CHAPTER 3E :  BLOCK 8

BLOCK 8, LOT 4 – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The earliest known deed transaction identified for Block 8, Lot 4, is an 1871 sale from James Vokes to Solomon McWorter. However, an 1867 tax assessment shows Solomon McWorter being taxed on this lot, although it had no improvements. No improvements existed on the lot through the early 1880s. A small structure may have been built on the property between 1878 and 1883 since the improvements are listed as $30 in 1883 and $25 in 1888. The 1865 State Census classifies Solomon McWorter as black with five people in his household, and with livestock valued at $500. However, he does not live in the town in 1870. There are 18 transactions for this piece of property from 1871 to 1930 and the owners included Solomon McWorter and Frederick Shipman (appears on the 1880 Federal Census). The deed, tax, and census data follow. The italicized names are those who may have resided on the lot, since they appear in both the deed and census records.

DEED TRANSACTIONS

HADLEY TOWNSHIP RECORDS

1865 STATE CENSUS

1880 FEDERAL CENSUS

back to top

BLOCK 8, LOT 4 – ARCHAEOLOGY

In 2002 and 2003 archeologists preformed a walkover survey of this property, along with the rest of New Philadelphia, and they identified a large concentration of artifacts on this lot.  Block 8 had one of the largest concentrations of artifacts when compared to the entire town site.  Based on the surface survey finds, the ceramic artifacts have a mean date of occupation of 1864 (Gwaltney 2004).  In 2004, Michael Hargrave (2004, this report) of the U.S. Army Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory performed a geophysical survey of this area and identified several anomalies on the western portion of the lot while performing an electrical resistance survey (Figure 3E.1). 

Figure 3E.1. Resistivity Survey locating several soil anomalies found in Block 8, Lot 4.

(From Hargrave 2004. Grid overlay by Christopher Fennell).

(click on image for larger view)

Anomaly C identified in the geophysical survey is located in the central – western portion of Block 8, Lot 4. The archaeology team performed a core sample survey to ground truth anomaly C. They placed three transects of nine core samples in a north–south direction at 5 ft. intervals.  The southern most part of transect 1 (T1) is 20 ft. north and 25 ft. west of the southwest corner of Block 8, Lot 4.  Of the 27 core samples, physical resistance to the core probe occurred in 10 places, detecting brick and rock fragments (T1N8, T1N9, T2N7, T2N8, T2N9, T3N8, T3N9) (Figure 3E.2).  The majority of these are located in the northern portion of the tested area.  Generally, each core sample reached a depth of 1.8 ft. to 2.1 ft. below the surface.  However, archaeologists hit resistance at a depth that ranges from an average of 0.65 ft. to 1.5 ft. below the surface. The upper most layer consists of a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) and is located to an average depth of 1.0 ft. to 1.1 ft. below the surface.  This soil is the plow zone. The soils under the plow zone generally consist of a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) mottled 10YR 4/3 (brown). 

Figure 3E.2.  Coring performed near Anomoly C (Drawn by Christopher Fennell).

As a result of the geophysical survey and the positive results of the coring, archaeologists opened three excavation units (EU 1, 2, and 3) in Block 8, Lot 4 in the 2004 season (Figure 3E.3).  Generally, in all three excavation units the plow zone exists to a depth of about 0.8 ft. to 1.2 ft. below the surface.  It consists of a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) silty loam (Figure 3E.4).  The mean date of the artifacts ranged from the earliest settlement to the post–bellum era.  Underneath this layer is a buried horizon of soil that consists of a 10YR4/3 (brown), silty clay.  Archaeologists located a large concentration of brick fragments and stones that measured 0.25 ft. to 0.5 ft. in diameter.  This large concentration of debris is Anomaly C detected in the geophysical survey.  This buried, undisturbed layer with debris contains artifacts that date to about the 1850s.  The quantity of artifacts dramatically increased in the lower part of the layer as archaeologists came closer to the top of Feature 4.  The western portion of Feature 4 was exposed in 2004, although the full extent of the feature could not be determined during the field season. 

Figure 3E.3. Location of units excavated in Block 8, Lot 4 (Drawn by Carrie Christman, Eva Pajuelo and Alison Azzarello)

(click on image for larger view)

Figure 3E.4.  North wall profile of Excavation Unit 1, Block 8, Lot 4 (Drawn by Carrie Christman).

(click on image for larger view)

back to top

In 2005 the archaeology team continued to expose Feature 4, excavating EUs 4–12.  Generally, the upper layers of the plow zone continued to be a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown).  The soils tend to get more mottled closer to the top of Feature 4 with a 10YR 4/3 (brown) silty clay, mottled 10YR 5/4 (yellow brown) and 10YR 4/3 (brown) clay.  Feature 4 is about 1.2 ft. to 1.5 ft. below the surface.  It measures about 12.0 ft. east–west and 12.5 ft. north–south (Figures 3E.5 and 3E.6).  The feature soil is a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) silty clay.  The team bisected the feature and removed the eastern portion in 0.5 ft. arbitrary levels (designated as a1, a2, a3), or until they detected a natural stratigraphic layer. At about 1.5 ft. from the top of the feature archaeologists detected a soil color change.  At this point the soil tended to be a 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) clay that was mottled 5YR 4/6 (yellowish brown).  Excavations ceased at the end of layer a5 because the field season ended.  Generally the feature sloped down toward the middle, much like a soup bowl (Figure 3E.7).  However the bottom of Feature 4 has not been reached, and in 2006 archeologists will continue to work on this feature. 

Figure 3E.5.  Plan of Feature 4 in Block 8, Lot 4 found in the location of Anamoly C

(Drawn by Carrie Christman, Eva Pajuelo and Alison Azzarello).

(click on image for larger view)

Figure 3E.6. Feature 4 in Block 8, Lot 4, Bisected (Drawn by Carrie Christman, Eva Pajuelo and Alison Azzarello).

(click on image for larger view)

Figure 3E.7. Profile of the western wall of Feature 4 in Block 8, Lot 4 (Drawn by Carrie Christman).

(click on image for larger view)

back to top

The team collected soil samples and floated them at the ISM–RCC facilities under the direction of Marjorie Schroeder.  Few organic materials were detected.  There was also lower than expected frequency of faunal material and domestic trash identified in the feature.  Rock, mortar, and brick are located throughout the feature fill.  These findings indicate that the feature was not open for a long enough period of time to accumulate much trash.  Rather, after it was no longer in use community members rapidly filled the feature.

The artifacts found in and on top of the feature date to the 1850s.  Therefore, it is probable that the original function of the pit feature is related to the early development of the town.  Even though the earliest known deeds for Block 8, Lot 4 date to 1871, and the tax records from 1867 show that the lot was not improved, the archaeological evidence shows that the area was probably used as a domestic space several decades earlier.  The structure was dismantled by the 1850s.  Additional excavations to complete the work on Feature 4 will help determine the function of the feature and provide more information about the early lifeways in New Philadelphia.

The findings are intriguing since Mr. Burdick (1992) recalls this block as being unoccupied through the twentieth century and he referred to the area as “The Park.”  The impression that some former twentieth century residents have of the area is that the Block 8 may have never been occupied.  A review of the earliest surviving Hadley Township records dating to 1867 also confirms this impression and shows that Block 8, Lot 4 was not improved.  However, after the archaeological survey, the electrical resistivity survey, the coring, and the excavation, there is substantial evidence that this area was occupied during the town’s early settlement. 

Back to top