HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18 Comments (3)REPORT >
Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment
of Glengary (VDHR #034-1099)
LOCATION > Frederick County, Virginia
Fir 4
10
v.�L:,.tt`Y ��jiy,r��! -� \ ��� .. ✓,�ryr M7C/ray i _.., ._. �f:__� .:�..
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY, PLANNING, AND MANAGEMENT
DATE > OCTOBER 2017
PREPARED FOR >
John L. Knott, III
Equus Capital Partners,
Ltd
PREPARED BY >
Dutton + Associates, LLC
CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
OF GLENGARY (VDHR# 034-1099)
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PREPARED FOR:
EQUUS CAPITAL PARTNERS, LTD
John Knott, III
Vice President Development
PREPARED BY:
DUTTON + ASSOCIATES, LLC
1115 Crowder Drive
Midlothian, Virginia 23113
804.897.1960
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS;
ROBERT J. TAYLOR, JR. M.A.
DAVID H. DUTTON, M.A.
OCTOBER 2017
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Under contract to Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., Dutton + Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a
cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary house and property in Frederick
County, Virginia. Investigation of the property was requested to assess the historical significance
of the property with regards to its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) in order to guide management and treatment of the property.
As part of background research, it was revealed that Glengary has been subject to previous
cultural resource surveys on several occasions and has been investigated for both architectural
and archaeological resources. Architecturally, the home and outbuildings were last evaluated in
1997 at which time it was noted that the home retained a moderate degree of integrity, but also
retained an excellent example of domestic and agricultural support buildings and thus was
recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP as a good representation of a mid -
nineteenth century farm that has evolved over time. Since that time, the home itself has remained
relatively unaltered and continues to reflect the same level of integrity as previously documented.
However, two of the oldest outbuildings on the property, the circa 1850 kitchen/servant's
quarters and circa 1850 hay barn, have both been razed.
Still, Glengary reflects a fine Antebellum plantation that has grown and evolved as a farm into
the present day. The original block of the home was built in 1850 and retains much of its Greek
Revival detailing, but was substantially enlarged and remodeled on several occasions
throughout the twentieth century, lending the building a Colonial Revival character. Some of the
additions and modifications were done so as to blend in and be compatible with the original
building and materials while others are clearly modern. The same is true inside the home where
the original block retains many Greek Revival details and mid -nineteenth century materials
while the additions reflect renovations from throughout the twentieth century to accommodate
changing needs.
The farm complex also reflects ongoing use of the property and changing needs. All of the extant
outbuildings and barns date from the late -nineteenth to early -twentieth century and reflect
agricultural practices from that period. The complex previously included a detached
kitchen/servant's quarters and a hay barn that were believed to be contemporary to the original
block of the house, however, these have been demolished in recent years. Still, the home and
building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good
example of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and
agricultural buildings that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary is still recommended
potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C for significance at the local
level.
Archaeologically, two sites have been previously identified on the property, including one
immediately around and inclusive of the domestic and agricultural complex (44FK0481), and a
second site further to the rear in the pasture (44FK0480). Visual inspection of the project area
did not reveal any surface evidence of cultural material or activity on the property. At the time of
the survey, cattle were loose in the pastures and visual inspection was limited in these areas;
however, no visible evidence of cultural material was identified. Interviews with the current
ABSTRACT
property owner indicated that the property (the house precinct and fields) had been subjected to
metal detection in the past but that no material associated with early use of the property or its
potential occupation during the Civil War were recovered or noted. Inspection of the field north
of the main dwelling and adjacent to Redbud Run, where oral tradition suggested the possible
presence of a stone foundation only revealed naturally occurring exposed bedrock. No evidence
of building foundations or use of the exposed bedrock as a foundation material was observed.
Given the low lying situation of the landform and its likely potential to flood when Redbud Run
exceeded its banks would have made this particular area an unlikely location for settlement and
construction of a dwelling.
Excavation of judgmental shovel tests in areas associated with Site 44FK0481 resulted in the
recovery of cultural material associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter structure,
which was removed in the recent past. Recovered materials date from the first half of the
nineteenth century and are representative of domestic wares popular at the time. Only two
additional judgmental tests were positive for cultural material and these were located along a
fence line north the main dwelling and likely represent discard of building debris associated with
remodeling of the main dwelling in the twentieth century and possible fence repair.
Given the architectural history of the property, it appears that the domestic and agricultural
landscape of Glengary has not changed substantially since its construction ca. 1850. While the
main dwelling has expanded, and additional agricultural buildings have been constructed, the
basic organization of domestic and agricultural space including fields and woodlands appears to
have changed little. As such, additional archaeological resources associated with the domestic
and agricultural component of Glengary are not expected beyond what is currently present.
Although testing around the domestic precinct was not intensive, the presence of intact
archaeological deposits associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter building are
present, and it is likely that a small number archaeological deposits associated with the main
dwelling house are present close to the building foundation.
Based upon the results of the archaeological assessment, no evidence of Site 44FK0480 was
observed and it is likely that this site was a thin scatter of domestic debris spread in the field
with no subsurface archaeological signature. Site 44FK0481 appears to be a more discretely
defined site and is focused in and around the kitchen/servants quarter building, which would
have function as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact
archaeological deposits is present in this area.
The potential for the remainder of the property to contain intact significant archaeological
deposits appears to be low given the topography, rocky soils, and lack of documented use during
the historic period beyond what is already known about the property. While Civil War use of the
property for encampment purposes is possible, the lack of reported results from local metal
detecting along with the documented confusion of encampments at the Lewis property further to
the south versus the Glengary (Harmon) property suggests the potential is likely not high.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1
ProjectLocation.....................................................................................................................1-1
2.
RESEARCH DESIGN...................................................................................................2-1
ArchivalResearch..................................................................................................................2-1
ContextDevelopment............................................................................................................
2-1
ArchitecturalSurvey..............................................................................................................
2-1
Archaeological Assessment...................................................................................................
2-2
Report and Record Preparation..............................................................................................2-2
3.
ARCHIVES SEARCH...................................................................................................3-1
Previous Surveys Relevant to the Project Area.....................................................................
3-1
Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within One Mile ............................................... 3-2
Previously Identified Architectural Resources Within One Mile ..........................................
3-3
4.
HISTORIC CONTEXT.................................................................................................4-1
Paleoindian Period (Prior to 8000 B.C.)................................................................................4-1
Archaic Period (8000 — 1200 B.C.).......................................................................................
4-2
Woodland Period (1200 B.C. — 1600 A.D.)...........................................................................4-4
Settlement to Society (1607 — 1750)......................................................................................
4-5
Colony to Nation (1750 — 1789)............................................................................................
4-8
Early National Period (1789 — 1830).....................................................................................
4-9
Antebellum Period (1830 — 1860)........................................................................................
4-11
CivilWar (1861 — 1865)......................................................................................................4-12
Reconstruction and Growth (1865 — 1917)..........................................................................
4-21
World War I to World War II (1917 — 1945).......................................................................
4-23
New Dominion (1945 — Present).........................................................................................
4-24
5.
FIELD RESULTS.......................................................................................................... 5-1
ArchitecturalSurvey.............................................................................................................. 5-1
Interior..............................................................................................................................
5-5
Site.................................................................................................................................
5-12
Archaeological Assessment.................................................................................................
5-20
DesktopAnalysis...........................................................................................................
5-20
PedestrianSurvey...........................................................................................................
5-21
JudgmentalShovel Testing............................................................................................
5-24
6.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................6-1
7.
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Glengary general location......................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2: Aerial photograph of the Glengary property. Source: Google Earth ........................1-3
Figure 3-1: Previous surveys (gray) conducted within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area
(green). Source: V-CRIS..................................................................................................3-1
Figure 3-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the
project area (green). Source: V-CRIS..............................................................................3-2
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 3-3: Map detailing all previously recorded architectural resources (blue) within 1.0 mile
(dotted blue) of the project area (green). Source: VCRIS............................................... 3-4
Figure 4-1: Detail of A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the
project area. Source: Library of Congress....................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-2: Detail of A new map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761,
depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress .................................................. 4-9
Figure 4-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia,
by Varle and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress.. 4-10
Figure 4-4: Detail of Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) [September 19, 1864], 1873 by
Gillespie, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress...............................4-13
Figure 4-5: Winchester I (VA] 04) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source:
ABPP.............................................................................................................................. 4-15
Figure 4-6: Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, by Hotchkiss, depicting the project area.
Source: Library of Congress.......................................................................................... 4-17
Figure 4-7: Winchester II (VA 107) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source:
ABPP.............................................................................................................................. 4-18
Figure 4-8: Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) depicting the project area. Source: Library
ofCongress.................................................................................................................... 4-20
Figure 4-9: Opequon/Third Winchester (VA119) depicting the project area in relation to the
battlefield. Source: ABPP.............................................................................................. 4-21
Figure 4-10: Detail of An Atlas: Frederick County, 1885, depicting the project area. Source:
HistoricMap Works....................................................................................................... 4-23
Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area.
Source: USGS................................................................................................................ 4-24
Figure 4-12: Detail of the 1966 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area.
Source: USGS................................................................................................................ 4-25
Figure 4-13: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth ............. 4-25
Figure 5-1: Glengary front fagade, facing west........................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-2: Detail of front portico, facing southwest.................................................................. 5-2
Figure 5-3: Circa 1970 side wing, facing west............................................................................ 5-3
Figure 5-4: Front and north side oblique, facing southwest........................................................ 5-3
Figure 5-5: Rear ell north side, facing southeast......................................................................... 5-4
Figure 5-6: Rear ell south side with garage extension, facing northeast ..................................... 5-5
Figure 5-7: Original block central passage from entry, facing west ............................................ 5-6
Figure 5-8: First floor door architrave, south room, facing north ................................................ 5-7
Figure 5-9: Fireplace and mantel in north room, facing northwest ............................................. 5-8
Figure 5-10: North room with later doorways, facing northwest ................................................ 5-8
Figure 5-11: Room in side wing, facing northeast....................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-12: Hallway and stairwell in side wing, facing east ...................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-13: Kitchen in rear ell, facing south............................................................................ 5-10
Figure 5-14: Enclosed stairwell and doorway in rear ell, facing west ....................................... 5-11
Figure 5-15: Back room in rear ell with built-in cabinet, facing east ........................................ 5-11
Figure 5-16: Sunroom interior, facing northeast........................................................................ 5-12
Figure 5-17: Glengary Building complex. Source: Google Earth ............................................. 5-13
Figure 5-18: Root cellar, facing east.......................................................................................... 5-13
Figure 5-19: Meathouse, facing west......................................................................................... 5-14
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 5-20: Pump house, facing southwest.............................................................................. 5-15
Figure 5-21: Granary, facing southwest..................................................................................... 5-16
Figure 5-22: Bank Barn downhill side, facing southwest.......................................................... 5-17
Figure 5-23: Bank barn uphill side, facing northeast................................................................. 5-17
Figure 5-24: Bank barn lower level interior, facing southwest ................................................. 5-18
Figure 5-25: Bank barn main level interior, facing northeast .................................................... 5-18
Figure 5-26: Animal barn, facing southwest ..................................
Figure 5-27: Animal barn interior, facing southeast.................................................................. 5-19
Figure 5-28: Location of Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 recorded during the 1992 JMU survey.
............................................... 5-21
Figure 5-29: View of domestic landscape surrounding the main dwelling at Glengary facing
north............................................................................................................................... 5-22
Figure 5-30: General view of landscape surrounding agricultural buildings facing east.......... 5-23
Figure 5-31: General view of landscape around agricultural buildings and pastures west of the
domestic complex, facing northwest .............................
Figure 5-32: Plan view of judgmental shovel test locations. Positive shovel tests are marked
yellow negative shovel tests are red............................................................................... 5-25
Figure 5-33: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-5................................................................... 5-26
Figure 5-34: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-9................................................................... 5-26
Figure 5-35: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Test J-4 at area of former
kitchen building located in the domestic complex of the Glengary property ................ 5-27
Figure 5-36: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Tests J-11 and J-13............ 5-27
Figure 5-37: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-3................................................................... 5-28
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Previously conducted cultural resource studies that have included the project area.. 3-1
Table 3-2: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project area...
3-2
Table 3-3: Previously recorded architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Bold font denotes resources is listed in or considered eligible for listing in the NRNP.
Glengary in the project area is highlighted in orange ...........................
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vi
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
Under contract to Equus Capital Partners, Ltd., Dutton + Associates, LLC (D+A) conducted a
cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary house and property in Frederick County,
Virginia. Investigation of the property was requested to assess the historical significance of the
property with regards to its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) in order to guide management and treatment of property.
As such, this document is intended to serve as a planning tool, and is not intended to serve as
compliance with any state or federal regulations. However, principal investigators meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 44716) for archaeology,
history, architecture, architectural history, or historic architecture and all work carried out in
conformity with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation (Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, 1983) and the VDHR's Guidelines for
Conducting Cultural Resources Survey in Virginia (Revised October 2011). Architectural
resource investigations were conducted by Senior Architectural Historian Robert J. Taylor, Jr.
M.A. Archaeological investigations were overseen by David H. Dutton, M.A.
The D+A effort was conducted in September 2017, and included research into the history of to
property, documentation of existing conditions for all above -ground buildings and structures,
archaeological assessment, consideration of historical integrity, and evaluation of historical
significance with regards to NRHP-eligibility.
PROJECT LOCATION
Glengary is located at 420 Lenoir Drive in Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia. The property
is roughly 80 acres consisting of a 10 -acre homesite parcel (#43 A 2113) and a 76.6 -acre farm
parcel (#43 A 21) surrounding it. The property is located at the south end of Lenoir Drive,
situated between an industrial park to the east and north, and U.S. Highway 37 to the south.
Residential development borders the property to the west (Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
1-1
INTRODUCTION
Winchester Frederick County
c� o
wa..
C
v
Project Location
NGlengary
CI1
Figure 1-1: Glengary general location
I-2
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-2: Aerial photograph of the Glengary property. Source: Google Earth
1-3
INTRODUCTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1-4
RESEARCH DESIGN
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
A comprehensive literature review and background search was performed to gain an
understanding of existing survey data pertaining to the property. The focus of the background
search was to identify whether the property or any resources in the vicinity have been subject to
previous cultural resource survey and what the previous recommendation of eligibility was for
each. To this end, the VDHR archives and the VCRIS database were searched to identify
previously conducted cultural resource studies and known architectural or archaeological
resources in the vicinity of the property.
In further preparation for the fieldwork, D+A conducted additional review of the following
documents and sources for information relative to previously recorded and unrecorded historic
property locations within and adjacent to the project area:
➢ Frederick County Tax Assessors records;
➢ USDA Historic Aerial Imagery;
➢ U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps;
➢ Local historical society/ library archives; and
➢ Consultation with local informants and other professionals with intimate knowledge of
the region
CONTEXT DEVELOPMENT
Information from the literature review and background search was used in conjunction with
additional historical data from research to develop a comprehensive historic context in which to
place the property for evaluations of significance as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the VDHR's How to
Use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment
Projects (VDHR 1992). The overview was developed through review of previous cultural
resource studies, published and unpublished manuscripts, historic maps, aerial photographs, local
histories, county land records, and a variety of internet sources. Research was conducted at and
through local repositories including the Library of Congress, United States Geological Service,
Library of Virginia, Frederick County Property Assessor's office, local historical societies, and
any other repositories identified during preliminary research. The historic context includes local
and regional history, with a focus on the development, use, and significance of Glengary from its
earliest documented occupation through the present-day.
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
Using information derived from the archive searches and additional background research, a field
survey was undertaken to document the physical condition of the property and the resources
located there. Construction and alterations dates for the buildings and structures were established
through a combination of archival search, property records data, map analysis, field inspection,
and owner interview.
2-1
RESEARCH DESIGN
A field form was completed for each standing resource with information from site observations
including a physical description with information such as relationship to adjacent buildings and
structures, general condition, surrounding setting, description of exterior materials, identifiable
architectural or structural treatments, and retention of historic physical integrity. Both the
exterior and interior of the resources were subject to inspection. A sketch of the overall property
and setting was prepared, and photographs of the site and setting, exterior, and interior were
taken with a high resolution digital camera to document the property's existing conditions.
All architectural fieldwork was carried out in accordance with VDHR's standards and guidelines
and evaluated to determine potential significance in accordance with NRHP criteria.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
An archaeological assessment of the property was also conducted to document the potential for
intact archaeological sites or deposits to be present. The effort entailed a "desktop analysis"
coupled with field investigation to note existing soil conditions, confirm the presence or absence
of archaeological resources, and make recommendations for further study.
Field investigations included a limited pedestrian survey of the project area to document existing
conditions and to note surface evidence of cultural activity or material and identify areas with the
potential for intact subsurface archaeological resource. For any archaeological resources
identified during the reconnaissance, photographs were taken of the general vicinity and of any
visible features. A field map was prepared showing feature locations, permanent landmarks,
topographic and vegetation variation, as well as sources of disturbance. Sufficient information
was included on the map to permit easy relocation of the resources.
Targeted shovel testing was then conducted in high probability areas or areas of previously
documented archaeological discovery. The soil excavated from all shovel tests was passed
through 1/4 -inch (0.63 -cm) mesh screen and all shovel tests were approximately 0.30 -meters (1 -
foot) in diameter and excavated to sterile subsoil or the practical limits of excavation. Shovel
test placement was avoided in areas of documented or visible significant ground disturbance,
slopes in excess of 15 percent, and areas in statutory wetlands or water saturated soils.
REPORT AND RECORD PREPARATION
Following the field survey, information from background research and context development was
used in conjunction with field investigations to assess the historical significance and integrity of
the property to evaluate it for potential NRHP eligibility. The evaluation of significance was
built on an analysis of the historic context for associations used in conjunction with an
assessment of integrity from the field inspection. Historical integrity was determined from site
observations, field data, and photographic documentation according to NPS guidance. A
summary report containing the results of the evaluation along with the associated documentation
was prepared. Virginia Cultural Resource Information System (VCRIS) site forms were
prepared or updated for the home and building complex as well as any identified archaeological
sites.
2-2
ARCHIVES SEARCH
3. ARCHIVES SEARCH
This section includes a summary of all the cultural resource management events that have taken
place within the project area registered at VDHR through September 2017. It also lists all
previously identified architectural resources and archaeological sites located within the project
area, as well as within one mile of the project area.
PREVIOUS SURVEYS RELEVANT TO THE PROJECT AREA
Research at the VDHR reveals that four surveys have been previously conducted within one mile
of the project area. Of these, none have taken place within the project area (Figure 3-1). It is
however known that several additional unmapped studies that have included the property have
been conducted. These studies are listed in Table 3-1.
rigure 3-t: Previous surveys (gray) conducted within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area (green).
Source: V-CRIS
Table 3-1: Previously conducted cultural resource studies that have included the nrniect area
VDHR
Title
Author
Date
Report #
n/a
Phase I Architectural Resource Survey Report of the Proposed
Maral S. Kalbian
1992
Route 37 Corridor Study of Frederick County, Virginia
n/a
n/a
JMU Department of
1992
Anthropology
FK -55
Phase I and 11 Cultural Resource Investigations of Route 37,
Gray & Pape
1997
Frederick County, Virginia
3-1
ARCHIVES SEARCH
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE
Review of VCRIS reveals fifteen previously identified archaeological sites located within one
mile of the project area, two of which are located within the project area (Figure 3-2, Table 3-2).
These sites include a nineteenth century farmstead and an indeterminate site of the same century.
These sites include one prehistoric camp site, two historic trash scatter sites, and nineteenth
century earthworks, a farmstead, church, military camp and battlefield. VDHR has determined
three of the sites not eligible for the NRHP (44FK0477, 44FK0584, 44FK0585) and the
remaining sites, including the two within the project area, have not been formally evaluated.
Figure 3-2: Map detailing all archaeological resources (red) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue) of the project area
(green). Source: V-CRIS
Table 3-2: Previously identified archaeological sites located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
VDHR ID#
Site Types
Cultural
Temporal Association
NRHP Status
Designation
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. -
44FK0013
Camp, Other
Native American
1606 A.D.), 19th Century: 3rd
Not Evaluated
quarter 1850 - 1874
44FK0014
Camp, Trash
Native American
Historic/Unknown, Woodland
Not Evaluated
scatter
(1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.
Historic/Unknown,
44FK0015
Camp, Trash
Native American
Prehistoric/Unknown (15000 B.C. -
Not Evaluated
scatter
1606 A.D.)
44FK0049
Camp
Native American
Woodland (1200 B.C. - 1606 A.D.)
Not Evaluated
19th Century: 2nd half (1850 -
DHR Staff;
44FK0477
Trash scatter
Euro -American
1899), 20th Century (1900 - 1999)
Not Eligible
44FK0479
Earthworks
Euro -American
19th Century: 2nd/3rd quarter
Not Evaluated
1825 - 1874
44FK0480
Null
Euro -American
19th Century (1800 - 1899) 1
Not Evaluated
3-2
ARCHIVES SEARCH
VDHR ID#
Site Types
Cultural
Designation
Temporal Association
NRHP Status
44FK0481
Farmstead
Euro -American
19th Century: 1st half (1800 -
Not Evaluated
1849
44FK0561
Military Camp
Euro -American
19th Century: 2nd half (1850 -
Not Evaluated
1899)
44FK0584
Trash Scatter
Euro -American
19th Century (1800 - 1899), 20th
DHR Staff:
Century: 1st quarter (1900 - 1924)
Not Eligible
44FK0585
Trash Scatter
Euro -American
19th Century (1800 - 1899)
DHR Staff:
Not Eligible
Antebellum Period (1830 - 1860),
Battlefield,
Civil War (1861 - 1865),
44FK0624
Dwelling,
Euro -American
Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
Not Evaluated
single, Military
1916), World War I to World War
field hospital
II (1917 - 1945), The New
Dominion (1946 - 1988)
32/034-
0322
0322
Earthworks
Euro -American
Civil War (1861 - 1865)
Not Evaluated
44FK0733/034-
0165/034-0456
Earthworks
Euro -American
Civil War (1861 - 1865)
Not Evaluated
Reconstruction and Growth (1866 -
1916), World War I to World War
44FK0805
Church
Euro -American
II (1917 - 1945), The New
Not Evaluated
Dominion (1946 - 1991), Post Cold
War (1992 -Present
PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE
Review of VDHR records identifies 39 previously recorded standing resources located within
one mile of the project area (Figure 3-3, Table 3-3). These include 29 dwellings, two churches,
one bridge, one fort, one store, one school, and three battlefields. The resources range in date
from the late eighteenth century to the early twentieth century with most resources constructed
between c.1800 and c.1900. VDHR has found three of the resources to be potentially eligible,
five eligible, and seven not eligible for listing in the NRHP. One resource was found to be
already listed on the NRNP. The remaining resources have not been formally evaluated.
The Glengary property itself has been previously recorded and subject to two architectural
resource studies (VDHR# 034-1099). The property was initially documented in 1992 and
revisited in 1997. These efforts included Phase I and Phase II documentation and evaluation of
the property resulting in the determination by the VDHR that Glengary was eligible for listing in
the NRHP at that time.
3-3
ARCHIVES SEARCH
Figure 3-3: Map detailing all previously recorded architectural resources (blue) within 1.0 mile (dotted blue)
of the project area (green). Source: VCRIS
Table 3-3: Previously recorded architectural resources located within 1.0 mile of the project area. Bold font
denotes resources is listed in or considered eligible for listing in the NRNP. Glengary in the project area is
highlighted in orange.
VDHR
Evaluation
ID#
Resource Name
Type
Year
Status
034-0010
House near Stine's Chapel (Demolished)
N/A
N/A
Not Evaluated
(Function/Location
034-0067
House, Route 739 (Function/Location)
Single Dwelling
c.1930
Not Evaluated
034-0068
Lewis House (Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1850
Not Evaluated
034-0070
Bond, Allen, House (Historic/Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1930
Not Evaluated
DHR Staff -
034 -0135
Sempeles House (Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1820
Potentially
Eligible
034-0147
Glendale (Historic), Stine House (Current),
Single Dwelling
c.1859
Not Evaluated
Stine, Henry, House (Historic)
034-0148
Woodville (Historic/Current)
Single Dwelling
x.1770
Not Evaluated
NRHP
034-0165
Fort Collier (Current), Stine, Isaac, House
Single Dwelling
1865
Listing, VLR
(Historic)
Listing
034-0322
Fort Alabama (Historic), Star Fort (Historic)
Fort/Military
c.1861
DHR Board
Base
Det. Eligible
034-0456
Opequon Battlefield (Historic), Third Battle
Battlefield
1864
DHR Staff.
of Winchester Site Current
Eligible
034-0520
Sunnyside Grocery (Historic)
Store
c.1900
Not Evaluated
034-0521
Brown House (Historic)
Single Dwelling
c.1920
Not Evaluated
034-0523
House, 1048 North Frederick Pike
Single Dwelling
c.1910
Not Evaluated
(Function/Location
034-0524
Captain John Glaize House (Historic), Liberty
Single Dwelling
c.1871
Not Evaluated
3-4
ARCHIVES SEARCH
VDHR Rs
ID# Resource Name Type Year
Evaluation
Status
Hall (Historic)
034-0525 McDonald House (Current)
Single Dwelling c.1890
Not Evaluated
034-0526
Carper House (Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1890
Not Evaluated
034-0527
Martin House (Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1820
Not Evaluated
034-0528
Clark House, 1418 N Frederick Pike
Historic/Location
Single Dwelling
c.1800
Not Evaluated
034-0529
Stine's Chapel (Historic/Current)
Church
c.1870
Not Evaluated
034-0583
Martin House (Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1800
Not Evaluated
034-0953
Beirer-Robinson House (Current), Clevenger
Single Dwelling
c. 1880
DHR Staff
House (Historic)
Not Eligible
034-0954
House, off Route 11 North (FunctionlLocation)
Single Dwelling
c.1915
DHR Staff.
Not Eligible
034-0955
School #1 - Frederick County (Historic), Valley
DHR Staff
School (Current)
School
c.1900
Not Eligible
034-0956
Valley Union Chapel (Current)
Church
c.1880
DHR. Staff.
Not Eligible
034-0957
House, 1113 Martinsburg Road
Single Dwelling
c.1930
DHR Staff:
Potentially
(Function/Location)
Eligible
034-0958
House, 105 Lee Avenue (Function/Location)
Single Dwelling
N/A
Not Evaluated
034-0959
House, 101 Lee Avenue (Function/Location)
Single Dwelling
N/A
Not Evaluated
034-0960
House, 20 Lee Avenue (Function/Location)
Single Dwelling
N/A
Not Evaluated
034-0961
House, 913 N. Loudoun Street
(Function/Location)
Single Dwelling
N/A
Not Evaluated
034-0962
House, 909 N. Loudoun Street
Function/Location
Single Dwelling
c.1865
Not Evaluated
DHR Staff -
034 -1067
Seven Oaks (Historic/Current)
Single Dwelling
c.1850
Potentially
Eligible
034-1099
Glengary (Historic)
Single Dwelling
c.1850 ;`
DHR Staff:
Eligible
034-1447
Farm, Welltown Rd (Rt 661)
Single Dwelling
c.1870
DHR Staff:
Function/Location , Mertz House Current
Not Eligible
034-1448
Clevenger, Louie, House (Historic),
Single Dwelling
c.1890
DHR Staff:
Cleven er-McKown House (Current)
Eligible
034-1455
House, Welltown Pike (Function/Location)
Single Dwelling
c.1910
DHR Staff.
Not Eligible
034-1568
046 Frederick Pike (Historic), House, 1046
Single Dwelling
c.1920
Not Evaluated
Frederick Pike (Function/Location)
Apple Pie Ridge/West Fort Parcel
034-5023
(Descriptive), Second Winchester Battlefield
Battlefield
1863
DHR Board
Historic
Det. Eligible
034-5087
Battle of Rutherford's Farm (Historic/Location)
Battlefield
1864
Not Evaluated
Bowers Hill Battlefield (Historic), First
138 -5005
Winchester Battlefield (Historic/Current),
Battlefield
1865
DHR Staff -
Winchester I Battlefield (Historic)
Not Eligible
3-5
ARCHIVES SEARCH
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3-6
HISTORIC CONTEXT
4. HISTORIC CONTEXT
The following section provides a brief summary of the general overarching regional prehistoric
and historic themes relevant to Virginia and Frederick County. The primary emphasis of this
context focuses on the anthropological and material culture trends in prehistory and history, and
describes how people throughout time could have left their archaeological mark on the landscape
of the project area specifically. Prehistoric and historic occupation statistics and trends were
analyzed, as were historic maps and available first-hand accounts which aided in establishing the
appropriate cultural context for the project area as defined by the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources' How to use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for
Survey, Registration, Protection, and Treatment Projects (VDHR 2011). Descriptions of
settlement patterns, cultural characteristics, and a general description of relevant material culture
of the time periods are presented below.
PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (PRIOR TO 8000 B.C.)
Recent archaeological findings in Virginia have found the first paleoindians are projected to have
arrived in the southeast of North America between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago (McAvoy and
McAvoy 1997). Two of the earliest archaeological sites associated with Paleoindian occupation
in Virginia are the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WR0011) near Fort Royal and the Cactus Hill
site (VDHR #44SX0202) located along the Nottoway River. These early populations coincided
with the late glacial era when sea levels were approximately 230 feet below their present-day
level (Anderson et al. 1996:3). The Laurentide Ice Sheet covered much of northern North
American, lowering temperatures in the region and creating an ideal environment for a boreal
forest (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Paleoindians apparently survived in this environment
through opportunistic hunting and gathering of smaller mammals, fish, and wild plants (Fiedel
2001). Seasonably mobile, these paleoindians utilized different food sources at different times of
the year, an extensive subsistence pattern that required a large territory.
Accordingly, the Paleoindians may have maintained a central base camp located either in a
diverse ecozone where flora and fauna were easily procured or near lithic sources that contained
cryptocrystalline stone. Wider ranging satellite camps would have then have been seasonally
occupied to exploit other natural resources, be they lithic material, flora, or fauna (Anderson et al
1996; Daniel 1996; Binford 1980). Most Paleoindian sites are small and scattered, suggesting
that the groups lived in small familial bands distributed across the landscape. The lack of status
items among their archaeological remains suggests that these groups recognized little
differentiation in status, and probably employed an egalitarian social structure. Ethnographic
analogies suggest that Paleoindians might have maintained this rough equality by shunning
aspiring leaders, and methods of property redistribution.
The Paleoindians relied upon durable and easily -shaped cryptocrystalline materials such as chert
and jasper for their tools. They fashioned these rocks into a variety of instruments, among which
were scrapers, gravers, and adzes. Paleoindian projectile points tended to be fluted and bifacially
sharpened. Due to time and rising sea levels, many Paleoindian material culture finds are limited
to isolated projectile points.
4-1
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Researchers differentiate the Paleoindian Period into three smaller periods reflecting changes in
the morphology of projectile points. These periods include the Early Paleoindian (9500 — 9000
B.C.), the Middle Paleoindian (9000 — 8500 B.C.), and the Late Paleoindian (8500 — 8000 B.C.).
During the Early Paleoindian, Paleoindians produced large fluted Clovis points, a style
widespread throughout North America, which could be affixed to a spear shaft. Sites from this
period are found throughout the eastern seaboard in very low densities. Regions depicting greater
concentrations of these sites are in Tennessee, the Cumberland and Ohio River Valley, western
South Carolina, the northern Piedmont of North Carolina, and southern Virginia (Anderson
1990:164-71; Daniel 1996; Ward and Davis 1999). One of the earliest archaeological sites
associated with Paleoindian occupation in Virginia is the Thunderbird Site (VDHR #44WRO011)
near Fort Royal.
The Middle Paleoindian saw a modification of Clovis points, such as the disappearance of the
fluting in some cases and the addition of "ears" at the base of the point. The appearance of these
new types, such as the Cumberland, Simpson, Clovis variants, and Suwanee points, might reflect
changes in subsistence patterns as the result of rising global temperatures. During this time, it is
theorized that American Indians began to radiate out from their previous range of occupation to
exploit resources from more distant environments (Anderson 1990; Anderson et al. 1996; Ward
and Davis 1999:31).
Changes to the projectile points intensified during the final centuries of the Paleoindian Period
resulting in an increased number of changes in projectile point morphology. The Dalton and
Hardaway types and other variants allowed late Paleoindian peoples to hunt new species.
The Paleoindian's scattered settlement pattern and simple culture contribute to the limited
number of associated sites in the region, fewer than 75 sites have been identified in present-day
Virginia and only 25 have been positively identified in the entire Chesapeake (Turner 1989; Dent
1995). Those Paleoindian sites that have been located tend to be quarry sites, which groups
frequently visited and areas where several bands gathered (Meltzer 1988; McAvoy 1992). Many
sites were likely destroyed when warming global temperatures melted the glaciers and inundated
the low-lying Paleoindian settlements.
ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 —1200 B.C.)
Dramatic climatic changes beginning about 10,000 years ago prompted a reconfiguration of
prehistoric people's subsistence strategies and social organization. Specifically, global
temperatures began rising with the dawn of the Holocene geological period, simultaneously
shrinking the glaciers and raising sea levels. In North America, the Laurentide Ice Sheet
gradually receded northward, making the southeastern portion of the modern-day United States
warmer and drier. The boreal forest of the Pleistocene era slowly gave way to a mixed conifer
and northern hardwood forest. The area began to assume its modern-day climate and floral and
faunal species. This warming also resulted in dramatic hydrological changes for coastal
Virginia. As the sea level gradually climbed, the land was flooded; as a result, the lower reaches
of the Susquehanna River flooded to form the Chesapeake Bay.
4-2
HISTORIC CONTEXT
These climatic changes created new food sources for prehistoric people. The warmer, drier
climate led to a greater biodiversity, especially floral, allowing humans to rely more heavily on
gathering wild plants, nuts, and berries. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered tools, such as
nutting stones and pestles, for processing vegetable materials. The creation of the Chesapeake
Bay, furthermore allowed Archaic people to exploit seafood, such as anadromous fish and
shellfish. The appearance of shell middens during the period testifies to the importance of
mollusks to the Archaic diet (Dent 1995).
To exploit theses new resources, Archaic people likely intensified their seasonal movement,
splitting their time between a semi-permanent base camp and smaller, dispersed hunting and
gathering camps. Bands of as many as 30 people may have gathered in the base camp for part of
the year, and then dispersed into "microbands," composed of a single family or two, in other
seasons (Griffm 1952; Anderson and Hanson 1998; Ward and Davis 1999). The range of band
movement would have occurred over relatively large regions. These larger base camps are
theorized to have been located along rich environmental areas near the Fall Line or along main
rivers.
New subsistence patterns also required new technologies. For example, Archaic people began
using ground stone technology, in addition to flaking, to shape tools. Such methods produced
mortars, pestles, and soapstone vessels which allowed them to process plant materials more
effectively. The resulting products of these technologies differentiate the Archaic Period into
three smaller periods. The period also saw innovations in project point manufacturing. In a
further divergence with the paleoindians who relied heavily on cryptocrystalline lithics, Archaic
people utilized more materials, such as quartzite and quartz.
The Early Archaic (8000 — 6500 B.C.) is characterized by projectile points with corner and side -
notches, rather than hafting the points to a wood shaft by fluting as the Paleoindians did. The
resulting points, such as the Kirk Stemmed and Notched, Palmer Corner -Notched, Fort
Nottoway, Kessell, Charleston, and Amos, are thus readily distinguishable from Paleoindian
points (Custer 1990). Some evidence also points to the use of grinding technology to make atlatl
weights in this period. Additionally, there appears to be an increase in population at this time.
The Middle Archaic (6500 — 3000 B.C.) is defined primarily by the appearance of stemmed
projectile points which were fitted into a hold in the spear shaft. Therefore, points such as the
LeCroy, Stanly, Morrow Mountain, and Guilford are diagnostic of middle Archaic assemblages.
Researchers have also pointed out that contexts from this period contain a larger amount of
"expedient" stone tools, owing in part to the rapid environmental changes of the Climatic
Optimum, which dates from 6000 to 2000 B.C. (Wendland and Bryson 1974; Claggett and Cable
1982; Ward and Davis 1999). These tools were makeshift and less formal, allowing their owners
to use them for a wider variety of activities than tools designed for specific uses. The greater
density and disbursement of archaeological sites from this period indicates a consistent rise in
American Indian populations.
By the Late Archaic (3000 — 1200 B.C.), a more congenial climate and more abundant food
sources led to dramatic population increases. To be certain, this apparent increase might be
exaggerated because late Archaic people had a richer material culture than previous peoples and
4-3
HISTORIC CONTEXT
hence left more archaeological evidence of their existence (Klein and Klatka 1991). Nonetheless,
the greater number of late Archaic sites relative to earlier periods suggests that the human
population did in fact expand over the course of the Archaic Period; according to Barber et al.
(1992), late Archaic sites were more than twice as numerous as middle Archaic sites. As humans
occupied the land more densely, they also became more sedentary and less mobile, perhaps
owing to the greater reliance on plant -based food resources compared to hunting and fishing.
American Indians from this region may also have begun to domesticate plants such as goosefoot,
squash, and gourds (Yarnell 1976:268; Chapman and Shea 1981:70). The projectile point
technology of the Late Archaic Period is dominated by stemmed and notched point forms, many
with broad blades, likely used as projectiles or knives. These points diminish in size towards the
latter portion of this period (Dent 1995; Justice 1995).
It should be noted that prehistoric sites that consist of lithic debitage, no diagnostic artifacts, and
an absence of ceramic artifacts likely date to the Archaic Period. These sites are described in the
records as "Prehistoric/Unknown," however they are most likely to date to this period despite not
having a specific temporal designation.
WOODLAND PERIOD (1200 B.C. —1600 A.D.)
The American Indians of the Woodland Period began to maintain a greater reliance on
horticulture and agriculture based on the cultivation of maize, imported from Mesoamerica via
the Mississippi Valley, as well as squash, beans, and other crops. This increased sedentism and
the nucleating of societies (Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Populations during this time
began to consolidate into villages near rivers and floodplains with fertile soil, favorable terrain,
and access to fauna. Satellite procurement camps are far less frequent than in the Archaic
Period.
The Woodland Period is defined foremost by the development of a ceramic technology.
Although Archaic people had carved out vessels from soft soapstone, prehistoric Americans did
not begin shaping ceramic vessels until around 1200 B.C. The earliest pottery produced on the
coastal plain, the Marcey Creek Plain, and other types, in fact resembled those soapstone vessels,
suggesting that they were used for similar purposes. Woodland peoples, however, modified the
square- or oval -shape soapstone inspired vessels. They began decorating the pieces with cord
and tempering them with soapstone and other types of grit to make them stronger. Examples
include Selden Island ceramics (tempered with soapstone) and Accokeek pieces (which used
sand and grit for tempering). Anthropologists divide the period up into smaller periods based on
changing projectile points and ceramics, as well as settlement patterns.
The beginning of the Early Woodland (1200 — 500 B.C.) is defined by the appearance of
ceramics from prehistoric archaeological context. Ceremonialism associated with the burial of
the dead also appears at about 500 B.C. with stone and earth burial cairns and cairn clusters in
the Shenandoah Valley (McLearen 1992; Stewart 1992). Early Woodland settlements in the
Piedmont region of Virginia are located along rivers as well as in interior areas and there is
evidence to suggest the Piedmont areas developed a more sedentary lifestyle during this time
(Klein and Klatka 1991; Mouer 1991). Many Early Woodland sites in the Piedmont are
4-4
HISTORIC CONTEXT
permanent or semi-permanent villages that are large and intensively occupied. This corresponds
with the domestication of weedy plants such as the goosefoot and sunflower along intentionally
cleared riverine areas.
During the Middle Woodland (500 B.C. — 900 A.D.), there is an increase in sites along major
trunk streams and estuaries as people move away from smaller tributary areas and begin to
organize into larger groups (Hantman and Klein 1992). The Middle Woodland diet becomes
more complex as people begin to exploit nuts, amaranth, and chenopod seeds in addition to fish,
deer, waterfowl, and turkey. Evidence of rank societies emerges more clearly with the spreading
of religious and ritual behavior including symbols and regional styles apparent in ceramic styles
and other sociotechnic and ideotechnic artifacts.
Variance in ceramic manufacture is a hallmark of the Middle Woodland Period. Pope's Creek
ceramics are associated with the beginning of this period, and Mockely ceramics with the later.
Pope's Creek ceramics are tempered with medium to coarse sand, with occasional quartz
inclusions, and interior scoring has also been recorded (Stephenson 1963:94; McLearen and
Mouer 1989). The majority of Pope's Creek ceramics have net -impressed surfaces (Egloff and
Potter 1982:99; McLearen and Mouer 1989:5). Shell -tempered Mockley ceramics first appeared
around 200 A.D. in Virginia to southern Delaware. There was a variation in surface treatments
for Mockley that included plain, cord -marked, and net -impressed (Egloff and Potter 1982:103;
Potter 1993:62).
By the Late Woodland Period (900 — 1600 A.D.), the use of domesticated plants had assumed a
role of major importance in the prehistoric subsistence system. The adoption of agriculture
represented a major change in the prehistoric subsistence economy and settlement patterns.
Expanses of arable land became a dominant settlement factor, and sites were located on fertile
floodplain soils or, in many cases, on higher terraces or ridges adjacent to them. American
Indians began to organize into villages and small hamlets that were highly nucleated and
occasionally fortified with palisades. The fortifications demonstrate inter -group conflict.
By the seventeenth century, the largest village sites within the northern Virginia region were
along the Potomac River including Namassingakent, near present-day Mount Vernon,
Assaomeck, on the south side of Hunting Creek, and Namoraughquend, near present-day
Roosevelt Island. The Manahoacs occupied the region of northern Virginia east of the Blue
Ridge Mountains. When Captain John Smith explored the region in the early seventeenth
century, he stated that the "valley beyond the mountains was densely populated by agricultural
peoples, but did not provide detailed descriptions of the inhabitants" ("Eyewitness Accounts"
2012). Dominant American Indian tribes in the Shenandoah Valley included the Delaware,
Catawba, Iroquois, Cherokee, Susquehannock, and Shawnee (Lehman c.1989).
SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607 —1750)
The first English settlement in what is now the United States began at Jamestown on the James
River. They then slowly explored and settled the colony, following its navigable waterways. The
remoteness of the project area delayed its exploration and settlement though Jesuit missionaries
may have entered the wilderness of the Shenandoah Valley as early as 1632. Though European
4-5
HISTORIC CONTEXT
ownership of land encompassing Frederick County was originally by the Virginia Company, the
Crown took it in 1624 and in 1649 King Charles II granted nearly 5,282,000 acres of land to a
wealthy group of English investors ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). This consisted of all
land between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers and from there extended westward into
much of northern Virginia, over the Alleghenies into present-day West Virginia (Parsons and
Ravenhorst 2002:2). By 1681, Thomas, the Second Lord Culpeper, owned most of this original
land grant; after his death, his land would pass to his daughter's husband Thomas, the Fifth Lord
Fairfax ("History of Frederick County" n.d.).
Explorers, traders, and trappers slowly pushed west into the Shenandoah Valley from the north
and east. In an attempt to speed up settlement, thereby forming a buffer between American
Indians and more established English settlements to the east, in 1716, Lieutenant Governor
Alexander Spotswood and his survey party crossed the Shenandoah River and surveyed the Blue
Ridge (G&P 1997:24). The colony of Virginia began to argue that Fairfax's land did not extend
west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and began issuing grants of up to 1,000 acres to encourage
settlements. Each parcel would revert to Virginia unless settled with a house and orchard within
two years ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). For additional enticement, the colonial governor
allowed Quakers, Lutherans, and other Protestants to practice their faiths without joining the
Church of England (Parker 2006:7).
In 1722, governors of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York undertook treaty
negotiations with the Iroquois. The result of the 1722 Treaty of Albany in Virginia was that the
American Indians would not occupy settlements east of the Blue Ridge. The colony later
interpreted the treaty to mean that the Iroquois had ceded claims to the Shenandoah Valley
(Grymes n.d.a). Settlement of the future Frederick County began in 1729 ("History of Frederick
County" n.d.).
The 1730s saw the arrival of several groups traveling south from Pennsylvania along an
established American Indian path in the valley that became known as the Great Wagon Road
(G&P 1997:24; "History of Frederick County" n.d.). This included Germans, such as Jost Hite
and those that accompanied him, who settled along the Opequon Creek in the vicinity of the
present-day community of Bartonville, approximately eight miles south of the project area.
Given its location, it became known as Opequon. Another early settler that also came south from
Pennsylvania was Alexander Ross, an Irish Quaker. Ross received a grant of approximately
10,000 acres in northern Frederick County and by 1735, about 70 families were living on the
land. This community came to be known as Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). In addition to these
northern settlers, Englishmen on the Piedmont pushed west through the passes of the Blue Ridge.
All settlers were attracted to the fertile soils, abundant forest, and water resources in an area of
Virginia that was sheltered by the Alleghany ranges on the west and the Blue Ridge on the east
("History of Frederick County" n.d.).
The settlement patterns of the region were influenced by the land policies of the colonial
government, which encouraged settlers to disperse across the landscape and establish small
farmsteads. These policies resulted in dispersed, rural communities and few nucleated centers;
one nucleated center would grow at present-day Winchester (G&P 1997:25).
M
HISTORIC CONTEXT
In 1738, the colony's House of Burgesses created Frederick County from western Orange
County and named it after the Prince of Wales ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Because of
its sparse settlement, however, the county's government was not organized until 1743 (G&P
1997:24). Multiple counties would be formed from Frederick County between 1753 and 1836.
James Wood, County Surveyor for Orange County, platted the county seat midway between the
early settlements of Opequon and Hopewell (G&P 1997:24). The land that he chose was 1,300
acres of wilderness that he believed to be owned by Virginia. Wood planned 26 half -acre lots
and named the county seat Winchester after his birthplace, though it was known as
Fredericktown before that ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). A c.1747 map illustrates
Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley with a number of early paths extending out from the
settlement (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts Fort Loudoun in the vicinity; this fort is believed
to have been constructed during the French and Indian War. A traveler visiting the town in the
1740s would have encountered only a scattering of stone and log buildings, the public structures
on public lots, streets obstructed by stumps, and many uncleared private lots (Hofstra 2006:193).
Also in 1747 the new county court admitted that the land did belong to Lord Fairfax and in 1749
Fairfax moved to Frederick County and built his home, Greenway Court, at White Post, in
present-day Clarke County, approximately 11 miles south of the project area ("History of
Frederick County" n.d.).
Figure 4-1: Detail of A survey of'the northern neck of Virginia, by Warner c.1747, depicting the
project area. Source: Library of Congress
4-7
HISTORIC CONTEXT
COLONY TO NATION (1750 —1789)
The western frontier of the colonies witnessed the French and Indian War between 1754 and
1763. As the French and British struggled for control of territory in North America, the northern
Shenandoah Valley region became an important foothold for the English and multiple forts and
stockades were constructed in Frederick County (G&P 1997:25; Parker 2006:7). The largest of
these forts was the previously mentioned Fort Loudoun in Winchester; the only remains of the
fort are located at 419 Loudoun Street, approximately two miles south of the project area. This
fort was designed and built under the guidance of George Washington who would come to serve
as Commander in Chief of the colonial forces with his headquarters in Winchester. Following the
war, Washington was elected to his first public office representing Frederick County in the
House of Burgesses in 1758 and 1861 ("History of Frederick County" n.d.).
The construction of forts led to an increase in population in Frederick and in the vicinity of
Winchester with the presence of soldiers and families seeking protection. This created an
increase in the demand for food and supplies and led to an expansion of wheat production in the
area. Frederick County's economy was based on agriculture and by 1760 the primary focus was
the commercial production of wheat. This was in stark contrast to Piedmont and Tidewater
Virginia where the early agricultural economy was based on tobacco. Wheat grew well in eastern
Frederick where there were fertile limestone soils and land was cleared to create additional
farmland. In the western portion of the county, where the soil was underlain by shale, and grains
did not grow as well, mills and pastures were more common. Besides grist mills, ironworks were
another industry present in the county by the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Such
ironworks included Marlboro Iron Works on Cedar Creek and Taylor Furnace Farm at the foot of
Great North Mountain (G&P 1997:25-26). The large number of goods produced in the region
also led to an increased number of roads and improvement of existing roads leading to
Winchester (Figure 4-2).
Winchester became the primary market town in the region and in the 1750s the town began to
change; it was incorporated in 1779 (Norris 1890:147). With his proximity to the town, Lord
Fairfax began to influence its development and sought to create five -acre lots to the north and
east of town. The importance of Winchester was also evident in rise value of land near the town
(Hofstra 2004:193, 313). In 1757, Lord Fairfax granted land, including the project area, to John
McMachon. 1 McMachon sold the land to Bryah and Elizabeth Bruin in 1762, though they sold it
within a year to Col. Angus McDonald, a veteran of the French and Indian War. It has been
written that the McDonald's constructed a house on the land around 1762 and named it Glengary
after his family home near the Garry River in Scotland (Ebert and Lazazzera 1988:33).
Eventually, the parcel was purchased by Dr. Robert Macky; upon his death his wife left the
property to their son, John Macky (G&P 1997:189).
Following the French and Indian War in the mid -eighteenth century, England passed laws and
instilled taxes upon the colonists in order to pay its war debts. The result was increased tension
between England and the colonies. In response, the 1774 Virginia Convention adopted resolves
1 For more in-depth history of Glengary's evolution please read Gray & Pape's 1997 Phase I and II Cultural
Resource Investigations Route 37, Frederick County, Virginia on file at the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources.
4-8
HISTORIC CONTEXT
against the importation of British goods and the importation of slaves. The Convention also
required each county to form a volunteer company of cavalry or infantry. From eastern
Frederick County (now Clarke County) came Gen. Daniel Morgan and his "Long Rifles".
Additionally, citizens furnished the troops with food and supplies, including Isaac Zane who
supplied the army with ammunition made at his ironworks in Marlboro, near the Frederick -
Shenandoah border. While no military engagements took place in Frederick County, many
prisoners of war were held in the county. Originally, prisoners were placed in Fort Loudoun,
however their numbers grew to the point that new facilities were necessary. A barracks was built
four miles west of Winchester; by 1781 there were 1,600 prisoners ("History of Frederick
County" n.d.).
Figure 4-2: Detail of A new map of Virginia from the best authorities, by Kitchin c.1761, depicting the
project area. Source: Library of Congress
EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1789 — 1830)
Following the American Revolution, Frederick County's strong agricultural economy based on
grains and livestock continued to grow and insulated farmers from the economic depression
experienced by tobacco farmers. While tobacco was raised in some eastern portions of the
county where Tidewater planters had relocated, it was not a driving force in the economy. In
addition to tobacco, Tidewater planters brought with them a plantation system operated by forced
slave labor. Despite the presence of these plantations, there were fewer slaves and more free
blacks in the Shenandoah Valley compared with other areas of Virginia. Farmsteads were often
run by family members or temporarily hired help (G&P 1997:26).
With sustained peace in the new nation, Winchester flourished and by 1810 had about 2,000
residents (Norris 1890:170).
HISTORIC CONTEXT
...it became the mart for the production of several useful products on such a scale
as would now, even, be deemed extensive. The manufacture of saddle -trees was
carried on to a large extent, and were shipped northward and eastward, even
entering the markets almost controlled by Carlisle, Penn., which at that time was
the great rival in trade of Winchester. The hats of Winchester were famous far and
wide, whilst the gloves of buckskin, made by three or four manufacturers were
sought by all eastern dealers, and doubtless was the starting point of the celebrity
of valley -made gloves that retain their reputation to this day. One of the largest
tanneries was located here even before the Revolution and its leather was shipped
as far north as Boston (Norris 1890:148).
Other industries embraced by county residents included a variety of mills (grist, saw, oil, paper,
and fulling), leather tanneries, breweries and liquor distilleries, blacksmiths and coopers (G&P
1997:26). In 1820, there were 54 mills in Frederick County along with numerous sawmills,
tanneries, and other business activities ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). Many of these mills
were south and east of Winchester; for example somewhere on Redbud Run was the large flour
mill of Daniel T. Wood (Cartmell 1909:48). An 1809 map illustrates the network of roads
extending out from Winchester (Figure 4-3). One such road that has been on maps throughout
the eighteenth century was the Great Wagon Road. This began to be known as the Valley
Turnpike and generally follows the modern alignment of U.S. Route 11, east of the project area;
it connected Pennsylvania with North Carolina. As early as 1797 stagecoaches were running on
the Valley Pike (Lehman c.1989). Beginning in 1824, macadam was used to pave many of the
major roadways in Virginia, including the Valley Turnpike (G&P 1997:27).
[owl
i }
I{ ,
Project Area,.
0
s ;
ti
rr
�.t.,:c � , s it f/tls.a4,y, „�. '+_� yjs4 '•. �.
,
�• n
T !y r
I
Figure 4-3: Detail of Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia, by Varle
and Jones in 1809, depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress
4-10
HISTORIC CONTEXT
ANTEBELLUM PERIOD (1830 -1860)
Frederick County continued to prosper during this period with an economy based on agriculture
and life was centered in Winchester and other smaller towns where there were craftsmen and
merchants (G&P 1997:27; "History of Frederick County" n.d.). The transportation corridors
leading to these towns, especially Valley Turnpike, were a major driver in their growth. Activity
associated with this road made Winchester one of the largest towns in western Virginia ("History
of Frederick County" n.d.).
Additional roads and modes of transportation came to Frederick during this period further
increasing growth in the county. Like many places in the country and state, the region received a
major boon with the coming of the railroad. In 1826, the Virginia legislature authorized the
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (B&O RR) to operate in Virginia (G&P 1997:27). This led to the
creation of the Winchester & Potomac Railroad (W&P RR) linking Winchester and the port of
Baltimore through Harper's Ferry. Connection to this large port and Baltimore merchants
improved the farming economy of the valley (Grymes n.d.b). The year 1836 saw the first railway
train into Winchester from Harpers Ferry (Hanson 1969).
Furthermore, two major roadways added to the transportation network in the region (G&P
1997:27). In 1850, the Winchester & Berryville and the Front Royal Turnpike companies were
authorized to construct roads (Norris 1890:188). The Winchester & Berryville Turnpike
connected Winchester and the county seat of Clarke County (Berryville); eventually it was
connected to Alexandria and today is the general alignment of State Route 7. The Front Royal
Turnpike (U.S. Route 522) connected the county seats of Frederick and Warren County.
Improved transportation routes were needed for the reliable movement of goods and produce to
market, and homesteads continued to form around the network of interior roads. The wealth of
the region was reflected in the size of the farms in the county, which were generally larger than
farms in other parts of the Valley and were valued at almost twice the state average per acre
(G&P 1997:27).
It was around 1831 that John R. Cooke built his house at Glengary having purchased
approximately 623 acres in 1825 (Kalbian 1991; Quarles 1990:78). John Rogers Cooke was born
in Bermuda in 1788 and educated at the College of William and Mary and Princeton University
(Quarles 1990:78). Cooke practice law in all the courts of the Lower Valley, he was an officer in
the War of 1812, and served in the Virginia legislature (Cartmell 1909:297; Quarles 1990:78).
Cooke married Maria Pendleton, daughter of Philip Pendleton of Berkeley County (G&P
1997:189). Together they had thirteen children and believed in the importance of their sons
learning "the arts of the husbandman during vacation days, and roam daily over the fields and
through the woods" (quoted in Cartmell 1909:297). Artistic pursuits were followed by their best
known sons of which were Philip Pendleton Cooke the poet, Edward Cooke the artist, and John
Ester Cooker the novelist (Quarles 1990:78). Their house was valued at $3,000.00, a significant
amount compared to their neighbors (G&P 1997:189).
Soon after however, in 1839, the house burned amplifying the Cooke's existing financial
problems (Quarles 1990:78). His parcel was divided and sold (G&P 1997:190). In 1848, James
Lewis purchased the "eastern section or division of Glengary" however it is believed that this
4-11
HISTORIC CONTEXT
was an adjacent tract to the current Glengary and the buildings are no longer standing. (quoted in
G&P 1997:190). The 210 -acre portion of the Cooke property with the current Glengary, the
project area, was purchased by John Harmon in 1850 for $6,398.63 and he rebuilt the house
(G&P 1997:190).
The quiet, peaceful life experienced by the Harmon's and residents of Frederick County soon
began to change. The first tastes of violence regarding the institution of slavery occurred in 1859.
On October 16, John Brown conducted a raid on Harpers Ferry to liberate and arm area slaves
and form an autonomous realm for them in the mountains of Maryland and western Virginia,
where there were few slaveholders. Frederick County had about 2,300 slaves out of a population
of about 16,000, or 14 -percent of the population (Holsworth 2011). While any number of
enslaved people is too many, by comparison, counties continuing to heavily cultivate tobacco
had a much higher proportion; for example Mecklenburg County had a total population of
20,096, 62 -percent of which was made up of enslaved people (USCB).
As the initial public response to the raid ran its course in Frederick, the sentiment grew more
cautious given the strong economic ties that the county had to the northeastern markets (Duncan
2007:4). When Virginia held its secessionist convention in 1861, the four lower Valley counties
(Frederick, Clarke, Berkeley, and Jefferson) sent a strongly anti -secessionist delegation. Strong
Union sympathies would lead to the two northern most counties (Berkeley and Jefferson) to join
the new state of West Virginia (G&P 1997:28). Frederick County was given the option of joining
West Virginia and voting was conducted in 1863, however no votes were reported (Grymes
n.d.c).
CIVIL WAR (1861 — 1865)
There were military campaigns throughout the Civil War to gain control of the strategically
important Shenandoah Valley. The valley supplied food, livestock, horses, and soldiers to the
southern cause and it was also important because of its strategic location in relation to
Washington, D.C. ("History of Frederick County" n.d.). The gently rolling hills provided cover
for advancing troops and the roadways provided access into the interior; Winchester in particular
was surrounded on all sides by low hills that hid the approach of armies (G&P 1997:29; Fordney
1996).
While railroad lines were important during the war throughout the south, the W&P RR was not
as important as others. In early 1861, the W&P RR supported the Virginia move to capture
Harper's Ferry and removed Confederate supplies when that position was evacuated. However,
the line's weak construction, its orientation to Union territory, and proximity to the Potomac
River made it of little use to the Confederacy after early 1862 ("Winchester & Potomac" n.d.).
The line was damaged and repaired multiple times throughout the war (Lehman c.1989).
Winchester was a strategic prize during the Civil War. With its excellent roads north and east, in
Confederate hands it was a serious threat to the supply lines of the Union armies trying to reach
Richmond. In the hands of the Union army, Winchester made Confederate raids and invasion of
the north risky and opened a protected avenue for Union troop movements south through a valley
from which they could attack on the flanks and rear of Lee's main armies ("History" n.d.).
4-12
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Because of this it is believed that the town of Winchester changed hands between the two sides
during the war about 70 times, though it was probably closer to 14 ("History of Frederick
County" n.d.; Fordney 1996). Occupiers of the town found it almost impossible to mount a
defense, so they usually had to flee quickly, sparing the town from prolonged, destructive sieges
(Fordney 1996).
During the Civil War, multiple forts were built in the vicinity of Winchester including: Star Fort,
just east of Sunnyside; Flag Fort or Fort Milroy, which was built on the site of Fort Garibaldi,
west of the Fairmont Avenue National Fruit plant; and Fort Russell, near Stonebrook. Lesser
fortifications built were West "Fort" which was really a Lunette (near the intersection of today's
Routes 37 and 522), the Collier Redoubt (just east of Route 11 north), and the Parkin's Mill
Battery (Lehman c.1989). Mapping shows that fortifications were generally along the hills
northwest of Winchester. Star Fort was south of the project area and there was a series of
earthworks and fortifications along Apple Pie Ridge just west of the project area.
A period map depicts a house within the project area with orchards to its south and east (Figure
4-4). The drive to the dwelling at this time paralleled Redbud Run, extending west from Valley
Pike passing the property of James Lewis. The current owner of Glengary has documentation of
the house and property at times being used by military occupants "Sometimes the parlor was a
`headquarters, and the frontyard, orchard and meadow land full of tents and a sutler's store close
to the house"' (quoted in Glengary Farm n.d.). Given later confusion of the ownership of
Glengary between John Harmon and James Lewis, however, it is unclear if this description is
referring to the Harmon house or Lewis house.
I• figure 4-4: Detail of Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) [September 19, 1864/, 1873 by Gillespie,
depicting the project area. Source: Library of Congress
4-13
HISTORIC CONTEXT
In addition to occupation of Winchester, during the Civil War six major battles were fought on
Frederick County's land. These include: the First, Second, and Third Battles of Winchester, the
First and Second Battles of Kernstown, and Cedar Creek.
The first major battles in the vicinity of the project area was the First Battle of Kernstown and
First Battle of Winchester. In the spring of 1862, Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was
carrying out his campaign in the Shenandoah Valley to relieve pressure on Confederate troops
near Richmond who were facing McClellan on the Peninsula. In March 1862, Jackson wrongly
believed his army to be larger than the Union forces in Winchester and he moved to strike which
led to the Battle of First Kernstown. On March 23rd there was skirmishing in Kernstown, the
opening conflict of the Valley Campaign. Though the Confederates lost the battle, concerned by
the potential threat to Washington, D.C. from the Valley, President Lincoln had more than
35,000 forces redirected to the Valley depriving Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan of
reinforcements (NPS 1992). The core of this battle took place more than four miles south of the
project area.
On May 24, 1862, Jackson and Maj. Gen. Richard S. Ewell captured the Union garrison at Front
Royal and began to close in on Winchester. Union Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks retreated down
the Valley Pike towards Winchester where Jackson found him on May 25 ("First Battle of
Winchester" n.d.). The Federals were able to initially repulse the Rebels, however when they
were struck on each flank the line broke. The Federals then went in a confused retreat through
the town of Winchester and into Maryland ("1862" n.d). Banks lost 2,000 men and all of his
supplies to Jackson. The core of this battle took place in Winchester and south, more than two
miles south of the project area though its study area follows the alignment of Valley Pike,
approximately one-quarter mile east of the project area (Figure 4-5).
4-14
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Yio�ect Area r la;r it
Lal
- a•'� 'mak.. 14°x` �` - gf.
f
•r
r1 ii
71w.1r
4P
r
y; 1,
Figure 4-5: Winchester 1 "104) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source:
ABPP
In June 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia began their invasion of the
north using the Blue Ridge Mountains to screen their movements. At this time, Winchester was
occupied by the Union army ("1863" n.d.). Though Robert Milroy, commander of the Federals in
4-15
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Winchester, was aware that Lee's army was heading north he stayed in place in Wincheser. The
ridge west of town was heavily fortified with trenches connecting forts.
On June 13th, Divisions under Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early and Maj. Gen. Edward Johnson took the
Valley Pike and Front Royal Road north converging upon Winchester, pushing back Union
forces as they progressed. Eventually, the Union force retreated north of Abrams Creek and after
dark Milroy concentrated his forces inside a triangle defined by Fort Milroy, Star Fort, and West
Fort (Figure 4-6) (NPS 1992).
At dawn of June 14th, one of Early's brigades swept forward to capture Bower's Hill with little
resistance. Johnson extended his line to the right against very light opposition resulting in fitful
skirmishing in the streets of Winchester. Early and Ewell decided on a flanking strategy and
Gordon's brigade and two batteries were left on Bower's Hill, while Early led his three other
brigades back to Cedar Creek Grade, west beyond Applie Pie Ridge where it was out of view of
U.S. fortifications, then north over Cloverdale Plantation to Walnut Grove. While Early made
this march, Johnson advanced a line of skirmishers on the right to occupy the Federal's attention.
The Confederates on Bower's Hill opened up, toughing off a duel with the Union guns in Fort
Milroy. By mid-afternoon, Early's force had gained a position opposite West Fort on the Apple
Pie Ridge. Guns were positioned on the Brierly Farm northwest of the fort and in an orchard
southwest of the fort. By this time the field had quieted, and the Union forces believed that the
Confederates had been repulsed from Winchester (NPS 1992).
Early's artillery opened fire on West Fort and Brig. Gen. Harry T. Hays advanced his Louisiana
brigade through the corn and wheat fields at the base of Apple Pie Ridge. On command, the
brigade rushed forward across 300 yards of open fields and swept upward into the works. After a
brief hand-to-hand, Union defenders abandoned the works, retreating to Fort Milroy. Early
consolidated his line on West Fort Ridge, but darkness prevented further gains although an
artillery duel continued until long after dark (NPS 1992).
During the night, Milroy retreated on the old Charles Town Road towards Harpers Ferry. The
column massed in the low ground between Star Fort and Fort Milroy, then moved down the
railroad and the Valley Pike toward the Charles Town crossroad, just south of Stephenson's
Depot. Near dawn, the retreating Federals were confronted by Confederates near the intersection
of the Valley Pike and old Charles Town Road. As it grew light, Federals made several
uncoordinated attacks against the bridge and railroad embankment, however, the Confederates
were being steadily reinforce and repulsed each attempt. When a Confederate brigade joined the
battle from the north, the Federals surrendered and 2,500 to 3,000 soliders were captured. During
the battle, Confederate Lt. Gen. Richard Ewell's troops numbered 19,000 men against Milroy's
6,900. However, according to the NPS, "US casualty figures for Second Winchester vary widely.
This is explained by the fact that about two thousand Union soliders not belonging to Milroy's
command were in field hospitals in the city and were often added to the number of captured or
missing" (NPS 1992).
The core of fighting during the Battle of Second Winchester occurred at five locations:
Pritchard's Hill; the intersection of Millwood and Front Royal pikes (interchange 82 of I-81);
Abrams Creek and Bower's Hill; Apple Pie Ridge and West Fort; and Stephenson's Depot (NPS
4-16
HISTORIC CONTEXT
1992). According to the NPS, three of these areas retain high levels of integrity. The project area
is adjacent to one just area (Figure 4-7).
WY
'In
WE
. I ,
rfigure ,i-o:,3Kercn ojthe Necona Hattleof Winchester, by Hotchkiss, depicting the project area. Source:
Library of Congress
4-17
A
rfigure ,i-o:,3Kercn ojthe Necona Hattleof Winchester, by Hotchkiss, depicting the project area. Source:
Library of Congress
4-17
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Figure 4-7: Winchester 11 "107) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield. Source:
ABPP
While Gen. Lee had Union forces embroiled in combat in Petersburg in 1864, he sent Lt. Gen.
Jubal A. Early and his Army of the Valley on a campaign through Shenandoah Valley hoping to
SM
HISTORIC CONTEXT
force Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to divide his army (Adelman n.d.). Following the Battle at
Cool Spring on July 17-18, 1864, Early's army withdrew south. Believing him to be no longer a
threat, Union Maj. Gen. Horatio Wright abandoned his pursuit and sent the bulk of his forces
back to Washington, D.C. leaving Winchester with a diminished capacity. Gen. Lee ordered
Early to prevent those Federal reinforcements from going to Washington from where they would
be sent to Petersburg. On July 246, Early marched north again and faced Brig. Gen. George
Crook at Pritchard's Hill near Kernstown (CWT n.d.a). Early won a decisive victory as Crook
retreated across the Potomac River (NPS 1992). Buoyed by the victory, Early's army continued
north and burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania at the end of July (CWT n.d.a). The core of the
Battle of Second Kernstown took place nearly four miles south of the project area, though its
study area followed the Valley Pike.
In response to these Confederate movements, Grant made Philip Sheridan commander of the new
Army of the Shenandoah and set him on the task of rendering the Valley useless to Confederates.
On September 19, 1864, Early's 14,000 soldiers and Sheridan's 39,000 clashed at the Third
Battle of Winchester, also called the Battle of Opequon (Figure 4-8) (Adelman n.d.).
Believing that Sheridan would act like other cautious Union commanders, Early spread his
smaller army over a wide front north from Winchester. Sheridan moved to bring his army against
that portion at Winchester and Early hurried to concentrate his men at the city. Sheridan's force,
advancing on the Berryville Pike through a narrow canyon encountered Confederate's, slowing
their passage and creating a choke point for Sheridan's advance; this delayed the advance enough
to allow Early's men time to get into Winchester (Adelman n.d.).
As Union forces emerged from the canyon, lines were established straddling Berryville Pike and
extending to Abrams Creek on the south and Redbud Run on the north (NPS 1992). At 11:40
a.m., two corps of Union forces advanced from a woodlot now known as the First Woods across
a field. The two corps got separated all the while under fierce fire by Confederates. One
Confederate remembered, "Our cannoneers made their battery roar, sending their death -dealing
messengers with a precision and constancy that made the earth around them seem to tremble ... A
more murderous fire I never witnessed than was plunged into this heterogeneous mass" (quoted
in Adelman n.d.). Despite the difficulty, the Federal line did not stop until it had penetrated the
Confederate position.
The Rebels counterattacked and drove the Federals back across the field and reaching a stalemate
as the two sides exchanged long range fire. Sheridan, therefore, called for his reserves to advance
alongside of the soldiers already on the field and from the northern back of Redbud Run. The
combined thrust was too much for the outnumbered Southerners. Additionally, Union cavalry
forces fought their way south up the Valley Pike. By nightfall, the city of Winchester was in
Union hands (Adelman n.d.).
The Third Battle of Winchester was the bloodiest battle fought in the Shenandoah Valley,
producing more casualties than the entire 1862 Valley Campaign with 5,018 Union casualties
and 3,611 Confederate casualties (Adelman n.d.; NPS 1992). The majority of fighting took place
in Winchester and to its east. The NPS has identified four battlefield core areas, one of which lies
south of the project area (Figure 4-9).
4-19
HISTORIC CONTEXT
bx': r 4
Project Area
,K x
�� _ � '.7 11 � _ �r v `• '"yS _ �. -
j} y�
Nhx HFSI Vp. VA.
a .g,
Figure 4-8: Battlefield of Winchester, Va. (Opequon) depicting the project area. Source: Library of
Congress
4-20
HISTORIC CONTEXT
V figure 4-y: upequon%1 bird Winchester ("119) depicting the project area in relation to the battlefield.
Source: ABPP
Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley Campaign also included the systematic destruction of Valley
farms, mills, crops, and livestock and anything else that might have aided the Confederate army
(G&P 1997:28). For three weeks in 1864 from late September to early October, they burned
2,000 barns, 120 mills, and a half a million bushels of grain and confiscated 50,000 head of
livestock in the Valley. Virginia's richest valley was left desolate ("History of Frederick County"
n.d.).
By mid-October, Gen. Early was determined to strike Sheridan. In the early morning of October
19th, Early and his men struck Sheridan's men camped along the east bank of Cedar Creek only
to be repulsed by a crushing counterattack. Sheridan's victory at Cedar Creek extinguished any
hope of further Confederate offensives in the Shenandoah Valley (CWT n.d.b). This battle took
place in southern Frederick County.
RECONSTRUCTION AND GROWTH (1865 — 1917)
The Civil War affected Virginia severely resulting in a heavy loss of life, devastated economy,
and destruction of farms. With the long occupation of Winchester by both armies, the town and
its surroundings were impacted. Additionally, during Reconstruction Federal soldiers continued
to be stationed in Winchester until 1870. With the destruction witnessed throughout Virginia, the
region slipped into a depression (G&P 1997:29). As with much of the rest of Virginia, economic
4-21
HISTORIC CONTEXT
realities following the end of the Civil War resulted in slow redevelopment of the area's
agricultural and industrial capabilities. Road and railway infrastructure was slowly rebuilt as
industry and agriculture struggled to gain a foothold in the post -Civil War south and towns
attempted to re-establish themselves.
Transportation, which had previously helped the valley to flourish, also aided in its recovery.
During Reconstruction the W&P RR was operated by the B&O RR; afterwards, W&P
stockholders regained control and leased the line to the B&O RR which became the Harpers
Ferry Valley Branch of the B&O RR (G&P 1997:27). The Cumberland Valley Railroad (CVRR)
would also come to the region. Chartered in Pennsylvania in 1831, the railroad extended south to
the Potomac River about 1873; it reached Winchester in 1889.
Frederick County's grain and livestock production recovered and they were back to pre-war
levels by the 1880s. Unfortunately, the region had a new competitor in the Great Plains where
massive amounts of grain were cultivated. This competition would lead the county to diversify
its economy into fruit production. Fanners began to plant orchards, specifically apple orchards,
in the fertile limestone soils and by the turn of the century, apples would become the major
growth industry in the region with the largest percentage increase in production occurring
between 1910 (351,490 bushels) and 1920 (1,019,546 bushels) (G&P 1997:29). By 1909, an
estimated 2,000 acres were planted with apples (Cartmell 1909:510).
Other early twentieth century crops included corn, potatoes, oats, hay, buckwheat, rye, and
peaches and livestock such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and chickens. Additionally, the quarrying of
limestone emerged in the early twentieth century with several kilns opening along the B&O RR.
The poorer shale soils of the county were largely abandoned for agricultural pursuits during this
time and many reverted back to forest land. Winchester, incorporated as a city in 1874, would
remain the commercial center of the region throughout the twentieth century (G&P 1997:29-30).
John Harmon owned Glengary until his death in 1886, though an 1885 map depicts James Lewis
as the owner (Figure 4-10). His daughter, Elizabeth A. Harmon Stine, received 140 acres of
Glengary, including the house. By 1901, Glengary was in the hands of Elizabeth's daughter
Edmonia Stine Baker (G&P 1997:190-191).
4-22
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Figure 4-10: Detail of An Atlas. Frederick County,1885, depicting the project area. Source: Historic
Map Works
WORLD WAR I TO WORLD WAR 11 (1917 —1945)
The production of apples began in the late nineteenth century with the first large scale orchard
planted in 1871 (Hanson 1969). Frederick began the Apple Blossom Festival, in Winchester, in
1924 and the area became known as one of the leading apple producing areas of the state,
earning it the moniker of "Apple Capital". Businesses related to the production, storage, packing,
and shipping of apples have developed throughout the area, including the Winchester Cold
Storage Company (1917), the Virginia Barrel Company (1910), and the Southern Chemical
Company (1925) (G&P 1997:30). The ease of transportation of this product was facilitated by
the road network around Winchester and the B&O RR and CVRR which, by 1919, was the
Pennsylvania Railroad (Figure 4-11).
In 1918, Virginia's General Assembly established the first state highway system, a network of
4,002 miles of roadway. Among the roads to be included was the old Valley Turnpike between
Winchester and Staunton, which still was being operated as a toll road in 1918. As late as 1926,
it remained the only hard -surfaced road of much distance (VDOT 2006:27).
During World War Il, Winchester housed German prisoners at a detention camp; in 1944 there
were 350 prisoners (G&P 1997:30). While there, prisoners worked in the local industries and
apple orchards ("WWII Prisoner of War Camp existed years ago in Winchester" 2016).
4-23
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Typically in rural counties of Virginia, where agriculture is the primary driver of the economy,
population fell during the Great Depression and World War II as residents relocated to urban
centers in search of work. In Frederick County, however, population increased by nearly 41 -
percent as it grew from 12,461 residents in 1920 to 17,537 in 1950 (USCB).
i - 7
i r}Y � �• 7e+q iddd�
aEra�'
�Vi1 it i`• 4�2'
711
/ 1
?�Rrl++�'��NM , - 1. I ��.�� .�,. _ t ti i►�'
z
0
94 6Y7, r _-
`,. �'�� �, u` i ' �ravrx rii7 i r '.a �'��ia�. t�"';s' _ . -.�' aC�``« b71 .' � '• �,.
Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source:
USGS
NEW DOMINION (1945 — PRESENT)
In the second half of the twentieth century, much of northern Virginia changed quickly as it
developed into a metropolitan suburb. While much of Frederick County remains fairly rural,
Winchester and its surroundings have achieved a more suburban atmosphere in the last decades
of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Between 1950 and 2000 the population
of Frederick more than tripled from 17,537 residents to 59,209 (USCB). The apple industry
continues to be a large part of the local economy however, there is growing employment among
manufacturing, retail, and service jobs (G&P 1997:30). Other industries, including limestone
quarries, manufacturing corporations, construction and light industrial parks, are thriving in the
county (G&P 1997:30; Parker 2006:7). As growth continues in the county, many apple orchards
are being replaced by new roads, homes, shopping centers, and institutions (Parker 2006:7).
These changes in the rural landscape is evident in the area surrounding the project area as
industrial development increased in the 1970s through 2000s (Figures 4-12 and 4-13). Though
alterations were made to Glengary in this period, it remained a farm. In 1948, Charles B. and
Mary S. Baker, heirs of Edmonia Baker, conveyed the land to Roy R. and Pearl V. Boyce who
4-24
;Btwdt CLL
'
Project Area
- —�—
V
4
yes
i - 7
i r}Y � �• 7e+q iddd�
aEra�'
�Vi1 it i`• 4�2'
711
/ 1
?�Rrl++�'��NM , - 1. I ��.�� .�,. _ t ti i►�'
z
0
94 6Y7, r _-
`,. �'�� �, u` i ' �ravrx rii7 i r '.a �'��ia�. t�"';s' _ . -.�' aC�``« b71 .' � '• �,.
Figure 4-11: Detail of the 1942 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source:
USGS
NEW DOMINION (1945 — PRESENT)
In the second half of the twentieth century, much of northern Virginia changed quickly as it
developed into a metropolitan suburb. While much of Frederick County remains fairly rural,
Winchester and its surroundings have achieved a more suburban atmosphere in the last decades
of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. Between 1950 and 2000 the population
of Frederick more than tripled from 17,537 residents to 59,209 (USCB). The apple industry
continues to be a large part of the local economy however, there is growing employment among
manufacturing, retail, and service jobs (G&P 1997:30). Other industries, including limestone
quarries, manufacturing corporations, construction and light industrial parks, are thriving in the
county (G&P 1997:30; Parker 2006:7). As growth continues in the county, many apple orchards
are being replaced by new roads, homes, shopping centers, and institutions (Parker 2006:7).
These changes in the rural landscape is evident in the area surrounding the project area as
industrial development increased in the 1970s through 2000s (Figures 4-12 and 4-13). Though
alterations were made to Glengary in this period, it remained a farm. In 1948, Charles B. and
Mary S. Baker, heirs of Edmonia Baker, conveyed the land to Roy R. and Pearl V. Boyce who
4-24
HISTORIC CONTEXT
planted an apple orchard. They sold the land not containing the orchard to Douglas O. and Helen
B. Grimm in 1956 (G&P 1997:191).
Figure 4-12: Detail of the 1966 topographic map, Winchester, VA, depicting the project area. Source:
USGS
N igure 4-13: Detail of a 1997 aerial depicting the project area. Source: Google Earth
4-25
HISTORIC CONTEXT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4-26
FIELD RESULTS
5. FIELD RESULTS
Field investigation of Glengary was conducted in September 2017 and included both
architectural and archaeological survey of the property. The following sections provide the
results of the field survey. The architectural survey results include a narrative of the existing
conditions with detailed architectural description, a developmental history of the property, and an
assessment of historical integrity. The archaeological results includes a detailed methodology of
the testing strategy along with a summary of findings.
ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY
Glengary is a Greek Revival plantation home originally constructed in 1850 but substantially
enlarged and renovated on several occasions throughout the twentieth century. The original
block of the building is a two-story, five -bay, I -house (Figure 5-1). The brick walls are laid in a
Flemish Bond on the front facade and five -course American Bond on the sides and rest on a low
stone foundation. It is topped by side -gable roof covered with composition shingles. The
roofline is embellished by stepped brick cornices which wrap around the sides as short gable
returns. Semi -engaged end chimneys extend up each side and pierce the roof at the ridge. The
chimney is flanked by half -lunette louvered vents in the gable. The main entrance is set within
the central bay on the first floor and consists of a paneled wood door flanked by three -light
sidelights and topped by a linear six -light transom. The frame is molded with Greek Revival
influences. Fenestration is symmetrical on the front fagade and consists of double -hung sash
wood windows with six -over -six light configurations. The windows rest on stone sills and are
topped by wooden lintels with plain corner blocks. There are no windows on the side wall. The
front fagade was redesigned in the mid -twentieth century through the construction of a two-story,
three -bay Neoclassical -inspired portico (Figure 5-2). The portico rests on a raised brick stoop
and features four square columns supporting a pedimented gable roof with a boxed cornice. The
pediment is clad with clapboard and features a single fanlight. Contemporary to the portico, a
Juliet balcony was also appended to the front facade below the central second floor window, just
above the entry.
5-1
` le -x'' ' t.
�y
M-„
FIELD RESULTS
The symmetrical fagade of the original block is also interrupted by a later wing attached to the
north side of the building. This wing was constructed in 1970, but generally matches the
character and scale of the original block (Figure 5-3). It is three -bays wide and two -stories,
although slightly shorter and slightly set back. It too rests on a continuous stone foundation and
is clad with brick walls laid in a Flemish Bond on the front and American Bond on the side and
rear. The brickwork of the cornice and gable returns matches the original block, as does the
chimney, half -lunette vents, and window sills and lintels (Figure 5-4). A rear entry is located on
the back of this wing, in the bay adjacent to an earlier rear ell.
0
1
Figure 5-3: Circa 1970 side wing, facing west
Figure 5-4: Front and north side oblique, facing southwest
5-3
FIELD RESULTS
In the early -twentieth century, an offset, two-story rear ell was appended to the original block
(Figure 5-5). This ell has a wood frame structural system and is now clad with Masonite siding.
The gable roof is set just below the primary roofline and partially abuts the rear brick wall. A
one-story, shed -roof porch with central gable embellishment extends along the south side of this
ell. It is set on a raised stone foundation and is supported by turned wood posts. A secondary
entry is sheltered by this porch. Other fenestration consists of wood double -hung sash windows
with six -over -six light configurations.
Figure 5-5: Rear ell north side, facing southeast
At an unknown date later in the twentieth century, the early -twentieth century rear ell was
extended further to the rear with an integral two -car garage on the lower level and additional
living space above (Figure 5-6). It conforms to the same roofline, fenestration pattern, and
overall character of the rear ell and has been further integrated by the later addition of a long
one-story enclosed addition that extends the length of the first period rear ell and extension. The
forward portion of this area serves as a sunroom and is enclosed with several bands of casement
windows and is covered by a cross -gabled roof. The rear portion is a storage area for the garage
and has two small windows. The overall mass is clad with Masonite to match the rest of the rear
block.
5-4
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-6: Rear ell south side with garage extension, facing northeast
In general, the exterior of the home reflects its evolution from the mid -nineteenth century
through the latter -twentieth century. The original block retains some of its Greek Revival design,
materials, and character as designed; however is cloaked by a large twentieth century portico that
lends a more Colonial Revival appearance to the home. The original design is also obscured by
the 1970 side wing that was designed and built to match the features of the original block and
thus appears also as an original or early wing, despite its much later date of construction. The
early -twentieth century rear ell can still be discerned; however it too is largely cloaked by the
later extension and side porch, all of which have been clad with continuous modern siding and
updated with replacement doors and windows.
Interior
The interior of the home also conveys the various periods of time and styles in which it was
built. The original block retains much of its Greek Revival -style detailing while the side wing
and rear ell are similar and compatible, but with a stronger Colonial Revival influence.
The original block of the home has a single -pile center passage plan with two rooms on each
floor. The front entry leads into the central hallway which features an open -well, two -run stair
with decorative brackets and a graceful ramped handrail with tapered balusters, two per stair, and
turned newels (Figure 5-7). The stringer is embellished with a scrollwork relief below each tread.
The wall below the stringer is paneled in vertical sections with a two -panel door to the basement
at the end of the wall. At the bottom of the stair, on each side of the hallway are doorways into
the flanking rooms. These doorways exhibit a Greek Revival architrave with a compound raised
molding that steps out at the top before being crowned with a corbelled hood. The doors are six -
panel with box locks (Figure 5-8).
5-5
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-7: Original block central passage from entry, facing west
5-6
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-8: First floor door architrave, south room, facing north
Each of the rooms flanking the central passage is adorned by fireplace on the outside wall. The
mantels are simple with plain pilasters and frieze and Greek Revival -style molding at the
cornice. The firebox is lined with brick that matches the hearth set flush with the floors (Figure
5-9). Flooring throughout the first floor is wide plank pine. The rooms have deep baseboards
with molded cornices. Set above the baseboards is paneled wainscoting that was added in the
twentieth century. Crown molding around the ceilings was also later added. The second floor
rooms are similar in finish; however a closet has been constructed along the interior wall in each
room.
5-7
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-9: Fireplace and mantel in north room, facing northwest
Two new doorways have been added in the first floor north room to provide access to the side
wing and rear ell respectively. Both of these doorways are surrounded by simple architraves with
plain boards and corner blocks. The door to the rear ell is six -paneled while that into the side
wing is a pair of three -paneled French doors (Figure 5-10).
Figure 5-10: North room with later doorways, facing northwest
Through the door to the side wing is a narrow corridor at the end of which is a single room
(Figure 5-11). This room is clade with knotty pine vertical board paneling and has a brick
fireplace with plain mantel on the outside wall. Baseboards, crown molding, and window
surrounds are all simply molded. Also off the side wing corridor is a small bathroom and a cross -
5 -8
FIELD RESULTS
passage that leads to a two -run, dog -legged stairwell along the front wall (Figure 5-12). Both this
hallway and the main corridor feature wainscoting and chair rails similar to those in the main
house.
Figure 5-11: ]Room in side wing, facing northeast
Figure 5-12: Hallway and stairwell in side wing, facing east
Through the door in the north room to the rear ell is the kitchen area (Figure 5-13). Reportedly
this room served as a dining room when first constructed in the early -twentieth century with the
5-9
FIELD REsuLTs
kitchen in a second room further to the rear, but the kitchen was moved to this space in the mid -
twentieth century. This room is down one step from the original block and exhibits a third-
quarter twentieth century character. The floors are covered with a faux -brick vinyl the and the
plaster walls are papered. Faux wood beams stretch across the ceiling. Cabinetry and hardware
reflect a 1970s date. The door and window surrounds reflect an earlier date and are plain board
with corner blocks.
Figure 5-13: Kitchen in rear ell, facing south
To the side of the kitchen is a door that leads into the sunroom along the north side of the rear ell.
At the rear of the kitchen is a door that leads into a small room also within the older portion of
the rear ell that reportedly originally functioned as the kitchen. This room has a door that leads
on to the open porch along the south side of the ell as well as a door that leads into the sunroom
along the north side. Along the rear of the room is an enclosed dog -leg stairwell that leads to the
second floor of the ell. The enclosed stairwell is finished with vertically -laid tongue -and -groove
board while the rest of the walls plastered with a chair rail (Figure 5-14). A built-in cabinet
adorns the wall between this room and the kitchen (Figure 5-15).
5-10
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-14: Enclosed stairwell and doorway in rear ell, facing west
Figure 5-15: Back room in rear ell with built-in cabinet, facing east
5-11
FIELD RESULTS
The sunroom extending along the north side of the rear ell reflects a late -twentieth century
character (Figure 5-16). This space has wood floors with papered sheetrock walls. All door and
window trim appear to be commercially -produced.
Figure 5-16: Sunroom interior, facing northeast
Site
Glengary is situated at the middle of a large agricultural property that is now surrounded on three
sides by modern development and infrastructure. The gravel driveway begins at the end of
Lenoir Drive, the primary corridor through a twentieth century industrial park. The long
driveway extends through open grassy fields at the front of the property and leads to the central
homesite and building complex (Figure 5-17). The home is set on a slight knoll that is shaded by
a variety of mature trees and faces east across the open grassy fields. The driveway leads to the
south side of the house where it makes a small loop with an extension leading to the attached
garage as well as an extension to the farm complex behind the home. The driveway in the
vicinity of the home is lined by mature boxwoods. A brick walkway leads from the loop to the
front of the home. Additional boxwoods and vegetation adorn the walkway and front portico, as
well as around the foundation of the building. The backyard is delineated by a treeline and a
small garden patch near the location of the original kitchen/servant's quarters that was recently
demolished. To the northeast rear corner of the home is a late -nineteenth century root cellar and
meathouse. Extending along the back and sides of the homesite are fences separating the
pastureland beyond. Adjacent to the gate from the driveway into the pasture and farm complex is
a small late -nineteenth or early -twentieth century pump house.
Through the gate is a complex of farm buildings including a late -nineteenth century granary, an
early -twentieth century bank barn and silo, and an early -twentieth century animal barn. The ruins
of mid -nineteenth century hay barn are also present. Surrounding the farm complex are open
pasture fields which are interrupted by treelines as well as a historic uncoursed stone wall.
5-12
FIELD RESULTS
iv figure 5-17: Glengary Building complex. Source: Google Earth
Root Cellar - Set to north side of the home is a subterranean root cellar (Figure 5-18). This
structure likely dates to the late -nineteenth century. It is topped by a grassy, earthen covered
barrel roof and is accessed by a set of hinged doors metal doors. The entry bulkhead is set
against an arched stacked stone end wall.
Figure 5-18: Root cellar, facing east
5-13
FIELD RESULTS
Meathouse - Set just to the northwest of the home, behind the rear addition, is a small meathouse
building (Figure 5-19). The building appears to date to the late -nineteenth or early -twentieth
century. It has a wood frame structural system clad with vertical board and rests on a continuous
stone foundation that has been partially parged with concrete. It is topped by a front -gable roof
covered with asphalt shingles. There is a paneled wood door set centrally on the front end of the
building and no other fenestration.
Figure 5-19: Meathouse, facing west
Pump House - Set just inside the domestic yard area, near the gate into the farm complex is a
late -nineteenth century well pump house (Figure 5-20). This small building is clad with
clapboard and rests on a poured concrete foundation. It is topped by a side -sloping shed roof
covered with corrugated metal. A single board and batten door is set on the north side with a
poured concrete stoop. A wood post extends up the rear wall and is attached to an overhead
electric line.
5-14
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-20: Pump house, facing southwest
Granary - Set centrally within the farm complex is a late -nineteenth century granary/corn crib
building (Figure 5-21). The wood frame building is clad with vertical board siding and rests on
four wide stone pier foundations that stretch the full -width of the structure. It is topped by a
gable roof covered with slate shingles. At each end of the building are open bays sealed by
suspended board and batten doors on a sliding track. Originally, the north side of the building
was nearly completely open to allow for internal air circulation; however this bay has been
infilled with narrow vertical slats. The south side of the building has a full-length shed addition
covered by a corrugated metal roof. The structure is now mostly open, but appears to originally
have been enclosed with board siding and each end accessible by a garage bay sealed by a
sliding track door. The inside of the building was not accessible for inspection, but according to
previous investigations, the interior layout consists of a full-length central corridor with a
granary storage on one side and corn crib on the other.
5-15
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-21: Granary, facing southwest
Bank Barn - Set in the farm complex to the southwest of the home and just southeast of the
granary is a large bank barn (Figure 5-22). This bank barn was reportedly constructed during
World War I by German prisoners of war, but with materials from an older barn originally
located elsewhere in the Shenandoah Valley. This is plausible as inspection of the barn reveals a
variety of large, older beams, with previously used mortises indicative of a nineteenth century
structure; although the construction techniques and other materials reflect a twentieth century
date. The wood frame structural system rests on a continuous concrete block foundation that
steps down with the topography of the landscape. The concrete blocks along the upper portion of
the building are rusticated for a decorative appearance while those along the sides and lower area
are typical blocks.
The exterior of the barn is clad with vertical board siding and topped by a gable roof covered in
standing seam metal. The main level of the building overhangs the lower level by one bay. This
lower level has two larger openings with sliding track doors as well as two smaller stall doors
each flanked by a six -light casement window. There are similar casement windows illuminating
the lower level on each side of the building. The main level of the building has large double -bay
central openings sealed by sets of sliding track doors. The uphill side of the building is accessed
by an earthen ramp with poured concrete retaining walls. Each end of the barn has two louvered
vents with pedimented hoods. Similar vents are set above in each gable. At the northwest corner
of the building is a concrete stave silo. Its base is set adjacent to the earthen ramp and connects to
the lower level of the barn with a small enclosure (Figure 5-23).
5-16
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-22: Bank Barn downhill side, facing southwest
Figure 5-23: Bank barn uphill side, facing northeast
The interior of the lower level of the barn is divided into separate feeding areas and stalls
complete with built in feed troughs (Figure 5-24). A ladder near the back wall provides internal
access to the main level. The main level consists of a single open primary space with a small
workroom enclosure in one corner (Figure 5-25). The lower level ladder is bulkhead and is
enclosed in a small closet near the front wall. The heavy timber framing is exposed throughout
and reveals earlier mortises and non -original sistered beams.
5-17
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-24: Bank barn lower level interior, facing southwest
Figure 5-25: Bank barn main level interior, facing northeast
Animal Barn - Set near the back of the farm complex, to the west of the granary is an early -
twentieth century animal barn (Figure 5-26). This wood frame building is clad with vertical
board siding and rests on a continuous concrete block foundation. It is topped by a gable roof
covered with corrugated metal. Each side of the building has a large central bay sealed by a pair
of sliding track doors. A small livestock entry is located in the corner of the east end. The interior
is open with a mid -height shelf on the east end to serve as a pen for livestock beneath with
storage above (Figure 5-27). The timber framing is exposed and reveals earlier mortises.
5-18
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-26: Animal barn, facing southwest
Figure 5-27: Animal barn interior, facing southeast
5-19
FIELD RESULTS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Archaeological investigations of the Glengary property included a desktop analysis, limited
pedestrian survey, and judgmental shovel testing of targeted areas within previously recorded
archaeological sites.
Desktop Analysis
Two previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the boundaries of the Glengary
property. Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 were identified by students with James Madison
University (JMU) in 1992 (Figure 5-28).
According to the VCRIS inventory record, Site 44FK0480 was identified through visual
inspection only and consisted of early nineteenth century cultural material widely scattered over
field terraces. The material was considered likely associated with the Glengary domestic and
agricultural complex located approximately 30 -meters (100 -feet) to the north. No shovel tests
were excavated and no materials collected as part of the survey. Observed materials included
ceramics (stonewares and earthenwares), bottle glass, brick and nails. An unknown portion of the
site was considered destroyed.
Similarly, the VCRIS inventory record for Site 44FK0481 indicates that the site was identified
through a combination of visual inspection and shovel testing. The site is associated with the
Glengary domestic and agricultural complex and consisted of ceramics (earthenwares) and a
variety of nineteenth and twentieth century container glass. The survey resulted in the
identification of surface and subsurface deposits with some level of integrity.
5-20
higure 5-28: Location of Sites 44FK0480 and 44FK0481 recorded during the 1992 JMU survey.
Source: VCRIS 2017.
FIELD RESULTS
Pedestrian Survey
Following completion of the desktop analysis, D+A staff completed a limited pedestrian survey
of the Glengary property. Visual inspection of the property revealed a well maintained domestic
complex with a manicured lawn, mature trees and shrubbery present around the house (Figure 5-
29). No evidence of cultural material was observed on the ground surface surrounding the
domestic complex. In addition, with the exception of small variations in surfaces likely
associated with removal of vegetation over time, there was no observed evidence of landscape
features or depressions suggesting the presence of subsurface cultural deposits.
5-21
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-29: View of domestic landscape surrounding the main
dwelling at Glengary facing north.
Areas comprising the agricultural complex (barns, sheds, and surround pastures and fields), were
visually inspected; however, pastures with cattle were only casually inspected as the cattle did
not accommodate an extended presence of surveyors in their pasture. Areas around the barns and
sheds revealed well worn and exposed soils consistent with their location and use (Figures 5-30
and 5-31). Agricultural materials of various forms (barrels, farm equipment, etc.) were scattered
adjacent to farm buildings and along fence lines. Fields to the south and west of the domestic and
agricultural buildings were in active use as pasture for cattle and exhibited hard packed soils with
a light covering field grasses. Natural rock outcrops were also observed in fields and the property
rises slightly in elevation to the southwest. Cursory visual inspection of these fields did not result
in any observed cultural material greater than 50 years of age. Specifically the area of previously
recorded Site 44FK0480 did not exhibit any evidence of surface scatter or previous cultural
activity.
5-22
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-30: General view of landscape surrounding agricultural buildings facing east.
5-23
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-31: General view of landscape around agricultural buildings and pastures west of the domestic
complex, facing northwest.
At the time of the study, fields located to the north and east of the domestic and agricultural
buildings were fallow and covered with field grasses. Surface visibility in these areas was limited
due to the thick covering of grasses and no evidence of cultural material or activity was
observed. According to the current property owner, oral history suggests that the stone
foundations of an earlier dwelling are believed to be in the lower field adjacent to Redbud Run.
Visual inspection of this area revealed natural bedrock outcrops located in the lower fields;
however, the bedrock did not exhibit any evidence of being worked or used as a structural
foundation and appeared to be natural in all respects.
Judgmental Shovel Testing
Following completion of visual inspection of the property, judgmental shovel tests were
excavated in areas of the property identified as having the highest potential for intact
archaeological deposits to be present. Placement of judgmental shovel tests was guided by the
results of the desktop analysis, pedestrian survey, historic context, and landowner interview. A
total of 14 judgmental shovel tests were excavated in and around the domestic and agricultural
complex of the Glengary property. Tests were placed in areas of the two previously identified
5-24
FIELD RESULTS
sites, as well as along a ridge north of the existing dwelling overlooking a lower lying field and
Redbud Run (Figure 5-32).
Figure 5-32: Plan view of judgmental shovel test locations. Positive shovel tests are marked yellow negative
shovel tests are red.
Judgmental shovel tests located south and west of the main dwelling (J-4, J-7, J-8, and J-9)
revealed a consistent soil profile of a brown silty loam topsoil overlying a sterile silty clay
subsoil with rock inclusions (Figures 5-33 and 5-34). Judgmental shovel tests J-4, J-7, and J-9
were positive for cultural material. These shovel tests were located in the area of the former
kitchen/servants quarter, which had been removed at some point in the recent past. According to
the landowner the kitchen structure also had a basement and servants lived in the structure.
Artifacts recovered from Judgmental tests in the area of the kitchen included ceramics (blue shell
edge pearlware, blue transferprint pearlware, stoneware) window glass, mortar, oyster shell, a cut
nail, slate fragments, and an animal bone fragment (Figure 5-35).
5-25
FIELD RESULTS
7.5YR7/3 silty loam
15cmbs
10YR7/6 silty clay
Figure 5-33: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-5.
10YR6/3 silty loam
12cmbs
10YR7/6 silty clay
Figure 5-34: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-9.
5-26
FIELD RESULTS
Figure 5-35: Representative artifacts recovered from Judgmental Test
J-4 at area of former kitchen building located in the domestic complex
of the Glengary property.
Four (4) judgmental shovel tests (J-10, J-11, J-12, and J-13) were excavated north of the main
dwelling on an elevated landform above a fallow agricultural field adjacent to Redbud Run. Two
shovel tests, J-11 and J-13 were positive for cultural material and contained wire nails, a cut nail
shank, slate fragments, clear window glass, and a brick fragment (Figure 5-36). Both shovel
tests were separated by a modern fence and the presence of material in this area is consistent
with construction and demolition debris associated with remodeling of the main dwelling, as well
as likely repairs to the adjacent fence.
Figure 5-36: Representative artifacts recovered
from Judgmental Tests J-11 and J-13.
5-27
FIELD RESULTS
All shovel tests in the pastures (J-1, J-2, J-3, J-6, and J-14) were negative for cultural material
and exhibited extremely compact shallow topsoil overlying sterile subsoil (Figure 5-37).
I OYR8/4 silty loam
6 cmbs
10YR7/6 silty clay
Figure 5-37: Soil profile from Judgmental Test J-3.
5-28
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In September 2017, D+A conducted a cultural resource survey and assessment of the Glengary
property in Frederick County, Virginia. The effort included both an intensive architectural
documentation and study of the home and building complex and an archaeological assessment.
As part of background research, it was revealed that Glengary has been subject to previous
cultural resource surveys on several occasions and has been investigated for both architectural
and archaeological resources. Architecturally, the home and outbuildings were last evaluated in
1997 at which time it was noted the home retained a moderate degree of integrity, but also
retained an excellent example of domestic and agricultural support buildings and thus was
recommended potentially eligible for listing in the NRNP as a good representation of a mid -
nineteenth century farm that has evolved over time. Since that time, the home itself has remained
relatively unaltered and continues to reflect the same level of integrity as previously. However,
two of the oldest outbuildings on the property, the circa 1850 kitchen/servant's quarters and circa
1850 hay barn have both been razed.
Still, Glengary reflects a fine Antebellum plantation that has grown and evolved as a farm into
the present day. The original block of the home was built in 1850 and retains much of its Greek
Revival detailing, but was substantially enlarged and remodeled on several occasions throughout
the twentieth century, lending the building a Colonial Revival character. Some of the additions
and modifications were done so as to blend in and be compatible with the original building and
materials while others are clearly modern. The same is true inside the home where the original
block retains many Greek Revival details and mid -nineteenth century materials while the
additions reflect renovations from throughout the twentieth century to accommodate changing
needs.
The farm complex also reflects ongoing use of the property and changing needs. All of the extant
outbuildings and barns date from the late -nineteenth to early -twentieth century and reflect
agricultural practices from that period. The complex previously included a detached
kitchen/servant's quarters and a hay barn that were believed to be contemporary to the original
block of the house; however, these have been demolished in recent years. Still, the home and
building stock retain a moderate level of historic physical integrity and represent a good example
of a Shenandoah Valley farm that retains a fairly complete complement of domestic and
agricultural buildings that have evolved over time. As such, Glengary is still recommended
potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C for significance at the local
level.
Archaeologically, two sites have been previously identified on the property, including one
immediately around and inclusive of the domestic and agricultural complex (44FK0481), and a
second site further to the rear in the pasture (44FK0480). Visual inspection of the project area
did not reveal any surface evidence of cultural material or activity on the property. At the time of
the survey, cattle were loose in the pastures and visual inspection was limited in these areas;
however, no visible evidence of cultural material was identified. Interviews with the current
property owner indicated that the property (the house precinct and fields) had been subjected to
metal detection in the past but that no material associated with early use of the property or its
M
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
potential occupation during the Civil War were recovered or noted. Inspection of the field north
of the main dwelling and adjacent to Redbud Run, where oral tradition suggested the possible
presence of a stone foundation only revealed naturally occurring exposed bedrock. No evidence
of building foundations or use of the exposed bedrock as a foundation material was observed.
Given the low lying situation of the landform and its likely potential to flood when Redbud Run
exceeded its banks would have made this particular area an unlikely location for settlement and
construction of a dwelling.
Excavation of judgmental shovel tests in areas associated with Site 44FK0481 resulted in the
recovery of cultural material associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter structure, which
was removed in the recent past. Recovered materials date from the first half of the nineteenth
century and are representative of domestic wares popular at the time. Only two additional
judgmental tests were positive for cultural material and these were located along a fence line
north the main dwelling and likely represent discard of building debris associated with
remodeling of the main dwelling in the twentieth century and possible fence repair.
Given the architectural history of the property, it appears that the domestic and agricultural
landscape of Glengary has not changed substantially since its construction ca. 1850. While the
main dwelling has expanded, and additional agricultural buildings have been constructed, the
basic organization of domestic and agricultural space including fields and woodlands appears to
have changed little. As such, additional archaeological resources associated with the domestic
and agricultural component of Glengary are not expected beyond what is currently present.
Although testing around the domestic precinct was not intensive, the presence of intact
archaeological deposits associated with the former kitchen/servants quarter building are present,
and it is likely that a small number archaeological deposits associated with the main dwelling
house are present close to the building foundation.
Based upon the results of the archaeological assessment, no evidence of Site 44FK0480 was
observed and it is likely that this site was a thin scatter of domestic debris spread in the field with
no subsurface archaeological signature. Site 44FK0481 appears to be a more discretely defined
site and is focused in and around the kitchen/servants quarter building, which would have
function as the immediate service space for the main dwelling. The potential for intact
archaeological deposits is present in this area.
The potential for the remainder of the property to contain intact significant archaeological
deposits appears to be low given the topography, rocky soils, and lack of documented use during
the historic period beyond what is already known about the property. While Civil War use of the
property for encampment purposes is possible, the lack of reported results from local metal
detecting along with the documented confusion of encampments at the Lewis property further to
the south versus the Glengary (Harmon) property suggests the potential is likely not high.
6-2
REFERENCES
7. REFERENCES
n.d. "1862: Confederates score a victory at First Battle of Winchester," History. Available
online at www.histoy.com/this-day-in-history/confederates-score-a-victory-at-first-
battle-of-Winchester.
n.d. "1863: Union defeated at the Second Battle of Winchester," History. Available online at
http://www.history. com/this-day-in-history/union-defeated-at-the-second-battle-of-
winchester.
2012 "Eyewitness Accounts to Early Indian Settlements in Shenandoah Valley," Access
Genealogy. Available online at httys://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/eyewitness-
accounts-to-early-indian-settlements-in-shenandoah-valley htm.
n.d. "First Battle of Winchester," Thomas Legion. Available online at
http://thomaslegion.net/firstbattleofwinchester.html.
n.d. Glengary Farm. Information provided by current owner of the property.
n.d. "History," Old Town Winchester. Available online at
http://oldtownwinchesterva.com/about-old-town/history/.
n.d. "History of Frederick County," Frederick County, Virginia: Life At The Top. Available
online at http://www.fcva.us/visit/history-of-frederick-county.
n.d. "Winchester & Potomac" CSA Railroads. Available online at http://www.csa-
railroads.com/Winchester and Potomac.htm.
2016 "WWII Prisoner of War Camp existed years ago in Wincheser," Local DVM. Available
online at http://www.localdvTn.com/news/virginia/wwii-prisoner-of-war-camp-existed-
years-ago-in-winchester/607220286.
Adelman, Garry
n.d. "The Third Battle of Winchester," Civil War Trust. Available online at
httns://www.civilwar.org/leam/articles/third-battle-winchester.
American Battlefield Protection Program
2009 Winchester I (V4104). National Park Service.
2009 Winchester II(V4107). National Park Service.
Anderson, David G.
1990 "The Paleoindian Colonization of the Eastern North America: A View from the
Southeastern United States," Early Paleoindian Economics of Eastern North America.
ed. K.B. Tankersley and B.L. Isaac. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement 5.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
7-1
REFERENCES
Anderson, D.G. and G.T. Hanson
1998 `Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River," American Antiquity. 53.
Anderson, David G., Lisa D. O'Steen, and Kenneth Sassaman
1996 `Environmental and Chronological Considerations," The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast. eds. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: The
University of Alabama Press.
Barber, Michael B., J. Mark Wittkofski, and Michael F. Barber
1992 An Archaeological Overview of Stafford County, Virginia. Preservation Technologies,
Roanoke, VA.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 "Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter -Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation," American Antiquity, 45.
Cartmell, T.K.
1909 Shenandoah Valley Pioneers and Their Descendants: A History of Frederick County,
Virginia. T.K. Cannell. Available online at
Vis://archive.org/details/shenandoahvalle00cartgoog.
Chapman, Jefferson and Andrea Brewer Shea
1981 "The Achaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Tennessee
River Valley," Tennessee Anthropoligist. 6.
Civil War Trust (CWT)
n.d.a "Second Battle of Kernstown," Civil War Trust. Available online at
https://www. civilwar.org/leam/civil-war/battles/second-battle-kemstown.
n.d.b "Cedar Creek Belle Grove," Civil War Trust. Available online at
https://www.civilwar.org/leam/civil-war/battles/cedar-creek.
Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Report R-2386. Jackson, MI: Commonwealth Associates, Inc.
Custer, Jay F.
1990 "Early and Middle Archaic Cultures of Virginia: Cultural Change and Continuity," Early
and Middle Archaic Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and
Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological
Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press.
D. J. Lake & Co.
1885 An Atlas Frederick County, Virginia. Philadelphia, PA: D.J. Lake & Co. Digital image on
file at Historic Map Works.
7-2
REFERENCES
Daniel, I. Randolph, Jr.
1996 "Raw Material Availability and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast," The
Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. ed. David G. Anderson and Kenneth E.
Sassaman. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Delcourt, H. and P. Delcourt
1981 "Vegetation Maps for Eastern North American: 40,000 Years B.P. to Present,"
Geobotany: an Integrating Experience, ed. R. Romans. New York: Plenum Press.
Dent, Richard J., Jr.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: Plenum Press.
Duncan, Richard R.
2007 Beleaguered Winchester: A Virginia Community at War, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge, LA:
Louisiana State University Press.
Ebert, Rebecca A. and Teresa Lazazzera
1988 Frederick County, Virginia: From the Frontier to the Future. Norfolk, VA: The Donning
Company.
Egloff, Keith T. and Stephen R. Potter
1982 "Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plan Virginia," Archaeology of Eastern North America
10.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
2001 "What Happened in the Early Woodland?" Archaeology of Eastern North America. 29.
Fordney, Chris
1996 "Winchester, Virginia: A Town Embattled During America's Civil War," Civil War
Times. February 1996. Available online at http://www.histoDmet.com/winchester-
vireinia-a-town-embattled-during-americas-civil-war htm.
Gillespie, G.L.
1873 Battlefield of Winchester, Va. Opequon) [September 19, 1864]. Digital image on file in
the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress.
Google Earth
1997 USGS aerial.
Gray & Pape Inc. (G&P)
1997 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigations Route 37 Frederick County, Virginia.
March 1997. Prepared for Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. Manuscript on file at the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources.
7-3
REFERENCES
Griffin, James B.
1952 "Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology," Archeology of Eastern United
States, edited by James B. Griffin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grymes, Charlie
n.d.a "Key Treaties Defining the Boundaries Separating English and Native American
Territories in Virginia," Virginia Places. Available online at
h"://www.virginiaplaces.org/settleland/treaties.htrnl.
n.d.b "Railroad Across the Blue Ridge, In the Shenandoah Valley — and Why Isn't
Harrisonburg on the Main Line?" Virginia Places. Available online at
hqp://www.virginigplaces.org/rail/vallewail.html.
n.d.c "Virginia -West Virginia Boundary," Virginia Places. Available online at
http://www.virginiElaces.ory,/boundaries/wvboundary.html.
Hanson, Raus McDill
1969 Virginia Place Names: Derivation Historical Uses. Verona, VA: McClure Press.
Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Michael J. Klein
1992 "Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia," Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen
N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 29 of the Archeological Society of Virginia.
Hofstra, Warren R.
2004 The Planting of New Virginia: Settlement and Landscape in the Shenandoah Valley.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Holsworth, Jerry W.
2011 Civil War Winchester. Charleston, SC: The History Press.
Hotchkiss, Jedediah
1863 Sketch of the Second Battle of Winchester, June 13th, 14th, and 15th 1863. Digital image
on file in the Geography and Maps Division of the Library of Congress.
Justice, Noel D.
1995 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental Eastern United States.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kalbian, Maral S.
1991 "John R. Cooke House," Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. February 1991.
Manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.
Kitchin, Thomas
[1761] A new map of Virginia from the best authorities. [London: London Magazine]. Digital
image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress.
7-4
REFERENCES
Klein, Michael J., and Thomas Klatka
1991 "Late Archaic and Early Woodland Demography and Settlement Patterns," Late Archaic
and Early Woodland Research in Virginia: a Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and
Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Special Publication No. 23 of the Archeological Society of
Virginia.
Lehman, Sam
c.1989 The Story of Frederick County. Winchester, VA.
McAvoy, J.M.
1992 Nottoway River Survey, Part L Clovis Settlement Patterns: The 30 -Year Study of a Late
Ice Age Hunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain of Virginia. Special
Publication No. 28 of the Archeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz
Press.
McAvoy, J.M and L.D. McAvoy
1997 Archaeological Investigations of the Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
VDHR Research Report Series No. 8, VDHR, Richmond.
McLearen, Douglas C.
1992 "Virginia's Middle Woodland Period: A Regional Perspective," Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen
N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of
Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press.
McLearen, Douglas C. and L. Daniel Mouer
1989 "Middle Woodland II Typology and Chronology in the Lower James River Valley of
Virginia." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological
Conference, Rehoboth Beach, DE.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 "Late Pleistocene Human Adaptation in Eastern North America," Journal of World
Prehistory. Vol. 2.
Meserve, Stevan F.
2008 The Civil War in Loudoun County Virginia: A History of Hard Times. Charleston, SC:
The History Press.
Mouer, L. Daniel
1991 "The Formative Transition in Virginia," Late Archaic and Early Woodland Research in
Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of
Virginia Archaeologists and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The
Dietz Press.
7-5
REFERENCES
National Park Service (NPS)
1992 Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. September 1992.
Available online at https://www.nps. og v/abpp/shenandoah/sys0-l.htm].
Norris, J.E., editor
1890 History of the Lower Shenandoah Valley Counties of Frederick, Berkeley, Jefferson and
Clarke. Chicago, IL: A. Warner & Co.
Parker, Kathryn
2006 Images ofAmerica: Winchester. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.
Parsons, Mia T. and John W. Ravenhorst, eds.
2002 Archeological Resource Study and Clearance for the Discovery Center Project at the
Henry House, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Manassas, Virginia. Report prepared
for the Archeology Program, Harpers Ferry National Historical Park for Manassas
National Battlefield Park.
Potter, Stephen
1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the
Potomac Valley. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Quarles, Garland R.
1990 Some Old Homes in Frederick County, Virginia. Winchester, VA: Winchester -Frederick
County Historical Society.
Stephenson, Robert L.
1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.
Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 20, Ann
Arbor.
Stewart, R. Michael
1992 "Observations on the Middle Woodland Period of Virginia: A Middle Atlantic Region
Perspective," Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, eds.
Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges. Council of Virginia Archaeologists
and the Archaeological Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press.
Turner, E. Randolph, III
1989 "Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Population Distribution in Virginia," Paleoindian
Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. eds. J.M. Wittkofski and T.R. Reinhart. Special
Publication No. 19 of the Archaeology Society of Virginia. Richmond, VA: The Dietz
Press.
United States Census Bureau
Various years Federal Census
7-6
REFERENCES
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1966 Winchester, VA.
Varle, Charles and Benjamin Jones
1809 Map of Frederick, Berkeley, & Jefferson counties in the state of Virginia. Philadelphia,
PA. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of Congress.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR)
2011 "How to use Historic Contexts in Virginia: A Guide for Survey, Registration, Protection,
and Treatment Projects," in Guidelines for Conducting Historic Resources Survey in
Virginia. Richmond, VA: VDHR.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
2006 A History of Roads in Virginia: "The Most Convenient Wayes ". Richmond, VA: Virginia
Department of Transportation. Available online at
http://www.virginiadot.or_g/about/resources/histooLofrds.pdf.
Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University
of North Carolina Press.
Warner, John
[1747] A survey of the northern neck of Virginia, being the land belonging to the Rt. Honourable
Thomas Lord Fairfax Baron Cameron, bounded by & within the Bay of Chesapoyocke
and between the rivers Rappahannock and Potowmack: With the courses of the rivers
Rappahannock and Potowmack, in Virginia, as surveyed according to order in the years
1736 & 1737. Digital image on file in the Geography and Map Division of the Library of
Congress.
Wendland, Wayne M. and Reid A. Bryson
1974 Dating Climatic Episodes of the Holocene. Quaternary Research 4.
Yarnell, Richard A.
1976 "Early Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America," Culture Change and Continuity. ed.
C. Cleland. Orlando, FL: Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
7-7
REFERENCES
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ARTIFACT INVENTORY
8. ARTIFACT INVENTORY
Provenience
Stratum
Total #
Artifact(s)
Phase I Artifacts
J4
A
4
Pearlware, body sherd, transfer print, floral design
"
4
Pearlware, body sherd, undecorated
"Ic2
Pearlware, rim, shell -edge
"
2
Aqua glass, light patina
"
1
Colorless glass, clear
"
1
Nail, corroded, machine cut?
"
1
Iron ring or loo
"
1
Brick fragment
"
2
Mortar fragment
"
2
Bone fragment
"
1
Slate
"
1
Oyster Shell
P
A
2
Aqua glass
"
3
Colorless glass, clear
"
1
Frosted glass
"
4
Mortar fragment
"
1
Nail, Machine cut
"
I
Stoneware, body sherd, brown glaze
"
1
Coal
"
I
Tooth
J9
A
1
Redware, body sherd, unglazed
"
"
1
Glass, lightly solarized
"
1
Coal
J11
A
I
Iron fragment, flat
"
1
Nail shank, machine cut
"
2
Colorless glass fragment, clear
"
1
Aqua glass
"
1
Brick fragment
J13
A
2
Wire nails, whole
"
1
Bone fragment
"
1
Redware, body sherd, unglazed
E:aI
ARTIFACT INVENTORY
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
M.