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.

 

 

As we completed the work on the removal of the rear additions, the floorboard and floor joists were taken away to expose the ground surface beneath. This ground surface had formerly served as the floor of a crawl space which was only accessible to small animals and burrowing groundhogs. (See photo below.) The groundhogs may prove to be particularly problematic as the archaeological excavations of the subsurface begin next spring. Even though we see no evidence that they are still active in the area behind the house, it is obvious that in certain places their burrowing has muddled the strata. The jumble of broken ceramic pieces (dating from the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries) around the openings of their holes tells us that they have definitely disturbed some of the evidence.

Among the broken ceramic shards and other debris found on the surface behind the log side of the structure was a badly deteriorated boy’s lace-up boot. (See photos below.) It was found not far from an opening formerly cut in the floor for the base of a cabinet that had supported a brick chimney stack that vented stoves. This old boot would be a relatively insignificant piece of junk if it were not for the fact that it seems to fit a pattern associated with a well-documented folk tradition. In Briton, western Europe, and (mostly) in the eastern United States and Canada, workers performing demolition jobs in old buildings have discovered purposefully concealed shoes and boots dating from the times of earlier construction campaigns or to later alterations in the structures. They have been found concealed inside chimneys, under floorboards, in walls, and in other spaces that were sealed off from use and view. One concealed shoe (a lady’s high heeled pump from circa 1790) was recently discovered in a sealed-off space under a stairway at historic Clermont Farm in Berryville, Virginia, just 17 miles away. Bob Stieg, CEO of Clermont Farm, shared an article with us on this subject that was published in 1996 by Costume magazine. It was authored by June Swann, of the Northampton Museum in England, an institution with the largest curated collection of historical footwear in the world. Ms. Swann recounted how at the time she was writing, they had documented as many as 1,550 shoes and boots discovered concealed in historic structures in Western Europe and North America. All of the evidence points to a relationship with ancient customs of sacrificing objects to ensure good fortune. Thus, our concealed boot may have served as a good luck charm to whoever deposited it under that floor during the late 1800s or early 1900s, the period when the Argenbright family owned that side of the house. Determining the date of the boot may tell us more. As always, we will keep you posted!

We have made dramatic progress on our project since our last post. Once the plaster was removed and the framing was totally exposed, we held a meeting with our historic structures consultant, Mr. Doug Reed, and our contractor, Mr. Bill Wine. During that meeting we had to make some decisions about how we were going to deal with the discoveries in the ground floor room at the rear of the ell addition behind the stone side of the structure. As we discussed in our last post, this part of the rear additions is special. The hand-hewn timbers of the frame and the wide pine, sash-sawn floor boards held down with nineteenth- century cut nails served to confirm our suspicions. This part of the structure is composed of recycled building materials that were likely once part of an earlier shed addition on the back of the stone side of the structure. The technology represented in these materials clearly predated the rest of the ell addition behind the stone side. It even looks like this particular part of the structure may have been moved intact to it present location. Because of these factors the team decided to leave that early frame part of the addition standing in place on its current foundation so that it can be studied in more detail. (See photo below.) One of the things we hope to accomplish with this course of action is to conclusively rule out the possibility that this early timber-framed part of the addition was not originally a detached free-standing building. If it was, then this part of the structure would have been joined to the rear of the stone side of the property by the construction of the rest of the ell addition as an “in-fill” sometime during the opening decades of the twentieth century. At present, the exposed foundation on which this section rests implies that it was never a free-standing structure on its present site. Even without the benefit of an archaeological excavation, it appears more likely that it was moved to its present location. Nevertheless, we need to be sure. Archaeology will fill in the final piece of the puzzle.

To protect the east walls of the stone and log sides of the house (walls that used to be sheltered from the elements by the rear additions), we are now constructing a partition that is situated three feet out from the rear of the structure. (See photo below.) The space we are creating behind this temporary barrier will make it possible for us to conduct more analysis of the evidence embedded in those rear walls. One of our first tasks will be to carefully remove plaster in key areas of the wall behind the stone side. We will be searching for evidence of how and where the earlier addition in this area was attached. Ideally, we will continue to find evidence that the rear addition in question is the same one we have already addressed in this post.

After the remaining fragments of the additions behind the log side of the structure have been removed, we will be ready to start the archaeological investigations in the ground that was formerly covered by them. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when buildings were demolished, it was the common practice of builders to salvage and reuse the foundation stones (or bricks) that were located above the surface. Those that were below were left in place, and dirt was thrown down to cover them. Archeologists who investigate historic structure sites remove the latter infill dirt to expose the historic surface grade. In turn, they also sometimes find the foundations of earlier structures. It is our hope and expectation that we will also discover earlier foundations when we excavate these areas.

We are taking the final steps to prepare for the removal of the rear additions of the property. Analysis of the structural elements of the old kitchen behind stone side ell addition has confirmed that it is something special. It is most likely an earlier shed addition that was originally constructed with recycled materials from an even older building. This hand-hewn timber-framed component of the structure will remain standing in place on its current foundation while we determine the best course of action to ensure it preservation for possible future use. We also wish to harvest all of the evidence that we possibly can from it before it is carefully dismantled and stored. It is looking increasingly as though our theories about this old shed addition are correct. The evidence appears to confirm that it was originally constructed up against the rear wall of the stone side of structure sometime during the 1800s. It was later moved eastward intact into its present location and reattached again on the rear wall of the ell addition when that component of the structure was built in the first decades of the 1900s.

Workers are also starting to build a temporary conservation wall that will protect the rear of the stone and log sides of the structure from the elements. This conservation wall will shelter the surfaces that were formerly covered by the rear additions. It will be out far enough from the rear of the structure to provide a workspace for us to do additional study and analysis of the evidence in those rear walls. Soon the ground surfaces under the floorboards of these rear additions will be exposed to view, and we will be prepared for the archeology phase of the project. We will keep you posted.