and the eastern end of the Central Waterfront be-
came specialized in providing fuel and the new machinery.

All that is known of the Granger area immediately after the fire of 1811 is
that the Offin Boardman house foundation was apparently scavenged for building
stone, and that the surface was then levelled with fill. By 1830, several small
parcels were consolidated to take in most of the land between the sites of the

present Ferry Wharf and Gunnison buildings (,ECRD 256:138). From 1835 to 1852,
this was the lumber yard of George T. Granger (ECRD 286:21; NCD 1852). By 1854,
this parcel was in the hands of Newman Brown who sold coal and cordwood here
(NCD 1855), and for the next 60 years this section of the waterfront was used
for coal storage.

Remnants of two structures from this period of coal sales were exposed: a
weigh scale and its associated coal office (Fig. 3.16). The scale was probably
the same one advertised by Newman Brown in 1868 (NCD 1869), although it was
built much earlier. Those who remember this scale describe it as a low platform
type, with do above ground superstructure. The scale must not have impeded
traffic, for it was built upon a 20 ft private way which had been reserved since
1813 (ECRD 202:48, 203:73). The device was still being used by the Philadelphia
and Reading Coal and Iron Company in 1913 (Fig. 3.18).

Immediately to the west of the scale was the corner of an office where the
weight was read. This was a small, one-story brick structure built by Henry M.
Cross ca. 1872, the third and most recent in a succession of such buildings
(Fig. 3.5). Although the earlier coal offices appear in photographs and a
lithograph, archaeological evidence for them was oblite@rated when the Graf
Brothers trucking terminal was built in 1949.

Only one building survives on the Central Waterfront which dates from the
early days of industrialization--the mansard-roofed Gunnison Building (Fig. 3.19).
William Gunnison built this structure to replace two previous buildings, a black-
smith shop and a grain dealership, both of which appear on a 1840 bank note
engraving. The new edifice was marked on the 1851 Plan of Newburyport, where it
was partitioned into its two component functions. A photograph taken ca. 1870,
when the building was heavily damaged by fire, showed that the former blacksmith
shop was then designated a machine shop. The building also housed a steam t
printer, a manufacturer of endless belts, and two other businesses.

Behind the Gunnison Building once stood a two-story annex, which, together
with the adjacent way, was sampled in Area 2. This wing had only recently been
torn down at the time of excavation, and the remaining brickwork showed that
this was an integral part of the main structure, and not a later addition. The
annex was constructed partly on the granite foundation of an earlier building,
probably built in the second half of the 18th century (Fig. 3.20, 3.21). The
foundation trench contained some late l8th'century ceramics'and glass and a
George II half-penny dated 1748. The early building was probably a barn or shed
for the residence of Enoch Toppan. The space between this outer foundation and
an interior brick partition was used as a coal bin for the Gunnison annex. Coal
still remained in the basement at the time of excavation, apparently abandoned
when the heating system was converted to oil.

Like the sediments immediately outside the building, the lower levels of
the coal bin were heavily stained with dark red and orange oxide. The source
of these stains was surely iron dust or filings, which must have filtered down
through the flooring into the basement and which escaped through the doors and
windows as well. The absence of significant quantities of cinders and slag
precludes actual foundry work such as was discovered in Trenches 3 and 4, al-
though the oxide deposit could easily have been produced by grinding castings.
Unfortunately, few mid-19th century artifacts were found in this site, and the
precise function of the annex at this time is unknown. The source of the

W,
2A

Fig. 3.18. Coal cart after leaving the scales of the Philadelphia and
Reading Coal and Iron Co., ca. 1913. The Gunnison Building appears in the
background, then occupied by the National Biscuit Company (Nabisco).

-@N

ZM C,

t' tlll@
ML Ow"

Fig. 3.19. Gunnison Way, ca. 1966, looking south, showing the Gunnison Building and
annex (left) and truck terminal (right). The Granger excavation, Area 3, was placed be-
tween these buildings, near the road, while the Gunnison excavation, Area 2, was located
at the annex site. Photo courtesy of the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority.

07
F70-

4k-

'V
Fig. 3.20. Gunnison Way and Annex, Area 2, looking east.

v
FT UNIT I
-UNIT 1'=@V__
UNIT 11
go-OR
-E
FEATURE 3'.'. UNIT III
IM
'brickiL 11
wa
Gunnison Building
'4UP411
V .-Hy-
I @% MIMI I'
wtimll
Ife,
IMP fl- T-1 Q 11
X :M1 jig
ffirli-
Oft
KS
Az
", CI

I _TW
,fvq:;P"i#'-4jr

Will @?Pf_IK
XX

FEATURE
3a

Q coal bin

LLLL.:-

KEY

FINE SAND RECENT Eff
OR SILT RUBBLE FILL

MACADAM
MEDIUM SAND

COARSE SAND COAL
fl

GRAVEL BEDROCK

> M
z l.- - -
D 2 Z -
Z
D
Fig. 3.21. Area 2, Gunnison annex, in plan and profile. Intrusions in-
clude a foundation trelLch (Fea. 3) and utility trenches (Feas. 1 and 2).
Feature 3a is a layer of used bricks set beneath a former window opening, pre-
sumably to eliminate weeds.

machining wastes may well have been Gunnison's "blacksmith shop" or a later
factory. A likely candidate was the machine shop of Everett Pearson, who
occupied part of the Gunnison Building in 1870, and who fabricated boilers and
donkey engines for Newburyport's shipbuilding industry. In either case, the
archaeological evidence is clearly compatible with what is known historically
of the Gunnison Building in this period.

In the 20th century, the annex probably served as a horse stall and a
garage. A basement window was bricked up ca. 1900, and a large door installed
above it. Scrap brick probably derived from the door installation, was placed
in the gravel and coal dust of the way, paving an area in front of the new
opening. Associated with this rude paving was a minor accumulation of horse
shoe fragments, harness buckles, and leather scraps. Above this was a more sub-
stantial accumulation of automobile parts. One specimen of particular interest
was a Selden Patent label (Fig. 3.22). George Selden, an American lawyer turned
inventor, received a patent in 1895 for his 1879 gasoline-powered automobile
(Anon. 1908). For a few years after it was granted, certain automobile manu-
facturers honored the Selden Patent, and attached this label to their products.
Henry Ford was not one of them, however, and he eventually succeeded in in-
validating the patent. The car represented here was no "tin Lizzy", but rather
a competitive make dating to the first decade of the century.

Transfiguration

For the first few decades of industrialization, there were few new phys ical
changes in the Central Waterfront. Wharves of 1850 were little altered from
those of 1810, and the architecture was still predominantly that of the Federal-
ist Period. Only the eastern end showed significant changes, the most obvious
of which were the construction of the Gunnison Building and the development of
the coal and cordwood business next door (Figs. 3.3 and 3.4).

The single phenomenon which triggered a transformation of the waterfront
area was the construction of the City Railroad spur in 1872 (Fig. 3.5). The
roadbed was built directly across the ends of the wharves, eliminating several
warehouses and blocking off the major slips. The archaeological evidence for
this transformation is abundant, and includes the filling of Market Slip (Trench
1 and Area 6), the destruction of City Wharf and one of its warehouses (Trench
2), and filling of the Custom House Slip beside Gunnison's Wharf (Trenches 3 and
4). Railroad construction left only the protruding ends of the longest wharves
as a port facility, and effectively isolated them from the commercial buildings
they were designed to serve.

The railroad was built not just to bring in freight to the downtown area,
but was also part of a trans-shipment facility for coal brought into Newbury-
port's harbor by barge. Soon after the railroad was built, the Philadelphia
and Reading Coal and Iron Company built a huge coal pocket on the east end of
the study area, taking in the coal yard of-Henry Cross. The skyline was then
dominated by this sixty-foot structure which dwarfed the surrounding Federalist
buildings (see cover). When a second coal pocket was added in 1890 on the west
end of the study area, the remaining wharf ends were covered and the transfor-
mation of the waterfront was completed.

(o)

Fig. 3.22. Selden Patent Label. This label was attached to the products
manufactured by member companies of the Association of Licensed Automobile
,.Manufacturers, who honored George Selden's patent for a gasoline automobile.
This patent was contested by Henry Ford in a court case beginning in 1904 which
Ford won several years later.

Even as the coal pockets and the railroad contributed fuel to Newburyport's
industry, they contributed to its industrial waste. All excavations in former
slips and along the ways showed a considerable accumulation of ash, cinders, and
spilled coal. Another major source of waste was a large foundry, built on the
site of Gunnison's Wharf. Quantities of indurated slag appeared in Trenches 3
and 4 (Fig. 3.7). The accumulation of railroad, coal pocket, and foundry waste
in many areas added as much as 80 cm to the land surface.

The great amount of filling and waste accumulation which occurred in the
19th century completely disguised the character of the original landscape, and
produced some curious side effects above and beyond the drainage problems men-
tioned earlier. When water utilities were installed in the 1880's, for example,
they followed some unlikely and ill-chosen paths. It was natural, of course,
that these pipes should follow public or private rights-of-way adjacent to the
buildings they were intended to serve. But along the Gunnison Building and be-
side Merchant's Row (Figs. 3.21 and 3.10) they were placed directly upon the
former rock outcroppings. In fact, these are the only two places known where
bedrock comes within a meter of the surface. In the Gunnison excavation, the
pipes were found to be boxed with wood to create an air space which would in-
sulate them. As they rose to within 25 cm of the gravel pavement of the way,
it is doubtful whether they survived severe cold weather.

A similar incident occurred in 1949 when the Graf Brothers truck terminal
was built over the former coal yard between the Ferry Wharf Building and the
Gunnison Building. Plans called for a small furnace basement to be placed in a
particular location--the site of the eastern Great Rock. It must not have
been practical to redesign the floor plan, for the contractor blasted away part
of the ledge, presumably at considerable expense.

Most recently, bedrock was encountered in reconstructing a portion of
Market Slip, part of the new seawall. Once scoured to a considerable depth by
the west gutter, the Market Slip was to be dug even deeper. After weeks of
scraping, dredging, and discussion, engineers and contractors agreed that it
was far simpler to change the specifications than to remove more bedrock.

Although some clues to the form of the wharf area still lay buried beneath
waste, demolition debris, and fill, no traces remain exposed on the surface.
While the late 19th century witnessed the obliteration of the wharves and ware-
houses, the 20th century has seen replacement buildings come and go and the
waterfront deteriorate in economic importance. Once the economic focus of the
commercial district, it now serves as a parking lot. It is unfortunate that
while the redevelopment of the central business district has preserved the
architecture of Newburyport's Federalist Period, the rebuilding of the water-
front has included nothing to suggest the former character of the port. Today
the harborside would be just as unfamiliar to Federalist merchants as to
Captain White.

4. OLD FAMILIES AND IMMIGRANTS AT THE WATKINS SITE

Market Square derives its name and its character as a commercial area, and
so it has been"studied. It is easy to forget that since settlement, it also has
been host to generations of residents. An account of some occupants of this
area was preserved in the archaeological materials from Area 4, Watkins, a site
already introduced in the previous chapter in connection with the construction
of Merchant's Row. Excavation outside the row building yielded two contrasting
assemblages of household trash, the first from an 18th century residence, the
second from a 19th century boarding house. The former materials were derived
primarily from a privy discovered in the lowest levels of the excavation, but
also included some contemporary refuse from outside the privy as well. The
second accumulation came from an alley between the foundations of the boarding-
house and Merchant's Row. Because so little has been recorded about these down-
town residents, the artifact assemblages are all the more significant.

Watkins Excavation Plan

Because so many features were discovered here, it is convenient to present
them in a series of three plan viewsmade at progressively greater depths (Fig.
4.1). The features in each plan are at equal elevations, but of course are not
necessarily contemporaneous. The views show that above the privy (Plan III)
were two granite foundations from 18th and 19th century frame buildings (Plans
Il and III). They also show the southeast corner of Merchant's Row, with its
basement entrance bricked up, and a window grate installed in its place. Off-
set from this corner is the abutting wall of the latest Merchant's Row addition,
set upon granite footings. A triangular extension to the main trench appears in
Plan I, an addition which was dug to define the limits of the upper granite
foundation. Excavation was halted at a depth of 60 cm in this area when the
corner of the building in question was discovered.

Using the same strategy employed in all the other areal excavations, the
data were segregated into five major associations. Zone A was an open area be-
hind Merchant's Row. Zone B was the narrow alley between foundations or features.
The remaining zones, C, D, and E refer to the various constructions and their
contents.

Some important relationships between these zones can be understood by
studying the fragments of kaolin pipes, such as the ones shown in Fig. 4.2.
Ever since J.C. Harrington (1954) noted the regular decrease in bores of 17th
and 18th century English pipestems, stem fragments have been used to date his-
toric refuse. Hundreds of stem fragments were found in the Watkins excavation,
and as all diagnostic specimens appear to have come from England or Scotland,
they can be interpreted according to Harrington's principle (Fig. 4.3). Lewis
Binford (1962) published a regression formula which translates the mean bore
diameter of a sample of pipestems into an absolute date. His formula is used
here as a matter of convenience, as dates are more memorable than pipestem bores.
The Binford calculation, however, was not meant to apply to stems made after the
mid-18th century. Calculated dates later than 1740 should be considered sus-
pect, for the specimens may be far more recent than these figures suggest.
Nevertheless, the general principle holds through the middle of the 19th century
that pipestem diameters became progressively smaller, and the technique, al-
though less sensitive for dates later than 1740, should be useful for relative

Fig. 4.1. Area 4, Watkins, excavation plans. I, Horizontal section at 0.50 m below surface
showing brickwork of Merchant's Row and granite foundation of a 19th century boardinghouse. II,
Section at 1.4 m below surface, showing granite footings for a late 18th century outbuilding. ON
III, Section at 2.4 m below surface, showing the corner of the Hale-Watkins privy, framed in wood. U-)
Archaeological materials were grouped by major associations, indicated as zones A-E.

--- ------- _7

jl;q@-
-v

@i, i@@ @Z.

h
-Ml v4A
"Wai p I ?,@t RIF,
KU
10 4. o,4_44 i
A, -Oll,
W.
V, I
a NOY

41
U U
llOUI
Ai

""Aft, tj N

:q
b@,
A
9-
4M-

I" mq
@M
im

Fig. 4.2. British kaolin pipe fragments from Area 4, Watkins. A, Pipestem
impression bearing the coat of arms of the city of Chester, early 1700's; B, pipestem
impression, probably early to mid-18th century; C, English pipe bowl form, early to
mid-18th century; D, portrait bowl (unidentifieJ),probably early 19th century; E,
mid-18th century English bowl; F, late 19th century "T D pipe, Glasgow.

ZONE A ZONE B ZONE C

level date date date

11 n-20 n-4
1738 1752-

12 n-24 n-17 n-0
1750 1756-IM
13 ,:Aoff_ n-21 n-0
175 1753-

14 n-57 n=12 n-0
1745- 1741

15 n-78 n-20 n-5
1740- 1742-

16 n-94 n-31 n-26
1738- 1738 1746---

17 n-94 n-10 n
1743 1733. 1744

18 1744 n-64 n_3 1751 n-11

is n-66 n-18 n-58
1729- 1743 1737

20 n-1 n-16
1729 1717- ME
bore, 64ths in 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7
LM

36
:__11 -MA

@Fig. 4.3. Pipestem bore data, Area 4, Watkins. Calculated dates are based on
the Binford (1962) regression formula, as a matter of convenience, and are not in-
tended to be accurate measures of the antiquity of the specimens; dates later than
1740 are suspect. The uppermost level (10) contains recent refuse, and has been
omitted.

dating. Figure 4.3 presents data from 20 cm. arbitrary levels in zones A, B,
and C; zones D and E are omitted, as they contained only recent fill.

The most continuous and regular sequence of dates comes from Zone A, which
shows a gradual but definite shift in the distribution of bore diameters. Al-
though these pipestem collections were made by arbitrary levels with no attempt
to sort out those stems which might have come from intrusions, the series shows
a general trend toward larger pipestem bores with increasing depth. Bore dates
seem to indicate the relative age of sediments. The date "1729" for levels 19
and 20 is probably quite accurate, and suggests that these deposits are signi-
ficantly older than the overlying materials. They correspond to early demolition
and construction layers mentioned in the previous chapter, and probably date the
initial filling of the surrounding cove.

The pipestem record also helps to define the privy and the two foundations
about it. In contrast to Zone A, which shows a rather regular accumulation of
pipestems with no clear interruption, Zone C has practically no pipestems at all
in the upper six levels. This clearly delimits the depth of the upper cellar,
where 20th century demolition fill was found. The succeeding levels, 16 and 17,
produced several pipestems from the fill of the lower granite footings, Plan II.
These were approximately contemporaneous with samples from the same levels in
Zone A, the land surface created when the wetlands were filled. Pipestems were
found within and beneath these footings even in level 20 where the privy was en-
countered. Yet the privy itself contained not a single pipe fragment among the
dozens of other artifacts. This led to pit-side speculation that the privy
owners were non-smokers, and that the head of the household may have been a
single woman--a guess which would be tested against historical information.

The pipestem data clearly reflect the intrusion of the Merchant's Row
foundation trench, but fail to detect the more recent age of the fill above it.
Like Zone A, the cove calculations from Zone B suggest a reasonably consistent
progression of dates. The lower four levels, however, have very few pipestems.
Here the narrow zone is dominated by the Merchant's Row foundation trench, which
was apparently filled with comparatively sterile deposits. The upper levels,
11 through 14, come from trash accumulation which built up in the late 19th
century in the alley between buildings. The trash covers the Merchant's Row
doorway, as well as the later window which replaced it. The calculated dates
for the pipestems of these upper levels are more than a century too old, and
the bore data are therefore ambiguous, even for relative dating.

Pipestems, of course, were only one of a number of sets of data used to
.determine the sequence of events at Watkins. Also important were probate and
property records, city directories, and diagnostic artifacts. These bits of
information were fitted to the stratigraphic record (Appendix A, p. 190) to
arrive at the following scenario.

Chronology Review

Recall from the previous chapter that the deepest sediments at Watkins,
specifically in Zone A, contained sterile gravels and muck, the slope of which
suggested that'the siteonce stood at the edge of a cove. A building must have
been erected near the edge of this cove by about 1700, for by 1725 there is
evidence for demolition and reconstruction debris. Several decimeters of bone

waste and household trash then accumulated in Zones A and B through the middle
of the 18th century. Artifacts from this fill include examples of slip-decorated
earthenware, delftware, white saltglaze stoneware, and a few sherds of creamware.
Fragments from a globular wine bottle also belong to this period.

Later, the wood framed privy was installed in the cove fill at Zone C (Fig.
4.4). The privy contents were rich in household items, none of which appears
to have been made prior to ca. 1745 or later than ca. 1780. This was evidently,
waste from the Hale-Watkins house, which is identified by property and probate
records as standing behind the main row of houses on Water Street, placing it
on the edge of the former cove. Presumably some of the trash scattered to the
side of the privy in Zones A and B can also be attributed to the Hale-Watkins
occupation.

The upper part of the privy frame was broken and some of the contents
spilled into Zone B when a new foundation was built directly above the privy.
No precise historic reference for this structure has been found, although it may
have been a "woodhouse" or woodshed mentioned in an account of the fire (Gilman
and Gilman 1811). It appears to have been a modest building, with no basement;
the granite footings are not mortared, and are irregular. Associated wrecking
debris contains only hand forged nails, suggesting a pre-1795 construction.
Under one large stone of the footings was a hand-forged rat trap, probably
dragged underneath the foundation by its victim (Fig. 4.5). The trap is vir-
tually identical to the "ordinary English gin," apparently in use at Salem,
Massachusetts by 1650 (Russell 1967:113-114). Unfortunately, however, such
specimen bears no strike mark which could date it more precisely.

A section of Merchant's Row was built at about the same time as the adja-
cent outbuilding, and is represented here by its.,southwest corner. A shell-
edged pearlware plate from its foundation trench suggests that this construction
dates no earlier than 1790, and that it was therefore an addition to the Mer-
chant's Row nucleus excavated in Area 1. At this time, the space between
buildings must have been adequate to allow access to the basement through the
doorway mentioned previously. In any case, Merchant's Row was only damaged in
the 1811 fire, whereas the adjacent outbuilding did not survive, and there is
no record that it was ever rebuilt. Merchant's Row was expanded by two bays
after the fire of 1811, but the abutting brick masonry apparently stands on
footings installed before the fire. The footings may have belonged to an
earlier frame addition which had to be replaced.

In the middle of the 19th century, a foundation was excavated on the site
of the earlier privy and outbuilding. By 1858, several unrelated people claimed
this address as their home, suggesting that this was a boarding house or tene-
ment (NCD 1859). Construction of this building so close to Merchant's Row may
have made the basement doorway-superfluous, and perhaps even hazardous to small
youngsters at play. By 1860 the doorway was replaced by a basement window
fitted with protective wrought iron bars. Mid-18th century trash rapidly
accumulated in the alley, Zone B, and by 1900 the window itself was partially
covered.

The Watkins sequence provides two very different assemblages of refuse for
comparison, both derived from residents of the Central Waterfront. The earlier
dates to the Colonial Period, when Newburyport was a thriving coastal town
built around its harbor facilities. The second assemblage, fully a hundred years

Vl@ "@k

A* -

Fig. 4.4. Hale-Watkins privy, Area 4. A, Corner of wood framed privy, after
overlying foundations have been removed; note overlying demolition debris from
cellar hole fill. B, Detail of privy frame, showing creamware plate, and cylin-
drical bottle after partial excavation.

------------ -
rQ_ w-

All_
A

-Z

Fig. 4.5. Common English gin (rat trap) found under late 18th century
outbuilding foundation at Area 4.

younger, accumulated when the waterfront was dominated by industrial facilities.
The contrast between these neighborhoods and persons who lived in them is
striking.

Hale-Watkins Household 1745-1821

Speculation in the field that the privy refuse might have been derived from
a single woman was at least partially correct, but the historical facts are some-
what more involved.

The household represented by the privy was originally headed by Dr. Nathan
Hale, a lineal descendant of one of Newbury's original settlers (Hale 1889:86).
Hale was a physician who had considerable influence in the community, and for
many years served as justice of the peace. He acquired considerable real estate
during his lifetime, including farmland in central Massachusetts and southern
New Hampshire, as well as business properties and tenements in Newburyport. In
1760, the aging Hale apparently occupied a house behind the shops and rental
properties which he owned on Water Street. With him were his wife, Elizabeth,
a widowed daughter, Elizabeth Hale Watkins, Mrs. Watkins' three children, and a
negro slave, Quash. Dr. Hale's unstable son, Nathan, may also have lived with
them or in one of the adjacent Hale-owned buildings. Although the younger Nathan
was a college graduate, he apparently could not be trusted to manage his own
affairs (ECPC 12159). The burden for taking care of Nathan, the elder Hales,
and the three children must have fallen on Elizabeth Watkins and Quash. In com-
pensation, her father gave Elizabeth a large share of the family household
possessions before he died (ECRD 124:272). Listed among these belongings, be-
tween his chaise and his two largest brass kettles, was Quash. Upon the death
of the elder Hales in 1767 and 1768, Elizabeth shared most of the balance of
their belongings with Nathan. She was named executrix of the estate and, in
effect, held Nathan's share in trust.

The unstable son may have lived for a time with his sister and her children,
but died in 1775 at the age of 55. Elizabeth continued to reside here until her
death, ca.1799 (ECRD 164:113). In 1810, this property was in the hands of her
son, "Billy Watkins, an eccentric old bachelor ... one of the notorieties of
the town" (Emery 1879:232). In 1811 the Great Fire claimed the Hale-Watkins
buildings, listed as "2 dwelling houses, 2 stores, 2 back stores and woodhouse,
1 store unoccupied" (Gilman and Gilman 1811). There is no indication that
William Watkins was able to rebuild after the fire, and in 1821 the property was
sold at an auction to support him in his old age (ECRD 226:144-145). This marked
the end of the estate built up by Dr. Nathan Hale.

During the time that most of the privy rubbish accumulated, Elizabeth Wat-
kins managed the household, caring for various family members. In 1780, the
approximate date of the privy's abandonment, Widow Watkins was 58, and probably
lived alone. The privy contents, some.120items, were mostly domestic trash.
Liquor bottles were common, as were glassware and china from table settings.
Pharmaceutical vials were also present together with chamber pots and mixing
bowls.

A representative sample of the Hale-Watkins glassware appears in Fig. 4.6.
Ten or more free-blown and blown-in-mould glass flips were found, most of which
were plain. At least four, however, were wheel-engraved like specimens A and B.

lit

Fig. 4.6. Glassware from the Hale-Watkins household. Specimens A-E re-
covered from within the privy; F-J found outside the privy in levels b-e1717eved to
be contemporaneous with the Hale-Watkins occupation. A, Rim of a wheel-engraved
glass tumbler or flip carrying a common design, often attributed to Stiegel. B,
Fluted, blown-in-mould, wine flip with wheel engraved design similar to A and
also often attributed to Stiegel. C, Plain, clear glass tumbler bases with
rough pontil marks. D and E, Wine glass, and wine glass bowl, English; E has a
cut, fluted stem with seven facettes, popular ca. 1770. F, Goblet bowl with
applied string ribs, unidentified. G, Inverted baluster knop from drinking glass
stem, early 18th century. H, Quatrefoil stem, late 17th century. I, Stem with
angular knop, early to mid-18th century. 1, Unidentified bowl fragment.

Fluted wine flips like B were already being produced by American glassmakers,
the most famous being '@B_aron" Henry von Stiegel, whose glassworks in Manheim
Pennsylvania were in operation from 1763 to 1774 (Hunter 1950: Fig. 115;
Robertson 1969:131 Two wine glasses, D and E, were also found in the upper
privy refuse, the latter surviving almost intact. This was an imported British
specimen, having a seven sided stem popular in 1770 (Ash 1975:78). Other glass
stems shown were found in Zone B, outside the privy, and date from the first '
years of the 18th century. Attractive as these items are, they were well with-
in the means of the families with moderate incomes, and do not imply any parti-
cular affluence. This was probably everyday glassware.

Dr. Hale's family had a representative sample of moderately expensive fine
earthenware imported from Great Britain (Fig. 4.7). The service with which
Quash may have served tea to the family was of very fine, plain creamware, and
boasted an elegant teapot with a fancy molded handle. Plates, also of cream-
ware, were molded in the 11royal" pattern, popular in the third quarter of the
18th century. Adults may have drunk rum from the tall mugs that were apparently
a part of this set. A steel knife blade, found with this setting, shows.the
rounded end typical of this period. The maker, "SHEMEL," unfortunately could
not be identified.

Other tableware belonging to the family testifies to the developing compe-
tition between British and Chinese ceramics in the second half of the 18th
century. Two specimens of Chinese export teacups were found, one painted in
blue with a solid brown glaze exterior, and another decorated in black and gold
designs applied on top of the glaze (Fig. 4.8). In imitation of the vitreous
china of the Chinese, British potters produced pale earthenwares decorated in
pseudo-Chinese patterns, represented here by a teapot lid and large tea bowl.
The saltglaze stoneware, also found in the privy, may date somewhat earlier, for
it was most popular in the mid-18th century (Fig. 4.9). The elegant scratch
blue bowl represents a by-product of earlier British competition with the gray
stoneware of Rhenish potters.

Like the glassware, then, the Hale-Watkins table setting was elegant, but
common. Shiploads of these very wares were regularly exported from Britain in-
to the colonies where they would find a steady market. On the whole, these were
not considered luxury items; whatever wealth the family possessed was not flaunt-
ed by these mundane household possessions.

Virtuous as Dr. Hale is recorded to have been, it is clear that his family
enjoyed regular libations. In the small section of privy which was sampled, at
least a dozen free-blown English and French wine bottles were represented, some
of them nearly complete (Fig. 4.10). Two bottles were slightly globular, shapes
popular ca. 1740, but the rest were cylindrical types, probably made between
1755 and 1785 (Noel Hume 1970:65-68). Fragments of three case bottles, often
identified as "Dutch gin bottles," were also discovered. Containers of this
type are roughly contemporary with the other glassware.

The most elegant of all the presumed liquor bottles was a delicate, painted
'Icordial bottle," (Fig. 4.11A). The figure of a youth in 18th.century dress
appears on one side, with a saying of some sort in old German script on the
other: "... Mein kind und ...... The bright enameling is done in red, yellow,
blue, green, and black. Again, this specimen is similar to ones which have been
attributed to Stiegel (Hunter 1950:Plate VII and Fig. 142). Although this may

kv nl 01

Fig. 4.7. Hale-Watkins fine creamware tea service and table setting. A,
Teapot with-elegant double strap handle in acanthus leaf motif; @, cup and
saucer or shallow bowl; C, mug with acanthus leaf handle; D, creamer;.K, dinner
plate in royal pattern, ca. 1770; F, knife blade embossed T'SHEMEL." All speci-
mens found within the privy except C, assembled from fragments in Zone B.

TV
"9
ON

_W K

V,
"T V, 14@' !@n' p>@
,NJ

106!

01, lygi,
11_11T@il
A
6 09

Fig. 4@8. Oriental motifs on Hale-Watkins ceramics. A and B, British
creamware; C and D, Chinese export porcelain. A, Teapot li7d, underglaze blue;
B, tea bowl, underglaze blue.; C, porcelain cup, overglaze black and gold; D.
porcelain cup, underglaze blue interior, solid brown glaze exterior. All
specimens from within Hale-Watkins privy.

f'I4

"341

Fig. 4.9. British white saltglaze stoneware from the Hale-Watkins privy.
A, Scratch blue bowl, with motif matching pitcher from Williamsburg, Va. dated
ca. 1755 (Noel Hume 1969:18); B, plain white saltglaze soup plate, third quarter
18th century.

r7-

A -4

B C

Fig. 4.10. Common bottle types from the Hale-Watkins privy. A, Globular,
or squat, cylindrical wine bottles, shapes popular as early as 174(@_, but possibly
as recent as 1780 (compare Noel Hume 1969:41);.E, cylindrical wine bottles,
probably British, 1755-1785; C, case, or "Dutch Gin" bottle, 18th century.

@'Vx

U`
TA
- 4,
!4
lgil
V,
OoK

4
'N My
kilk, R I

N
@q

U If
@ @ A11711
At-

Fig. 4.11. "Cordial bottle" and pharmaceutical vial from the Hale-Watkins
privy. A, Stiegel-type enamelled bottle in red, yellow, blue green, and black,
German or German-American ca. 1770; B, amber pharmaceutical vial, hand blown in
case form.

represent Stiegel's work, or that of another German-born glassmaker in Colonial
America, German inscriptions are apparently more common on imported specimens.

Five or six of Dr. Hale's pharmaceutical vials are also represented in the
privy, but the walls of these thin cylindrical bottles were too thin to reassem-
ble. A rectangular specimen made of a distinctive amber glass was reconstructed,
however, and is shown here (Fig. 4.11B). The bases and rims of four rectangular
wide-mouthed jars were also found, but their significance is unknown.

Many other items in Area 4 date from the same general period as the Hale-
Watkins privy, but were not directly associated with that feature (Fig. 4.12).
Interestingly, these trash items included a higher percentage of baser utensils:
chamber pots, red earthenware crocks, and other such items. Complementing the
locally made red earthen ware are imported specimens with combed-slip decoration.
The mug, A, is a British import, manufactured in Staffordshire or Bristol be-
tween 17@60 and 1775, and is virtually identical to a specimen from Williamsburg,
Virginia (Noel Hume 1969:26). The Rhenish chamber pot, D, also has a counter-
part in the Williamsburg collection which is identified as an early 18th century
Westerwald stoneware, manufactured for the British market (Noel Hume 1969:28).
The source of the crucible, E, is not clear, but it may have come from one of
the shops leased by Dr. Hale. The find is contemporary with the evidence for
metalworking discovered near by in Area 3, and discussed in the previous chapter.

Certain details in the artifact record amplify our knowledge of Dr. Hale's
political concerns, or those of his family. Historically, we know that at the
age of 19, Dr. Hale served as assistant surgeon in an assault launched by
British Army regulars and 4000 colonists against the French outpost at Port
Royal (later Port Annapolis), Nova Scotia. This was the American manifestation
of Queen Anne's War, a determined effort in 1710 by the British and other naval
powers to assure that Louis XIV would not make good his claim as successor to
the Spanish throne. The archaeological remains found in and around the privy
suggest that this was not Dr. Hale's last commitment to political struggles
originating overseas. A wine bottle, tossed into the privy and retrieved almost
intact, bears the inscription "IR" crudely scratched on its outer surface (Fig.
4.13B). In any other temporal context, this bottle might be construed as the
personal property of anybody having these initials. But in the decade following
1745, "IR" was frequently engraved on British goblets and other glassware
(Crompton 1968:118). The reference was to the cause of the Stuart family,
which lost the British crown in 1688 when, as a result of his liberal stand
toward Roman Catholicism,James II was exiled to France. In 1745, Charles
Edward ("Bonnie Prince Charlie") returned to Scotland in an attempt to establish
his fat-her as King James III of England (James VIII of Scotland). This final
effort of the Stuart family to reclaim the throne gained many sympathizers, and
although this rebellion was crushed by 1747, it was remembered in symbolism
throughout the British world. In this case, IR stands for Iacobus Rex, i.e.,
King James.

Another bit of political propaganda is represented in a saltglaze plate
(Fig. 4.13A) bearing a well-known inscription. In its entirety, the plate would
read "SUCCESS TO T[HE KING OF PRUSSIA AND HIS FORCES]" (Noel Hume 1970;116).
Finding this plate in Newburyport is a reminder that the French and Indian War
was, in fact, a part of a European conflict, and involved more than disputes
over North American boundaries. The British, interested in protecting their
own principality in Hannover, supported Frederick the Great in his battle with

iT,

K4 V.@
M

NP,

-4A

W
W,

V
f-t
MP

in.
-T;PN4k'@ V

Fig. 4.12. Middle to late 18th century ceramics from Area 4, tentatively
assigned to the Hale-Watkins occupation. A, Combed slipware mug, brown through
yellow, thought to be made in Bristol or Staffordshire, ca. 1765. B, Combed
slipware 15 in platter, brown through cream witli copper green splotches; probably
third quarter 18th century. C, Rhenish gray stoneware mug rim with cobalt blue
banding, 1740-1760. D, Rhenish gray stoneware chamberpot with alternate sprigged,
rampant.lions and stamped rosettes in cobalt blue, 1710-1765 (Noel Hume 1970:281).
E, Ceramic crucible, source and significance unknown.

A B

Ir___ 7_1
-Cm.

Fig. 4.13. Political inscriptions on household items from the
Hale-Watkins privy. A, British saltg1aze stoneware, embossed "SUCCESS
TO THE KING OF PRUSSIA AND HIS FORCES," a slogan supporting Frederick
the Great during the Seven Years' War, 1755-1763. B, English wine
bottle with rude inscription "IR!' probably representing "Iacobus Rex,"
i.e. King James, in sympathy with the second Jacobite rebellion of
1745-1747.

the French and Austrians over control of Silesia. Naturally, as loyal British
subjects, many colonists must have supported King Frederick as well.

The implications of the trade pattern and the political events reflected
in the Hale-Watkins trash give us a clearer picture of the port of Newbury
immediately prior to the American Revolution. Dr. Hale was a fourth generation
citizen of Newbury, and yet he apparently considered himself beyond all other
allegiances to be an English citizen. Although his home was situated on the
waterfront, there is no historical evidence that he ever took part in any ship-
ping investments, or that he or any member of his immediate family ever traveled
to the Mother Country. Yet his allegiances were almost pre-determined in a sea-
port whose immediate prosperity was founded on trade with Britain and with other
British colonies.

Dr. Hale, moreover, was an influential man, actively interested in community
affairs. In 1759, he brought a petition before the town meeting for the purchase
of a fire engine, which was apparently approved. Though his petition the follow-
ing year for the repair or rebuilding of the Town House was denied, there is no
question that he was a responsible and respected community member (Coffin 1845:
221, 225). As he was a slave owner, which at the time was ostensibly illegal,
the community must have tacitly sanctioned that institution.

A tentative picture of the Hale-Watkins family of the 1760's presents them
as comfortable, although not wealthy, and almost entirely dependent on the
financial resources of the failing Dr. Hale'. At the same time, the domestic re-
fuse represents cooking and eating utensils, and suggests that the most active
adult was the widowed daughter, Mrs. Watkins, who may have done the bulk of the
housework. Hand tools, hardware, horse furniture and related items were not
found in the privy trash or in contemporary sediments. In fact, there is
nothing in the trash deposits to suggest that there was an able-bodied man living
in the house at this time.

Considering the size of Dr. Hale's estate, however, there is no question
that the family was well provided for. Minimally, they appear to have eaten a
varied diet. Bones from the privy, like those outside, represent cattle, swine,
sheep, deer, and large fowl. Also from the privy are quahog shell from the
local hard-shelled clam, but, surprisingly, no fish. The fecal matter contains
material tentatively identified as eggshell, potato skins, apple skins, onion
skins, maize kernals, and seeds of several fruits.

According to a property transfer of 1766, all three Watkins children slept
together upon a single pallet on the floor (ECRD 124:272). This was probably a
common arrangement in less well-to-do families, but is rather surprising here.
Life for the three Watkins children, fatherless and growing up in a house domi-
nated by an elderly couple and perhaps a deranged uncle, may have been austere.
Unlike the children who were to play here a century later, there is no evidence
in the trash from either the privy or surrounding area that they had any toys.
Perhaps they simply played elsewhere, away from the outhouse.

Newcomers -- 1858-1900

Some of the property which Billy Watkins was forced to part with was eventu-
ally acquired by Foster Smith, a member of another established Newburyport family.

Smith was evidently a clothier who owned a f rame shop annexed to the Ferry Wharf
Building, a structure which.must have been addedafter the building code was re-
pealed in 1835. While Smith worked at this shop, he resided in a more fashion-
able section of town in the family dwelling at "Smith's Court" (NCD 1860).
Apparently one of Smith's financial investments was the construction of a frame
boarding house or tenement on the land immediately behind his shop. The obscu-
rity of Smith's building and its tenants is reflected even in the address, "rear
11 Water Stteet." One of the earliest records of its occupancyis derived from
the city directory for 1860 (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1. Occupants of boarding house, rear 11 Water Street, 1860.

Name Occupation

Mrs. Moses Cavanaugh
John Dooley fisherman
Franklin Fitzpatrick mariner (boarder)
James Phillips mariner

Mrs. Cavenaugh may then have been running a boarding house, or perhaps she was
one of several unrelated roomers at this address. Whatever the circumstances,
the building was overlooked in the census of 1860, as none of these people are
mentioned.

The boarding house was listed, however, in the census of 1870, and with
information from the city directory, a much clearer picture of the-people who
lived there emerges (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2. Occupants of boarding house, rear 11 Water Street, 1870.

Name Occupation Age Birthplace Literacy

Michael Tobin mariner 35 Newfoundland
Mary Tobin 30 Ireland
Jere Tobin 3 Massachusetts
Michael Tobin 10 mos. Massachusetts
Ellen Riorden (Rearden) widow 60 Ireland

James Ryan mariner 30 Newfoundland Illiterate
Ellen Ryan 28 Newfoundland Illiterate

The personal wealth of the Tobin family is listed at $1500, and apparently they
claimed no real estate. The family may have been poor, but certainly was not
destitute. The data imply that Tobin, a Canadian, had married an Irish immi-
grant, and was raising a family in Massachusetts. Mrs. Riorden was probably his
mother-in-law.

The Tobins apparently shared the building with another Newfoundland couple,
the Ryans, who were illiterate and whose personal property was of no consequence.

James Phillips, mariner, was also living in the building in 1870, but was not
included in the census.

The occupants, then, were Canadian-born sailors and their families, some
supposedly illiterate, and none of significant property or standing in the commu-
nity. None of these names occur in any history or account of Newburyport, nor do
they appear on Civil War records. In all likelihood, they were Roman Catholics,
newcomers in a Protestant world. Regardless of their actual status, they were
probably considered transients, barely worth mentioning in the vital statistics
of the city.

In succeeding decades, the building may have housed only one family at a
time. In 1880, this was the family of laborer Christopher Knox. In 1891,
another laborer, John Doherty, lived here. By 1901 the building appears to have
been unoccupied. Perhaps it was used by the junk dealer Morris Saltinsky, who
worked below the sail maker at 3 Ferry Wharf, and lived at 11 Water Street. In
any case, the change in occupancy reflects the death of the sailing ships, and
indirectly, the shipbuilding industry of Newburyport.

The neighborhood in which the Tobin children got their start was not an
enviable one (Fig. 4.14). The family lived sandwiched in between a large coal
pocket, the dilapidated stores of Merchant's Row, and the back of the former
Smith clothing shop, later used successively as a variety store and a liquor
store. Only a narrow alley with a high fence on its eastern side gave them
access to the street.

The household goods found in the alley trash were modest. Like the Hale's
dishes, most of the table setting was imported from England, although some
pieces evidently came from Ireland (Fig. 4.15). Most is plain, white ironstone,
one piece bearing a registry mark dated to October, 1855, and other pieces with
marks dating from 1863 to 1890. Generally the appearance of the pottery is
functional, antiseptic, and even institutional. These were commonplace, mass
produced items with not a hint of elegance. With these dishes was found a
single iron spoon, probably representative of the flatware used by these occu-
pants. Locally made stoneware containers, such as a large jug from Charlestown,
Massachusetts, were used to store various household commodities (Fig. 4.16).

The domestic trash, then, is very similar in function to that discarded in
the Hale-Watkins privy. Dissimilarities between the two assemblages can be ex-
plained largely by changes in technology and differences in standard of living.
Ironstone mugs and pressed glass tumblers probably substituted for the handsome
hand-made wine goblets and flips used earlier. Fragile free-blown glass bottles
were replaced by rugged stoneware bottles and jugs, and porous redware crockery
gave way to improved-stoneware specimens. If tea services were owned, they were
apparently not used, broken, and replaced with the frequency of the Hale-Watkins
sets, and except for the worn face of a steeple clock (Fig. 4.15H), simple
luxuries were absent.

The refuse of the alley was found mixed together with discarded bones and
other garbage. Faunal remains also included much shellfish and several fish
vertebrae, all to be expected in the families of Catholic fishermen and mariners.
Other meats represented were basically the same as those consumed by the Hale-
'Watkins family, although in this case almost all the bones showed saw marks and
had been butchered commercially into comparatively small pieces. Though many

4f-

Al
Y 17,
4
4

Fig. 4.14. Ferry Wharf Building and Merchant's Row from the
Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company coal pocket, looking south-
west, ca. 1880. Note the boardinghouse, left center, partially obscured by
the trestle. Photo courtesy of the Newburyport Public Library.

-Vi

W
2"T"
Wy

A,
-Z iNV
0. a"M V@1-1@1_11 ---T

Fig. 4.15. Table setting and household goods from the boardinghouse
alley, Area 4. A-D, British ironstone of simple shapes; C bears the registry
mark of October, 17855. E, Red transferware marked "India-n Scenery". F, Plain
blue ironstone bowl. G, Iron spoon. H, Steeple clock face. I, Green ink
bottle with blow-pipe pontil'. J, Brass flange, hurricane lamp.

M,
M
MONW7
4 44RN R
ti Au" MM

i_Z, ';Wi
%Mi e,,,, J,
4V*
i@@, i,
5,
A
"M

VI
4@3
V,

@QIVI
41
.4
5

_3
r

% A -N,
"y R
K

4ZZW

w
cim P

Fig. 4.16. Late 19th century stoneware jugs, crocks and bottles, repre-
sentative of pieces found in the boardinghouse alley. Specimens A-C were
actually found in Area 6, but are identical to fragmentary remains from this
site; D-E are from the alley itself. A, One pint cream glazed ginger beer bottle;
B, one quart gray to buff stoneware jug; C, gray stoneware quart bottle stamped
"McCONNON11; D, buff ledge-handle butter pot; @@, gray stoneware two-gallon jug,
with foliate design in cobalt blue, made by Edmands & Co., Charlestown, Mass.

choice cuts of meats may have been represented, preliminary examination indi-
cates that many soup bones were represented as well.

The children apparently played amid the trash in the alley beside their
house, their only yard. Clearly, parents sought to keep them occupied with an
impressive assortment of manufactured toys, many of which were ultimately lost
in the dirt of the alley (Fig. 4.17). The tiny tea service and the minature
china doll with the moveable arms and legs are traditional representations of
some little girl's intended role in life. Clay marbles, a cast iron toy shovel,
and a jackknife are almost essentials in toy box inventory of some little boy.
Souvenir mugs were given to the children, perhaps to coax them to drink their
milk. One cup even bears the enticement, "For a Good Girl," as if to set a
future archaeologist straight on the matter.

In spite of the supposed illiteracy of the Ryan family and the transient
nature ofoccupancy, some of the following generation at least saw elementary
schooling. Worn-out steatite pencils for writing on school slates were found
with the toys in the alley, and ink bottles were found among the trash of toys
and pottery. We do not know definitely of the success or failure of this new
generation in extricating itself from the waterfront squalor which existed in
the second half of the 19th century. We do know, however, that the neighborhood
continued to decay. In the early 20th century, it began to be littered with
liquor bottles and at times thereafter became the realm of wharfside derelicts.

low/

el,
H

G,
E

Y
17
47
@10

Fig. 4.17. Late 19th century playthings and other children's property.
A, Toy china teacups; .11, bone china doll pieces;.@@, polychrome transfer printed
ironstone mugs; D, marbles of limestone and clay; 1@, rubber ball; F, steatite
pencils (for writing on slates); G, toy iron shovel; H, bone handled jacknife.

Workers, Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Co. coal pocket, ca. 1913.
Photo courtesy Jacoby family.
0

PART 11

HISTORICAL REVIEW

@A-

'04

Fv@

MM
N

44@

5. PRE-COLONIAL VISITORS AND SETTLERS

Prehistoric Camps

There is no question that the mouth of the Merrimack was a choice location
for aboriginal camps, and that some of these existed within the bounds of to-
day's Central Waterfront. We discovered chipped stone tools from at least two
such occupations in excavations along the "Great Rock," a ledge underlying
Ferry Wharf. Ground and polished stone tools were also found, dredged from the
Market Slip by a construction crew building a new seawall. Although both sets
of artifacts were found in historic disturbances, they do indicate that the
area was occupied during one prehistoric period, the Late Archaic.

Knowledge of settlement of the Merrimack valley during all prehistoric
periods is severely limited. Until comparatively recently, archaeologists have
had to rely on a primitive survey conducted in 1930, before many prehistoric
cultures were recognized and before proper recording procedures were adopted
(Moorehead 1931). Subsequent tests of sites identified in the survey report
have shown many of the initial identifications to be inaccurate. A recent
study by Dincauze and Meyer (1977) documents some of the cultural resources of
this part of New England, but adds no new data. It is intended only as a guide
to future planning and developing, suggesting where one might reasonably expect
to find aboriginal sites. Fortunately, some first hand fieldwork is currently
being conducted in the Merrimack estuary by Harvard University. Specimens from
the Central Waterfront have been examined by Russell Barber who is directing
this work.

The projectile points which we unearthed fall into two distinct types
(Fig. 5.1). Barber (personal communication) classifies the largest one as an
"Otter Creek" type as it bears some resemblance to points from New York (Ritchie
1969:87). Otter Creek points are found in assemblages dating ca. 3500 B.C., and
are associated with the Laurentian Tradition, originally defined for New York.
The 3500 B.C. date is mentioned here only to convey the general magnitude of the
point's antiquity as the cultural connection with the New York collections is
far from clear. The raw material from which the point is made is a coarse
argillite, probably from a local New England source. The smaller two points,
however, are made from a dark gray chert which may well have come from a source
in central New York state. Barber classifies these as "Normanskill" points, a
type thought to date somewhat later. Unfortunately this form is a very common
one in Archaic and Woodland assemblages, and is not closely defined either in
time or space. Similar specimens have been noted in the upper levels of the
Bull Brook site in nearby Ipswich, Massachusetts, as well as in sites discovered
along the coast of Maine during the Passamaquoddy Archaeological Survey (col-
lections of the Peabody Foundation, Andover, Mass.). The ground and polished
stone adz, one of at least two dredged from Market Slip, may belong to either of
these groups.

In his work along the Merrimack estuary, Barber has found very little
Archaic material, probably because the estuary of 4000 to 6000 years ago has
long since been submerged by rising sea level. The Archaic remains which he has
encountered so far are apparently scattered remains on the uplands, far from any
major encampments which might have existed for gathering shellfish, or exploiting
other marine resources. His few specimens are small-stemmed projectile points,
quite different from the side-notched points of the Central Waterfront.

1,10
A
4a

41-

PVO
E

0i
4@
z n",

N
q#tpl, ggg

F
G

;'A -A
in.

11 P

Fig. 5.1. Aboriginal artifacts. A, Fine-grained granitic ground and
polished adze, one of two specimens found in dredging the Market Slip during sea-
wall construction. B and C, Chert and felsite bifaces from historical distur-
bances in Merchantfs Row. D and E, Normanskill side-notched projectile points,
both of chert probably derived from central New York state; specimen D was found
in builder's trench for an iron pipe in Ferry Way, while E came from the foun-
dation trench of an addition to the core building of Merchant's Row. F, Otter
Creek-like projectile point of argillite, found in the foundation trench of the
core building at Merchant's Row. G, Brass weight recovered in association with
specimen E; pipestems and iron nai@fls were found with the other aboriginal tools.
All prehistoric materials apparently date to the Late Archaic; suggested anti-
quity of these specimens is ca. 2500-3500 B.C.

The remains in the project area have apparently been preserved because
they, too, were on high land. At this time, the Great Rock must have been a
low promontory overlooking the Merrimack--a choice spot for a hunting camp. Yet
the nature of this camp is unclear. Surely,these peoples lived here long after
the Big Game Hunters who inhabited the Bull Brook site in nearby Ipswich at the
close of the last glaciation. It is equally certain that they lived consider-
ably before the introductio.nof the bow and arrow, pottery, and agriculture.
They hunted with stone-tipped lances, and were equipped with heavy tools for
working wood. But it is not known, for example, whether they were river people
who visited the coast only on occasion to hunt, or if they were adapted to the
coastal life, exploiting shellfish, swordfish, and other marine resources. In
short, their livelihood remains a mystery.

Fascinating as these aboriginal finds are, their interpretive value is
limited by the absence of associated refuse and features which would tell about
the way of life they represent. No chipping debris, no shell or bone accumulation,
no hearths or other features were unearthed which could be associated with these
remains. The 18th and 19th century disturbances which have occurred here are
probably typical of the rest of the Central Waterfront, and the chances of en-
countering significant aboriginal remains here in undisturbed contexts are re-
mote. The answers to questions of prehistoric settlement along the Merrimack
should be sought elsewhere.

European Contact and Watts's Cellar

The history of the Central Waterfront begins in the first years of the 17th
century. For some time before the first permanent English settlement, the New-
buryport area was on the frontier of European expansion. Explorers Samuel De
Champlain in 1605 and John Smith in 1614 described the mouth of the Merrimack
River in their accounts (Dow 1921:1). But the Europeans who usually called here
were probably fishermen who stopped only occasionally while exploiting the off-
shore banks, or the kind of adventurers who drifted to frontiers (Albion et al.
1972:16). To some extent, both of these groups lived beyond the laws of their
respective societies and beyond the ken of the chronicles of their times.
When the area was settled by English colonists, some enticing references to
these earlier figures were recorded. One of these allusions, frequently repeated,
states that pre-settlement fishermen cured portions of their catch on the banks
of the Merrimack River and stored it in Watts's cellar (Coffin 1845:10, 15).
Another is that this enigmatic person known as "Watts" traded there with the
native inhabitants (Smith 1854:24).

This Watts has been identified tentatively by Dr. Dena Dincauze as Walter
Bagnall (Harris 1977:16). In her reconstruction of events, based on early
colonial and English records, she states that Walter Bagnall joined an unautho-
rized trading venture operated by Thomas Morton at a site which later became
Braintree, Massachusetts. According to various accounts, Bagnall either left
the group or was assigned to one of their outposts in 1626. Harris (1977:8)-
cites Governor Winthrop's journal to show that Bagnall pointedly ignored the
jurisdiction of the colony's government and that he cheated and mistreated the
Indians. By 1628, Bagnall was trading on Richmond Island, Maine, and he was
killed there by the Indians in 1631.

In the preceding account there is a two-year gap between Walter Bagnall's
departure from Braintree and his arrival at Richmond Island. It is possible

that he spent these two years trading on the lower Merrimack valley. Also,
Watt was a common nickname for Walter in the 17th century. These two facts make
up Dr. Dincauze's argument that the Newburyport traditions about Watts may refer
to the historical Walter Bagnall (Harris 1977:16; Dincauze, personal communi-
cation).

Other explanations for-early references to Watts are possible. Early
Colonial records cite one or two grants made by the General Court of Massachu-
setts for a trading station on the Merrimack prior to the arrival of the English
settlers in 1635 (Smith 1854:10, 24). A different Walter or Watt could have
been connected with one of these efforts. Furthermore, the name Watts appears
as a common surname in histories of early New England. For example, the ship
Elizabeth and Dorcas which arrived in New England in 1634, was under the com-
mand of Captain Watts (Currier 1896:250). The following discussion refers to
the events of Walter Bagnall's life, not because we believe that this individual
was associated with the waterfront, but because it offers a good example of the
difficulty in identifying pre-settlement events through post-settlement records.

The first English colonists arrived in Newbury in 1635, four years after
Walter Bagnall's death, and seven or eight years after he had left for Maine.
They did not settle on land now in Newburyport until 1642-1648 (Currier 1896:
120, 1906:338). At that time what is now State Street was laid out and called
"the way to Watts his cellar." These first references to Watts date nearly
twenty years after Walter Bagnall had departed for Maine. The settlers may
have believed simply that Watt, whichever one they meant, traded at this place.
On the other hand, they may have referred to an actual ruin of a trading post or
cache for fish. The latter use is consistent with early references to cellars
as places where fish were stored. In Israel Webster's deposition of 1667, he
states that he transported twenty-two kegs and firkins of pickled sturgeon from
William Thomas' cellar in Newbury,to Boston (Currier 1896:175).

It is very possible that none of the settlers who arrived in Newbury in
1635 ever saw this storage pit or trading post in use. If this was the case,
they must have heard the story connected with the site or from people with
prior knowledge of the Merrimack, perhaps fishermen or settlers from an adjacent
town. Their statements about the waterfront before 1635 were not direct, eye-
witness testimonies; they were the equivalent of today's popular legend that the
bowsprits of sailing ships used to jut out over Market Square (Currier 1896:121) .
Both traditions may contain elements of truth, but should be viewed critically.

Naturally there is much interest in the location of Watts's cellar. As a
pre-settlement feature, it is automatically in the realm of what passes for a
traditional American mythology, speculation on the history of our land and its
peoples before European settlement and the mundane records of civilization.
There are two sources of information we can use to satisfy our curiosity about
the location of Watts's cellar. The first is the oral tradition about the land-
mark as it was passed down by local 19th century authors. Emery (1879:226) re-
peats stories told to her mother ca. 1800, and places Watts's cellar in Market
Square. Coffin (1845:37) may have heard similar tales at about the same time
and later researched the subject in the town records. He puts Watts's cellar
linear where the Newburyport Market House now stands." Currier (1877:25, 1896:
122) apparently agrees with him, locating the landmark near the Market House.

The second source, early property descriptions, is much more difficult to
interpret as illustrated by the following example. Harris (1977:15), primarily

on the basis of one deed, locates Wattsis cellar near the Ferry Wharf Building,
a site already shown by our archaeological tests to be most improbable. The
relevant passage in this deed reads, "Capt. Paul White standeth seized of a
parcel of land not exceeding half an acre at Watts his cellar granted to him
to make a dock & wharf & warehouse" (ECRD 10:95). Harris, for two reasons,
asserts that this deed illuminates the location of Watts's cellar. First, this
is a "previously unpublished" deed overlooked by earlier historians (Harris
1977:15). Second, the use of the word "at" clearly associates Watts's cellar
with that property. Both of these points are unfounded. There is no reason to
assume that Coffin, Currier, and others overlooked this deed, as it can be
found as easily as any of the others. Currier (1896:151), while he does not
quote the document verbatim, does in fact refer to it specifically in tracing
the history of the waterfront properties. The inference Harris draws from the
use of the word "at" is also unwarranted. In legal descriptions of location,
its primary meaning is '!onear" or "near to" (Blackl951:159). This is consistent
with the deposition of Percevall Lowell, who described Capt. Paul White's land
as laid out near Watts his cellar (ECRD 23:110;.Currier 1896:151). Lowell was
an eyewitness ca. 1660 to a confirmation of the bounds of this grant by members
of the town committee which had originally laid them out. Transfers of Capt.
White's property occurring before and after Harris' key deed also describe it
as "nearly or llabout" Watts's cellar, and the adjoining Dole property is described
in the same manner. The conclusion to be drawn from this example is the impor-
tance of context in interpreting these documents. What one particular deed
implies about the location of Watts's cellar must be weighed against all other
contemporary references.

Extensive review of the title transfers which relate to the project area
has led to a reformulation of the relationship between the original land grants
and the location of Watts's cellar. The reconstruction of the waterfront proper-
ties of 1700, as presented by Sidney Perley (Currier 1896:120), contains a sig-
nificant error which has misled other researchers attempting to identify this
site. Perley mislocates two grants, placing them east of the Middle Ship
Yard, when in fact they were to the west of that landmark. The error is impor-
tant, because these grants are also described with reference to Watts's cellar,
even though they are considerably removed from the site of Captain Paul White's
original grant. In order to demonstrate the relationship between tht original
land grants and this landmark, we consider them here in order from west to east.
The subsequent history of these parcels may be traced by referring to Appendix
B, p. 209.

In 1698, the town of Newbury granted Capt. Stephen Greenleaf four or five
rods of the waterfront (NTR:March 11, 1697; Coffin 1845:164). This property
was described as "near Watts' cellar."

The next grant to the east was made to Ensign Greenleaf and Daniel Davison
in 1680. It was said to be "on the point of rocks above Watts his cellar" (NTR
January 5, 1680; Coffin 1845:125). If "above" in this context means upriver,
Watts's cellar was still further to the east. But this is only one clue, and
it must be interpreted in the context of the remaining property descriptions.

In the same year, the town granted a parcel to Benjamin Rolfe, Dr. John
Dole, and Richard Dole next door to the Greenleaf-Davidson property (Currier
1896:157). The eastern boundary of this property is identified as Watts's
cellar spring on subsequent title transfers through the early 18th century.
Watts's cellar itself, however, it not mentioned.

Watts's cellar spring became the site of the public landing, the Middle
Ship Yard and ultimately the Market House. This makes up the western boundary
of the project area as shown on Fig. 3.1, p. 29. In a 1712 document, a lease
from the town permitting the landing to be used as a shipyard, the property is
further described as being near Watts's cellar (Currier 1896:280).

In 1687, incidentally, Daniel Davison obtained title to a tiny piece of
land 20 feet by 35 feet somewhere in this vicinity (NTR April 2, 1687; Currier
1896:158). It has been impossible to locate this land precisely, because its
description is ambiguous (Appendix B, P. 209). In any case, it makes no men-
tion of Watts's cellar.

In 1675 and 1678, Richard Dole received title to lands east of the public
landing (Currier 1896:153). These parcels were described as being on the point
of land between the two gutters near Watts's cellar, and were granted in re-
sponse to a request for land "about Watts his cellar" (NTR:May 7, 1675; NTR:
March 5, 1677; NTR:Sept. 20, 1678; Coffin 1845:116, 119).

East of Dole's grants was Capt. Paul White's grant of 1655 (NTR:April 25,
1655; Coffin 1845:60). As noted earlier, this land was variously described as
about, at, or near Watts's cellar. Note that Paul White's was the easternmost
property to be described by its relation to this landmark.

Although several parcels along the waterfront are identified as being near
Watts's cellar, none of the deeds specifically mention that they include this
landmark or come close to it on their eastern or western bounds. This is sur-
prising, since early property descriptions sought desperately to locate bounda-
ries by the most permanent landmarks available. For example, the boundary
descriptions "fifteen foot to the west of Watts' cellar spring," "upon ye Great
Rock," "nine feet to the east of Deacon Noyes drean," and, "by a middle rock be-
tween two other rocks" were all used to describe land on the waterfront. Why
was Watts's cellar omitted? It is possible, of course, that the precise lo-
cation of this site was even then unknown, and that there were no surviving
ruins to identify. If this is true, we need search no further, as there would
be no surviving archaeological remains to investigate.

There is, however, another possibility. Watts's cellar may have been on
the common land, which later became the market place, an interpretation which is
compatible with the suggestions of Emery, Coffin, and Currier. As this land
never passed into private hands, it had no early property description. Such a
site would be consistent with the description of the Greenleaf-Davison grant,
situated "at the point of rocks above Watts his cellar." It would also be
roughly at the midpoint of all waterfront grants which refer to this feature.
Finally, the location is a plausible one: a landing place between two promon-
tories, near a spring of fresh water, yet some distance above the marshy tide-
lands. This would be suitable either for a trading station, or for a cache
where a fisherman might store his catch.

6. FARMTNG, COMMERCE, AND SHIPBUILDING 1635-1700

The original limits of Newbury were much larger than they are today, and
included the present Newbury, Newburyport, West Newbury, and Byfield. The nu-
cleus of the first settlement was on the banks of the Parker River, three and a
half miles south of Newburyport. There were several factors which prompted the
colonists to locate here, rather than at the mouth of the Merrimack. The origi-
nal site was closer to well-established towns such as Salem to the south. It
also provided ready access to a falls with a sufficient head of water to power
a mill (Coffin 1845:16). But more important, the Parker River was at this time
the better suited for navigation,and ships could be unloaded at the heart of
the settlement. William Hood, who travelled this area from 1629 to 1633, noted
that while the Parker River offered a channel which could accommodate ships of
50 to 60 tons, the larger Merrimack had a particularly dangerous entrance
(Smith 1854:99). The sands have shifted repeatedly in the Merrimack's history,
and in the early 17th century its mouth was divided by a bar which forced ships
dangerously close to the shoals on either side (Smith 1854:8). Tradition holds
that in 1646 Aquilla Chase was the first person to bring a vessel of any size
over the bar (Coffin 1845:46; Currier 1896:22).

Another factor which delayed settlement at the mouth of the Merrimack was
the slow development of its hinterland. Areas upstream were not to be settled
for several decades, and Newbury's own resources were too limited and its popu-
lation too small for the town to generate its own trade. Travelers in the mid-
17th century described Newbury as an agricultural community of about 70 families,
and in 1671 it was still only a "... scattering, well stocked with meadow, up-
land, and arable and about 400 cattle" (Dow 1921:22, 30). It could hardly com-
pete with Salem to the south, which was already characterized as a trading port
with two harbors, a fort, and very rich merchants. Other settlements to the
north, such as Strawberry Banke (Portsmouth, N.H.) and Pemaquid (Bristol, Me.),
also had a:slight lead on Newbury in commercial development.

Settlement of the Merrimack Valley was very slow, partly because the civil
war in England in 1641 sharply reduced the flow of immigrants (Morison 1921:11),
but also because there was growing conflict between the colonists and the Indians.
Nearby Haverhill and Andover remained the frontier communities for many years,
bearing the brunt of raids in King Philip's War and later conflicts. In 1693,
at a town meeting in Haverhill, settlers considered abandoning that community
because of raids by the Abnaki (Fuess 1935:126, 141). As late as 1708, the
Reverend John Pike's journal indicates a raid on Haverhill in which 16 residents
and many soldiers from Salem were killed (Coffin 1845:334).

Newbury itself recorded only one raid. on October 7, 1695, nine members
of the John Brown family were ambushed and carried off. One of the children
escaped to give the alarm, and some of the Newbury militia, under the command
of Captain Stephen Greenleaf, were able to cut off the raiders and rescue the
family before they were carried across the Merrimack. Currier (1896:290) re-
cords that Captain Greenleaf, who was later to own land and build a house on
the Central Waterfront, was badly wounded in that fight and received a 40 E
award from the General Court in recognition of his services.

Even if Newbury was not frequently attacked, its militia was repeatedly
called out for service in defending more exposed communities, and volunteers
were sought for service there against the French and Indians (Coffin 1845:117,

119, 158). On one of these occasions, in 1695, Hugh March and Edward Sargent
were sent to the garrison at Pemaquid. Reverend John Pike, then the Pemaquid
Chaplain, reported that these two men were killed by Indians a few months before
that outpost surrendered, an account verified in the Newbury town records (Camp
1975:85; Coffin 1845:161).

In intervals of peace, there was some trade with Indians along the Merri-
mack, and at one time a trading post was set up at Dunstable (Fuess 1935:128).
But the small population of the valley in the 17th century precluded any signifi-
cant carrying trades through Newbury. Nevertheless, some limited trade did de-
velop here, receiving its impetus from local and Colonial government.

When immigration from England decreased sharply after 1641, this decline
caused a severe economic crisis for the colonists, who were still dependent on
England for many necessities of life (Morison 1921:11). The immigrants had
brought iron, cloth, tools, nails, utensils, and other useful items with them.
The earlier residents could trade land, food, and livestock for these supplies
while the newcomers became established. All at once this mainstay of the economy
was removed. In the words of Governor Winthrop:

All of our foreign commodities grew scarce, and our own of no
price. Corn could buy nothing; a cow which cost last year E20
might now be bought for 4 or 5L... These straits set our people
on work to provide fish, clapboards, plank, etc.,... and to look
out to the West Indies for a trade (Morison 1921:12).

Seeking exports was one way to balance the ledger; stimulating local pro-
duction of necessities was another. Hartley (1971:48) mentions a number of
New England industries that first became solidly established as a result of this
crisis: shipbuilding, glassmaking, saltmaking, ironworks, and all kinds of
textile production. These were not simply the reactionsof private individuals
to their circumstances, for the Colonial government and local towns provided in-
creased subsidies to encourage such efforts. This stimulation of local trade
and production had two effects on Newbury: increased commerce, within the
limits mentioned, and the beginning of shipbuilding.

Visitors describing the situation in Massachusetts from 1652 to 1671 re-
peatedly mentioned the wealth of timber, especially oak, in the Merrimack
Valley. The potential of these forests was obvious to the residents of Newbury,
for the material was there to export, and the river would bring it directly to
their door. Their northern neighbors on Strawberry Banke at the mouth of the
Piscataqua were already proving the logic of the lumber trade. What was needed
in Newbury were suitable facilities, items to exchange, and someone competent
to expand the business. This was the context in which the first waterfront
grant was made in 1655.

Captain Paul White had previously been a merchant at Pemaquid, Maine and
had lived in Newbury barely two years when he received a grant of waterfront
land from the town (Camp 1975:x). Conditions of the grant stipulated that he
build a wharf, warehouse, and dock (Coffin 1845:60). Evidently the business
succeeded in inducing people upriver to bring items to exchange. A deposition
given by Joseph Bond of Haverhill in 1.721 states that he had traded with White
and his wife, Ann, for many years at that location (ECRD 39:15). No doubt
Captain White sold many necessary items to people upstream, but only references

to wine and spirits have been preserved. When he first arrived from Pemaquid,
he purchased a still house from Edmund Greenleaf.and evidently ran a distillery
in Newbury for more than 25 years (Currier 1896:177). In 1668 the town petitioned
the court at Salem to license Paul White "to sell wine out of dores by retaile...
until some man be licensed to keep an ordinary here" (Coffin 1845:71).

The limited potential for commerce in the thinly settled Merrimack Valley
is illustrated by the 20 year gap between the building of the first and second
wharves, during which this time Captain White's Warehouse Point became a land-
mark. The second set of grants was made in 1675 and 1678 to Richard Dole, who,
like White, had been a merchant at Bristol, Maine (near Pemaquid) before coming
to Massachusetts (Coffin 1845:31). He had been in business at the Parker River
settlement in Newbury since 1640.

At the time of these grants, the town took care that the particular inter-
ests of citizens be served by making several restrictions. One grant for a
docking area required, "that all boats that belong to the town shall have free
liberty of egress and regress to lie there as occasion may serve." On the
eastern side of the grant, a two rod way (Ferry Way) was left, "for the town's
use to the dock for to unlade hay, wood, timber, boards, or anything else which
is produced in or on the river, it not being imported from or exported to the
sea" (Coffin 1845:120). Several later grants were subject to the same restric-
tions. These attempts to induce private construction of facilities needed by
the public were similar to those of other bodies in the colony, and may be seen
as early parallels to our federal government's grants of land to western rail-
roads.

During the 1680's and 90's, several other wharves were built in and ad-
jacent to the project area, indicating a gradual expansion of trade conducted
at the Newbury waterfront. During this time, Governor Bradstreet stated:

The principal towns for trade within our government are Boston,
Charlestown,and Salem. Some little trade there is for country people
at Ipswich, Newbury, and so forth (Coffin 1845:1260).

Detailed records have not been preserved from that period, so the actual pattern
of Newbury's trade is unknown. Presumably local merchants began by sending
coastal shallops to larger ports, such as Salem and Boston. Edward Poor testi-
fied in 1681 that he had worked for Richard Dole "... loading and unloading
vessels in ye dock and going to sea in his employ" (ECRD 39:,64). Dole's exports
probably included fish, which according to contemporary accounts was sturgeon,
caught and pickled on the Merrimack as had been done by pre-settlement traders
(Coffin 1845:113). Lumber and furs from upriver, and agricultural products
from Newbury surely were handled as well. Limestone in Newbury was the first
found in the colony to be suitable for commercial exploitation, but this was
not exported until after 1697 (Coffin 1845:165). The town appointed a committee
to oversee its use, and burned the lime in a kiln on the banks of the Merrimack.

Once coasting trade had begun, the success of the Salem and Boston merchants
in the West Indian trade undoubtedly tempted Dole and other Newbury merchants to
venture farther. A report in 1671 of one Salem merchant indicates that he had
previously made several voyages to Barbados, returning with sugar, cotton, and
molasses, "which were then commodities rendering great profit" (Coffin 1845:112).
Newbury merchants quickly followed this example, and soon developed their own
West Indies trade. The colony was divided into customs districts in 1683, and

Newbury andpoints north were assigned to the Salem district (Currier 1906:476).
There were immediate complaints from residents of Newbury and Salisbury over the
inconvenience, expense, and delay which resulted from having to clear their
cargoes through Salem. In 1684, the government responded by appointing Nathaniel
Clark naval officer (customs agent) for Newbury and Salisbury. Nathaniel Clark's
wharf had probably just been completed on the eastern edge of the project area,
adjacent to the site of the later United States Custom House (Fig. 6.1).

An unfortunate byproduct of the West Indies trade was the encouragement of
slavery, a subject extensively researched by Newburyport's abolitionist his-
torian, the Reverend Joshua Coffin. Although the practice was ostensibly illegal
and the total number of slaves in Newbury was small, he found that "with few
exceptions, all classes of people, merchants, farmers, mechanics, professors of
religion, and ministers of the gospel bought and sold slaves" (Coffin 1845:337).
In particular, Indian and Negro slaves were freely bought, sold, and willed, by
merchants who acquired them on voyages to the southern colonies and the West
Indies. One such merchant was Richard Dole, who owned at least five slaves
(ECPC 8078). In 1690 his black slave James, who probably worked on the docks of
the Central Waterfront, was accused of participating in a serious conspiracy.
He and an Indian slave, together with one Isaac Morrill from New Jersey, are
said to have planned to take a vessel from Newbury and flee to the enemy in
Canada (Coffin 1845:334). From there they intended to guide a force of 800
French Canadians and Indians to Haverhill, Amesbury, and Newbury, and kill every-
one except the blacks and Indians. Unfortunately, Coffin could not locate the
outcome of this case in court records, but still the incident shows that resi-
dents of Newbury feared not only their French and Indian enemies, but their own
slave population as well.

West Indies trade also exposed Newbury's merchants to their enemies on the
open sea. Not only were their substantial investments in ships and cargo jeop-
ardized to tempest and shoal, they also risked becoming the spoils of buccaneering.
Newbury town records contain the following stark entry for August 22, 1689:

Brig Merrimack of Newbury, Captain John Kent, was captured by
pirates in Martin[sicl Vinyard sound (Coffin 1845:152).

By 1700, Newbury's commerce was part of a well-established trading pattern.
In a letter written that year John Higginson, a member of the Governor's council,
described the international shipping of the Massachusetts colony.

We trade to all parts where the law doth not prohibit. Our
principal commodities are dry merchandise, codfish for the markets
of Spaine, Portugal, the straits, also refuse dry fish, mackerel,
lumber, horses, and provisions for the West Indies: the effects
IreturnIcargoes whereof mostly return for England. The returns
made hence directly for England, are chiefly sugar, molasses,
cotton wool, logwood and brizilla-wood: for which, we are beholden
to the West Indies. Of our own produce we have a considerable
quantity of whale and other fish-oyles, whale bone, furrs, deer,
elk, and bear skins: which are usually sent for England.... Places
proper in Europe to make returns to England from, and are much im-
proved [used] for that end, from hence, are Bilboa, Oporto and the
Straits (Dow 1921:54).

MERRIMACK R I V E R

mwehoua Pbini

n
F".
N
ft @1 -
J
Y:,\,

S
S

1"q-5 . .......... ....
4,

0 N,
7
K4
""v
$ wk (1680)
@a (16
0

qwd-
P
"V-0

wNte (IM)

WA
We (*M)
Middle Shipyard Central Waterft-ont
DoW (16'M) circa 1700

NEWBURYIPORT, MASSACHUS=S

W 100
Commons MEMM
0 lu 2D 30 40

map no. 2
Dole
Z0678

Fig. 6.1. The waterfront at the Merrimack "waterside," ca. 1700.

100

Important as commerce was to the developing port in the 17th century, ship-
building played an even greater role in the economy. There was profit in ex-
porting lumber, but building and selling ships gave an even greater return on
the valley's timber. There is no record telling when or where the first large
vessels were built in Newbury, although shipbuilding became an established in-
dustry for the town by 1660 (Morison 1921:14). Coffin (1845:31) asserts that
small fishing and coasting shallops were first built on the Parker River at the
site of the original settlement. By 1652, shipbuilding was underway on the
Salisbury side of the Merrimack using plank produced in a new sawmill there
(Currier 1877:16). One of the early Salisbury shipbuilders was George Carr,
who ran the first ferry across the river from his island a short distance above
the project area. The probate of Carr's estate in 1683 indicated that he had
more than one building yard on his island (Currier 1877:17).

The legal controversies of the day show that shipbuilding was being con-
ducted on a grand scale by the 1670's. In 1675, Johnathan Woodman of Newbury,
a shipwright, brought suit against Bartholomew Stratton and others of Boston
for 268L due him for construction of the ship Salumander (Currier 1896:276). As
Newbury's shipwrights constructed more and more vessels for other ports, they
apparently put a strain on the local timber supply. Several entries in the town
records specify fines for the unauthorized cutting of trees on public and private
land to use for ship timbers (Currier 1877:18).

Toward the close of the century, many ships were built immediately up-
stream from the Central Waterfront and on the public landing at the western end
of the project area. The parcels granted by the town to Benjamin Rolf and the
Doles in 1680 and to Stephen Greenleaf in 1696 were both used in part as ship-
yards. The Middle Ship Yard,which was tested in the trench at Area 6, was
apparently in use by 1692. At the rate of three pence per ton for the vessel
built, the town of Newbury rented this common land to shipwrights and con-
tractors (Currier 1877:19).

In spite of the growth of commerce and shipbuilding during the 17th century,
agriculture was still the economic focus of the community. In 1685, shipyards
were secondary to sheepyards, which boasted flocks of 5700 head (Coffin 1845:
139). Excerpts from the town records and diaries of local residents are rife
with references to the weather, the state of crops, and business relating to
animal husbandry. An entire volume of the Newbury town records is devoted to
the patterns of ear notches by which various owners marked their livestock
(NTR:n.d.).

In spite of its port facilities, "New Town" or "the waterside" was still
very much a rural area in 1700. Perley's reconstruction shows a scattering of
only 30 houses on large plots of land with much space for fields, orchards, and
gardens (Currier 1896:119). Our title search of the Central Waterfront indi-
cated that no houses were built on these properties before the close of the
17th century, although archaeological tests in Area 4 suggest that a structure
was placed there shortly thereafter. Through the 1680's Captain White's ware-
house grant was used for planting trees and as a garden (ECRD 39:64). The only
known structures are shown in Fig. 6.1: four wharves and four warehouses.

The nucleus of the future Newburyport had been formed. In addition to the
wharves and warehouses, a ferry landing was built in the center of the project
area shortly after this concession was granted to John March in 1687 (Coffin

101

1845:148). Somewhere near the waterfront an inn was established ca. 1653
(Currier 1896:176). Still, the settlement at "New Town" was insignificant in
comparison to Salem, "about a mile long with many fine houses," or Boston, a
major English city with 7000 inhabitants (Dow 1921:30; Morison 1921:20).

102

@11

103

7. COLONIAL PROSPERITY AND THE SPOILS OF WAR 170G-1790

Shipbuilding and foreign trade transformed the Merrimack settlement during
the first quarter of the 18th century. The "waterside" grew in Population, and
developed into a sizeable port commanding a regional market. By the end of this
period, the community had developed many of the characteristics it would carry
through the remainder of the Colonial era.

"New Town" 1700-1725

The 18 year interval between 1704 and 1722 brought the construction of the
first residences along the Central Waterfront, which appear in Fig. 7.1. Ben-
jamin Woodbridge, great grandson of Captain Paul White, erected a brick house
(13) on the east side of Ferry Way (ECRD 39:64). Captain Stephen Greenleaf
built on the other side of this way where Richard Dole's warehouse formerly
stood (8, 10). In 1719, he sold this part of his property and constructed
another house (3) to the west, on the remainder of his land (ECRD 34:250). The
demand for waterfront property grew, and while Woodbridge and Greenleaf were
building, Merrimac Street (i.e., Water Street) was laid out and new grants were
made. Waterfront land outside the central area which had not been granted pre-
viously for shipbuilding and wharves, was allotted to the proprietors (Coffin
1845:171; Currier 1896:623). Disputes over property lines arose, especially in
the Central Waterfront where the bounds of Ferry Wharf had to be re-established
(NTR:May 5, 1721). Already the settlement was experiencing some growing pains.

This growth in the waterside population was surely stimulated by the
peopling of Newbury's natural hinterland. A new wave of expansion came after
the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, an agreement between European powers to end the
practice of harassing each others settlements by inciting Indian raids (Fuess
1935:343). Other major conflicts were to follow, of course, but 1713 saw a
marked easing of the Indian threat from the northwest. In the next few years,
settlement spread rapidly through the lower Merrimack Valley.

This lull in hostilities between European powers also had important con-
sequences for maritime trade. The West Indies trade of the New England settlers
expanded when the French and Dutch opened their colonies to English commerce
(Morison 1921:19). More fish, barrel staves, shingles, clapboards, and agri-
cultural products found markets, more sugar and molasses was imported, and
Newbury's merchants handled them all. Rum became the favorite alcoholic bever-
age in New England (Albion and others 1972:36), and Newbury's distilleries must
have done considerable business with surrounding communities.

Undoubtedly the growth of trade in this period also increased the demand
for Newbury's ships. The surviving shipbuilding records, although they only
cover the first 15 years of the 18th century, do indicate the scale of this
industry. From 1681 to 1714, approximately 130 vessels were built on the
Merrimack, more than 100 of them launched in Newbury (Currier 1877:20). The
majority were sloops, ketches, and brigantines of 20 to 50 tons, designed for
local or coastal service, and built after 1698. Many of these were constructed
for owners in other Colonial ports.

Only 10 percent of the vessels built here were exported to buyers in Great
Britain, but these were by far the largest and the most expensive (Table 7.1).
Ships sold abroad were very important to the colony, as they offered an ex-

104

change to pay for imported English goods. Because timber was plentiful and
could be obtained at ports such as Newbury with negligible transportation
costs, New England's builders could undersell their British counterparts by as
much as 30 percent (Albion and others 1792:25). As the number of vessels built
for the overseas market increased, English builders began to complain about the
competition. In 1724, master shipbuilders of London petitioned the Lords of
Trade not to encourage shipbuilding in New England (Morison 1921:19). The
American and English builders, however, were both protected by the same navi-
gation acts and policies and neither was to be favored. By the time of the
Revolutionary War, fully one third of Britain's merchant fleet was American
built (Labaree 1975:7). 1

Table 7.1. Newbury built ships exported before 1715
(after Currier 1877:21).

Date Vessel type Name Port Tons burthen

1698 Sloop Ann Portsmouth, Eng. 40
1708 Ship John London 120
1709 Ship Bond London 310
1709 Ship Prince Eugene London 160
1711 Sloop Hannah and Elizabeth London 60
1712 Sloop Ann and Mary London 70
17.12 Ship Rowlandson London 150
1712 Ship Content London 90
1713 Sloop London 50
1713 Sloop William and James Glascow 40
1713 Sloop Mary and Sarah Barbados 20

By 1725, "New Town" had a substantial population of shipbuilders, merchants,
distillers, and tradesmen, whose interests contrasted with Newbury's farmers.
Disputes in their religious assembly led to the formation of the Third Parish
of Newbury (later the First Parish of Newburyport), a separate congregation of
of the waterside population (Atkinson 1933:13). The church was formally or-
ganized in 1725, and a meetinghouse was erected on the common land, now Market
Square. The congregation grew rapidly, and the meetinghouse was substantially
enlarged just 12 years later.

Maritime Industry and Trade 1726-1775

In the 50 years before the Revolutionary War, the practice of building
vessels for British buyers became more and more common (Emery 1879:175). Some
Newbury builders established long-term contracts with satisfied customers. An
Edinburgh merchant sent Johnathan Greenleaf a commemorative punch bowl decorated
with a picture of a ship launching as an expression of his satisfaction (Currier
1909:208). The demand became so great that many New England merchants allowed
their vessels to be sold abroad after the cargo was unloaded. If the oppor-
tunity was convenient and the price was right, the master would sell his vessel
and take passage home in another.

105

No official records of shipbuilding in the port of Newbury have survived
from this period, but the research of later historians gives some suggestion
of the size of this industry. Currier (1877:24) states that in 1766 no less
than 72 vessels were under construction at one time along the waterfront.
Morison (1921:101) estimates that 90 vessels were launched in 1772 from the
shipyards of Newburyport alone. At the peak of this phase of the industry,
ten shipyards were in use to the east of the Central Waterfront (Anon. 1855).

Commercial paper or notes of credit received for ship sales were at a
premium among New England merchants who were chronically in debt to their
English counterparts (Albion and others 1772:42). These debts were incurred
because New England, in contrast to other Colonial areas, had few products in
demand in Britain. Merchants in some ports had to rely on returns from the
coasting or West Indies trades to pay for their English imports, an indirect
transaction which was inherently costly. Although Newbury's merchants were
also heavily committed to the West Indies trade, they could pay for English
goods with revenues generated from shipbuilding. This advantage in commerce,
together with the employment generated by shipbuilding, help explain why New-
bury grew and prospered while Boston actually lost population (Morison 1921:
22).

Part of the economic impact of shipbuilding lay in the development of
subsidiary industries. At first, shipbuilders must have imported hardware,
cordage, and sailcloth to fit out and rig their products. The switch to local
resources,began when an ironworks was established in Salisbury (Fuess 1935:262).
From 1710 and 1740, this operation turned out a low quality bog iron used to
cast anchors and other hardware. Later, specialized shipsmiths were at work
here, but they were not common. Blacksmiths probably supplied much of the
demand for ships' fittings between their orders for agricultural and household
items. Other maritime related trades, however, appeared as full-time occu-
pations. Ambrose Davis, ancestor of the Davises whose sailmaking refuse was
excavated, was earning a living as a sail maker in 1734 (ECRD 92:178). A rope-
walk was established in 1748 (Coffin 1845:218), an industry which soon expanded
to seven establishments employing more than 100 people (Anon. 1855). Pump and
block makers, coopers, slaughterers, and bakers were mentioned in deeds of this
era as well. All provided important equipment or supplies for vessels being
built or equipped.

The concentration of population and the expanded commerce supplied markets
for many other tradesmen, some of whose products were detected in archaeological
testing. Some trades, such as silversmithing, goldsmithing, and wig making,
produced luxury goods for merchants and professional people (Currier 1906:169).
Others, such as Daniel Bayley's pottery and the button shop of Enoch Noyes made
everyday items (Watkins 1950:49; Coffin 1845:225).

Artisans and merchants of the port area came into increasing conflict with
the farmers in the rest of Newbury. Schooling was more important in preparing
a child for a commercial career than for life on an 18th century farm, and the
residents of the port were generally more interested in education than were the
country people (Hurd 1888:1738). Other disputes were simply factional, such as
the conflict over the proposed location of the new townhouse. It was the town-
house controversy, in fact, which ultimately brought about the division into
separate towns. The act of the General Court, which created Newburyport in
1764, summarized the situation:

106

The town of Newbury is very large, and the inhabitants of that
part of it who dwell by the water side there, as it is commonly
called, are mostly merchants, traders, and artifacers, and the
inhabitants of the other part of the town are chiefly husbandmen,
by means whereof many difficulties and disputes have arisen in
managing their public affairs (Hurd 1888:1738).

@The new community was small in area, a narrow strip of land along the
river covering approximately one square mile. Newburyport's population, at
2900, was substantial; a sketch of the port made at the end of the Colonial
era gives an impression of the compactness of settlement (Fig. 7.2). The
Central Waterfront, about which the town was tightly clustered, now took on
the appearance shown in Fig. 7.1.

Waterfront Occupants ca. 1770

The reconstructed picture of the Central Waterfront at the peak of Colonial
prosperity is complete in many details, even though no formal plans from this
time survive. Market Square was the center of activity for the community, and
the site of the First Parish meetinghouse. This church was the focus of social
life of its congregation, which included the leading Newburyport merchants. To
the west was a triangle of open land, a site used for celebrations; here, upon
the news of Wolfe's victory at Quebec, the residents had roasted an ox and
held a day long festival (Coffin 1845:224). On the other side of the meeting-
house, conspicuously facing the street, were the stocks (Emery 1879:89).

The public landing behind the meetinghouse was in constant use throughout
most of the Colonial era as the Middle Ship Yard, and was often rented for five
years at a time (Currier 1877:23). one renter was Thomas Woodbridge, a respected
shipbuilder, who apparently found the location conveniently close to his major
holdings on Ferry Wharf (Currier 1906:450). In 1771, however, the town voted
to use this property again as a public landing, and thereafter the site was
only rarely used for shipbuilding.

The wharves themselves, of course, were primarily devoted to mercantile
activity. The largest one on the Central Waterfront belonged to Patrick Tracy,
an emigrant from Ireland who became one of the foremost merchants in the Massa-
chusetts Colony. It was an immediate successor to this wharf which was exposed
recently in constructing a seawall around the remains of Market Slip. In ad-
dition to this and other real estate holdings, Patrick Tracy and his son
Nathaniel were reputed to have owned 110 vessels in 1775 (Currier 1877:33).

Shipbuilding and merchant families were often intermarried, and capital
flowed easily between these two interests. One of the Woodbridge daughters,
from the family which owned Ferry Wharf and rented the Middle Ship Yard,
married a son of "King" Robert Hooper of Marblehead (Currier 1909:191). In this
way, Ferry Wharf came under the control of one of the leading Colonial merchants
dynasties. It was while Hooper was using this property that the core of Mer-
chant's Row (15) was erected, a section which was tested in the Area 1 exca-
vation.

At the other end of the Central Waterfront on Starkey'sWharf, was a mer-
cantile business (22) of a smaller scale than Tracy's or Hooper's. The owner,

107

MERRIMACK R I V E R

Ov,
'A

>I
....... 227C
16:

77.
5
ft
7
i."�RN94
2

15
2 .......
0-.
g""
@"V M Nf
N">

22
IN @A-;" .............. ..
21
14,
U;, .......

tan vmd
C
-2 13
Ilk 'U.-I. 06
...t. 10
% 9

%
%
Middle Shipyard Central Waterfront
*A
cirm 1770
Afe,, NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSEM
jlnft FUT
Street n 0 am wo
4%, IM mmi@
a 0 9
30 40

na 3 of 7

Fig. 7.1. Newburyport's Colonial waterfront, ca. 1770.

108

Fig. 7.1. Central Waterfront, 1770 Key

Building Owner Function/(,Occupant)

1 Store Benjamin Greenleaf
2 Slaughterhouse Benjamin Greenleaf
3 House Richard Greenleaf Residence
4 Bark house Richard Greenleaf Storage of tanbark
5 Barn John Greenleaf (1743)
6 Warehouse Benjamin Greenleaf
7 Warehouse(s?) Patrick Tracy
8 1/2 House Elizabeth Burt
9 Shop Elizabeth Burt
10 1/2 House Sarah Atkins
11 Shop Sarah Atkins
12 Shop Thomas Woodbridge
13 Brick house Thomas Woodbridge Residence
14 Warehouse Thomas Woodbridge
15 Brick building Thomas Woodbridge Sail maker's loft
(Ambrose Davis)
16 Shop Joseph Woodbridge
17 Shop Elizabeth Watkins & Nathan
Hale Esq.
18 Shop Elizabeth Watkins & Nathan
Hale Esq. (Samuel Tufts)
19 House Elizabeth Watkins & Nathan
Hale Esq. (Thomas Bazin)
20 House Elizabeth Watkins & Nathan
Hale Esq. (Dr. Nathan Hale)
21 Shop Timothy Greenleaf Blacksmith/goldsmith
22 1/2 House Joseph Parker (1739-62) Periwig maker
Elizabeth Starkey Roberts (1770)
23 old building Joseph Parker
24 Warehouse Elizabeth Starkey Roberts Merchant's storage
(Robert Roberts)
25 1/2 House Enoch Toppan Sr. Residence
26 Barn Enoch Toppan Sr.
27 Shop Enoch Toppan Sr. Block making

Note: Dotted lines indicate approximate size and location of known structures.

109

Is: '7-

lip
V -1-

A North-eaft Vi. ew. of the To wu harb our of Newbmurorc
A 7h e Town Houfe I -B.Mer i mack Ri-" I C -RopeWalk J.D.Mrog Pon d I M - S alifburyl
Fig. 7.2. Schematic view of Newburyport harbor, 1774.. Drawing courtesy of
The Essex Institute, Salem, Mass

-0
- A,

Wj,
_R j1h-1
,
, @f ,,
u@i;77f
2-.1
,q-

2 T" H
V"
WAt,
i@N
44,

74
6'i

Fig. 7.3. Schooner Polly, built in Amesbury, Mass. in 1805. Originally rigged
as a sloop, the Polly is similar to the smaller vessels engaged in international trade
in the late 18th century. Photo courtesy of the Newburyport Public Library.

110

Elizabeth Starkey Roberts, was successively widowed by two merchants who ran
the business before her. A detailed inventory of the estate of her second
husband, Robert Roberts, gives an excellent picture of the nature.of his trade
in 1771 (ECPC 23844). Roberts owned two vessels, both schooners and both
named Sally. One was evidently old and decrepit, and listed as a "hull...
with the iron in her E30." The other was apparently new, and had just re-
turned from the West Indies. The new Sally was of 118 tons burthen, and with
its equipment was valued at 213L 6sh 8p. Her cargo was primarily molasses,
amounting to nearly 25,000 gallons, of which 15 percent was sold in Boston
and the remainder in Newburyport. The value of this cargo alone was 1543L,
or more than seven times the worth of the ship which carried it. The balance
of the cargo was comprised of comparatively small amounts of sugar, cotton,
and cocoa.

Merchandise from Bristol is often mentioned in accounts of Newburyport's
colonial trade, and a consignment of "Bristol goods" arrived for Mr. Roberts
shortly after his death. The "goods" were nails of various sizes, "Irish
Linnen," and cutlery. The cutlery included marking irons, several dozen
shears and scissors, and many sets of "sham" and "real" stag horn knives and
forks.

The stock which Roberts kept in his warehouse (24) was worthy of a hard-
ware or general store, and contrasts markedly with the ship's cargo. In ad-
dition to the Bristol goods just arrived, there were numerous quantities of
nails and cloth of various descriptions. White lead, and "Spanish brown"
were bases for paint. other highlights were assorted fishing lines, window
glass of various sizes, bottles of various sizes, pins, furniture fastenings,
pewter, silk handkerchiefs, buttons, hammers, razors, skillets, cutlasses, and
flone large black pickle pot." A separate entry listed three slaves and the
junk in an old barn.

Property descriptions of the area immediately to the east of the Middle
Ship Yard show a business which was probably dependent on maritime trade. A
barn, tanyard, bark houseand slaughterhouse, all owned by the Greenleaf family,
are shown in the reconstruction (2.4,5,6). To the west, on the other side of
the Middle Ship Yard was the workshop of a cooper, Parker Noyes (ECRD 73-62).
This 'configuration was probably well planned, and suggests the general nature
of business activities. Livestock was purchased from farmers and driven into
the barn (5). From here they went to the nearby slaughterhouse (2), carefully
located so that the tide would wash away the offal twice a day. The rawhides,
perhaps with other skins imported from upriver, were prepared in the tanyard,
which in turn was supplied with tannin from the bark house (4). Some of the
leather produced was undoubtedly exported. Local butchers may have bought some
of the meat, or it may have been sold directly to local customers. Archaeo-
logical tests of household refuse of this vintage suggests that some butchering
was done at home, the limbs of animals being disjointed and fleshed rather than
sawn. Although some venison was eaten, the majority of table meats were beef,
mutton and pork. Newburyport's slaughterhouses, however, were concerned pri-
marily with providing ships' stores. Most meat was probably salted and packed
in barrels'made in the cooperage on the other side of the slip. Once packed,
it could easily be loaded on board ship from the adjacent wharf.

The Central Waterfront was occupied by several tradesmen dependent on ship-
building. In 1739, Timothy Toppan lived on the eastern end and was engaged in

ill

block making in a shop (27) behind his house (.ECRD 78:35). His family lived
at the same place and practiced this trade for several generations. When his
son Enoch's estate was probated in 1797, it included 15 tons of lignum-vitae,
or ironwood (ECK 27828). This wood was imported from the West Indies and was
used to make deadeye for ships' rigging (Kochiss 1970:13). Another known
artisan in this category was Ambrose Davis, the progenitor of generations of
Davis sail makers, who rented a brick building (.15) on Ferry Wharf in 1773.

While houses had already been built on the western end of the Central
Waterfront in the first quarter of the century, the 1730's saw three more
houses built on the eastern end. The one farthest west was the home of the
Toppan block makers, which was eventually divided and shared with merchants
Starkey and Roberts (22,25). The remaining two (.19,20) belonged to a surgeon,
Dr. Nathan Hale, whose family was responsible for the privy refuse excavated
in Area 4. Hale'sown home (20) was set back from the road, while his second
house fronted on the street (19). In front of the latter building were two
shops (17,18) which he rented to various small businessmen.

Like Dr. Hale'sincome property, many of the houses along the river had
small shops attached in front, reflecting the increased traffic in services
and consumer goods on the Central Waterfront. The precise dimensions for one
such building (.8,9,10,11) are known from property descriptions (ECRD 160:169).
The shops (9,11) are but small appendages to the house front, and are separated
by the central front door. An alternative arrangement was to use the existing
front room of the house as a shop (Emery 1879:232). Unfortunately the house-
front shops of both types were generally rented out, and the businesses which
occupied them at this time are unknown.

In a few instances, tradesmen had purchased their own shops, and their
businesses can be discerned from property records. Timothy Greenleaf, identi-
fied in different documents as both a blacksmith and goldsmith, owned a store
on Water Street until 1786 (ECPC 11816). Between Greenleaf and the block
maker Toppan, was Joseph Parker (.22), a wig maker, who lived here until 1762.
Later, merchants Starkey andRoberts occupied this site. The presence of these
specialized occupations, two of which were verified through excavation, show
the varied, almost cosmopolitan atmosphere of the business district. The wig
maker, for example, would have been very much out of place in agricultural
sections of Newbury where the Puritan prejudices against finery were strong.
A story is told of a minister who wore a wig in 1752, causing a considerable
stir in the old part of Newbury (Coffin 1845:220).

The activities of the Central Waterfront at this time are generally repre-
sentative of the Newburyport population as a whole, which-by 1773 had grown to
about 3500. Labaree (1975:4) has identified the occupations of 600 of the 700
adult males for that year, as shown in Table 7.2. The dominant roles. of ship-
building and maritime trade are clear, even though many of the shipyards were
within Newbury's boundaries when the communities were divided (@Currier 1877;24;
1906:453). Nearly 60 percent of the men listed were employed in maritime
occupations. It was this background which allowed Newburyporters to raise
their own private navies during the Revolution.

112

Table 7.2. Occupations, 1773 (after Labaree 1975:5).

Merchants and Shopkeepers Domestic Artisans Maritime Laborers
Professionals and Innholders Artisans and others

Distiller 14 Apothecary 1 Baker 9 Blockmaker 6 Laborer 18
Esquire 8 Bookseller 1 Barber 1 Boatbuilder 10 Mariner 30
Gentleman 6 Innkeeper 3 Blacksmith 14 Caulker 15 Porter 2
Lawyer 2 Shopkeeper 21 Bricklayer 3 Cooper 18 Teamster 1
Merchant 36 Tobacconist 1 Butcher 1 Mastmaker 7 Truckman. 2
Minister 4 Cabinetmaker 11 Rigger 7 Yoeman 27
Physician 7 Carver 1 Ropemaker 3
Shipbuilder 7 Chairmaker 6 Sailmaker 9
Shipmaster 83 Chaisemaker 2 Shipsmith 1
Teacher 6 Clockmaker 2 Shipwright 60
Corabmaker 1
Coppersmith 2
Cordwainer 28
Currier I
Dyer 1
Glazier 3
Goldsmith 3
Gunsmith 2
Hatter 4
Housewright 9
Joiner 39
Leatherdresser 1
Painter 5
Perukemaker 2
Potter 3
Saddler 5
Sawyer I
Silversmith 2
Stonecutter 1
Tailor 8
Tallowchandler 1
Tanner 3
Tinplater 2

Total 173 27 177 136 79
Percent of
adult men* 24.8 3.9 25.3 19.4 11.3

The occupations of 107 adult men could not be determined.

113

War and Privateering

The town of Newburyport made several contributions to the naval defenses
of the colonies during the American Revolution. The frigates Boston and Han-
cock were built and equipped here for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in
1776, as was the ship Proctector in 1779 (Currier 1906:449). Forts were
erected on Plum Island and in Salisbury in 1775 (Cushing 1826:15). But New-
buryport is far better known for the success of her privateers in capturing
British merchantmen.

The Central Waterfront was the site of some significant historic events
related to privateering, and later benefitted from the capital generated by
this practice. The money behind Newburyport's war efforts came principally
from its wealthiest merchants, and none were wealthier than the Irish born
Patrick Tracyand his son Nathaniel, owners of the largest wharf in the pro-
ject area. In sending out a privateer in August of 1775, the younger Tracy
became one of the first men to organize a personal navy against the British
(Currier 1877:27). During the war, he was sole or part owner of scores of
privateers (Currier 1906:637). His navy captured 120 prizes which, with their
cargoes, are alleged to have sold for nearly $4,000,000 (Currier 1877:28).
Tracy's privateers probably docked at his wharf beside the Middle Ship Yard,
and it is recorded that several of the captured vessels and cargoes were sold
there at an auction (Currier 1906:630). Yet war was not all prizes and pro-
fits. A loan of $167,000, which Tracy made to the government to purchase
military supplies is thought to have forced him into bankruptcy in the com-
merical dislocations which occurred immediately after the war. At least 22
privateers were lost in the war as well. But far more tragic were the fates
of more than 1000 men who sailed from Newburyport in the Revolution and never
returned.

Several individuals who served in the war later became the new business-
men of the Central Waterfront. In some cases, the prize money these men won
on privateering or naval cruises may have founded their businesses. One of
these men was Offin Boardman, the young captain of a privateer schooner. On
January 15, 1776, his schooner had just returned from a cruise when the Brit-
ish ship Friends was spotted off the mouth of the Merrimack. The Friends was
loaded with supplies for the occupation forces in Boston, and apparently had
confused Ipswich bay with Boston harbor. Taking advantage of the situation,
or so the story goes, Boardman led 17 men in three small boats out to meet
the British vessel. Representing himself as a pilot, Boardman was allowed on
board with his men who then captured the Friends and brought her into Newbury-
port harbor (Currier 1906:615). No doubt the story has received some embel-
lishment with time, but the essential facts are probably correct. In any case,
it was this Offin Boardman who acquired the Toppan residence (22,25), one of
several income properties which he owned at the time of the 1811 fire.

An equally interesting case was that of Abraham Wheelwright, who enlisted
in the militia at Newburyport in 1775. Wheelwright served at Dorchester
Heights, the battle of Long Island, and the Battle of Trenton (Currier 1896:
641). After he was discharged in 1777 he went to sea in a Newburyport vessel,
presumably a privateer. The British captured the ship he was serving on, and
sent Wheelwright to prison in Ireland. He escaped, went to sea again, and was
captured a second time. After the war, he formed a partnership with his
brother, Ebeneezer, and they eventually built a prosperous business trading

114

with the West Indies. Later, these brothers joined with two other Federalist
merchants to develop Hooper's Brick Building (15) into the long Merchant's
Row complex, and also to construct the Ferry Wharf Building.

Joseph Plummer may have used a sailor's share of prize money to set up a
smaller mercantile business. He sailed on the privateer brig Dalton from
Newburyport, which was captured and the crew imprisoned in England (Currier
1906:628). Somehow Plummer was paroled, went to France, and joined the crew
of the frigate Alliance in John Paul Jones'ssquardron. Several vessels were
captured, and Plummer was placed in one of these prizes as a crew member.
They sailed to Norway, where Plummer remained long enough to learn some Nor-
wegian. Later, according to his son, he would repeat the story of his adven-
tures to his children and speak in Norwegian for their amusement (ECPC 50432).
In Newburyport he started a business as a merchant, and in 1809 he and his son
bought one of the new stores in the North Row (ECRD 186:298).

Aftermath and transition 1775-1790

The American Revolution was a serious economic blow to the Colonial mer-
chants and shipbuilders of Newburyport. The ports of the British commonwealth
were shut off to American trade, and the carrying business for British mer-
chants was ended. Colonial merchants, their capital investments lying idle,
went bankrupt, and by 1787 very few were still in business (Labaree 1975:67).
Until new markets were found, there was not enough trade to employ existing
American vessels, and so there was little market for new ones (Morison 1921:
34). With the English as their principal buyers, shipbuilders found that
orders for new, large vessels all but ceased. The same port which produced 66
and 90 vessels in peak Colonial years may have produced as few as 54 in the
entire decade of the 1780's (Cheney 1964:95). Although part of this difference
may reflect incomplete records and changes in the distinction between a boat
and a vessel, there is no doubt that shipbuilding was at a low ebb.

While Newburyport finally regained its mercantile prosperity in the
1790's, the shipbuilding industry did not recuperate. Its collapse, in fact,
may have begun before the Revolution. The virgin forests of the Merrimack
Valley, which had so impressed travelers a century earlier, were vanishing.
Shipbuilding itself had long since exhausted local timber supplies, and settle-
ment had cleared the forests far up the Merrimack. In 1787 a visitor to the
city noted that Newburyport was bringing timber in rafts from 100 miles up-
river, almost at the headwaters (Dow 1921:102). As suitable lumber became
more scaice, shipbuilding was unable to compete with other commercial ventures.

By the.1780's, the Merrimack Valley was well settled with farms and towns.
Younger sons and daughters were moving north into interior New Hampshire where
land was rocky, but available (Emery 1879:106). In an age when inland trade
was channeled by-topography, moving by ox cart and boat in the summer and
sledge in the winter, Newburyport became the center of import and export trade.
This configuration of settlement produced unequalled commerce for the town.
Farmers arrived from 200 miles inland bringing with them, cheese, beef, and
butter. They would exchange these products for dry goods, hardware, molasses,
sugar, iron, and salt. Usually rum was included on their shopping lists as
well (Anon. 1855). In the winter, sleighs would arrive from as far north as
the Canadian border. At times, up to 100 sleighs and wagons from the country
would arrive in a single day (Lunt 1873:68).

115

Much of this trade focused on the Central Waterfront. A row of oat
troughs was nailed to the old meetinghouse in Market Square so the "country
traders" could feed their horses (Emery 1879:228). Shops on the Central Water-
front advertised broadcloth and beaver hats to tempt both country visitors and
port residents who found themselves suddenly prosperous (Atkinson 1935:48).
Other stores on the square sold everything from raisins to ribbons and gauze
fans to slippers (Emery 1879:35). Some good-natured hard trading evidently
took place in these shops. The cosmopolitan merchants, many of whom had
travelled the world earlier in their careers as supercargoes or sea captains,
were amused by the farmers' lack of sophistication and called them "aboriginees."
The country people responded with barbed references to the merchants' prices:
"You ain't got none of that ere four penny calico you can sell for six cents,
... have yer?" (Andrews 1905:17).

Newburyport's commerce at this time changed much less from its Colonial
pattern than did that of other Massachusetts ports (Morison 1921:151). Shin-
gles, staves, and boards required less choice timber than did shipbuilding, so
these exports continued (Dow 1921:102). According to contemporary descriptions,
most of Newburyport's exported items still went to the West Indies, and the
sugar and molasses, which returned, continued to be commercial staples and raw
materials for the town's distilleries (Dow 1921:98,134). The 1790's did see
the development of a substantial fishing fleet, and the new industry contri-
buted exports in the following years (Fuess 1935:359). Also, in certain
aspects of their trade Newburyport merchants were venturing farther abroad and
seeking new markets.

One variation in trade was to exchange the usual exports from the West
Indies for coffee or cocoa. Sometimes these returns were brought home to
satisfy the rising popular taste for these items, but often they were carried
to Antwerp and traded for gin and manufactured goods. Some local products were
exported to the Mediterranean in return for brandy, soap, olive oil and dried
fruit. Occasionally West Indian products would be carried to northern Europe
and exchanged for iron and hemp (Anon. 1855).

Many of the vessels which were built in Nevburyport and used for this
trade were similar to the Polly, shown in Fig. 7.3. The Polly was built in
Amesbury in 1805 and was originally rigged as a sloop (Leavitt 1970:107).
At a mere 48 tons, she was the size of the smaller vessels which carried much
of the Colonial and Federalist trade to the West Indies and Europe. The Polly
was unique only because her career spanned some 113 years.

Trade expanded at a phenominal rate in the 1790's because Newburyport was
re-exporting West India goods to the warring European powers. The town was
also acting as an entrepot for a large hinterland with a growing population.
Many of the manufactured goods for this area were imported, and a considerable
volume of regional products was exported in return. Table 7.3 compares the
vessels registered in Newburyport at the beginning and peak of this trade,
and gives a good indication of the coming Federalist prosperity. Contemporary
accounts relate that there was not enough room on the wharves for all the
shipping, and vessels had to anchor and wait their turn (Anon. 1855). At
times, 20 craft loaded with molasses lay waiting to unload at a single dis-
tillery (Emery 1879:226).

116

Table 7.3. Vessels registered in Newburyport.*

Vessel Type 1789 (Tonnage) 1804 (Tonnage)

Ship 2 (507) 23 (5658)
Bark 0 (0) 1 (169)
Brigantine 15 (2241) 13 (1718)
Brig 1 (148) 48 (6418)
Schooner 11 (677) 59 (5765)
Sloop 11 (874) 9 (638)
Total 40 (4447) 153 (20,366)

*After Coffey (1975:223-227).

117

8. EVOLUTION OF THE FEDERALIST BUSINESS DISTRICT, 1790-1815

Renewed Prosperity

I left Newbury Port, the 13th at ten in the morning, and often
stopped before I lost sight of this pretty little town, for I had
great pleasure in enjoying the various aspects it presents. It is
in general well built, and is daily increasing in new buildings.
The warehouses of the merchants, which are near their own houses,
serve by way of ornament, and in point of architecture resemble not
a little our own greenhouses (de Chastellux 1782 in Dow 1921:84).

If the Marquis of Chastellux could have revisited this "pretty little town"
in 1810, he would certainly have been amazed at how much it had developed. The
Port's Colonial merchants were succeeded by an entirely new group of entrepre-
neurs, unrelated to the previous generation, whose talent and good fortune
brought the town unprecedented wealth. New three- and four-story brick buildings
replaced the older Colonial shops. Old wharves were extended, and new ware-
housing facilities were constructed to accommodate the port's increased volume
of trade. The homes built for these Federalist merchants, above the waterfront
on High Street, displayed a grace and elegance unsurpassed in any other New
England seaport.

The merchants' success benefitted nearly all of the port's inhabitants. In
1790, the town's population numbered 4847; in 1810 it had increased to 7634.
In this same period the average adult male's worth tripled to over $5000
(Labaree 1975:132). In 1802, the town's entire ratable property was estimated
at just $3,754,920, but by 1810 it amounted to over $7,000,000 (Cushing 1826:26).

The source of this renewed wealth was the development of neutral trade with
Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. Upon the outbreak of war in the early 1790's,
between England and France, the British Navy blockaded almost all of Europe's
ports to the French and her continental allies. This established America as the
sole neutral carrier between Europe and her colonies. Taking advantage of this
status, Yankee merchants quickly assumed the bulk of the trade which the French
ordinarily would have reserved for themselves--transporting West Indian produce
to markets in Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Russia. The Yankees had, in effect,
a kind of monopoly on this most lucrative commerce.

... This carrying trade operated in two stages: smaller vessels ran
down to the West Indies with fish, lumber, and miscellaneous New
England manufactures, to be exchanged for three principal products of
the islands: molasses, coffee, and especially sugar. In 1807 ninety-
three voyages were made to the Caribbean area. These imports were then
entered at Newburyport, duties paid, until enough had accumulated in a
merchant's warehouse to make up a cargo for one of his ships or barques
to Europe. In 1807 thirteen vessels cleared Newburyport with West
Indies produce, to be exchanged in the ports of northern Europe for a
variety of European goods, cloths, spirits, and hardware. Only rarely
did a vessel return with the full profits from the sale of its outward
cargo invested in Continental products. Much of the grain came back
in the form of bills of credit drawn on London or Amsterdam. Out of
the proceeds from these European voyages, merchants then purchased
more New England goods for shipment to the West Indies, starting the
cycle over again (Labaree 1975:131-132).

118

The impact of neutral trade on the port's commerce can be seen in the
growth in size and carrying capacity of its fleet. The aggregate tonnage of
vessels hailing from Newburyport nearly tripled between 1790 and 1809, reaching
a peak of 38,856 tons in 1810 (Smith 1854:226). By this time, Newburyport's
merchants preferred larger vessels. In 1810, 17 full-rigged ships and 15 brigs
were constructed for them (Labaree 1975:175), but only a fraction of these were
built in the shipyards of Newbury or Newburyport (Cheney 1964:105 ff.). Al-
though local yards apparently had sufficient capacity, they evidently were un-
able to compete with other American shipbuilders, and most Newburyport merchants
bought their vessels elsewhere.

Embargo

A major interruption in the United States' foreign trade occurred in Decem-
ber of 1807 with the passage of the Embargo Act. This act, and the commercial
restrictions which followed its repeal, effectively stopped the exportation of
American produce and the reexportation of foreign goods from American ports.
For a time, Newburyport's economy stood still (Labaree 1975:151-152). Unable
to export local produce to foreign markets, the town's merchants no longer had
use for country goods. Unable to sell their goods, the inhabitants of the water-
shed communities were without a means of exchange. Vessels continued to return
to Newburyport in 1808, but the cargoes they carried had no immediate domestic
or foreign market. The port's warehouses were filled to overflowing, but the
commodities they contained were temporarily worthless (Labaree 1975:153).

The years of Embargo and economic stagnation do not appear to have caused
any major changes in the appearance of Market Square or the Central Waterfront,
yet a significant change in the pattern of land ownership on the waterfront did
take place.

Redevelopment and Subdivision of the Waterfront

A title search of the stores and warehousing facilities along the Central
Waterfront indicates that there were two distinct stages of property tenure
during the early Federalist Period (Fig. 8.1). The first was a phase of pro-
perty consolidation and building, lasting from 1795 to 1803. Unlike Colonial
shipping, which often engaged the same vessels in all routes of the triangle
trade, Federalist commerce depended on small vessels to bring West Indies goods
to Newburyport, where they were reexported in large ships. Naturally this re-
quired the construction of greater trans-shipment facilities: the new ware-
houses of the Central Waterfront.

The second phase, beginning in 1805 and ending with the War of 1812, was
one of subdivision. With the reduction in international trade, and no more
windfall profits to come in the immediate future, wharf property may have become
more costly an investment than any individual merchant was willing to afford, and
its division may have been a financial necessity. In any case, these changes in
ownership correspond generally to the rise and fall of Federalist prosperity.

An example of this sequence is given by the transactions of William Farris
and Ebenezer Stocker. As business partners, they owned a number of vessels
engaged in the West Indies trade, and had mutual interests 'in banking and in-
surance (Labaree 1975:212, 217, 218). In 1799, Farris and Stocker joined with
Abraham and Ebenezer Wheelwright in the purchase of the Ferry Wharf property.
Around the brick core structure, built there ca. 1770, they constructed a large

119

MERRIMACK R I V E R

Z =7;"

iimii of rowtX.
i'A

35
V.-

48:
33
F

49:

50:
32
46:
38
47' z
Y
rp .......
39 51: 77
.....................
5. C41
52
40
30
53. X*
29 L? I
41
All :- 54
,@@R -@*& ..........
28
42
6 27

2e 20
.18

.16 21
44 14 19-. *......
C:3
12
45 10 @15'
25
N 3
24
36
9
23
8
22%
7

5
'N 6

............. %
4
3
Central Waterfront
J ....* 2
cirr-a 1810

NEWBURYPMT, MASSACHUSETIN

Street MARKET 25 o a so. loo
SQUARE PAE1175
---20 30 40
43@ "'

map no. 4 of 7

Fig. 8.1. The Federalist port shortly before the Great Fire of 1811.

120

Fig. 8.1. Central Waterfront, 1810 -- Key ae

Address Building Owner Function/(Occupant)

Market Square
1 store Joseph Plummer groceries
2 brick store William Russell groceries
3 brick store Thomas Cary wine
4 brick store Nicholas Johnson groceries?
5 store John Davenport hardware & ship chandlery
(Henry Frothingham)
6 store Anthony & Moses Davenport groceries

Water Street
7 brick store Daniel Burnham groceries
8 brick store John Wood groceries
9 brick store John Wood groceries (William Bailey)
10 1/2 house William Watkins (Andrew Palmer)
11 shop William Watkins unoccupied
12 1/2 house William Watkins (Joseph Davis)
13 shop William Watkins hatter (Humphrey Cook)
14 1/2 house Offin Boardman (John Odiorne)
15 shop Offin Boardman groceries (Joseph Edwards)
16 1/2 house Offin Boardman (Samuel Crowthers)
17 shop Offin Boardman auctioneer (Joseph Brown)
18 1/2 house Charles & William Titcomb unoccupied
19 shop Charles & William Titcomb unoccupied
20 1/2 house Joseph O'Brien residence
21 shop Joseph O'Brien (Joseph O'Brien & son)

Greenleaf's Wharf
22 #1 store Nicholas Johnson merchant (William Boardman)
23 #2 brick store Elias Pike merchant
24 #3 brick store Thomas Cary merchant
25 #4 brick store Walter Todd merchant
26 #5 store Paul Simpson & Sewall Toppan
Sewall Toppan merchants
27 #6 store John Noyes merchant
28 #7 store John Noyes merchant
29 #8 store Thomas Follansbee merchant
30 #9 store William Hoyt merchant
31 #10 store John B. Titcomb merchant
32 #11 store John Peabody merchant
33 #12 store Paul Simpson &
Sewall Toppan merchants
34 #13 store Thomas Cary merchant
35 #14 store John Greenleaf merchant
36 shop Nathan Long
37 brick store Abner Wood & Joshua
Joshua Greenleaf merchants

121

Fig. 8.1., Cont., 1810.
Ferry Wharf
38 #1 brick store Robert Dodge flour
39 #2 brick store Benjamin Boardman
40 #3 brick store Robert Dodge flour, nails, etc.
(Joseph Cutler)
41 #4 brick store A. & E. Wheelwright groceries (Zebedee Cook)
rigging loft
(Thomas Pritchard)
42 #5 brick store A. & E. Wheelwright groceries (Jacob Stone)
43 #6 brick store A. & E. Wheelwright groceries, iron, etc.
sail loft
(Joseph Stanwood Jr.)
44 #7 store Samuel Brown groceries, ship chandlery
45 #8 store Samuel Brown warehouse (John Brown)
46 store William Watkins
47 store William Watkins

Boardman's Wharf
48 store Offin Boardman merchant
49 store Offin Boardman lumber, hardware, etc.
(Amos Tappan)
50 store Offin Boardman merchant
51 store Offin Boardman (Benjamin Boardman)
52 store Offin Boardman merchant
53 store Offin Boardman (John Odiorne)
54 barn Charles & William
Titcomb

O'Brien's Wharf
55 warehouse Joseph O'Brien

Note: Dotted lines indicate approximate size and location of known structures.

122

warehousing and wholesaling complex, Merchant's Row (38-45). The row consisted
of eight adjoining three-story brick stores, and was occupied by a number of
commission merchants and maritime artisans, besides the owners themselves. While
in business here, Ebenezer Stocker sold Caribbean sugar, cigars, glass, sheeting,
duck, and a variety of other goods from the store at No. 1 Ferry Wharf (.38).
Stores at 2 and 3 Ferry Wharf (39, 40) were rented to commission merchants
Robert Foster and Abner Wood, who dealt in similar commodities (Herald: May 22
and 29, 1803). The functions of the other stores in the Row at this time are
unknown.

At the head of Ferry Wharf, on Water Street, Farris, Stocker, and the
Wheelwrights erected a row of three more stores (7, 8, 9; now known as the
"Ferry Wharf Building"). This row, also brick and three stories high, was part
of the Market Square wholesaling and retailing area. The occupants of these
stores dealt primarily in groceries.

By 1800, both Farris and Stocker had amassed considerable personal fortunes,
ranking them the eighth and the fifth wealthiest men in town, respectively. Be-
cause of the intensifying naval conflict with France, however, both soon found
themselves in financial trouble. In 1805, they sold their shares in Merchant's
Row and the Ferry Wharf Building to the Wheelwrights, who in turn subdivided
the property and disposed of all but three stores. Yet the economic difficulties
which beset Farris and Stocker continued to grow. In 1807, the town assessor
listed Farris' estate as valued at $7000--$37,000 less than it had been just
seven years earlier. Although he remained an active member of the community
until his death in 1837 at the age of 84, Farris never recovered his fortune,
and was forced to live the last years of his life on a government pension.
Stocker did not fare much better, and left Newburyport in 1808 (Labaree 1975:-
212, 217, 218).

The sale and division of Merchant's Row signalled the beginning of a signi-
ficant change in the pattern of ownership on the waterfront. The Ferry Wharf
was no longer owned by a single person or held in undivided shares by a partner-
ship. The land and buildings on it were now owned by a number of individuals
free to use and convey their property as they saw fit. Other wharves in New-
buryport 'were divided in a similar manner as the uncertainties and risks asso-
ciated with neutral trade grew.

In 1810, four sets of row buildings crowded the length of Greenleaf's
Wharf (.22-35). The building closest to Market Square, at the head of the wharf,
was a four-story brick structure (The John Greenleaf Building) partitioned by
fire walls into four separate stores (22-25). Trapezoidal in outline, the com-
plex conformed to the irregular slope of the parcel on which it stood. This row
of stores was advertised as "... one of the best stands for business in town... 11
(Herald: May 1, 1811). The three other rows of stores on the wharf (26-35) were
rectangular, hip-roofed, wooden structures three and four stories high with
shuttered windows, and doors opening onto both sides of the wharf. All these
buildings were erected by John Greenleaf between 1800 and 1810. Whether he
built them on speculation or intended them for his own use is not clear. What
is clear is that at the time of the first sales in July of 1810, a plan existed
depicting the intended division of the land, with each store numbered and the
ways to and from them clearly shown. More than half of the titles to the stores
on the wharf were transferred in a single day. Although John Greenleaf eventu-
ally sold all but one store, he retained title to the wharf, thereby earning an

123

income from the wharfage he charged. In August, Greenleaf also divested himself
of two of the three stores on-Ferry Wharf which he had bought five years before
from the Wheelwright brothers.

The only other structure on the wharves known to date from the Federalist
period was built in partnership by Abner Wood and Joshua Greenleaf. Greenleaf,
of course, was from an old family of Newburyport merchants, Wood, a newly
successful merchant, made his fortune in the neutral trade, multiplying his
property fifty-fold from 1800 to 1807. He owned several vessels employed in
voyages to Northern European ports, and held stock in the Newburyport Bank
(Labaree 1975:219). Together Wood and Greenleaf built a spacious four-story
brick building (37) between Greenleaf's and Ferry wharves. The first advertise-
ment mentioning this structure appeared in the Herald on December 12, 1810-. It
states, "Joshua Greenleaf has removed to the new Brick store opposite the Ferry
Wharf," where he had for sale tar, rosin, ship chandlery, hardware, turpentine,
iron, lead, nails, and cheese. Abner Wood ran a similar advertisement for his
store in February of 1811. Their partnership ended in 1816 when they divided
the new building between themselves.

Business in 1810

Even as Newburyport merchants coped with uncertainty in maritime commerce'
and redistributed their holdings on the central wharves, there was brief improve-
ment in trade with the Continent. The Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 was repealed
in May of 1810 by Macon's Bill No. 2, and international trade resumed. One can
easily imagine the appearance of the waterfront in September and October of 1810
as the port's fleet returned from their first voyage to the Continent in three
years. The waterfront, congested with vessels of all descriptions, and shrouded
in an early morning autumn mist, must have had the appearance of a forest of
spars and masts. The tall brigs, schooners, and ships entering the harbor at
that time were laden with iron, hemp, and cloth from the Baltic; sugar, coffee,
and cocoa from the Caribbean and South America; and figs, raisins, and prunes
from Spain and the Mediterranean (Labaree 1975:174-175). Also crowded at the
wharves were numerous smaller crafts, hailing from Portland, Boston, New York,
Baltimore, and Alexandria. The wharves, too, must have been alive with steve-
dores unloading ships, and carts and drays creaking and rumbling as they lumbered
along the wharves to the shops and warehouses.

The cargoes which came into Newburyport changed hands through many routes.
If the goods were not already spoken for by a particular merchant, a captain
might elect to auction the cargo from on board ship:

To be sold at Public Auction on Thursday Next, at 11 o'clock. On
Board the Schooner Stork laying at Capt. William Coomb's Wharf. 40
Chaldrons Richmond Coal (Herald:August 3, 1802).

A captain or merchant.might also rent a warehouse on one of the wharves and sell
his lading from there. Most often, however, the shipment was consigned to one
of the port's commission merchants, who would dispose of it for a percentage of
the selling price. Abraham and Ebenezer Wheelwright of Merchant's Row were
probably commission merchants, as well as importers. In November of 1810, they
advertised flour, raisins, butter, coffee, glass, corn, rye, and iron. Two
months later the list of articles included coppers (ferrous sulphate used in

124

tanning), brace and fence chains, sail needles, twine, umbrellas, lead, shot,
nails, crockery ware, coal for grates, and salt.

Merchant's Row and similar waterside structures were used not only by
merchants, but also by other tradesmen and artisans whose occupations were allied
to the construction and provisioning of ships. Less is known about these people
because they were invariably renters, rather than property owners, and they sel-
dom advertised their trades in local newspapers. It is only because their lofts
in Merchant's Row were destroyed in the 1811 fire that two such artisans have
been identified. An account of that disaster mentions a sail maker, Joseph
Stanwood, and a rigger, Thomas Pritchard (Herald:June 5, 1811).

Opposite the Central Waterfront, Market Square was a lively, bustling place,
particularly on market days. Ten years earlier the meeting house had been razed
and the site laid out by the town and local shopkeepers as a public way and mar-
ket (Currier 1906:443). Farmers arrived early in the morning, their wagons
groaning under the bounty of the harvest, to vie for a space in the square where
they could sell their produce. The port's butchers and fish mongers had shanties
erected at the entrace to the Market Landing on the north side of the square,
where they hawked their wares to the town's cooks and housewives. The manner of
exchange was flexible, and most shopkeepers were willing to sell "... by whole-
sale or retail on good terms, for Cash or Country Produce." As one resident
remembered:

The Ferry was one of the great thoroughfares in those days, and
the Ferry Wharf was a place of active trade. At the head of the Wharf
stood, facing on the Market, Mr. Anthony Davenport's and Mr. John
Davenport's shops ... Mr. [Anthony] Davenport's was the centre of the
Country-folks Exchange, and the best butter was to be found there and
the freshest eggs, and the nicest moulds of barbara tallow (Wood 1863).

By this time, a majority of the old Colonial housefront shops had been re-
placed by Federalist stores. These were spacious three- and four-story brick
buildings such as the Phenix [sic] and Blunt Buildings. Along the Central Water-
front were the Ferry Wharf Building (7-9), the Davenport Building (5,6) and the
eastern section of the North Row (2-4). These were all three-story brick struc-
tures containing two to three stores, each three bays wide. Businesses were
segregated vertically in the new quarters. on the first floor were shops which
initially included the businesses of the owners. Evidently doctors, attorneys,
insurance agents, printers and tailors found the second floor chambers satis-
factory for their needs. Angier March, for example, located his insurance busi-
ness in the chambers above John Davenport's store (Herald:September 28, 1810).
The function of the third floor is unknown, but was probably used for residences,
additional office space, or storage. The cellars served for storage as well.

The older Colonial shops, such as those below the Ferry Wharf Building on
Water Street, were small and cramped by comparison. Earlier descriptions of
these properties in newspaper advertisements demonstrate just how obsolete these
facilities were in urban Newburyport:

To Let, a convenient Dwelling House, situated on Water Street, with a
good shop in front. It would be convenient for a boardinghouse or for
a trader... inquire of the Printer (Herald:June 28, 1799).

125

To be sold at Auction... A DWELLING HOUSE, with 3 rooms on one floor,
& a shop in front, containing eleven rods of land, situated in Water
Street... (July 5, 1799).

Three such residence and shop combinations in two separate buildings (14-19) were
owned by Offin Boardman. Chapter 3 has presented the archaeology of one of
these structures whose foundation was exposed in excavation. Boardman apparently
did not live in any of his Water Street properties, but rented them out separ-
ately to various tenants. The two stores of one building were occupied by
Joseph Edwards, a grocer, and Joseph Brown, an auctioneer. John Odiorne and
Samuel Crowthers were apparently residents in this same structure (Gilman and
Gilman 1811:129). Paul Bishop, a tailor had a brief tenure in Boardman's third
store in the adjacent building (Herald:Oct6ber 5, 1810).

The businesses within Market Square and along State Street were already
segregated by the types of goods they sold and the services they provided. The
most prestigious businesses were located above the square on State Street. Here
were the bookstores and stationers, insurance companies, law offices, crockery
shops, and jewelers, as well as the town's foremost inn, the Old Wolfe Tavern.
At the corner of State and Pleasant streets was a group of 14 stores which
specialized in clothing and in ladies' and gentlemen's furnishings. In Market
Square itself, dry goods merchants and apothecaries tended to cluster on the
west and south sides. Most of the stores on the north and east sides specialized
in groceries, produce, spirits, and West India goods. Because of their close
proximity to the wharves, many of them also carried ship chandlery and hardware.

The business of Joseph Plummer may be considered typical of the Square's
grocery shops. Plummer, whose Revolutionary War dossier was covered in the pre-
vious chapter, purchased a store (1) on the north side of Market Square from
John Greenleaf in 1809 (ECRD 186:298). Plummer and his son, Joseph Jr., ran a
grocery business here until 1810, when the elder Plummer died. The inventory
.of his estate, made in March of 1810, describes the diversity of goods offered
at his shop (Table 8.1). Although this inventory lists quite an assortment of
items for sale, they are all similar in that they are things which would have
been commonly purchased for domestic or household use. In contrast to the stores
on the wharves behind him, the variety of items at Plummer's store is large,
while the quantity on hand is relatively small.

Economic Decline

The affluence of Newburyport ended with the reinstatement of the Non-Inter-
course Act in February of 1811, and with Madison's declaration of war with
England in 1812. The two years of embargo, blockade, and war, which followed,
destroyed Newburyport's foreign commerce.

When Newburyporters complained that the War of 1812 was ruining
their fortunes, the charge was not exaggerated. In the three years
between 1812 and 1815, the town's total valuation dropped from
$6,074,600 to $3,853,200, less than two thirds of the prewar figure.
Valuation had already fallen by over $600,000 in the five years of
Embargo, Non-Intercourse, and the Great Fire, so that the over-all
loss reduced the Newburyporters' worth to nearly half of 1807's
high-water mark. Few citizens escaped*the paralyzing effects of

126

Table 8.1. Inventory of Joseph Plummer's Store, March 9, 1810 (ECPC 22153).

Qty. Item Value Qty. Item Value Total

21111"7 Wt Sugar 218.22 218.22
5"3'12 Wt Rice 20.19 572 Wt Cotton 105.01 125.20
104 galls Brandy 116.32 170 galls Rum 167.94 284.16
149 galls Wine 170.20 12 galls Molasses 7.20 117.52
887 Wt Coffee 169.20 128 Wt Salts 7.71 176.91
303 Wt Tea 224.07 30 Wt Honey 3.05 247.12
1 bbl Pork 14.00 13 qtls Fish 24.50 38.50
78 Wt Raisins 3.68 14-1/2 Wt Pepper 3.63 7.31
31-1/2 Wt Pimento 7.87 32-1/2 Wt Ginger 2.93 10.80
2-1/2 Cloves 2.63 2-1/2 Wt Cassia 1.25 3.88
6-3/4 Oz Nutmeg 2.53 8 Wt Bees Wax 2.66 5.19
65-1/2 Wt Tallow 11.79 10 Skain Yarn .80 12.59
1/4 m Flints 1.25 1 Pair Hose .75
1 Candle Stick .56 2.56
7-3/4 Doz Small Lines .97 1 Pair Shoes 75 1.72
1-1/4 Doz Soap .53 13-1/2 Wt Indigo 32.70 33.23
2 Pair Steel Yard 2.25 3 Pair Mittens * 37 2.62
7-1/2 Wt Powder 6.75 1-1-23 Wt Shott 17.52 24.27
Mustard Seed .50 cocks .18
Twine .09 Cand. .10 .87
8 Nests Boxes 4.80 72 Wt Chocolate 16.86 21.66
3 Reams Paper 3.06 14 Wt Soap .84 3.90
124 Wt Cheese 2.70 1"2"26 Wt Allum 13.89 16.59
3110110 Copperas 10.50 1"2"24 Red Wood 6.00 16.50
91111121 Wt Log Wood 23.59 8 Wooden Cocks 1.34 24.93
13-1/2 Yds Tow Cloth 1.68 8 Yds Cotton Cloth 1.76 3.44
1 bbl Flour 8.50 39 Wt Flour 1.72 10.22
36 Wt Candles 5.08 3 Bottles Oil 1.75 6.83
243-1/2 Wt Cut Nails 25.97 14-1/2 m Wrt Nails 23.22 49.19
541 Wt Clover Seed 37.87 33 Wt Starch 4.62 42.49
13 Brooms 1.83 9 Demijohns 9.00 10.83
2 Stone Jugs .84 1/2 Doz Jugs .24 1.08
1 Doz Bottles .63 1-1/2 Bushels Oats .65 1.28
2 Bushels Flax Seed 1.00 1 Cwt Chalk 1.50 2.50
32 Baskets 4.00 6 Firkens 1.70 5.70
1 Butter Pot .12 1 Dipper .15
1-1/2 Wt Yarn .35 .62
9 Shovels 7.56 4 Pails .40
Tobacco .13 8.09
7 Barrel Covers .63 400 Segars .80
Pork 1.00 2.43
2 Frying Pans 1.75 4 Large Casks 15.50 17.25
6 Led Weights .58 1-1/2 Wt Iron Weights 5.25 5.83
Scale Beam &
Scales 7.00 3 Seth Measures 1.50 8.50
Liquor Measures
& Shop Tools 4.00
Old Iron, Old Old Boxes &
Casks Wood 5.81

127

Embargo and war. Average wealth per poll dropped from 1807's $5089
to $2716 at war's end. But the median fell even more sharply, from
$1600 to $500. Hardest hit were the maritime artisans, mariners, and
laborers, whose skills and services were no longer needed on the
grass-covered wharves... (Labaree 1975:200).

In other accounts of the period, the town's historians have placed part of
the blame for the port's economic collapse on the construction of the Middlesex
Canal in 1803 (Cushing 1826). The canal diverted the interior trade with
northern New England directly to Boston, instead of through Newburyport via the
Merrimack. Not only was the flow of agricultural produce and manufactured goods
interrupted, but essential supplies of lumber and wood were all but cut off.
Had the Middlesex Canal not been built, lamented one historian, "... the whole
difficulty afterwards experienced by the town in procuring supplies of wood re-
quired by our ship-builders, and even for fuel, would have been avoided,,and a
cheap and direct supply have always been available" (Smith 1854:207).

It would be an oversimplification to attribute Newburyportis decline as a
port to the construction of the canal and the disastrous effects of embargo and
war. The truth rests with the radical alteration between 1810 and 1825 in the
manner by which commerce was conducted. Most second-class seaports in Massa-
chusetts were withering under the influence of Boston. Large cargoes, both
imports and exports, gravitated to Boston, as did the region's retailers.

- Foreign commerce now requires a larger capital than formerly, and
the profits on it are less. We are beginning to perceive and appre-
ciate the importance of encouraging and protecting domestic industry,
for the most substantial reasons: ... we lose our population, whilst
other towns gain it. Boston, for instance, by reason of the immense
accumulation of wealth in the hands of its inhabitants, becomes by the
laws of political economy, a permanent market as well for domestic
manufactures and products, as for imported articles. Amesbury, Lowell,
Dover, are the sites of vast manufactories, and thither our mechanics
and traders emigrate, following the concentration of capital, wherever
it takes place. But we on the other hand, have neither natural sites
for manufactories, nor the immense accumulation of riches, which should
secure to us, at present, the means of successful competition with any
of those places, to which the recent revolutions in the conduct of
business have imparted such great accession of wealth or population
(Cushing 1826:113).

In the ten-year period between 1810 and 1820, the port's fleet lost more
than two thirds of its total tonnage, and the town population decreased by ten
percent. The 1820 manuscript census makes it clear that the majority of those
who left town during this period were adult males, between the ages of 16 and
25.

... Newburyport has been from that time, almost without cessation, the
prolific exporter of young men. How else do you account for the great
number of Newburyport youth annually exiled, and scattered over the
Union in eligible and profitable situations, --from Boston to New
Orleans, and from New York to the Mississippi (Smith 1854:190-191).

128

The Great Fire

None of the period's events had so marked an effect upon the appearance of
Market Square and the Central Waterfront as did the Great Fire of 1811. The
holocaust started on the evening of May 31, in a stable in Mechanic's Row, on
Inn Street, and quickly spread to neighboring buildings. Within a few hours,
half of the town's commercial district was in flames. The fire laid to waste
16 1/2 acres "... in a part of the town the most compact, and containing a much
larger proportion of the wealth of the town than any other part" (Herald:June
5, 1811). Nearly 250 shops and dwelling houses were burned, including all the
dry goods stores in town, four 'Printing offices, the custom house, the post
office, two insurance companies, the Baptist meeting house, four bookstores, and
the town library. The loss of property was estimated in excess of $1,000,000
(Gilman and Gilman 1811).

As depicted in Fig. 8.1, the north side of Market Square escaped destruc-
tion, while the Ferry Wharf Building, Merchant's Row, and all the property east
of it were extensively damaged. Shortly after the fire, two stores on Greenleaf's
Wharf (28, 31), were organized to receive donations of food and clothing for
victims of the fire (Herald:July 9, 1811). Liberal contributions were donated
from surrounding communities, and from cities as far away as Boston, Philadel-
phia, and Charleston, S.C. (Gilman and Gilman 1811; Smith 1854: 188-189).

Because of the fire, there was an enormous dislocation of many of the town's
merchants and shopkeepers. Some established temporary quarters elsewhere in town.
William Boardman, Robert Dodge, Elias Pike, and others moved to warehouses of
Greenleaf's Wharf until their stores could be rebuilt. For other merchants the
loss was too great, and they were forced to sell their property and leave town.

Rebuilding

The fire had the effect of removing nearly all the Colonial buildings from
Market Square, and the subsequent rebuilding established the integrity of
Federalist architecture which characterizes the area today. On June 14, 1811,
the Massachusetts Legislature passed "An Act to secure the town of Newburyport
from Damage by Fire." This act stipulated that all major stores and dwelling
houses erected between Market and Federal streets would have to be built of
brick or stone. The town subsequently enacted a more stringent code, restricting
the height of wooden structure's in the area to ten feet. To make sure the new
building code was heeded, the selectmen authorized a committee to receive appli-
cations from individual wishing to erect buildings of material other than brick
or stone (Herald:July 16, 1811).

Contrary to some recent articles by local historians, the rebuilding of
Market Square and Merchant's Row on Ferry Wharf was extremely rapid, as the
following newspaper article demonstrates:

REBUILDING -- We understand the present owners of the land from
Inn street, (Mechanic's Row) round Market Square to State-street,
and up to Pleasant street, desolated by the late fire, intend to
erect a range of brick buildings, uniformly three stor:Le's high, the
present season. --In short the music of the hammer and trowel are
already heard, and [the] scenes of ruins and ashes will soon re-

129

sume the appearance of industry and enterprize, in this late mart of
business. --The block of brick buildings belonging to the Union
Marine Insurance Company, in Market Square [East Row], is nearly re-
built. --A few "ten feet" buildings have been erected [on Middle
Street], but we hope they are not to be multiplied (Herald:July 19,
1811).

As early as September, shopkeepers ran advertisements in the Herald stating
that they had returned to their old business addresses, where they were once
again ready to serve their customers. Robert Dodge returned to his store (38),
at the lower end of Merchant's Row on Ferry Wharf in December, just 6 1/2
months after it was destroyed by the fire (Herald:December 13, 1811). Such
advertisements continued to appear through December of the following year, by
which time all three rows in Market Square were reoccupied. Although some
stores were rebuilt in the North and South rows after 1812, the architecture of
the square has remained essentially unchanged to the present.

How the reconstruction progressed along the eastern end of the Central
Waterfront is unclear. Offin Boardman, in addition to the stores and houses on
Water Street, owned six stores and warehouses (48-53) on his wharf. All are
listed in the account of the fire as having burned (Herald:June 5, 1811). Amos
Tappan, for several years one of Boardman's renters, was one of the sufferers
(Gilman and Gilman 1811:14). By September of that year, however, Tappan adver-
tised that he had for sale boards, shingles, joists, pine timber, barrel staves,
glass, and other construction materials at his store, No. 5 Boardman's Wharf.
Included in this advertisement is a reference to another store and a compting
(counting room) for rent on the same wharf. Obviously, at least part of the
damage done by the Great Fire had been repaired by this time. But here is a
curious fact: in the probate of Offin Boardman's estate, in 1813, no mention
is made of any building on his property within the Central Waterfront. The
tax records for the years 1812 and 1813 fail to dlarify this problem. Nor have
any data been found which would suggest that the subsequent buildings erected
on this site were made of brick, as stipulated in the town's building code.
For thirty years, the complexion of Water Street remains vague. No mention is
made in the newspaper advertisements of other businesses burned out by the fire
as having returned. Neither is there any indication of new enterprises having
taken their place. Unfortunately, 20th century construction on this site has
probably obliterated the archaeological evidence which would have solved this
problem.

The transformation of Newburyport in the early 19th century established
patterns of occupation and land use around Market Square, which continue almost
unchanged to the present day. The individual stores in the row buildings have
survived as the minimum unit of subdivision within the town's commercial dis-
trict. Their three-story height has created a multi-level working environment,
encouraging a vertical segregation of business activities. The pattern enacted
in the Federalist Period, of shops on the first floor and office and residences
on the upper floors, has survived as the modern answer to the area's rehabili-
tation under the present urban renewal program.

130

i
0

131

9. IMAGES AND INDUSTRY,1815-1900

The Federalist Image

After the War of 1812, there was no clear course set for the future of
Newburyport, and the economy drifted aimlessly for nearly two and a half de-
cades. Most of the literature of this time expresses the inhabitants' desire
to recapture somehow the fondly remembered well-being of the port during the
opening decade of the century. Many had the attitude that by the practice of
frugality and assiduity in business,together with sheer force of will, the
town might reverse the preceeding economic events. In an oration delivered
in Newburyport on July 4, 1821, one speaker reasoned:

... our mechanics are as faithful and intelligent as they used to
be, when they gained so much celebrity for the ship building and
naval equipments of the river Merrimac; we can manage distilleries
or fisheries with as much skill as our neighbors; we can purchase
lumber cheaply and export it in as good bottoms as can any part of
the commonwealth; nor will our merchants or mariners yield to those
of any other seaport in uprightness, enterprise, or information.
If all these things are true,--and that they are so who can deny?
--there is no reason whatever why we should think our future pros-
pects more discouraging than the rest of the maritime towns of equal
size in New England (Cushing 1826:31).

But Newburyport's future lay in another direction, along a course unfor-
seen by most of its residents. At mid-century, the Industrial Revolution
stormed and then captured the town, completely remolding its economy. The
captains of industry became the era's new heroes and the mills were their
instruments for social reform.

So completely did the promises of industrialization engage the imagination
of the population, that both the town's history and its future were now mea-
sured against the precepts of its new philosophy. Even the aftermath of the
1811 fire was seen in new perspective:

An unfortunate, but perhaps necessary rule, was observed in
the distribution of the money thus generously contributed by the
country and our own citizens [after the fire of 18111. No per-
son received any appropriation who had property remaining of the
value of five thousand dollars. This looked reasonable, and was
perhaps as satisfactory a rule of procedure as could be adopted
at the time. Yet looking back from our present standpoint, with
all the results of that disastrous year before us, we cannot
doubt that had the whole amount of money thus collected, been
loaned to some half dozen of the most enterprising business men,
possessing five thousand dollars or upwards, and thus adding to
their capital, encouraging them to renew business and inspiring
them with hope of eventually making good their losses, it would
have been better for the town, and better for the poorer classes
who received it, by enabling these capitalists to give them pro-
fitable and permanent employment long after the pittance supplied
them was exhausted; instead, as the event proved, creating a
class who just managed to live on the remnant of the property

132

they had saved, but with no surplus which they dared risk in the
most inviting speculations (Smith 1854:190).

For the first time, apparently, local newspapers began publishing serials
featuring the personal reminiscences of older members of the community. Per-
haps it was the rapid industrialization of the port, or maybe it was the sud-
den flood of foreign-born immigrants into the city, that sparked a need among
the older residents to have their own identity and that of the town recon-
firmed. As histories, the serials are as telling of the age in which they
were penned as of the time which they sought to portray. Frequently, both the
facts and the exaggerations contained in the original newspaper articles have
reappeared in later writings, still@colored by the social perceptions of the
mid-19th century authors. For whatever reason the serials were originally
published, they have done much to create the image of Newburyport and its past
which is now preserved both in scholarly histories and fanciful fictions. How-
ever, the spirit of such places as Market Square and the Central Waterfront
emanates from the people and events popularly remembered, and it is as impor-
tant to understand the memories as it is to know the facts.

As if to emphasize the opulence of the early Federalist days by contrast,
the town's mid-century historians depicted the 20 year period following the
Great Fire as one of appalling economic depression. Of the characterizations
written about this time, none is more vivid than the following piece published
in the Memorabilia series of the Newburyport Herald in 1865:

Years came and went--long, dull, tedious years, with many disap-
pointments and but few hopes. Every thing grew old and rusty and
dead. Nobody thought to paint a building, and there were so many
of them empty that rent was nothing, and the purchase price, if any
thing, was less than that. If an old fence blew down, there it
lay unless it was picked up to burn; and when a pump handle broke
no more water came from that well. Why, the very thoughts of those
days are awful--enough to make a live man's flesh crawl, as though
some horrid spectre was passing in view.... (Herald:January 22,
1856)

Contrary to the impression left by the excerpt abovej Newburyport's
inhabitants were not entirely disheartened. Many still saw their town as an
important market place for the region. In the summer of 1822, work was begun
on a two-story brick market house, and by the beginning of the following year,
the first floor of the building was ready for public use. In point of archi-
tecture, the building recalls some of the most pleasing details of the former
Federalist Period (Fig. 9.1).

The Market House served the same function as the butchers' shambles,
whose space it replaced at the entrance to the Market Landing. On the first
floor were 12 stalls, from which butchers, provisioners, and fish mongers
hawked their wares. In the basement were seven "store-cellars" and a
11victualling cellar" (eating place). The second floor, which was not completed
until 1835, was used as a public meeting hall.

There was considerable disagreement among the townspeople over the con-
struction of the Market House. Those opposed to the project considered it an
expense beyond the means of the town treasury. Indeed, completion of the

133

-7,

U
N
R

11 4V,

5-Y

------------ -7 ------------- 1-1

7VI
'AA di!
_J-

-4

V
4,

Fig. 9.1. The Market House fire station and North Row. A, Note "TOWBOAT
OFFICE" and "STEAMER NO. l," ca. 1871. B, Fire Station and "NEW YORK LIQUOR
STORE," ca. 1886. Photos courtesy of The Essex Institute, Salem, Mass.

134

building was held up for more than ten years, due to a shortage of funds. But
even in its unfinished state, the Market House provided the town with revenue
in the form of rent from the first-floor stalls (Herald:January 23, 1823;
Currier 1906:187-190).

In justice to those persons who bid so readily and liberally
for the stalls, and who have fixed themselves there, we cannot but
think some measure ought to be taken by the town to discourage the
purchasing of meats out [-side]of the market [house], and to pre-
vent benches for fish, beef, &c. from being placed in the open
space of the market, which ought now to be left free and unob-
structed for the carts and wagons of casual dealers from the
neighboring country towns. --The later measure, particularly, is
necessary to complete the work of improvement, which we have be-
gun; for it is not enough to have removed the wretched shambles
which formerly defaced this fine public square, unless we can clear
the square of nuisances, with which it is now too frequently dis-
figured and obstructed... (Herald:January 23, 1823).

In April of 1823, a court resolution was passed prohibiting the sale of spirits,
meat, and fish outdoors in any part of the Market Square. The Market House
continued to provide Newburyporters with fresh meat and fish until 1864, when
the stalls were removed to make room for the port's new steam fire engine,
"Econ" (Currier 1906:190).

Later, another majestic symbol of prosperous trade was erected on Water
Street. The new U.S. Custom House was built from plans drawn up by the first
American trained architect, Robert Mills, in 1834-35. This Greek revival
edifice, constructed of massive granite blocks, stands out in sharp contrast
to the neighboring Federalist brick row buildings. Yet even this classic form
seems an admission of a desire to resurrect the glory of days gone by.

Recovery and Industrialization

Newburyport's mercantile economy did begin to show signs of recovering in
the 1830's. The communities along the reaches of the Merrimack River had be-
gun to expand under the effects of industry-, and many of them still looked to
Newburyport merchants for essential commodities.

... We have now [1832] afloat 22 ships and 2 barques, (8,596 tons),
18 brigs, (3,870 tons), all, with three or four exceptions, of the
first class, and 3,432 tons of registered schooners; making an
aggregate of 15,898 tons of registered shipping. --Add to this
2,438 tons of temporary and 10,000 tons of enrolled, and it shows
an amount owned here at the present time, of 28,336 tons. Within
the last three years, at least 50 percent has been added to our
tonnage in large vesse.ls,and during the last year we have added 8
ships, 1 barque, and 5 brigs. In addition to this, there are now
building on our river, and owned here, 4 ships and 3 barques, which
will increase the amount of tonnage 2,500, and which added to the
above will show an aggregate of 30,830... (Herald:December 4, 1832).

135

New, mechanized, handicraft industries had also been initiated in the
previous few years, and were becoming an increasingly larger source of employ-
ment for the townspeople. Following an article surveying the town's new
undertakings, a newspaper editor remarked:

Ten years ago had a stranger enquired of our manufacturies,
we could only have pointed to some half dozen Distilleries of
N.E. Rum--these are now languishing for want of support, the
more useful and ornamental ones [new industries]-have suc-
cessively sprung up, and are in vigorous operation (Herald:
February 26, 1830).

The'new industries referred to manufacture of chairs, hosiery, combs, cigars,
and silver thimbles. Much of this work was performed by hand, the labor
supplied principally by women and children. But employment opportunities for
the adult male population were still limited.

With no natural source of power, Newburyport's industries remained a
relatively small part of the port's economy for the next decade. It was not
until steam-powered industry was perfected that large-scale manufacturing in
the town was possible. The first such manufactory was the Newburyport Steam
Cotton Company, incorporated in 1835. But because of technical difficulties,
the mill was not profitable and was sold eight years later. The factory
building was purchased in 1844 and renamed the Essex Steam Mills. It con-
tinued to manufacture cotton cloth until 1856, when it was destroyed by fire
(Currier 1909:158-159).

Several years after the erection of [what became] the Essex
Mill, a new man appeared among us--a well-formed, noble looking
person--such a man as you do not often meet, full of power,
energy and enterprise, who had studied machinery till he was him-
self one of the most powerful machines--who had been among steam
engines till he was a perfect steam engine himself, thinking
nothing of what to others seemed mountains of difficulties, and
having an influence over the opinions and purses of our staid old
capitalists that no other man had possessed for a long time. He
could wake up some that had been sleeping since the days of the
Great Fire; he could talk his projects into them; he could set
them to work, and make them do something. Such a man was Charles
Tillinghast James, who being barn about 1807, was but little over
thirty years old, when he commenced the Bartlet Mills, and but
six years older when the James' was built that bears his name;
but already he had won for himself a high place among the
mechanics of New England, and no one ought to be surprised that
he who at thirty, in the then condition of affairs, could induce
Newburyport to build the Bartlet Mills, should be in the United
States Senate when he was forty-five, though poritics was some-
what out of his line of business... (.Herald:January 22, 1856).

Following the construction of the Bartlet Steam Mills in 1836 and their
successful operation for six years, three other cotton mills were established
in rapid succession: the James Steam Mills in 1842, the Globe Steam Mill in
1845, and the Ocean Steam Mill in 1845 (Smith 1854:285-287). Unlike many in-
land industrial centers such as Paterson, New Jersey, and Lowell, Massachusetts,

136

Newburyport's industries did not cluster around a particular central location
within the town. This would have caused considerable unnecessary congestion
within the port, resulting from transporting coal and raw materials from the
wharves to the mills. Instead, Newburyport's industrialists chose to distri-
bute their mills more or less evenly along the length of the town, within a
few blocks of waterfront facilities. Only the Bartlet Mills were located in
the downtown area, near Market Square. At mid-century, these cotton mills
constituted the largest single source of employment in the newly incorporated
City of Newburyport, giving work to 1320 people (State Census 1855).

Employment opportunities were also expanding in boot and shoe making,
silversmithing, comb making, and hat making (NCD 1851-1901). These growing
industries now offered significant employment for adult males as well as women
and children. The absolute and relative growth of manufacturing, based on the
male employed heads of households mentioned in the City Directories, is shown
in Fig. 9.2 in comparison with other segments of the economy. While the cotton
mills reached their peak levels of employment during the Civil War, the second
largest industry, boot and shoe making, continued to grow until the close of
the century.

Rebirth of Shipbuilding

The shipbuilding industry languished for some 60 years following the
American Revolution, but in the 1840's it suddenly revived. The rapid expan-
sion of the local textile industry, with its need for fuel and raw materials,
encouraged the construction of more and larger vessels (Fig. 9.3). Shipbuild-
ing gained further impetus from the discovery of gold in California, as east-
erners caught the gold rush fever and ships were sought to transport people
and supplies to the West Coast. It continued as one of the city's principal
industries through the 1870's, but it suffered severely from a series of
recessions. Perhaps because of this, Merrimack shipbuilders found it in-
creasingly more difficult to obtain financial backing. The aggregate tonnage
and total number of vessels constructed in Newbury and Newburyport shipyards
fluctuated radically in the period between 1850 and 1900, but the overall trend
was downward. In 1901, the last Newburyport-built schooner, the Adelaide Bar-
bour, was launched, marking the end of one of the port's earliest industries
(Cheney 1964:162).

'tAt the height of the sailing ship era," states Robert Cheney, "more
ships of greater tonnage were built in a smaller space at the North End of
Newburyport than at any other seaport on the Atlantic Coast" (1964:3). Fifteen
vessels, with a combined capacity of nearly 13,000 tons, were launched from
the port's shipyards in 1855. Shipbuilding alone employed 540 persons that
year, ranking it behind textile and shoe manufacture as the city's third
largest industry (State Census 1855). Fitting out and rigging the vessels
employed at least another 100 craftsmen.

Once the hull of a sailing vessel was completed at one of the shipyards
upriver, it was launched and then towed to a rigger's wharf to be fitted out.
Here the talents of numerous maritime artisans were combined in preparing a
vessel for its maiden voyage. Two wharves frequently used for this purpose
were Hale's Wharf (i.e., City Wharf) and Ferry Wharf (Fig. 9.4).

137

ARTISANS
600. 30%

5004 0

400- %

2004
E
100
MANUFACTURING I I I F
1400. 70% year le5i 1 1860 1 1871 1 1

13004

12004 .60%
CLERICAL, WHITE COLLAR, AND
11004 PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONS
10004 50% 10004 50%

900
E- 9004 '0
8DO .40% 8004 .40%
0
0 7004
700.
0
6004 -30% 6DO4 .30%
E 0
K
5004 500-

ki 4004
400. .20% 20 Ok C
E
3004 3004

2004 @10 % 2004 .10%

1004 1DO4

year1 1851 1 1860 1 1871 1 1880 1 1891 Im year 1 1871 1 1880 1 1891 1 1901 1

LABORERS
8004 w4O%

MARITIME OCCUPATIONS 7004
6004 .30% 60-D. .30%

500-
500.
0
400- @20% 400. .20%
0
300. 300-
E
2(>0 10% 200. .10%
E
1004

1871 1 1880 1 year 1 851 1 1860 1 18W 1W 1901

Fig. 9.2. Employment of Newburyport's adult males, 1851-1901. Solid bar
indicates the absolute number of people employed in a particular area of the
economy, while the shaded bar shows that figure as a percentage of the labor
force. Because these figures were compiled from the Newburyport'City Directories,
the people represented were primarily adult male heads of households; the con-
siderable female and child labor forces were generally ignored by these data.

*C68T Pup 'L98T 'LEST 90 soTurd aqq pup 'ZTST go apm aiqq apnTOuT s9uTT3aP
aTqvzTuBooa-d -avM TTAT:) eiqq puv Oss
; 099T 81P uT aPvJ3 TuuOTlvuaaquT go Tvmauaa
S"T uT uTuJOJTTRO UT PT02 go Ala.&03sTp aq4 ol paqnqTaqqu aq Avm Aanquao
q46T 9ql SuTJnP Ou'PTTnqd-Eqs uT q:lmoa2 go spoiaaj '096T) Aauaqo Aq paTTdmoo
vqvp go 92paaAr guTuuna avaA aaaqj v uo pz3ndmoz aazm saan2ij * 'Aanluzz q46T ZqI
2uTanp iaodAanqmaN pup finqmaiq u-t :tTTnq sTasSaA JO a2v=04 TvnuuV *E*6 '21d

006L 068L 08st Mat 096L 098t mt 068t OZ8L OM 008L
A A A A A

L
..........

1-6

I-OL

l
ZL

SET

139

-4 Uff

- *I=WV
A

&Alt

- ---------
C

Fig. 9.4. Shipbuilding at Newburyport. A, Newburyport shipyard, ca. 1873.
B, Donkey steam engine, of a type manufactured by W. Everett Pearson in Newbury-
port and used to help rig and load ships; photographed at or near City Wharf, ca.
1873. C, Ship Winged Hunter being rigged at City Wharf, 1864. Photos courtesy
of the Newburyport Public Library.

140

The Central Waterfront and Market Square at Mid-Century

It is not surprising to find that in the 1850's many craftsmen and busi-
nesses in trades allied to shipbuilding still occupied the buildings on and
near the Central Waterfront (Fig. 9.5). Tallack Brombeck was a rigger for
over 40 years, most of which time he could be found working in a loft in Mer-
chant's Row (22). As a rigger, Brombeck was responsible for equipping sailing
vessels with masts, yards, sails, and running rigging. In 1855, two of the
four sail lofts in town were also located within the Central Waterfront.
George Hale worked at 10 Hale's Wharf (18), and Benjamin Davis' loft was in
Merchant's Row at 4 Ferry Wharf (20). Benjamin Davis was, of course, another
in the line of Davis sail makers whose refuse was excavated in Area 4. In all,
the four sail lofts in Newburyport in 1855 employed 28 people (State Census
1855).

Other maritime artisans within the Central Waterfrort were ship painters,
� blacksmith, a boat builder, a pump and block maker, a caulker and graver,
� hermetical sealer (Town Directory 1851). Ship chandlers and hardware mer-
chants, as well as sheet metal workers and coppersmiths, clustered around the
East Row of Market Square, near the intersection of Water Street and Elbow
Lane (Cheney 1964:302). Spar and mast makers, in addition to many pump and
block makers and boat builders, were situated on Water Street. Shipsmithsi,
machinists, and foundrymen generally established their businesses just up the
river on Merrimac Street. An exception was William Gunnison, who built the
mansard-roof brick structure which stands to the west of the Custom House to-
day. Part of Gunnison's business (14) was used in 1850 as a blacksmith shop,
where he may have made fastenings and fittings to supply to shipbuilders and
riggers. W. Everett Pearson located his machine shop here in 1873, and in
that year built the first "donkey" or stationary steam engine to be installed
on a Newburyport built ship (Fig. 9.4B). He also built many of the engines
and boilers for the steam powered ships made locally (Cheney 1964:294,339).

Although Newburyport was no longer one of New England's celebrated inter-
national ports, it retained some of its former importance as a center for
local commerce. The appearance and activities of the town's central business
district at mid-century had changed little since 1810. Businessmen chose to
locate here for substantially the same reasons as their predecessors. The
merchants on the waterfront and most of the shopkeepers on Market Square and
State Street depended upon outside supplies and markets for their merchandise.
At this time, most of the town's goods still travelled by water. It was to
the tradesman's advantage, therefore, to keep the distance between ship and
store to a minimum. Those who traded in heavy or bulky goods and incurred the
highest freight costs within the city, gained most by locating on or near the
wharves. Although the number of maritime artisans on the waterfront had in-
creased somewhat, the wharves' principal occupants were still merchants, and
the commodities to be found in their warehouses were still primarily groceries,
produce, fish, flour, and grain, as well as hardware and building materials.

The north side of Market Square remained the focus of the town's food
industry. Nearly all of the port's butchers and fish mongers were located in
and near the Market House. A leisurely walk along Water Street to the Custom
House, would have taken you past nine stores wholesaling and retailing fruit,
produce, groceries, West India goods, and flour and grain. Others whose doors
you would have passed were a blacksmith, two ship painters, a clothing dealer,

141

Fig. 9.5. Central Waterfront, 1850 -- Key

Address Building Owner Function/(Occupant)

Market Square
1 #4 brick store Benaiah Titcomb wholesale grocer
(R. S. Curtis)
#5 (2nd floor) notary public (J. Cook)
2 #6 brick store Joseph Plummer West India goods
#7 (2nd floor) fruit & produce
(Isaac C. Clement)
3 #8 brick store estate of William Russell tin plate worker
(Charles Chamberlin)
4 #9 brick store- Mrs. Elizabeth Cushing groceries & ship stores
(Knight & Lunt)
5 #10 brick store Mary Johnson groceries (J. B. Goodwin)
6 #11 brick store heirs of John Davenport ship chandlery
(Wm. T. Wills)
#12 (2nd floor) ship & house painters
(Wm. & Jos. Creasey)
7 #13 brick store heirs of A. & M. Davenport wholesale groceries
(Joseph Goodhue)

Water Street
8 #1 brick store Elizabeth Stickney flour & grain
(Sumner & Swasey)
9 #3 brick store Eleazer Johnson flour & grain
(Sumner & Swasey)
10 #5 brick store Jenness Brown wholesale West India goods
#7 (2nd floor) residence
11 #11 store heirs of Abraham Perkins clothing (Foster Smith)
#9 (2nd floor) boarding rooms
12 #13 store George T. Granger lumber yard
13 #15 shop William Gunnison blacksmiths
(Wm. Gunnison & John Page)
14 #17 store William Gunnison flour, grain, meal
15 #19 store William Gunnison flour, grain, meal
16 #21 store William Gunnison flour, grain, meal

Hale's Wharf
17 #7 store Ednah & Parker Roberts junk & iron (A. H. Coleman)
18 #10 store David & Isaac Hale? sail loft (George Hale)

Ferry Wharf
19 #1 store heirs of Robert Dodge coal (Newman Brown)
20 #3 store Abraham Wheelwright hermetical sealer--canner
(Abner Caldwell)
#4 (loft) sail loft (Benj. Davis &
son)
21 #5 store William & Samuel Nichols merchants
22 #7 store Micajah Lunt f lour & grain (J. J. Knapp)
(loft) rigging (Tallack Brombeck)
23 #8 store Micajah Lunt merchant

Note: Dotted lines indicate approximate size and location of known structures.

142

M E R R I M A C K R I V E R

...... ........

rn
19
r
z
Z,

17
20
13
Custom
House
21 t

22 16
Market
15
. . . . . . 23 14
Lan&ng

NY 8
$1016
NO-
W7
7
6
MadM House .......... 3 4 Central Waterfront
2 cima 1850

NEWBLTRYPMT, MASSACHUSETTS
Street MARKET 25 0 25 FEET 50
SQUARE METERS
5 0 10 20 30 40

L ------F-map no. 5 of 7

Fig. 9.5. The Central Waterfront at mid-19th century.

143

and a dealer in hardware and ship chandlery. The few changes which had taken
place in the appearance of the neighborhood were largely confined to the
buildings' ground floor facades. In the 1840's, many of the store owners on
State Street and Market Square remodeled their storefronts, replacing the
narrow, brick-arched windows and doors with large showcase windows framed with
granite piers and lintels. Other stores were not altered until the 1860's, at
which time cast iron pilasters were installed (Figs. 9.6 and 9.11).

The only major change occurred in the eastern half of the Central Water-
front. Just east of Ferry Wharf, on property once covered by Offin Boardman's
stores, residences and housefront shops, George Granger owned a large lumber
yard. Except perhaps for some outbuildings and an office (12), the area was
now used for open storage. In 1854, Granger sold the property to Newman Brown
who dealt in cordwood and coal (ECRD 490:194). The site continued to be used
for coal storage through the first years of the 20th century.

Tenants and Tenements

With the coming of the cotton mills, Newburyport's population increased
dramatically, experiencing its most rapid growth between 1840 and 1850. Nearly
600 houses were constructed to accommodate the newcomers (Thernstrom 1964:10-
11). By 1850, 1362 of the town's 9572 inhabitants were of foreign birth, the
majority of whom came from Ireland. Other immigrants arrived from farms in
Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and the Canadian Maritimes. As a group, the
newcomers could be characterized as unskilled, poor, illiterate or semi-
literate, and highly mobile. Euphemia Smith was correct when she described
the influx of people at mid-century as "... a large floating population"
(1854:228). Slightly less than 40 percent of all the unskilled workers listed
in the 1850 census could be found in the city a decade later, and the same was
true for the next three successive decades (Thernstrom 1964:85).

In 1850, there was a clear pattern of residential segregation by social
class within the town. The highest concentration of laborers and their
families lived in shacks and boarding houses on Merrimac and Water streets.
Others found similar accommodations on Salem, Ship, Federal, Independent, and
Winter streets, near the mills. Some lived above stores or in houses on back
lots in the central business district (Thernstrom 1964:30). Because of their
association with the immigrant population, these and other places within the
city were taking on new, and decidedly derogatory images; "bad neighborhoods"
were now part of the city's landscape.

Within the Central Waterfront, only two residences are listed in the
Town Directory of 1851: 7 and 9 Water Street (Table 9.1). Both of these
addresses refer to the second floor of the Ferry Wharf Building described
earlier. The first address was that of Jenness Brown, a grocer of modest
means, who lived with his wife and daughter in an apartment above his store
(10). In 1850, he bought the portion of the building in which he lived and
worked, and remained there until about 1875. Brown prospered at this Water
Street address, multiplying his net worth 12-fold between 1850 and 1870.

By contrast, Brown's neighbors, John Weeks and his family of five, did
not fare very well. He was a laborer from New Hampshire, and his two sons,
Frank and Joseph, were sailors. The 1850 census indicates that the family had

144

Table 9.1. Persons Residing on the Central Waterfront,
Derived from the City Directories, Newburyport.

1851
Name Occupation Business Residence

Brown, Jenness Grocer 5 Water h. 7 Water
Weeks, John Laborer h. 9 Water
Weeks, Frederick Seaman b. 9 Water

1860
Name Occupation Business Residence

Brown, Jenness Grocer 5 Water h. 7 Water
Callaher, Mathews Laborer b. 9 Water
Cavanagh, Mrs. Moses h. rear 11 Water
Crowley, Cornelius Combmaker b. 9 Water
Dooley, John Fisherman h. rear 11 Water
Fitzpatrick, Franklin Mariner b. rear 11 Water
Minahan, Cornelius "Globe Mill" b. 9 Water
Minahan, Michael "Bartlet Mills" b. 9 Water
Phillips, James Mariner h. rear 11 Water
Reardon, John "Globe Mill" h. 9 Water
Romiley, Peter (colored) Restaurant 1 Water h. d'o
Waters, Francis Umbrella Maker 11 Water h. do

1871
Name Occupation Business Residence

Blodgett, Seth Laborer b. 11 Water
Brown,. Jenness Grocer 5 Water h. 7 d'o
Durham, Edward W. Mariner b. 9 Water
Graves, John Harnessmaker h. 9 Water
Phillips, James Mariner h. rear 11 Water
Reardon, Ellen Widow h. rear 11 Water
Ryan, James Mariner h. rear 11 Water
Tobin, Michael Mariner h. rear 11 Water

1880
Name Occupation Business Residence

Anderson, John H. Cook 1 Water b. 1 d'o
Ayer, W. Perley Prop., Chester Ho. 1 Water h. I d'o
Bartlett, Andrew J. Clerk 1 Water b. I d'o
Donahoe, Martin Saloon 11 Water h. 11 d'o
Farmer, Felix Combmaker b. 7 Water
Knox, Christopher Laborer h. rear 11 Water

145

Table 9.1., continued.

1891
Name Occupation Business Residence

Dieustfreund, Adolph Tailor h. 11 Water
Doherty, John Laborer h. rear 11 Water
Donahoe, Martin Saloon 11 Water h. d'o
Duffy, John Clerk 35 Pleasant h. 5 Water
Gray, George C. Restaurant 9 Mkt. Sq. h. d'o
Lewis, Robert E. h. 1 Water
Meinarth, Carl Music Teacher 12 Mkt. Sq. h. d'o

1901
Name Occupation Business Residence

Doherty, John Laborer h. 11 Water
Donahoe, Martin Hatter h. 11 Water
Greenberg, Charles Junk Dealer h. 11 Water
Reiman, Marks Laborer b. 11 Water
Robinson, Samuel Laborer b. 11 Water
Saltinsky, Morris Junk Dealer 3 Ferry Wf. h. 11 Water
Tarlo, David Laborer b. 11 Water

146

U a
a a
0 UH"U
SEW U 0

. . . . . . . . . . .

pt, I'

A
'rs

Fig. 9.6. Water Street and Market Square in 1840 and 1977. A, Scene traced
from engraving on a one dollar note of the Newburyport Bank, dated-October, 1840.
B, Identical view, October, 1977. Note replacement of early structures with the
mansard-roofed Gunnison Building.

147

no appreciable property. Apparently they remained in the study area only for
a short time. Other families like the Weeks probably resided in this neighbor-
hood in -1851, but they do not appear in the directory.

In 1860, Peter Romily, a black man from Havana, Cuba, opened a restaurant
at No. 1 Water Street, also in the Ferry Wharf Building, where he lived with
his wife and young son. Like Brown, he too thrived, quintupling his property
in just ten years. In 1874, Romily purchased the section of the building in
which he worked and remained there until 1875, when he moved to a restaurant
on Liberty Street.

Two tenements appear on the Central Waterfront in 1858:_ one at 9 Water
Street and the other at the rear of 11 Water Street. The latter structure was
the boardinghouse excavated in Area 4 and reported in Chapter 4. Probably
crowded, these addresses were occupied primarily by families of working-class
immigrants. Few families stayed for more than one or two years, their vacated
rooms being quickly reoccupied by other immigrants. But just as newspaper
serials were bent on reestablishing the identity of Yankee Newburyport, the
census takers were equally set in down playing the presence of those they con-
sidered to be outsiders. As these two tenements were often overlooked in cen-
suses, it has been impossible to reconstruct a demographic profile of their
occupants. A few general remarks are, however, possible. Based upon surnames
and a meager amount of census data, it appears that the original tenants,con-
sisted of a mixture of Irish and Newfoundlanders. Beginning in the 1880's,
however, a number of eastern European names appear among the lists of residents.
The arrival of these later inhabitants coincides with the massive wave of
Jewish emigration from the Russian and.Austro-Hungarian empires in the late
19th century (Ward 1975:53).

Railways, Coal Pockets and New Business

*** In 1840 railroad connection with Boston was completed, and not
only infused new spirit into the people, but afforded ready oppor-
tunities for its exercise. Inland commerce by rail has taken the place
of commerce by the sea and is ten-fold larger. It can only be said
that new industries have taken the place of old, and with a full
adjustment of the people and business to new conditions; it will be
found that the depression which attended the transition has gone
forever. The stage driver motirns over the old days on the box, but
he is made station agent or conductor, and settles down to his new
vocation, happier and better paid than before. The shipmaster
'groans over the departed glories of the sea, and while he groans,
he is remembered by the capitalist whose ship he sailed, and called
to better and more satisfying posts. The lumper on the wharves,
kicks the cap log with his heels, believing the country is doomed
to destruction because his accustomed work has failed, but the
.factory, the gas-house, the freight station or horse railroad wins
him at last into better opportunities of developing himself, of
educating his children, of giving him a happier home (Hurd 1889:
1775).

The coming of the railroad to Boston's North Shore in the 1840's initiated
a series of profound and permanent changes in the region's marketing systems.

148

Freight charges for overland transportation dropped with each improvement in
railroad technology, and store owners in.the small villages through which the
trains passed became ever more willing to trade directly with the merchants
of Boston. Before long, it was no longer necessary for rural shopkeepers to
travel by wagon to Newburyport to purchase the items with which to stock their
shelves. The train could deliver the necessary commodities directly to the
nearest depot. In effect, the construction of the railroad destroyed one mar-
ket syetem. which centered around Newburyport and replaced it with another
which grew up along.the railroad routes. But the old marketing system was not
suddenly abandoned--it was gradually altered, following the rate of technical
innovation and elaboration of the railway system. Because it was not as eco-
nomical to transport overland, most coal burned in the nation's industrial
centers was carried by water until the close of the 19th century. Coal was
one of the last commodities in Newburyport to depend upon waterfront facilities
for its primary distribution.

As was seen in Chapter 3, nothing so completely altered the face of the
waterfront as the construction of the Newburyport City Railroad. Built in 1872,
for the purpose of transporting coal and freight, the City Railroad served as
the link connecting the waterfront with the main line of the Eastern Railroad
system. For maximum accessibility to incoming vessels, the railroad was laid
out along the ends of the wharves, and ran parallel to Water Street (Fig. 9.7).
Terminal facilities were constructed north of the old Market House, now the
Fire Station, within the former Market Landing (Fig. 9.8). Believing the rail
link would stimulate the portts commerce, the city relinquished its claims to
the public landing places and ways over which the tracks passed. The slips,
now rendered useless, were filled in (Currier 1906:365; Huse 1873).

Soon after the railroad was put into operation, the Philadelphia and
Reading Coal and Iron Company erected a coal pocket, for storing and distri-
buting coal, at the end of Granger's Wharf. When completed in 1876, the coal
pocket stood over five stories high, and towered over every other building on
the waterfront (Fig. 9.8). Iron colliers, such as the "Leopard," "Panther,"
"Hercules," and "Rattlesnake," commenced regular service carrying coal from
Philadelphia to Newburyport (Currier 1909:78). The iron colliers were re-
placed in the 1880's with barges towed by steamers. As the volume of coal
brought into the port increased, more coal pockets were erected on adjoining
parcels of wharfage (Fig. 9.9).

With the completion of the railroad, the filling in of the abandoned slips,
and the construction of the coal pockets, Market Square's direct connection
with the river was severed (Fig. 9.10). The break was more important than a
matter of proximity; it had a serious lasting effect upon the tradesmen who
occupied the area. Nearly all of the older businesses either disappeared or
underwent revision between 1871 and 1880. With one exception, Samuel March's
"Cheap Cash" grocery store, retail and wholesale food exchanges were gone by
1880, replaced by hardware and junk stores, soap manufactures, furniture dealers,
saloons, and liquor stores (Fig. 9.11). Whereas the previous businesses were
well integrated into the cityts economy and physical structure, those which
replaced them had to go through a period of readjustment. It is therefore not
surprising to find that the length of tenure of new establishments was rela-
tively short in the years immediately following the construction of the rail-
road. To accommodate some new ventures, additional buildings were erected
within the Central Waterfront, particularly along the newly created Railroad
Avenue (Fig. 9.10B).

149

MERRIMACK R I V E R

coal pocket

. ...........
A

coal pocket
18

X.
dew
19
Custorn
House
20

21 15
14
22 13

7
6

Fire Station 4 5
Central Waterfront
2 cima 1900

NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS
Afe,lrl-inac St"'t MARKET 25 0 26 FEET
SQUARE ANTERS
5 0 10 20 30 40

map no. 6 of 7

2 Fig. 9.7. The Central Waterfront, transfigured by railroad and coal pocket
construction, ca. 1900.

150

Fig. 9.7. Central Waterfront, 1900 -- Key

Address Building Occupant Function

Market Square
1 #4 brick store George Kent locksmith
#5 Und floor) Robert J. McKinney undertaker
2 #6 brick store Langley Furniture Co. furniture
#7 (2nd floor) William Holker hardware
3 #8 brick store William Holker hardware
4 #9 brick store William Holker hardware
5 #10 brick store William Holker hardware
6 #11 brick store Toppam & Wilson hardware
7 #13 brick store James Brown grocer

Water Street
8 #1 brick store ?
9 #3 brick store ?
10 #5 brick store John Duffy liquor
#7 Und floor) residence
11 #11 house ? boarding house
12 #13 brick store Philadelphia & Reading
Coal & Iron Co. coal office
13 #15 brick store William Holker hardware
14 #17 brick store Abram Seam & Co. junk
15 #19 brick store William Holker hardware

City Wharf
16 #3 brick store Merrimack Specialty Co. novelties
(2nd floor) Ebenezer Rolfe cabinetmakers

Ferry Wharf
17 #1 brick store Eli Levine junk
18 #2 brick store Eli Levine junk
19 #3 brick store Morris Saltinsky junk
#4 (loft) William A. Davis & Son sailmakers
20 #5 brick store George Roaf wholesale provisions
21 #6 brick store George Roaf wholesale provisions
22 #7 brick store Eagle Chemical Co.

Note: Dotted lines indicate approximate size and location of known structures.

151

7777777=73;[email protected]' 7r -r
V

V
@14

-Umn M'I
alm

B C

Fig. 9.8. Railroad and coal pocket. A, View to the southwest from the
Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company coal pocket, showing a freight
L6

depot on the site of the former Market Slip, ca. 1875; note rear of Fire Station,
left center. B, Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company workers, ca. 1913.
C, Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company pocket, ca. 1875; note over-
head trestle not yet completed. Photos A and C courtesy of The Essex Institute,
Salem, Mass.; Photo B courtesy of the Jacoby family.

152

t
ft
t%R
AR IM4,
X
-91 A
A t
tj- i,@
j m; tqt
W--
dt,
4 a
RM it 11 -
h P
W
WA:
'U
@33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
niui
Mi
@,Ajlppp, KOW 11,11,1511
MIMR
i t i@5,
"M 4ARX".
-1, A
Al
ak@k ,,, W 4 iO P
"A Y 1

jy, ttr--% -
7t

M
i
TOMA
1A
z-1:

..... ... .... 11

_77 Q -

q`F

"j,
ag,
1 14
V

5@ L S; 4,3

vf@ J, W
filuff f
UITX,

Fig. 9-9. The industrial waterside. A, First coal pocket, ca. 1886; com-
pare with Fig. 9.4C. B, Both coal pockets, ca. 1895; note rear of Custom House,
left center. Photos courtesy of the Newburyport Public Library.

153

@,q

z@:
., V @ -,

1, P- In, o
g"e,

-Vg'
OW" AW 4 MR,
UP U, A
-"v TIP
vkt
0 vz

ZA
I-vc

F;'T

Fig. 9.10. Market Slip becomes Railroad Avenue. A, Market Slip ca. 1862;
site where at high tide the bowsprits of small vessels could project across the
sidewalk onto Market Square. B, Same view, ca. 1908 showing the freight depot,
the business of A.C. Currier, carpenter, and the shop of John J. McClew, horse-
shoer. Photos courtesy of The Essex Institute, Salem, Mass.

154

list

J, MI

Ila
..... @?Pk:
777?7-

4@,

jj,
- hl

Fig. 9.11. Market Square businesses, ca. 1888. A, Samuel March in front of
March's Cheap Cash Store, east half of the Davenport Building. B, Water Street,
looking east; compare with Fig. 9.6. Photos courtesy of Newburyport Public Library.

155

of those businessmen who survived the transition period of the 1870's,
one wholesaler (Isaac Boardman) changed location, then disappeared during the
following decade; the sail makers (Benjamin and William Davis) became tent and
awning makers; the pump and block makers (Henry Stockman & Son) changed lo-
cation and became furniture dealers and later sold stoves and hardware. Gen-
erally speaking, many small businesses which were dependent upon shipping and
shipbuilding were replaced by fewer, larger firms dissociated from the tra-
ditional activities of the waterfront. Once the market center for the entire
region, the Central Waterfront and Market Square gradually deteriorated. By
1900 "the wharves" was synonymous with "the wrong side of town." Junk dealers,
coal pockets, tenements, saloons, and dilapidated buildings constituted the
areals new image.

Recent History .

The early 20th century history of the Central Waterfront is too fresh in
the minds of Newburyport's older residents to be thought of as historically
significant. Indeed, the area has no longer been influential in determining
the course of the city's economy--at least until the present redevelopment pro-
ject. Perhaps the neighborhood will eventually be noted as the home of the
city's outspoken former mayor, Andrew J. Gillis. "Bossy" Gillis gained
national notoriety in the late 1920's as a roughneck, "no nonsense" politician
who occasionally found hims7elf in jail when he should have been in office. He
operated a gas station (1) at the west end of the North Row up through the
1960's, and at one time lived in an apartment immediately above it (Jacobs
1968:59,79). Future generations may take interest in facts that some people
today would rather forget--that this was the site where every morning in the
early months of the depression Bossy Gillis would climb onto the back of his
truck and deliver a tirade against his political opponents, particularly the
old Yankee families on High Street.

156

157

10. EPILOG

For twenty years, Newburyport has been the setting for numerous scholarly
works dealing with history or social theory. The list of contributors is im-
pressive, and includes Warner (1963), Thernstrom (1964), Coffey (1974), Labaree
(1975) and Goodman (1975). Each has found here different peoples, periods,
and phenomena to be of historical significance.

It is not surprising that many of the topics considered by Newburyport's
biographers are reflected directly or indirectly in the seemingly complex
history of the Central Waterfront. As this area was once the focal point of
community activity, most major local events are inextricably interwoven into
the fabric of its past. The periods of Newburyport's economic expansion and
retrenchment have proved to be closely linked to the construction booms and
property divisions which have occurred along the Central Waterfront. This
developmental history has been preserved in substantial physical remains. The
Federalist architecture which stands today is complemented by ruins of past
stores, warehouses, workshops and wharves, as well as the refuse of its resi-
dents, artisans, and industries. The history of these five acres, then is of
considerable moment in delineating and explaining commercial and industrial
development.

Important as the Central Waterfront.was to Newburyport, it remains to
place its historical significance in regional perspective. The authors cited
above were attracted to Newburyport because they found it in some way repre-
sentative of small Yankee seaports. In the same way, the general pattern of
land use at the Central Waterfront is ail the more significant because the
major transformations in form and function were not the result of ideosyn-
% cratic fortunes of an isolated community. The forces which altered Newbury-
port caused remarkably similar changes in other seacoast waterfronts. The
regional significance of the history preserved at the Central Waterfront can
readily be appreciated by considering the evolution of another historic port,
Strawberry Banke (Pendery and Chase, 1977; Ingersoll 1977).

Strawberry Banke, located just 19 miles to the north of Newburyport, was
the original settlement at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Like Newburyport, this
community developed at the mouth of a major river, the Piscataqua, giving it
access to the natural resources of the interior. The settling of Strawberry
Banke began ca. 1630, just a few years before Newbury was founded. Both popu-
lations were initially made up of subsistence farmers as well as some fisher-
men and essential craftsmen.

Strawberry Banke began exporting local lumber in 1654, shortly before
Newbury built its first wharf. Throughout the rest of the 17th century,
Strawberry Banke developed its shipbuilding industry, and constructed several
vessels under contract for the British Navy. At this same time, similar ves-
sels were being built at Newbury and Salisbury for merchants in Boston and
London. From 1690 to 1710, Strawberry Banke's waterfront properties grew in
value with the development of the port's mercantile economy. Many wharves
were built during this period, and the waterfront then became the focus of
the community. This growth was nearly equivalent to that experienced at the
Central Waterfront in the first quarter of the 18th century.

158

From the beginning of the 18th century, Strawberry Banke, like Newbury,
developed both a local coasting trade and international commerce with the
West Indies, England, and Europe. Increased prosperity was reflected in the
high population density which the-port was able to sustain. The character of
Strawberry Banke at this time was similar to that of Newburyport, although the
settlement was crowded, having been built up around a cove with no room for
expansion.

in 1727, 298 structures stood on the land by the "Creek"; by
@h*e' latter half of the eighteenth century 328 additional edifices
had been raised ... The shops of cabinetmakers, silversmiths,
blacksmiths, and potters provided the community's householdswith
both luxury and necessary items (Pendery and Chase 1977:6).

As in Newburyport, early craftsmen shared portions of the waterfront with
moderately wealthy merchant neighbors.

According to Pendery and Chase (1977:14), Portsmouth's harbor was closed
during the Revolutionary War, and maritime shipping was almost entirely halted.
Newburyport, however, enjoyed substantial success in privateering, and her
private navies brought back substantial wealth. While the war marked a severe
economic.decline in Portsmouth, Newburyport and other coastal towns in Massa-
chusetts reaped some financial rewards, at least in privateering. Thereafter,
however, the histories of the two ports again run parallel. Both suffered
severe post-war economic depression caused, in part, by the closing of the
British West Indies to Yankee traders. Similarly, both emerged from this
depression in the 1790's, and their merchants gained substantial profit from
neutral trade with the warring British and French.

Portsmouth experienced an increase in population of 50 percent between
1790 and 1810 (Pendery and Chase 1977:14), a figure which is virtually identi-
cal to the growth of Newburyport at this time. While Newburyport invested
much of its wealth in redesigning and rebuilding its port facilities, Ports-
mouth apparently began to outgrow the tiny Colonial facilities at Strawberry
Banke, then known as "Puddle Dock." The prosperity of neutral trade was short-
lived, and in both ports the mercantile economy suffered greatly from the
years of embargo and the War of 1812. Neither was to regain its former promi-
nence after the war.

At this time, Puddle Dock and the Central Waterfront differed substantially
in their physical makeup. In 1800, Puddle Dock was crowded with Colonial
frame structures. The Newburyport waterfront, by contrast, had begun a period
of redevelopment in which Federalist architecture replaced Colonial. Although
both towns were struck by great fires, Newburyport in 1811, and Portsmouth in
1813, the Colonial architecture at Puddle Dock survived, whereas the remaining
frame building3of the Central Waterfront were destroyed and were replaced by
Federalist structures.

Later, through the 19th century, Newburyport's financial district remained
centered about the Central Waterfront, while Portsmouth's was relocated about
the railroad. Puddle Dock gradually became a residential slum, its buildings
owned primarily by absentee landlords. Interestingly, the wharves in both
areas experienced similar fates. By the 1870's both were used for storing
coal and wood. Newburyport's slips were backfilled in 1872 to make way for

159

railroad construction. The polluted sloughs of Puddle Dock were filled in
between 1899 and 1903, presumably because they had become a health hazard.

The histories of the early waterfronts of Portsmouth and Newburyport,
then, although parallel in many respects, are complementary in others. Clearly
the surviving remnants are quite different. The architecture of Puddle Dock,
although it has been substantially modified over the years, has its origins
in the residences of Colonial merchants and craftsmen, whereas in Newburyport,
a Federalist business district is preserved. Puddle Dock survives as an his-
toric tourist attraction and houses museum and archaeological facilities to-
gether with a few small craft shops. It exists today in what is primarily a
residential district. Newburyport's Central Waterfront, though it is also
geared to attract tourists, is a functional business district intended to serve
the contemporary needs of the community. The surviving buildings here, and
throughout Market Square retain the same vertical segregation of businesses,
offices, and residences for which they were originally designed.

The historic waterfronts of Newburyport and Portsmouth have been preserved
because the economic forces which created them were not replaced by vital, com-
peting enterprises. Strawberry Banke was laid out as a Colonial seaport, de-
signed to handle the modest tonnage transported in that era of small ships.
The commercial interests were gradually abandoned when Federalist expansion
gradually outgrew this tiny facility. Eventually, Portsmouth regrouped about
the railroad further upstream and the Strawberry Banke area became entirely
residential. Newburyport's Central Waterfront and business district, on the
other hand, was quite adequate to serve Federalist needs in the boom of inter-
national trade and never became obsolete. When this trade was siphoned off to
Boston and other large ports, the local commerce which replaced it was adequately
accommodated by the existing facilities. Only the waterside itself was trans-
formed, as rail transportation substituted for coastal shipping. Had either
Puddle Dock or the Central Waterfront remained active growing seaports, rising
real estate prices would have encouraged demolition and replacement of struc-
tures as they became outdated (Lewis 1975:8). Instead, both have survived as
complementary vestiges of Colonial and Federalist prosperity.

09T

161

APPENDIX A

PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

All sediment designations are made in the Munsell color system, and were
taken on moist samples unless otherwise noted. Similarly, all sediments are
presumed to be loose and structureless except where specific plasticity and
structure categories are mentioned. Standard texture categories are used, un-
less cultural refuse comprises more than half the sediment, in which case it
is designated ash, rubble, shell, coal, etc. Sediment contents are listed in
order of approximate descending dominance. Within major stratigraphic units,
strata designations are given in stratigraphic order from most recent to most
ancient. Where two sediments are presumed to be contemporaneous or are lenses
within a stratum, they carry the same letter with a distinguishing numeral.
Note that these letter-numeral combinations do not, of course, designate soil
units; true soil did not develop along this urban waterfront. Each profile
description is followed by a brief interpretation of the deposition sequence.

Note that artifacts mentioned in the strata descriptions are only those
few specimens which appeared directly in the section being profiled, and are
not to be confused with the large assemblages of artifacts retrieved by hand
from the areal excavations. Specific assemblages discussed in the text are
mentioned in themarrative of the profile interpretations, however, where they
are clearly identified.

Test Trenches

Trench 1 City Wharf A (Fig. A.1)

Test trench 1 consists of an overlapping three-pit sequence, the middle of
which has been eliminated here as it proved to be redundant. This transect was
taken near City Wharf in an attempt to locate the mid-19th century granite
perimeter of the wharf and any buildings which may have existed there prior to
construction of a railroad spur in 1872.

Unit I
10YR3/3 dark brown gravelly sand and rubble with frequent 10YR5/6
yellowish brown mottles; compact; containing brick fragments, coal,
wood pebbles, slate, wood, iron, shell, ash, cinders. Plastic
wrapper ("Drakes' Junior... Borden Inc.") on contact with Unit II.
Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit II.

Unit II
10YR3/1 very dark gray sandy rubble; containing shell, cinders, wood,
coal, window glass, iron. A carbon battery post was noted near the
bottom of this unit. Also contains the following lenses:

al 10YR3/1 very dark gray medium sand; compact; containing shell,
rounded pebbles, slate roofing, asphalt. Slate roofing on contact
with bl.

a2 10YR5/4 yellowish brown sand.

EIO Ell E12 E 13 E14 E15

UNIT I

UNIT 11

FEA URE 2 'F.-...
T

UNIT I'll

LE@LL-
71 .`vT
L

ED El E2 E3 E4 15 E6

r 01- 9@

UNIT I

;_45
KEY
UNIT 11
RUBBLE FILL
SHELL

DECAYED WOOD ASH0R
S
D
CIN ER

F
MEDIUM SAND

UNIT III

Fig. A.l. Trench 1, western and eastern sections of a three-trench transect through the
fill of Market Slip. Cut into this primary fill are a brick storm sewer (Fea. 1) and an
unidentified disturbance (Fea. 2). Above these features are accumulations of industrial and
marine waste (Unit II) and demolition rubble (Unit I).

163

N a3 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand.

a4 Oyster shell.
12
bl 10YR4/4 dark yellowish brown sand; compact; containing bricks,
brick fragments, and a clay pipestem (."GLASGOW").

b2 Wood fragments; apparent demolition material.

Very abrupt smooth boundary to Features 1 and 2 and Unit III.

Feature 1 -- brick drain and associated trench fill
10YR3/3 dark brown sand, with 10YR3/1 very dark gray lenses and
mottles; containing brick, cinders, bare copper wire, aquamarine
bottle glass. Very abrupt intrusive boundary to Unit III.

Feature 2 -- minor intrusion
10YR3/3 dark brown medium sand. Very abrupt intrusive boundary to
Unit III.

Unit III
10YR5/6 yellowish brown, loose medium sand with infrequent 10YR3/1
very dark gray mottles; gradual transition to 5Y3/2 dark olive gray
(wet), coarse sand near the water table; containing small pebbles
and cobbles. Apparently sterile fill. Extends to at least 2.5 m
below surface.

The earliest sediment deposited here is represented by Unit III sand. This
is apparently sterile fill, for it is substantially mottled, and lacks the
regular horizontal banding expected in estuary deposits. It shows gleying in
its lower part, indicative of the alternate wetting and drying occasioned by
tidal fluctuations. This is capped by a stratum of coal, coal dust, and ash,
which probably dates after 1872, when the railroad was constructed. Intrusive
into these two sediments is a builder's trench containing an abandoned brick
sewer or drain. Bare copper wire of the type used in the early telegraph
systems suggests that this construction occurred in the last quarter of the 19th
century, or shortly before. Note the slumping of the loose sand wall of this
trench and the slump fissure on the west wall, a result of the instability of
the sand fill, Unit III. A second, minor intrusion, Feature 2, dates before
sewer construction, but its significance is unknown.

Unit II, by contrast, is composed of layers of ash, brick rubble, and wood
rubble interspersed with shell lenses and layers of banded sand. The regular
stratification of these lenses suggests an uninterrupted accumulation of refuse
and demolition debris. This debris derived frommid-19th century buildings
having slate roofs, but the recovery of a modern "D" cell carbon post (flash-
light battery) near the bottom of this unit assures that they were razed in
the 20th century. Capping Unit II is a layer of broken asphalt--pavement pre-
sent in the mid-sixties, at the time of recent HUD demolition. This same
asphalt was found intact above Trench 2. Above this, in Unit I, is recent
demolition from buildings razed in the current redevelopment program.

The stratigraphic sequence implies the following:

164

1. Trench 1 is situated over a former slip which was open until late in
the 19th century.

2. No buildings could have been constructed in this area until after the
slip was backfilled.

3. The area was filled and leveled, probably in preparation for the rail-
road spur and coal pocket known to have been constructed in early 1870's.

4. Shortly thereafter, a substantial brick storm sewer was installed.
This was probably necessitated by railroad and coal pocket construction
which in filling in the former slips, occluded the former drainage outlets.

5. Further demolition occurred in the 20th century, once the railroad and
coal pockets had outlived their usefulness.

6. Remaining structures were razed in the current redevelopment project.

Trench 2 -- City Wharf B (Fig. A.2)

A plan of the Market Landing in 1775 gives a reasonably precise location
for the warehouse and wharf of merchant Benjamin Greenleaf (Currier 1906:131).
Trench 2 was intended to locate the remains of this structure so that it could
be excavated by hand. First, however, it was necessary to remove up to 2.5 m
of recent demolition rubble which had accumulated in the process of renewal.
The area cleared is indicated in hachure on the base map, Fig. 2.1. Trenching
within this area revealed that the foundations of structures on the wharf had
been obliterated. When it appeared that any evidence for the Greenleaf ware-
house had been destroyed, trenching was continued to locate the structure of
Greenleaf's Wharf, a precursor to City Wharf. Three profiles, recorded in
detail in the extremely unstable sand fill, are shown here.

South Wall AB

Unit I
10YR4/2 dark grayish brown medium sandy rubble; very loose, containing
granite blocks, concrete foundations pieces, reinforcing rods (re-bar),
bricks, asphalt, wood, etc. Asphalt on contact with Unit H. Very
abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit II, Feature 1, and Feature 2.

Unit II
a 10YR3/1 very dark gray sandy loam; weak crumb structure, con-
taining organic matter, brick fragments, rounded cobbles and pebbles,
bottle and window glass.

bl 2.5YR4/4 olive brown sandy gravel; compact; containing pebbles
and cobbles; little cultural refuse.

b2 5Y3/2 dark olive gray sand lens within IIbl; containing frag-
mentary clam and oyster shells.

c 2.5YR4/4 reddish brown brick dust; containing few brick particles,
brick, mortar.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

165

Feature 1 -- tile drain and associated trench fill
10YR3/1 very dark gray sandy gravel with numerous 10YR4/3 brown to
dark brown lenses; containing brick fragments, coal, large pebbles,
plastic fragments, window glass, etc. Very abrupt, intrusive boundary
to Units II, III, and IV.

Feature 2 - water main and associated trench fill
10YR4/2 dark grayish brown medium sand; very loose. Very abrupt, in-
trusive boundary to Units II and III.

Unit III
a 10YR3/1 very dark gray medium sand; compact, containing large,
rounded pebbles, window glass, occasional brick flecks; includes the
following lenses:

al 10YR6/1 light gray to gray coal ash lens; containing coal
and ash.

a2 10YR5/3 brown coal ash lens; containing coal, ash, and
clinkers.

b 10YR5/3 light yellowish brown (dry) medium sand; very loose; con-
taining small to large rounded pebbles. Apparently sterile. Includes
the following sand lenses:

bl 10YR6/4 light yellowish brown (dry) medium sand; very loose;
containing small to large rounded pebbles. Apparently sterile.
Probably a flood sediment formed while IIIb was being deposited.

b2 10YR5/2 grayish brown coarse sand lens with 10YR3/2 very
dark grayish brown fine bands; containing brick particles.

Very abrupt contact boundary to Unit IV.

Unit IV
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown coarse sand; containing large
pebbles, extensive bricks and brick fragments, mortar, wood fragments,
rubble especially dense in the eastern sector of the profile. Very
abrupt, smooth boundary to Stratum IVb and Unit V.

b 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown fine sand; slight plastic, non-
sticky; containing angular and rounded cobbles, charcoal, small
pebbles. Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit V.

Unit V
a 5Y3/2 dark olive brown (wet) fine to medium sand; slightly
plastic, non-sticky; containing angular pebbles and cobbles, brick
particles. Extends well below water table.

North.Wall CD

Unit I
Removed, including asphalt paving immediately on contact with Unit II.

UNIT I

UNIT 11 . . . . .. . . . . . FEATURE 1

774

UNIT I I I
6
00 O'd
M.

N,- 7. V -,n
le c
V Ml;; scr
UNIT IV _0

........ . . . .
UNIT V
WATER LEVEL

c
(UNIT I removed)
--------- ------ - ----------------- 7777 ---------------
UNIT III ------- --------------------
-----------------

-------- ------------------------ ----------------------------

UNIT III

---------------------- ------------------ ;7- -------
shell sand and
----@FEATURE 3 @,15;coal dust JFEATURE 4
UNIT IV'
01, UNIT V'
WATER @LEVEL:, W-
crush:d -------------------- -7.ru.Necf r.k
n
k @d
UNIT V,
... q
roc . . . . .. . . . . . .
-, - ------------------ --

F E

------------
UNIT I -------- ------------
..... . . . . . . . . .
UNIT 11 --------
-------------------

-- --------------------

FEATURE 5
(500-GALLON
OIL TANK)

UNIT III

-------------------------------
----------

------------
--------- WATER EVEL
UNIT IV C ----------
----------- - -------- ------- - ------------- 7
FEATURE 4

KEY

GRANITE
RECENT
RUBBLE FILL

FINE SAND D
OR S ILT COAL C I
E

MEDIUM SAND MACADAM

COARSE SAND DECAYED WOOD

GRAVEL

Fig. A.2. Trench 2 profiles, City Wharf. 14

168

Unit II
See south.profi.le. Includes the following s.trata:

a 10YR3/1 very dark gray sandy loam.

bl 2.5Y4/4 olive brown sandy gravel.

c 2.5YR4/4 reddish brown brick dust.

Abrupt boundary to Unit III.

Unit III
See south profile. Includes the following strata:

a 10YR3/1 very dark gray medium sand.

b 10YR6/4 light yellowish brown (dry) medium sand.

Abrupt boundary to Unit IV'.

Unit IV'
al 10YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) silt loam; plastic, slightly sticky;
containing wood beam fragments in apparent random orientation, large
rounded pebbles, bird bones. Evidently demolition of wooden cribbing.

a2 10YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) fine to coarse sand; slightly plas- ZT
tic, non-sticky; containing wood fragments, bricks and brick frag-
ments, shell; also containing a 1 cm thick lens of IOYR4/2 dark grayish
brown coarse sand, crushed and disintegrated shell, and small brick
particles.

b IOYR3/1 very dark gray fine to medium sand; slightly plastic,
non-sticky; containing small brick fragments, wood fragments, rounded
pebbles. Cribbing fill.

Abrupt boundary to Unit V.

Feature 3 -- cribwork for warehouse foundation
Large rotted timbers, approximately 9 in by 7 in.

Featue 4 -- coal dust fill
a 10YR2/1 black sand; containing coal dust, brick fragments,
stranded copper wire, one 4 in by 4 in wood post.

Unit V
al 5Y3/2 dark olive gray (wet) coarse sand; containing angular
crushed rock, pebbles, cobbles, brick particles. At and below water
table.

a2 5Y3/2 dark olive brown (wet) fine to medium sand with gravel;
slightly plastic, non-sticky; containing brick particles, rounded
and angular pebbles and cobble. Note: no crushed rock.

169

a3 5Y3/2 dark olive gray (wet) sand; slightly plastic, non-sticky;
containing small brick particles, brick fragments, crushed rock,
pebbles and cobbles. Banded. Apparently fill.

North-South.Transect Along FE

Unit I
Removed except for asphalt at contact with.Unit II.

Unit II
See south profile. Includes the following strata:

a 10YR3/1 very dark gray sandy loam.

bl 2.5Y4/4 olive brown sandy gravel.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

Feature 5 -- 500-gallon steel fuel tank and fill
10YR4/2 dark grayish brown medium sand; loose.

Unit III
See south profile. Includes the following strata:

a 10YR3/1 very dark gray medium sand.

b 10YR6/4 light yellowish brown (dry) medium sand.

c 2.5Y4,/4 olive brown medium sand; very loose, unstable; capped
by a band of 10YR5/8 yellowish brown medium sand. Gleying results
from alternate wetting and drying of the profile with changing tides.

Abrupt boundary to Unit IV'.

Unit IV'
See north profile. Includes the following strata:

a3 10YR2/1 black (wet) fine sand and organic matter (decayed wood),
with bands of 10YR5/1 gray fine sand; contains oyster shell at contact
with granite block.

Feature 4 -- coal dust fill
See north profile. Includes the following stratum:

a2 10YR2/1 black (wet) medium sand and coal dust; non-plastic, non-
sticky; loose.

The first portion of Trench 2 excavated was the main trench, which runs
east-west, and was dug with the same large backhoe used to remove the overburden.
Our intention was to dig a wide, stepped trench with stable walls which could be
profiled several decimeters below the water level. The initial excavation went
substantially below the level shown in the profiles, but in spite of our pre-
cautions, the walls collapsed under hydrostatic,pressure. We were able, however,
to profile down to what was apparently the original shoreline prior to wharf

170

extension. The north wall of the profile revealed a cribwork of wooden beams
which were first thought to represent a section of wharf construction, but which
were later identified as wooden footings. Granite blocks, probably pads for
these timbers, were also uncovered.

A second, smaller trench was dug parallel to the first, the northern ell
shown in Figure 4. In this case, we did encounter the vertical timbers of a
former wharf edge. Again the loose fill above the structure collapsed before
the feature could be safely profiled. A transect connecting the two pits was
then dug in an effort to tr'ace the wharf back toward the main trench. Although
it does not appear in the profile, the transect clearly revealed that the wharf
did not continue southward, and that it was not directly related to the timbers
found in the main trench.

The correlation of Trench 2 profiles relies heavily on property descrip-
tions and historic photographs, for while the stratigraphic events are clearly
defined, they are not self-explanatory. Of key.importance is the correlation
of the north and south walls of the main trench. The earliest strata, in Unit
V, consist of beach gravels and pulverized brick, sloping sharply down toward
the river. This is probably well-worked beach sediment from the shore as it
existed immediately prior to wharf extension. Apparently some angular rock and
gravel fill has been added on the southern side of the trench, perhaps to sta-
bilize and level foundation timbers.

The overlying strata are quite different on the two sides of the trench.
Unit IV', on the south side, contains wooden cribbing and the rotted demolition
of some wooden structure, and is free of bricks and brick fragments. The op-
posite wall, in an entirely different matrix, contains an area of extensive
brick demolition. Clearly the excavation cuts through the boundary between two
distinct structures. It is apparent that the main trench passes,directly over
the south end of a former frame building. Bottle trash and ceramics, excavated
by machine and identified in the field as coming from Unit IV', may date the
razing of that structure. Snap-case finished bottle fragments and bits of
aquamarine pictorLal flasks bracket the date of the manufacture of this trash
at between 1857 and 1870 (Lorrain 1968:44). It was probably deposited shortly
thereafter. The significance of a lens or intrusion of sand and coal dust in
this unit is not known, but implies some former coal storage at this location.

Note that there is still at this period a sharp break in the topography
across the main trench. The contact between Unit IV and Unit III drops at
least 50 cm from the south wall toward the north wall, but then levels out as
shown in the FE profile. This break in elevation probably reflects much earlier
events. Deed research implies that the main trench was located just beyond the
limit of wharf construction in 1718. Probably the drop in question was pre-
served in the landscape even after the wharf was extended.

Unit III is dominated by Stratum IIIb, a very loose, sterile sand. Evi-
dently this was brought in after the frame building and its brick neighbor had
been demolished to level the surface of City Wharf for railroad construction in
1872. On top of this level surface is an accumulation of coal, ash, and
clinkers--waste from the railroad activities or neighboring businesses. Lenses
of these waste materials extend over both profiles, indicating that this is now
regarded as a single piece of property-

171

Unit II documents a series of late 19th and early 20th century land sur-
faces, including a thin lens of brick dust where bricks may have been stored
after rail shipment. Above this is a gravel road surfacing which covered the
N entire excavation area, which was then the freight yard for the railroad. Evi-
dently this area was allowed to grow up in weeds or grass in the 1930's and 40's,
for a soil horizon began to develop in Stratum IIa. Subsequently, several intru-
sions occurred. A tile drain (Feature 1) was installed which drained the area
about the John Greenleaf Building, a four-story brick structure which stood on
City Wharf until the current redevelopment of the waterfront. A 2-12 in water
main (Feature 2) was installed leading toward the waterfront, perhaps in anti-
cipation of future development. A 500 gallon fuel tank (Feature 5) was buried
at the northwest corner of the trench, which in the 1950's served the new Stude-
baker garage (later the Newburyport Press plant) next to the John Greenleaf
Building. By the early 1960's, the entire area was paved. The subsequent
rubble, Unit I, derives from razing the Newburyport Press and John Greenleaf
buildings.

The following events can be inferred from this sequence:

1. The remnants of an early wharf were found in the northern ell of the
excavation. Only that portion which extended below sea level was pre-
served. This probably was an extension made to Brown's and March's Wharf
some time after 1718 (Fig. 3.1). In our reconstruction, this is taken to
be the edge of a wharf owned in 1743 by John Kent (ECRD 84:262).

2. The south end of a frame building, represented only by scattered foot-
ings, was located. These were probably the remains of the most recent struc-
ture known to have occupied this site--a three-story frame warehouse, built
on the low end of the City Wharf in about 1800 and razed ca. 1871. The re-
mains of Greenleaf's warehouse were apparently destroyed in the construction
of this building. All that remains of the later warehouse are footings;
cultural refuse and demolition materials seem to have been cleared away.

3. It is probable that a late 18th or early 19th century brick structure
existed on the higher land immediately to the south of our excavation on
more stable ground. This was demolished after the frame warehouse was
built, for the brick demolition rubble terminated abruptly at the edge of
our excavation. This may have been an antecedent to the John Greenleaf
Building, or a small structure lying between it and the warehouse.

4. The frame warehouse was dismantled ca. 1871 to make way for the rail-
road. The area was leveled with extensive fill, and became the main public
access to the freight depot.

5. The freight yard went through a stage of gravel paving, but then grew
up in weeds in the second quarter of the 20th century after the railroad
went into disuse. A one-story garage, later converted into a printing
plant, was then built just to the southwest of the trench. The surrounding
area was surfaced in asphalt some time after World War II.

Trench 3 -- Custom House Slip (Fig. 3.7, p. 38)

Test trench 3 was excavated to sample the end of the way past the Custom
House, and to find the edge of Gunnison's Wharf and any other structures which
may have stood adjacent to the way. What was uncovered was the head of the

172

Custom House slip, the record of its filling and subsequent use, and the demo-
lition of adjacent buildings.

Unit I
10YR4/1 dark gray silt; compact; containing ash, cinders, coal, window
glass, bricks and brick fragments, miscellaneous 20th century scrap
metal. Very abrupt, wavy boundary to Unit II.

Unit II
al 5YR4/6 yellowish red iron deposit (slag); very hard, massive.

a2 10YR5/2 grayish brown cinder lens within Stratum IIal; con-
taining coal fragments, clinkers, cinders, wood.

bl 10YR5/2 grayish brown cinder lens.

b2 10YR2/1 black coal; containing soft coal, coal dust.

c 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

Unit III
al 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand, with 10YR2/1 black coal
dust mottles; compact; containing brick fragments, coal. Clear,
smooth boundary to Feature 1.

a2 10YR2/1 black sandy coal dust; containing coal, sand. Very
abrupt wavy boundary to Stratum IIIb.

b IOYR4/2 dark grayish brown sand.

c 10YR5/1 gray cinders and brick rubble fill; containing bricks and
brick fragments.

d 10YR5/3 brown sand; containing brick fragments.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV and Feature 2.

Feature 1 -- 3 in cast iron drain and associated trench fill
a 5YR4/6 yellowish red sand lens.

b 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sandy rubble; containing bricks, shell,
cobbles, pebbles, bone (chicken). Very abrupt intrusive boundary to
Units III and IV.

Feature 2 -- granite foundation
Dry granite field stone masonry. Abrupt smooth boundary to Stratum
IVdl.

Unit IV
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; compact.

b Clam and oyster shell lens.

173

C 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; compact; containing bricks,
shell, cinders, clear bottle glass, ceramics (plain ironstone).

dl IOYR3/3 dark brown clayey sand; slightly sticky, slightly plas-
tic; containing brick, cobbles, oyster shell, cinders, long bone frag-
ment.

d2 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sand; containing brick, slate roofing.
Water-logged.

The relative chronology of sediments in Test Trench 3 was ambiguous, for it
failed to delimit clearly the edge of the wharf, and did not adequately sample
those structures which were built later on top of the wharf. For reasons which
will become apparent, we chose to resolve these questions by digging further out
along the wharf in Trench 4. However, Trench 3 did settle a few problems.

All the sediments of Unit IV, which are apparently beach accumulations
within the Custom House slip, tilt some 10-150 toward the Merrimack River,
indicating that this was the head of the slip. The lowest of the slip fill sedi-
ments contains brick and slate roofing; it is unlikely that the latter could
have been deposited here prior to 1830, and in all probability it dates sub-
stantially later. The late 18th century delftware found in the stratum immedi-
ately above must therefore be redeposited fill.

The remnants of footings for some structure are clearly intrusive into
these slip sediments, although it is impossible to associate this clearly with
a particular building, since the excavation did not extend sufficiently far west-
ward. A westward extension would require sectioning the concrete footings and
floor of a recently demolished building at the edge of these buildings. It was
apparent, however, that this was an inappropriate location to perform such a
major undertaking; it seemed far more profitable to dig further out along the
slip where we were more likely to uncover a representative section of the wharf.
Trench 4 was excavated to solve these problems.

The sand of Unit IIId was evidently placed there intentionally in leveling
and filling the abandoned slip. The top of this sedimont is level, while the
bottom slopes some 100 downward toward the Merrimack. It is likely that this
occurred shortly after 1872, when the embankment for the City Railroad spur
closed off this portion of the slip. The multiple layers of coal, cinders, and
ash which accumulated since the coming of the railroad show the area to have
been used for industrial waste, probably emanating from nearby machine shops,
blacksmith shops, etc. Brick rubble interspersed with all this refuse attests
to the demolition of adjacent buildings. once a prized piece o! real estate
providing access to the waterfront, it suddenly became.a landfill site.

Intruding into the sediments of Units III and IV was the builder's trench
for a 3 in cast iron pipe, a drain installed after 1885. As might be expected,
the associated fill includes materials from a wide timespan, the most recent in-
cluding heavy ironstone, popular during the second half of the 19th century.
This buij,ding's trench also appears in the section at Trench 4.

Unit II represents a second stage of leveling the landscape, perhaps at
the end of the century, followed by continued buildup of cinders and coal. At
this level, however, there is a considerable accumulation of slag, confirming
the presence of a nearby foundry. These horizons also appear in the Trench 4
section.

174

Although Unit I is the modern land surface, most of the refuse contained
in this unit dates prior to ca. 1940. The trash is predominantly salvaged
metal f rom a junk yard which existed behind the Custom House until the recent
renovation of that building in the late 1960's. A temporary gravel pavement is
mixed with these materials.

The following chronology is implied;

1. When the Custom House was built in 1835, the head of the Custom House
slip was located at approximately the position of this test trench.

2. The slip was deliberately filled in a single stage of construction.
This must have occurred after 1872 when the City Railroad was built across
the far end of the slip.

3. Coal and ash accumulations show that this area was regularly used to
dump industrial waste throughout the last quarter of the 19th century.

4. Construction and demolition episodes appear in the profile at this
time, but are much clearer in the Trench 4 profile which follows.

5. A cast iron drain was next installed, perhaps to remedy a water problem
caused when the slip was blocked and filled. .

6. A new, level land surface was prepared on top of the late 19th century
waste, after which iron foundry slag accumulated.

7. Within the temporary gravel of the current land surface is a thin
layer of metal scrap and junk, accumulated in the second quarter of the
20th century when the area behind the Custom House served as a junk yard.

Trench 4 -- Gunnison's Wharf (Fig. 3.7, p. 38)

Trench 4 was dug in two stages. The east section of the trench was intended
to sample the slip and subsequent slip fill behind the Custom House, while the
west segment sectioned through a concrete foundation built on the remains of the
adjacent wharf. The two profiles were taken from opposite walls of the trench
1.5 meters apart, and show minor stratigraphic misalignment.

Unit I
10YR4/1 dark gray silty rubble; containing ash, cinders, coal, window
glass, bricks and brick fragments, scrap iron. Very abrupt@smooth
boundary to Unit II.

Unit II
al 10YR6/3 pale brown loose sand above wharf; containing 10YR4/1
dark gray cinder and coal lenses, clinkers, pebbles, iron refuse.

a2 10YR4/4 dark yellowish brown sandy silt above slip; weak platy
structure; compact; containing small, infrequent cinder and coal
lenses, porcelain lavatory fitting.

b 10YR2/1 black coal lens above wharf.

175

cl 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown sand above wharf; containing small
brick fragments, pebbles, coal flecks.

c2 10YR3/2 very dark grayish.brown slag above wharf with 10YR5/6
yellowish brown iron-bearing clay; indurated; containing coal, cinders.

c3 2.5YR4/0 dark.gray slag above slip with.2.5Y5/6 light olive brown
mottles; indurated; containing coal, wood, brick fragments, broken
iron casting pieces. Galvanized sheet steel and slate shingle frag-
ments on contact with Unit III.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

Feature 1 -- concrete slab floor, building footings, and associated trench
Brick rubble with 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sand; containing a con-
crete footing made of fractured brick and rock in cement. Very
abrupt, intrusive boundary to Units I, II, and Feature 2.

Unit III
a 10YR5/3 brown fine sand above wharf with 10YR5/4 yellowish brown
iron oxide mottles; slightly sticky, slightly plastic. Capped by a
fine band of 10YR3/1 very dark gray fine sand.

b 10YR3/1 black sand and coal dust above wharf; containing cinders,
brick particles. Very abrupt, sinuous boundary to Stratum II1c.

cl 10YR4/4 dark yellowish brown sandy rubble fill above wharf; con-
taining small brick fragments, slate shingles, cinders, pebbles, ash.
Clear boundary to Stratum IIIfl.

c2 Brick rubble above slip.

e 5YR4/4 reddish brown sand above wharf; containing bricks and
brick fragments, mortar, pebbles.

f IOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown silt above wharf with 10YR4/4
dark yellowish brown sand lenses; containing small pebbles. Appar-
ently sterile.

9 IOYR4/2 dark grayish brown cinders above slip with 10YR6/1
light gray to gray ash'and sand; containing coal, wood.

h 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown loose cinders and slag above slip;
containing bricks and brick fragments.

k 10YR5/4 light yellowish brown fine sand above slip; containing
a few brick fragments. Possibly discarded foundry sand.

Feature 2 -- angular diorite foundation, footings, and associated fill
7.5YR3/2 dark brown fine sand containing foundation of angular diorite;
also pebbles, ash, bricks. Very abrupt intrusive boundary to Units
III and IV.

Feature 3 - trench fill
a 10YR2/1 black sand with weak platy structure; containing small

176

pebbles, slag.

b IOYR5/3 brown sand and rubble fill; containing slate shingle
fragments, brick, sand, gravel, angular diorite cobbles, ash lenses,
cinders, etc. Probably fill for builder's trench (Feature 1, Trench
3: 3 in cast iron pipe). Includes redeposited material from Units
III and IV.

Unit IV
al 10YR5/3 brown very loose sand above wharf with 10YR3/3 dark
brown lenses; containing small pebbles, occasional brick flecks.
Apparently dredged fill. Abrupt, wavy boundary to Feature 4.

a2 IOYR5/4 yellowish brown very loose sand above slip; containing
small pebbles. Apparently dredged fill. Clear, smooth boundary to
Unit V.

Unit V
2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand. Apparently sterile slip fill.

Feature 4 -- cribwork and ballast for Gunnison's Wharf
10YR3/3 dark brown sand; containing field stone boulders above wooden
cribbing. Trunnel construction.

Unit VI
10YR2/1 black muck; containing shells, flow blue ironstone and other
blue transfer ironstone sherds. Apparently slip sediment.

The earliest material encountered in this profile was Feature 1, the lower-
most cribbing for a wharf identified on an 1851 map as Gunnison's Wharf.
Wharves are known to have been constructed in the vicinity as early as 1680
(Coffin 1845:125), although the precise date of this construction is unknown.
This wharf was built upon a wood cribbing, held together with trunnels and
ballasted by heavy field stones, a construction popular in the early 19th
century.

Unit VI evidently represents the most recent accumulation of sediment in
the slip beside the wharf. It contains black muck and shell debris which
resembles that commonly dredged from other slips along the waterfront. Within
this sediment was retrieved a piece of flow blue transfer-printed ironstone,
probably dating to the second or third quarter of the 19th century. The wharf
was subsequently demolished to the high-water mark, and at approximately the
same time the adjacent slip was filled with the sediment of Unit V. This most
likely occurred in 1872, or shortly after, when the construction of the City
Railroad spur across the ends of the wharves occluded the slips.

Unit IV is made up of loose, comparatively clean sands with dark lenses
suggesting that this is landfill from dredged beach sediments, or some similar
source. The sands are comparatively free of cultural debris, although small
water-worn pieces of brick were noted in the fill. These materials appear to
have@been dumped here intentionally to raise the land surface well above the
high-water mark.

The Unit III sediments above the wharf are assumed to be only approximately
contemporaneous with those above the slip. Both areas include extensive demo-

177

lition refuse together with coal, slag, and ash. The ash and slag accumulations
represent the industrial wastes of the late 19th century and indicate that
foundry work or blacksmithing was a common activity on thewaterfront at this
time.

The angular diorite foundation footings of Feature 2 were constructed next,
directly over the edge of the former wharf. Photographs suggest that there may
have been footings for a foundry constructed ca. 1880. In the opposite wall,
an intrusion into Feature 2 was noted which contained numerous whole or nearly
whole bottles. The span represented by this collection can be dated, using the
Newman key (T. Sell Newman 1970:70-75). Suggested dates, based on more than
100 bottles and diagnostic bottle parts follow:

2Round based soda bottles 1860-1913
16 Clear medicine bottles post 1880
35 Machine-made, semi-automatic 1880-1913
7Machine-made, fully automatic post 1903
1Lightning stopper 1882-1915

The span implied, then, is 1903-1913. On the basis of the overwhelming prefer-
ence for cork closures, the absence of crown cap closures, and the preponder-
ance of bitters bottles, this refuse is thought to date ca. 1905. Apparently
a hole just outside the foundry building was used as a bottle dump. Perhaps
this occurred after the building had become defunct. The Sanborn Insurance
Atlas of 1914 indicated that by that time the foundry was no longer in operation,
and a city assessors map of 1922 shows that the building had been razed.

At nearly the same time as the Feature 2 was constructed, Feature 3 was
dug through the old slip to accommodate the cast iron drain leading from the
Custom House, which appeared in Trench 3. The Feature 3 fill is clearly a
mixture of sediments from Units III and IV into which it intrudes.

Probably all but the uppermost sediments in Unit II are derived from the
foundry. Slag, though present inside the building, was evidently dumped out-
side of the building as well, together with broken casting pieces and other
refuse. A thick lens of coal within the building confirms that it was ulti-
mately used for coal storage, as indicated on the 1914 Sanborn Atlas. The
sands in the upper part of Unit II, however, may be associated with the razing
of this building and preparation for new construction. Note that there is no
major brick rubble accumulation from the demolition of this building, such as
is encountered repeatedly along the waterfront at other sites. Photographs
indicate thatthis foundry was framed in steel and wood.

The final construction above the wharf is represented by Feature 1, a
building with a concrete foundation and pad. This was,evidently the single-
story concreteblock structure used for construction equipment storage which
was demolished recently as part of the renewal project. The concrete for the
footings included refuse rock and brick, with no other reinforcement. Brick
pillars were evidently spaced at even intervals along the side of the building
for structural support, as could be seen from the remnant pads exposed on the
surface along tb-e side of this foundation. The pattern on a piece of linoleum
found in the builder's trench for the building footings suggests that it was
probably built in the 1920's, while the imitation dressed stone cement blocks
which are evident in photographs suggest a pre-1940 date.

178

The rubble in Unit I may derive, in part, from the demolition of this
latest building, but also includes much of the remnants of the junkyard which,
until redevelopment, occupied the area above the slip and immediately behind
the Custom House. A thin layer of gravel at the top of this unit provides a
temporary parking surface.

The following facts can be inferred from the sequence and supporting
information:

1. Gunnisonis Wharf, constructed with wooden pegs, dates prior to 1850.

2. The wharf was subsequently demolished down to the low-tide mark, re-
moving all superstructure.

3. At the same time or shortly thereafter, the adjacent slip was filled
in. The most probable date for this filling is 1872, during or after
construction of the City Railroad spur.

4. For some time the area was used as a dump site for foundry and black-
smithing wastes, especially coal, ash, and slag,

5. A frame foundry was built here in the latter part of the 19th century,
immediately over the edge of the former wharf. This building was demol-
ished between 1914 and 1922.

6. At about the same time, the foundry was built, a cast iron drain was
installed in the fill of the adjacent slip (see Trench 3). As has been
noted, this was probably necessitated by the railroad and coal pocket
construction of 1872 which obstructed the former drainage path from the
Custom House.

7. In the 1920's or 30's the foundry was replaced by a single-story con-
crete block structure used for storing heavy construction equipment.

179

Areal Excavations

Area 1 -- Merchant's Row (Fig. 3.10, p. 42)

Area 1 is a 2 m by 6 m trench oriented approximately east-west. The
eastern 4 m of the trench samples the Merchant's Row complex at the partition
between stores 3 and 4, owned in 1811 by John Greenleaf and A. and E. Wheel-
wright (Gilman and Gilman 1811). The western 2 m of the trench samples the
public access to Ferry Wharf, in front of the Wheelwright and Greenleaf stores.

Unit I
10YR5/3 brown (dry) coarse beach gravel fill; containing television
parts, radios, bricks, wood, plastic, cotton cord tires, etc. 'Very
abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit II; abrupt, smooth boundary to
Feature 1.

Feature 1 -- cast iron drain, water pipe, and associated fill beside stores
10YR3/3 dark brown coarse sand; containing mortar, brick fragments,
angular cobbles, and a chert (Normanskill type) projectile point.

Unit II -- Basement accumulation, store no. 4
a 2.5Y4/2 dark grayish brown medium sand. Apparently sterile.

b 10YR2/1 black coal; containing coal, coal dust.

C 10YR3/3 dark brown medium sand with 10YR2/1 black coal mottles.

d 10YR5/2 grayish brown fine sand and rubble, with 5Y4/1 dark
gray clods of clay; containing bricks, brick fragments, wood, mortar,
etc. Demolition debris after fire of 1811.

e 10YR5/1 gray medium sand and ash.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to wooden plank floor and Feature 3a.

Feature 3a -- store 4 basement construction and waterproofing
a 5Y5/1 gray (wet) clay; plastic, sticky. Apparently sterile.
Intended as a water barrier underneath the plank-flooring and in the
space between the baseboards and the outside walls.

b 5Y3/1 very dark gray (wet) coarse sandy gravel; containing small
rounded pebbles.

Very abrupt boundary to bedrock.

Unit II' -- Outdoor accumulation, stores 3 and 4
a 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown fine sand; very loose; containing
bricks, brick fragments, small angular cobbles.

b 10YR3/3 dark brown medium sand with 10YR2/1 black coal mottles.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Feature 2 and Unit III.

180

Feature 2 -- builder's trench for store 3 foundation extension
10YR4/4 dark yellowish brown coarse sand; containing small pebbles,
brick fragments, a chert projectile point (Normanskill type) and a
chert biface. Very abrupt, intrusive boundary to Units III and IV.

Unit III
a 10YR4/4 dark yellowish brown coarse sand with small 10YR3/2 very
dark grayish brown mottles; containing small pebbles.

b 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand lens; containing mortar,
brick fragments. Also contains a half-penny (George 1. Hibernia
type) minted between 1722 and 1724.

c 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand; containing brick
particles, small pebbles.

d 10YR5/4 yellowish brown fine sand with 10YR3/1 very dark gray to
10YR5/2 grayish brown silty clay mottles; loose. May represent back-
dirt from Feature 3b construction.

e 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand containing small pebbles.

f 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown fine sand lens.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Feature 3b and Unit IV.

Feature 3b -- water barrier for store 4 foundation
a 10YR3/1 very dark gray fine sand; containing decayed wood.

b 10YR4/1 dark gray silty clay; slightly plastic, slightly sticky.

c 10YR2/1 black sand and decayed wood.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV.

Unit IV
a 10YR2/1 black silt loam; containing burned wood, small angular
pebbles.

b 10YR3/3 dark brown coarse sand; containing small'pebbles. Also
contains an argillite projectile point (Otter Creek type).

c 2.5Y4/2 dark grayish brown silt loam with 10YR3/3 dark brown
coarse sand mottles; slightly plastic, slightly sticky.

Very abrupt boundary to bedrock.

The lowest stratum of Unit IV shows mottling from the stratum above, sug-
gesting a stratigraphic inversion. It is quite likely that some or all of this
unit represents backdirt excavated in the construction of the store 4 foundation.
In this disturbance was found a large Otter Creek projectile point, clearly out
of its aboriginal context.

181

The natural slope of the bedrock in this location would tend to channel all
sub-surface water and runoff from the surrounding uplands directly into the base-
ment. To counteract this effect, a clay seal, Feature 3b, was installed. This
was a sandwich of clay between layers of wood, sloping away from the foundation.
The basement structure itself, leveled on the bedrock by a layer of gravel, was
protected from a rising water table by a similar layer of clay beneath the
flooring and along the base of the interior walls.

The sediments of Unit III accumulated during the 18th century, apparently
after the first structure on the store 4 foundation was built. A George I half-
penny, minted between 1722 and 1724, was found in one of these sediments. Con-
sidering the associated ceramics and glass, it was probably placed there in the
last quarter of the 18th century. Prehistoric artifacts are absent from this
unit.

Feature 2 intrudes into Unit III on the north side of the pit, and repre-
sents the construction of an addition onto the north end of the Merchant's Row
complex which included store 3. A builder's trench was dug here for the
extension of the stone foundation, and in the process,the clay seal of the
earlier foundation was broken. No similar attempt at waterproofing was made in
building the store 3 foundation. The backfill of the construction trench in-
cludes a Normanskill projectile point and a small biface, both of chert.

Both buildings were in existence at the time of the Great Fire of 1811,
according to the list of damaged property recorded by Gilman and Gilman (1811).
This fire severely scorched flooring and floor joists of the store 4 basement,
and caused substantial ash and brick rubble accumulation. The basement floor
was resurfaced, this time merely with sand, and the area was apparently used
through the rest of the 19th century as a coal bin. A final layer of sand was
deposited, and the floor may have been used still later for storage of some
sort.

Outside, on Ferry Way, there seems to have been little accumulation after
the 1811 fire. The stratigraphic record is confused, however, by the recent
razing of these buildings, in which some of the sequence may have been removed.
In any case, coal seems to have been stored or unloaded here. The water pipe
and cast iron drain of Feature I intrudes into the entire profile. These ser-
vices were installed no earlier than 1885, and probably date to ca. 1900. With-
in the trench fill is a second Normanskill projectile point, also out of context.

The overburden removed in Unit I contained refuse from the most recent use
of Merchant's Row. At the time of demolition these buildings were used as a
warehouse by the Knight family who operated Knight's Grain in the adjacent
Ferry Wharf Building. The radio and television debris proved to be used items
taken in trade by Richard Knight, who maintained a radio-television repair
business several blocks away on Unicorn Street.

Although the cutting and filling record of the way is complex, as backdirt
was shifted back and forth,from one area to another during different phases of
construction, the general sequence of events is clear:

1. On this site once stood a substantial aboriginal Indian site, having
at least two occupations during the Late Archaic period. All the Pre-
historic artifacts were found in disturbed contexts, as might be expected

182

in an urban waterfront. The chances of finding significant undisturbed
areas of aboriginal habitation here are quite slim.

2. Store 4 was constructed upon bedrock during the 18th century. The area
outside the foundation was backfilled and landscaped to counteract the slope
of the bedrock in anticipation of a drainage problem. Similarly, the inte-
rior of the basement was completely lined with clay.

3. One or more additional bays were added to the north end of Merchant's
Row at this location-probably in the last decade of the 18th century.
The store 3 foundation construction shows no evidence of waterproofing,
probably because the clay seals in the earlier building proved ineffective.

4. Merchant's Row burned in the fire of 1811, and although some of the
superstructure may have survived, the building was essentially gutted.
Erosion of the clay around the baseboards suggests that the roof was open
to the elements for a period.

5. The basement was partially filled in the reconstruction of the store 4,
and coal stored on the new surface.

6. Water and sewage utilities, installed after 1885, did considerable
damage to the stratigraphic record along Ferry Way, and intruded into the
aboriginal site which was once here.

7. The remains of the Merchant's Row complex were razed ca. 1970, and the
basement filled with demolition rubble. This debris included radio and
television parts then warehoused in Merchant's Row by the Knight family,
owners of Knight's Grain and a radio and television repair business.

Area 2 -- Gunnison Annex and Way (Fig_._ 3.21, p. 57)

The Gunnison excavation is an L-shaped trench which tests a former annex
of the present Gunnison Building and the private way on which it fronted. A
3 m by 6 m trench runs along the way, while an adjacent 3 m square samples the
interior of the annex.

Unit I -- pavement base
10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sandy gravel; containing water-rounded
pebbles, brick fragments. Paving base for macadam (removed). Very
abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit II.

Unit V -- building fill
10YR4/3 brown to dark brown gravel and rubble. Very abrupt, angular
boundary to interior brick partition.

Unit II
10YR2/1 black sand; containing angular granite and diorite (crushed
rock paving), coal, brick, shell. Abrupt, smooth boundary to
Features 1, 2, 3, and Units III and IIV.

Feature 1 -- fuel pipe trench fill
10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing brick fragments.
Abrupt, intrusive boundary to Units III' and IV, and very abrupt
boundary to bedrock.

183

Feature 2 -- water and gas lines and associated trench fill
10YR2/1 black sandy gravel; containing angular and rounded pebbles,
brick fragments. Abrupt, intrusive boundary to Unit III and very
abrupt boundary to bedrock.

Feature 3 -- foundation trench and later intrusion
lOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand with thin 10YR3/3 dark brown
bands; containing angular and rounded pebbles, brick particles.
Indistinct intrusive boundary to Unit IV and very abrupt boundary to
bedrock.

Unit III
a 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown sandy gravel; containing bricks,
brick fragments, water-worn pebbles and cobbles, polychrome pearlware.

bl 10YR3/1 very dark gray sand with 10YR7/1 light gray mortar; con-
taining coal, mortar, bricks, brick fragments.

b2 lOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing bricks, brick
fragments, mortar, coal, ash.

cl 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing bricks, gravel
lenses.

c2 10YR3/3 dark brown sand with frequent 2.5Y5/4 light olive brown,
2/5YR4/6 red, and 10YR2/1 black mottles; slightly plastic, slightly
sticky. Occurs in cracks in bedrock.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV and bedrock.

Unit III'
al 2.5Y3/2 very dark grayish brown sand with 2.5Y3/0 very dark gray
fine bands.

a2 10YR3/1 very dark gray fine to coarse sand; containing bricks,
brick fragments, coal, large rounded pebbles, wood.

bl 2.5YR3/4 dark reddish brown sand; containing bricks, brick
fragments, small rounded pebbles and cobbles, slate roofing.

b2 7.5YR4/4 brown to dark brown sandy fill; containing iron oxide,
brick particles.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV.

Unit IV
a 10YR3/1 very dark gray sand with 2.5YR3/6 dark red mottles; con-
taining pebbles, cobbles, brick fragments, clay pipestem, window
glass, heavy creamware.

b 2.5YR2/2 very dusty red sand; containing small brick particles,
coal, charcoal flecks.

184

The apparent simplicity of these profiles is deceptive, for the sediments
which conform to bedrock are of quite different age. The earliest sediments,
Unit IV, may date as early as 1750, considering ceramics and glass specimens
which have been found here. The mottling of these sediments suggests that they
have been disturbed, but since overlying sediments conform evenly to this unit,
the disturbance was itself probably of 18th century origin. An exception is
Feature 3, an excavation which seems to intrude into Unit IV, but is not clearly
distinguished from it. Feature 3 was probably part of the initial builder's
trench for the annex foundation, but has apparently been partially re@excavated
later in the 19th century.

The total accumulation in Unit IV is not great, and is confined to the
lower lying areas and pockets in the bedrock. In the 18th century much of the
bedrock ledge was still exposed, as references to this "Great Rock" are common
in the early property descriptions (Coffin 1845:61). In fact, little signifi-
cant accumulation is preserved at least until the beginning of the 19th century.
Unit IIV is stained heavily with iron oxide, and probably represents rusted
iron filings from blacksmithing or machining waste. Slag and cinders, however,
are notably absent. This oxide is probably too far away from the foundry dis-
covered in Trenches 3 and 4 to have been derived from it. Slate roofing and
associated building demolition date this deposit after 1840.

Unit III accumulation may have begun somewhat earlier than that of Unit
IIV, as several pieces of ceramics and bottle glass were found which would
date to the period 1800 to 1830. The earliest stratum, IIIc, included fine
sediments which were transported into the remaining cracks and low areas of
the bedrock by surface runoff. Above this is a sequence of gravel pavement,
coal, and demolition debris. The coal probably stems from the middle to late
19th century, when the property immediately to the west was used as a coal
pocket. Passage from the yard to the weigh scales undoubtedly followed this
private way.

During the first half of the 19th century, at least two separate structures
have been known to occupy the area on which the Gunnison Building now stands.
The upper floors of the Gunnison Building itself have been gutted at least
twice in the second half of the 19th century. While these disasters undoubtedly
account at least in part for the building debris encountered in the way, it is
impossible to associate the demolition layers with any particular structure.

Intruding into Units III and IIV are a series of late 19th to early 20th
century utilities, showing no stratigraphic separation. At least two sets of
water pipes were installed. The smaller, and probably earlier pipe, was boxed
in wood, probably to keep it from freezing, because it wasinstalled above bed-
rock within 25 cm. of the surface. A second 1 in pipe, installed with this
water line, may have been for gas. A larger 2 in main probably was more
effective in conserving heat, and was not boxed. Apparently none of these lines
went to this portion of the annex.

A fuel line enters the annex basement, near an abandoned coal bin. Feature
1 is presumed to mark the route of this pipe and leads into an area recently
covered by a small frame shed, immediately south of the Gunnison annex. This
shed probably housed the fuel tank, as bedrock made it impossible to place it
beneath the surface. Part of the pipe was evidently ripped out when the shed
was demolished.

185

Feature 3a was a layer of bricks set neatly on top of the ground surface to
suppress weed growth in front of a basement window. The window itself was sub-
sequently bricked up, and the building renovated, apparently to accommodate a
large garage door visible in recent photographs of the annex. A paving of brick
rubble was aligned in front of this new door in Unit II. All of the way was
covered by macadam pavement by World War II or shortly thereafter.

In sum, the following events are implied:

1. An 18th century structure was built on a stonework foundation west-of
a "Great Rock," one of several such early landmarks on the waterfront.
Household refuse was found in association with this foundation, but no
manufacturing waste was found in later sediments. Some of the refuse is
sufficiently recent to suggest that this structure was in use until the
fire of 1811. Property descriptions suggest that this may have been the
foundation of an outbuilding associated with the residence of Enoch Toppan.

2. The original foundation was reused in at least one later construction,
a small two-story brick wing of the Gunnison Building. The brickwork at
the corner of the Gunnison Building shows that the annex and the main
building were constructed at the same time, bracketed by historic evidence
between 1840 and 1850. The wing does not conform ideally to the original
foundation and it was necessary to install an interior bearing wall to
support the floor joists across the span to the main building. The space
between the outer wall and the partition was used as a coal bin.

3. The area outside the building at this time shows a great build-up of
iron oxide stains, as does the remaining coal stored within the annex
basement. One likely explanation is'that this is rusted iron dust from
grinding iron castings or similar machine work. Filings may have settled
in the basement, having seeped through the rough plank flooring above, or
having washed in through the foundation. Quite probably the building first
saw use as a machine shop or fabrication shop of some kind, continuing in
this capacity for most of the 19th century.

4. At about this same time, the adjacent way was paved in gravel, and
shows an accumulation of coal dust from the adjacent coal pocket-. Water
and gas utilities were installed after 1885, and replaced at least once
thereafter.

5. In the second or third decade of this century a fuel line was in-
stalled, and the coal bin was abandoned. The fuel tank was probably housed
next door in a small shed built for it, as it would have been too big for
the basement, and could not have been buried elsewhere because of the
shallow depth to bedrock.

6. The cellar window was bricked up at about this time, and a wide garage
door was installed above it. A rude paving of brick rubble was placed out-
side this door. Some fragmentary house furniture, both leather and iron,
suggest that the annex was used briefly as a stable. Later car parts
suggest that the building served, at least in part, for automobile repair,
storage, or salvage.

7. The way was paved with macadam in the 1940's or shortly afterwards. By
1976, the annex was demolished.

186

Area 3.-- Granger (Fig. 3.16, p. 51)

The Granger excavation samples the south end of the same way tested in the
Gunnison excavation. It also exposes an area to the west of this way, which was
used in the last three quarters of the 19th century by George T. Granger and
numerous successors first as a lumber yard and later for cordwood and coal
storage. The two 2 m by 5 m trenches of this L-shaped excavation are sharply
divided by a foundation thought to be the eastern support for a mid-19th cen-
tury weigh scale. A single structure was found in the north-south trench
which parallels the outside of this wall. Two more structures were revealed
in the remaining east-west wing.

Unit I
a 10YR5/3 brown (dry) sandy silt; slightly plastic, slightly
sticky. Base for adjacent brick sidewalk and lawn.

b 10YR4/2 dark grayis h brown medium sand; containing rounded
pebbles, brick, coal, roofing slate, crushed rock. Base for macadam
surfacing above.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Units II and IV, and Features 1-5.

Feature 2 -- utility pipes and associated trench fill
10YR4/2 dark grayish brown coarse sand with small 10YR5/4 yellowish
brown and IOYR2/1 black mottles; containing slate roofing, brick
fragments, small pebbles. Very abrupt, intrusive boundary to Unit II.

Feature 3 -- main utility trench and fill (see Area 2, Feature 2)
10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand; containing fine lenses of
rounded and angular cobbles and pebbles, brick fragments, charcoal,
ash, shell, pipestems, window and bottle glass. Very abrupt, intru-
sive boundary to Units II, III and IV; very abrupt, smooth boundary
to bedrock.

Unit II -- way surfaces
a 10YR5/4 yellowish brown coarse sand; containing coal fragments,
coal dust.

b lOYR3/l very dark gray medium sand; containing brick particles,
coal dust, small rounded pebbles.

c 10YR2/1 black to IOYR3/1 very dark gray sand; containing coal
fragments, coal dust.

d IOYR5/4 yellowish brown coarse sand; containing small and large
pebbles.

e 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand; containing brick frag-
ments, brick particles, rounded and angular pebbles.

f IOYR4/4 dark yellowish brown sandy gravel. Apparently sterile.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

187

Unit III -- fill beneath way surfaces
a 10YR5/4 yellowish brown medium sand with 10YR6/6 brownish yellow
mottles and lenses.

bl 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand with 10YR3/2 very dark
grayish brown coal and ash lenses; containing angular cobbles.

b2 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sand with 10YR7/2 light gray ash
lenses; containing charcoal fragments, hand-forged nails, melted
window glass, etc.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV and Feature 6.

Feature 6 -- scattered foundation remains of Boardman building.
Granite dry stone masonry. Abrupt boundary to Unit IV.

Unit IV
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam; slightly plastic,
slightly sticky; containing large angular granite cobbles (foundation
rubble), brick, brick fragments.

b lOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy loam; slightly plastic,
slightly sticky. Lacking brick and granite debris.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to bedrock.

Feature 1 -- intrusion for Graf Trucking Terminal footings
al 10YR4/3 brown to very dark brown sand; containing rounded
pebbles, coal, tar paper, brick, granite building rubble.

a2 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown sand; containing rounded pebbles,
wood fragments.

a3 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sand; containing brick, brick frag-
ments, small pebbles.

Abrupt, intrusive boundary to Features 4 and 5.

Feature 4 -- coal office foundation
Mortared field stone masonry.

Very abrupt contact with bedrock.

Feature 5 -- weigh scale foundation
Mortared field stone masonry.

Very abrupt contact with bedrock.

Unit II'
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand with 2.5Y5/4 light olive
brown sand lenses; containing brick fragments, charcoal, angular and
rounded pebbles.

b 2.5Y3/2 dark grayish brown ash with 2.5Y5/4 light olive brown

188

sand lenses; containing ash, coal, clinkers, bricks, brick fragments,
angular and rounded pebbles.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IIV.

unit III,
10YR2/1 black sand; containing coal, coal dust, angular granite cob-
bles. Very abrupt, jagged contact with bedrock.

Because the excavation is partitioned by the high wall of the supposed
weigh scale, the stratigraphic records to either side of this division must be
discussed separately.

The western wing of the trench has yielded by far the earliest strata.
The bedrock surface here was probably first covered by cultural refuse in the
second quarter of the 18th century. This is the same outcropping excavated in
the Gunnison pits, referred to in early records as a "Great Rock." Unit IV
contains abundant household refuse of glassware, ceramics, and bone which
apparently date no later than the 1760's. Upon this unit was built a dry
granite foundation, Feature 6, the southeastern corner of which was revealed
by our excavation. Only the largest foundation stones remain of this structure,
the rest having evidently been salvaged for some later construction.

Unit III contains in its lower levels the charred demolition refuse and
melted glass of the Feature 6 building. It is likely that this is a building
which belonged to Offin Boardman in 1811 (Gilman and Gilman 1811; ECPC 2717)
when the Great Fire demolished all buildings in this area. The upper strata of
Unit III show extensive mottling, and include finely broken ceramics and glass
dating to the late 18th or early 19th century. This is deliberate fill, which
extends both inside and outside the foundation, and which has substantially
elavated the ground surface.

The sediments of Unit II show a continuous series of sand and gravel
pavings, interspersed with thin layers of coal and coal dust. This represents
the paving of the way leading to the rear of the Gunnison Building and to the
lumber yard, later a coal pocket. Historically, this 20-ft-wide way is known
to have been laid out at this site by 1813 (ECRD 202:48 and 203:73).

The clean sand rubble of Unit I is a recent 20th century accumulation, and
forms the base for a macadam paving which covered this site until removed for
our excavation. Therefore the pipe trench, Feature 3, which is intrusive into
Unit I, is also quite recent, and must be the utility service for the Graf Bros.
Trucking terminal, shown in plan and in Feature 1. The pipe trench connects
with earlier utility mains running along the way, Feature 3. These are proba-
bly the same lines revealed in the Gunnison excavation (Area 2, Feature 2).

The high bedrock on the western wing of the excavation probably remained
clear of cultural refuse well into the 19th century. The earliest accumulation,
Unit IIV, is a layer of sand and coal dust, and probably dates well after the
fire of 1811, as does Feature 5 with which it is associated. Feature 5 is
actually located at least 7 ft within the limit of the private right-of-way
which has been reserved here since at least 1813 and which remained in use
until the current redevelopment of the waterfront. It is presumed, then, to be
the weigh scale used by Newman Brown's coal yard (NCD 1869) and by subsequent
establishments, a structure which would not have impeded the way. Note that

189

the upper part of this structure extends just above the level of the contem-
poraneous mid-19th century pavements. These scales still appear in photo-
graphs of the area taken in 1913.

Unit IV sediments are more recent than the weigh scale foundation, and are
associated with the construction of the "new" coal office of H.H. Cross (NCD
1874). Note that this new building fronted directly on Water Street, slightly
in front of the weigh scale foundation. The ash fill around the southeast
corner of this foundation contains many examples of white ironstone china, one
of which has a British registry mark dating manufacture to January 5, 1856.
Note that the construction of this new coal office, together with later con-
struction, has obliterated any trace of buildings which were formerly located
on this site. The demolition materials found within Feature 4 show the asphalt
and tin roofing of this building, together with fragments of green window
sashes.

The most recent, and most damaging intrusion is, of course, the reinforced
concrete foundation and footings of the Graf Bros. Trucking Terminal, built in
1949. The construction trench cut through both the coal office and the weigh
scale foundations, removing all sediments down to bedrock. The demolition
refuse from this building, razed for redevelopment, has apparently been removed
from the site. A new brick sidewalk and lawn has been placed above the level
of the asphalt on the street side of the excavation, represented by Unit I.

The following chronology can be derived from this stratigraphic sequence:

1. This area of Water Street was settled and household refuse discarded
on the "Great Rock" by the second quarter of the 18th century.

2. A frame building was constructed on a dry masonry wall later on in
the 18th century. This way probably the residence and store mentioned in
the Timothy Greenleaf estate (ECPC 11816), a building which eventually
passed to Captain Offin Boardman, a Revolutionary War hero. In 1811,
Boardman's property and all surrounding buildings were destroyed in the
Great Fire.

3. The Boardman house foundation was scavenged for building stone, and
the area extensively filled, apparently to level the area over the
"Great Rock."

4. A 20-ft-wide way was surveyed following the fire, to provide access to
new buildings constructed shortly thereafter. A series of gravel pavings
rapidly accumulated along this way.

5. By the third quarter of the 19th century a weigh scale had been con-
structed, a portion of which extended into the right-of-way.

6. A coal office, known from photographs and lithographs to be the most
recent of a series of at least three such buildings, was built adjacent
to the way ca. 1872.

7. The coal office was demolished by 1949 and replaced by the Graf Bros.
Express truck terminal, a large, one-story concrete building. This in
turn was razed for recent redevelopment of this area.

190

Area 4 -- Watkins (Fig. A-3)

The Watkins excavation was selected to probe a small area behind the
Ferry Wharf Building, an access which appears vacant on all 19th century maps
of Newburyport. The main trench was placed across this alley to sample
buildings on either side. This trench was laid out at a 450 angle to the pre-
sumed alignment of known foundations in order to gain a larger sample of the
alley and unknown structures which might have existed beneath it. This strategy
proved quite successful, for the trench revealed at least five separate con-
structions. The sections of these foundations and features, however, were
severely distorted as a consequence of this strategy. The effects of angular
sectioning were exaggerated by the slope and undulation of the trench walls,
for these loose, unstable sediments often required pedestals or buttresses.
Therefore, the field profiles have been corrected by projection to represent
sections taken at right angles to the foundations. Great care was taken to
preserve the relative positioning of these sediments, and to present them at
the same vertical scale used in the field,

The main trench, measuring 2 m by 7 m, extended to a depth of 2.4 m, well
below the water table. A wedge-shaped area, 7.5 m2, was added on the southeast
side of the trench to trace the perimeter of a granite foundation previously
discovered. The question was soon solved, and excavation in this area was dis-
continued at a depth of only 0.6 m. our stratigraphic information,then, comes
from the main trench. Two profiles are represented here. The first is a north-
south section of the open area at the southeast corner of the Merchant's Row
complex, designated Zone A in plan (Fig. 4.1, p. 63). The second runs east-
west, across a narrow alley, Zone B, into a foundation and basement fill,
Zone C.

Section 1

Unit I
10YR5/4 yellowish brown gravel. Recent gravel paving. Abrupt,
smooth boundary to Unii II.

Unit Il
al 10YR5/4 yellowish brown gravel; containing rounded pebbles,
shell. Redeposited fill.

a2 10YR7/2 light gray mortar lens; containing bricks, brick frag-
ments, slate roofing, plate glass, etc.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

Unit III
a IOYR4/2 dark grayish brown sandy cinders; containing occasional
brick fragments.@

bl 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown fine sand; slightly plastic, non-
sticky; containing slate, brick fragments, etc.

b2 10YR5/6 yellowish brown fine sand; very loose; containing many
bricks, brick fragments. Lens within Stratum IIIbl.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV.

@E-W@

x UNIT I -y
5N3
UNIT 11 UNIT I FIE
NIT I 'I.
sime

UNIT I I I

FEATURE 1 UNIT I 111'
UNIT IV

UNIT IV
UNIT IV
-7
UNIT V

:ATUR
U IT
UNIT VII

Section 1 Section 2
KEY
CLAY RECENT
RUBBLE FILL

FINE SAND ASH OR
OR S IIT CINDER S

MEDIUM SAND SHELL

COARSE SAND DECAYED WOOD

GRAVEL PLASTER

Fig. A.3. Profiles from Area 4 walls corrected to represent hypothetical sections
1 and 2, Fig. 4.1, p. 63. Key features of Section 1 are cove sediments and early 18th
century demolition refuse (Units VII and VI), the Merchant's Row foundation trench
(Fea. 2), and evidence of fire, possibly the 1811 holocaust (Unit IV). Section 2
shows the Hale-Watkins privy (Fea. 5), the footings of a small, late 18th century out-
building (Fea. 4), the Merchant's Row foundation and basement opening (Fea. 3) and the
boardinghouse foundation and cellar (Fea. 1).

192

Unit IV
a IOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown fine sand with frequent 5Y5/1
gray clay clod inclusions; slightly plastic, non-sticky; containing
water-worn pebbles, extensive bone debris.

bl 10YR2/1 black burned wood lens, 1 cm thick. Stains from this
lens occur on the exterior of the brick foundation, Feature 2.

b2 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand; containing bricks, brick
fragments.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit V and Feature 2.

Feature 2 -- Merchant's Row store no. 6 foundation and associated trench
10YR4/2 dark grayish brown coarse sand; containing bricks, brick
fragments, pebbles, cobbles, glazed red earthenware. Very abrupt,
intrusive boundary to Units V and VI.

Unit V
a IOYR4/2 dark grayish brown sand with 2.5Y5/4 light olive brown
fine sand mottles; containing charcoal flecks. Gradual, smooth
boundary to Stratum Vbl.

bl 10YR4/2 (wet) dark grayish brown silty sand; slightly plastic,
non-sticky; containing extensive bone, bricks, brick fragments,
pebbles, cobbles, glazed red earthenware.

b2 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown (wet) silt loam and decomposed
wood; plastic, slightly sticky; contains decayed wood fragments,
wood chips, wood plank construction scrap, mortar, brick fragments.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit VI.

Unit VI
a 5Y3/2 dark olive gray (wet) coarse sand containing small pebbles;
very loose. Apparently sterile.

b 5YR4/4 reddish brown (wet) brick fragments; containing brick
particles, wood fragments.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit VII.

Unit VII
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown (wet) coarse sand. Apparently
sterile.

b 10YR2/1 black (wet) fine to medium sandy loam with fine bands
of 10YR3/2 very dark brown coarse sand; slightly plastic, non-sticky;
containing dark organic matter. Apparently sterile. Stratum slopes
gradually down towards the river channel.

The finely banded sediments of Unit VII are surely accumulations within a
lowland area. This is probably the tidal area mentioned as a "cove" in the
original grant of this property to Captain Paul White in 1655 (Currier 1896:152).

193

The gradual slope of sediments toward the Merrimack River suggests that here
was a beach; the high tide mark was probably not far to the south. While it
is not possible to say categorically that these sediments are sterile even of
7@ historic materials, it is clear that the land surface was waterlogged and was
not suitable for habitation until filled sometime in the early 18th century.
A recent suggestion that the trader Watt built a cellar here in the 17th cen-
tury (Harris 1977:26) is probably incorrect, as this lowland location would
have been quite inappropriate for storage.

Unit VI represents the early 18th century demolition of a structure which
may have stood nearby on the edge of the flats. The remains appear here only
as a fine lens of water-rounded brick particles. These sediments also reflect
the gentle slope of the shoreline.

Unit V sediments show a rapid and extensive accumulation of debris in the
lowlands. The lowest of these sediments contains construction refuse: scraps
from squaring the ends of I in sawed planks, wood chips from adzing beams, and
brick scraps. Surely some new structure was built nearby. The construction
and demolition debris is covered by a heavy accumulation of refuse, dominated
by bones of butchered livestock--sheep, swine, and cattle. The associated
glassware and ceramics suggest that this is household or victualer's refuse,
rather than butcher's waste. Diagnostic artifacts from this stratum date be-
tween 1740 and 1770.

Feature 2, the builder's trench for the foundation of store 6, Merchant's
Row, intrudes into this accumulation of trash, and the footings for this new
building were placed on the earlier shoreline sediments. Fill for this trench
includes pearlware ceramic types, popular ca. 1800. Above the builder's trench,
at the bottom of Unit IV, are layers of brick demolition and burned wood, likely
the result of damage during the Fire of 1811. The associated ceramics, which
include some blue transfer and shell-edge pearlware are chronologically con-
sistent with this interpretation.

The uppermost stratum of Unit IV is unusual in that it probably represents
a stratigraphic inversion, resulting from the addition of stores 7 and 8 to the
south end of Merchant's Row. This fill is extensively mottled with a clay
similar to that used to seal the foundation at the other end of Merchant's Row,
at store 4 (Area 1). A similar feature appears in Section II of this excavation.
It is likely that in excavating the foundation for the southern addition, an
early clay seal was broken into, as happened in Area 1 when the store 3
addition was built. A 1732 Britannia half-penny and some early 18th century
glassware, associated with this fill, are probably out of place, and support
the view that this is backdirt. Also found here were fragments of a diamond-
paned casement window, possibly from the structure represented in Unit VI.
There is no historic evidence for the existence of this southernmost annex
until ca. 1820.

Accumulations which occurred after the annex construction have been ob-
literated by 20th century land clearing. Unit III represents the first of
these, the razing of one bay of the annex (store 7) and an adjacent bay of the
original Merchant's Row complex (store 6). According to photographs and former
property owners, these buildings were torn down shortly before 1949 to provide
access to the new Graf Bros. Truck Terminal, constructed on the large parcel
to the east of Merchant's Row. Unit III debris consists of bricks, mortar,

194

wood, and slate roofing. This was mixed with coil cushion springs, and modern
bottles and glassware and other refuse. A cinder pavement was then provided for
the terminal access. Note that a portion of the Merchant's Row foundation may
have remained partially exposed along this access. Unit II, which follows, con-
tains similar brick and slate roofing debris, and represents the recent demo-
lition of the remaining Merchant's Row buildings. A temporary gravel paving,
Unit I, covers the entire area.

Section 2

Unit I
a IOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy rubble, containing bricks,
coal, clam shell. Clearsmooth boundary to Stratum Ib.

b 10YR5/4 yellowish brown gravel; containing rounded pebbles.
Recent fill.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Feature 1 and Unit II.

Feature 1 -- granite foundation, cellar, and associated fill
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing bricks, plaster,
bottle fragments, awning parts, coal, mortar, wood. Abrupt, wavy
boundary to Feature lb.

b 10YR2/1 black asphalt composition roofing paper and roofing
boards. Roofing inverted in demolition. Very abrupt, wavy boundary
to Feature 1c.

c IOYR6/3 pale brown plaster; containing blue painted plaster,
plate glass, bricks, wood lath, wire nails.

d 7.5YR4/0 dark gray burned coal and shale clinkers; containing
bricks, shell, clear bottle glass, bone. Clear, smooth boundary to
Feature le.

el 10YR6/3 pale brown plaster; containing occasional brick frag-.
ments, clam shell, charcoal, coal, plate glass, ironstone china.

e2 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sandy rubble.

e3 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing bricks, shell,
glass, flowerpot base, blue transfer ironstone china.

e4 10YR3/3 dark brown sand; containing clay mottles, coal, mortar,
bricks.

Very abrupt, intrusive boundary to Units III and IV and Feature 4.

Unit II
al IOYR4/2 dark grayish brown fine sand; containing shell lenses,
bone, brick fragments, roofing slate, charcoal traces. Gradual,
smooth boundary to Stratum IIb.

a2 7.5YR4/2 brown to dark brown ash and shell lens.

195

b 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing brick particles,
slate roofing, glass, coal, copper wire.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III; clear boundary to Feature 1.

Unit III
al 2.5Y5/4 light olive brown silt lens; containing bricks, brick
fragments.

a2 10YR3/3 very dark grayish brown sandy loam; containing brick
fragments, charcoal, bone, stoneware bottle.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV.

Unit IV
a 5Y5/1 gray clay; plastic, slightly sticky; containing bricks,
rounded pebbles, brown stoneware bottle fragment.

Unit V
a 10YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) sandy clay loam; slightly plastic
to plastic, non-sticky to slightly sticky; containing extensive bone,
small hand-made bricks, brick fragments, red glazed red earthenware,
wood fragments, decayed wood.

a2 10YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) sandy clay loam; slightly sticky,
containing bone, decayed wood, twigs, wrought iron trap.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Feature 5.

Feature 5 -- wood-framed privy and contents
10YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) excrement with 10YR7/3 very pale brown,
10YR3/4 dark yellowish brown, and 5Y3/2 dark olive gray mottles;
slightly plastic, non-sticky; containing window glass, creamware china
setting, wine bottles, pharmaceutical vials, lime or ash, corn cobs,
etc. Odor overwhelming; excellent preservation.

The lowest levels of Section 2 are similar to the mid-18th century fill
appearing in Section 1. Here,in Unit V, is a dense accumulation of bone and
mid-18th century household debris. The sediments are thoroughly waterlogged,
and contain twigs and other organic matter indicating that the former land-
scape was lowland marsh or tidal flats. Intruding into this unit is a wood-
framed privy, Feature 5. The privy was constructed of wide lin boards,
apparently fastened together with clinched nails which have since disintegrated.
Ceramics and bottle glass from this feature bracket its use from ca. 1745 to
ca. 1780. Privy artifacts are often complete, although broken, and it is clear
that the lower portion is undisturbed. Many fragmentary specimens were matched
with pieces found above and outside the privy, however, showing that the upper
part of the feature was truncated later by demolition or landscaping. Feature
4, a dry masonry foundation, was built directly above the privy. The historical
significance of this later structure is unknown, and unfortunately no sediments
or artifacts are directly associated with it.

The contact between Unit V and Unit IV is indistinct in the vicinity of
the Merchant's Row foundation. Although it is not apparent in the profile,

196

there is evidence that the foundation trench for the Merchant's Row complex
intrudes into these strata. Four fragments of a polychrome pearlware saucer
were found in three separate 20 cm levels near the base of the foundation. The
saucer is of a type not popular until the early 19th century, and contrasts with
the middle 18th century debris of Units IV and V. Furthermore, the stratum is
capped by a layer of clay, similar to that used in Area I to waterproof the
foundation of store no. 4 at the other end of this same building complex.

Note that when this section of Merchant's Row was constructed, Feature 3
was a low doorway which gave access to the basement of store no. 6. Prior to
the deposition of Unit III sediments, this doorway was partially bricked up and
a wrought iron grate installed to make a small basement window. Evidently,
approximately 1.3 m of deposits have accumulated since this section of Merchant's
Row was constructed.

Charcoal and demolition debris in the narrow alley, represented in Stratum
III, may be evidence for the 1811 fire which damaged this building (Gilman and
Gilman 1811). Some bone and 18th century ceramics, however, imply that there
is a stratigraphic inversion here, and that this includes backdirt from some
unknown excavation. This sediment is quite heterogeneous and is apparently a
secondary deposit.

The foundation excavation for Feature 1 intrudes into both Units III and
IV. All artifacts associated with the foundation construction and fill date
from the third quarter of the 19th century and later. Photographs show that at
least one and possibly two frame buildings have been built on this foundation *
The city directory for 1860 gives a clear reference to this address, and indi-
cates that several mariners and their families were living here in a boarding-
house (NCD 1860). Yet this house does not appear in the detailed city map of
1851, bracketing the period of construction between 1851 and 1859.

At the time the refuse of Unit II accumulated, the entire Merchant's Row
complex must have fronted on the way to Ferry Wharf, for there was no access
to the alley between it and the boardinghouse. Unit II trash, then, must be
primarily associated with the boardinghouse. Diagnostic china, glassware,
and bottle glass date between 1875 and 1930. Heaps of shellfish show that the
back alley was repeatedly used as a dump, and that the sediments are otherwise
undisturbed.

The boardinghouse was torn down shortly after 1935, reportedly by a
junk dealer who owned this property. The top of the stone foundation was
pushed into the cellar hole, together with the interior walls and roof. Above
this primary demolition was a layer of junk, including awnings, grommets and
sail maker's supplies. Two copper stencils identify this trash as that of sail
maker William, A. Davis and his son Benjamin Davis, who worked next door at 4
Ferry Wharf in the Merchant's Row complex from 1869 to 1915 (NCD 1869; Cheney
1964:310). This was evidently deposited just before Merchant's Row was demol-
ished. Also in this basement fill were a number of lead alloy casket plates.
These were an engraver's rejects, evidently salvaged for scrap. The most re-
cent plate bears the date 1927. The cellar hole fill is capped by a layer of
gravel and demolition rubble, Unit I, probably derived from the current renewal
program.

197

Summary -- Sections 1 and 2

From the two stratigrapbic sequences, we can piece together the following
chronology:

1. Until ca. 1725, the cove mentioned in Captain Paul White's grant was
still open wetlands. There was no major structure located at the site
tested, which was near the edge of this cove.

2. Nevertheless, a nearby structure was razed and a new one constructed
by 1750. Backdirt from a later intrusion contains diamond-paned casement
windows which may have belonged to the earlier structure.

3. From ca. 1745 to ca. 1780, a privy stood on this site, perhaps associ-
ated with the later building. The/privy contained household items in-
cluding high-quality glassware and china. The property atthis time was
owned by a widow, Elizabeth Hale Watkins (ECPC 12159 and ECRD 73:52).

4. The privy was destroyed shortly thereafter, and a small structure
erected over it ca. 1790. The history of the structure and its function
are unknown, and there are few archaeological materials directly associated
with it.

5. By 1800, store no. 6 of Merchant's Row was constructed. Originally
this building had a basement access on its west side. By 1859, and
probably earlier, this access was bricked up and converted to a basement
window protected by a wrought iron grate.

6. Merchant's Row was burned in the fire of 1811, but not totally destroyed.

7. Before 1820, an annex was built onto Merchant's Row, forming a con-
tinuous line of eight stores from the Ferry Wharf Building to the end of
Ferry Wharf.

8. By 1859, a large boardinghouse was constructed beside Merchant's Row,
and the alley between the two buildings used thereafter as a dump area.

9. From 1935 to 1970, all buildings in this area were destroyed. First
leveled was the boardinghouse, followed shortly thereafter by stores 6
and 7 of Merchant's Row. The current redevelopment program claimed the
remaining Merchant's Row structures, except for store 8, now adjoined to
the Ferry Wharf Building.

Area 5 -- Furniture Warehouse (Fig. A.4)

Furniture Warehouse is a 3 m. square excavation between foundations of a
three-story frame warehouse and a,four-story brick structure. These buildings
formerly stood on the land between City Wharf and Ferry Wharf, but were razed
in the current redevelopment project before archaeological work began. The
south side of this excavation intersects the northeast corner of the former
furniture warehouse, apparently just at the footing for a modern elevator drive
mechanism. The northern half of the pit samples the south side of a brick
store complex constructed by Abner Wood ca. 1810. The central partition wall
of this building appears along the east side of the excavation.

198

UNIT I

FEATURE 2

U I
FEA.3

d'U IT IV
-77

F- C*4 7
<
LU
LL

LLI

LL
C

LU
cc KEY
D
FINE SAND ASH OR
OR S ILT CINDER S
LL

MEDIUM SAND CONCRETE

COARSE SAND

Figo A.4. Area 5, Furniture Warehouse, in plan and profile. Points of
interest include an unknown dry granite masonry structure, possibly a wharf
embankment (Fea. 4). foundation of the Abner Wood Building (Fea. 3), footings
Uj

of the frame Furniture Warehouse (Fea. 2), and the footings and counterweight
for an elevator drive mechanism (Fea. 1). Note that the Abner Wood basement
was filled with large boulders.

199

West Wall

Unit I
,!Z 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown medium sand; containing bricks, pebbles,
gravel road surfacing. Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit II.

Unit II
a 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown medium sand with 10YR4/4 dark
yellowish brown mottles; containing coal, coal ash, bricks, brick
fragments, small rounded pebbles.

b 7.5Y4/4 dark brown medium sand; containing shell, wood, brick,
brick fragments, angular cobbles. Shell at contact with Unit III.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit III.

Unit III
a 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown sandy loam; plastic, slightly sticky;
containing bricks, brick fragments, charcoal. Gradual, smooth
boundary to Stratum IIIb.

b 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown sandy loam with 5Y5/3 olive clay
mottles; containing wood fragments.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV.

Unit IV
10YR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand; containing whole oyster
shell, coal flecks, brick particles, small to medium pebbles.

South Wall

Unit V
a 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown (wet) medium sand; containing bricks,
pebbles, gravel road surfacing.

b 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown (wet) medium sand; containing
wood, bricks, brick fragments, window glass.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV.

Feature 1 -- concrete casting
Steel rebar reinforced concrete and brick structure,, cast in sheet
metal forms; probablyaielevator footing. Very abrupt, intrusive
boundary to Units IV, IIV, III, IV, and Feature 2.

Feature 2 -- granite foundation
Dry masonry foundation for Furniture Warehouse. Very abrupt, smooth
contact with Unit III..

Unit II'
a 10YR3/1 very dark gray ash and cinders with 2-5YR3/4 dark
reddish brown cinders; containing coal, ash, cinders, clinkers,
brick particles, shell.

200

b 10YR5/4 yellowish brown medium sand; containing bricks, brick
fragments, small pebbles.

c 10YR3/1 very dark gray ash and cinders.

d 10YR6/1 light gray to gray ash.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IIV.

Unit IIV
a IOYR3/2 very dark grayish brown (wet) medium sand; containing
brick flecks, coal traces. Gradual, smooth boundary to Stratum III'b.

b 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown (wet) medium sand; containing brick
flecks, coal traces.

Feature 3 -- granite and brick foundation
Dry masonry granite lower foundation with four course thick brick
wall. South end of Abner Wood Building.

Feature 4 -- granite rubble
Dry masonry. Structure unknown. Possibly early wharf fill.

The stratigraphy of Area 5 is complicated by the narrowness of the space
between buildings, the recent intrusion of an elevator footing, and the high
water table. All of these factors made it impossible to make a direct cor-
relation between these two quite different profiles, even though they are from
adjacent walls. However, it is possible to make several chronological state-
ments about the features discovered here.

The oldest structure represented is loose granite rubble, Feature 4, in
the south profile. Property descriptions indicate that prior to 1681, Richard
Dole had built a wharf in this vicinity (ECRD 10:171). A description of the
property in 1760 indicates that the northern end of the wharf was located at
our excavation site (ECPC 15281). The granite rubble could be fill for this
early wharf, since the sediments of Unit IIV, which abut this feature,
apparently date including free-blown wine bottles, slip-decorated earthenware,
delftware, and white saltglaze stoneware. It should be noted, however, that
at the top of Feature 4 is an accumulation of demolition debris with slate
roofing. This is certainly the refuse of a much later structure, and probably
is not related to the lower rubble. Nevertheless, there is no stratigraphic
evidence for separation of the two.

Unit IV is apparently fill for the shallow foundation of Furniture Ware-
house, Feature 2. The artifacts associated with these layers of ash fill are
still predominantly household refuse, but date to the second or third quarter
of the 19th century. The picture is obscured, however, by the intrusion of
Feature 1. This was apparently a footing for an elevator which appears in
the 1954 Sanborn insurance atlas. It must have been installed by excavating
away most of the northeast corner of the warehouse foundation from the inside
of the building, lining the cavity with sheet metal as a form and then pouring
the concrete into the hole. In the process, many of the foundation stones
under the building were removed, yet there was surprisingly little disturbance
of the sediments outside the building in the alley. This feature is partially
covered by Unit V, recent surfacing placed here after demolition of these
buildings.

201

The west wall of the pit shows a somewhat different record. Unit IV,
like Unit III', seems to contain predominantly middle to late 18th century
household debris. Unit III, however, contains a large amount of early 19tb
century fill which may have accumulated at the time of construction of the
Abner Wood Building, the foundation of which appears as Feature 3. It is un-
known whether this foundation is actually set on the 18th century wharf stones,
or whether it is intrusive into them. Unit II contains some recent accumula-
tions, particularly scrap metal and welding rod derived from the McGlew welding
shop, which operated on the other side of the Abner Wood Building through the
1960's.

Note that the interior of the Abner Wood Building was not excavated, as it
was filled with large boulders which could not be removed without causing the
foundation to collapse into the alley. The source of these boulders is unknown.
Perhaps they were placed within the foundation during construction, as wharf rub-
ble was encountered in excavating the building's footings. Alternatively, they
could be demolition materials. However, the boulder accumulation is remarkably
free of brick demolition in this area, and the former interpretation seems more
likely. Clearly, it would have been impossible to construct a functional base-
ment here, considering the extremely high water table.

The following statements can be derived from this information:

1. The alley between the two buildings in question has been the site of
continuous deposition of cultural refuse since the middle 18th century.

2. An early granite structure, probably Richard Dole's wharf or a suc-
cessor, was built here during the 18th century.

3. Next, the Abner Wood Building was constructed, perhaps upon early
wharf ballast.

4. Furniture Warehouse was a newer, middle to late 19th century structure
apparently with no basement.

5. A huge concrete footing was poured under the floor of the warehouse
foundation. This was probably the pad for an elevator drive mechanism,
known to have existed in the northwest corner of the building in 1954. A
concrete slab floor was poured at this time as well.

Area 6 -- Dole (Fig. A.5)

The Dole excavation is a 2 m by 5 m trench aligned approximately east-
west. The excavation samples features on both sides of Market Landing's
eastern boundary, property which was laid out in 1678 by the town for Richard
Dole to build a wharf and dock (Coffin 1845:120; Currier 1896a:154).

Unit I
2.5Y4/4 olive brown sandy gravel. Base for temporary parking lot,
deposited April, 1977. Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Feature 1
and Feature 2.

Feature 1 -- PVC plastic 4 in drains and fill
10YR4/4 dark yellowish brown medium sand. Work done Spring, 1977.
Very abrupt, intrusive boundary to Units II, III, and Feature 2.

-W-E-

UNIT I a
FEATU4 UNIT 11
;SIT
-:::--::F;@C drains
.. . ..... ....
UNIT III
FFA iAF

FEATURE 3f.----,:-'--
ER ukvEL zt UNIT IV'
UNIT IV

balk

e ctAvert
UNIT V'
UNIT V
C
z C C
UNIT V1 z
<
<

Pvc Pipes

concrete
culvert
'n
n

L--J
C
KEY C Z
z --i
FINE SAND RECENT
OR S ILT RUBBLE FILL
MEDIUM SANP ASHI)ORS
CIN ER

COARSE SAND SHELL

CRAVEL DECAYED WOOD

Fig. A.5. Area 6, Dole, in plan and profile. Details include wood chips from
the Middle Ship Yard (Units V and V), a wooden drain leading from North Row (Fea.
4; re-excavated in Feature 3), two wharf pilings (just west of balk), modern drains
from North Row (Fea. 1), and a modern storm sewer (Fea. 2).

203

Feature 2 - concrete storm drain and associated fill
10YR3/3 dark brown sand and rubble; containing asphalt, whole brick,
wire, etc. Concrete drain inscribed "4-5-75." Very abrupt, intru-
sive boundary to Units IV, V, and VI.

Unit II
10YR3/3 dark brown sand and rubble fill; containing bricks, brick
fragments, rounded and angular pebbles and cobbles. Very abrupt,
wavy boundary to Unit III.

Unit III
a IOYR4/4 dark yellowish brown coarse sandy loam with fine silt
lenses; containing shell ash, small brick fragments, coal, etc. A
heterogeneous mixture of several lenses; gradual transition to:
al 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown fine sand lens in Stratum IIa.
containing ash, cinders, and clinkers. Abrupt, wavy boundary to
Stratum IIa2.

a2 10YR4/2 dark grayish brown, to 10YR6/2 light brownish gray
ash; containing cinders, clinkers, disintegrated shell, ash.
Also contains a complete l-qt. stoneware jug in north wall.

bl 2.5Y3/0 very dark gray fine sand and ash; slightly plastic,
non-sticky; containing coal, ash, clinkers.

b2 2.5Y4/2 dark grayish brown medium sand with 2.5Y5/4 light olive
brown fine sand mottles; containing cinders, coal, ash, rounded and
angular pebbles and cobbles. Capped by a layer of decomposed wood
chips.

c 2.5Y6/0 light gray to gray, to 2.5YR4/4 reddish brown clinkers
and cinders; containing ash, brick fragments, wood fragments, etc.

dl 10YR4/1 dark gray sand; containing ash, bits of shell, brick
particles, rounded pebbles.

d2 10YR6/1 light gray to gray, to 10YR2/1 black cinders and ash;
containing a few large pebbles.

Abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit IV and Feature 4.

Feature 3 -- repair trench for wooden drain
10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown medium sand; containing large loose
angular rocks, bricks. Heterogeneous fill. Very abrupt, intrusive
boundary to Unit III and Unit 4; indistinct boundary to Feature 4.

Feature 4 -- wooden drain and associated fill
10YR3/3 dark brown to 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown mottles; con-
taining bricks, brick fragments, wood, rounded pebbles and cobbles,
nails (unidentifiable), shell, coal, ash, etc. Very abrupt, intru-
sive boundary to Units IV' and V.

Unit IV' -- above Wharf
10YR3/3 dark brown medium sand with 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown

204

mottles; containing brick fragments, cobbles, pebbles. Capped by a
layer of shell. Contains the following lenses:
a 5YR7/3 pink ash and shell; containing clam and oyster
shell, cinders, coal, brick fragments, slate roofing, clinkers.

b 10YR5/2 grayish brown to 5YR5/2 reddish gray ash lens;
containing cinders, ash clinkers, coal.

C 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown sand; containing medium and
large cobbles, brick fragments.

Very abrupt, wavy boundary, showing apparent shovel marks, to Unit V'.

Unit IV -- slip fill
a 5YR7/3 pink ash and oyster shell, cinders, coal, brick frag-
ments, slate roofing, clinkers. Shell occurs in repeated bands.

b 10YR4/3 brown to dark brown sand; containing medium and large
pebbles and cobbles, brick fragments.

c IOYR4/3 brown to dark brown coarse sand with 5YR4/6 yellowish
red mottles; containing medium to large cobbles.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit V.

Unit V' -- redeposited material from Unit V and VI
5YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) medium to coarse sand; containing decayed
wood chips, brick particles. Also contains the following lenses:
al 5Y4/2 olive gray fine sand with 10YR2/1 black mottles;
non-plastic, non-sticky. Probably redeposited from Units V
and VI.

a2 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown (wet) coarse sand with
extensive 5YR5/8 yellowish red mottles; containing brick frag-
ments, wood chips, decayed organic matter. Probably redeposited
material from Units V and VI, together with some more modern
debris.

a3 10YR3/2 very dark grayish brown sand; containing brick
fragments. Capped by a thin lens of decayed wood.

a4 2.5Y4/2 dark grayish brown (wet) medium sand; containing
brick particles. Capped by a thin lens of decayed wood.

Very abrupt, smooth boundary to Unit V.

unit V
5YR3/1 very dark gray (wet) medium to coarse sand; compact; con-
taining dense, decayed wood chips, brick particles. Very abrupt,
smooth boundary to Unit VI.

Unit VI
5Y4/2 olive gray to 5Y4/3 olive (wet) fine sand; non-plastic to
slightly plastic, non-sticky. Banded at water level; less gleying
at east end of profile. Unknown boundary below water table.

205

The earliest sediment here is apparently a beach, Unit VI. Except for a
few middle or late 18th century items of household trash at its upper surface,
the unit was apparently sterile. This upper surface slopes gently downward
towards the northwest, and was probably the southeast corner of the Town Land-
ing as it existed about the time of the Revolutionary War. Immediately above
this, in Unit V, is a dense accumulation of wood chips and shavings, most
likely associated with the 18th century operation of the Middle Ship Yard on
this site (Huse 1872:4; Currier 1877:23). Some pieces of heavy, painted stone-
ware and Chinese export porcelain in this unit suggest that the shipbuilding
activity may have continued into the early 19th century. Alternatively, they
may have become incorporated into this sediment as the large volume of chips
settled and became compact.

Materials from both Units V and VI have been partially removed and re-
deposited as Unit V. This apparently occurred in conjunction with wharf con-
struction, represented in plan view by the accumulation of boulders in the
east end of the pit, and by two remnant pilings. Note that these boulders do
not extend into the southern wall of the trench, as this was apparently the
head of the Town Landing. A red earthenware jug found in association with
this construction probably dates prior to 1810, and may be much earlier. One
of the pilings is a reworked oak beam which has been hewn to a point. It re-
tains a square mortised hole from its former use. This piling was burned to
the waterline, probably in a local fire, for we know from historic documen-
tation that this area was definitely spared by the Great Fire of 1811 (Gilman
and Gilman 1811). The second, round piling is probably a remnant of a later
reconstruction of the wharf. Similar pilings are evident in photographs of
the slip taken ca. 1865.

The construction of the wharf divides the stratigraphic record into two
segments: slip and wharf. Unit IV', above the wharf, begins at an irregular
contact with Unit V1, suggesting that this surface has been scraped with a
shovel immediately prior to Unit IV' deposition. Perhaps this is cutting and
filling of an adjacent drain trench similar to later ones which appear in this
profile. Above the contact is a regular accumulation of fuel waste and shell,
associated with a few sherds of annular ware, blue shell-edge, and other early
19th century ceramics. Above the slip is a lesser, but similar accumulation
which is presumed to be roughly contemporaneous.

Sometime during the accumulation of this shell and ash debris, a wooden
drain was installed, leading from one of the stores of the North Row to the
head of the Market Slip. This drain was apparently held together with nails,
but these have completely rusted away. Originally set in the Feature 4 trench,
it was re-excavated at its opening for maintenance, as indicated by the Feature
3 trench. The drain trench extends over the top of the wharf rocks and the
burned piling previously mentioned, indicating that the wharf had been in
existence for some time before this drain was installed. Remnants of another
wooden drain, roughly contemporaneous with this one, appeared in the south wall
of the Dole excavation (not shown). Unfortunately, it was almost totally
destroyed by installation of a modern concrete storm sewer, Feature 2.

The accumulation of cinders and shell continued through the middle of the
19th century, represented in Unit III. This sediment includes a brown stone-
ware quart jug shown in the profile, a few pieces of plain white ironstone
china, and some early blown-in-mold glass sherds. A major break in this build-
up or refuse occurs at the contact with Unit II. Upon this surface were built

206

the frame buildings known historically to have existed in the area in the last
quarter of the 19th century. Presumably the slip was filled at this time,
although the record has been obliterated by modern storm sewer construction.
A carpenter shop and a blacksmith shop appear here in an early 20th century
photograph. At some time between 1922 and 1940 these buildings were razed,and a
concrete and steel Studebaker garage, later a printing shop, was built in their
place. The rubble of Unit II is probably derived from this demolition; rubble
from the later printing shop was piled above Trench 2.

The remaining features are, of course, quite modern. The concrete storm
sewer, Feature 2, was installed after May of 1974, and was followed in the
Spring of 1977 by Feature 1, plastic drains leading from the downspouts of the
North Row. In April of 1977, the area was covered with a layer of gravel to
provide temporary parking for the residences and businesses of the newly reno-
vated North Row.

The sequence of sedimentation implies the following:

1. A landing existed on this site in the Colonial Period.

2. This landing was probably the location of the Middle Ship Yard,
where privateers were built and outfitted during the American Revolution.

3. While the shipyard was still in operation, or shortly thereafter,
the eastern boundary of the landing was redefined by westward expansion
of Greenleaf's Wharf.

4. Although Greenleaf's Wharf is known to have escaped the Great Fire
of 1811, it was burned to the waterline at about 1800. New pilings were
added shortly thereafter.

5. In the early 19th century, fishermen used this Market Landing for
shellfish refuse and local businesses dumped the residue of coal-burning
stoves here. Blacksmithing may have contributed to this debris as well,
although no wrought iron scrap was recovered.

6. A wooden gutter was installed leading over the wharf in the early
19th century. This may have drained the store of William Russell, part
of the North Row building complex, as it appears to lead from this direc-
tion. Russell's store is known to have been built on a former spring, in
which case the construction would be appropriate. The fact that it was
possible to build such a gutter suggests that there were no intervening
buildings at this time.

7. The outlet of the drain was subsequently excavated, probably to clean
it out.

8. The Market Landing continued to be used as a dump for shellfish and
cinders through the third quarter of the 19th century.

9. Frame buildings, including a carpenter shop and a blacksmith shop,
were built after 1872, when the south end of Market Slip was occluded by
railroad construction and was subsequently filled. The demolition debris
of these structures, accompanied by an 1885 dime, comprised the uppermost
stratum of the excavation.

207

10. These buildings were replaced by the concrete brick and steel
Studebaker garage by 1940, some debris of which is also found in the top
stratum.

208

it-

209

APPENDIX B

PROPERTY TITLE TRACE

General Comments

1. Properties are discussed in order from west to east.

2. On any page, the order of entries from left to right indicates spatial
order from west to east or from the street frontage to the river.

3. Mortgages are cited only if they supply significant information not
found elsewhere. All mortgages cited are so identified.

4. A dashed line indicates one or more transactions not located.

5. The Davison grant of 1687 was described as lying next to Dole's ware-
house grant. This could have been either next to Dole's grant of 1678,
on the western edge of the project area, or next to the Rolfe and Dole
grant of 1680, west of the Middle Ship Yard and outside the project
area. The property is listed in an inventory of Daniel Davison's
estate made in 1718 (ECPC 7374). His widow, Abigail Davison, was
named executrix of his estate and she sold the land to John Greenleaf
on June 5, 1718 (ECRD 38:215). This deed gives the same ambiguous
description as the original grant. If it was on the Central Water-
front, it passed by the above deed to John Greenleaf and was willed
by him to his sons with the rest of his Central Waterfront property
(ECPC 11762; see A25). In any event, this was a very small parcel,
measuring only 20 ft. by 35 ft.

Abbreviations

Letters designate locations as follows:

*G West of Middle Ship Yard Greenleaf grant 1697
*F West of Middle Ship Yard Greenleaf & Davison grant 1680
*N West of Middle Ship Yard Rolfe & Dole grant 1680
A North Row property Dole grant 1678
B Davenport property Dole grant 1675
C Ferry Wharf property White grant 1655
D Granger property White grant 1655
E Gunnison property Clark grant .1680

Not in project area.

The number used with the code letter indicates a transaction's approximate
chronological order in the sequence of transfers for that location.

Data presented here are derived from the following sources:

ECRD - Essex County Registry of Deeds, volume and page.
ECPC Essex County Probate Court, docket number--original
document.

210

ECPC-: Essex County Probate Court, volume and page--document
copies.
ECE & D :_ Essex County Executions and Depositions, volume and
page.
NTR Ll_ Newbury Town Records, cited by date.

Other abbreviations include:

u 1/2 Undivided one half of a title; other fractions also used.
w Widow's dower--right to use an undivided part of a property
during widowhood, usually 1/3 of house, land, etc.
h Husband--used when property is inherited by a woman and the
title is later transferred in her husband's name.

N-F-G (land to the west of the Middle Ship Yard)

Town of INewbury
G 1, 3/1/1697 F 1, 1/5/1680 N 1, 3/1/1680
NTR (Coffin 1845:164) NTR (Coffin 1845:125) NTR (Coffin 1845:125)

Capt. Stephen Greenleaf Ensign Greenleaf & Daniel Davison Benjamin Rolfe N 2, cited in N 9
1 1 1 J. & R. Dole & earlier deeds
G 2, 6/16/1699 F 4, 2/20/1714 F 3, 11/6/1713 (reverted to I
ECRD 17:72 ECRD 29:14 ECRD 27:59 the town) William Noyes
I I I r- - -- - - - --i
Benaiah Titcomb N 4, 12/14/1736
1 Faun Clements not located ECRD 73:62
G 3, 3/5/1729 1 1
ECPC 27681 Spencer Bennet Parker Noyes

u, 1/3 u 1/3 ea. N 6, 3/3/1741 N 5, 11/10/1740
Benaiah Titcomb Josiah Titcomb ECRD 98:132 ECRD 80:233
1 Enoch Titcomb I I
G 4, 7/l/1745 1 Zacheus Perkins
ECPC 27682 see also the I
I following documents N 7, 4/28/1741 N 8, 10/2/1750
Parker Titcomb I ECRD 79:270 ECRD'110:77
I ECPC 25 2 -5 9 1733 1 1 1
G 5, 4/28/1772 ECRD 149:59 1778 Spencer Bennet
ECPC 27731 ECPC 27694 1780 1
1 ECRD 150:24 1789 N 9, 9/18/1756
Michael Titcomb ECRD 150:268 1790 ECRD 99:389
1 ECRD 161:65 1794 1
G 8, 4/13/1790 ECPC 27684 1797 James McHard (also spelled McHurd)
ECRD 150:268 ECRD 150:91 1798 1
1 ECRD 193:210 1811 N 10, 5/22/1773
Joseph Wells ECRD 132:103

G 9, 1/19/1793 Andrew Frothingham
ECRD 155:223 N 11, 3/6/1807
1
John Boardman not traced ECPC 10250 guardianship of Andrew
Frothingham Jr. This property
is not in the inventory.

A-B (North Row and Davenport properties)

Town of Newbury

A-B 1, 5/7/1675
A-B 2, 9/20/1678 NTR (Coffin 1845:116)
NTR (Coffin 1845:120) A-B 3, 1711 & 1720
see ECRD 23:10 & 39:64
also Currier (1896:154)
Richard Dole for depositions re
boundary between B & C

A-B 4, 8/16/1681
ECRD 10:171
u 1/2

Dr. John Dole

A-B 5, 11/24/1699
A-B 6, 7/30/1705 ECPC 310:151
ECPC 8087 1 t ---I
u 1/2 u 1/2 u 1/3(1/2)w

u 1/7(1/2) u 1/7(1/2) u 1/7(1/2) u 1/7(1/2) u 2/7(1/2) u 1/7(1/2) u 1/3(1/2)w
Eliz. Dole Sarah Dole Moses Dple John Dole Benj. Dole Hannah Dole Mary Dole
I I
A-B 8, A-B 8,
3/22/1709 1 3/22/1709
ECPC 311:43 A-B 9, ECPC 311:43 A-B 13, A-B 12, A-B 10, A-B 11,
H=John 9/3/1705 (to rem'ng 4/6/1706 9/7/1705 9/3/1705 9/3/1705
Brown ECRD heirs) ECRD ECRD ECRD ECRD
20:85 23:25 20:87 20:86 20:86
1 1 1 1 1 1
John Brown Lt. Col John March

A-B (North Row and Davenport properties)

John Brown Lt. Col John March

A-B 14, 11/17/1708
ECRD 26:30 A-B 15 5/11/1712
1 ECRD 26:29
Capt. Steph. Greenleaf I
Capt. Steph. & Edmund Greenleaf
A-B 16, 5/20/1715
ECPC 17723
A-B 17, 4/19/1716
ECRD 28:171 u 1/3 Jemimah March w
I (administrix)
Thomas Creasey

A-B 18, 10/16/1718
ECRD 34:294

Capt. Stephen Greenleaf

A-B 19, 1/21/1719
ECRD 34:250 A-B 20, 4/20/1719
ECRD 35:225

Richard Kent

A-B 21, 5/26/1740
ECPC 15381

,to John R. Kent estate (John Greenleaf, John Brown, executors)
Greenleaf I
by 1743? A-B 23, 11/7/1743 A-B 22, 9/1/1743
A-B 22 ECPC 11807 ECRD 84:262
1 1 1 1 1
John Greenleaf Richard Greenleaf R: t estate
F-
W

A-B (North Row and Davenport properties) F-
4-
John Greenleaf Richard Greenleaf Richard Kent estate
I I I
A 25, 9/30/1762 1
ECPC 11762 A-B 24, 7/8/1757
ECPC 106:43 A-B 21, cont. 7/21/1760
1 ECPC 15281 under the terms
Richard Greenleaf Patrick Tracy of R. Kent's will of 1740,
1 1 a house and land go to
A 27, 10/19/1780 A 26, 2/9/1779
ECPC 11790 ECRD 136:293
I Elizabeth Burt & Sarah Atkins

Benjamin Greenleaf
-7 This is B, the Davenport
A 28, 12/4/1782 property; it ultimately
ECRD 140:79 goes to the last surviving
heir of Richard Kent.

Nathaniel Tracy
I
A 29, 7/24/1786 A 30, 4/8/1788
ECRD 145:250 & ECRD 149:24
mortgage quitclaim
I
Thomas Russel
I
A 31, 4/10/1794
A 32, 2/6/1799 ECRD 158:80
ECPC 11731 1
Nicholas Johnson & John Greenleaf
I I
A 33, 11/29/1800 A 34, 11/1/1800
ECRD 168:174 ECRD 170:13

John Greenleaf Nicholas Johnson Elizabeth Burt

A (North Row, Market Square)

John Greenleaf Nicholas Johnson

.A 58, 3/5/1818 A 35, 6/1/1809 Between 1800 & 1809
ECRD 217:30 ECRD 186:298

Thomas Perkins
Joseph Plummer William Russell A 75, 12/6/1825
& J. ier Jr. ECPC 15102
A 63, 11/16/1818 1
ECRD 218:87 1 1 heirs of
I A 36, 3/9/1810 -/1818 Nicholas Johnson
john B -L-Ltcomb ECPC 22153 ECPC 24437

Sally (Mrs.
Thomas) Smith
u 1/4 1 u 1/4 ea.
William Joseph Russell
Russell Hannah Williams
Tabby Davenport

A 49, 4/27/1811 A 67, 11/3/1819 a 12, 10/17/1823
ECRD 194:81 ECRD 219:15 ECRD 233:272

A 104, 11/21/1843 William Russell
ECPC 55328 1 1 1
1 A 105, 10/15/1844 A 78, 12/1/1826 A 80, 12/1/1826
heirs ECPC 52355 ECRD 245:210 ECRD 245:211
Edwin & Emily Holt Joseph Plummer Jr. I & &
Rufus, Isaac, Albert life estate income A 79, 12/1/1826 A 81, 12/1/1826
& Philip Titcomb 3/5 Tabby Davenport ECRD 245:211 ECRD 245:212
John & Abby Coombs 2/5 Hannah Williams
Eliz. (Mrs. John) Mary Johnson
A 10-,, @/14/1856 Harriet Perkins Cushing
A 108, 6/13/1852 ECPc 50433 Elizabeth Knight
ECRD 462:59 1 Mary Davenport
I Anna Plummer & Catherine Wood
Benaiah Titcomb Joseph C. Plummer Mary Williams

A (Greenleaf's Wharf, later City Wharf)

John Greenleaf

2 Store no.
-ter no. 2 (later no. 3] 1(later no.
Store no. 1 Store no. Store no. 3
(later no.
Market Landing frontage F
lbehind the North Row
A 112, 7/2/1810 A 37, 7/2/1810 A 45, 12/1/1810
ECRD 192:97 ECRD 191:174 A
John Greenleaf's estate I I I ECRD 204:264
1 Elias Pike ThULILatS UiiLy Walter Todd I I
A 111, 5/25/1829 1 1 Paul Simpson &I
ECRD 256:180 1 A 51, 8/26/1811 Sewell Toppan
r - I A bo, 1/4/1820 ECRD 193:233 1
Joseph Plummer & ECPC 4549 (mortgage) A 53, 9/21/1814
William Russell I I ECRD 204:265
1 The above transfer was Harvard College Francis Todd I
A 107, 4/14/1856 mentioned in A 37 but u 1/2
ECPC 50433 could not be found in I I
ECRD. By 1824, A 73 A 73, 4/24/1824 1
describes this store ECRD 226:141 Paul Simpson
as being owned by I I
u 1/2 John Greenleaf John Greenleaf A 113, 3/24/1854
1 ECPC 53277
A.Plummer A 105, 10/15/1844 1 1
& ECPC 52355 (estate 1829) heirs of Paul
C.Plummer I A 84, 5/21/1829 Simpson
u 1/2 life estate ECRD 252:208
3/5 T Davenport I McIntyre (1851)
2/5 H Williams David A Comerford shows an F Todd
I in this store
H Perkins in 1851
E Knight estate had not been
M Davenport settled at death of
C Wood administrator in
M Williams 1885

A (Greenleaf's Wharf, later City Wharf)

John Greenleaf

F
Store no. 5 Store no. 6 Store no. Store no 8
(later nos. 60) Later nos. 8&9)] (later no. 10) (later no.*11)
I I I I
A 39, 7/2/1810 A 40, 7/2/1810 A 41, 7/2/1810 A 42, 7/2/1810
ECRD 191:233 ECRD 191:252 ECRD 191:60 ECRD 191:73
1 1 1 --4 1 1
John M. Noyes Thomas Follansbee & William Hoyt John B. Titcomb John Peabody
I I I I I
A 47, 1/29/1811 similar quitclaim A 46, 12/12/1810 A 55, 6/14/1816 A 50, 7/15/1811
ECRD 193:120 mentioned in A 46 ECRD 191:253 ECRD 210:227 ECRD 194:160
1 not found in ECRD (quitclaim) I
Benjamin Wyatt I I Allen Dodge
I William Hoyt Thomas Follansbee I
A 57, 8/12/1817 1 A 70, 9/27/1821
ECRD 213:184 A 48, 4/13/1811 ECRD 227:165
I ECRD 193:40 1 1
Richard Bartlett & Samuel @enny & John Greenleaf
I I A 52, 1/11/1813 1
A 64, 3/2/1819 1 ECRD 200:52 A 71, 9/27/1821
ECRD 218:274 1 , I ECRD 227:266
1 Thomas Follansbee I
Benjamin Hale I Allen Dodge
I A 62, 10/26/1818 1 1
A 65, 3/26/1819 ECRD 218:66 A 14, 8/18/1824
ECRD 218:274 Thomas M. Clark & I not traced ECRD 237:32 A 92, 9/10/1832
1 Stephen Maiston John Pettengel & ECRD 266:149
Richard Bartlett I I A 77, 9/26/1826 &
I A Yb, 6/b/1834 A 82, 11/18/1828 ECRD 243:124 A 95, 6/4/1833
A 98, 6/21/1836 ECRD 294:67 ECPC 21596 & ECRD 268:284
ECRD 294:62 1 A 94, 4/5/1833
1 Amos Noyes ECRD 270:49
R. Bartlett Jr. I I I I
A 102, 5/11/1837 rt of this estate Ednah & Parker Roberts
A 101, 5/5/1837 ECRD 300:224 in the fifth account of I N)
ECRD 300:224 of the administrators, 1850 A 11-4, 6/6/1863 ECRD 653:225
t-- r I I J
Nathaniel Noyes & William Stone David & Isaac Hale

A (Greenleaf's Wharf, later City Wharf)

John Greenleaf

Sto e no. 9 Store no. 10 Store no. 11 Greenleaf's
(later no. 13 (later no. 14@ Wharf
(later no. 12)

A 44, 7/9/1810 A 43, 7/2/1810
ECRD 204, 65 ECRD 192:96
r i I I
Sewell Tappan & Paul Simpson Thomas Cary

A 54, 8/30/1814 A bO, 7/4/1820
ECRD 204:266 ECPC4595

Sewell Tappan Harvard College
I I
A 56, 4/16/1817 A 60, 8/14/1818 A 87, 1/4/1830
ECE&D 2:267 ECRD 216:272 ECRD 254:215 A 83, 3/31/1829
1 1 ECPC 11766
Nicholas Johnson Jr. Seth Sweetser I
I I estate of John Greenleaf
A 61, 8/26/1818 A 89, 4/19/1830
ECRD 216:271 ECRD 256:159

Robert Jenkins Richard Bartlett

A 66, 9@2/1819 A 97, 5/18/1837
ECRD 224:113 ECRD 290:167

Peter LeBreton & heirs A 88, 1/20/1830 William Bartlett
F & I ECRD 254:246
A 90, 5/27/1830 A 91, 5/27/1830
ECRD 256:160 ECRD 256:161
a i
Richard Bartlett & Richard Bartlett Jr. Administrator's account notes
I this property sold to David
A 103, 5/5/1837 and Isaac Hale in 1845.
ECRD 300:197

John D. Condry

B (Davenport property)

Elizabeth Burt

B 1, 1/21/1796 B 2, 5/1/1796
ECRD 160:169 ECRD 162:250

William W. Prout Tristram Coffin & Samuel Otis
I
r - I B 3, 1/1/1799
B 4, 1/11/1802 B 5, 1/11/1802 B 6, 1/ 1/1802 ECRD 164:198
ECRD 170:158 ECRD 172:206 ECRD 173:13 1
1 1 Anthony & Moses Davenport
Nathan Long Edmund Kimball

B 7, 5/27/1809
ECRD 187:236 B 18, 4/5/1836
I ECPC 7179
L--r u 1/2 -
John Davenport B 22, after 1833 1
1 B. 21, before by description George Davenport
B 10, 12/30/1817 1854 by note in B 16, not found I
ECPC 7183 in B 23, not I B 19, 8/21/1843
1 found I ECRD 338:230 B 20, 9/8/1846
Tabby Davenport w I u 1/2 ECPC 36977
John Davenport I u 1/2
William Davenport John Balch John Balch I
Harriet Davenport trust for daughter
Moses Davenport Rebecca Pierce &
Elizabeth Davenport B 23, 5/13/1854 her heirs
Mary Davenport ECRD 495;44
Catherine Davenport u 1/2
not found I numerous heirs
Amos Mooney I
This property was owned B 26, 11/6/1871
by the heirs of John ECRD 840:270 & others
Davenport in 1871
according to B 26. Samuel March Jr.

B (Davenport property@ rear)
0

John Greenleaf

land and 4 story brick building
on a w Ferry and Greenleaf's wharves
and Ferry Wharves, erected ca. 1810 flats and slip between
ay between Greenleaf's

I
B 8, 7/3/1810
ECRD 191;262
1
Abner Wood & Joshua Greenleaf
I
B 9, 5/21/1816
ECRD 221:288
division agreement

Joshua Greenleaf Abner Wood
I I
B 12, 11/21/1823 B 11, 11/1/1822
ECRD 234:19 ECRD 234:18
1 1 1 B 13, 3/31/1829
Peter LeBreton & heirs ECPC 11766

B 14, 12/21/1829 B 15, 1/19/1830
ECRD 255:275 ECRD 225:275 estate of John Greenleaf

B 16, 1/9/1832 B 17, 4/26/1833
ECRD 267:191 ECRD 268:228

Joseph J. Knapp Administrator's account indicates
I this property not sold until 1845
B 24, 6/6/1867 or later. Y
ECRD 727:6
1
Henry C. Perkins
I
B 25, 7/27/1867
ECRD 746:261
1
Henry R. Perkins

C-D (Ferry Wharf & Granger properties)

Town of Newbury
I
C-D 1, 5/7/1656
NTR (Coffin 1845:60)

Capt. Faul White

C-D 2, 2/26/1677
ECRD 10:95

u 1/2 u 1/2 use during life
Paul Woodbridge, grandson Thomas Woodbridge, grandson Thomas Woodbridge, son-in-law

C-D 6, 10/1/1713 C-D 4, 8/13/1706 C-D 3, 1/3/1681
ECPC 30555 ECPC 30557 ECPC 302:4

u /2 C-D 5, 6/4/1729
Benjamin Woodbridge ECPC 30557

I
C-D 10, 9/13/1735
ECRD 73:51 u 1/4 u 1/4
house

Mary Woodbridge Susa Woodbridge
H=James Cornish H=Timothy Greenleaf

C-D 11, 9/15/1735
ECRD 73:51
u 1/4 & house

Dr. Nathan Hale

C-D 14, 9/12/1735 C-D 13, 9/12/1735 C-D 16, 7/22/1763 C-D 17, 7/22/1763
ECRD 69:251 ECRD 69:240 ECRD 114:85 ECRD 114:196
division agreement division agreement quitclaim division quitclaim division

Benjamin Woodbridge Dr. Nathan Hale Timothy Greenleaf

C-D (Ferry Wharf & Granger propertie

Benjamin Woodbridge Dr. Nathan Hale Timothy Greenleaf
I Susanna Greenleaf I -
C 7, 7/17/1738 1 D 12, 5/2/1737
ECPC 30540 C 10, 8/25/1766 ECRD 73:52
I ECRD 130:169
Benjamin Woodbridge Joseph Woodbridge Dr. Eliphalet Hale
I I I
C 8, 11/8/1768 C 9, 2/25/1769 D 18, 2/26/1762
ECRD 122:16 ECRD 122:17 ECRD 111:55
L I I i -1

Thomas Woodbridge Nathan Hale
I
C ll'I D 15, 5/25/1767
ECPC not located ECPC 12159
1 11 1
Sarah Woodbridge Elizabeth Watkins
H=Stephen Hooper 1764
(Currier, 1909:191)
D 19, 7/31/1786
ECPC 11816

C 21, inheritance from Sarah
Woodbridge Hooper according to D 20, 10/7/1801
C 13, ECPC not located. ECPC 29013

Thomas Woodbridge Hooper William Watkins heirs of Timothy Greenleaf

C (Ferry Wharf property)

Thomas Woodbridge Hooper

several mortgages and attachments for C 13, 11/6/1798
for debts, see ECRD 164:38, 164-:113 ECRD 163:208 At this time this title included
some of the flats to the west and
north of the Ferry Ways.
Moses Brown

C 14, 11/9/1798
ECRD 163:213

Elias Hunt

C 15, 2/7/1799
ECRD 165:90

Abraham & Ebenezer Wheelwright
Ferry Wharf & claim to7 7fla7ts] site of Merchant's Row & Ferry Wharf buildings

C 16, 7/14/1799 C 17, 7/14/1799 C 17, 7/14/1799 C 18, 7/14/1799
ECRD 169-:21 ECRD 169:20 ECRD 169:20 ECRD 169:21
u 1/4 u 1/4 u 1/4 u 1/4

Ebenezer Stocker William Farris William Farris Ebenezer Stoker
t

C 19, 7/26/1805 C 20, 4/20/1805
ECRD 177:26 ECRD 176:323

John @eenleaf Abraham & Ebenezer Wheelwright

C (Ferry Wharf building)

Abraham & Ebenezer Wheelwright
no. 1 Water st..1 no. 3 Water St. no. 5 Water St. strip of open land behind the
Ferry Whf. bldg Ferry Whf. bldg. IFerry Whf. bldg. Ferry Wharf bldg. fronting on Ferry Way]
I I --- r-
C 23, 8/22/l805 C 24, 1/1/1806 C 25, 8/22/1805 C 26, 10/21/1805
ECRD 178:132 ECRD 177:189 ECRD not located ECRD 178:95

Daniel Burnham John Wood, Ephraim Titcomb James Locke & Philip Bagley
I I I I I C ---I
C 57, 9/3/1817 C 51, 11/14/1822 C 42, 4/6/1810 1 40, 10/25/1805
ECRD 215:108 ECRD 231:151 ECRD 191:26 1 1 ECRD 178:96
1 1 1 C 36, 7/15/1809 mortgage
David Stickney Jacob Stone John Wood ECRD 186:244 1
1 - I u 1/2 A. & E-JWheelwright
C 62, 2/1/1820 heirs C 55, 9/22/1823 1 - -- - i
ECPC 26484 ECRD 233:241 Joseph Bagley not located, u 1/2
C 71, 7/24/1838
Elizabeth Stickney ECRD 308:103 Samuel Walton not located John Wood & William Bailey
et. al. I I I I
I Merchant's Bank C 67, 2/29/1823 C 47)112/4/1809
C 83, 5/13/1871 1 ECRD 263:231 ECRD 192:115
ECRD 5/13/1871 C 87, 11/14/1839 1 u 1/2 mortgage
I ECRD 316:205 John & Judith Rogers I
William Stone I I Philip Bagley
Lois Edes et. al. C 69, 10/14/1839 L - ---- - - - -i
I ECRD 358:270 John Wood C 100, 11/15/1822
C 88, 11/14/1839 1 1 ECRD 249:93 agreement
D 95, 9/1/1874 ECRD 316:205 Silas Chamberlin I
ECRD 917:162 1 1 C 56, 12/4/1832 C 84, 11/29/l826
Eleazer Johnson C 73, 4/22/1848 ECRD 234:87 ECRD 243:184
ECRD 427:2 7' x 16' section
Peter Romily heirs . I later transferred Philip Bagley
Dana Dodge in C 83 etc. see I
no. 1 Water St. heirs
D 96, 3/13/1877 D 97, 7/1/1852 C 76, 5/9/1850 1
ECRD 971:260 ECRD 463:167 ECRD 428:143 Eliz. Stickney C 90, 5/11/1850
et. al. ECRD 481:229
L
@3W
F oe@r r y

Mary A. Woods William P. Johnson Jenness Brown Jenness Brown

C (merchant's Row)

Abraham & Ebenezer Wheelwright
nos. 7 & 81 no. 5
1
C 27, 8/2/1805
ECRD 177:142 C 29, 9/4/1805
1 ECRD 178:132
Samuel IBrown Peter LeBreton
C 52, 10/3/1815
ECPC 3810 C 41, 6/24/1809
1 1 ECRD 187:190
u 1/4 u 1/4 u 1/4 u 1/4 1
Richard Brown William Brown Hannah Williams Abraham & Ebenezer
I I I Wheelwright
C 53, 6/12/1823 C 63, 7/11/1828 C 64, 1/18/1831 1 C 58, 12/6/1824
ECRD 232:282 ECRD 249:242 ECRD 259:34 C 86, 12/7/1827 ECRD 236:174
1 ECRD 246:238
Charles Brown Joseph J. Knapp L I I
I I John Wills Jr.
C 59, 11/27/1829 C 65, 1/17/1831 1
ECRD 254:132 ECRD 259:34 estate
u 3/4 u 1/4
I I I
Nathaniel Noyes,Jr. John Balch Jr. C 79, 1/10/1837 C 82, 1/10/1837
1 1 ECRD 314:162 ECRD 297:26
C 61, 12/14/1830 C 66, 11/4/1831 1 1
ECRD 256:287 ECRD 261:214 Charles Wills William & Samuel
I I I Nichols
Edmund Swett C 91, 8/18/1847
ECRD 412:165
C 93, 8/19/1835
ECRD 286:23

Merchant's Ins. Co.

C 94, 2/6/1837 Abner Wood owners in 1847,
ECRD 297:31 see C 91.

Micajah Lunt & Henry Titcomb,

C (Merchant's Row)

ON
Abraham & Ebenezer Wheelwright
ino. 41 no. 3 no. 1 land north of Merchant's
lRow, use-d as a way

C 30, 9/3/1811 C 31, 8/22/1805
ECRD 194:249 ECRD 176:268
1 1
Peret LeBreton John Greenleaf
C 4b, 11/11/1812 C 32, 8/13/1811 C 33, 8/1/1810 C 34, 8/13/1810 C 35, 6 18/1811
ECRD 206:41 ECRD 195:11 ECRD 191:142 ECRD 191:94 ECRD 194:133
1 1 1
Abraham & Ebenezer Benjamin G. Boardman Robert Dodge
Wheelwright I
C 37, 10/18/1810
ECRD 191:143 . I
I C 85, 8/13/1811
Jacob Stone ECRD 194:283
1
C 38, 6/22/1811
ECRD 194:133

Robert.Dodge

C 101, 6/1/1819 C 81, 8/13/1811
ECPC 7960 ECRD 194:284
1 1 1 1
heirs of Robert Dodge John Greenleaf
I I
C 105, 4/26/1864 C 106, 3/31/1829
C 108, 11/5/1850 ECRD 666:126 ECPC 11766
ECPC 56904 1
estate of John Greenleaf
estate of Abraham Wheelwright Administrator' Is account indicates that
David & Isaac Hale this property was not sold until 1845
EP

or later.

D (Granger property)

William Watkins heirs of Timothy Greenleaf
F D 21, 5/14/1799
D 26, 5/24/1821 D 25, 5/24/1821 D 27, 5/24/1821 ECRD 165:49 & others
ECRD 226:144 ECRD 226:145 ECRD 226:145 not located
I I I i
Allen Dodge John B. Titcomb & Alle Dodge
I I I I
D 30, 6/25/1822 D 28, 9/27/1821 Offin Boardman
D 31, 4/25/1825 D 29, 9/27/1821 ECRD 230:42 ECRD 227:265
ECE&D 4:214 ECRD 227:265 1
D 22, 1/5/1813
ECPC 2717
Edmund Kimball division
I John Greenleaf I
D 32, 4/4/1826 1 - Offin Boardman estate
ECRD 241:163 estate I
D 23, 4/22/1813?
ECRD not located, this
Allen Dodge I information is from
D 34, 4/21/1830 D 24 and the Newburyport
ECRD 256:138 Herald and Country
D 33, 4/4@1826 1 Gazette, 3/23/1813.
ECRD 211:164
John Greenleaf
I I
Abraham Perkins D 24, 7/3/1816
ECRD 210:242

John B. Titcomb
D 44, 5/3/1839 1
ECPC 21267 D 35, 8/26/1835
ECRD 286:21

heirs of Abraham Perkins George T. Granger

D (Granger property)
00
heirs of Abraham Perkins George T. Granger
D 37, 12/1/1835 D 36, 18/26/1835
ECRD 287:24 ECRD 286:22
1 mortgage
Joseph Granger I& Joseph Stickney 3rd. MechanIic's Bank
D 38, 6/8/1838
ECRD 309:142
D 45, 8/1/1839 1
ECRD 385:29 Elias Craig

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
D 39, 10/28/1841
Silas Chamberlin ECRD 327:248
I
Thomas Smith (for Augusta Bank)

D 46, 7/1/1839 D 40, 6/2/1847
ECRD,385:27 ECRD 387:132
1
George T. Granger

Foster Smith D 43, 12/3/1851
ECRD 4 53:157

D 47, 7/2/1847 Joseph Granger
ECRD 384:30 1
mortgage D 49, 7/20/1852
ECRD 490:194
estate of Abraham Perkins I
George Granger

D 50, 7/24/1854
ECRD 4 90:194

Foster Smith Newman Brown
owner listed in a owner listed in a
mortgage of 1871 mortgage of 1871

E (Gunnison property)

Town of Newbury
I
E 1, 3/1/1680
NTR (Currier 1896:157)
j
Nathaniel Clark
I
E 2, 8/26/1690
ECPC 304:286
1
widow, John Clark, & 3 sisters
property division not found

by marriage and/or sale
I
Hugh Pike
I
E 5, 12/2/1727
ECPC 315:556

U 1/2 u 1/2
Solomon Pike Joshua Pike
I I
E 6, 9/26/1734 E 7,
ECRD 67:75 not found
u 1/2 u 1/2
1 1 1
Ralph Cross

E 9, 4/30/1739 E 8, 4/30/1739 There is no formal division
ECRD 78:36 ECRD 78:35 here, but the easterly 1/2
I I and the westerly 1/2 are
Joseph Parker Timothy Toppan owned by different parties
I until a formal division in
E 11, 7/21/1762 E 10, 1/29/1752 1813. See E 21 below.
ECRD 115:210 ECRD 96:235

William Foster Enoch Toppan

E (Gunnison property)

William Foster Enoch Toppan
I I
E IZ, -)/Z4/1763
ECRD 111:148
1
Enoch Urcomb
I
E 13, 3/9/1765
ECRD 115:198
1
William Starkey
I
E 14, 11/24/1766
ECPC 26251
I
Elizabeth Starkey w & 1/2 ea. to daughters
H=Robert Roberts 1767

V
E 15, 8/2/1771 E 16, 1/30/1797
ECPC 23844 ECPC 27828
1 1
E 18, 4/9/1805 Enoch Tappan
ECPC 23811 1
E 17, 12/12/1801
ECRD 168:301
Charles Titcomb William Titcomb (by marriage & I
guardianship of minor children) Joseph O'Brien & Joshua Tappan

E 20, 4/ 23/1811 E 19, 4/ 23/1811
ECRD 193:83 ECRD 193:84

Offin Boardman
I E 21, 1/5/1813
E 21, 1/5/1813 ECPC 2717
ECPC 2717
division

Offin Boardman Estate Joseph O'Brien u 1/2 & Joshua Tappan u 1/2

E (Gunnison property)

Offin Boardman estate Joseph O'Brien u 1/2 Joshua Tappan u 1/2

E 29, 10/7/1811
E 26, 6/16/1813 E 25, 4/26/1813 E 24, 4/13/1813 ECPC 27846
ECRD 202:3 ECRD 202:48 ECRD 203:73
1 1 1 __7
Anthony Knapp Samuel Emerson Hervey Wilbur &
Joseph O'Brien Ann T. Wilbur
I
E 28, 1816-26?
ECPC not located E 34, 8/12/1828
w Dennis O'Brien et. al. EM 251:279
E 31, 6/19/1830 E 36, 4/28/1846
ECRD 258:252 ECRD 366:208 E 30, 12/5/1836
r I ECRD 251:280
Geo. T. Granger :1
Daniel Granger
-age 12/5/1834 John Rogers
E 329
forclosed? ECRD 275:5 E 359 1828-46
u 1/2 u 1/2 ECRD 251:280
1 1 1
J. Granger &J. Frothingham
et. al.
I
E 33, 8/9/1834
ECRD 276:236

William Gunnison

E 38, 12/11/1865
E 379 7/19/1849 ECRD 698:40
ECRD 414:179
boundary agreement Henry M. Payne Li
between W. Gunnison FJ
& G. T. Granger

232

233

APPENDIX C

CITY DIRECTORIES

A major portion of the forgoing report has been devoted to describing the
principal commercial and residential land use patterns of the study area. No
single source of information has been as helpful for this purpose as the New-
buryport City Directories. The directories have been published periodically
since 1849. They are privately printed publications, compiled from door-to-.door
canvasses of the households in the community. Each volume contains an alpha-
betical listing of the adult males and heads of households (including widows
and spinsters) employed or residing within the port. Each entry includes an
individual's name, his occupation (if any), place of employment (if applicable),
and residence. For this report, the directories have a distinct advantage over
the State and Federal censuses, for they link individuals and their businesses
to specific addresses within the study area.

Unlike the State and Federal censuses, the directories do not attempt a
complete enumeration of every individual present within the city at the time of
the canvass. Excluded from the directories are children, most women, and a sub-
stantial number of transient individuals. Despite these omissions, the direc-
tories have proved to be an outstanding source of information for identifying
individuals and businesses located within the study area and for establishing
their length of tenure there. The directories were also used profitably in,
singling out area specific occupations and in reconstructing temporal profiles
of the city's labor force (Fig. 9.3).

Table 9.1 lists those persons whom we have identified through the direc-
tories as residing in the study area in the years 1851, 1860, 1871, 1880, 1891,
and 1901. Used in concert with the Federal census manuscripts, these materials
offer valuable insights into the family structure of the indigent immigrants
who once lived here.

Tables C.1 through C.6 list individuals who were employed in the st udy area
in the same years as above. Even a casual study of these tables provides a
general understanding of the types of activities taking place here. This infor-
mation has been essential to our understanding of the commercial transformation
of the Central Waterfront after 1872, which was discussed at the close of
chapter 9.

234

Table C.I. Persons employed in study area as derived from
City Directory, Newburyport, 1851.

Name Occupation Business Residence

Adams, Charles E. Butcher 1 City Market h. 8 High
Adams, Richard Butcher 2 Market House h. Newbury
Bamford, Joseph A. Fish Dealer Market Landing h. 16 Water
Bamford, Joseph A., Jr. Fish Dealer Market Landing h. 5 Summer
Blake, Nathan B. Butcher Market House h. 11 High
Boardman, I. H. Merchant 4 Market Square h. 49 Middle
Brombeck, Tallack Rigger 7 Ferry Wharf
Brooking, Thomas Fish Dealer Market Landing
Brown, Jenness Grocer 5 Water h. 7 Water
Brown, Newman Coal Dealer Ferry Wharf h. 2 Fruit
Caldwell, Abner Hermetical Sealer 3 Ferry Wharf h. 33 Lime
Carter, Jeremiah Butcher Market House h. 31 Tyng
Chamberlin, Charles P. Tin Plate Worker 8 Market Square h. 14 South
Chipman, C.D. Caulker & Graver Hale's Wharf h. Newbury
Clement, Isaac C. Fruit & Refreshments 7 Market Square h. 10 Charter
Coleman, Daniel Butcher 3 Market House h. Broadway, &y.
Coleman, Alfred H. Junk & Iron Store 9 Hale's Wharf h. 8 Milk
Coleman, William Butcher 3 Market House h. Newbury
Cook, John Notary Public 5 Market Square h. 3 Independent
Creasey, William J. Painter 12 Market Square h. 23 Market
Creasey, Joseph B. Painter 12 Market Square h. 15 Carter
Curtis, Reuben S. Grocer 4 Market Square h. 7 Charter
Davis, Benjamin Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Davis, Benj., Jr. Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Davis, William A. Sail Maker Ferry Wharf h. 32 Federal
Dennis, Amos Fish Dealer Market Landing h. 11 Dove
Dockham, Stevens Constable & Police 31/2 Nkt. Square h. 66 State
Dorrill, Theodore Sail Maker 11 Hale's Wharf h. Pond
Goodhue, Joseph Grocer 13 Market Square h. So. Liberty
Goodwin, John B. Grocer 10 Market Square bo. 60 Lime
Granger, George T. Lumber 13 Water h. 13 Boardman
Gunnison, William Grain Dealer 17 & 21 Water h. 42 Liberty
Gunnison, Jesse Grain Dlr. 17 & 21 Water h. 20 Independent
Hale, George M. Sail Maker 9 Hale's Wharf h. 37 Milk
Hale, David Dlr. Flour & Grain Hale's Wharf h. Water, Nby.
Hale, Isaac Dlr. Flour & Grain Hale's Wharf h. Water, Nby.
Knapp, Joseph J. Flour and Grain 7 Ferry Wharf h. High, Nby.
Knight, John L. Butcher 1 Market House h. Newbury
Knight, George W. Grocer 9 Market Square h. 10 Purchase
Lunt, Benjamin Grocer 9 Market Square
Lunt, Enoch B. Boat-Builder Greenleaf's Whf. h. South
Lunt, Capt. Micajah Merchant Ferry Wharf h. High, Nby.
Nelson, David H. Leather Dealer 9 Ferry Wharf h. Adelphi
Nicholas, Samuel 5 Ferry Wharf h. 53 Middle
Nicholas, William 5 Ferry Wharf h. 5 Harris
Page, John Cabinet Maker Market Landing h. 76 Water
Page, John T. Blacksmith 15 Water h. 9 Elm
Piper, Joseph Boat-Builder Greenleaf's Whf. h. 16 Charles

235

Table C.l., Cont., 1851.
Plumer, Joseph Grocer 6 Market Square h. 9 Federal
Ryder, Reuben Oysters Under Market House b. 22 Middle
Ryder, Joshua Oysters Under Market House h. 4 Inn
Salter, Abel Hairdresser 2 Market Square h. 31 Prospect
Smith, Foster Clothier 11 Water h. 4 Smith's Ct.
Stockman, Henry & Son Pump and Block 5 City Wharf
Sumner, Ebenezer Grocer 1 & 3 Water h. 50 Middle
Swasey, W. H. Grocer, Flour &
Grain 1 & 3 Water b. 30 Fair
Titcomb, Solomon Butcher 2 Market House h. Broadway, Nby.
Wills, Wm. T. Hardware 11 Market Square h. 105 Water

236

Table C.2. Persons employed in study area as derived from
City Directory, Newburyport, 1860.

Name Occupation Business Residence

Adams, Charles E. and
Xenophon Provisions 1 City Market b. 8 High
Adams, Seneca Flour & Grain 21 Water h. Newbury
Balch, Ebenezer B. Clerk 11 Market Square h. 111 Merrimac
Bamford, Joseph A. Fish Market Landing h. 41 Washington
Beckman, Horatio B. Machinist 12 Market Square h. 118 State
Blake, Nathan B. Provisions 2 & 3 Market
Square h. 248 High
Blake, Nathan B., Jr. Clerk 9 City Wharf bds 248 High
Boardman, Isaac H. Merchant 9 City Wharf h. 104 State
Brombeck, Tallack Rigger 7 Ferry Wharf h. 10 Parson
Brown, Jenness Grocer 5 Water h. 7 Water
Brown, Newman Coal 13 Water h. 2 Fruit
Caldwell, Augustus Hermetical Sealer 3 Ferry Wharf h. 8 Birch
Clement, Isaac C. Grocer 4 Market Square h. 21 Fair
Clement, John M. W. Clerk 4 Market Square h. 35 Temple
Colman, William T. Provisions 2 & 3 City Market h. 19 Toppan
Cook, John Notary Public 5 Market Square h. 21 Middle
Cook, John D. (Poor &
Co.) Auctioneers 6 Market Square h. 49 Lime
Cook, Moody D. Auctioneers 6 Market Square h. 12 Franklin
Creasey, Joseph B. Painter 3 Water h. 148 High
Creasey, W. J. Painter 3 Water h. 148 High
Davis, Benjamin, Jr. Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 16 Spring
Davis, William A. Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Dennis, Amos Fish Market Landing h. 11 Dove
Graves, Henry Merchant 5 Ferry Wharf h. 55 Liberty
Graves, William Captain & Merchant 5 Ferry Wharf h. 56 High
Hale, David Grain 14 City Wharf h. 21 Marlboro
Hale, George W. Sail Maker 10 City Wharf h. 44 Lime
Hale, Isaac Grain 14 City Wharf h. 182 Water
Hale, Isaac, Jr. Express (Lynn) 6 Market Square h. 14 Marlboro
Harris, Samuel Fish Market Landing h. 26 Inn
Holker, William Hardware 6 Market Landing
Johnson, Joseph L. 2nd Hand Furniture 13 Market Square h. 41 Temple
Knapp, George P. Clerk (F & Gr.) 7 Ferry Wharf bds 47 High
Knapp, Joseph J. Merchant 7 Ferry Wharf h. 47 High
Knight, Edmund Meal 8 Market Square
Knight, George W., Jr. 5 City Market h. 13 Pond
Knight, James B. Meal 8 Market Square h. Newbury
Knight, Joseph H. Meal 8 Market Square
Lowell, Lewis Clerk 4 Market Square h. 71 Merrimac
Lunt, Micajah Merchant 8 Ferry Wharf h. 79 High
Mannix, James P. Grocer 7 Market Square h. 12 Inn
Morrill, Charles 0. Fruit & Veg. 4 City Market h. 279 High
Page, John T. Blacksmith 15 Water h. 9 Elm
Plummer, William C. Grocer 10 Market Square bds 3 Orange
Rolfe, Ebenezer Cabinet Maker 12 Market Square h. 11 Spring

237

Table C.2., Cont., 1860.
Rolfe, Joseph N. Flour & Grain 21 Water h. Newbury
Romiley, Peter Restaurant 1 Water h. d'o
Stickney, Enoch P. Grocer 10 Market Square h. 64 Federal
Stockman, Edwin S. Clerk 13 Market Square b. 27 Washington
Stockman, Henry & Son Pump & Blockmakers 5 City Wharf h. 27 Washington
Stockman, Joseph H. Pump & Blockmakers 5 City Wharf b. 27 Washington
Titcomb, Calvin R. Clerk 6 City Market bds 144 State
Titcomb, Solomon Provisions 6 City Market bds 144 State
Waters, Francis Umbrella Maker 11 Water h. d'o
Welch, William Constable West end City Mkt.
Bldg. h. 37 Summer
Westcott, James P. L. City Marshall West end City Mkt.
Bldg. h. 17 Kent
Wills, Horace G. Iron, Steel, etc. 9 Market Square h. 228 High
Woodwell, David T. Hardware 11 Market Square h. 11.5 Spring
Woodwell, Joseph A. Express (Lynn) 6 Market Square h. 13 Madison

238

Table C.3. Persons employed in study area as derived from
City Directory, Newburyport, 1871.

Name Occupation Business Residence

Adams, Benjamin T., Provisions 4 City Market b.. 8 High
Adams, Charles E.'& Co. Provisions 4 City Market b. 8 High
Adams, Xenophon Provisions 4 City Market b. 8 High
Balch, Eben G. Clerk 11 Market Square h. 13 Roberts
Bamford, George E. Fish Market Landing h. 5 Winter
Bamford, Joseph Fish Market Landing h. 41 Washington
Blodgett, Jesse G. Variety Store 11 Water h. 11 do.
Boardman, Isaac H. Merchant 9 City Wharf h. 104 State
Boardman, Thomas H. Clerk 9 City Wharf b. 104 State
Brown, Jenness Grocer 5 Water h. 7 do.
Brown, Newman Coal 13 Water h. 7 Fruit
Chesley, Daniel Team ter 6 Market Square b. Newbury
Clement, Isaac C. Grocer 4Market Square h. 21 Fair, nr.
Liberty
Colman, William T. Provisions 3City Market h. 19 Toppan
Creasey, Edward K. Clerk 3Water Street b. 148 High
Creasey, Joseph B. Painter, Paints,
etc. 3Water Street h. 148 High
Cummings, David M. Brewer & Bottler 2Market Square h. 16 Temple
Currier, Howard P. Furniture 6City Wharf b. 19 Milk
Davis, Benjamin G. Sail Maker 4Ferry Wharf h. 13 Pike
Davis, William A. Sail Maker 4Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Dennis, Amos Fish 3Market Landing h. 11 Dove
Dodge, Nathan (and Br.) Manu. Misses & Ch.
Shoes 19 Water h. 84 Federal
Dodge, William H. P. Manu. Misses & Ch.
Shoes 19 Water b. 37 Boardman"
Donahoe, Michael Laborer 6 Market Square h. 41 Middle
Fields, James Miller 6 Market Square h. Newbury
Goodwin, Charles E. Machinist 7 Ferry Wharf h. 214 Merrimac
Goodwin, William, Jr. Fish & Ham 3 Ferry Wharf h. 43 Purchase
Gould, John H. Brewer & Bottler 2 Market Square h. 114 State
Hale, David (D. & I.) Fish, Coal & Flour 14 City Wharf h. 19 High
Hale, Isaac (D. & I.) Fish, Coal & Flour 14 City Wharf h. 19 High
Harris, Samuel Fish 3Market Landing h. 26 Inn
Holker, William Hardware 6Market Square
Knight, Charles B. Clerk 6Market Square b. Newbury
Knight, Edmund Flour, Grain & Meal 6& 7 Mkt. Square h. Newbury
Knight, Hale Bookkeeper 6Market Square b. Newbury
Knight, James B. (& E.) Flour, Grain, etc. 6& 7 Mkt. Square h. Newbury
Knight, Joseph Salesman 6Market Square b. 19 High
Lunt, George Treasurer, Amer. Low
Water Reporter 9Ferry Wharf h. 54 High
Lunt, Micajah Merchant 9Ferry Wharf h. 79 High
March, Samuel, Jr. Flour, Groc. &
Produce 10 Market Square h. 24 Summer
Martin, Calvin P. Pattern Maker 7 Ferry Wharf h. 2 Eagle
Minigan, John Laborer 6 Market Square h. 3 Newbury

239

Table C.3., Cont., 1871.
Neal, William Clerk 4 Market Square b. 11 Temple
Perry, J. Albert Foreman 19 Water h. 27 Temple
Pillsbury, Francis M. Driver 6 Market Square h. Newbury
Pingry, Daniel Bookkeeper 13 Water h. 33 Middle
Rand, Edward Clerk, Police Ct. Market Hall b. 11 Brown's Sq.
Robinson, William Tugboat Office 4 Market Square
Romiley, Peter Restaurant 1 Water h. 40 Market
Ryan, James Mariner h.r. 11 Water
Scully, Daniel Teamster 6 Market Square h. 3 Newbury
Steward, John B. Fish Dealer 9 Market Square h. 6 Prospect
Stockman, Henry & Son Pump & Block Makers 5 City Wharf h. 27 Washington
Stockman, John T. Clerk 10 Market Square b. 2 Pettingill Ct.
Stockman, Joseph H. Pump & Block Maker 5 City Wharf b. 27 Washington
Thurlow, Benjamin F. 7 Fish & Ham 3 Ferry Wharf h. 4 Chase's Ct.
Titcomb, Solomon Provisions 6 City Market h. 144 State
Varina, George W. Clerks at Nicholas' 8 Market Square b. 43 High
(h. 43 High)
Varina, Nicholas, Capt. Com. Mer. & Flour 8 Market Square nr. end Coal &
Wood Wharf
Wallace, David Laborer 6 Market Square h. Newbury
Woodwell, David T. Hardware 11 Market Square h. 11.5 Spring
Woodwell, Louis E. Clerk 11 Market Square b. 11.5 Spring

240

Table C.4. Persons employed in study area as derived from
City Directory, Newburyport, 1880.

Name Occupation Business Residence

Adams, Washington Commission Merchant 8 Market Square h. 5 High
Anderson, John H. Cook 1 Water b. 1 d'o
Ayer, W. Perley Proprietor, Chester
House 1 Water h. d'o
Bartlett, Andrew J. Clerk 1 Water b. d'o
Bishop, George P. Harness Maker 1 Market Square
Boardman, Frederick H. Merchant City Wharf
Boardman, Thomas H. Merchant City Wharf b. 104 State
Bruce, George D. Clerk 17 Water bds 13 Tyng
Colby, Daniel Publisher 10 Market Square
Conley, William Engineer 13 Water h. 24 Spring
Creasey, Edward K. Paints, Oil & Glass 3 Water bds 148 High
Creasey, Joseph B. & Co. Paints, Oil & Glass 3 Water h. 148 High
Creasey, Philip H. Clerk 13 Water h. 33 Winter
Cross, Henry M. Coal 13 Water h. High, c.
Tremont
Currier, Howard P. Boats to Let City Wharf h. 19 Milk
Davis, Benjamin G. Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Davis, William A. & Son Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Dixon, William Tinsmith 6 Market Square b. 36 Summer
Dodge, William S. Carpenter 9 Ferry Wharf h. 98 State
Donahoe, Martin Saloon 11 Water h. 11 d'o
Duffy, John Saloon 5 Water
Felker, James V. Bookkeeper 13 Water h. 65 Merrimac
Hale, Alfred Auctioneer 9 Market Square h. 99 State
Holker, John Tinsmith 6 Market Square h. 11 Beck, cr.
Ship
Holker, William & Co. Hardware & Stoves 6 Market Square h. 9 Beck
Hoskins, Joseph Painter 3 Water h. 161 High
Howard, John L. Hardware & Junk 17 Water h. 15 Winter
Johnson, Joseph L. Clerk 10 Market Square b. 27 Washington
Kimball, Moses B. Liquors 5 Water b. Bradford
MacKinney, Thomas P. Hardware 11 Market Square h. 16 Essex
Magowan, David Bottler 4 Market Square h. 36 Market
Mannix, William H. Clerk 13 Water b. Forrester,
op. School
March, Ebenezer W. Clerk 13 Market Square b. 18 Monroe
March, Samuel Flour,- Groc. & Prod. 13 Market Square h. 21 Middle
Mulchahey, Charles Mgr. Globe Soap Co. 7 Ferry Wharf h. 200 High
Mulchahey, John Globe Soap Co. 7 Ferry Wharf h. 18 Strong
Noyes, Charles Smokehouse 6 Ferry Wharf h. 167 State
Ordway, Benjamin W. Gun & Saw Rep. 8 Market Square h. 284 High
Phila. & Reading Co. Coal & Iron 13 Water
Rolfe, Ebenezer Cabinet Maker 5 City Wharf h. 72 Middle
Stanley, Benjamin F. Hardware & Junk 17 Water h. 3 Ashland
Stanley, John C. Hardware & Junk 15 & 17 Water h. 30 Charter
Stockman, Henry & Son Furniture 10 Market Square h. 27 Washington
Stockman, Joseph H. Furniture 10 Market Square h. 31 Winter

241

Table C.4., Cont., 1880
Thurlow, Daniel D. & Co. Fish 3 Ferry Wharf h. 4 Chase's Ct.
Thurlow, Rufus Fish 3 Ferry Wharf h. 15 Oak
Tilton, Enoch J. Clerk 13 Market Square h. 26 Summer
Whiting, Thomas M. Hairdresser 5 Market Square h. Bromfield Ct.
Williams, Charles Tinsmith 6 Market Square b. 218 Merrimac

242

Table C.5. Persons employed in study area as derived from
City.Directory, Newburyport, 1891.

Name Occupation Business Residence

Adams, John B. Fish Dlr. 5 City Wharf Willow Ave.
Agoos, Lazarus Junk 3 Ferry Wharf 60 Middle
Andrews, Samuel A. Tinsmith 6 Market Square 14 Neptune
Bayley, Harry W. Bookkeeper 13 Water 44 Federal
Bowlen, James Helper 6 Market Square 10 Federal
Boyd, Charles E. Teamster 15 Water 6 Monroe
Bray, Albert A. Driver, Hose #1 Market Square Rooms, do.
Brock, George M. Clerk 11 Market Square b. 175 Merrinac
Brown, John S. Engineer 13 Water 19 Winter
Bruce, George D. Clerk 17 Water b. 13 Tyng
Cashman, Daniel Driver, H & L #1 Market Square
Cogswell, Mrs. M.E. Supt., Temperance
Reading Room 9 Market Square 226 Merrimac
Conley, James R. Engineer 13 Water b. 42 Federal
Conley, William Engineer 13 Water h. 42 Federal
Costello, Richard Shooting Gallery 5 Water h. 51 Federal
Creasey, Joseph B. Paints, Oil & Glass 3 Water h. 148 High
Currier, Herbert Salesman 5 Ferry Wharf b. 14 Broad
Cutts, Fred H. Supt. Essex Mfg. Co. 7 Ferry Wharf b. 12 Tremont
Davis, Benjamin G. Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 1 Horton,
nr. Federal
Davis, Wm. A. (and Son) Sail Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 46 Liberty
Donahoe, Martin Saloon 11 Water h. do.
Dow, Edmund M. Clerk 15 Water h. Parker nr.
State
Glennen, Richard Tinsmith 9 Market Square b. City Hotel
Gray, George C. Restaurant 9 Market Square h. do.
Haskell, Cyrus A. Salesman 5 Ferry Wharf b. 26 Olive
Holker, John W. Tinsmith 6 Market Square h. 11 Beck
Holker, Wm. & Co. Tinsmiths, Stoves 6 Market Square
(also 7 & 8) h. 7 Beck
Hoskins, Joseph Painter 3 Water b. 161 High
Jacoby, Rudolph Supt., P. & R. Coal
and Iron 13 Water h. 79 State
Jones, Edwin F. Driver 5 Ferry Wharf b. 34 Fair
Lowell, Lottie C. Bookkeeper 15 Water b. 42 High
Macintosh, Fred L. Clerk 13 Water b. 1 Milk
MacKinney, Thomas P. Hardware, etc. 11 Market Square h. 16 Essex
Maguire, James Tinsmith 6 Market Square h. 52 Liberty
March, Eben W. Clerk 13 Market Square h. 22 Market
March, Samuel Grocer 13 Market Square h. 21 Middle
Meinarth, Carl Music Tr. 12 Market Square h. do.
Merrill, Philip S. Salesman 5 Ferry Way b. New, nr.
Mosely Ave.
Mullins, Harry Laborer 13 Water
Newton, Fred G. & Co. Fish 1 & 3 RR Ave. b. 107 Merrimac
Pearson, Alonzo C. Engineer 13 Water h. 10 Unicorn
Peavy, George H. Tinsmith 9 Market Square h. 11 Atwood

243

Table C.5.,Cont., 1891.
Perkins, Henry R. Prop. Eagle Chem. 7 Ferry Wharf h. 134 State
Plumer, Henry J. & Co. Stoves, Tinware 9 Market Square b. 20 Bromfield
Prince, Calvin F. Clerk 15 Water b. 59 Washington
Roaf, George M. Whsale Provisions 5 Ferry Wharf b. 318 High
Roberts, Edward A. Tinsmith 6 Market Square b. 27 Middle
Rolfe, Ebenezer Cabinet Maker 5 City Wharf h. 50 Federal
Stanley, John C. Hardware, Junk, etc. 15 & 17 Water h, 236 High
Stockman, Joseph H. Stoves, etc. 10 Market Square h. 31 Winter
Thurlow, D.D. Fish. 3 RR Ave. h. Chase's Ct.
Thurlow, Rufus Fish 3 RR Ave. h. 15 Oak
Turple, John W. Clams Ferry Wharf h. State, nr.
the line
Wilkenson, George Watchman 13 Water h. Brown, nr.
State

244

Table C.6. Persons employed in study area as derived from
City Directory, Newburyport, 1901.

Name Occupation Business Residence

Baby Shoe Co. Inf. Shoe Manu. r. 11 Market Sq.
Barrett, Joseph H. Clerk 15 Water h. r. 17 Kent
Bayley, Harry W. Bookkeeper 13 Water h. 65 Bromfield
Binley, William 3 City Wharf h. 34 Prospect
Boyd, Charles E. Clerk 13 Market Square h. 41 Boardman
Bray, Albert E. Driver, Hose #1 Market Square h. 38 d'o
Bridges, John A. Baker (Nabisco) h. 12 Jackson
Bridges, John A., Jr. Baker (Nabisco) b. 12 Jackson
Brown, James F. Grocer 13 Market Square h. 47 Bromfield
Brown, Rufus Baker (Nabisco) h. Ring's I.
Bruce, George D. Superintendent r. 17 Water b. 8 Strong
Buzzel, John A. Baker (Nabisco) h. Salisbury
Carter, John N. Driver (Nabisco) h. 24 Olive
City Grist Mills r. Market Square
Conley, James R. Engineer 13 Water h. 39 Milk
Conley, William Wharfinger 13 Water h. 42 Federal
Currier, Herbert Salesman 5 Ferry Wharf h. 6 Magnolia
Curtis, Francis Supt., Sewers &
Mech. Engineer 3 City Wharf h. 3 Park
Davis, Benjamin Sail & Tarp Maker 4 Ferry Wharf
Davis, James W. Clerk 5 Ferry Wharf h. r. 7 Kent
Davis, William A. Sail & Tarp Maker 4 Ferry Wharf h. 1 Horton
Dow, Edmund M. Clerk 15 Water h. Parker nr.
State
Duffy, John Liquors 5 Water h. 48 Franklin
Eagle Chemical Co. 7 Ferry Wharf &
62 State
Gowans, John H. Clerk 5 Ferry Wharf h. 23 Ship
Gowdy, Frank Clerk 11 Market Square b. 14 School
Haskell, Cyrus A. Salesman 5 Ferry Wharf h. 26 Olive
Holker, Hattie Bookkeeper 15 Water b. 6 Orange
Holker, William Stoves & Hardware 15 - 17 Water h. 6 Orange
Jacoby, Joseph L. Shipper 13 Water h. 33 Bromfield
Jacoby, Rudolph Superintendent 13 Water h. 7 Orange
Kent, George 0. Steamfitter &
Locksmith 4 Market Square h. Storey, Nby-
Knowles, Fred W. Steamfitter &
Locksmith 4 Market Square h. Salisbury
Landers, Charles H. Driver 6 Market Square h. 37 Warren
Langley, Harris W. Treasurer
(Furniture Bus.) 6 - 10 Market Sq. b. 11 Spring
Langley, William C., Jr. President
(Furniture Bus.) 6 - 10 Market Sq. h. 11 Spring
Larner, John Tinsmith 15 Water b. 52 Prospect
Levin, Eli Junk 2 Ferry Wharf h. 8 Merrimac
Macintosh, Fred L. Fireman 13 Water h. 29 Purchase
McKinny, Robert J. Undertaker 5 Market Square b. 24 Spring

245

Table C.6., Cont., 1901.
Merrimack Specialty
Manufacturing Co.
Novelties 3 City Wharf
Morse, Charles A. Clerk 13 Water b. 5 Parsons
Mullins, Henry Engineer 13 Water h. 12 Dalton
Noyes, George E. Clerk 13 Market Square h. 1 Green
O'Connell, Michael J. Clerk 5 Water h. 4 Atwood
Pearson, Alonzo C. Engineer 13 Water h. 41 Kent
Perkins, Henry R. Proprietor
(Eagle Chem.) 7 Ferry Wharf h. 62 State
Phila. & Reading Co. Coal 13 Water
Potter, Ernest Salesman 5 Ferry Wharf h. 315 High
Roaf, George M. Wholesale Provisions 5 Ferry Wharf b. 318 High
Rolfe, Ebenezer Cabinet Maker 3 City Wharf h. 50 Federal
Saltinsky, Morris Junk Dealer 3 Ferry Wharf h. 11 Water
Seaman, Abram & Co. Junk r. 17 Water b. Wolfe Tavern
Toppan, William C. Hardware & Bicycles 11 Market Square h. 42 Kent
Wilson, Albert P. Hardware & Bicycles 11 Market Square h. 15 Horton

246 .

--A @

.j.

247

APPENDIX D

HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES OF
NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS

June Ist., 1638. Being this day assembled to treat or consult
about the well ordering of the affairs of the towne, about one of
the clock in the afternoone, the sunn shining faire, it pleased God
suddenly to raise a vehement earthquake coming with a shrill clap of
thunder, issuing as is supposed out of the east, which shook the
earth and the foundations of the house in a very violent manner to
our great amazement and wonder, wherefore taking notice of so great
and strange a hand of God's providence, we were desirous of leaving
it on record to the view of after ages to the intent that all might
take notice of Almighty God and feare his name (NTR 1658; Coffin
1845:26).

The Newburyport area is unique in Massachusetts, being by far the most
seismically active region within the state. Two major earthquakes, in 1727 and
in 1755, have been experienced here, as well as over eighty tremors of lesser
intensity. Many of these earthquakes are believed to have had their epicenters
in the immediate vicinity.

In their paper on the seismic history of Massachusetts, Devane and Holt
(1967) mapped the probable epicenters of the earthquakes recorded in southern
New England between 1574 and 1965. They estimated the severity of each quake
from the damages reported in contemporary accounts of the event, using the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale as their index. Based on Devane and Holt's
paper, Fig. D.1 depicts the location of each quake whose epicenter was located
with Massachusetts. Earthquakes with an estimated intensity of V or greater
are so indicated on this map. The epicenters of 68 percent of all the earth-
quakes represented on Fig. D. 1 fall within a five mile radius of Newburyport.

Shocks emanating from epicenters located outside northeastern Massachusetts
have also been felt in Newburyport. Most notable of these was the earthquake of
November 18, 1755, which originated off the coast, east of Cape Ann. This earth-
quake did extensive damage all along the coast of northern Massachusetts (Win-
throp 1757; Earthquake History of the United States 1973). Devane and Holt have
suggested that this quake and others indicate that a major epicentral area exists
50 miles northeast of Newburyport on the Continental Shelf.

The first earthquake reported from the Newburyport area occurred on June 1,
1638, an account of which appears above. The greatest earthquake originating
from Newburyport was recorded on Sunday, November 9, 1727. The magnitude of the
initial shock from this quake has been estimated at between intensities VIII and
IX on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (Earthquake History of the United
States 1973:5; Fischer and Fox 1967:385). It was followed for several months by
frequent severe aftershocks, with intensities as high as VI (Fischer and Fox
1967). A remarkable and sobering account of the initial quake and the after-
shocks of the following three weeks appears in the records of the Episcopal
Church of Newburyport. The following is extracted from that account.

Being the Lord's day at forty minutes past ten the same evening,
there was a most terrible, su'dden, and amazing earthquake, which did

CO
MASSACHUSETTS EARTHQUAKES

1574 1965

Vill Newburyport
J ..
J 79
Ir

?V11 .2

&,ado

LEGEND

.... Epicenter

2 .... Number of epicenters at location
VII .... Intensity of earthquake 30
Miles

Fig. D.l. Recorded earthquakes in Massachusetts. Intensities are given on the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. The epicenters of more than two-thirds of the earth-
quakes represented cluster within five miles of Newburyport.

249

damage to the greatest part of the neighborhood, shook and thr ew down
tops of chimnies and in many places the earth opened up a foot or more.
It continued very terrible by frequently bursting and shocking our
houses and lasted all that week (November 9-15) sometimes breaking
with loud claps six times or oftener in a day and as often in the night
until Thursday in the said week and then somewhat abated. Upon Friday
in the evening and about midnight, and about break of day and on Sat-
urday there were three very loud claps. We also had it on Saturday,
the sabboth, and on Monday morning about ten, ... upon every day or
night more or less three, four, six times each day ... in all which
space of time some claps were loud, others seemingly at a distance
much abated. Upon Monday two hours before day a loud burst and at half
past two in the afternoon another burst was hurd somewhat loud.... The
first shock opened a new spring by my father Samuel Bartlet's house in
the meadow and threw up in the lower grounds in Newbury several loads
of white sand. After that some loud claps, shocking our houses...
(Coffin 1845:197-98).

During the following twenty years, no fewer than 58 earthquakes were re-
corded in Newburyport's town and church records (Coffin 1845). Some of these
shocks probably originated in the St. Lawrence Valley, or off the coast of New
New England on the Continental Shelf. Others were obviously of local origin.

In the early morning hours of November 18, 1755, Newburyport was rocked by
the most severe shocks ever recorded in New England. Tremors from this earth-
quake were felt as far away as "... Lake George, N.Y. to a point at sea 200
miles east of Cape Ann, and from the Chesapeake Bay to the Annapolis River,
Nova Scotia, ..." covering an area of approximately 300,000 square miles (Earth-
quake History of the United States 1973:9-10). Aftershocks from this earthquake
continued to rattle the houses of Newburyport for the next three days, and were
followed by another series of shocks one month later (Coffin 1845:222).

Earthquakes were reported in Newburyport with decreasing frequency through
the rest of the 18th century, and little or no damage occurred. Tremors have
been felt in the city since 1800, but infrequently. None of the quakes since
have exceeded VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, and most were V or
less. In Amesbury, minor structural damage was, however, attributed to one
earthquake which occurred on October 16, 1963 (Earthquake History of the United
States 1973).

250

APPENDIX E

TOPOGRAPHY

The accompanying map, Fig. E.1, gives the topographic details of the New-
buryport Central Waterfront as mapped during the recent redevelopment program.
The countours, given in one foot intervals,were taken after major episodes of
demolition, and the most striking features of this new landscape are the tem-
porary and relatively meaningless outlines of demolition rubble and gouges
made in the land surface by earthmoving equipment. During the process of this
project, the ground surface was similarly disrupted, and the countours changed
daily, especially in the vicinity of seawall construction.

251

1\4E R R I M A C K

weed
bulkhead,:-

.3C3C3c==C3C3C3C-=@

00 0 0
c3c],=
P P@
12
'7

granite blocks & g 13-
ravel piles

14
15
w
16\ 1
f1117

fill(k
13 17

-74

3
7

14-, 76
le -15
14
.7771 1

.... ... . .
15
16 Central Waterfront

17
1975 Topography
MARKET
SQUARE NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS
FEET
Alerrimac Street 25 0 25 50 100
--METERS
5 0 10 20 30 40

map no. 7 of 7

Fig. E.I. Landscape of the Central Waterfront during redevelopment.

252

253

REFERENCES

Maps

1761 A Plan of the Third Parish in Newbury, John Brown. Copy of original on
Tile at the Belleville Church, Newburyport.

1795 "A Plan of the Town of Newbury Port,lt Joseph Somerby, in History of
Newburyport, Mass. 1764-1906 (Currier 1906:22).

1809 "Plan of Newburyport Harbor." InThe American Coast Pilot (Furlong 1812:
145).

1826 Harbor of Newbury Port and the Mouth of the Merrimack River .... U.S.
Coast Survey, Washington, D.C.

1830 Map of Newburyport. Surveyed and drawn by Philander Anderson. Newbury-
port Lyceum, Newburyport.

1830 "Map of Newburyport." Surveyed and drawn by Philander Anderson for the
selectmen of Newburyport. In History of Newburyport, Mass., 1764-1906
(Currier 1906:185).

1843 "Plan of Newburyport in 1843." Drawn by N. Perkins. In History of
Newburyport, Mass., 1764-1906 (Currier 1906:332).

1851 "Plan of Newburyport in 1851." In Newburyport Directory (Smith 1854).

1851 Plan of Newbury2ort. H. McIntyre, Philadelphia.

1855 Newburyport Harbor, Massachusetts. U.S.Coast Survey, Washington, D.C.

1856 "Newburyport." An inset on A Topographic Map of Essex County, Mass.
Smith & Morley, Boston.

1872 "Newburyport" in Atlas of Essex County, Massachusetts. D. B. Beers &
Co., Philadelphia.

1884 "Newburyport" in Atlas of Essex County, Massachusetts. Geo. H. Walker,
Boston.

1889 General Plan of New Extension, P and R C and I, Co.'s Wharf at Newbury-
port, Mass. (ECRD 5:38).

1889 Map of City and Ferry Wharves, Newburyport Mass. (ECRD 5:25).

1896 City of Newburyport. Geo. H. Walker & Co., Boston.

1900 City of Newburyport. Sampson, Murdock, & Co., Boston.

1905 G ological Map_of Essex County, Massachusetts. Essex Institute, Salem
Mass.

1914 Newburyport. Insurance maps, Sanborn Map Co., New York.

254

1922-23 Assessor's Plans, City of Newburyport, Mass. On file Essex Co.,
Reg. of Deeds.

1924 Newburyport. Insurance maps, Sanborn Map Co., New York.

1951 Newburyport, Massachusetts. R. L. Polk & Co., Boston.

1961 Newburyport. Insurance maps, Sanborn Map Co., New York.

1975 "The Center of Newburyport, Massachusetts at the Beginning of the Nine-
teenth Century." Patriots and Partisans (Labaree 1975:36).

Public Records Cited

Earthquake History of the United States
1973 U.S. Department of Commerce (Publication 41-1, Revised Edition). U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington.

ECRD
1640-1890 Essex County Registry of Deeds, Vols. 1-1300. Salem, Mass.

NCD
1848-1930 Newburyport City Directory. Originally published as 'The Directory
of Newburyport. Mason, Newburyport; and successors. Published alter-
nate years.

NPTR
1764-1836 Newburyport Town Records, Vols. I-III. On microfilm, Newburyport F
Public Library.

NTR
1635-present Newbury Town Records. On file, Town Hal-1, Newbury, Massachusetts.

Books and Articles Cited

ALAM
1908 Handbook of Gasoline Automobiles. Association of Licensed Automobile
Manufacturers,New York.

Albion, Robert G., William A. Baker and Benjamin W. Labree
1972 New England and the Sea. Wesleyan University Press, Middleton, Conn.

Andrews, Francis E.
1905 A Collection of Recollections. Squire and Swan, Newburyport.

Anon.
1855 Memorabilia. Newburyport Herald. Newburyport. A series of articles
beginning July 10, 1855.

Ash, Douglas
1975 Dictionary of British Antique Glass. Pelham, London.

255

Atkinson, Minnie
1933 A History of the First Religious Society in Newburyport Massachusetts.
News Publishing Co., Inc., Newburyport.

Binford, Lewis R.
1962 A new method of calculating dates from kaolin pipe stem fragments.
.Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 9:1, Cambridge, Mass.

Black, Henry Campbell
1951 Black's Law Dictionary. West Publishing Co., St. Paul.

Blake, Mrs. Euphemia (Vale)
1854 History of Newburyport; From the Earliest Settlement of the Country
to the Present. Damrell and Moore, Boston. See Smith, E. Vale.

Camp, Helen B.
1975 Archaeological Excavations at Pemaquid, Maine: 1965-1974. The Maine
State Museum, Augusta.

Cheney, Robert K.
1964 Maritime History of the Merrimac: Shipbuilding. Newburyport Press.
Newburyport, Mass.

Coffey, Lorraine Mildred
1975 The Rise and Decline of the Port of Newburyport 1783-1820. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.

Coffin, Joshua
1845 Sketch of the History of Newbury, Newburyport and West Newbury, from
1635 to 1845. S. G. Drake, Boston.

Crompton, S.C. (Editor)
1968 Enalish Glass. Hawthorn, New York.

Currier, John J.
1909 History of Newburyport, Mass. 1764-1909. Vol. 2. Currier, Newburyport.

Currier, John J.
1906 History of Newburyport, Mass. 1764-1906. Currier, Newburyport.

Currier, John J.
1902 History of Newbury. Damrell & Upham, Boston.

Currier, John J.
1896 "Ould Newbury": Historical and Biographical Sketches. Currier, Boston.

Currier, John J.
1877 Historical Sketch of Ship Building on the Merrimac River. A. Williams
& Co., Boston.

Cushing, Caleb
1826 History and Present State of the Town of Newburyport. E. W. Allen,
Newburyport, Mass.

256

Devane, John F. and Richard J. Holt
1967 The Seismic History of Massachusetts. In Economic Geology of Massa-
chusetts. 0. C. Farguhar, ed., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Dincauze, Dena and Judith Meyer
1977 Prehistoric Resources of East-Central New England: A preliminary
predictive study. National Park Service Cultural Resource Management
Studies No. 7.

Dow, George Francis (Editor)
1921 Two Centuries of Travel in Essex County Massachusetts: A Collection
of Narratives and observations made by Travelers 1605-1799. The
Topsfield Historical Society, Topsfield, Mass.

Emery, Sara Anna
1879 Reminiscences of a Nonagenarian. William Huse & Co., Newburyport Mass.

Faulkner, Alaric
1977 Newburyport Archaeological Project Progress Report: July, 1977.
On file, National Park Service, Interagency Archeological Services,
Atlanta.

Fisher, Joseph A. and Fred L. Fox
1967 The Seismicity of Massachusetts. In Economic Geology of Massachusetts.
0. C. Farquhar, ed., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Furlong, Capt. Lawrence
1812 The American Coast Pilot. 7th Ed. Edmund M. Blunt, New York.

Fuess, Claude M. (Editor)
1935 The Story of Essex County, Vol. 1. American Historical Society, Inc.,
New York.

Gilman, W. and J. Gilman
1811 Account of the Great Fire in Newburyport. W. & J. Gilman, Newburyport,
Mass.

Goodman, Robert Lord
1974 Newburyport,_ Massachusetts 1635-1685: The Social Foundations of
Harmony and Conflict. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
.University.

Hale, Robert Safford
1889 Descendants of Thomas Hale. Weed and Parsons, Albany.

Harrington, J. C.
1954 Dating stem fragments of seventeenth and eighteenth century clay
tobacco pipes. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of
Virginia 9:1.

Harris, Elizabeth J.
1977 Documents, Legends, and Archaeology: Unravelling the Mysteries of
Newburyport's Past. Historical Survey Associates, Pacific Pallisades,
California.

257

Hartley, E. N.
1971 Ironworks on the Saugus: The Lynn and Braintree Venture's of the Com-
@_any of Undertakers of the Ironworks in New England. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hartwell, Allan D.
1970 Hydrography and Holocene Sedimentation of the Merrimack River Estuary,
Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Geology Department. Contr.
5-Crg. On file, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.

Hurd, D. Hamilton, Ed.
1888 History of Essex County Massachusetts, Vol. 2. J. W. Lewis & Co.,
Philadelphia.

Huse, Thomas
1872 Report on the Public Landings of Newburyport. William H. Huse & Co.,
Newburyport, Mass.

Hunter, Frederick William
1950 Stiegel Glass. Dover, New York.

Ingersoll, Daniel
1971 Settlement Archaeology at Puddle Dock. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Harvard University.

Johnson, Frederick et al.
1942 The Boyston Street Fishwier. Tapers of the Robert S. Peabody Founda-
tion for Archaeology 2.

Kochiss, John M.
1970 The Deadeye: How it was made in Lunenburg Nova Scotia. The Marine
Historical Association, Mystic, Conn.

Labaree, Benjamin Woods
1975 Patriots and Partisans: The Merchants of Newburyport, 1764-1815.
W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Leavitt, John F.
1970 Wake of the Coasters. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Conn.

Lewis, Peirce F.
1975 Genius loci and the preservation of place. Paper presented at 141st
meeting of The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
New York.

Lorrain, Dessamae
1968 An archaeologist's guide to nineteenth century American glass.
Historic Archaeology 2:35-44.

Lunt, George
1873 Old New England Traits. Hurd and Houghton, New York.

Moorehead, Warren Kring
1931 The Merrimack Archaeological Survey: A preliminary paper. Peabody
Institute, Salem, Mass.

258

Morison, Samuel Eliot
1921 The Maritime History of Massachusetts: 1783-1860. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston and New York.

Newman, T. Sell
1970 A dating key for post eighteenth century bottles. Historic
Archaeology 4:70-75.

Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Noel Hume, Ivor
1969 Pottery and porcelain in colonial Williamsburg's archaeological.col-
lections. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series; 2.

Pendery, Steven and Helen Chase
1977 Preliminary Report: Historical Archaeology of the Marshall Pottery
Site, Strawberry Banke Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Unpublished manu-
script, Strawberry Banke.

Ritchie, William H.
1969 The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press, New York.

Robertson, R.A.
1969 Chats on Old Glass. Dover, New York.

Russell, Carl P.
1967 Firearms, Traps and Tools of the Mountain Men. Knopf.

Rutsch, Edward S. and Kim M. Peters
1977 Archeological Testing In Various Cellar Units of Parcels 6A & 6B,
Market Square Historic District, Newburyport, Massachusetts. Report
to the National Park Service. Reference No. H2219-SER-PIA.

Smith, E. Vale
1854 History of Newburyport; from the Earliest Settlement of the Country to
the Present Time. Damrell and Moore, Boston.

Snow, Dean R.
1972 Rising sea level and prehistoric cultural ecology in northern New
England. American Antiquity 37:211-22.

Thernstrom, Stephan
1964 Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Ward, David
1975 Cities and Immigrants: A Geoaraphy of Nineteenth Century America.
Oxford University Press, New York.

Warner, William Lloyd
1963 Yankee City. Yale University Press, New Haven.

259

Watkins, Lura Woodside
1950 Early New England Potters and Their Wares. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.

Winthrop, John
1755 "Alecture on earthquakes; read in the Chapel of Harvard-College in
Cambridge, N.E. November 26th, 1955, on occasion of the great earth-
quake which shook New England the week before." Edes & Gill, Boston.

Wood, George
1863 Early recollections of Newburyport. Newburyport Herald. A series of
12 articles under the pseudonym Peter Schlemihl.

3 66658 14100 1182