HomeMy WebLinkAboutSunset Court
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STAGE I ARCHIVAL SEARCH and ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
for
SUNSET COURT
GREENPORT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Prepared by:
David J. Bernstein, Ph.D.
Michael J. Lenardi, M.A.
Daria E. Merwin, M.A.
The Institute for Long Island Archaeology
Department of Anthropology
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-4364
May 2002
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 archival search and archaeological survey
undertaken for the Sunset Court property in Greenport, Town of South old, Suffolk County, New
York. The study was performed in April 2002 by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, State
University of New York at Stony Brook. The purpose ofthis archaeological investigation is to
determine if proposed subdivision and residential construction on the 3.8 acre (1.5 hectare) parcel
will adversely impact prehistoric and/or historic remains. This required archival research and an
archaeological survey with a ground surface inspection and subsurface testing.
Archival research (including a survey of historic maps and site file searches) reveals that
the project area witnessed limited discernable human activity in the past. This assessment was
confirmed by the surface and subsurface archaeological surveys of the parcel. A total of 55
shovel test pits was excavated in the project area. No prehistoric artifacts or features were
encountered. A very light density oflate nineteenth through twentieth century Euro-American
material was recovered, including three small fragments of white ware and one brick fragment.
This material is probably the result of sporadic dumping of household refuse and subsequent
dispersal by plowing, and as such, it has virtually no potential for contributing to our
understanding of past activities in Greenport. No historic period features were identified. 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 ........................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
INTRODUCTION AND METHOD ......................................... 5
NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY ...................................5
Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Prehistoric Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Historic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FIELD INSPECTION AND SURFACE SURVEy............................. 19
SUBSURFACE TESTING ............................................... 19
Results ......................................................... 20
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 22
REFERENCES .............................................................. 23
APPENDIX: Shovel Test Pit Excavation Inventory ..................................26
III
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.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
LIST OF FIGURES
Map of Long Island showing the location of the project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
1967 USGS topographic maps, Greenport, New York and Southold, New York,
7.5 minute series showing the location of the project area .................. 3
Archaeological testing on the Sunset Court property in Greenport . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Looking north near the northwest corner of the Sunset Court project area. Note
dense volunteer vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Clearing near the center of the northern edge of the project area (in the vicinity of
the proposed road), looking south ..................................... 7
1829 Burr Atlas of the State of New York showing very few buildings along Main
Road on the North Fork of Long Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1843 Mather and Smith Geological Map of Long and Staten Islands showing the
location of the project area north of Main Road in the hamlet of Stirling . . . . . . 14
1873 Beers Atlas of Long Island showing increasing residential development
throughout the Town of South old .................................... 15
1904 USGS topographic map, Shelter Island, New York. Two buildings are
shown along Main Road south ofthe project area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1909 Hyde Atlas of Suffolk County, showing the project area as belonging to
Emma Tasker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1930 Dolph and Stewart Atlas of Suffolk County showing the location ofthe
project area in Greenport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
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 archival search and archaeological survey
undertaken for the proposed Sunset Court in Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New
York. The study was conducted by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology, State University of
New York at Stony Brook, in April 2002. The project area is located north of Main Road
(County Route 48), west of Sound Road, and south of Sutton Place, and is a parcel of
approximately 5.54 acres (2.24 hectares)(Figures I and 2). Of this total, roughly 3.8 acres (1.5
hectares) are scheduled to be impacted by subdivision and residential construction. The
remaining 1.74 acres to be dedicated to the Town of Southold as a natural buffer will not be
impacted, and are therefore not included in this survey (Figure 3).
The purpose of this archaeological investigation is to determine if the proposed
subdivision and new road and building construction with associated landscaping and utilities
installation will adversely impact archaeological remains of prehistoric 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 Standards for Cultural Resource
Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections issued by the New York
Archaeological Council (1995).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
project area
J!:!;>"
Figure 1. Map of Long Island showing the location ofthe project area.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 2.
I
I
1967 USGS topographic maps, Greenport, New York and Southold, New York, 7.5
minute series (scale I :24,000) showing the location of the project area.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sutton Place
w w w
105 90 5 60 45
I I Ii I I
'"
..
Co
I
J.;.
~
l
W
120
I
o
disturbed
o
o
o
Main b
'"{oad
disturbed
o
o
30
I
W
15
I
o
I
z
;
-NO
- 515
- 530
- 545
- 560
- 575
- 590
en
0
c
~
Co
:::tI
0
cu
Co
... mapping datum
o sterile shovel test pit (5TP)
-$- STP with Euro-American cultural material
o
I
o
disturbed
15 30
50 100
o
o
-$-
o
60 meters
~
200 feet
Figure 3. Archaeological testing on the Sunset Court property in Greenport.
4
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 ofthe 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 of a region's history and
environmental features is crucial in reconstructing past behavior and assessing the probability of
locating evidence of early activities.
A brief history of Greenport 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 near the north shore of Long Island,
on the Harbor Hill recessional moraine created over 15,000 years ago during the retreat of the
Wisconsin ice sheet (Sirkin 1995). As is typical of the North Shore, topography is gently
undulating, with an average elevation of six meters (20 feet) above mean sea level. There are no
natural surface sources of fresh water within the project area, although there is an extensive area
of wetlands on the south side of Main Road (Figure 2).
Soils in the project area consist mostly of Haven loam, 0 to 2% slopes (Wamer et al.
1975:Sheet 5). The Haven series is characterized by deep, well-drained, medium- to coarse-
textured soils with low natural fertility. A typical profile for Haven loam consists of a topsoil
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
layer (AO/Al horizon) of dark grayish brown loam to three inches (7.6 centimeters). The upper
subsoil (BI horizon) is light to medium brown sandy loam to an average depth of 10 inches (25
centimeters), while the lower subsoil (B2) is strong (orange) brown sand to 19 inches (48
centimeters). The substratum (B3) is a light yellow brown loamy sand with gravel (Warner et al.
1975:71). No cultural material is expected in the B3 soil horizon. In areas where plowing has
occurred, the topsoil and upper subsoil have been mixed, forming a homogeneous medium
brown silty or sandy loam layer called the plow zone (Ap or pz).
Vegetation in the Sunset Court project area consists of dense volunteer growth,
dominated by deciduous trees (red oak, black oak, locust, birch, dogwood, and wild black
cherry), with cedar trees and an understory of vines and grasses (Figure 4). Disturbances in the
project area include cutting, clearing, and other forms of encroachment along the north and south
parcel boundaries (Figures 3 and 5). Disturbed areas have a very low potential for the presence
of intact archaeological deposits.
As is attested to by the numerous prehistoric archaeological sites that have been
discovered throughout the North Fork of eastern Long Island (see below), the natural
characteristics of the area were attractive to Native peoples. Resources of the tidal creeks and
inlets, Long Island Sound, and the interior uplands were all at hand and supported many
hundreds of residents thousands of years before initial European settlement. More interior
regions like the project area may have witnessed special purpose activities, such as hunting and
seasonal nut gathering.
Prehistoric Period. The site files of the New York State Museum (NYSM), Office of
Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), Suffolk County Archaeological
Association (SCAA, Gonzalez and Rutsch 1979), and the Institute for Long Island Archaeology
(ILIA) contain information regarding two known prehistoric archaeological sites within one mile
(1.6 kilometers) ofthe project area. The closest known site is OPRHP A1031O.000223, which
consists of two quartz artifacts (an unmodified flake [produced during stone tool manufacture or
resharpening] and the base of a tool) found around a pond less than one mile west of the Sunset
Court property. The second site, NYSM 4485, is a shell midden and village site adjacent to
6
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Looking north near the northwest comer of the Sunset Court project area. Note
dense volunteer vegetation.
Clearing near the center of the northern edge of the project area (in the vicinity of
the proposed road), looking south.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Stirling Basin identified by Parker (1920) approximately one mile southeast of the project area.
Several more prehistoric sites have been reported in the Town of Southold beyond one mile of
the project area, most along the south shore of the North Fork.
The Sunset Court property is located within what is considered a generalized "zone of
intense prehistoric activity" (Gonzalez and Rutsch 1979). All of the known prehistoric sites in
the Greenport vicinity are adjacent to water. Based on the presence of known prehistoric
archaeological sites, along with the relative proximity of favorable environmental characteristics
(e.g., the wetlands on the south side of Main Road), the project area has a moderate to high
sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric remains.
Historic Period. There are no reported historic period archaeological sites within one
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the Sunset Court property in Greenport. In addition, there are no listed
or eligible State and/or National Register of Historic Places properties within or immediately
adjacent to the project area.
Permanent settlement by the English did not occur in eastern Suffolk County until the
middle of the seventeenth century. At the time of contact, the North Fork was occupied by the
Manhassets/Corchaugs, speakers of the Mohegan-Pequot-Montauk Algonquian language
(Salwen 1978). 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. While there was
constant fear of attack, there was little actual violence (Bayles 1874:4), and 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). A count taken by the
Dutch in 1650 shows there were thirty houses in all of South old, while a 1687 census lists 113
whites and 27 slaves (Wick 1996:49-50).
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There are conflicting reports concerning the original settlement of the Town of Southold
because all town records prior to 1651 are lost (Munsell 1882: I). However, it is generally
accepted that in 1640 a group of Puritan settlers from New Haven, Connecticut obtained a grant
from James Farret to acquire eight square miles of land. 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 :9-1 0).
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 (County Route
48, just south of the project area) was officially cleared for cart use in 1704 (Bailey 1949), and
this road continues to serve as the major overland transportation route along the North Fork.
Most of the early settlers of Southold were farmers, and any goods produced other than
those needed for subsistence were traded to the Connecticut settlements. Clearing lands for
agriculture continued throughout the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century. The hamlet of
Greenport was settled in 1662 on land granted to Colonel John Youngs. Members of Young's
family first cleared roughly forty acres of woodland along Main Road at a settlement known as
Stirling (in the project area vicinity), while another small cluster offarmsteads called Green Hill
was established soon afterward. Greenport today encompasses the area occupied by these two
small Colonial period settlements. Greenport, the name officially adopted in 1831, became an
important port, in part because it was located on a creek (Stirling Basin/Winter Harbor) that
remained unfrozen when other North Fork anchorages froze solid. Prior to the American
Revolution, there was active trade from this port to Connecticut.
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 offood, 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
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and into the mid-nineteenth century, the settlement of the North Fork proceeded slowly and was
concentrated along main thoroughfares such as Main Road. Post-war growth in Greenport was
slow, but facilitated by waterborne commerce.
By the nineteenth century the community of Greenport was actively engaged in the
construction of wharves, trade to the West Indies, the development of the whaling industry,
fishing, and oystering. The first store was built in 1828, and in 1844 the Long Island Railroad
extended to Greenport, making it possible for passengers to travel from Brooklyn to Boston by
way of Greenport via ferry and railroad. By the mid-I 840s, 251 vessels berthed at Greenport
were engaged in fishing and coastal shipping (MonsellI990). The town became the favored
location for the homes of shipwrights, mariners, and merchants, as well as rooming houses for
travelers. Many of these nineteenth century houses are still standing.
During the second half of the nineteenth century, shipbuilding was one of Greenport's
largest industries. The local bays and harbors were convenient centers for ship construction, with
most yards located around Stirling Basin, less than one mile south of the project area. However,
the success of the railroad throughout the United States had a major impact on the wooden
shipbuilding industry, as railroad cars replaced coastal schooners for the transportation of goods
and people. Wooden shipbuilding did not last much beyond 1880 in Greenport, when only one
barkentine was built (Welch 1993: 18).
Repercussions of the Civil War were felt throughout Southold. Many of the large
households of the late eighteenth through early nineteenth century had used slave labor (Hall
1975 :51), and Native Americans and African-Americans were employed as domestics and field
laborers through the mid-nineteenth century. Because the practice of slavery on the North Fork
had already ended prior to the Civil War, it was the loss of a young workforce to the military that
had a more direct impact on the regional economy.
Following the war, many young men left their family farms. Some were lured to the
American west by the Homestead Acts of 1862 and 1864 (Turano 1994: 177). Still more were
attracted to the opportunities offered in the growing cities of America. Back home, one new
local industry that arose during the nineteenth century was brick making. As cities expanded, the
need for cheap, durable building material increased, and the brickyards of the North Fork met
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
that need. Most of the brickyards were located south of New York State Route 25 between
Southold and Greenport.
The railroad, interrupted by financial difficulties and the Civil War, resumed regular
service to Greenport in the l870s, carrying a stream of summer visitors to the North Fork. Hotels
and boarding houses initially met the needs of summer guests, while the early twentieth century
witnessed the establishment of large country estates on former farmlands. Generally, these
estates were located north of the project area, on Long Island Sound. Despite the influx of
summer tourism, Southold remained agriculturally based and relatively isolated throughout the
nineteenth century. The farmsteads that lined Main Road produced large quantities of potatoes,
cauliflower, brussels sprouts, strawberries, dairy products, and eggs. 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). Commercial boating, fishing, and shellfishing continue to be
the major industries for Greenport.
A survey of early nineteenth through mid-twentieth century maps reveals little activity in
and adjacent to the Sunset Court property. The 1829 Burr Atlas of the State of New York (Figure
6) shows virtually no settlement on Main Road between the cluster of houses at Southold east to
Orient (then known as Oyster Pond), although a few scattered farmhouses are known to have
lined the highway during the early nineteenth century. The 1843 Mather and Smith Geological
Map of Long and Staten Islands (Figure 7) clearly illustrates the linear settlement pattern (with
houses aligning Main Road) which characterized the Town of South old from its earliest Euro-
American occupation through the late nineteenth century. A few houses are shown on the north
side of Main Road in the hamlet of Stirling in the project area vicinity, and it is likely that the
Sunset Court property was under active cultivation by the mid-nineteenth century.
By the time ofthe 1873 Beers Atlas of Long Island (Figure 8), the railroad was running
regularly on the North Fork, more roads had been established, and settlement had increased.
Despite a general increase in population, and the development of Greenport as a thriving port
town, the area around the Sunset Court property remained farmland. The 1873 map shows
farmhouses to the southwest, northeast, and southeast of the project area.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The 1904 USGS topographic map of Shelter Island, New York (15 minute series; Figure
9), the 1909 Hyde Atlas of Suffolk County (Figure 10), the 1930 Dolph and Stewart Atlas of
Suffolk County (Figure 11), and the 1956 USGS topographic map (Figure 2) all suggest that the
project area remained farmland during most of the twentieth century. No buildings are shown
within the project area on any of these sources.
Based on the information concerning initial settlement of Greenport and the historic map
overview, the potential for the presence of significant historic period archaeological sites within
the Sunset Court property is relatively low to moderate. Expected types of deposits include
unmapped outbuilding remains, scattered field debris, and other remnants of agricultural and
domestic activity.
12
----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Figure 6.
I
I
----.-
1829 Burr Atlas of the State of New York showing very few buildings along Main
Road on the North Fork of Long Island.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 7.
. 'rfJ'
.^',~"' ..,. ..,,, '.'C
.......... .... ..
,..... .,:'G^<
1843 Mather and Smith Geological Map of Long and Staten Islands showing the
location of the project area north of Main Road in the hamlet of Stirling (later
incorporated into Greenport).
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 8.
-;,;
.0
."'^'.--"
.~ . _..~ ^
f..
~
.
,
,,,.,..~.
, ..
'"
'" -
i\
.. ~..
.. ..
ol,.
.
~~:l
_Ll
~
~
1873 Beers Atlas of Long Island showing increasing residential development
throughout the Town of Southold. Three farmhouses are illustrated adjacent to
the project area at the junction of Main Road and Sound Road in Greenport.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 9.
1904 USGS topographic map, Shelter Island, New York (15 minute series). Two
buildings are shown along Main Road south of the project area, which was
probably active farm field during the early twentieth century.
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 10.
'"""--' ~ /,
',\ \ f.z?
" ?
II \ ",-'",
\' \ ;~., 'Il
\\ \ ~ \ \: ~~
\\ \\~ \ i'J
.\ .l;l \. :...~
\ ~' J1
\', \. \ k,
\\ ~1 ~,:
, 'I
'In r--'-
\ __-4 t I .t
r. ~--'I \ a II~I
C t:l \ \l 0 I 1.10
a \'. I] IJ ':/i!~1 G1'Ut;t
OOl.e
~
r
'.~
.~
"
(
el
..'
\ ~..
\t,:;::
~,..".- '-.
I
r
\. .
. I o') ~ 1>'j' ....
I' .
, ",' ~')( .. w
..,/f..Il.J4_ \ .......,F....l<.....
. --.
1 ..' ~ J. .. '-
.e ,
." ,
.t._ ,.,. " ., ,
.
~ ~ ~q!"
1909 Hyde Atlas of Suffolk County, showing the project area as belonging to
Emma Tasker. No buildings are shown within the Sunset Court property.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"':;.~~~
project area CAI
1!Jte1tl".,litIIf
,~.....~
".,."""., ..
Figure 11. 1930 Dolph and Stewart Atlas of Suffolk County showing the location ofthe
project area in Greenport.
18
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
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.
FIELD INSPECTION AND SURFACE SURVEY
An initial surface reconnaissance was conducted in April 2002. The entire parcel was
walked over, with special attention given to examining exposed soil (e.g., cleared areas, dirt
paths, and uprooted trees) 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 fair throughout the project area due to leaf litter and low vegetation,
but very good in cleared areas. No artifacts or features were encountered within the area slated
for impact during the surface survey.
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. A
mapping datum point (NO/EO) was established near the northeast comer of the project area at a
telephone pole, and all shovel test pits are identified by metric coordinates relative to this point
(Figure 3). As mentioned in the Introduction, the buffer along the west and south boundaries of
the Sunset Court property is not slated for impact, and was therefore excluded from the
subsurface archaeological survey. The remaining 3.8 acres (1.5 hectares) were tested utilizing a
15 by 15 meter (49 by 49 foot) grid. A few shovel test pits were relocated to avoid large trees
(e.g., S3/WI20, S5/W135, and S95/W90), and small sections along the north and south
boundaries of the project area were not tested due to obvious soil disturbance (Figure 3).
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A total of 55 shovel test pits was excavated. Shovel test pits have a diameter of
approximately 40 centimeters (16 inches). All shovel test pits were dug well into the B2 subsoil,
typically over 60 centimeters (24 inches) below the present ground surface. The soil from each
test unit was screened through a six millimeter (1/4 inch) wire mesh to 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.
Recovered material was brought to the laboratory at the State University of New York at
Stony Brook for cleaning, analysis, and curation. In the laboratory, all artifacts were cleaned,
cataloged, and recorded in a computerized file. Shellfish remains are sorted by species, and
quantified by the minimum number of individuals rather than fragment count. Historic period
artifacts were identified and classified using a number of standard manuals (e.g., Noel Hume
1970).
Results. The specific data recorded in the field for each shovel test pit, including
information on soil stratigraphy and cultural material, are presented in the Appendix to this
report.
The general characteristics of the soils found in the project area are discussed in the
Environmental Setting, above. The topsoil layer (referred to in the Appendix as the AO/AI
horizon) consists of partially decomposed organic matter and dark brown sandy or silty loam, and
extends to an average of four centimeters (1.6 inches) below the ground surface. All shovel test
pits contained a plow zone (pz) of medium to dark brown silty or sandy loam to an average depth
of 33 centimeters (13 inches). The plow zone is underlain by the subsoil (B2 horizon), orange
brown silty or sandy loam (occasionally with pebbles and gravel). The B3 substratum of yellow
brown silty sand with pebbles and gravel was reached in eleven shovel test pits (Appendix).
A very light density of Euro-American cultural material was recovered during subsurface
testing. Three shovel test pits yielded three small fragments of whiteware and one brick fragment
(Figure 3; Appendix). None of the ceramic tableware sherds had a maker's mark or other
temporally diagnostic feature, and can only be roughly dated to the late nineteenth through
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
twentieth century. The single piece of shell recovered from STP S90/W45 is ofunceratin age.
No historic period features were encountered during the archaeological survey of the project area.
The Euro-American cultural material recovered from shovel test pits on the Sunset Court
property is of very light density and low diversity. It is probably the result of sporadic dumping
of household refuse and subsequent dispersal by plowing, and as such, it has virtually no
potential for contributing to our understanding of past activities in Greenport.
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Archival research and archaeological investigation ofthe Sunset Court property in
Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, suggests that the project area
witnessed limited discernable human activity in the past. There are no known prehistoric sites
within or immediately adjacent to the project area. A survey of historic maps indicates that the
property most likely was used as farm fields at least as early as the mid-nineteenth century and
through the late twentieth century. While buildings lined Main Road south of the Sunset Court
property from an early date, there is no evidence that any structures were ever built within the
project area limits.
The entire project area slated for impact was investigated with a surface survey and
subsurface archaeological testing. A total of 55 shovel test pits was excavated. No prehistoric
artifacts, and no prehistoric or historic period features were encountered. A very light density of
late nineteenth through twentieth century Euro-American material was recovered, including three
small fragments of white ware and one brick fragment. This material is probably the result of
sporadic dumping of household refuse and subsequent dispersal by plowing, and as such, it has
virtually no potential for contributing to our understanding of past activities in Greenport. No
historic period features were identified. No further archaeological investigations are
recommended.
22
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
Publications, New York.
Bayles, Richard M.
1874 Historical and Descriptive Sketches of Suffolk County. Published by the author, Port
Jefferson, New York.
Bernstein, David J., Michael J. Lenardi, and Daria Merwin
1999 Stage 18 Archaeological Survey of the Kycia Property, Head of the Harbor, Town of
Smithtown, Suffolk County, New York. Institute for Long Island Archaeology, State
University of New York at Stony Brook.
Booth, Antonia
1990 A Brief Account of South old's History. In Southold Town 350th Anniversary, 1640-
1990, edited by Peggy Murphy. 350th Anniversary Executive Committee, Southold, New
York.
Gonzalez, Ellice and Edward Rutsch
1979 Suffolk County Cultural Resource Inventory. Published by the Suffolk County
Archaeological Association, Stony Brook, New York.
Hall, Warren
1975 Pagans, Puritans, Patriots of Yesterday's Southold. New Suffolk Historical Council,
Cutchogue, New York.
Lightfoot, Kent
1986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of
Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 51 :484-504.
Luke, Myron H. and Robert W. Venables
1976 Long Island in the American Revolution. New York State American Revolution
Bicentennial Commission, Albany.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Knopf, New York.
Monsell, James I.
1990 History of Greenport. In Southold Town 350th Anniversary, 1640-1990, edited by Peggy
Murphy. 350th Anniversary Executive Committee, Southold, New York.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Munsell, William W.
1882 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 350th Anniversary,
1640-1990, edited by Peggy Murphy. 350th Anniversary Executive Committee,
Southold, New York.
Parker, Arthur C.
1920 The Archeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin Numbers 237
and 238, Albany.
SaIwen, Bert
1978 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period. In Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 15, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 160- I 76. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington D.C.
Sirkin, Les
1995 Eastern Long Island Geology with Field Trips. The Book and Tackle Shop, Watch Hill,
Rhode Island.
Turano, Francis J.
1994 Two Hundred Years of Family Farm Households, 1700-1900: The Archaeology of the
Terry-Mulford Site, Orient (Oysterponds), New York. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Warner, 1. W. Jr., W. E. Hanna, R. J. Landry, J. P. Wulforst, J. A. Neely, R. 1. Holmes and C. E.
Rice
1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Welch, Richard F.
1993 An Island's Trade: Nineteenth-Century Shipbuilding on Long Island. Mystic Seaport
Museum, Mystic, Connecticut.
Wick, Steve
1996 Heaven and Earth, the Last Farmers of the North Fork. St. Martin's Press, New York.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Maps
Beers, F. W.
1873 Atlas of Long Island, New York. Beers, Comstock, and Cline, Brooklyn, New York.
Burr, David
1829 An Atlas of the State of New York. Copy on file, Map Library, State University of New
York at Stony Brook.
Dolph and Stewart
1930 Atlas of Suffolk County, New York. Dolph and Stewart, New York.
Hyde, E. Belcher
1909 Atlas of Suffolk County, Long Island; North Side-Sound Shore. E. Belcher Hyde,
Brooklyn, New York.
Mather, W.W. and 1. Calvin Smith
1843 Geological Map of Long and Staten Islands with the Environs of New York. In The
Natural History of New York by W.W. Mather, Endicott, New York.
United States Geological Survey
1904 Shelter Island, New York. IS minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
1956 Greenport, New York. 7.5 minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
1956 Southold, New York. 7.5 minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX: SHOVEL TEST PIT EXCA VA TION INVENTORY
Basic descriptive data from shovel test pits excavated in the Sunset Court property are
presented in the following appendix. Excavation, stratigraphic, and artifactual information are
included. Excavation information includes shovel test pit (STP) coordinates relative to project
datum, level number, stratigraphic designation (stratum), and starting (SD) and ending (ED)
depths (in centimeters) for each excavated level.
An inventory of the cultural material recovered during the project is found in the final
column. Shellfish quantity is expressed as the minimum number of individuals rather than
fragment count. Unless indicated otherwise, all ceramic fragments are undecorated vessel body
portions.
The following abbreviations are used in the appendix:
Stratum
AO/ A I-topsoil
B2-subsoil
B3-substratum
pz-plow zone
Soils
bn-brown
dk -dark
gv-gravel
Im-loam(y)
It-light
md-medium
ob-orange brown
pb-pebbles
sd-sand(y)
st-silt(y)
yb-yellow brown
26
--- .-.----
I
I
I APPENDIX: SHOVEL TEST PIT EXCAVATION INVENTORY
STP SO EO Stratum Soils Cultural Material
I S3/W120 0 32 pz dk bn sd 1m
32 60 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb
S5/W135 0 30 pz md bn sd 1m
I 30 62 B2 ob sd 1m w/pb
S15/W135 0 30 pz md bn st 1m
30 60 B2 ob st 1m w/pb
I S15/W120 0 32 pz md bn sd 1m
32 60 B2 ob sd 1m
S15/WI05 0 37 pz md bn st 1m
I 37 62 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb&gv
S15/W90 0 40 pz md bn st 1m
I 40 60 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb&gv
S15/W75 0 35 pz md bn st 1m
35 60 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb&gv
I S15/W60 0 36 pz md bn st 1m
36 61 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb&gv
S15/W45 0 35 pz md bn st 1m
I 35 60 B2 ob st 1m
S15/W30 0 36 pz md bn st 1m
36 60 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb&gv
I S15/W15 0 35 pz md bn st 1m
35 60 B2 obst 1m
S30/W135 0 4 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
I 4 26 pz md bn st 1m
26 60 B2 ob st 1m
I S30/W120 0 7 AO/AI dk bn sd 1m
7 35 pz md bn 1m sd
35 61 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb
I S30/W105 0 2 AD/AI dk bn st 1m
2 33 pz md bn st 1m
33 48 B2 ob 1m sd w/pb
I 48 60 B3 yb st sd w/pb
S30/W90 0 2 AO/AI dk bn st 1m
2 33 pz md bn st 1m
I 33 42 B2 ob sd 1m w/pb
42 60 B3 yb st sd w/pb&gv
S30/W75 0 41 pz md bn st 1m I whiteware
I 41 60 82 ob st 1m w/pb I brick
I 27
I
I
I STP SO EO Stratum Soils Cultural Material
I S75fWl5 0 8 AOfAI dk bn sd 1m
8 24 pz md bn sd 1m
24 50 B2 ob sd 1m
I 50 60 B3 yb st sd wfpb&gv
S90fW135 0 5 AOfAI dk bn 1m sd
5 32 pz md bn 1m sd
I 32 60 B2 ob 1m sd
S90fWI20 0 6 AOfAI dk bn 1m sd
6 32 pz md bn 1m sd
I 32 60 B2 ob 1m sd
S90fWI05 0 4 AOfA1 dk bn 1m sd
I 4 34 pz md bn 1m sd
34 60 B2 ob 1m sd
S95fW90 0 I AOfAI dk bn st 1m
I I 24 pz md bn st 1m
24 51 B2 dk ob st 1m wfpb
51 60 B3 yb st sd wfpb&gv
I S90fW75 0 2 AOfAI dk bn st 1m
2 39 pz md bn st 1m
39 60 B2 dk ob st 1m wfpb&gv
I S90fW60 0 36 pz md bn st 1m
36 60 B2 ob st 1m wfpb
S90fW45 0 37 pz md bn st 1m 1 hard shell clam
I 37 60 B2 ob st 1m wfpb&gv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 30
I