HomeMy WebLinkAboutGada
.
.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OF THE
MR. AND MRS. TOM DOHERTY PROPERTY
AT
HEDGE STREET, FISHERS ISLAND, NEW YORK
produced by
JOHN PFEIFFER
Archaeological Consultant
June 14, 1990
,
,
.
.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Tom Doherty Property at Hedge Street
Fishers Island, New York
PURPOSE:
This study is directed toward the discovery of potential
prehistoric or historic places or sites on the 1.8 acre parcel
to become a house lot for Mr. and Mrs. Tom Doherty. The
directive of such a study ~s to identify such cultural resources
if present and to aid in the plan of development to assure
minimum impact.
METHODOLOGY:
The approach used in the phase I study was:
1) to employ a walking survey of the parcel
2) to review documents and informant data, and finally
3) to undertake subsurface testing
These methods have been very successful in other regions of the
state as well as the neighboring state of Connecticut. These
techniques are compatible with survey standards and guidelines
established by the Federal government.
DESCRIPTION OF HOUSE SITE:
The proposed building site lies on a small upland peninsula and
beach line overlooking "West Harbor" to the north. The beach
area is locally known as Murphy's beach and while the beach ~s
clear of obstructions, access to it from the lot is through a
narrow brush-choked path which transects a steep bank. Local
1
.
.
informants have indicated that this bank has been seriously
eroded during past hurricanes.
Walking survey indicated that at one time in the past some sort
of wharf had been located upon the northwestern promontory. What
presently remains of this structure are the large quarried stones
which extend out into the harbor and deeper water. Although
highly weathered, drill marks on some of the stone may indicate a
nineteenth century origin.
The central and upland portion of the parcel has been used as a
"construction" storage area with chunks of concrete, macadam,
soapstone and marble hearth stones, as well as iron and steel
piping being very apparent. There has also been digging and
dumping of fill, boulders and construction debris. Along the
western one hundred feet of the parcel, there has been less
intensive disturbance. However, here there is clear evidence of
nursery activity with the growing of young evergreen trees for
subsequent replanting. There is a linear arrangement of spruce
and larch trees as well as "craters" which indicate
transplanting.
The area is presently densely overgrown by p01son 1VY, bull
briar, bittersweet, blackberry, and beach rose. The rema1n1ng
arboreal vegetation is comprised of locust, catalpa, and
ailanthus. Such species are very common in disturbed areas on
the island.
The walking survey indicated that the western third of the parcel
afforded the best potential of intact archaeological cultural
resources. Therefore a line of test pits (a transect) through
this area was considered to be a practical approach for testing.
2
.
.
HISTORICAL EVALUATION:
Prior to formalized subsurface testing, it was necessary to
review written records relating to this particular parcel.
The following land record information indicates the transfers
that have directly involved this property. SULR stands for
Southold Land Records, all of which are in the Suffolk County
Clerk's Center in Riverhead, N. Y. It must be noted here that
this is not a legal interpretation of ownership, but strictly a
historical look. The deed descriptions have been summarized to
this end, in an attempt to define patterns of use.
It must be pointed out that the Gada family purchased property
adjacent to that under scrutiny via SULR 4622/428 and SULR
5127/19. These both reference map 242 and involve plots C and D,
among other places.
Historically speaking, this land raises some interesting
questions, generally centering on map 242, a copy of which in
included in the Addenda section. The transfer to the Gadas in
1949 records the presence of buildings thereon which are not
indicated in the 1927 sale to Maxwell, nor on the 1919 sale to
wilbur. (Note that this transaction encompassed a four acre
parcel at this time). While this shows that something was put up
between 1927 and 1949, what kind of structure this was, or where,
is not documented in the records.
The varlOUS sales to Hoffert from Lyles call for tenements and
improvements on the parcels involved. This may have been
standard recording practice at that time and not indicative of
buildings. It is posslble that the reference may have been to
the boat landing, roadway, and old wall diagrammed on map 242.
These artifacts may relate to the agricultural efforts Mr. Fox
made in rebuilding the "farm" image of Fishers Island right after
3
.
.
1863, and possibly even work by the Winthrop family and the
various "tenant farmers" before. It must be remembered that
there were up to three thousand sheep alone (plus cattle, swine,
and horses) on the island at times, and movement of agricultural
products (i.e. wool, mutton, live animals, etc.) would be of
paramount importance.
The transfer to the Southold Savings Bank from Mrs. Hoffert has
not been discovered, nor the reason why this was done. The
historical importance of this transaction itself is of very
little consequence, except perhaps in explaining why such deed
restrictions involving stockyard activity and other commercial
impact had been attached. The mention of slaughterhouses being
forbidden is the most pointed but remains academic for the
present.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY:
The field testing of the 1.8 acre parcel was based upon the
sampling of underlying soil for historic and prehistoric
artifacts. Theoretically, the historic artifacts as witnessed
within the historic record should be demonstrable within the
study area. To determine this, forty centimeter test pits seven
meters apart were placed on a cleared line from the southwest
corner of the lot to the northwest corner. A second line was
cleared toward the northern end of the lot and similar test pits
extended from the northwest to the northeast corner roughly
paralleling the beach line. A third line extended southerly off
the second transect into the middle of the lot where the house
site has been proposed. (The three transect lines are
illustrated on the site map.)
In clearing off the dense vegetation, several cultural features
became apparent. In addition to the severe disturbance from
recent construction along the southern boundary, a pipeline was
found. It was made from vitreous tile pipe and ran toward the
4
.
.
northwest corner and promontory. In clearing the
southwest-northwest transect, the origin of this pipeline was
found to be within a large 2.5 meter diameter stone-lined well.
This first well was connected to a second lower stone-lined
overflow well or cistern which lay just above the tide line
between the western bank and the water's edge. The first well
had been most recently used as a dump during the late 1940's as
bottles were no more recent than this.
Clearing of the other transect lines did not reveal any other
visible cultural items. Test pitting along these same paths
revealed no prehistoric material and very minimal historic
scatter. (The test pit locations within the transects are
diagrammed on the site map.) The four test pits north of the
well all displayed an intact darkened level forty centimeters
below the surface. Recent topsoil and wind-blown soil overlay
this cultural level which was definitely mid to late nineteenth
and early twentieth century, as evidenced by coal, small glass
fragments and sheet-cut nails. I interpret this deposit as a
roadbed which accessed the wharf, corresponding to map 242. The
compact nature of the deposit as well as the heavily pulverized
glass and coal fragments are consistent with such usage. The
roadbed while being linear may not have been appreciably wide as
the second transect only minimally indicated its existence. A
width of three to four meters could be expected for the roadbed
with less usage out from the center line. Archaeologically this
showed up as a thinning of the darkened cultural level within
test pits both to the west and east of the first transect.
The second transect which paralleled the beach indicated only a
scatter of historic late nineteenth and early twentieth century
cultural material. Toward the east there was clear evidence of a
buried darkened layer with mixed historic scatter. I suspect
that the top of the bank may have been regraded after being
eroded from storms. This is supported by informant data.
5
.
.
The regrading of the "top of bank" (note map 242) was also
indicated within the third transect which ran toward the center
of the lot. The buried, disturbed, and churned-up layer extended
to the approximate location of the proposed house and deck.
RESULTS OF FIELD STUDY:
In respect to the transects and test pits there is no evidence of
a significant prehistoric site. The second and third transects
strongly indicated a minimal historic component which had been
greatly disturbed by both natural and mechanical mechanisms.
Historic and informant data do not indicate the existence of even
remotely significant structures on the lot where the house and
septic system are proposed to be located.
The first transect indicated that the northwest quadrant of the
parcel had a pipeline, well system, a roadbed, and wharf. The
remnants of the wharf lie in the harbor and are therefore not
within the study area. The well system 1S deemed significant and
was therefore archaeologically analyzed to ascertain specific age
and function.
Document evaluation alluded to the presence of improvements in
the 1915 map 242, and in the Lyles-Hoffert transaction of 1878.
It is interesting that the old stone wall is indicated 1n map 242
as well as the boat landing yet there is no reference to the
well. Does this suggest that the well had not yet been built, or
was it already unrecognizable? Construction methods of the well
are consistent with the very earliest colonial methods of well
production. It is also documented that by 1900-1910 the island
was experiencing severe water shortage and specific failure of
wells. This is undoubtedly the reason for the development of the
Bell Hill reservoir and the ensuing development of the Fishers
Island Water Company. It is therefore most probable that the
well was completely unrecognized by 1915, having dried up,
partially filled with garbage, and overgrown. Therefore, we can
6
.
.
assume that the well existed in the nineteenth century. This
could easily suggest that Hoffert acquired the property with this
improvement already established. The improvement was probably
not made by Hoffert as the 1915 map and 1919 deed suggest no
"recent" improvement. Therefore the well's origin could be
post-1863 and relate to Robert Fox's animal husbandry. The final
question is, does this well go back further into the Federal or
colonial period? Document information does not aid in this
assessment.
The excavation of the fill within the well revealed that there
had been several episodes of filling. The most recent
accumulation of fill represented nearly a half meter of domestic
garbage produced in the early twentieth century. Below this
thick unconsolidated level was a peat deposit forty centimeters
in depth. Within this peat was very little in the way of
cultural material. However, a fragmented wine glass embossed
with "59th street", a porcelain cap from a front tooth, and
several peach pits were identified. Below this level was a thin
compressed sand level of two to four centimeters in thickness.
Incorporated within this unit were several nails, two of which
were sheet-cut and one of wire manufacture, indicating a
post-1850 date (probably 1875-1885). Below this level was a
dark, organically rich, seed-laden lens. This lens, although
nearly devoid of cultural material, had the tooth of a hand-cut
horn comb which was likely manufactured prior to 1800. This
stratum in turn rested upon a thin sandy layer with sporadically
dispersed glacial cobbles. Within this sandy level a small white
glass bead was found. Such beads have been found within
seventeenth and early eighteenth century native American burials
and have their origin as early colonial American trade items.
Below this level was culturally sterile hard-packed glacial
gravel and clay. This layer was undoubtedly the impermeable
layer which caused the water to naturally collect within the
well. The base of the well turned out to be 2.4 meters below the
surface.
7
.
.
By reviewing the structure of the well there is clear evidence of
two episodes of construction. The first stage of construction
appears to be that of a generally circular fieldstone enclosure
nearly encircling a large boulder resting on the sandy clay
layer. This portion of the well rises two meters above the
impermeable layer and is pointed up with a very smooth lime-rich
mortar, thus making it water-tight. A second course of quarried
stone rises 0.4 above the fieldstone portion and incorporates a
vitreous tile inlet as well as an outlet which services a second
downslope reservoir. The overlying quarried stonework was most
likely produced towards the end of the nineteenth century and may
have corresponded to the growing unreliability of the water
table. However, it could also document some of the changes which
Robert Fox may have made to accommodate animal husbandry and a
probable increased need for watering animals.
putting the wharf, the roadway, well, and old wall together,
there is archaeological support for the formulation of a
nineteenth century "stockyard" complex. The wharf and roadway
expedited importation and exportation of livestock and necessary
materials, the well supplied necessary water for such animals,
and the "old" wall kept the animals within a specific area on the
island. While such a complex is both historically and
archaeologically supportable for the 1863-1878 (Fox) period, it
is also possible that such a complex already existed during the
"Winthrop" period.
Finally this may explain why the 1.8 acre parcel was never built
upon while the western part of the island was being developed
after the death of Robert Fox. Similarly, this may partially
explain the strange deed restriction by Hoffert which prohibited
stockyard and slaughterhouse activity. While some of this is
interpretation bordering upon conjecture, the fact is that there
is clear evidence of Fox and probably Winthrop period activity
within the site.
8
.
.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Within the 1.8 acre parcel there is one significant cultural
item. This is the well. The location of this artifact is far
removed from the proposed house site and thus, will not be
impacted by the proposed development. Archaeological test
pitting and historic evaluation has cleared the plan of
development of any concerns pertaining to cultural resources. It
is the recommendation from the perspective of cultural resource
management that the house be permitted to be built on this
specific site.
It is further recommended that a copy of this report and the
artifacts discovered be presented to the Henry L. Ferguson Museum
as a repository of local island history. The well itself should
be protected as it is one of the few artifacts on the island
which is very likely from the Winthrop era.
9
.
.
ADDENDUM I
-c
:~;:;;/i. :.. ;~t;t;:',~ .~~t~~,{
., -.). - ,JrJ_~'~"'~':I:-f~~);
.!, '~' ~::,:~'~~~)::~;:; :~r;y:+;1,
51TE
W~ST
(~AT
HARBOR .
HARBOR)
,:,,\,:,
LOC-L TIOU
KLP
S/" lL- I'....'"^'''''
~ \.-~ ~ ':,c
~
~
(It'
...2
G!
-l
4-
..
oJ
"3
-. ~~ ",-
. ..
-~-
q-
'"
" .,
..r.
3
U
O()O
C>
I I
j <II
l
I
14.
.I I
....
5,<11
<<I I
l- <I
~I J
'"
c
~I~ I
I-
_ _ j J.
<l -
_ _ c:l
-I
'dl
I <1 I
I I
,4
J
I
I<J )
I I"
I It
d. ~
I '~
Cl
1 ~ I r:.c
1<1)1-
I I
<i
'1 1- <I
1 I
<I
1 I
I I
. c:1 I
4
.
ADDENDUM II
.
~'"t
-li
~t
j
/
-1---
_ ~ J.~3stv"'/l..1..
_,r - 4 <i
. ~ '1" D~SI.lI1~.L .
. ~ -
- <I'
r
w
..
~
"
::t
\
'"
dll
tot
---
__ ...1
...\,tI(, ___
"V" --
.. 4'",a'.)~ ___ c--
~ "......... .".,-
-
_d'
d
<f
1t . \'
. .Jr......;J..;.. ..... .....~
I ~
I g
I I!
"
I : ui
-1 . ci
I
\ I ,
~
I ,-
I ' -
.'~ ,. -....\
I' -' 0" ....
. ;--... O.,s..- ....
11 ,..... .#....
oi ' ........ :<....,
'1 t ' - ~..-
.' -.'"
~: -
~. .
:211 :
d'
II',:
I t-t:
I It:
,r
Ill:
I!~: :
I ';
I '
r I., I '
. .'.-< ." I
!l.I :!'II; .,. -t~ I
, :.; "t-
. : -.: " " ..' <:':L 1 j
, ,''''"''' .~..-
, _,_ , . ,." ,,' ....."...: ,,;.C:--- ---,' :
--'-.~-l-.~ '.'j' ..-::....;;A~,,-.-1-_m_..- ~ "''':'.~'~'~.;;':~.~'.~'''' ..-.-:~~)
.' . ,,/ I .-~T P-';;;=1~~r-l
K....__ j J .!
........ 3 ~ 0
,r----_ ,-'>, : Iiil,' fiiJ :,!
~ -~. - ~
: _,_ f> ^' ~~ ,I
I ....., .:::J ~- 14
........ ", _~. B
L '
....
.
-
.~
~.
o
.<Q
~
'f
.:r
z
It
~
y-
If!
<{.
\).I
+
r-
<(
ILl
/I:'
o
-
....
-
....
....
....
I
.
I
I
I
I
ADDENDUM I II
..
"''I;
.
,
,
If
9
.
i
; ,"
~
't
~
~
~
':'- ~-
"C,
l
*
~
t<.
,
. ,
C\t
~
C\.
If:)
~
C)
~
C'!
1;11 ~
~ ~
~ I~'
.
.
ADDENDUM IV
DOHERTY PROPERTY
END OF HEDGE STREET BORDERING "GREAT HARBOR"
SULR 2925/153 - 2/15/1949 - Henry L. Maxwell of Greenwich, CT. to A.
John and Margaret J. Gada of Fishers Island, N.Y. - land with buildings and
improvements - bounded by Hedge, Great Eastern Harbor, and a driveway
with rights to said driveway and to the land under the waters of Great
Eastern Harbor contiguous with this property - severe commercial
restrictions are included in this deed - refer to SULR 983/255.
SULR 1286/27 - 8/1/1927 - Anna L. Wilbur of Fishers Island, N.Y. to Henry
L. Maxwell of Princeton, N.J. - same description as above - refer to Map #242
filed in Suffolk County Clerk's office 1//1915, being property formerly
owned by Mrs. Martha Hoffert.
SULR 983/255 - 8/5/1919 - Southold Savings Bank of Southold, N.Y. to
William G. Wilbur of Fishers Island, N.Y. - being land formerly owned by
Mrs. Martha E. Hoffert - basically same description, but with slight
adjustment in dimensions - severe commercial restrictions still apply.
The following 3 deeds are from James Lyles, Trustee (of the FOI esti\le) to
Martha Hoffert:
SULR 270/96 - 6/7/1881 - 8/1 Oth acre waterfront property - bounded by
other land of Hoffert, the water, Montauk Ave.(on south), and Vulcan Ave. -
it is 100' m/l to a stone wall from edge of water - the stone wall a~tj a large
high rock are indicated at the corner of Vulcan and Montauk.
SULR 239/594 - 10/1/1877 - 2 acres land.
SULR 239/591 - 8/13/1877 - 1 acre land.
SULR 291/ 1 03 - 1/24/1885 - Frances and William Hedge of Fishers Island,
N.Y. to Martha Hoffert of Hartford, er. - 34 square rods of land north of
Montauk Ave. and adjacent to Hoffert's other land.
SULR 239/597 - 10/8/1878 - Frances and William Hedge to Martha Hoffert -
4 and 1/2 acres of land m/l exclusive of the beach - bounded by the water,
other land of Hoffert, the BARW A Y, and a stonewall abutting on Great
~astern tlarbor - NOTf: the tledges got their property from James Lyles,
Trustee via SULR 260/408 - 1/30/1881; SULR 239/367 - 10/1/1878; etc.
SULR 14/162 - 12/2/1863 - George and Jane Chester, and Mary Pratt, all of
New York City to Robert R. Fox of Kings County, N.Y. - $55,000 - "ail of
Fishers Island and the several small islands adjacent called the Hommocks,
except the North Hommock, upon which the light house stands, it being the
same premises owned and possessed by William Winthrop of New London,
er. - with all tenements, rents, and the like"
.
.
ADDENDUM IV-2
SULR H/99 - 2/8/1825; SULR H/96 - 6/4/1820; SULR H/93 - 4/23/1818 -
Thomas C., Francis B., and John S. Winthrop and their wives to William
Winthrop - $32,000 - All of Fishers Island and several small islands called
Homocks, where Francis Bayard Winthrop died, and which was deeded to his
four sons.
Prior to this effective land ownership goes back to the original grant of
Fishers Island to John Winthrop, Jr. on 4/9/1641 from the Colonial
Government at Hartford, and 10/7/1640 from the General Court of
Massachusetts.