Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18BC101 Leakin Park / Crimea
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18BC101, also known as Leakin Park/Crimea, is a large site located in Baltimore City, south of Windsor Mill Road within the limits of Gwynns Falls/Leakin Park, spanning the ridge top down hillslopes to Dead Run in the south. This includes all of the known surviving elements of the former Thomas Winans summer estate of Crimea. Focus One, identified in 2015, represents a small subset of the site which appears to represent an interior artifact concentration near the west side of Eagle Drive and extending into the disturbed areas north of the Chapel east of the Eagle Drive.
Soils mapped in the study area are generally moderately well drained soils. The USDA NRCS soil survey maps the majority of the study area as Legore loams, 0-8% slope and 8-15% slope. Small areas of Jackland silt loam.
Land ownership between the initial patents and the early nineteenth century is not clear. The oldest specific land reference located during archival research indicates that Adam Smith obtained a substantial portion of the area as part of a 58 and one-half-acre purchase from William Matthews in 1792. Portions east of Eagle Drive appear to have been part of this land purchase, and remained under Smith family ownership until 1844, when Caleb Stinchcomb purchased nine acres from Eli and Clare Smith.
West of Eagle Drive, the earliest confirmed land ownership is the 75 acre holding of Caleb Whittemore, apparently acquired in the earlier nineteenth century, and subject to an estate sale in 1853, and the acquisition of 25 acres by Mary Boyd between 1835 and 1844.
This phase of land ownership is reflected in the 1850 Sidney Map of Baltimore County (some times attributed as 1857). Both the Caleb Stinchcomb farm and the Mary Boyd property are identified on the map, with a small settlement representing surviving Smith family homes, and a few other owners mentioned in metes and bounds such the Bells and the Zimmermans. Despite clear indication in the 1854 land deed that Mary Boyd was resident on the property, the 1850 federal Census has no listing for her household. What the census does depict is a small gathering of primarily upper lower class factory workers and middle class craftsman. Joshua Zimmerman, the western most property owner, is listed as relatively young farmer of moderate means, with $4,000 of real estate. Samuel Smith, an elderly cooper, claimed only $500 in real estate. Elihu Smith was a cooper with no real estate of his own for his young family. Both William Childs and George Bell are listed as carpenters, also without real estate of their own. Caleb Stinchcomb, with his family of five, was listed as a laborer, and his nine -acre property valued at $1,000. Stinchcomb does not appear in the 1850 census agricultural schedule, and it is possible that his was not an active marketing farm at that point. Maps and deed description indicate that settlement was focused along Windsor Mill Road, in place for over a century at that time, and an ancestral form of Ridgetop Road which connected to the Bell and Shipley farms to the southeast.
In 1855 the nature of landuse in the vicinity changed. Thomas DeKay Winans, son of railroad engineering magnate Ross Winans, began buying up parcels in the vicinity, forming what would become his summer estate Crimea. Thomas himself was an engineer, and with his brother William, established his fortune masterminding the development of the Russian railway between 1843 and 1867. He returned to Baltimore during that contract and between 1855 and 1874 Winans accumulated over four hundred-acres of land through the purchase of parcels generally less than a 100 acres in size. Thomas Winans purchased land from Joseph Dall in 1855 and from Joshua Zimmerman in 1865. The purchase from Zimmerman included the former Mary Boyd property, which Zimmerman had purchased from Dall in 1855. Dall in turn had purchased the land less than a year before from George Richardson, and Richardson himself had purchased the property less than a year before from Mary Boyd.
It appears clear that Winans’ purchases during those two decades included a number the smaller residential parcels along Windsor Mill Road which had housed middle class craftsman such as the Smiths. Very few of the names found in the 1850 federal census appear in the 1860 federal census. Caleb Stinchcomb and Joshua Zimmerman remain, separated by the entry for Alfred Thompson. Thompson’s occupation listing is illegible, but his eight person household included one female servant, and a clerk and an artist, so it seems most likely to be a well-to-do middle class family. Isaac Gardner, whose property Thomas Winans purchased in 1866, appears several pages later, a cooper with $1,000 in real estate. Elihu Smith also appears several pages later, still listed as a cooper, with $2,500 in real estate, which suggests that he may have been occupying the small structural complex still shown along Windsor Mill Road on the 1876 Hopkins Atlas of Baltimore City and Environs where Sidney had depicted a cluster of three north of the Boyd house.
By 1874 Thomas Winans had consolidated his estate, and had established a caretaker’s farm to the east of the main structures, the mainhouse and associated structures, the mock fort built to commemorate the Crimean War, the chapel, and a tenant farm complex to the northwest. It seems probable in the 1855-1878 period before his death, Winans absorbed the previously existing structures once belonging to Mary Boyd and Joshua Zimmerman and adapted them for his own purposes. In 1878 Thomas Winans died, leaving his property, including at least 383 acres at Crimea, to be held as joint tenants by his son Ross R Winans and his daughter Celeste M Winans. While Thomas Winans may have managed the property proxy from his Baltimore City residence, it appears neither child chose to maintain a close connection with the estate. When the Winans siblings divided their inherited property in 1880, the deed notes both siblings were residents of Paris at the time. The property passed to Celeste, and was apparently used for only a short period during each year thereafter.
Management of the property from circa 1880 appears to have been entrusted to the Kirk family, the first record of which is the 1880 federal census for Frederick Kirk, a 27 year old farmer born in Maryland whose parent where both born in Russia. Frederick’s wife Mary was a Maryland resident, as was his mother-in-law Elizabeth who was also part of the household. Newspaper accounts at the time of the 1948 purchase of Crimea, and research reported in the National Register of Historic Places nomination form both indicate that the Kirk family served as the property caretakers from 1880 to the 1940s, and may have lived in the Trails Office structure. Despite the change in ownership and the absentee nature of the new owner (Celeste Winans Hutton), several additions to the Crimea Estate appear to have been made between 1876 and 1896, specifically further development of the thoroughbred stable complex in the northwest portion of the estate.
Baltimore City annexed the project vicinity in 1918. As part of that annexation, the City Department of Engineering prepared a series of topographic sheets covering the newly annexed territory. These maps indicate several changes in the vicinity. The configuration of the tenant farm and stable complex to the northwest has changed considerably, depicting a presumed residence with a stone core and three frame additions, and nine support structures in the complex including a circular barn. The older caretaker’s farm to the east appears to have been abandoned, with a single frame structure surviving. The configuration of the Trails Office structure has also changed, suggesting that the structure may have been replaced or substantially modified between 1896 and 1922.
During the early 20th century, Celeste Hutton was working with the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to transfer the bulk of the Crimea Estate to the City for use as parkland. Although southern portions of the estate were sold in 1941, the portion of the estate which contains the western area was sold in early 1948.
By 1959, the initial development of Leakin Park had been completed, with the southern half of the tennis courts in place, and the northwestern tenant farm complex demolished and replaced with a handful of new structures, possibly an early incarnation of the City Farm Building, and a series of baseball fields. Comparison of elevation contours indicated on the 1922 topographic plan and the present elevation contours also suggests that two areas may have been subject to substantial grading as part of park development. The first area is the lawn south of the tennis courts and north of the chapel, where current elevation contours show evidence of cutting from the lawn and filling under the tennis courts. In 1922 this area was reported as a gentle slope to the southeast, with an elevation ranging from 385’ amsl at Eagle Drive to approximately 378; amsl. Today, this area ranges from 382’ to 376’ and the area under the tennis courts has been averages to 382 to 380’ amsl. This suggests that soil from the western portion of the lawn was removed and used to fill under the tennis courts.
Similarly, the area of and especially south of the former tenant farm was reported as the ridge peak, sloping down towards the south, west, and east, with the peak at roughly 395’ amsl and downslope elevations as low as 375”. Today this area exhibits elevations between 402’ amsl and 388’, and vary widely in short distances indicating the present of artificial pushpiles of displaced soils, and suggesting that graded soils were used to fill the southern portions almost to the limit of the park boundaries.
There appear to be few major landscape changes after the 1959 development of the park facilities around the chapel, although subsequent years have undoubtedly seen a host of smaller scale earth disturbances and renovation projects. O’Hatnick documented repair projects in 1987 and 1988 and 2008 and 2009. Notes in the Crimea Historic District file and the 18BC101 site file document the installation of retaining walls to the south and east of the chapel in 1993, during which a partial brick foundation was encountered. There appear to be multiple utility line disturbances along Eagle Drive, including an underground electrical supply which connects to the northwest corner of the chapel although the date of that installation is unknown.
On May 23, 1987, a service took place inside Winans Chapel to raise funds when its roof finial was struck by lightning. A number of persons were knocked unconscious, and Carl Ruskin, a Baltimore city planning office employee, died after being hospitalized. The services' plan was to raise funds to repair the chapel with a sale of herbs grown on the premises by volunteer gardeners.
Review of the cultural resource survey maps maintained by MHT indicated that one formal study and one informal study previously included portions of the present Limit of Disturbance. A 1977 reconnaissance study was conducted as part of the planning process for proposed extension of Route 70 through Leakin and Gwynn Falls Parks. This study included two segments of Alternative 3, near the western terminus and within most if the alternative’s overlap with B-45 (Crimea). Harrison conducted only limited testing, relying primarily on surface inspection, and with even this limited examination noted seven historic features. No accurate mapping of these features was presented in the report, but it is likely that the group of stone foundations and dry laid well noted by Harrison refer to the 18BC188 Stinchcomb site reported by the present study.
The Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology (BCUA) conducted an informal study in 1988, which consisted primarily of a walking inspection of the surviving structural elements of the Crimea estate, but there was no report prepared for that study and no field notes are available for review. BCUA revisited in 1993 when they were informed, after the fact, of a brick foundation encountered during excavation to the east and south of the Crimea Chapel. BCUA staff interviewed park staff who had been present, and collected a small number of generally non-diagnostic artifacts from excavation backdirt, but again, no formal report was associated with the visit. These studies resulted in the registration of sites 18BC96 and 18BC101, but have limited additional documentation on file with MHT.
In 2015, EAC conducted a Phase IB and Phase II survey of the site for the BGE Granite Pipeline Relocation Project. The objective of the Phase I study was to determine if there were undocumented prehistoric or historic archeological resources within the defined project LOD. The objective of the subsequent Phase II evaluation study was to evaluate the National Register eligibility of 18BC101 foci and site 18BC188 identified during the survey, primarily under Criterion D, the ability to yield important knowledge through further research. Both Phase II studies were primarily focused within the project LOD although some portions of the resources extension beyond the LOD was also studied. Evaluation of the foci identified within 18BC101 was largely centered on the question of artifact density and variability within the foci, and the degree of depositional integrity retained. Evaluation of site 18BC188 examined the characteristics noted above, and also include archival research meant to address issues of social and ethnic affiliation of the resources, to examine if the resource would be associated with groups or processes important to local or Maryland history.
Forty-four of the Phase IB test locations fell within the defined boundaries of 18BC101. Distribution of artifacts across those 44 test locations reflect three concentrations: one to the east of Eagle Drive in the previously graded and filled lawn between the chapel and the tennis courts, the primary artifact concentration surrounding the present Trails Office, and a small, less dense artifact spread around the head of a former drainage cut to the west of the former residence. As material from the first of these appear to represent displaced artifacts, they have been distinguished in the Appendix II Catalog as “18BC101b” under the site listing (N=13). The remaining two concentrations appear to represent domestic occupation, and have been defined as Focus 1 within the much larger 18BC101 boundaries. Focus One produced a total of 99 items from 19 test locations, a third of which consisted of coal and it’s by products. Table 3 presents the basic characteristics of the recovered artifact assemblage. The second most common recovered material consisted of domestic ceramics (N=26), with relatively little container glass present (N=9). Ceramics included two possible creamware sherds, three pearlware sherds, and nine whiteware sherds, as well as two sherds of grey-bodied stoneware, seven redware sherds, one yellowware sherd, and one sherd of semi-porcelain or highly fired ironstone. Decorative techniques included hand painted and transfer-printed pearlware, a pearlware rim sherd with traces of embossing present, and one hand painted whiteware rim sherd, and a possible Bennington yellowware sherd. Most whiteware recovered was undecorated, and most redware had a simple brown or dark brown glaze. Architectural materials were primarily brick (N=10) and window glass fragments (N=5). Additional materials recovered included a large fish scale, two pieces of modern plastic, a piece of white ball clay tobacco pipe bowl, two unidentifiable corroded ferrous lumps, and one thick walled ceramic sherd which could be industrial porcelain or could be heat damage ironstone or domestic porcelain.
Most material types were recovered in quantities too small to exhibit a valid distribution. Structural materials are roughly equally distributed across the defined focus, but domestic materials are more dense in the west yard of the Trails Office. Most material, 85 items, was recovered from the second excavation layer, the dark yellowish brown or yellowish brown silt loam BE Horizon.
The Phase IB investigation clearly identified a scatter of primarily domestic artifacts surrounding the current Trails Office, west of Eagle Drive, and within the previously registered boundaries of 18BC101. This concentration, defined as Focus One within the larger 18BC101 site, is presumed to be associated with the large context of the development of the Crimea Estate. The minimal chronological diagnostics recovered suggest an occupation span starting in the late-eighteenth to early nineteenth century based on the presence of creamware and pearlware ceramics, through the twentieth century based on the recovery of fully automated machine made bottle glass fragments. The high proportion of domestic materials recovered indicates a residential function, but there is a notable paucity of typical faunal materials such as shell and bone which would also be expected at a residential site. Material recovered from the previously graded and filled area across Eagle Drive and associated with the construction of the tennis courts may also be associated with this Focus, but lacks depositional integrity. Based on the results of the Phase IB Identification Survey, EACA recommended Phase II evaluation study be conducted of both the 18BC101 Focus One, potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places both by association with Crimea, and potentially under its own merits.
A total of 34 additional STPs were placed within 18BC101 as part of the Phase II study, primarily south of the LOD, and six one-meter square excavation units (Figure 33). STP excavation noted similar soils to those reported during the Phase IB study, as well as a small anomalous area in the western drainage swale with subsoils of atypical chroma and hue (STPS 513, 517, and 523). Soil profiles at the southern end of the test area, at the base of the hill, exhibited deep A Horizons, and the southernmost test location, STP 534, exhibited gleyed subsoil, suggesting there may have been ponding or wetlands in this area associated with the former tributary to Dead Run which passed to the south and west.
Artifact distribution patterns based on the full STP grid continue to show cultural material to the north, west, and south of the existing Trails Office structure (Figure 34). The void between the main concentration and the western outlier persists, and suggests that the weaker western concentration is not merely relocated materials but reflects a potential secondary disposal site. There is also a secondary density peak at the base of the hillside, where soil profiles do not conclusively exhibit signs of colluvial deposition, but which do exhibit deep artifact bearing strata.
Six controlled excavation units were placed within 18BC101 during the Phase II study, four within the LOD, one in the western yard, and one to the far south in the second density peak.
The full assemblage from 18BC101 Focus One, from both Phase IB and Phase II investigations, consists of 900 items representing 10 functional classes and five depositional contexts. Functionally, the 18BC101 artifact assemblage is predominately Domestic materials. Almost half the material recovered is classified as Domestic (48%), with the majority of that material consisting of ceramic sherds. Architectural materials (24%) and Utility materials (24%) comprise the majority of the remaining material recovered, primarily brick and coal, with some window glass and nail fragments. Classes represented in smaller percentages include Modern materials (1%), Transportation (less than 1%), Prehistoric (less than 1%). Clothing items (N=4) represent roughly 0.4% of the assemblage. Faunal materials appear to be under-represented in the 18BC101 Focus One assemblage, with only one bone fragment, two oyster shell fragments, and one fish scale recovered across the whole site, comprising 0.4% of the assemblage.
Ceramics were the most common direct chronological indicators recovered. A total of 374 ceramic sherds were recovered from 18BC101 Focus One contexts. The majority of the ceramics recovered consisted of non-diagnostic sherds of stonewares, redwares, or undecorated refined earthenwares. The earliest ceramic recovered is a possible piece of glazeless tin-glazed earthenware, a ceramic whose production period extended into the late eighteenth century. Lighter colored creamwares such as those recovered from Focus One also date from the last quarter of the eighteenth century into the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The most recent ceramics in the assemblage consists of whiteware, which continue to be manufactured to the present. More specifically datable ceramics recovered include a refined earthenware with possible stencil decoration (1820-1840), incised straight-edged featheredged whiteware (1840-1880), unmolded straight-edged featheredged whiteware (1870-1900), Rockingham/Bennington (1845-1900), and simple whiteware edge decorated with simple bands or lines of color typically from the early twentieth century. Overall, the assemblage is skewed towards ceramics from the early and mid-nineteenth century, but represents a potential occupation span from the later eighteenth century to the early twentieth century. This pattern may itself be skewed by the fact that the majority of the creamware sherds recovered from 18BC1010 Focus One were recovered at the possibly redeposited soil of Test Unit Six.
The remaining chronological indicators for the site do not contradict this hypothetical occupation range. Domestic assemblages dating from the early twentieth century or later generally exhibit high container glass to utilitarian ceramic sherd ratios, reflecting the consumer adaption to widely available bottles and jar made affordable by fully automated machine manufacturing technology and the more fragile nature of container glass compared to ceramic storage vessels. The 18BC101 Focus One domestic assemblage in contrast exhibits a low container glass to ceramic sherd ration (49:143), suggest the site either did not have a significant early to mid-twentieth century occupation, or trash disposal patterns during that period utilized off-site disposal of container glass. A second proportional indicator, the proportion of wrought and cut nails versus late nineteenth century and later wire nails, is biased in this assemblage by the large number of nail fragments too corroded to identify manufacturing technique. Of the 27 nail fragments recovered, 16 were unidentifiable, eight were classified as cut, and three were classified as wire.
Overall, the most distinctive character of the information about the 18BC101 Focus One resources is the mismatch between the architectural character of the existing structure and the chronological diagnostics of the recovered assemblage. Although the draft National Register of Historic Places Nomination form describes the existing Trails Office structure as the Caretaker’s or Kirk residence, and attributes a much earlier date to the base building, there is currently little discernable exterior evidence of an early or mid-nineteenth century construction for the structure. The existing Trails Office structure was dated as circa turn of the twentieth century construction based on visual examination and annotated as between 1898 and 1922 based on map evidence. Yet the recovered artifact assemblage is more consistent with an early to mid-nineteenth century residential site. This, and the continuation of this material east across Eagle Drive to the disturbed area north of the Chapel, suggests that the Focus One materials may instead be associated with the former Mary Boyd residence and/or the partial brick foundation recorded by Baltimore Center for Urban Archaeology in 1993. This former structure is most likely itself associated with the Mary Boyd property as well. Although a construction date for the Boyd structure is not available, as it sits beneath the Crimea Chapel structure, it probably dates between c.1835 and 1855 when Thomas Winans purchased the property. It is not known if or how the structure was used once under Winans’ ownership. Whichever structure the artifact deposits were associated with, they are strongly domestic in nature.
Two issues were considered when evaluating the potential National Register eligibility of the Focus One archaeological resource. The first was the potential historical significance of the occupation which generated the deposits. If the Focus One resources are associated primarily with the older early to mid-nineteenth century Boyd residence, then their only potential significance is their potential to yield significant new information through further study. Further archival research would be required but this research was postponed pending examination of the second eligibility issue. The second issue considered while evaluating the potential National Register eligibility of the Focus One archaeological resource was its contextual integrity, density, and variability, all key elements in the ability to recovery significant new information through additional study. In the case of the Focus One resources, analysis of the deposition distribution of the artifacts recovered indicates that the overwhelming majority of the deposits have been subject to disturbance either through plowing or through past excavation activities. Finally, no features were identified during the Phase II testing of 18BC101 Focus One.
Given the lack of density within the project LOD and the mixed nature of the primary deposition context (the plowzone), it is EACA’s recommendation that the Focus One deposits within the LOD are not individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and are sufficiently compromised that they do not represent a significant contributing resource to the Crimea Historic District (B-45). EACA also cautions that this study has made no attempt to evaluate the contextual integrity of any subsurface features or deposits under or south of the Crimea Chapel, and that area is explicitly excluded from this finding.
In 2020, the Baltimore Herb Festival, Inc. contracted EAC/Archaeology, Inc. (EAC/A) to provide archaeological monitoring services during planned repairs and improvements to Winans Chapel, a mid-nineteenth century structure within the National Register-eligible Crimea Historic District and also within the previously-identified archaeological site 18BC101. The Baltimore Herb Festival, Inc. is undertaking replacement of the existing access stairs to the Vestry (west) and Sacristy (south) entrances, to include stairs and an elevated landing at each location, and the construction of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant access ramp connected to Eagle Drive west of the chapel.
Initially, EAC/A planned on monitoring excavation work, but when the plans for the entryway were shared it seemed more prudent to simply excavate the footer holes as standard shovel test pits (STPs) prior to the construction work. As such, archaeological testing of the eight proposed concrete footer locations utilized eight hand-excavated STPs, the locations of which were marked by C&H Restoration. STPs were placed exactly in the locations that would be impacted.
Overall, the investigation has revealed two late nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century cultural layers which appear to post-date the original construction of the chapel. A thick layer of dark yellowish brown was observed in STPs 1, 2, 3, and 5, which contained diagnostic artifacts including cut nails (manufactured 1790 to 1890), wire nails (manufactured 1860 to present), fragments of a clay tobacco pipe manufactured between 1846 and 1890, and mulberry transfer printed ware manufactured between 1829 and 1867. The concrete pad extending westward from the front of the vestibule, comprising the surface for the footing of the early twentieth-century stairway entrance to the chapel, covered this layer immediately outside of the chapel. In STPs 2 and 5, this layer sat directly over subsoil. In STPs 1 and 3 this layer sat over an additional historic deposit with mixed subsoil; and in STP 7, this additional layer sat directly beneath the concrete, with no intermediary layer. In the case of STPs 1 and 7, further artifacts were generated in this earlier deposit, including cut nails, one wire nail, mortar, a tack, and window glass. The presence of wire nails indicates that both deposits post-date the assumed construction date of the chapel in 1859/1860. As such, it is possible that these layers document maintenance or repairs to the chapel in the late nineteenth century even though it was never consecrated. While this can only be verified by further excavation, the investigation has at least provided intriguing information in the history of the building that could not otherwise be determined through archival research alone.
One of the major questions about Winans Chapel is whether it was ever used for religious purposes prior to the first recorded (and ill-fated) service in 1980s. While the artifact assemblage alone is unlikely to conclusively answer that question, it does allow us to hone in on possible historic activities in and around the building. Among the very few non-structural artifacts recovered from the site are bones and oyster shells, tobacco pipes, a few shards of bottle glass, at least one whiteware handle likely belonging to a pitcher, and a jack. These non-structural artifacts seem to be more indicative of generalized social activity – children playing, adults smoking, consumption of meat and oysters as well as bottled beverages. The recovery of additional artifacts from the earlier strata at the site may shed further light on this question.
In summary, the survey indicates that two preserved late nineteenth-century or early twentieth-century cultural layers are present in the immediate vicinity of Winans Chapel, which are part of Site 18BC101. Due to the heavy concentration of structural materials in these deposits, it seems likely that these layers document maintenance and repairs to the chapel during this period. If any additional ground disturbance is planned in this area, a Phase II Evaluation is recommended to determine a more precise chronology of the stratigraphy, the presence or absence of any associated features, and the significance of these deposits within Site 18BC101.
|
