Loading...
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.