Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18MO635 Stoney Springs Site 2
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Stoney Springs Site 2 (18MO635) is the archeological remains of a late 19th-mid 20th century residence near Poolesville in rural Montgomery County. The site is situated on an upland flat covered with a mature hardwood forest. Upland streams flank the site, flowing south towards the nearby Potomac River. The surrounding landscape consists of ridgetops, knolls, hillslopes, and swale-like terrain, with the majority of these areas open and covered with grass. Soils at the site are primarily Croton and Readington silt loams.
Site 18MO635 was probably owned if not occupied by the Williams family in the 19th century. There were several branches of the Williams family residing in the Medley District of Montgomery County throughout the century. In 1850, a Richard W. Williams was known to have owned 10 slaves. The 1850 Census listed the household to include Richard, his wife Mary, and five children ages 1 through 12. There was also a Samuel J. Hays, Jr., who was listed as a member of the household with the occupation of “teacher”. Mr. Williams’ real estate was valued at $2,500 at that time. Such value was found to increase substantially over the next 10 years. According to the 1860 Slave Schedule, R.W. Williams owned 10 slaves and had one slave house. The census records noted that he and his nine children were well-off. His real estate was valued at $20,635 and his personal estate at $11,430. He was listed as a farmer at the time and his two middle daughters appear to have attended school. The residence of “R.W. Williams” is depicted on a map of Montgomery County from 1865 south of Poolesville and in the approximate site location.
The Civil War appears to have had an adverse effect on the family’s fortune. At the time, the census records indicated that Richard Williams was a farmer with real estate valued at $14,250 and personal property at $7,695. Research indicates that Williams sold some property during and after the War. At the time, five children were still living at home, ages 15 through 36. In addition, there were six black farm laborers listed in the household, including both males and females. They may have been former slaves of the Williams household. In four cases, the ages appeared consistent with the slaves owned by Mr. Williams in 1860. One family was listed as “Prather”, and the others as “Linsey” and “Offutt”.
The farm of R. Walter Williams is again depicted on a historic map from 1879 in the approximate locations of Site 18MO635. In 1880, Richard Williams remarried and was still farming the family property. In addition to his wife, his household consisted of a daughter from his first marriage and two other children. Also included in the household was a Lethe Green, age 85. The land was used for farming throughout the latter portion of the 19th century and when it passed from the Williams family, it continued to be farmed.
The site was first examined archeologically in the spring of 2006. By that time, the site was part of a developer-owned 724.33 acre property known as “Stoney Springs”. The Stoney Springs property was to be developed into a new residential community with single family homes, new roads, and associated infrastructure. The Phase I archeological work was associated with a client application for a wetland permit with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment.
The Phase I fieldwork at Stoney Springs consisted of a walk-over, shovel testing, and metal detection. Minor artifact scatters, historic stone foundation features, and several modern farming-related outbuildings were discovered during the walk-over. The property was dissected into 12 sub-areas and shovel tested using a 7.62-to-15.24 m “25-to-50 ft” spacing interval. Seven hundred and twenty-nine shovel tests were excavated , with 100 units producing positive artifact recoveries. In total, 450 artifacts were recovered through excavation and metal detection, resulting in six archeological sites being identified on the Stoney Springs property.
Site 18MO635 was defined by 6 positive shovel tests and an adjacent stone foundation for a dwelling. The horizontal extent of the site was estimated to be roughly 30.5 m (100 ft) north-south by 30.5 m east-west. Seventy-one artifacts were recovered including 62 historic and 9 modern objects. The historic artifacts recovered included 1 white clay marble, a piece of lead hardware, 10 nails (1 cut nail and 3 wire nails), 6 pieces of window glass, 2 mortar fragments, a metal knob, a mason jar lid liner, 23 container glass fragments, 10 ceramic sherds (5 whiteware, 4 ironstone, 1 porcelain), and 7 pieces of melted glass. The modern artifacts were all brown-tinted bottle fragments. Based on these findings, and the potential impact that would be caused to this area by the (then) proposed construction of a septic system and sand mound for the residential development, Phase II testing was recommended for Site 18MO635.
Phase II testing was also carried out in 2006. The fieldwork was initiated with shovel testing, which incorporated the existing 15.24 m (50 ft) grid utilized during the Phase I survey. This grid was narrowed to a 7.62 m (25 ft) increment to better examine the site area. In those portions of the site where cultural features were identified or artifact densities were high, shovel testing was narrowed one more time to a 3.81 m (12.5 ft) increment. All shovel test locations were excavated manually, using spade shovels and trowels. The shovel tests were also excavated stratigraphically in order to maintain vertical control over the artifacts recovered. The excavated soils were dry-screened in the field using hardware cloth. Soil profiles were recorded for each shovel test pit (STP) on standardized forms and using standard nomenclature and methods. Cultural materials recovered during the screening process were retained for analysis and bagged according to provenience, i.e., by site number, shovel test coordinate, and stratigraphic designation. The material recovery was plotted on a field map in order to provide the study with a comprehensive distribution of artifacts recovered and cultural features identified.
Test units of varying size were then excavated using the STP map data as a guide. In total, 87 shovel test pits were excavated and 12 contiguous and non-contiguous test units were excavated as well. Two of these units were actually test unit extensions and shared common datums. Eight of the test units were 91 X 91 cm (3 X 3 ft) in extent, three were 61 X 61 cm (2 X 2 ft), and one was 61 X 122 cm (2 X 4 ft). The test units were excavated manually, using flat shovels and trowels. These units were also excavated stratigraphically in order to maintain control over the vertical provenience of the artifacts recovered. Selected strata in excess of 7.62 cm (3 in) were further excavated by arbitrary levels, which generally ranged in thickness from 5.08-10.16 cm (2-4 in). All excavated, non-feature soils were dry-screened in the field using hardware cloth. The artifacts recovered during the screening process were bagged according to provenience, i.e., site numbers, test unit number, stratigraphic or feature designation, and arbitrary level. A standard report form was completed for each excavated stratum or arbitrary level within a stratum per test unit of the site. As with shovel testing, soil characteristics, stratum depths, and recovered cultural materials were documented on these forms. Profiles were drawn of one wall in each unit, and black and white photographs were taken to document soil stratigraphy.
Special excavation and documentation procedures were followed when cultural features were identified within test units. Within reason, the overall goal was to expose the horizontal and vertical extent of any feature identified. Trenching, shovel testing, and/or probing were employed to establish the horizontal boundaries of any features extending beyond the limits of the initial test unit dimension. This typically involved masonry features such as foundations. Upon exposing and then excavating a feature, it was hand drawn and photographed in plan and sectional view. The cross-section approach was used in the excavation of features. All non-masonry features were excavated separately from the surrounding matrix. Based on field judgment, no soil samples were retained from features for finer screening, closer examination, or chemical testing.
Through the Phase II testing at 18MO635, several thousand artifacts were recovered and several cultural features were identified.
Six cultural features and 1 natural feature were identified during the Phase II testing. The natural feature was determined to be the remains of a rodent burrow. The cultural features included a rectangular stone dwelling foundation, a dry-laid circular stone foundation (a probable well), the stone rubble foundation of an outbuilding, a builder’s trench associated with the front door stoop of the dwelling, a postmold associated with the front porch, and the remains of a collapsed root cellar. Collectively, these features were thought to represent the remains of the Williams family farmstead.
More than 75 shovel tests and eleven of the twelve test units produced positive artifact recoveries within Site 18MO635. Additionally, materials were recovered through manual trenching of the site to define features. In total, 5,346 artifacts were recovered, including 5,080 historic objects, 265 modern objects (counted as miscellaneous in the tables above), and 3 other items (also counted as miscellaneous). The historic assemblage consisted of 181 activity items (37 lamp glass fragments and 144 pieces of hardware), 1,915 architectural artifacts (97 pieces of brick, 68 pieces of mortar and plaster, 292 pieces of window glass, 5 pieces of slate, 6 hand-wrought nails, 299 machine-cut nails, 390 wire nails, 737 unidentified nails, 18 other architectural hardware items, and 3 unidentified objects), 2,456 kitchen-related artifacts (606 ceramic sherds, 1,711 pieces of container glass, 16 metal can and jar/bottle lid fragment, a metal can opener, 103 animal bone/teeth fragments, 18 pieces of shell, and 1 walnut shell), 83 personal objects, 9 tobacco-related artifacts (8 kaolin clay pipe fragments and 1 stoneware pipe bowl), 13 arms items (3 Minié balls and 10 brass cartridges), and 422 miscellaneous objects (40 pieces of charcoal, 101 pieces of coal, 3 clinkers and 278 other objects). Within the kitchen ceramic assemblage were 17 miscellaneous earthenware sherds, 1 creamware sherd, 10 pearlware sherds, 335 whiteware sherds, 54 ironstone sherds, 13 Rockingham sherds, 15 yelloware sherds, 62 redware sherds, 44 porcelain sherds, and 55 miscellaneous stoneware sherds. This assemblage suggests domestic occupation from ca. 1830 to as late as the 1950s.
Based on the findings, Site 18MO635 was classified as a 19th to mid 20th century farmstead. Historic research suggests that this farmstead was owned and occupied by the Williams family, a middle-income household that owned slaves and farmed the adjoining land. Based on the site’s age, the presence of what was thought by the excavators to be an intact historic landscape and associated cultural features, fair-to-good stratigraphic integrity and a well-preserved material recovery, the site was thought to have research value., be a significant historic archeological resource, and, under National Register Criterion (d), be eligible for listing on the NRHP. The significant portion of Site 18MO635, which was thought to be the core of the historic residence, was found to lie around the two stone foundations and well in the south-central portion of the site. Preservation was recommended for this portion of the site with data recovery if preservation proved incompatible with development plans.
Upon examination, MHT disagreed with this determination. Despite the presence of the six intact cultural features, the excavations revealed that much of the area had, in fact, been impacted by a variety of activities associated with 20th century use of the site and the demolition of the structures. Only five of the twelve test units that were excavated exhibited moderate to good stratigraphic integrity, while the remaining seven units contained mixed strata and disturbed deposits. A draft version of the Phase II report noted that, "the stratigraphic integrity at site 18MO635 varied from poor to good depending on location...after carefully examining the soils and artifacts of the twelve test units excavated, it was concluded that some degree of disturbance was present over the entire site. Where such disturbance was minimal, stratigraphic integrity bordered on being good, and where it was measureable soil integrity was fair to poor." While it was clear that the Phase II investigation yielded important information regarding the age, function, affiliation, integrity, and history of the site, there was inadequate justification for the claim that the site was capable of addressing specific research questions at the data recovery level. For these reasons, MHT did not concur with the recommendation of eligibility for the site. MHT determined that 18MO635 lacked the required levels of integrity and research potential to justify its significance and does not meet the criteria for eligibility in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, further investigations of this site were not warranted for Section 106 purposes.
|
