Stoney Springs Site 2 (18MO635)

First identified during a Phase I survey that was conducted by Archeological Testing and Consulting, Inc. in 2006, site 18MO635 has been identified as a nineteenth century farmstead that was initially owned and occupied by the Williams family and was in continuous operation until about 1950. Mid-nineteenth century census records indicate that the occupants were upwardly mobile middle-income farmers who owned ten slaves in 1850.

Phase II testing was conducted by Archeological Testing & Consulting, Inc. between September and November of 2006. The site was shovel tested at 25' increments to determine horizontal boundaries for the site. It was then selectively tested at 12.5' increments. Nine 3x3' test units and four 2x2' test units were excavated, as well as trenches to delineate features. A total of 87 shovel tests were excavated, as well as 12 test units and 7 manual exploratory trenches of varying size. In total, 5,346 artifacts were recovered and 6 cultural features were discovered. By functional group and quantity, the artifact recovery was composed of the following: Architecture (n=1,915), Arms (n=13), Domestic (n=2,371), Fauna (n=121), Flora (n=1), Fuel (n=145), Hardware (n=144), Miscellaneous (n=278), and Personal (n=92). The artifact recovery was mostly composed of architectural and domestic materials affiliated with the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The 6 culture features identified included; a rectangular stone foundation made of red Seneca sandstone, a dry-laid circular stone feature, an outbuilding foundation made of stone rubble, a builder’s trench, a post mold, and a collapsed root cellar. Charcoal and melted glass suggests the structure was burned down.

Despite the presence of these intact features, the excavation of twelve test units and seven exploratory trenches revealed that much of the area has been impacted by a variety of activities associated with the twentieth century use of the site and the demolition of the structures. Archeological Testing and Consulting, Inc. and MHT disagreed on the site’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. While the Phase II investigation yielded important information regarding the age, function, affiliation, integrity, and history of the site, MHT feels that the draft report failed to provide adequate justification regarding the site’s ability to address specific research questions at the data recovery level. Therefore, further investigation of this site was deemed not warranted for Section 106 purposes.

(Edited from the Maryland Historical Trust Synthesis Project)