Phase I report of archaeological investigations of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Upland Field Station

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Phase I report of archaeological investigations of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Upland Field Station"

Patience Boone
5 years ago
Views:

1 Phase I report of archaeological investigations of the State University of New York College at Oneonta Upland Field Station Renovation Project, Cooperstown, Otsego County, New York. National Science Foundation Grant NSF Prepared For: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Peebles Island Resource Center P.O. Box 189 Waterford, NY Prepared By: Renee B. Walker, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Anthropology SUNY Oneonta Oneonta, NY

2 Management Summary (Appendix A) SHPO Project Review Number (if available): Not available Involved State and Federal Agencies: State University of New York College at Oneonta Phase of Survey: IA and IB Location Information Location: Cooperstown, NY County: Otsego Survey Area (Metric & English) Length: 24 meters (78.74 feet) Width: 10 meters (32.80 feet) Number of Acres Surveyed:.059 acres USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Cooperstown Archaeological Survey Overview Number & Interval of Shovel Tests: 18 shovel test pits (intervals of 1, 3, 5 and 7.5 meters) Number & Size of Units: 18 shovel test pits, 30 centimeters in diameter Results of Archaeological Survey Number & name of prehistoric sites identified: None Number & name of historic sites identified: None Number & name of sites recommended for Phase II/Avoidance: None Results of Architectural Survey Number of buildings/structures/cemeteries within project area: One Number of buildings/structures/cemeteries adjacent to project area: None Number of previously determined NR listed or eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: None Number of identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: None Report Author(s): Renee B. Walker Date of Report: June 10, 2010

3 Phase IA Literature Search and Sensitivity Assessment I. Introduction Project Description An archaeological investigation of the State University of New York College at Oneonta (SUNY Oneonta) Upland Field Station (also known as Moe Pond) was conducted to determine if any archaeological resources would be impacted by the renovation of the existing laboratory building. This property is located in Otsego County, NY near Cooperstown (Figure 1). The building is currently located in the area of a structure destroyed in the 1930s. The existing building was constructed in 1968 after the state acquired the property in 1967, and this building will be part of the new construction (Figure 2). The current laboratory is being renovated under a National Science Foundation grant (NSF , Figures 3A & 3B). Area of Potential Effect (APE) The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project is the proposed renovation of a current building, which is a 5 m wide by 11m (16 by 36 ft) long structure. The APE is an area approximately six meters to the north of the existing building, two meters to the east, three meters to the south and two meters to the west. The existing building is going to be moved approximately six meters to the north and a new structure (attached to the existing building) is going to be built to the south (see Appendix F for existing structure and approximate APE). Site Walkover An initial walkover of the property conducted in May revealed significant ground cover, but an older foundation could be viewed under and adjacent to the existing structure. A gravel area south of the existing building was visible through the grass and covered an area about 3 meters north-south by 5 meters east-west. II. Phase IA Background Research Past and Present Land Uses The property under investigation is located about two miles from downtown Cooperstown in the uplands above Lake Otsego. The property was farmed during the Late 18 th, 19 th and early 20 th centuries. It was acquired by George Crogan in 1769 after the signing of a treaty between Indians and Whites that set a boundary line for areas of the northeast (O Callagan 1849, Figure 4). Following the Revolutionary War, the land that later became Cooperstown was purchased by Judge William Cooper in 1785 (called the Cooper Patent or the Ballston Purchase, Figure 5) and established as a village in 1786 (W. Cooper n.d., J.F. Cooper 1976;). William Cooper was the father of James Fenimore Cooper, the famous author who, in addition to writing his well known novels, also chronicled life in early Cooperstown (eg. J.F. Cooper 1921). In 1868, Cooper sold the property to William H. Averell (Beers 1868, Figure 6). This was later sold to James J. Byard, Jr. in Byard owned several properties in the area and called this farm Luludale for his wife,

4 Lulu. During the time that Byard owned the property it was listed in the 1903 atlas as a profitable farm in the area, specializing in dairy and hops production (Barthel 1903, Figure 7). The Clark family acquired the property in 1933 at which time it is believed (Harman, personal communication, 2010) that the structure was torn down (Figure 8). A dam was built in 1934 that created what is currently known as Moe Pond. In 1967, the Clark Family Foundation gave the land as a gift to the State University of New York College at Oneonta. Since being acquired by SUNY Oneonta, the site has served as a research station for biological faculty and students working on a variety of projects. Environmental Setting According to the USDA soils map, the project area is within the Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, found in landforms of Drumlinoid ridges, hills, and till plains. The depth to restrictive feature is between centimeters (6-26 in) to fragipan and the soils are moderately well drained (Appendix A). The USDA soils map is included in Appendix B. The expectation for depth of the cultural deposits is that deposits will probably not exceed 66 centimeters (25 in). There is little potential for deeply buried soils from colluvial, alluvial or other activity. Site File Search A check of the site files within a 1 mile radius around the project location lists a single site (NYSM#5502). The file records describe the site as a camp, but no other specific information is available (Appendix C). The site is presumably prehistoric, but no time period was specified. This site is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the project area and west of Blackbird Bay on Otsego Lake. The potential for prehistoric sites in the area is minimal. There is only one indeterminate camp site in a one mile radius of the area. Also, the project area is small, thus limiting the possibility of discovering an ephemeral upland camp. The potential for discovering an historic site is more substantial, given that the site had a structure dating to the late 19 th through the earliest 20 th centuries. There may be features or architecture associated with this structure located in the project area. Thus, under the National Park Service guidelines for determining significance of the site, it falls under category D: "has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history" (Little, et al. 2000:28). Disturbance Disturbance of the site area occurred in the early 20 th century when the original structure was taken down and moved. Following this, the site was presumably abandoned until 1968 when the current structure was built. The current structure was built on pylons on top of the earlier foundation (Photograph 1). There was also some grading of an adjacent area and a layer of gravel for a parking area (Photograph 2).

5 III. Testing Recommendations It is recommended that shovel test pits (STPs) be excavated in the project area, around the historic foundation and current structure. Current NYSAA guidelines recommend an interval of 7.5 meters (295 in), with a radial interval of 1 meter if any cultural materials are recovered from the STPs. Phase IB Survey I. Site Location and Conditions-Archaeological Site Description The project area is located in the uplands above Lake Otsego, outside of Cooperstown, NY. Historic records indicate that a farmhouse was located in the project boundary prior to destruction of the structure in the early 20 th century and the building of the current structure in the mid-20 th century. Field Conditions Testing of the project area was conducted from June 2 to June 7, Conditions were warm and dry, ground visibility was extremely low due to tall grass and weeds in the area. The crew consisted of one person, the author of this report. II. Field Methods and Procedures The methodology of testing was to clear the area of vegetation and lay out a grid around the current laboratory building that would test all areas to be impacted by the proposed project. To this end, meter tapes were used to lay out four transects around the perimeter of the current structure and within the area of potential impact. Due to the layout of the current structure and the project area, initial STPs were laid out in either 5 or 7.5 meter (16-24 ft) intervals. When positive shovel test pits were encountered, additional STPs within 1 meter (3.3 ft) were also excavated. In addition, four STPs were placed within one meter of a limestone wall that is visible to the east of the existing building. III. Results of Phase IB Survey In order to investigate whether any prehistoric or historic material would be impacted by the rehabilitation of the current structure, a total of 18 shovel test pits were excavated in the project area (see Appendices D, E, and F; Photographs 1-6). These STPs were excavated in a perimeter around the existing building (Appendix F). The STPs were spaced between 5 and 7.5 meters (16-24 ft) apart. Of these initial STPs, five were positive (STP #1, #8, #9, #11, and #13, photographs 7-10). STP #1 had two modern nails near the surface. STP #8 had one piece of whiteware, three pieces of window glass and one piece of brown glass. Radials of one meter around STP #8 revealed one positive STP (#9) with a piece of metal and whiteware, and one(stp #11) with a fragment of brick and a piece of window glass. A radial to the north of STP #8 was not possible due to extensive brush and small saplings. Another STP (STP #13) had one piece of whiteware. Other radials were either negative or outside the project area. A limestone rock wall (that is approximately 11 meters long and 1 meter wide) runs from north to south, and is located to the east of the current structure (Appendix F, Photograph 3). Initially,

6 four STPs were excavated within one meter of this wall (STPs 3, 17, 18, and 8). STPS 3, 17 and 18 were negative. STP 3 was excavated to a depth of 25 cm (9 in) before encountering large rocks, STP 17 was excavated to 22 cm (8.6 in) before encountering the same, and STP 18 contained 4 cm (1.5 in) of rock. A probe inserted in small gaps at the base of the STPs in this area extends only a few centimeters before hitting bedrock. Additional probes at the base of the rock wall reveal the same. As mentioned above, STP #8 was positive (containing a white ware fragment, window glass, and a piece of brown glass). This STP also terminated in large rocks and bedrock. Thus, the rock wall may be part of the foundation for the earlier farmhouse located on historic maps and thought to have burnt down in the early 20 th century. However, there are no other walls connected to the existing wall and there is no evidence that there is a basement or other subsurface feature associated with the wall. The artifacts from the STPs did not reveal specific information about the time period of the site. For example, the whiteware, window glass, brown glass and metal could date to anytime in the 19 th -20 th centuries. Thus, the relationship between the materials from the historic occupation of the site is unclear. It is believed that the materials in the northeast corner of the project area may be debris from either the deconstruction of the original farm house or the construction of the current building. The materials recovered from the site are not indicative of a significant feature or remnant of the farm house in the project area. There are some older stones that appear to be part of an older rock wall or foundation, but excavations around this area revealed no materials that linked the foundation to a particular time period or association. Also, there are no prehistoric materials in the project area. The determination is that this property does not fall under Criterion D of the National Park Service guidelines for yielding significant information to prehistory or history. Thus, as a result of this investigation, there is probably no impact of the proposed rehabilitation of a new laboratory facility in the project area. All forms and material from this project will be archived at the SUNY Oneonta Department of Anthropology. IV. Conclusions Finally, after careful study and consideration of the investigation into the proposed rehabilitation of the Upland Field Station, it is recommended that the project continue as proposed. The shovel test pits excavated at the site uncovered no intact deposits and thus, the project actions of moving the existing structure to the north and building a new addition to the south has minimal chances of impacting any archaeological resources.

7 References Cited Barthel, Otto New Century Atlas of Otsego County, New York. Century Map Company, Philadelphia, PA. Beers. F.W Atlas of Otsego County, New York. Beers, Ellis and Soule, New York, NY. Cooper, James Fenimore The Legends and Traditions of a Northern County. G.P. Putnam Sons, New York. Jones, L.C. (ed.) The Chronicles of Cooperstown. In History of Cooperstown. New York State Historical Association, Cooperstown, New York. Cooper, William. n.d. Landbook Little, Barbara, Erika Martin Seibert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., John Knoerl Guidelines For Evaluating and Registering Archaeological Properties. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC. O Callaghan, E.B The Documentary History of the State of New York. Weed, Parson s and Company, Albany, NY.

8 Upland Field Laboratory Figure 1. Location of site on USGS quadrangle.

9 Figure 2. Location of Current Upland Field Station Laboratory.

10 Figure 3A. Plans for Rehabilitation of Upland Field Laboratory.

11 Figure 3B. First Floor Plan for Rehabilitation of the Upland Field Laboratory.

12 Approximate Site Location Figure Map of Property showing owner as George Croghan (O Callaghan 1849).

13 Approximate Site Location Figure 5. Map from Wm. Cooper s Landbook (n.d.) showing Ballstown Purchase (also known as the Cooper Patent).

14 Approximate Site Location Figure 6. Map from 1868 Atlas show property owned by William Holt Averell (Beers 1868).

15 Approximate Site Location Figure 7. Map from 1903 showing property owned by James J. Bryard, Jr. (Barthel 1903).

16 Approximate Site Location Figure 8. Map from 1933 showing property when owned by the Clarke family (Harman, personal communication, 2010).

17 Appendix A. Project Area Soils Name Mardin Channery Silt Loam Soil Horizon Depth cm (in) A 0-4 cm (0-2 in) B 4-40 (2-16 in) Color DkRBrn Brn Texture, Inclusions SaSi SaCl Slope Drainage % 8-15 Moderately Well Landform Drumlinoid Ridges & Hills Key: Shade: Lt - Light, Dk - Dark, V-Very Color: Brn Brown, Blk Black, Gry Gray, GBrn Gray Brown, StrBrn Strong Brown, RBrn Red Brown, YBrn Yellow Brown Soils: Cl Clay, Lo Loam, Si Silt, Sa Sand Other: / - Mottled, Grl Gravel, Cbs Cobbles, Pbs Pebbles, Rts Roots

18 Appendix B. USDA Soils Map Site Location

19 Appendix C: Archaeological Sites within One Mile of the Project Area. Additional Distance from APE Time Period Site Type Site # m (ft) NYSM m (5250 ft) SE Prehistoric Camp Appendix D. Artifact Catalog from Phase 1B investigations. Historic Artifact Categories TU1 TU 8 TU 9 TU 11 TU 13 Total Count Whiteware Window Glass Brown Glass 1 1 Brick 1 1 Metal Total Artifacts

20 Appendix E: Shovel Test Table from Phase 1B investigations. STP# Depth (cm) Soil Description Artifact Summary DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SiSa 2-wire nails DkRBrn/SaSi VDkGr/SiSa DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SiSa DkGBrn/SaSi DkRBrn/SaSi DkRGr/SiSa DkYBrn/SiSa Brn/SaSiCl Dk YBrn/SaSiCl DkRBrn/SiSa DkBrn/SaCl DkBrn/SiSaCl DkRBrn/SaSi DkBrn/SaCl DkRBrn/SaSi Whiteware (1), Window Glass (1) 2-39 Brn/SaCl Window Glass (2), Brown Glass (1) DkRBrn/SaSi Metal fragment (1) 2-35 Brn/SaCl Whiteware (1) DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SaCl DkRBrn/SaSi Brick fragment (1) 3-34 Brn/SaCl Window Glass (1) DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SaCl DkRBrn/SaSi Whiteware (1) 2-35 Brn/SaCl DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SaCl DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SaCl/DkGr/SaCl DkRBrn/SaSi Brn/SaCl VDkBrn/SaSi VDkGrBrn/SaSiCl VDkBrn/SaSi --- SHOVEL TEST KEY: Shade: Lt - Light, Dk - Dark, V - Very Color: Brn Brown, Blk Black, Gry Gray, GBrn Gray Brown, StrBrn Strong Brown, RBrn Red Brown, YBrn Yellow Brown Soils: Cl Clay, Lo Loam, Si Silt, Sa Sand

21 Appendix F. Location of STPs, including artifact densities. Large stump STP #6 #15 #13 #16 #14 #11+ #12 Heavy Brush STP #7 #9 + #8 + #10 STP #5 STP #18 Rock Wall STP #17 STP #4 STP #1 + STP #2 STP #3 Edge of Area of Potential Impact Scale (Approximate) 0 10 meters