SHA Site 2 (18FR612)

SHA Site 2 (18FR612) is a multi-component archeological site northeast of Brunswick in rural Frederick County. The site includes the ruins of a mid 19th-20th century farmstead, possibly the buried remains of a sawmill, and a prehistoric lithic scatter. The site is situated on a low terrace and on the floodplain of Catoctin Creek and one of its tributary streams. Though the site itself is relatively flat, much of the surrounding landscape is more steeply sloped. The historic component of the site consists of an extant log cabin and seven outbuilding remnants (a barn, 2 collapsed structures, 2 outbuilding foundations, and a well). The historic component if structured as a typical farm from the period, with a house and farm buildings enclosed in a fenced compound, hereafter referred to as “the compound.” Soils at the site are primarily Downsville gravelly loams, as well as Codorus and Hatboro loams.

Reliable deed records for the site can be traced back to 1829. Before this date, the record is somewhat convoluted, and it is difficult to discern the chain of title without extensive additional research.

The 1829 deed records the transfer of a 146 acre parcel from a James Weakly to Henry Slagle for $3,500. The parcel was part of two larger tracts, known as Fieldera and Depford. Fieldera was a large tract of land in the Jefferson area acquired by Fielder Gantt in 1763. In 1765, he established Fieldera Furnace on the Harper’s Ferry Road (MD 180) in Jefferson. However, the iron ore was not of sufficient quality, and the operation folded. Due to a number of lawsuits, Gantt parceled and sold Fieldera to various individuals. Without the aid of plat maps to georeferenced the deeds to specific parcels, the chain of title beyond 1829 could not be established with any amount of certainty due to survey references to indeterminate points (e.g., the black walnut tree), and the lack of a previous deed reference in the 1829 document.

The chain of title from 1829-1861 is somewhat problematic. According to an 1861 deed, George W. and Mary A.C. Slagle sold the 97¼ acre property to Henry M. Slagle for $2,000. It is unclear how and when the 146 acre property obtained from James Weakley by Henry Slagle became the 97¼ property that George and Mary Slagle were selling to Henry M. Slagle in 1861. It is assumed that Henry M. Slagle is not the same “Henry Slagle” listed in the 1829 transfer, a prospect supported by the fact that a Henry Slagle died in 1851 and is buried nearby in Jefferson Union Cemetery. George W. Slagle owned property in the Jefferson District on the other bank of Catoctin Creek opposite Site 18FR612. It is thought that George W. Slagle assumed ownership of Henry Slagle’s farm sometime shortly after his death in 1851. Henry M. Slagle may have assumed management, but not ownership of the property at around that time. George finally sold most of the property (97¼ acres) to Henry M. Slagle in 1861.

In 1888, the Franklin Savings Bank of Frederick exercised the power of sale provision found in the 1885 mortgage it held with Henry M. Slagle and Catherine A.V. Slagle. The terms of this provision stated that the Slagles were to pay or renew their $2,500 note within six months, maintain adequate, current insurance, and pay all taxes on time. The failure of the Slagles to comply with these terms allowed the bank to secure a lien on the property and foreclose on the mortgage. The bank claimed the title, took possession of the property, and sold it at public auction. The 97¼ acre property that Henry M. Slagle bought from George W. and Mary A.C. Slagle in 1861 was valued at $2,285.37 in the 1888 deed. A 20 acre tract was sold to George W. Slagle for $300 in 1891, and the remaining 77¼ acres were sold to John H. Sulcer two days later for $1,875.

In 1936, the Summers family purchased the 77¼ acre property from John H. and Fannie L. Sulcer for $10. It is unknown if this modest sum is attributable to the Great Depression, but it may be a possibility. In 1961, the State Roads Commission of Maryland acquired the 77¼ acre Staley-Summers Property as part of the right-of-way for the construction of US 340. The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is the current owner.

The site was first identified in the spring of 1987 during the course of a Phase I survey requested by the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA). At the time, the SHA was considering the transfer of a 119 acre parcel (which included the two sites) owned by the State. Archeological survey was required under the 1985 Maryland Historical Trust Act (Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 83B, Sections 5-601 through 5-621) before transfer of the property.

Phase I work entailed documentation of the extant structures and ruins, as well as the excavation of 11 shovel test pits (STPs). Five of the STPs were placed at 20 m intervals in the floodplain portion of the site, while others were placed judgmentally. STPs were 30-50 cm in diameter and all excavated soils were screened through hardware cloth. STPs were then profiled, plotted on the project map, and then refilled.

Documentation of the log house revealed that it was initially built as a two-storey, “V” notched structure supported by mortared stone footers. The logs are chinked with stone and mortar. Two additions flank the initial structure with a collapsing two-storey, half-cellared frame extension on the east and a one-storey fram lean-to on the west. The log house appears to date around the middle of the 19th century. Nails removed from the first floor hardwood floorboards and the split lathing are machine-cut and date from the 1820s and 1830s on. Based on this information, it appears that the house was constructed in the second quarter of the 19th century. The two additions would post-date the log house and probably date from the last half of the same century. Nails used in the two story addition are a wire type which became popular in the 1870s. Testing within the farmstead compound concentrated around the house area and general produced artifacts indicative of domestic occupation in the mid-late 19th century.

Seven STPs yielded prehistoric artifacts. Some of the materials were mixed with historic artifacts, while other prehistoric artifacts were recovered beneath the extent of historic deposits. Prehistoric artifacts included 2 primary, 2 secondary, 3 bipolar, and 2 unclassified flakes of chert, quartz, and rhyolite materials. A rhyolite side-notched projectile point and a quartz bipolar core were also recovered. The distribution of these artifacts indicates that most of the floodplain is probably associated with the prehistoric occupation. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was recommended at 18FR612.

Phase II testing at the site did not take place until 2006. Rather than transferring the property back in the 1980s, SHA ultimately added to it and by 2006 the Staley-Summers Parcel (as it was known) consisted of approximately 199 acres. The SHA was, once again, considering disposal of the property and, thus, Phase II testing was required to determine if either of the two previously identified sites on the parcel (18FR611 and 18FR612) were eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Phase II work in 2006 consisted of additional shovel test excavation and formal unit excavation. Shovel test pits were excavated at 20 m intervals across the site and at 10 m intervals within the fenced historic compound. To refine site boundaries, radial STPs were then excavated at 7.5 m intervals in the cardinal directions around 20 m STPs containing prehistoric material (the boundaries of the historic occupation were thought to be fairly well-defined by the extant fencing remnants). A total of 56 STPs were initially excavated at 18FR612, with an additional 12 radials placed around positive STPs.

All STPs were excavated as round holes 30-40 cm in diameter and to a depth of at least 80 cm below surface and at least 10 cm below the depth of the last artifact recovered (with the exception of artifacts recovered at the limits of feasible excavation within an STP, about 110-120 cmbs). All soils were screened through hardware cloth. Soil colors were identified and recorded using standard methods and nomenclature. Ultimately, not all of the planned STPs could be excavated due to physical impediments such as structures or trees.

Following STP excavation, 8 formal test units were placed throughout the site. Two units were placed amid artifact concentrations outside the fenced compound, 3 were placed within artifact clusters in the historic compound, 2 were placed to investigate structure locations, and 1 was placed on a small level terrace between the cabin and another outbuilding. The test units were 1 X 1 m in extent and were excavated in 10 cm levels within stratigraphic layers. All soils were screened through hardware cloth. Soil colors were identified and recorded using standard methods and nomenclature.

Phase II excavation within the historic farmstead compound at 18FR612 revealed that while there was some vertical separation between artifacts from earlier in the 19th century and those deposited in the late 19th century and 20th century, this separation is only visible archeologically in a historic artifact cluster to the southwest of the log cabin. Soils inside the compound were largely eroded, with little soil development. Thus, most of the test units ended up being relatively shallow, with artifact from the 19th and 20th centuries mixed together. Only one possible historic feature (other than the aforementioned cabin and outbuildings) was encountered.

The historic feature discovered during Phase II work appeared to be the northeast corner of a small basin-shaped pit. The origin of the pit could be cultural, but a natural origin could not be ruled out. The pit could be the natural remnants of a tree root ball that was dug or pulled out by the historic inhabitants of the site.

Artifacts recovered during the course of excavation within the historic farmstead included 4 activity items, 437 architectural artifacts, 6 clothing items, 1 furniture item, 412 domestic artifacts (counted as miscellaneous kitchen-related in the table above), 11 personal items, 4 arms objects, and 1,376 miscellaneous items.

It was ultimately determine that the historic component at 18FR612 had poor integrity and did not appear to possess much potential to add significant new information to research topics related to Maryland history. The lack of an in-depth documentary record for the farmstead, and the long occupational periods of the three different families who lived at the site, also hampers research.

Phase II excavation outside the fenced historic compound produced 27 prehistoric artifacts and 97 historic artifacts. All of the prehistoric artifacts came from the lower levels of the southernmost test unit within the floodplain, with the exception of a single flake recovered from an STP. Historical artifacts were mainly concentrated along the southwest corner of the historic compound. The historic artifacts are counted as miscellaneous objects. The prehistoric artifacts were a Catoctin rhyolite projectile point, 2 utilized Catoctin rhyolite flakes, and 24 pieces of debitage (all rhyolite except for 2 quartz and 1 chert fragment). All of the debitage was middle to late stage, suggesting only tool rejuvenation or maintenance activities were taking place.

The vertical and horizontal distribution of both the historic and prehistoric artifacts indicates that spatial patterning is present in this portion of 18FR612. With the limited horizontal distribution of prehistoric artifacts in this area, it is difficult to identify spatial patterning, but it was suspected that the floodplain portion of the site contains a higher density of prehistoric materials than what was revealed during Phase II work. Researchers also suspected that an intact paleosol containing prehistoric artifacts on the terrace portion of the site might be present, based on the vertical distribution of prehistoric artifacts in the test unit and the presence of charcoal in the same layer as the prehistoric materials (depths below cmbs). It was thought that this paleosol may be closely related to that identified at nearby Site 18FR611.

Based on these findings, Site 18FR612 was determined to have a potentially significant prehistoric deposit, but a historic component with poor integrity. The prehistoric component is very likely associated with that identified at nearby 18FR611. Any future examination of 18FR611 should also take into account the prehistoric components at 18FR612.

(Edited from the Maryland Historical Trust Synthesis Project)