HomeMy WebLinkAboutOld Orchard at Cutchogue Subdivision
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
for the proposed
OLD ORCHARD AT CUTCHOGUE SUBDIVISION
CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Prepared by:
David J. Bernstein, Ph.D.
Allison J. Manfra
David Franz, M.S.
The Institute for Long Island Archaeology
Department of Anthropology
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-4364
May 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of a Stage I archaeological survey undertaken for the
proposed Old Orchard at Cutchogue subdivision in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York. This assessment was performed by the Institute for Long Island
Archaeology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The purpose of this study is to
determine if proposed subdivision and residential construction will adversely impact historic
and/or prehistoric remains. This required archival research and an archaeological survey with
subsurface testing.
Archival research (including a survey of historic maps and site file searches) suggests that
the project area was agricultural land throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth centuries,
and has a moderate sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric sites.
A total of 41 shovel test pits was excavated in the project area in May 2005. In addition,
49 shovel test pits were excavated in the northern portion of the project area by the Institute for
Long Island Archaeology in 1995 in advance of proposed construction of a recharge basin.
Combined, the 1995 and 2005 archaeological surveys resulted in the excavation of 90 shovel test
pits in the project area.
No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. Three abandoned farm outbuildings
and/or foundations dating to the nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries were identified in
the northern portion of the project area. Following the 1995 survey, the remains of the farm
outbuildings were determined not to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation.
A light density ofEuro-American cultural material (including bottle and window glass,
pearlware and stoneware ceramics, a ceramic button, brick, square cut nails, shell, coal and slag)
dating to the nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries was encountered in nine shovel test
pits during subsurface testing in 1995 and 2005. This material is probably the result of sporadic
dumping of refuse and subsequent dispersal by trampling and/or plowing, and as such, has
virtually no potential for contributing to our understanding of past activities in Cutchogue. No
further archaeological investigations are recommended.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ii
LIST OF FIGURES, PLATES, AND TABLE....................................... iv
INTRODUCTION............................................................. I
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
INTRODUCTION AND METHOD ......................................... 6
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY ................................... 6
Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Prehistoric Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Historic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FIELD INSPECTION AND SURFACE SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .21
SUBSURFACE TESTING............................................... 21
Results ......................................................... 22
CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS .................................. .23
REFERENCES .............................................................. 24
INTRODUCTION TO APPENDICES A AND B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
APPENDIX A: 1995 Shovel Test Pit Excavation Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
APPENDIX B: 2005 Shovel Test Pit Excavation Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
APPENDIX C: New York State Inventory Forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Plate ].
Plate 2.
Plate 3.
Plate 4.
Table 1.
LIST OF FIGURES, PLATES, AND TABLE
Map of Long Island showing the location of the project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
] 956 USGS topographic map, Southold. New York, 7.5 minute series
showing the location of the project area ................................ 4
Archaeological investigation of the Old Orchard property ..................5
] 797 Moore's Survey of the Town of South old .......................... ]6
] 858 Chace Map of Suffolk County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] 7
] 873 Beers Atlas of Long Island ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] 8
1904 USGS topographic map, Shelter Island, New York, ] 5 minute series .... 19
] 929 Dolph and Stewart Atlas of Suffolk County, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Looking west at dense vegetation in Lot] of the Old Orchard property. . . . . . . . 8
Looking west at abandoned nineteenth century sheep barn in the northern
portion of the Old Orchard property ................................... 8
Abandoned twentieth century fertilizer barn in the northern portion of the Old
Orchard property .................................................. 9
Looking northwest at brick foundation of original Case barn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Reported archaeological sites within one mile of the project area. . . . . . . . . . . . ]]
IV
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Stage I archaeological survey undertaken for the
proposed Old Orchard at Cutchogue subdivision in the hamlet ofCutchogue, Town of South old,
Suffolk County, New York (Figures I and 2). The study was conducted by the Institute for Long
Island Archaeology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in May 2005. The
project area, located west of New Suffolk Road and north of Cedar's Road, is a parcel of
approximately 4.62 acres (1.8 hectares).
Two subsurface surveys have been performed in what is now the Old Orchard at
Cutchogue property. The first, on 2.92 acres (1.17 hectares) in the far northern portion of the
property, was performed by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology in 1995 in advance of
possible construction of a recharge basin proposed by the New York State Department of
Transportation (Silver and Merwin 1995). The second, performed in May 2005 and detailed in
this report, involved subsurface testing in the southern portion of Lot 2 and in all of Lot I
(Figure 3).
The 1995 survey involved the excavation of 49 shovel test pits in Lots 2-4 (Appendix A).
Six of the 49 shovel test pits yielded Euro-American cultural material (including bottle glass,
pearl ware and stoneware ceramics, a ceramic button, brick, square cut nails, shell, coal and slag)
which dates to the nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries. In addition, three abandoned
farm outbuildings and/or foundations dating to the late nineteenth through the mid-twentieth
centuries were identified. These structures were documented on New York State
Building/Structure and Historic Archaeological Site Inventory Forms in 1995 (Appendix C).
However, the remains of the farm outbuildings were determined to be not eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation following the 1995 survey.
The purpose of this study is to determine if proposed subdivision and residential
construction will adversely impact archaeological remains of prehistoric and/or historic age.
This required archival research and an archaeological survey with subsurface testing. The study
was performed in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Standardsfor Cultural Resource
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections issued by the New York
Archaeological Council (1995).
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"
'"
Project Area
", -Q,C,BAN".
-
It f tp i
1 I Ii i. ..
-
1r:JO" .
Figure I. Map of Long Island showing the location of the project area.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 2.
I
I
I
-------
>
j, ",
~, ,,\
,,>.; ~'\,;'
/ ,-, ,,',>"<;/
,i'-. " "-, , ___',__'
l."~>'~citCihoiU~~ta: :_"~
'" - ,) U ,~,,,-,~\-,-,_\,:./ '
. ,. \/ , Sacre9-lHeart",
,~ Cem I I( '"
~-<:i \:(:~'
Y,\ "
.
C
O'
;
> \'"
" '.~."
'~\-'! r
.j,..
",,)k?C:'
:('.,,',;
,/'
,f)
1956 USGS topographic map, Southold, New York, 7.5 minute series (scale=1 :24,000),
showing the location of the project area.
4
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
::JiJ.5
I
:J:iJ.0
I
:tiJ.5
I :tJj.0
I :t!J.5
I ::J:IJ.O
I ~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
9L'.gbl ,""f .00,bi..DO N
~\~O ~.~-- 0
uI\
il
~l 0 0 O.
t ;u;\
~Q8" q.. mil/Cd/Wi)
. ," ,~...,rn~~".!!
" ,,'II V iT
~ 0 0
~~2~o
[qi Q i 0
~~9 ,
lL~Q
l;
or~u . ;; "OZ:.E~.bO S
t,--..-.-..------..--...............
t
01_0
1550
1535
1520
..~.~~~
.. I z
..,
I~;';
I~~
~o~~
d.
o
o
fz ~ ()QtO<;,~
~ ,!:!ffl K \
~ ;; '-...::/
lq -{
': 1
~ ,~
~ '!i "
\-
,
'\
i
1551NO IN10
o
""
f
~
~"'i~'
",-lll.,,'';;
i
if
_.1
IN25
IN40
IN55
case's Lane
Map Key
~&: {,l :
/ \: / r: )';
-c'~ '~~
,,ot/; . / '. j,~~
..,.0' , : ~{t1ff:;?:'" ,=~~ I
./ / RS nr..~ /~
~ / / /,' B 7, ,~
~ ,.. a. J. m;;., /'. ..
~ """/ ~ R, r- -I, -1 /
.Ay"t.,o,,:,~'- - .:;,--t'--~o RS31:J - ~
uA\''Y ~.~ ~q
..,....'r! /.~ ! Q~
~yq 3 ~ih:€gl J .O<."';.b 5 .., q
/ ,- M 11I-' ,~ . ,m 'flS1. '?;\;;;~' -I. z m
RB'f' ~~~. I~
~fii~~t~) ~, ,- ~'b I! fi
'l-- R~~m U Q ! tl.fW'- RSlIrs" j (7";1
()\ ~ '-(;g ~/~J ~fi4 1t ljl ,))."""l 0;/1 I \___./!Jl
1/ ~ ~ R ..II. d!~ RSit? th R8fJ~ RS~,l 1/1
:t I~:\~ (RS53 / .~~~~ :~\ .,'
~J..'-(' --=-y. ~( "Il.~. fr 1.. ",,: I~
_ - ... hlil I 0 );:l11!J' ill" '.'''' I",
",:" \!'P' , R~44' .'(J R 'Ol"!' RB~'tW-.
6 t :... K'T: Q' - , j BS7 i .
.~. '. .~~~~:o~ I ~L~.<; -
!I
j/
A Datum B Barn (Identified
in 1995 Survey)
1995 2005
o 0 Shovel Test Pit (Sterile)
. . Shovel Test Pit (with
Euro-American Material)
Om 15m
~
Oft
)vi .()t,f?~.t<? N
--------
IN70
- - ~~....;,;,..;::.~ --
2: :3 "i-1'L,~So~ S
,c;;; '.:u
-- -
j; ;;:
:r;:7:/-'~" >
r-~\ .:: j .\1
fW ,,_/ I fJ~
rj -,..."1'"i
~ 0- '
- .~
I,~I
t
;0
:Y
~,~\!
fit
g
I~;JI
l'
i II! i
, !I
. , I
i !i !
.....,.J...L..-,--,,"
.5i:
,
-,------ "-.,.-
New Suffolk Road
IN85
IN100 IN115 IN130 IN145 IN160 IN175 IN190
Figure 3. Archaeological investigation of the Old Orchard property.
5
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION AND METHOD
An evaluation of the natural and cultural history of an area is essential to understanding
past land use, as well as determining the likelihood of encountering prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites. Human groups locate their settlements in order to best take advantage of the
characteristics of the natural and social landscape. Thus, knowledge ofa region's history and
environmental features is important for reconstructing past behavior and assessing the probability
of locating evidence of early activities.
A brief history of the Town of Southold and the project area is presented below. The
natural history section includes a discussion of the environment and how it has changed over
time, and a description of the topography and physical resources of the project area. The culture
history includes a discussion of prehistoric and historic settlement patterns and activities.
A search of the available published records and site files was undertaken to determine if
any previous studies had documented archaeological remains in, or in the vicinity of, the project
area. Pertinent historical records such as maps and descriptive histories were examined to obtain
information on past activities in the study parcel.
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY
Environmental Setting. The project area is located in the Town of Southold on the
North Fork of Long Island (Figure I). It is situated on the outwash plain of the North Fork, just
south of the rolling hills of the recessional moraine, a geological feature created over 15,000
years ago by meltwater runoff from the Wisconsin ice sheet (Sirkin 1995). Topography is gently
sloping with an average elevation of 3 meters (10 feet) above mean sea level. There are no
natural surface sources of fresh water within or adjacent to the project area. The nearest source
of fresh water consists of wetlands that fringe West Creek less thanl52 meters (500 feet) south of
the project area (Figure 2).
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soils in the project area consist of Haven loam and Riverhead sandy loam, 3 to 8%
slopes, (Wamer et al. 1975:Sheet 17). Riverhead sandy loam and Haven loam are deep, well-
drained, medium to moderately coarse textured soils with low natural fertility.
A typical profile for Riverhead sandy loam where plowing has occurred includes a plow
zone (pz or Ap) of medium to dark brown loamy sand to 30 centimeters (12 inches), followed by
the B2 subsoil (yellow or orange brown loamy sand, to an average depth of 69 centimeters [27
inches]), and the B3 substratum (light yellow brown loamy sand, to 147 centimeters [58
inches])(Wamer et al. 1975:77-78).
A typical profile for Haven loam consists of a surface layer (AO/ A I) of dark gray brown
sandy loam with organic material to 8 centimeters (3 inches), followed by an upper subsoil (BI)
of medium brown loam to 25 centimeters (10 inches). In areas where plowing has occurred, the
topsoil and upper subsoil have been mixed to form a homogeneous plow zone (Ap or pz). The
lower subsoil (B2) is an orange brown loamy sand to 48 centimeters (19 inches), with a
substratum (B3) of yellow brown loamy sand with gravel (Wamer et al. 1975:71). No cultural
material is expected in the B3 soil horizon.
Now abandoned farmland, vegetation in the project area is comprised of oak, cedar, and
locust trees with an understory of immature trees, berry bushes, briar, poison ivy, virginia
creeper, and other perennial vines and tall grasses (Plate I). The remains of three abandoned
farm outbuildings and/or foundations (Plates 2-4), and disturbance and dumping associated with
these three barns, are present in the northern portion of the project area (Lots 2-4). The western
edge of the southern parcel (Lot I) has been disturbed by landscaping. Disturbances from
cutting, grading, paving, and other earth moving activities associated with road construction are
present along the eastern and southern edges of the property.
In general, the environmental attributes of this portion of the North Fork, including the
project area, indicate the presence of a diverse set of resources that could have been exploited by
aboriginal hunter-gatherers, as well as by the later Euro-American settlers. Of special
significance are resources (e.g., water fowl, mammals, marsh plants) associated with the nearby
wetlands. Upland resources, such as berries, nuts, and local terrestrial fauna could have also
been utilized by the Native Americans as part of their generalized subsistence base.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plate 1. Looking west at dense vegetation in Lot 1 of the Old Orchard property.
"-, '
:. . ).. >.. \ ,.,,/...,........, '"(l< '..." .
",\'" ... .:J...d ~ "'=' .~\~ :t ~ -~L
" Vi' .. ,f~:'- :..:'-.;-"">< :-~/~'" ~ :~~, 'f't...... . ;:t~
',:-. J {:, ~3-- ! _~", -", _'~~~l"'f} ,;", jlh.~'~'\-~~:~)'l~~
. r ',.7:;-: .7. ,_. .~___- ^ . . ~',,/' .;0< '\. r' -.:r:!I~~'J
.," . . . ,> .....' _ 'y' 'I -- .,','0..-.t<
'j,/' ,'___'j! /,_:":-:-:-~ :.. ~\<;1';'.&i:,'~': 'IJi[t~~k V /i: .t""""'~~:'
V . ~, .':' .\,,- . "'.' j'r"0~"'.~~1^"'}J!t-~l", '~;"'1"-
, I ",.f --~'\~., ,,\: i:,~,_:';':9::~' . ."~:
I A!S'~' .. ...~ .:..~/i,lt '/~~' .fj.... ,-/'; r' '
J /,.(3, J \:~ . . J of . j ,Ij !
f ' . =~\ '*.' . hi' "t .~ )'
'. ~j,_ . /. ~~,,_.~.~d.., ~j~/~\~_ ,t-
. '_ '" d;l~:7='\ ,-C l-
I.. .' ,,:;jt~.' ,- ~ l' .
I . 7 -- .~.\.I~l'l:l . y."'. \: I
T-=.., , I.,.:., I I" '" "'- I
1~1 i..l, ~ . ,"\,' II ': Ii
,I 1
, r
/,
Plate 2. Looking west at abandoned nineteenth century sheep barn in the northern portion of the
Old Orchard property.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Plate 3. Abandoned twentieth century fertilizer barn in the norther portion of the Old Orchard
property .
Plate 4. Looking northwest at brick foundation of original Case barn.
9
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prehistoric Period. The files of the Suffolk County Archaeological Association
(SCAA), the Institute for Long Island Archaeology (ILIA), New York State Museum (NYSM),
and the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) document seven known
prehistoric sites within one mile (1.6 kilometer) of the project area. In addition, an
archaeological survey conducted in the northern portion of the Old Orchard property by the
Institute for Long Island Archaeology in 1995 yielded no prehistoric remains. There are no State
or National Register of Historic Places listed or previously determined eligible properties dating
to the prehistoric period within or adjacent to the project area.
Although little modem archaeological research has taken place on the North Fork of Long
Island, the region is known to have been well-populated by Native Americans prior to the
Europan arrival in the seventeenth century (Ritchie 1959; Smith 1950). Based on the site file
information and an assessment of nearby environmental characteristics, the potential for the
presence of prehistoric remains in undisturbed portions of the project area is moderate. If
present, expected site types might include small manifestations of prehistoric activity (with few
artifacts) that may represent hunting or tool repair incidents which occurred away from larger
camps (Bernstein et al. 1996: 127).
10
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table I. Reported archaeological sites within one mile of the project area.
Site Identifier Site Name Agel Cultural Comments
Affiliation
NYSM 4882 ACP SUFK-13 prehistoric Village site identified near the shore east of Cutchogue
(Parker 1920).
NYSM 8240 Grathwold prehistoric Village site with Sebonac and Niantic sherds scattered
around Fresh Water Swamp.
NYSM 8241. Fort Neck prehistoric? No further information is available for this site.
AI0310.000238
NYSM 8243 Corchaug Neck prehistoric? No further information is available for this site.
NYSM 8244, Solecki Orient- Burial site.
AI0310.000237 transitional
NYSM 8252, Fleet prehistoric? No further information is available for this site.
Al 031 0.000236
NYSM 8258 prehistoric? No further information is available for this site.
NYSM 686, Fort Corchaug historic Fortified village near Downs Creek.
NYSM 687, Native
NYSM 4881, American-
Al0310.000028 Contact
period
AI0310.000239 Wines-Horton historic Historic period house documented on 19th century
house maps.
Al0310.000019 Holland historic- early Testing site of the US Navy's first submarine.
Submarine Base 20" century
and Workshop
A 10310.001254 Case Barns historic Structural remains of three barns (Silver and Merwin
1995).
11
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Historic Period. There are three documented historic period archaeological sites within
one mile of the Old Orchard property. One of these sites, the Case Barns site (AI0310.001254)
was identified in the northern portion of the Old Orchard property during a 1995 archaeological
survey by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology in advance of proposed construction of a
recharge basin (Silver and Merwin 1995). No National Register listed or previously determined
eligible properties were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area.
The English permanently settled the northeastern end of Long Island in the mid-
seventeenth century. At this time the North Fork was occupied by the Corchaug Indians,
speakers of the Mohegan-Pequot-Montauk Algonquian language (Salwen 1978). A group of
Corchaugs are known to have occupied Fort Corchaug, a palisaded fort located on one of the
streams flowing into Peconic Bay, roughly between the 1630s and 1665 (Williams 1973: 124).
The lands known to the Indians as Yennecock (present-day Southold, Thompson 1839)
were ceded to the Magistrates of New Haven, Connecticut in a series of deeds dating prior to
1640. By the time of European arrival there was little conflict as local Native Americans were
already weakened by disease and from raids by the mainland Connecticut tribes. Prime land and
local power quickly passed to the white settlers. There are no official reservations or settlements
recorded for Native Americans on the North Fork after King Phillip's War in 1674. However,
records of slave purchases indicate that a number of Native Americans were living in Southold
during the late seventeenth century as slaves (Booth 1990; Salwen 1978).
There are conflicting reports concerning the original settlement of the Town of Southold
because all town records prior to 1651 are lost (Munsell 1882:1). However, it is generally
accepted that in 1640 a group of Puritan settlers from New Haven, Connecticut obtained a grant
from James Farret to take up eight square miles ofland. By 1665 the town included all lands
from Wading River to Plum Island, bounded by Long Island Sound to the north and the Peconic
Bay on the south (Munsell 1882:9-10). The settlers were farmers, and any goods produced other
than those needed for subsistence were traded to the Connecticut settlements.
The hamlet ofCutchogue was settled in 1660 as a new division of the township. Forty-
four families were established there by 1661. These early settlers were farmers, fishermen, and
12
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
craftsmen. Among the first settlers was Benjamin Horton, whose home "The Old House," is a
National Register listed property located on Cases's Lane north of the project area.
Clearing lands for agriculture continued throughout the seventeenth and into the
eighteenth century. By 1677, the year ofthe first assessment roll, there were 82 taxpayers within
the entire Town of South old. One of the crops grown was tobacco, which commanded a high
price abroad. The shipping industry was established early in the Town's history and by 1690 all
vessels were directed to report to New York City to be cleared (Hall 1975).
In the early eighteenth century, the colonists established three major east-west travel
routes to connect the small farming communities of Suffolk County. Main Road (New York
State Route 25, also known as Old Kings Highway) was cleared for cart use in 1704
(Bailey 1949), and this road continues to serve as the major overland transportation route along
the North Fork.
Little changed in the lifeways of the English colonists of Suffolk County until the
American Revolution. Early in the conflict Long Island attracted British attention because of the
island's proximity to the major port of New York Harbor, and also to Connecticut and Rhode
Island. In addition, Long Island was used as a major resource for provisioning British troops, and
the local agrarian economy was disrupted as the British stripped the region of food, timber, and
herd animals (Luke and Venables 1976).
Industry and water-borne trade were interrupted with British occupation of the Town of
Southold, but life gradually returned to the earlier pattern after 1781. Following the Revolution
and into the mid-nineteenth century, the settlement of the North Fork proceeded slowly and was
concentrated along main thoroughfares such as Main Road.
The community ofCutchogue remained agriculturally based and relatively isolated
throughout the nineteenth century. The farmsteads that lined Route 25 produced large quantities
of potatoes, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, strawberries, cranberries, dairy products, and eggs.
Farmsteads were passed through generations ofthe same families.
The railroad reached the North Fork in 1844 when the Long Island Rail Road line
between Brooklyn and Greenport was completed. During the 1860s, railroad service was
interrupted by financial difficulties and the Civil War, but regular service was resumed in the
13
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1870s. The railroad provided an efficient means of transporting bulk cargoes such as agricultural
produce, and thus heralded the demise of coastal trading and wooden shipbuilding in eastern
Long Island. New York City-bound trains originating in the Town of Southold were loaded daily
with crates and barrels of vegetables during harvest season (Ziel and Foster 1965:167). The
railroad also carried summer visitors to the region. The shoreline communities of eastern Suffolk
County flourished with seasonal activity, and hotels and boarding houses were established to
meet the needs of summer guests.
A stream of summer visitors to the North Fork began in the late nineteenth century. This
increased in the early twentieth century and included hunters and fishermen, as well as picnickers
and beach-goers. The early twentieth century witnessed the establishment of large "Country
Estates" on some of the farmlands. Generally, these were located north of the project area, at the
Sound side ofthe fork. Nonetheless, the Township of South old remained an agricultural
community. Most of the land was farmed, primarily in potatoes, cauliflower, and brussel sprouts.
The nature of the local agricultural economy changed in 1980 when the first of a number
of vineyards was established. Since then, more vineyards, garden nurseries, orchards, and sod
farms have replaced many vegetable farms (Murphy 1990).
Trends in land use can be discerned through a study of historic maps (Figures 4 through
8). A linear pattern of residential development is clearly shown along Main Road (New York
State Route 25) on the 1797 Moore Survey of the Town of South old (Figure 4). The project area
is shown south of Main Road between Wickham and Reeves Creeks. This map shows only
mills, school houses, and the Meeting House along the Main Road in Cutchogue north of the Old
Orchard property.
The 1858 Chace Map of Suffolk (Figure 5) continues to show a linear settlement along the
Main Road, but with much greater evidence of settlement. New Suffolk Road is shown east of
the project area, but no structures are shown within or adjacent to the Old Orchard property. By
the time of the 1873 Beers Atlas of Long Island (Figure 6), the railroad was running regularly on
the North Fork, more roads had been established, and settlement had increased. Residential
development continued to cluster along Main Road north of the project area. However, no
structures are shown within or adjacent to the Old Orchard property.
14
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
While the 1904 USGS topographic map (Figure 7) does not indicate land ownership, it
does provide information about natural features and general use ofthe land. This map illustrates
the project area as relatively unchanged since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. No
structures are shown within the project area. In contrast to the 1904 map, the 1929 Dolph and
Stewart Atlas of Suffolk County, New York (Figure 8) indicates land ownership but does not show
structures, topography, or indicators ofland use. By 1929, G. Case is shown as owning the Old
Orchard property. No structures are shown within or adjacent to the project area.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-~
"i;
--
)/1 'J/71'~9
.H
~~
.
,
-:
l
q
i
#> tr
,
.'
"
;'
<t:'
Figure 4, 1797 Survey of the Town of Southold showing the project area south of Main Road
between Wickham and Reeves Creeks.
16
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
.,
HIlJ ~ .
~~ -." " V".,.,
""" It ,r~..... ""
.. ~~ -th.... ~.....
~....2.~... ."'t~ !,~...,..":" -,,~..~\!,.. ~ i
"' ~ ~<:1.~t~;~."'~:"'~;'~. ,.... :~;:;~:~:;.~.:~:,:.~,.l/ i~r~
...."'-. ......".. ~!I..~~.;;.'::;I~:.:,..~':;. l..~'t'."\:f~
. "f.l.."',l, ...;,;~.;t..". ".;'~ <,.' ",I~.. . ~
o",,"(,";.:.-.tv '~~:i:';1.;::', 'i'i I'" . '~ ~ It '
..,~' \\.'l~"'",.. ",.. ~:;;;~.:-:;~ ..:0'... ~J';l ;"" .
......- ,,~....~.t..~'!". -', "" .;;h5'-....~ .. 'i~~'
",.,.1 .Nr......... .t;,'~.", 'I~ ""'l;"~ 'l, ... ~
rt<' . '"4,..', ~.'~ Ih:J'" ,,/' f
':''''~~_<:~ .<r:~ /'/:
.,\" f
. .'
~ :i ..;.
i~ .
. .~~,~ ~'..:; J
...... .
; [~I #-~~~: t:~.~~,'.:.~..
\'
:. ~.:.:~:."'..:l;;).':::,...
.:., ;:~..: ~~~::,:.
-'","1<'.
.. .II. :.~. .,- '"')i,~';"" .
,'_ .,."I".ll
,t.1"".'"
'J
o
1 ~;.
,<,.,:'
.....
::~fJ;:;t;"
...
{'n'C'lItHjl'.:(.~'
.' "
.~
nTlTlTK
{,'
,,(
:/r
,
0'
\
c
..\\\'..','~\, l-,;
'>;,.Project Area
.\.\'."... .
r
~
r'~
Figure 5. 1858 Chace Map of Suffolk County showing the Old Orchard property west of New
Suffolk Road. No structures are shown within or adjacent to the project area.
17
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ Jt; (' () N I ('
1 )'
Figure 6. 1873 Beers Atlas of Long Is/and showing greater residential development on the North
Fork. The structure shown nearest to the project area is owned by Wm. H. Case.
18
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i/t~~ "'~""
~~ \
~~-l
I~..
~~
/ ..~
.,.;.-'"
,..,.--"
.
r
'\
,
I
,
j
'-.,/'\
, ,
_r"\ '~__J
~ V\
.. '-"" :'~~ .// .
'\ ,.~~ ',/
i/,r';~~ t
Figure 7. 1904 USGS topographic maps of Shelter Island, New York showing the
location ofthe project area.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 8.
I
I
I
Project Area
1929 Dolph and Stewart Atlas of Suffolk County, New York. The project area
is owned by G. Case.
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
A two phase survey design was employed to search for archaeological remains in the
remainder of the project area. Similar survey designs, used in other areas of Long Island, have
proven successful in detecting prehistoric and historic sites (Bernstein et al. 1999; Lightfoot
1986). The initial phase of the survey involved a surface reconnaissance and inspection intended
to locate large and easily visible remains. The second phase entailed subsurface testing ofthe
Old Orchard property. No standing structures were evaluated as part of this survey.
FIELD INSPECTION AND SURFACE SURVEY
A surface survey was conducted in May 2005. All areas slated for impact were walked
over, with special attention given to examining exposed soil for artifacts or other surface
manifestations of past cultural activity. Vegetation patterns and topographic features which
might provide insight into early land use were also noted. Visibility is generally poor throughout
the property due to dense vegetation.
SUBSURFACE TESTING
The second phase of the field survey consisted of the excavation of shovel test pits
(STPs) designed to detect the presence of cultural remains buried beneath the ground surface. As
previously mentioned, most of the northern parcel of the Old Orchard property (Lots 2-4) was
tested by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology in 1995. Shovel test pits excavated during
the 1995 survey are identified on Figure 3 as RB 14-62. The remainder of the project area (Lot 1
and the southern portion of Lot 2) was tested utilizing a 15 meter (50 foot) grid in May 2005. A
mapping reference was established at the northeast corner of the southern parcel, and all of the
test units are designated using metric grid coordinates relative to this point (Figure 3).
A total of 90 shovel test pits was excavated for the two surveys. Shovel test pits have a
diameter of approximately 40 centimeters (16 inches). Most of the shovel test pits were dug well
into the B2 subsoil, to approximately 60 centimeters (24 inches) below the present ground
surface. The soil from each test unit was screened through six millimeter (1/4 inch) wire mesh to
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
aid in the identification and recovery of cultural materials. All cultural material, photographs and
field notes produced during this survey are curated at the Institute for Long Island Archaeology at
the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Results. The specific data recorded in the field for each shovel test pit, including
information on soil stratigraphy, are presented in Appendices A and B.
The general characteristics of the soils are discussed in the Environmental Setting section,
above. The topsoil layer (referred to in Appendices A and B as the AO/Al horizon) consists of
partially decomposed organic matter and dark brown sandy or silty loam that extends to an
average depth of 5.5 centimeters (2.2 inches) below the ground surface. Two shovel test pits
contained an A2 leaching zone of gray sand. This was followed by a plow zone of medium
brown loam, loamy sand, or sandy silt to an average depth of 31 centimeters (12.4 inches). The
lower subsoil (B2) is an orange brown or dark yellow brown loamy sand or sandy silt
(occasionally with pebbles and gravel). A total of five shovel test pits exposed soils disturbed
from activities other than plowing (Appendices A and B).
No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered during either survey. Three
abandoned farm outbuildings and/or foundations dating to the nineteenth through the mid-
twentieth centuries were identified in the northern portion of the project area. These structures
were documented on New York State Building/Structure and Historic Archaeological Site
Inventory Forms in 1995 (Appendix C). However, the remains of the farm outbuildings were
determined to be not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation following the 1995 survey.
A very light density of Euro-American cultural material (including bottle and window
glass, pearl ware and stoneware ceramics, a ceramic bulton, brick, square cut nails, shell, coal and
slag) was encountered during subsurface testing in STPs RB 41, RB 43, RB 47, RB 49, RB 51,
RB 62, NI75/W65, S5/W35, and S35/W95 (Figure 3; Appendices A and B). This material is
probably the result of sporadic dumping of refuse and subsequent dispersal by trampling and/or
plowing, and as such, has virtually no potential for contributing to our understanding of past
activities in Cutchogue.
22
- ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Archival research (including a survey of historic maps and site file searches) suggests that
the Old Orchard at Cutchogue property in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New Yark, was farmed agricultural land throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth
centuries. A total of 41 shovel test pits was excavated in the project area in May 2005. In
addition, 49 shovel test pits were excavated in the northern portion of the project area by the
Institute for Long Island Archaeology in 1995 in advance of proposed construction of a recharge
basin. Combined, the 1995 and 2005 archaeological surveys resulted in the excavation of 90
shovel test pits in the project area.
No prehistoric artifacts or features were encountered. Three abandoned farm outbuildings
and/or foundations dating to the nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries were identified in
the northern portion of the project area. Following the 1995 survey, the remains ofthe farm
outbuildings were determined not to be eligible far listing on the National Register of Historic
Places by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation.
A light density of Euro-American cultural material (including bottle and window glass,
pearlware and stoneware ceramics, a ceramic button, brick, square cut nails, shell, coal and slag)
dating to the nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries was encountered in nine shovel test
pits during subsurface testing in 1995 and 2005. This material is probably the result of sporadic
dumping of refuse and subsequent dispersal by trampling and/or plowing, and as such. has
virtually no potential for contributing to our understanding of past activities in Cutchogue. No
further archaeological investigations are recommended.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Bailey, Paul
1949 Long Island: A History of Two Great Counties, Nassau and Suffolk. Lewis Historical
Publishing, New York.
Bernstein, David 1., Michael J. Lenardi, Daria Merwin, and Lynn Harvey-Cantone
1996 Prehistoric Use of Wetland Environments: A Case Study from the Interior of Long Island,
New York. Northeast Anthropology 51:113-130.
] 999 Stage IB Archaeological Survey of the Kycia Property, Head ofthe Harbor, Town of
Smithtown, Suffolk County, New York. Institute for Long Island Archaeology, State
University of New York at Stony Brook.
Booth, Antonia
] 990 A Brief Account of Southold's History. In Southold Town 350''' Anniversary, 1640-1990,
edited by Peggy Murphy. 350'h Anniversary Executive Committee, Southold, New York.
Hall, Warren
] 975 Pagans, Puritans, Patriots of Yesterday's Southold. New Suffolk Historic Council,
Cutchogue, New York.
Latham, Roy
1953 Notes on the Orient Focus of Eastern Long Island, N.Y. Pennsylvania Archaeologist,
23(3-4): 108-] 10.
Lightfoot, Kent
] 986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of
Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 5] :484-504.
Luke, M. H. and R. W. Venables
] 976 Long Island in the American Revolution. New York State American Revolution
Bicentennial Commission, Albany.
Munsell, William W.
]882 History of Suffolk County, New York 1683-1882. W. W. Munsell and Company, New
York.
Murphy, Peggy
1990 Farming: Southold's Ever Changing Heritage. In Southold Town 350'}, Anniversary,
1640-1990, edited by Peggy Murphy. 350'h Anniversary Executive Committee, Southold,
New York.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Parker, Arthur C.
1920 The Archeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin Numbers 237
and 238. State University of New York, Albany.
Ritchie, William A.
1959 The Stony Brook Site and its Relation to Archaic Transitional Cultures on Long Island.
New York State Museum and Science Service, Bulletin 372. The University of the State
of New York, Albany.
Salwen, Bert
1978 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period. In Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume I5, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 160-176. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington D.C.
Silver, Annette and Daria E. Merwin
1995 A Cultural Resource Survey Report of PIN 0041.99.121, Route 25, Highland Road,
Cutchogue to Sixth Street, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
Institute for Long Island Archaeology, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Sirkin, Les
1995 Eastern Long Island Geology with Field Trips. The Book and Tackle Shop, Watch Hill,
Rhode Island.
Smith, Carlyle S.
1950 The Archaeology of Coastal New York. Anthropological Papers of the American
Museum of Natural History 43:95-202.
Thompson, Benjamin F.
1839 A History of Long Island, Containing an Account of the Discovery and Settlement. E.
French, New York.
Warner, J. W. Jr., W. E. Hanna, R. J. Landry, J. P. Wulforst, J. A. Neely, R. L. Holmes and C. E.
Rice
1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Williams, Lorraine
1973 Ft. Shantok and Ft. Corchaug: a Comparative Study of Seventeenth Century Culture
Contact in the Long Island Sound Area. PhD Dissertation, New York University.
University Microfilms #73-11,788.
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ziel, Ron and George Foster
1965 Steel Rails to the Sunrise: the Long Island Rail Road. Hawthorn Books, Inc., New York,
New York.
List of Maps
Beers, F. W.
1873 Atlas of Long Island, New York. Beers, Comstock, and Cline, Brooklyn, New York.
Chace, 1.
1858 Map of Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. John Duglass, Philadelphia.
Dolph and Stewart
1929 Atlas of Suffolk County, New York. Dolph and Stewart, New York.
Moore, Thomas
1797 Survey of the Town of South old. Copy on file, Map Library, State University of New
Yark at Stony Brook.
United States Geological Survey
1904 Shelter Island, New York. 15 minute series. Topographic Surveys, Washington, D.C.
1956 Southold, New York. 7.5 minute series, Washington, D.C.
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION TO APPENDIX A AND B
Basic descriptive data from the project area are presented in the following appendix.
Excavation, stratigraphic, and artifactual information are included. Excavation information
includes shovel test pit (STP) numbers, stratigraphic designation (stratum), and starting (SO) and
ending (ED) depths (in centimeters) for each excavated level.
The following abbreviations are used in the appendix:
Stratum
AO/AI-topsoil
A2-leaching zone
B2-lower subsoil
dist -disturbed
pz-plow zone
bn-brown
cl-clay
dk-dark
gb-gray brown
gr-gray
gv-gravel
lm-loam(y)
It-light
md-medium
mo-mottled
ob-orange brown
or-orange
pb-pebbles
sd-sand(y)
st -silt(y)
yb-yellow brown
27
I
I APPENDIX A: 1995 SHOVEL TEST PIT EXCA V A nON INVENTORY
I STP SD ED Slratum Soils Cullural Malerial
RBI4 0 4 AO/AI dk bn slim
4 21 pz md bn sd 51
I 21 60 B2 ob sd 51
RBIS 0 8 AO/AI dk bn slIm
8 43 pz md bn sd 51
I 43 65 B2 ob sd 51
RB16 0 16 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
16 20 A2 grsd
I 20 50 pz md bn sd 51
50 68 B2 ob sd 51
RBI7 0 3 AO/A] dk bn sd 1m
I 3 34 pz md bn sd 51
34 60 B2 ob sd 51
RBI8 0 4 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 4 35 pz md bn sd 51
35 65 B2 ob sd 51
RB]9 0 2 AO/A] dk bn sd 1m
I 2 20 pz md bn sd 51
20 50 B2 ob sd 51
RB20 0 4 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 4 33 pz md bn sd 51
33 59 B2 ob sd 51
RB21 0 6 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 6 38 pz md bn sd 51
38 64 B2 ob sd 51
RB22 0 6 AO/A] dk bn sd 1m
I 6 27 pz md bn sd
27 65 B2 dk yb sd
RB23 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 5 20 pz md bn sd 51
20 57 B2 dk yb sd 51
RB24 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 5 19 pz md bn sd 51
]9 60 B2 dk yb sd st
RB25 0 3 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 3 22 pz md bn sd 51
22 57 B2 dk yb sd 51
RB26 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
5 20 pz md bn cl 51
I 20 60 B2 dk yb cl 51
I
I 28
I
I
I STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material
RB27 0 3 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 3 20 pz md bn cl st
20 57 B2 dk yb cl st
RB28 0 2 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 2 30 pz md bn cl st
30 59 B2 dk yb cl sl
RB29 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 5 31 pz md bn sd sl
31 62 B2 dk yb sd sl
RB30 0 3 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 3 19 pz md bn sd sl
19 56 B2 dk yb sd sl
RB31 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 5 32 pz md bn sd st
w/pb&gv
32 65 B2 ob sd sl w/pb&gv
I RB32 0 6 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
6 33 pz md bn sd sl
33 62 B2 ob sd st
I RB33 0 5 AD/AI dk bn sd 1m
5 20 pz md bn sd st
20 60 B2 ob sd sl
I RB34 0 4 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
4 19 pz md bn sd sl
19 56 B2 ob sd sl
I RB35 0 10 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
10 36 pz md bn sd sl
36 66 B2 ob sd sl
RB36 0 4 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 4 26 pz md bn sd st
26 58 B2 ob sd sl
RB37 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 5 17 A2 gr sd w/pb
17 52 pz md bn sd sl w/pb
52 60 B2 ob sd st w/pb
I RB38 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
5 45 pz md bn sd 1m
45 60 B2 ob sd st
I RB39 0 13 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
13 31 pz md bn sd st
31 64 B2 dk yb sd sl
I RB40 0 4 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
4 34 pz md bn sd sl
34 59 B2 ob sd sl
I
I 29
I
I
I STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material
RB41 0 5 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
I 5 28 pz md bn sd st coal
28 55 B2 ob sd st
RB42 0 2 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 2 22 pz md bn cl sd
22 50 B2 ob cl sd
RB43 0 29 pz md bn st brick
I 29 55 B2 ob st w/pb
RB44 0 23 pz md bn cl st
23 57 B2 ob st sd
I 57 65 B3 It yb st sd
RB45 0 3 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
3 27 pz md bn cl sd
I 27 56 B2 ob cl sd
RB46 0 42 pz md bn cl st
42 60 B2 ob st sd
I RB47 0 5 AO/AI dk gb st 1m
5 26 pz md bn st brick, 3 square cut nail, 5 unid metal, I
metal utensil (spoon/fork) handle
I 26 54 B2 ob st w/pb
RB48 0 12 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
12 31 pz md bn sd st
I 31 56 B2 ob sd st
0 30 dist md bn cl st
RB49 30 49 lens mdbnst I pearlware rim sherd, I buff glazed
I stoneware, I unid metal, I brick, 1 shell,
coal, slag
49 53 B2 ob st sd
I RB50 0 12 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
12 41 pz md bn sd st
41 60 B2 ob sd st
I RB51 0 35 pz md bn st I green bottle glass, I brick, 5 square cut
nail, 1 unid metal, coal
35 60 B2 ob sd st w/pb&gv
I RB52 0 12 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
12 32 pz md bn sd st
32 58 B2 ob sd st
I RB53 0 21 pz md bn cl st
21 51 B2 ob st sd
RB54 0 29 pz md bn st
I 29 59 B2 ob st w/pb
RB55 0 20 pz md bn cl st
20 58 B2 ob stsd
I
I 30
I
I
I STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material
RB56 0 16 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 16 32 pz md bn sd st
32 54 B2 ob sd st
RB57 0 48 dist md bn st
I 48 60 B2 ob st
RB58 0 4 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
4 32 pz md bn c1 sd
I 32 58 B2 ob cl sd
RB59 0 30 pz md bn cl st
30 53 B2 ob st sd
I RB60 0 33 pz md bn st
33 58 B2 ob st w/pb
RB61 0 3 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 3 35 pz md bn sd st
35 58 B2 ob sd st
RB62 0 31 pz md bn c1 st 1 sew-through ceramic button, coal
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 31
I
- --------
I
I APPENDIX B: 2005 SHOVEL TEST PIT EXCA V A nON INVENTORY
I STP SD ED Stratum Soils Cultural Material
N190/W5 0 4 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
4 32 pz md bn sd 1m
I 32 60 B2 ob sd 1m
N175/W65 0 7 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
7 26 pz md bn sd 1m 4 aqua window glass, I brick
I 26 60 B2 ob sd 1m w/pb&gv
N175/W50 0 5 AD/AI dk bn sd 1m
5 60 dist md bn st 1m
I N175/W35 0 5 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
5 33 pz md bn sd 1m
33 60 B2 ob sd 1m
I N175/W20 0 8 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
8 34 pz md bn sd 1m
34 60 B2 ob sd 1m w/pb&gv
I N175/W5 0 5 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
5 60 dist md bn st 1m
N160/W50 0 8 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
I 8 28 pz md bn 1m
28 60 B2 ob 1m sd
N160/W20 0 6 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
I 6 28 pz md bn sd 1m
28 60 B2 ob sd 1m
N160/W5 0 5 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
I 5 30 pz md bn sd 1m
30 60 B2 ob sd 1m
N25/W80 0 6 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
I 6 40 pz md bn 1m
40 60 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb&gv
N25/W65 0 8 AD/AI dk bn st 1m
I 8 32 pz md bn sd 1m
32 60 B2 ob sd 1m
N I 0/W80 0 9 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
I 9 33 pz md bn 1m sd
33 60 B2 ob 1m sd
NlO/W65 0 3 AD/AI dk bn st 1m
3 34 pz md bn sd 1m
I 34 60 B2 ob sd 1m
S5/W95 0 6 AD/AI dk bn st 1m
6 42 pz md bn sd 1m
I 42 60 B2 ob sd 1m
S5/W80 0 9 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
9 29 pz md bn 1m
I 29 60 B2 ob 1m sd
I 32
I
- ------ -------- ___________n___
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PIN 0041. 99 .121
NEW YORK STATE BUILDING/STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM
YOUR NAME: Daria E. Merwin
YOUR ADDRESS: SUNY at Stony Brook
PHONE: (516) 632-7618
ORGANIZATION: I.L.I.A.
DATE: February 1995
SITE NAME:
SITE NO.:
QUAD:
NEG. NO.:
FIELD DATA GATHERED BY:DEM
IDENTIFICATION
1. BUILDING NAME(S): Case Fertilizer Barn (Loc. 1, Bldg. Hb)
2. COUNTY: Suffolk TOWN/CITY: Southold VILLAGE: Cutchogue
3. STREET LOCATION: Case's Lane, south of Rte. 25 (Main Rd.)
4. OWNERSHIP: private X public
5. PRESENT OWNER: Russell Case OWNER'S ADDRESS: PO Box 945,
Cutchogue (his nephew owns the parcel with barns)
6. USE: original storage barn present abandoned
7. ACCESSIBILITY: Exterior visible from public road: yes
Interior accessible (explain): yes
a. clapboard b. stone c. brick d. board~battenX
e. cobblestone f. shingles g. stucco
h. metal siding i. composition mat. j. other
no X
8. BUILDING
MATERIAL
9. STRUCTURAL
SYSTEM:
a. wood frame w/interlocking joints X
b. wood frame w/light members
c. masonry load-bearing walls
d. metal (explain)
e. other f. solid log
g. foundation type concrete block; wood post/sill
10. CONDITION: a. excellent b. good c. fair d. deteriorated X
11. INTEGRITY: a. original site X b. moved
c. list major alterations
square unpainted batten extension added to
post&sill foundation; date unknown
if so, when?
and dates (if known)
north face with wood
12. PHOTO #: Plates 28, 29, 30
13. MAP: see Appendix VI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PIN 0041.99.121
14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a.
d.
f.
none known
developers
other site
b. zoning c. roads
e. deterioration
of proposed recharge basin
15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY:
a. barn X b. carriage house c. garage d. privy
e. shed f. greenhouse g. shop h. gardens
i. landscape features
j. other foundation of main barn
k. weIll. fence/wall wood post/metal wire
16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if nec.):
a. open land X b. woodland X c. scattered buildings X
d. densely built-up e. commercial f. historical X
g. residential h. other
17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS:
(Indicate if building is in a historic district)
The building, part of a late 19th-early 20th c. farm complex, is
currently surrounded by a golf course, a few residences, and the
National Register-listed Old House of Cutchogue. The two
standing barns and one foundation are in an overgrown parcel
w/young trees.
18. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including
interior features if known) :
Hand carved mortise and tenon joinery; rough hewn beams.
SIGNIFICANCE
19. DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION early 20th c.
EARLIEST MAP SHOWING THIS BUILDING: date not shown
title source
WERE EARLIER MAPS THAT MIGHT HAVE SHOWN THE STRUCTURE
EXAMINED? yes X no (explain)
ARCHITECT:
BUILDER:
20. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE:
The barns and associated farm equipment and machinery have been
left virtually untouched since abandonment, and represent the
lay-out of a working farmstead. The farm has not been fully
operative since pre-1960.
21. SOURCES: 12-94 interview with Mr. Russell Case.
22. THEME: 19th & 20th c. agriculture
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PIN 0041.99.121
NEW YORK STATE BUILDING/STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM
YOUR NAME: Daria E. Merwin
YOUR ADDRESS: SUNY at Stony Brook
PHONE: (516) 632-7618
ORGANIZATION: I.L.I.A.
DATE: February 1995
SITE NAME:
SITE NO.:
QUAD:
NEG. NO.:
FIELD DATA GATHERED BY:DEM
IDENTIFICATION
1. BUILDING NAME(S): Case Sheep Barn (Loc. 1, Bldg. Hd)
2. COUNTY: Suffolk TOWN/CITY: Southold VILLAGE: Cutchogue
3. STREET LOCATION: Case's Lane, south of Rte. 25 (Main Rd.)
4. OWNERSHIP: private X public
5. PRESENT OWNER: Russell Case OWNER'S ADDRESS: PO Box 945,
Cutchogue (his nephew owns the parcel with barns)
6. USE: original barn present abandoned
7. ACCESSIBILITY: Exterior visible from public road: yes
Interior accessible (explain): yes
a. clapboard b. stone c. brick d. board&battenX
e. cobblestone f. shingles g. stucco
h. metal siding i. composition mat. j. other
no X
8. BUILDING
MATERIAL
9 . STRUCTURAL a. wood frame w/interlocking joints
SYSTEM: b. wood frame w/light members X
c. masonry load-bearing walls
d. metal (explain)
e. other f. solid log
g. foundation type wood post/sill
10. CONDITION: a. excellent b. good c. fair X d. deteriorated
11. INTEGRITY: a. original site X b. moved if so, when?
c. list major alterations and dates (if known)
none known
12. PHOTO #: Plates 32, 33, 34
13. MAP: see Appendix VI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PIN 0041.99.121
14. THREATS TO BUILDING:
a. none known
d. developers
f. other site
b. zoning c. roads
e. deterioration
of proposed recharge basin
15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY:
a. barn X b. carriage house c. garage d. privy
e. shed f. greenhouse g. shop h. gardens
i. landscape features
j. other foundation of main barn
k. weIll. fence/wall wood post/metal wire
16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if nec.):
a. open land X b. woodland X c. scattered buildings X
d. densely built-up e. commercial f. historical X
g. residential h. other
17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS:
(Indicate if building is in a historic district)
The building, part of a late 19th-early 20th c. farm complex, is
currently surrounded by a golf course, a few residences, and the
National Register-listed Old House of Cutchogue. The two
standing barns and one foundation are in an overgrown parcel
w/young trees.
18. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including
interior features if known) :
Painted wood shingle roof, unpainted batten siding; 6/6 windows;
windows in end gable peaks; hand wrought hardware.
SIGNIFICANCE
19. DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION late 19th-early 20th c.
EARLIEST MAP SHOWING THIS BUILDING: date 1909
title Hyde Altas of Suffolk Co. source SUNY/SB library
WERE EARLIER MAPS THAT MIGHT HAVE SHOWN THE STRUCTURE
EXAMINED? yes X no (explain)
ARCHITECT:
BUILDER:
20. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE:
The barns and associated farm equipment and machinery have been
left virtually untouched since abandonment, and represent the
lay-out of a working farmstead. The farm has not been fully
operative since pre-1960, although this barn was used until 1993.
21. SOURCES: 12-94 interview with Mr. Russell Case.
22. THEME: 19th & 20th c. agriculture
I
I
NEW YORK STATE mSTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY FORM
I
For Office Use Only--Site Identifier
Project Identifier PIN 0041.99.121
Your Name Daria E. Merwin
Address DeDt. of AnthroDologv
SUNY at Stonv Brook
Zip 11794-4364
I
Date March 1995
Phone (516)632-7618
I
Organization (if any) Institute for Long Island Archaeologv
I
1. Site Identifier(s)
2. County Suffolk
One of following: City
I
Township Southold
Incorporated Village _
Unincorporated Village or
Hamlet Cutchorue
I
3. Present Owner
Address
Zip
Mr. R. Case
PO Box 945
Cutchogue. NY
11935
I
4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories): Structure/site
Superstructure: complete_ partial_ collapsed_ not evident...K
Foundation: above_ below...K (ground level) not evident _
Structural subdivisions apparent: Only surface traces visibleX
Buried traces detected
I
I
List construction materials (be as specific as possible):
Concrete cinder block ramp support, wood sills and framing (2x6" and larger timbers), square cut iron
nails of varying size, mortared brick (at least some from Sanford Brickyard, dating to 1897-1929); brick
foundation walls are set into hillside on three sides. There are also remains of what appears to be a lean-to on
the east side (wood post supports with wood sill beams still present). The foundation is roughly square with
approximate dimensions of 12x15 m (36x45 ft).
I
I
I
Grounds: Under cultivation_ Sustaining erosion_ Woodland_ Upland_
Never cultivated_ Previously cultivated...K Floodplain_ PasturelandX..
Soil Drainage: excellent _ good_fair X poor_
Slope: flat_ gentleK.. moderate_ steep_
Distance to nearest water from structure (Approx.) 0.3 km (0.5 nti) Elevation: 6 m 120 ft)
I
5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary):
Surface--date(s) Nov. 1994
Site Map (Subntit with form) see ADD. VI. Sheet 2
Collection
Subsurface--date(s) Dec. 1994
Testing: shovelX coring_ other _ unit size 30cm (1 ') dia.. 60 cm (2') deeo no. of units 49
Excavation: unit size no. of units
Investigator Daria Merwin
Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): CRS Report of PIN 0041.99.121 (Rt. 25, Town of
Southold), prep. for NYS Museum by Annette Silver and Daria E. Merwin, Inst. for L.I. Arch., Feb. 1995
Present repository of materials SUNY /Stonv Brook
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
I
6. Site inventory:
date constructed or occupation period 1897-1929
b. previous owners, if known Case familv
c. modifications, if known:
I
7. Site documentation (append additional sheets, if necessary):
I
a. Historic maps NOT SHOWN
I
I) Name Date Source
Present location of original, if known
2) Name Date Source
Present location of original, if known
I
I
b. Representation in existing photography
I) Photo date Where located
2) Photo date _ Where located
c. Primary and secondary source documentation (reference fully):
I
I
d. Persons with memory of site:
I) Name Mr. Russel Case Address see pg.
2) Name Address
I
8.
List of material remains other than those used in construction (be as specific as possible in identifying
object and material): small motor-appears to be steam-driven, coal, various pieces of metal hardware
(inc!. lightning rod), aluminum buckets, metal piping, and miscellaneous debris.
I
I
If prehistoric materials are evident, check here and fill out prehistoric site form. _
I
9. Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of
site must accompany this form and mnst be identified by source and date.
I
I
USGS 7.5' Minute Series Quad. Name 1956 Southold Quad (see Figure 2)
For Office Use Only--UTM Coordinates
10. Photography (optional for environmental impact survey):
see Plate 31.
I
I
I