We have finally begun the restoration work on the Stone House. On the 19th of June a crew from Dominion Traditional Building Group began the infill of a doorway that was knocked through the rear wall of the stone side of the structure during the 1960s. This doorway was created during Mildred Lee Grove’s period of ownership to give access to the second floor of the rear ell addition from the stairway in the original front section of the house. (See photo and floor plan insert below.)

Not only was this infill work necessary for bringing the house back to the way it looked in 1830, it was also required to stabilize the northeast corner of the stone side of the structure and serve as a foundation for the base of the roof structure frame.
The job was made slightly more complex by the fact that two floor joists had been cut off in the early twentieth century to make way for the current staircase . When the staircase is removed as part of the future interior restoration work, the floor joists will need to be replaced. Pockets were left in the masonry at the right spots for the replacement floor joists to rest.

The crew from Dominion Traditional Building Group was composed of Mike Ondrick (wearing the hat in the photo below), David Wood (without a hat in the photos below), as well as Glenn Courson, and Danny Mason.

We are grateful for their enthusiasm and professional skills. We would also like to thank Tim Winther, Dominion Traditional Building Group’s Senior Project Manager, for overseeing this undertaking.

The next steps we will take in the restoration will focus on the roof structure, the manufacture of shingles for the roof, and the chimney top. We will keep you up to date as we move forward.

Mr. Doug Reed has completed the majority of the fieldwork at the Stone House. Under Mr. Reed’s direction we carefully removed most of the twentieth century surface layers to expose what remains of the historic interior fabric in the stone side of the structure. One of the more interesting discoveries came on the last day of the fieldwork. In an effort to better understand the history of the dado paneling in the south room of the stone side Mr. Reed gently removed the longest section of that feature on the east wall of that room. Behind this paneling we found that most of the plaster was missing, and that the stones there had been re-laid after the dado paneling was installed. Some of the stones were still covered with the whitewash that was historically applied to the exterior of the house. (See photo below.)

Previously we had found original period plaster behind the dado paneling on the opposite (west) wall, and some original period plaster remained under the top of the southern end of the panel we removed from the east wall. The inferences we can draw from this discovery have implications for telling us when the dado paneling was installed. The wall with the missing plaster is directly above the rear bulkhead entrance to the cellar. The construction of that rear bulkhead entrance involved opening a hole in the foundation wall by strategically removing stones and installing a wooden lintel over the new entrance. Mr. Reed had noted in his initial investigations of the stone side of the structure that the exterior wall over that rear bulkhead entrance appears to be re-laid by a different set of hands than the ones that built the rest of the stone side of the house. There is also a stone in that section of reconstructed wall with the numbers “1828” picked into its face. (See photo below.)

We have reason to believe that this is the year that this stone work was done in relation to the construction of the rear bulkhead entrance. If this is true then we know that the dado paneling was in place by the year 1830, the period to which we are restoring the Stone House. The nails used to construct the dado paneling are the type that date to as early as the 1820s.

We have also uncovered more evidence that sheds light on the stairway that once ran up the south wall of the stone side. The scars in the plaster left by this stairway are plainly visible. (See photo below.)

The modern flooring has also been removed and we have exposed the original floor boards. The marks on those floorboards reveal the place where the stairway landing was located and how wide that stairway was. Additionally the dents and stains on the original floorboards have confirmed the location and configuration of the vertical board wall that was originally constructed in order to divided the first floor into two rooms.

While the interior forensic work has reviled many clues that are helping us develop an idea of how the Stone House looked in 1830, there are still unanswered questions that stem from inconclusive evidence. In our future posts we will address some of these remaining questions as well as the historical graffiti we discovered behind the dado paneling. Ultimately, we hope to have more answers than questions.

This year has been a busy one with our work on the Stone House. So busy that we forgot to include some updates here on the website that did make it into our newsletters.

In the summer of 2016 we announced the discovery of the remaining foundation walls that belonged to a detached kitchen that once stood behind the Stone House. This detached kitchen was most likely built in the 1780s, when tavern keeper Peter Upp owned the property, and it was built at the same time as the north log addition on the Stone House. That detached kitchen had stood until sometime after it was mentioned in an 1843 deed that subdivided the property. Until we discovered the foundation walls of the detached kitchen, we were operating under a theory that a timber-frame shed addition that was once attached to the rear of the stone side of the house was also there on the back of the house during the same time period. As we stated last summer, the big surprise came when we dug the test unit in the ground where we expected to find a stone pier that formerly supported the northeastern corner of that timber- frame shed addition. Instead of finding that pier we discovered the southwestern corner of the detached kitchen’s foundation wall. It is located in such a way that it disproved the theory that the shed addition was there on the back of the Stone House as early as 1830. In fact, it is now clear that the timber-frame shed addition postdates our restoration period by as many as fifteen years. This is because two buildings cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and we know the kitchen was still standing on that spot as late as 1843, when the property was subdivided.

Back in 2014 we had saved that timber-frame shed addition and left it standing on the same spot where it had been moved in the early 1900s. (See photo below.) Back around 1910 it was incorporated into the rear ell addition that was being built behind the stone side of the house. When we removed that ell addition in 2014, we envisioned restoring this timber frame shed addition back to its original place and reattaching it to the rear of the stone side of the house. That is no longer the plan.

In the spring of 2017 we carefully dismantled this timber-frame shed addition and stored it away with its parts labeled and numbered. This work was done by Mr. Bill Wine (in the images below), principal of Historic Restorations, LLC of Woodstock, Virginia. Mr. Wine and his crew had been involved with the earlier work in 2014 to remove the additions behind the log side of the house and the other parts of the ell addition behind the stone side.

The stones from the foundations of the additions are all being saved on site so that they can eventually be reused during the restoration project. The ground area that was just uncovered may yield more information when future archeological studies are conducted. We are keeping the site covered to protect these undiscovered resources of historical evidence.

 

Late last summer we resumed work to answer the final questions about the 1830 appearance of the stone side of the Stone House. In the autumn 2015 we discussed concerns that were raised by Mr. Doug Reed, our historic structure consultant. Mr. Reed had noted that the size of the openings for the first-floor windows and doors were too tall and narrow for what was typically common during the time when the Stone House was originally constructed. At the end of 2016 we revisited these questions and also considered how the first-floor window to the right (south) of the front door was at some time lengthened downward and turned into a doorway. Since then we have received the report on the archeological investigations that were conducted in 2016. In our last issue we recounted how the two test units excavated under that window, on the spot where there used to be a cellar bulkhead entrance, showed that the artifacts discovered in the bottom undisturbed archeological strata dated “from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century.” In other words, the front bulkhead opening continued to exist into the early 1900s, when it was filled in again with dirt. With this fact in mind we now know that the first-floor window to the right (south) of the front door was still a window in the 1830 period. This is because the only way to make that window into a door was to lengthen it downward. To do that they filled in the cellar bulkhead entrance and cut its wooden lintel. Otherwise the lintel would be in the way of the lower half of the door opening that was being created. (See image below.) This also means that the front bulkhead entrance to the cellar was most likely open during the 1830 period and, therefore, it will need to be recreated in our restoration plan for the Stone House.

On the 14th of September 2017 Mr. Doug Reed resumed his study of the Stone House with a renewed examination of the building’s exterior and interior structural features. He began by refamiliarizing himself with the house and the bits of physical evidence that remain from the earliest period of the structure’s existence. One of the best ways to date architectural features is old hardware. And when it comes to window openings, one of the easiest ways to determine the age of the window frame in that opening is by examining the nails that hold it together. One of our most important recent discoveries tells us that the rear window on the stone side dates to the earliest period of the structure’s history. This is because Mr. Reed discovered hand-forged “T” head nails with “spoon bits” (that date to the eighteenth century) in the oldest molding of that window frame. (See photos below.) To make these discoveries Mr. Reed must gently pry wooden molding apart from the walls to which they are attached. (See photo below.) In turn, the nails are slowly revealing the story of the Stone House and what it looked like around 1830.

The work on the Stone House has progressed and we have expanded our study of the interior of the stone side of the structure to include the removal of plaster to look for clues inside the walls. Our historic structure consultant, Mr. Doug Reed, calls this work “above ground archeology.” Similar to the archeology we conducted in the ground behind and around the outside of the Stone House, this forensic investigation of the structure’s interior walls involves the careful removal of layers to reveal trace evidence of past renovations and alterations.

One of the features we are trying to learn more about is a stairway that was once located along the south wall of the first-floor room in the stone side of the house. Mr. Reed, with the assistance of our President Butch Fravel, carefully chipped away the newest layers of plaster to uncover the trace evidence of that stairway. (See photos below.) By carefully removing the plaster around and above the first-floor window openings in the front of the building Mr. Reed has been able to examine bedding mortar in the joints between the stones, and the hand-hewn wooden lintels over the openings. The verdict is that both the first-floor windows and the front door opening are in their original locations and they have not been widened.

On the 1st of December 2017 we also discovered a baseboard in the south first floor room fastened with nails dating to circa 1810. (See image below.) This baseboard had been spliced in the middle and is located below the spot where the old stairway used to be on that wall. The nails in this baseboard may be a clue in helping us date the installation of that missing stairway.

There is more to come. Keep checking back with us.

The report from Rivanna Archaeological Services (“R.A.S.”) has come to us and we want to share some of the things we have learned from it. Those readers who have been able to visit our museum and see the exhibit on those 2016 excavations that opened during this year’s Newtown Heritage Festival have viewed some of the artifacts that were discovered. They will also know that the majority of them were ceramic shards. These supporting quotations from the R.A.S. report give us a sense of the amounts of those materials.

Ceramics recovered from the 2016 investigations were classified into four broad ware types, coarse earthenwares (n = 2,263), refined earthenwares (n = 2,502), stonewares (n = 112), and porcelains (n = 86). A total of 4,963 pieces of tableware and utilitarian ceramic vessels were recovered from all units.

The report went on to say the following:

Coarse earthenwares composed 45.59% of the entire ceramic collection. Of the coarse earthenwares, redwares composed 96.24% (n = 2178), tin-glazed earthenwares 3.05% (n = 69), and slab or tile ware 0.71% (n = 16). Redwares were ubiquitous throughout the sites and in nearly every unit.

This abundance of redware was not surprising. Stephensburg had two potters in the early period, the brothers Andrew and John Pitman. They mainly produced redware pottery in their shops as did other potters in towns around the region.

By far the most important discoveries outlined in the R.A.S. report were the ones that told us about the architectural history of the Stone House, and its main outbuilding, the detached kitchen mentioned in the 1843 deed that subdivided the property. While the test units that were excavated around the exterior doorways of the log addition were inconclusive, we had more success with the effort to discover when the front bulkhead entrance to the cellar under the stone side was closed off and backfilled. (See image below.)

In the September 2016 issue of this newsletter we told of how we hoped to discover undisturbed soil at the bottom of these test units (numbered 20 and 21 in the diagram below) that would hold artifacts dating to the time when this entrance was closed off. The report stated that the artifacts discovered in the bottom undisturbed strata dated “from the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century.” In other words, the front bulkhead opening continued to exist well into the early 1900s.

This diagram from the R.A.S. report shows the floorplans of the Stone House with all its additions. Superimposed with dotted lines are the locations of the detached kitchen (based on its foundations discovered in 2016) and the original location of the timber frame shed addition (based on its foundation piers discovered in 2015 and 2016, and plaster remains on the east wall of the stone structure). The way these two structures overlap in Test Unit 22 illustrates how we know that the detached kitchen was gone before the timber frame shed addition was added to the stone structure. This graphic helps show the complexity of it all.

In our December 3^rd, 2015 post we introduced the question of how the fenestration (window and door openings) in the front of stone side of the house may have been altered over time. In that article, which was titled “Fenestration of the Stone Side” we addressed the issue in some detail. The following except from that article sums up the problems:

So why do we still have concerns about the original size of the window and door openings in the stone side of the structure? The short answer is that they are now too tall and narrow. Our historic structures consultant Doug Reed was the first to notice that something did not fit the pattern. “While the two front first floor windows do not have any readily apparent exterior alterations, the current sizes of the openings do not support any typical size 18th century window known in the region.” He went on to explain the following in the current draft of the historic structure report on the Stone House:

The width of the current opening dictated the use of 6½” to 7” wide glass panes. The width of the sash and glass was also dictated by the rough masonry opening allowing 3½” to 4” wide jambs. For the height to fill the full opening without alterations, a 2” taller piece of glass in ratio to the width again dictated the use of 6½” x 8½” wide glass or the wider glass dimension may have been 7” x 9”. Using those height measurements the sash set that best fit the tall vertical size of the existing rough openings was 9 panes of glass over 9 panes of glass.

Mr. Reed then pointed out that while nine over nine double hung sash windows were possible to make during the period, they would not have been found on a little stone house built in the backcountry of Virginia during the 1760s. He also noted that it was unlikely that these kind of undersized glass panes would be used in a nine over nine double hung sash window, and that it is likely that the rough masonry openings for these front windows were originally shorter. Additionally, he observed that the rough opening for the front door was too narrow for what you would expect to see for a circa 1765 doorway.

To answer the question of whether or not these window and door openings were altered, and if so, how and when the alterations took place, we need to look behind the surface plaster and trim on the inside of these openings. In 2017 one of our first priorities for the project will be answering these questions. We will be working again with Mr. Reed to hopefully come to some conclusions about what the stone side of the structure looked like in 1830.

Additionally, we also know that the first floor window to the right of the front door was at some time lengthened downward and turned into a doorway. When this was done the workers cut the wooden lintel of the old front bulkhead opening leading down into the cellar. This cut lines up with the window opening in the stone work that was used to create the former doorway opening. (See images above and below.) After it had been used as a doorway for a period of time it was altered to the way it is now and used again for its former purpose as a window opening. This is a great example of the complexity of the situation we are facing with the fenestration on the front of the stone side of the house. After these questions are answered we will be able to move forward with the restoration of the exterior of the house in 2018.

After the summer dust settled, we had Rivanna Archaeological Services return on the 8th of August to finish their work at the site for this year. This time they were joined by the other principal of the firm, Benjamin Ford, PhD, in addition to Steve Thompson and Nick Bon-Harper, who previously worked with us in June. Ben and Nick focused on the two test units in the front of the stone side of the house where there was once a bulkhead opening to the basement of that original part of the structure. At the same time Steve Thompson, who had led the principle phase of Rivanna’s excavations in June, worked with Executive Director & Curator Byron Smith in the rear yard behind the log side. There in the area behind the log side of the house Steve supervised our volunteer, Mr. Dick Sandy, who operated his backhoe loader to strip away some of the fill dirt over the kitchen site, and regrade the surface behind the house to facilitate drainage. (See images below.)

Part of this job involved filling in holes and a trench that had previously been dug by museum staff to uncover the old bathroom plumbing and sewer line. This infill work was done to prevent erosion which could threaten the stratigraphy of future archeology at the site. The area behind the log side is now prepared until the next time we employ Rivanna to come back and finish the next phase of the work. That final phase will involve completely uncovering the remaining foundation walls and the floor of the kitchen so that we will be able to make a plan to reconstruct that structure.

Meanwhile, in the front of the stone side of the house, Ben and Nick completed the excavation of the two test units to expose the original eighteenth century stone stairs that formerly gave access to the cellar under the stone side of the house. (See photo below.)

Our purpose in studying these two units was to discover (if possible) the time period when this bulkhead doorway was closed off. This could hopefully be accomplished by examining the artifacts that came out of the undisturbed soil that was used to backfill the stairwell after the bulkhead was closed off. In theory, discovering artifacts dating to the period after the 1830s would indicate that this bulkhead opening would likely have been there in the year 1830, which is the target date of our restoration of the house. The challenge associated with these two test units was in the way they had been disturbed by previous activity. During the mid-twentieth century a water line was installed and a pipe was laid in a trench where we excavated the south test unit. (This pipe is visible in the photo above.) Later in the twentieth century we set our museum’s street sign in a posthole next to the water line. Thus, the majority of the soil coming out of the top layers of these units was useless for our purposes. We can only reasonably assume that the very bottom soil at the base of the stone stairs was undisturbed. The artifacts discovered therein at the bottom of the stairs should tell us if the bulkhead was filled in after 1830. Rivanna staff are processing those artifacts now. We hope to have the results of their study by the end of the year. We will let you know those results and other news in the next posts.

During the archaeological investigations carried out by Rivanna Archaeological Services from the 20th to the 30th of June 2016 we discovered the remains of the foundation walls of the detached kitchen that was mentioned in a deed that subdivided the Stone House property in 1843. While the northeast corner and some of the eastern foundation walls of that kitchen were destroyed when a water cistern was installed in that area of the ground at a latter date, we now have a very good idea of the original footprint and layout of that detached kitchen. This detached kitchen was certainly the place where some of the slaves owned by Henry Jackson lived and worked.

One other factor that could be a game changer for our restoration plan is that the southwestern corner of these foundation walls is located in such a way as to cast doubt on the idea that the shed addition that was formerly attached to the rear of the stone side of the house was there as early as 1830. In fact, it is now looking like that shed addition postdates our restoration period by as many as fifteen years. This is because two buildings cannot occupy the same space at the same time and we know the kitchen was still standing on that spot as late as 1843 when the property was subdivided. The crew from Rivanna is not completely finished with their work. Stay tuned. There is more to come.

 

On the 8th of April we witnessed dramatic changes in the rear yard behind the log side of the Stone House. As we discussed in our last post we were needing to remove the twentieth century obstacles that stood in the way of our archeological search for evidence of the detached kitchen that once stood in the rear yard behind the Stone House. Before moving forward with the demolition we thoroughly documented the shed and saved the hardware for our collection. Once that was complete we called in our contractor who took down the latticework fence, the overgrown shrubs, the silver maple tree, and the old garden shed that had belonged to the Argenbright family. The work was accomplished quickly with the aid of some heavy equipment. Among the most critical steps in the process were the demolition of the shed and the removal of the silver maple tree. They were located in the area of the old property line that formerly subdivided the stone side from the log side of the lot. It was along this former property line that the old detached kitchen once stood.

 

 

 

The last step in the process was the removal of the corner section of the concrete retaining wall that had been constructed along the old property line. Days after the contractor finished that step we then began to remove the fill dirt on both sides of the remaining section of the concrete retaining wall. After consulting with the archeologists who will be excavating there soon we have decided to hold off on the demolition of the concrete retaining wall that ran along the old property line. We were concerned that the work might disturb features in the ground that we are still looking for.

 

 

 

Once we are sure that we have found no danger of destroying archeological evidence in the area of that concrete retaining wall we will call the contractor back so that he can demolish the remaining section of that retaining wall with a jack hammer. We hope that somewhere underneath this concrete retaining wall, along this section of the former property line, we will discover the foundations of the old kitchen. We will keep you posted.

As 2015 comes to a close we can look back with a degree of satisfaction at the progress we have made toward our goals. We have discovered important clues about the evolution of the exterior appearance of the Stone House, and we are poised to uncover more in 2016. In our last post we discussed the questions we still have about the windows in the front of the stone side of the house and how the findings of our historic structure consultant Doug Reed have given us insights into the ways we can answer those questions. Among the things Mr. Reed has recommended for our immediate future is to complete “all archaeological studies as soon as is reasonably possible.” Additionally he stated that it is “imperative the grounds immediately surrounding the structure be graded to drain water away from basements and foundations.” In turn, we have drafted a request for proposals seeking bids from professional archeology firms to have this work done in 2016. With the helpful comments of Mr. Bob Jolley, our resident Archaeologist with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and Dr. Dennis Blanton, who helped us with the excavations earlier this year, we have developed a plan to accomplish the work that is outlined in this request for proposals.

We have three main priorities outlined in this plan. The first one is to have the archeologists supervise the regrading efforts to drain water away from the foundations of the house. The second priority is to locate architectural evidence of building foundations, piers, and footings for porches around doorways or other features related to the Stone House. The third one is to locate the foundations and other remains of the detached kitchen mentioned in the 1843 deed that subdivided the property. Once located, the excavations will follow the foundation remains of this kitchen to determine the building’s configuration and footprint. While it may be simple to state these objectives, it will require a great deal of coordinated effort between the different parties and complex forensic analysis. The largest obstacle in our path forward is a nearly two-foot-high concrete retaining wall that holds back hundreds of pounds of fill dirt in the rear yard of the house. (See image below.)

This wall was constructed during the mid-twentieth century by the Argenbrights, who owned the north side of the lot at that time. It was made to hold fill dirt poured in over the historic ground surface. The Argenbrights did this to create a level courtyard directly behind the rear additions of their side of the house. Prior to that time there was a natural slope in the grade downward toward the east/southeast. The southern portion of this retaining wall was constructed along the old property line that had been drawn in 1843, when the lot was divided between the stone side and the log sides of the house. That same deed mentioned how the detached kitchen we are looking for once straddled the old property line. To conduct the archeology and uncover the remains of that detached kitchen, we must carefully remove hundreds of pounds of fill dirt before demolishing the concrete retaining wall. Only then will we be able to excavate test units along that old property line in the area where that detached kitchen may have been located.

Two other obstacles that must be removed that also are located on that old property line are a silver maple tree and a frame shed with rolled steel siding that dates to the mid-twentieth century, when the Argenbrights owned the north side of the lot. (See photo below.) The shed will have to be removed first, as the tree has grown against it and has started to force it off its concrete block piers. In the north wall of this shed is a double hung sash window that probably was originally part of the log side of the Stone House. It will have to be saved and studied. Next year promises to be interesting.

 

In our last post we introduced a depiction of what the Stone House may have looked like after it was first constructed in the early 1760s. (See image below.) Before the log addition was constructed in 1786, the simple one-and-a-half-story stone cabin was all there was to the building. But questions still remain. As we also indicated in the last post, we still do not know about the original size of the window and door openings in the front of the stone side of the structure. At first glance there does not seem to be any indication that the sizes of the windows or door opening have changed. Upon closer examination we could see that the front window and doorjambs were replaced during the early twentieth century. Apart from that there does not appear to be anything out of the ordinary with the rough openings in the front stone wall. Rectangular and squared chisel-cut stones (called ashlar) were used to face the front side of the building. The gables and rear of the structure were built in random-coursed rubble stone with less attention to the facing details. This use of coursed-ashlar stonework in the front of a building was common in the eighteenth century, just as decorative brick and stone facades are customary on houses today. Alterations made to coursed-ashlar stonework are generally easy to spot, especially when the work is done by less skilled masons. The clues to alterations often come in the form of changes to the bedding mortar, interruptions in the historical rhythm of the stone courses, or poorly executed infill accomplished with misshapen or uncut rocks. With the exception of obvious repointing done by twentieth-century masons using Portland cement in the joints around the stones, none of these other clues appear in the visible surfaces of the masonry work around the windows or front door.

So why do we still have concerns about the original size of the window and door openings in the stone side of the structure? The short answer is that they are now too tall and narrow. Our historic structures consultant Doug Reed was the first to notice that something did not fit the pattern. “While the two front first floor windows do not have any readily apparent exterior alterations, the current sizes of the openings do not support any typical size 18th century window known in the region.” He went on to explain the following in the current draft of the historic structure report on the Stone House:

The width of the current opening dictated the use of 6½” to 7” wide glass panes. The width of the sash and glass was also dictated by the rough masonry opening allowing 3½” to 4” wide jambs. For the height to fill the full opening without alterations, a 2” taller piece of glass in ratio to the width again dictated the use of 6½” x 8½” wide glass or the wider glass dimension may have been 7” x 9”. Using those height measurements the sash set that best fit the tall vertical size of the existing rough openings was 9 panes of glass over 9 panes of glass.

Mr. Reed then pointed out that while nine over nine double hung sash windows were possible to make during the period, they would not have been found on a little stone house built in the backcountry of Virginia during the 1760s. He also noted that it was unlikely that these kind of undersized glass panes would be used in a nine over nine double hung sash window, and that it is likely that the rough masonry openings for these front windows were originally shorter. Additionally, he observed that the rough opening for the front door was too narrow for what you would expect to see for a circa 1765 doorway.

The only window and rough opening that does appear to be historically correct and minimally altered is the one on the rear of the stone side. (See photo below.) Facing southeast, this window may be our standard as we move forward with the restoration of the front windows.