Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18FR853 Burhans
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Burhans Site (18FR853) is the archeological deposits associated with a mid 19th century frame house and lot in the town of New Market, Frederick County. The site is a houselot located at 69 West Main Street with the front of the house facing south onto Main Street or MD-144. The house at 18FR853 displays a central door and gabled dormer that reflect popular architectural elements of the mid-to-late 19th century Gothic Revival style. A long gravel driveway leads form the north side of Main Street along the west side of the house. A wood-sided shed with fieldstone foundation stands west of the northwest corner of the house. In the center of the north half of the site is an abandoned raised driveway that runs from a nearby alley. A flower garden mixed with shrubbery lines the east site boundary. The site sits in a rural “village” streetscape of mostly historic homes with associated yard spaces and falls within the New Market Historic District of the NRHP. The area is a bottomland surrounded by natural and artificial gently rolling hills. The site itself is very poorly drained and soils are mapped as Myersville silt loams.
The property at 69 West Main Street in New Market was part of a land tract called Hunting Lot that William Plummer inherited from his father. Plummer and Nicholas Hall, who owned land adjacent to Plummer’s, both tried to plan lots to establish the town of New Market, but could not agree on the road alignments and other terms. Each laid out lots independently on his own property and began selling them in 1793. Plummer’s lots, surveyed from Fifth and Sixth Alleys westward, became known as “Plummer’s Part of New Market”.
William Plummer leased Lots 9, 10, 15, 16, 30, and 31 in Plummer’s Part of New Market to William Turner in 1795 for “five shillings current money on the first of May annually for each front lot and two shillings and six pence for each back lot”. The lots that comprise 69 West Main were Lots 9 and 16. Lot 9 was comprised of the south 200 ft of the modern lot. The north 190 ft created Lot 16.
In 1800, Turner transferred part of the lease, for Lots 9, 10, 15, and 16, to John Smith for $120 with ground rent to be paid to William Plummer. In early 1806, Smith either transferred part of the lease, for Lots 9 and 16, or sold the lots to Nicholas Hall but no deed has been found. The transaction is mentioned in a later deed. Hall sold the lots two months later to Joseph Harris of Montgomery County for $500 with ground rent to be paid to Plummer. Harris kept the property for a little less than two years and then sold it to Jacob Stier, Jr., also of Montgomery County. Stier owned the property for two years and four months before he sold part of it, front Lot 9 and back Lot 16, to John Larkin of Frederick County for $400.
John Larkin kept Lots 9 and 16 for over five years and then sold them to Elizabeth Stutler in 1815. Elizabeth Stutler married Samuel Craver on 20 August, 1827, and in 1828 they sold Lots 9 and 16 to Asa Swamley of Frederick County. Swamley kept the property from 1828 until 1842, but his use of the property is unclear. Swamley probably rented the property. A map of New Market dated to 1858 shows Swamley’s name on lots other than 9 and 16. The same is true of an 1873 map. Swamley, who lived his entire life in New Market, sold the property in 1842 to Samuel Geyer who kept it less than three years before selling it to George Clarke of Frederick County.
George Clarke sold the property three years later to John G. Clarke of Baltimore City for $300 with ground rent to be paid to William Plummer. In 1850, John Clarke bought William Plummer’s rights to Lots 9 and 16. John Clarke also bought a 22 ft wide strip of land adjacent to the east side of Lots 9 and 16 from William and Harriet Williams in 1848, making the area of Lots 9 and 16 wider. Since John Clarke was from Baltimore City, it is doubtful that he lived on Lots 9 and 16. He probably rented them but it is not clear to whom he rented. Clarke married Amanda M. Burns in Baltimore on 19 December 1850, and in 1853 they sold Lots 9 and 16 to Margaret E. Dulaney.
Margaret E. Dulaney, formerly Margaret Stier, purchased several lots in the town of New Market and transferred them to her sister Sarah D. B. Stier Pole of Baltimore County, in trust for Margaret’s son, Henry Stier Dulaney. Lots 9 and 16 were part of her purchase and later transfer in trust. The arrangements were that Sarah would hold the several properties in trust for Henry S. Dulaney until after Margaret’s death and when he attained the age of 31 years, but that Margaret could use the properties during her life. Henry reached the age of 31 on 16 January, 1880, and the land held in trust was transferred to him by Sarah Pole in April of that year. On an 1873 map, Henry Dulaney’s name appears on two different properties, Lots 9 and 16 on the north side of Main Street, and Lots 47 and 114 on the south side.
By 1880, when the land was transferred to Henry Dulaney, he was married and living in Baltimore in the household of William Kennedy. He was married to Amelia Kennedy, had two daughters, and his occupation was listed as railroad clerk. Thus, he must have rented his New Market properties rather than living on them. He had acquired the properties in April of 1880, and in September 1880, he sold Lots 9 and 16 to Charlotte Dulaney of Baltimore. Charlotte was Henry’s cousin, she was Hamilton Stier’s daughter, and they had both grown up in New Market. In 1880, Charlotte, her husband Francis Dulaney, and their three children were living in Baltimore.
Charlotte Dulaney sold Lots 9 and 16 to Julia Waltz in 1881. Julia L Waltz and her husband Thomas were living in New Market in 1880, in the household of Susan Waltz, Thomas’ mother. Other members of the household included Thomas’s sisters Helen, Rose, and Carrie, and his brother John, and Susan’s mother, Elizabeth Mount. Thomas Waltz’ occupation was listed as machinist in the Federal Census. The Waltz family may have been renting the Dulaney property for several years, and Julia was able to buy it in 1881. Susan Waltz, her husband John, and several children were living in New Market in 1860, and Susan, the children, and Susan’d mother comprised a household in New Market in 1870. However, it is not possible to determine exactly which lots they occupied.
Lots 9 and 16 remained in the ownership of Julia Waltz until 1953. After Julia’s death, relatives filed a case in Orphan’s Court: Mora Elizabeth Waltz et al., versus Niva G. Hawbacker Waltz et al. Stewart Hobbs Brown was appointed by the court to sell the land, and on 3 January 1953, Elsie Tracey and G.C. Tracey , her husband, bought the property at public sale. In 1964, Elsie Tracey, a widow, sold the property to Clarence and Louise Bennett. Clarence Bennett transferred sole ownership to Louise in 1983, and Louise owned the property at the time of her death. Representatives of her estate sold the property to Winslow F. Burhan III in 1995, and he included his wife in ownership of the property in 2003.
At least 3 construction phases at the site can be identified based on architectural analysis of the house at 18FR853. The western 20 by 16 ft portion of the house rests on a stone foundation. This wing represents the first phase of construction. The 33 by 17 ft east wing, built on a brick foundation, represents the second phase of construction. The last phase of construction is the north 30 ft addition that rests in a poured concrete foundation. This is a 2003 addition built by the current owners of the house. The date of construction of the first phase of the house is unknown, but deed research shows a $380 increase in the sale value of the property between 1800 and 1806. This suggests that the house was built during the ownership of William Plummer and tenancy of John Smith.
This site was originally identified in March of 2006 during Phase I investigations of the streetscape at New Market. The streetscape was to be impacted by (then) proposed improvements to MD-144 by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA). The Phase I work was designed to assist SHA in complying with the provisions of Federal and state laws, including Article 83B, §§5-607, 5-617, and 5-618, of the annotated Code of Maryland.
Phase I work was conducted in the rear yard of the house with 28 shovel test pits (STPs) excavated on a 9.14 m (30 ft) grid. Testing identified an 18.3 X 18.3 m (60 X 60 ft) yard surface adjacent to the house in the southern portion of the site. The remaining (northern) portion of the lot contained a historic plowzone. Artifacts dated from the first half of the 19th century and were associated with the occupation of the residence. Artifacts recovered included 29 ceramic sherds (13 light yellow creamware, 3 plain pearlware, 12 whiteware, and 1 plain yellowware), 1 aqua blown-in-mold bottle glass, 2 white glass mason jar lid liner fragments, 1 hand wrought nail, and 7 cut nails. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was recommended if the site could not be avoided.
In connection with the streetscape project, SHA would be installing a drain feature from MD-144 which would bisect the southern section of the yard at 69 West Main (18FR853). Like the Phase I project, Phase II work was designed to assist SHA in complying with the provisions of Federal and state laws, including Article 83B, §§5-607, 5-617, and 5-618, of the annotated Code of Maryland. Phase II testing of this site was conducted in mid-June of 2006. Field methods included the excavation of two shovel test pits and eight test units. The original plan was to excavate six 1.524 X 1.524 m (5 X 5 ft) test units, but in the end, an additional two 61 X 152 cm (2 X 5 ft) units were placed to analyze site stratigraphy.
The two shovel test pits were judgmentally placed to test for intact yard surface deposits within 3.05 m (10 ft) of the most recent addition to the house. STPs were 45 cm in diameter and continued at least 10 cm into the subsoil. Soils from the STPs were screened through hardware cloth to ensure uniform recovery of cultural materials. STP data was recorded on standardized forms using standard methods for soil recordation. The two Phase II shovel tests contained 96 artifacts.
Six 1.524 X 1.524 m and two 61 X 152 cm (2 X 5 ft) test units were excavated by stratum or, if examination of artifact distribution within the stratum was desired, by arbitrary levels within the stratum. Test units continued at least 10 cm into the subsoil (B horizon) to assure that excavations reached the base of the cultural levels. Soil matrices from excavations were screened through hardware cloth to ensure uniform recovery of cultural materials. Information on each excavation was recorded on standardized forms, using standard methods for soil color characterization. At least one profile of each test unit was drawn. Recovered artifacts were placed in provenience-labeled bags for processing in an archeological lab facility. The 8 Phase II test units yielded 5,049 artifacts. The fill layers from the test units included 2,939 artifacts. The historic yard surface deposits contained 455 artifacts. Colluvial deposits from two units contained 589 artifacts and the plowzone identified in two other units included 691 artifacts.
Phase II testing resulted in the identification of two yards surfaces, six post holes, a septic drain feature, a water pipe trench, and various fill episodes. The excavations also narrowed the location of intact yard surface deposits to a 12.2 X 12.2 m (40 X 40 ft) area in the north yard of the house. Only a test unit 6 m northwest of northwest corner of house contained both intact yard surfaces. The later surface, only identified in this unit, dates from the first half of the 20th century. Two test units farther north of the house contained the truncated remnants of the earlier surface. This earlier surface dates from the second half of the 19th century. Disturbance to the yard surface deposits was noted in these two northern units and is the result of activities associated with improvements and additions to the house over the years. The fill layers that cap the yard surface deposits are probably redeposited soils from within the site.
Six post-hole features were encountered within four of the test units off the northwest corner of the house. Three of the features were found in one unit alone, under the 20th-century yard surface. These features may be associated with activities related to laundry, animal husbandry, or small-scale farming.
Phase I shovel tests and a 1.524 X 1.524 m unit 34 m north of house identified a plowzone in the north half of the site. A large amount of nails were recovered from the plowzone of that test unit. Though historic documentation does not show a structure in the north lot, the high concentration of nails in this area suggests that a structure once stood in the vicinity. A plowzone was also identified in a test unit just to the south. In this area the soil was tilled for a flower garden. The plowzone in this area is limited to the boundaries of the flower bed and is not related to the plowing episode in the north half of the site.
An area 17 m northwest of the NW corner of the house exhibited evidence of disturbance activities associated with the installation or removal of a septic drain. No intact yard surface deposits were identified here. Two units sited along the east boundary of the property ( at 10 and 16 m north of the house, respectively) showed evidence of disturbance associated with grading and erosion. This was thought to be the result of grading activities on a neighboring lot to the east and also the steady slope of the landscape.
Artifacts recovered from the fill deposits at 18FR853 included 41 activity items (21 lamp chimney glass pieces, 1 terra cotta flower pot, 4 metal washers, 2 plastic pens, 2 graphite pencils, 1 slate pencil, 1 barbed wire fragment, 1 metal clasp, 1 brass escutcheon, 1 metal hook, 2 non-electrical wire pieces, 3 small iron rings, and 1 metal tag), 157 architectural artifacts (6 electrical wire fragments, 8 architectural hardware, 1 metal pipe fragment, 131 brick fragments, and 11 roof slate fragments), 12 clothing items (2 bone buttons, 1 shell button, 1 porcelain button, 1 ferrous metal button, 1 pewter button, 2 plastic buttons, 2 nylon stocking fragments, 1 "other ferrous” fastener/snap, and 1 leather fragment), 551 ceramic sherds (109 creamware, 108 pearlware, 3 soft-paste porcelain, 8 hard-paste porcelain, 127 redware, 183 whiteware, 8 ironstone, 4 yellowware, and 1 brown salt-glazed stoneware), 1,021 glass fragments (71 milk glass lid liners, 922 bottle glass fragments, and 28 table glass fragments), 12 other kitchen items (11 tin foil pieces and 1 kitchen knife), 5 personal objects (1 porcelain figurine, 2 glass beads, a 1953 penny, 1 plastic bead), 1 arms object (a rimfire cartridge), 4 tobacco pipe stems, 92 miscellaneous objects (1 rubber fragment, 32 miscellaneous metal fragments, 59 pieces of plastic), 3 quartz debitage fragments and 1 rhyolite biface.
Phase II artifacts recovered from the 19th century yard surface deposits included 73 architectural artifacts (29 window glass fragment, 17 nails, 25 bricks, 2 roof slate fragments), 1 clothing item (a pewter button), 110 ceramic sherds (9 creamware, 22 pearlware, 2 hard-paste porcelain, 32 whiteware, 42 redware, 1 gray salt-glazed stoneware, and 2 unidentified ceramic sherds ), 12 glass fragments (11 bottle glass, 1 canning jar lid liner), 1 tobacco pipe stem, 1 personal item (a porcelain doll part), 1 unidentified iron object and a quartz flake.
The remaining 2,950 artifacts recovered from the site are counted in the tables above as “miscellaneous” historic finds.
Construction of the proposed drain features will bisect the south half of 18FR853, from the southwest to the northeast. In a 12.2 X 12.2 m portion of the southern half of the site, an early 20th century yard surface was present. In a very limited area, this surface overlay a 19th century yard surface. The majority of this 19th century yard surface has been removed. The remaining yard surface deposits contained a low artifact density. Six post-hole features were discovered at 18FR853, but they contribute little to the understanding of the site’s formation. No other historic features were encountered during investigations at 18FR853. The site is not stratified and clear indications of ground disturbance were present. The cultural deposits on the site have limited potential for contributing to our understanding of Maryland’s history. It should not be considered a significant archeological resource.
|
