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.

In addition to our archeological investigations we continue to find out what we can about the architectural history of the Stone House itself. To assist us in this endeavor we have retained the services of Mr. Doug Reed, our historic structures consultant. Mr. Reed is currently preparing a report on what the structural evidence can tell us about the outside appearance of the Stone House up to our target restoration date of 1830. Last year our examination of the exposed logs of the rear of the log side of the structure raised questions about the way the front of the log side looked from the time of its construction in 1786. In the rear of the log side window and door openings had obviously been changed; old openings had been filled in with bricks and mortar. On the 30th of April Mr. Reed came to make exploratory cuts in the siding of the front of the log side of the structure to determine if the street side of the building had undergone similar changes. (See photo below.) We found it had.

The elaborate word for window and door openings in a wall is fenestration, and the way windows and doors are set into a wall is called a fenestration pattern. What Mr. Reed discovered on that last day of April was that the original fenestration pattern of the front of the log side was similar to the original fenestration pattern of the rear of the log side. Chief among the things we discovered was the placement of the original front doorway to the log side. In a similar fashion to the rear of the log side of the structure, the front of the log side originally had a doorway very close to the stone side of the building. (See Figure 2)

Before the fenestration pattern was changed to its current configuration by Henry Jackson during the first decade of the nineteenth century, the log side of the house had opposing doorways in the front and rear that opened directly into the room with the fireplace. The owner of the property who was responsible for the initial construction of the log addition and its original fenestration pattern was the innkeeper Peter Upp. Upp was of German extraction, and his decision to place his doorways and windows where he did was in some measure typical of his ethnic heritage. In fact, this original fenestration pattern of the log side is comparable to those on other vernacular log houses built by Germans in the period. Unfortunately, the later enlargement of the window openings appears to have obliterated the evidence that would tell us the original size and number of the windows of that north log addition.

We are dealing with similar questions about the original size of the windows on the stone side. We remain fairly confident that the current fenestration pattern of the stone side is basically the original fenestration pattern. With the exception of the entrance to the cellar, which was moved to the rear of the stone side sometime in the early 1800s, the window and door openings of the stone side appear to be in the places they were initially constructed in the 1760s. We therefore have a good idea of how the original Stone House looked before the log addition was built in 1786. (See Figure 1) We hope that more exploration in the walls around the windows of the stone side will answer the questions about their original size.

On Wednesday, the 25th of February, Dr. Dennis Blanton of James Madison University and two of his students came to begin the process of preparing for the excavations that were scheduled to begin the following Saturday. We all were concerned about the weather and despite the cold and ice, Dr. Blanton and his crew made there way back to Stephens City on the 28th to begin the work of carefully excavating the subsurfaces in the carefully mapped squares behind the stone side of the structure. They stayed overnight at a local hotel and resumed work on the following morning of the 1st of March. During that first weekend they recovered many artifacts and exposed an architectural  feature that appears to be a stone pier that formerly supported the shed addition that was once attached to the rear of the stone side of the structure. (See image below.) Dr. Blanton and his crew are planing at least two more weekend excavation trips in the month of March. We will keep you posted!

On Friday the 13th of February Mr. Peter Aaslestad used photogrammetry and point cloud scanning technologies to create reliable documentation of the surfaces we had exposed last year when we removed the rear additions. Mr. Aaslestad had generated the “before restoration” hybrid drawings of the exterior of the structure back in 2013. (See our page on this subject at http://newtownhistorycenter.org/stone-house-restoration-project/hybrid-drawings/.) The work Mr. Aaslestad accomplished on the 13th of February has been incorporated into the earlier hybrid drawings of the rear of the structure. The results speak for themselves. (See image below.) The new hybrid drawings of these formerly covered surfaces will be used by our team of consultants and architectural historians to generate more drawings that will explain the way the Stone House was altered over the course of its long history.