National Park Service

Department of the Interior

Midwest Archeological Center

Lincoln, Nebraska

AN ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND 

ASSESSMENT OF EIGHT ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 

IN THE BOSTON AREA, BOSTON TOWNSHIP, 

SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO

By

 ANN C. BAUERMEISTER

AND 

JEFFREY J. RICHNER

Technical Report 129

MWAC

Midwest Archeological Center
BY

 ANN BAUERMEISTER

AND 

JEFFREY J. RICHNER

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Midwest Archeological Center

Lincoln, Nebraska

2012

AN ARCHEOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND 

ASSESSMENT OF EIGHT ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IN 

THE BOSTON AREA, BOSTON TOWNSHIP, SUMMIT 

COUNTY, OHIO.
This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart 

A, Section 7.18 (a) (1) and, upon recommendation of the Midwest Regional Office

and the Midwest Archeological Center, has been classified as

Available 

Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 

(a) (1).
i

ABSTRACT

This report documents the planning process for identifying and protecting 

archeological resources within and near Boston Village in Cuyahoga Valley National 

Park with regard to a proposed sewer system to be developed to serve several historic 

structures around the community. It also describes the components, content, and 

content of eight archeological sites that occur on the properties to be served by the new 

sewer system. The sewer system would be unified via connection to a single treatment 

facility that would replace numerous leach fields, holding tanks, and associated sewer 

components that currently serve the structures individually. As a result of intensive 

planning efforts, the new system has been designed to avoid any adverse impacts to the 

archeological sites that occur on the properties. The components for the new system, 

consisting of force main lines, gravity sewer lines, pump stations, holding tanks, and a 

bio-treatment wetland system, would all be placed within disturbed road rights-of-way, 

other areas grossly disturbed by various historic and modern activities, and/or in areas 

devoid of significant archeological resources. The report summarizes how the planning 

for site avoidance was accomplished and presents clear evidence in support of the 

National Park Service’s (NPS) finding of “No Adverse Effect” for the project.

Boston Village is a small, historic community that is located in Summit County, 

Ohio, within the boundary of Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Boston is between the 

Cuyahoga River and Ohio and Erie Canal, with the core of the community situated 

along Boston Mills and Stanford Roads. Beginning in 1979 and continuing through 

2009, the park has sponsored archeological investigations of numerous properties in 

and around Boston. This work was conducted to provide baseline data for identifying 

the distribution and significance of the archeological deposits across the entire grounds 

of the NPS-owned properties. Those studies contributed important and extensive data 

for project planning efforts in Boston, including the current sewer project. Additional 

work specifically targeted to understanding the relationship of archeological resources 

and the proposed sewer system occurred in 2008 and 2009. The combined resulting 

data were used throughout the planning process so that the Boston Sewer Project 

could be designed to avoid any adverse effects to the sites that occur on the properties 

to be served. Some of the recorded archeological resources are directly associated with 

activities that occurred at historic structures at Boston. Others are unrelated to the 

buildings and predate the historic community by several thousand years. This report 

synthesizes the archeological findings at each of the properties to be served by the new 

sewer system and documents how the archeological data were used to design a system 

that would avoid all adverse impacts to those sites. 

Although significant prehistoric and historic archeological deposits occur 

on several of the historic properties in and around Boston, none would be adversely 

impacted by the proposed project. Instead, the project would help to preserve the sites 

by ending the cycle of sequential installation of septic tanks and leach fields through 

time as the old systems became obsolete. Project planners, working closely with NPS 

archeologists, were able to place all ground disturbing components of the project 

within previously grossly disturbed areas, or areas devoid of significant archeological 

resources. Accordingly, the report offers data that support the NPS’s finding of “No 

Adverse Effect” for the project. The report also recommends a series of measures to 
ii

protect the sites adjacent to the direct impact zone from inadvertent damage during the 

sewer development project.

Archeological collections and associated archives for the numerous NPSsponsored field projects and sites discussed in this report are held at the NPS’s Midwest 

Archeological Center (MWAC) under accessions MWAC 72, 123, 172, 349, 350A, 350B, 

350C, 351, 391, 394, 496, 526, 527, 565, 603, 698, 703, 724, 751, 804, 911, 945, 987, 1028, 

1061, 1144, 1188, 1221, 1237, and 1293.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It would be impossible to complete a Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) 

report based upon field and laboratory work spanning 27 years without the assistance of 

numerous individuals at Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CUVA) and MWAC. Jeff and I 

have attempted to list everyone who worked with us on our numerous projects in Boston, 

but may have inadvertently omitted a name or two. If so, we apologize. The brief mention 

of the numerous individuals here does not adequately document the contributions that 

each of them made to the field and laboratory projects reported here and, ultimately, to 

the preservation of significant archeological resources in Boston Village. 

The 1984 MWAC team under the direction of MWAC Archeologist Jeff Richner 

consisted of former MWAC Archeologist Mitzi Rossillon assisted by Richner’s uncle, the 

late Herb Richner, and Jeff’s father, Jerry Richner. 

The 1991 MWAC team under the direction of Archeologist Richner consisted of 

Archeological Technicians Tim Meade, Julie Schablitsky, Michael Stanley, and Rebecca 

Wallace. Recently retired MWAC Archeologist Dr. William Hunt’s team, also working 

in CUVA in 1991, assisted Richner’s team. They are Karen Archey, Lisa King, Ryan 

Wachter, Keith Richter, and Cherryl Busuttil. MWAC volunteers Keith Peterson 

from the 1991 Cleveland Museum of Natural History Fieldschool and Paul Jacobs, 

a visitor from England, also assisted the team. Tim Meade returned to CUVA with 

Richner in 1992. 

Richner’s 1993 field crews included Archeologist Rose Pennington and 

Archeological Technicians Todd Ahlman, Todd Butler, and Keith Richter for the spring 

session and Archeological Technicians Gerrit Saylor, Kay Adams, Tim Meade, Chris 

Blount, and Karen Archey for the summer session. 

Richner’s 1994 crew included Archeologist Rose Pennington and Archeological 

Technicians Bob Caverzagie, Keith Richter, and Tim Porter. 

The 1995 team under Richner’s direction consisted of Archeological Technicians 

Chris Brown, Tim Porter, Lisa Stanley, and William Volf. They were joined by a large 

group of international volunteers from Volunteers for Peace, including coordinator 

Amy Bernthal and volunteers Christina Farreras, Ann Kristin Kjorum, Emelia Pollano, 

Marie Louise Laffineur, Adel Ortiz Lizzaraga, Clas-Steffen Feuchtiner, Julien Lamire, 

Dominik Wobner, Raphael Dumas, and Tobias Wengert. 

The 1998 team under Richner’s direction consisted of Archeological Technicians 

Lisa Stanley, Olivia Little, William Volf, Harold Roeker, Linda Plock and Phil Wanyerka. 

They were assisted by international volunteers from Volunteers for Peace Joost 

Gisquiere, Pavel Frankl, Martin Bikar, Ethel Metz, Vincent Leger, Samantha Margles, 

Peter Gast, and Claudia Zawadsky. 

Richner’s 2000 field team consisted of Archeologists William Volf, Ann 

Bauermeister and Archeological Technicians Jerry Androy, Naomi Rintoul, and Phil 
iv

Wanyerka. They were again assisted by a team from Volunteers for Peace including 

coordinator Gary Jameson and volunteers Tigran Muradyan, Emma Coldwell, Christina 

Medved, Dana Brozova, Tom Johnson, Lee ChiWhan, Debbie de Kleyne, Osli Ozgen and 

Ji-Hyan Lee. Other volunteers included Gary Akers, Jerry Richner, Monika Zsigmond, 

Becky Silvis, and Amy Judd. 

Archeologist Ann Bauermeister’s 2001 crew included Archeological Technicians 

Gary Akers, Robert James, Scott Brannan, Ricci Soto, and Monika Zsigmond. Gary, 

Robert, and Monika returned to CUVA with Ann in 2002 and were joined by Western 

Michigan Interns Danielle Nordbrock and Richard Steward. 

In 2003, Bauermeister’s team consisted of Archeological Technicians Gary Akers, 

Mike Hammons, Danielle Nordbrock, Monika Zsigmond, and Intern Ben Perry. Mike 

and Monika returned in 2004 to join Ann and Archeological Technicians John Gapp 

and Scott Lockhorn.

The 2006 field team under Bauermeister’s direction consisted of MWAC 

Archeological Technicians Erin Dempsey, John Gapp, Mike Hammons, Arlo McKee, 

and Jennifer Lahowetz. Her 2007 team consisted of Archeological Technicians 

Amanda Landon and Ben Perry, along with volunteers Marcus Schulenburg and 

Jennifer Williams. 

In 2008, Archeologist Bauermeister directed Archeological Technicians 

Jessica Cerny, Erin Dempsey, and Albert LeBeau. Bauermeister’s 2009 team included 

Archeological Technicians Melissa Baier, Karen Steinauer, and Bill Altizer. 

Several of the Archeological Technicians listed above assisted in a wide variety 

of laboratory tasks including processing, analyzing, and cataloging the collections and 

developing lists of materials recovered each year. Archeological Technician Dustin 

Gonzales developed the tables for the report. Special thanks go to Allan Weber, with 

assistance from Jeff Larson, who formatted the report, produced its figures, and 

prepared it for printing. 

Numerous CUVA staff also assisted us in many ways. Most notable among them 

are former Superintendent John Debo, former Management Assistant Barb Pollarine, 

former Chief of the Technical and Professional Services Division Dave Humphrey, 

former Historians Jeff Winstel and Sam Tamburro, former Volunteer Coordinator 

Sharon Judson, Management Assistant Dennis Hamm, Chief of Resource Management 

Lisa Petit, Ranger Pam Machuga, Facilities Operations Specialist Dee Strickland, 

Landscape Architect Darlene Kelbach, Landscape Architect Kim Norley, Historical 

Architect Paulette Cossel, and Civil Engineer Janet Popielski. Janet’s planning efforts for 

the sewer project design are particularly commendable.

We thank each of you and everyone else who assisted us at CUVA and MWAC in 

developing the data that are reported here. 
v

Table of Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................i

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................iii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................xi

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xiii

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1

Project Background.................................................................................................................... 5

Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................... 5

Culture History.................................................................................................................. 7

Paleoindian Tradition............................................................................................... 7

Archaic Tradition ...................................................................................................... 8

Woodland Tradition ................................................................................................. 9

Late Prehistoric Tradition....................................................................................... 11

Historic Background ............................................................................................... 13

Historic Period Overview .............................................................................. 13

Early Regional Settlement History................................................................ 15

The History of Boston Township and Boston Village ................................ 16

History of Archeological Investigations in Boston....................................................... 21

Project Methods and Research Design .................................................................................. 39

Historic and Prehistoric Background Research ........................................................... 39

Research Designs and Fieldwork ................................................................................... 40

Archeological Field Methods ................................................................................. 41

Collections Management................................................................................................. 43

The Proposed Sewer System.................................................................................................... 45
vi

Historic Properties and Archeological Sites within the Area of 

Potential Effect of the Proposed Boston Sewer Project....................................................... 49

Site 33SU269 at the R.E. Wise or Boodey House and Square 

Deal Food Store, also known as Trail Mix, Property................................................... 49

Description........................................................................................................................ 49

Archeological Information.............................................................................................. 50

2007 Fieldwork......................................................................................................... 51

2009 Fieldwork: Boodey Property......................................................................... 51

2009 Fieldwork: Trail Mix Store Property ............................................................ 52

Historic Component....................................................................................... 53

Midden Context..................................................................................... 53

Non-Midden Contexts.......................................................................... 56

Prehistoric Component.................................................................................. 57

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 57

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 57

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 58

Site 33SU268 at the Wolschleger Property.................................................................... 59

Description............................................................................................................... 59

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 59

2009 Fieldwork................................................................................................ 59

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 60

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 60

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project ................................................... 61

Site 33SU481 at the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson Barn Properties ......................... 61

Description............................................................................................................... 61
vii

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 63

Previous Research........................................................................................... 63

1986 CMNH ........................................................................................... 63

1991 MWAC............................................................................................ 67

2002 MWAC............................................................................................ 67

Fieldwork Directly Related to the Sewer Project........................................ 67

2008 MWAC............................................................................................ 68

2009 MWAC............................................................................................ 68

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 68

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 69

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 69

Site 33SU423 at the Savacoal Property .......................................................................... 70

Description............................................................................................................... 70

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 71

2002 Fieldwork................................................................................................ 71

2007 Fieldwork................................................................................................ 72

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 73

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 73

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 74

Site 33SU456 at the Barnhart Property.......................................................................... 74

Description............................................................................................................... 74

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 75

Previous Research........................................................................................... 77

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 77

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 77
viii

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 78

Site 33SU99 at the Hines Hill Conference Center ....................................................... 78

Description............................................................................................................... 78

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 80

Previous Research........................................................................................... 81

1979 CMNH ........................................................................................... 81

1993 MWAC ........................................................................................... 81

1995 MWAC............................................................................................ 82

1998 MWAC............................................................................................ 83

2001 MWAC............................................................................................ 84

2004 MWAC............................................................................................ 84

2006 MWAC............................................................................................ 85

Fieldwork Directly Related to the Sewer Project........................................ 85

2009 Fieldwork ....................................................................................... 85

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 86

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 87

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 87

Site 33SU105 at the Clayton Stanford Property ........................................................... 88

Description............................................................................................................... 88

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 89

Previous Research........................................................................................... 89

1971 CMNH ........................................................................................... 89

1979-80 CMNH...................................................................................... 89

1993 MWAC............................................................................................ 90

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 92
ix

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 93

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 93

33SU138 at the George Stanford Property.................................................................... 94

Description............................................................................................................... 94

Archeological Information ..................................................................................... 95

Previous Research........................................................................................... 96

Fieldwork Directly Related to the Sewer Project........................................ 96

2008 Fieldwork ....................................................................................... 96

Site Disturbance Factors ......................................................................................... 97

Site Significance........................................................................................................ 98

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project.................................................... 99

Government Tract 118-79 .............................................................................................. 100

Description.............................................................................................................. 100

Archeological Information .................................................................................... 100

2004 Fieldwork............................................................................................... 100

Disturbance Factors................................................................................................ 100

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project................................................... 101

Summary and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 103

References Cited....................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix 1. Ohio Archaeological Inventory Site Forms .................................................... 195

Appendix 2. Site Reclamation Form ...................................................................................... 265
x
xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. History of archeological investigations in the Boston Village area..................... 121

Table 2. Ceramics from the Boodey House (33SU269)...................................................... 128

Table 3. Domestic artifacts from the Boodey House(33SU269) ....................................... 130

Table 4. Architectural artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269)................................. 132

Table 5. Personal artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269) ........................................ 134

Table 6. Miscellaneous artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269).............................. 135

Table 7. Auger Test Results from the Boodey House (33SU269)...................................... 136

Table 8. Domestic artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269)....................................................... 137

Table 9. Architectural artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269)................................................. 138

Table 10. Personal artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269)....................................................... 139

Table 11. Miscellaneous artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269) ............................................ 139

Table 12. Artifacts from the Wolschleger lot (33SU268).................................................... 140

Table 13. Artifacts from the Johnson Barn area (33SU481)............................................... 141

Table 14. Artifacts from the Johnston-Rodhe Property (33SU481).................................. 151

Table 15. Artifacts from the Barnhart House (33SU456)................................................... 152

Table 16. Artifacts from the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99)............................. 155

Table 17. Artifacts from the Clayton Stanford Property (33SU105)................................. 162

Table 18. Whiteware from the Clayton Stanford House (33SU105)................................. 165

Table 19. Artifacts from the George Stanford Property (33SU138).................................. 167
xii
xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The project area........................................................................................................ 171

Figure 2. 1898 transcription of 1834 plat of Boston Village................................................ 172

Figure 3. 1856 plat of Boston Village...................................................................................... 173

Figure 4. Portion of the 1994 Northfield Quadrangle 

(USGS 7.5’ topographic map) showing the project areas 

for the Boston Sewer Project. ................................................................................. 174

Figure 5. Site map of the Boodey House and Trail Mix Store 

properties (33SU269) showing the area covered by 

archeological investigations .................................................................................... 175

Figure 6. Profile of the west wall of TU 2007-1 at the 

Boodey House (33SU269)....................................................................................... 176

Figure 7. Photograph of the north wall profile of TU 2007-1 at 

the Boodey House.................................................................................................... 177

Figure 8. Profile of the west wall of TU 1 at the Boodey 

House (33SU269)..................................................................................................... 178

Figure 9. Profile of the east wall of TU 2 at the Boodey 

House (33SU269)..................................................................................................... 179

Figure 10. Profile of the north wall of TU 1 at Trail Mix (33SU269)................................. 180

Figure 11. Site map of a portion of the Wolschleger lot (33SU268) 

showing the area covered by the 2009 

archeological investigations.................................................................................. 181

Figure 12. Site map of the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson Barn 

Properties (33SU481) showing the area covered by 

archeological investigations.................................................................................. 182

Figure 13. Projectile point recovered from Johnson Barn 

area (33SU481)....................................................................................................... 182

Figure 14. Window glass thickness, Johnson Barn area (33SU481)................................... 183

Figure 15. Projectile point recovered from the Barnhart 

Property (33SU456)............................................................................................... 183

Figure 16. Site map of the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99) 

showing the area covered by the 1995 and 1998 

archeological investigations.................................................................................. 184
xiv

Figure 17. Site map of the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99) 

showing the area covered by the 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2009 

archeological investigations.................................................................................. 185

Figure 18. Prehistoric artifacts recovered from the Hines Hill Conference 

Center (33SU99) .................................................................................................... 186

Figure 19. Profile of the north wall and Feature 1 in 1995 TU 3 at the 

Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99)............................................................ 187

Figure 20. Cross section of Feature 1 in 1995 TU 3 at the Hines 

Hill Conference Center (33SU99)....................................................................... 188

Figure 21. Photograph of Feature 1 in 1995 TU 3 at the Hines 

Hill Conference Center (33SU99)....................................................................... 189

Figure 22. Site map of the Clayton Stanford Property (33SU105) 

showing the area covered by archeological investigations ............................... 190

Figure 23. Prehistoric artifacts recovered from the Clayton Stanford 

Property (33SU105)............................................................................................... 191

Figure 24. Historic artifacts recovered from the Clayton Stanford 

Property (33SU105)............................................................................................... 192

Figure 25. Site map of a portion of the George Stanford Property 

(33SU138) showing the area covered by archeological investigations 

in 2004 for a proposed campground. The site boundary for 33SU138 

was expanded to include this area....................................................................... 193

Figure 26. Aerial photograph showing the area covered by 

archeological investigations for the proposed bio-treatment 

wetland system on Tract 118-79........................................................................... 194
1

INTRODUCTION

This report documents the relationship of archeological resources that 

occur within Boston Village, Summit County, Ohio with a sewer system proposed 

for development there in 2010. Boston, a small historic community with its primary 

development roots in the middle 1820s, is located within Cuyahoga Valley National Park 

(CUVA), a National Park Service (NPS) unit that forms a 22-mile-long green corridor 

along the Cuyahoga River between the metropolitan areas of Cleveland and Akron, 

Ohio (Figure 1). Boston is a short distance north of the crossing of the Ohio Turnpike 

(U.S. 80) and Highway 271 over the Cuyahoga River. It is a good example of communities 

that developed along the river when that corridor was important as a source of water 

power and as an informal transportation route. In the Boston area, the park spans the 

river’s floodplain, a series of stair-step-like riverine and ancient lake terraces, and the 

steep upland slopes that bound the river valley. Boston is situated on a series of riverine 

terraces and flat raised benches, the primary one of which forms a broad, flat expanse 

adjacent to, and elevated only a few feet above, the floodplain of the Cuyahoga River. The 

core of the community lies along Boston Mills and Stanford Roads, east of Riverview 

Road and the Cuyahoga River. Smaller, flat benches at higher elevations occur just 

to the east of the community’s core, and those areas quickly give way to steep upland 

slopes. The community’s historic structures are confined to the lower-most two or three 

benches above the active floodplain and are clustered linearly along Boston Mills and 

Stanford Road that intersect those topographic features. 

Since the NPS began acquiring the individual parcels in this historic community 

in the 1970s, the park has stabilized and adaptively restored a few historic structures 

dating from the 1820s era to the first decade or two of the twentieth century. Most of the 

primary buildings were family residences, although three commercial structures, the 

most notable of which is the Boston General Store, are also included. Two large barns, 

one adaptively restored for a meeting space, and a few small outbuildings complete 

the historic structure inventory. These structures now stand adaptively restored and 

function as a visitor center and community meeting place, residences, and offices. The 

grounds around the structures are maintained primarily in mowed turf, along with 

a few native white pines, black walnut, and other trees, many of which are mature. A 

mixed hardwood forest occurs in the floodplains, creek and river corridors, and on the 

upland slopes. 

Each of the primary historic structures in Boston is known by the name(s) of 

its historic owners, although in some instances the names applied to the houses and 

commercial buildings have changed during the park’s ownership and management 

of them. All of the historic structures, including the outbuildings, are also tracked by 

numbers assigned through the NPS’s List of Classified Structures. Archeological sites on 

the parcels are recorded via State of Ohio Archaeological Inventory Forms and associated 

trinomial site designations. The structures are not included in the archeological site 

designations, which instead refer to subsurface archeological features and deposits 

located around, or in rare instances, under, the structures. Archeological deposits occur 

at all of the properties to be served by Boston’s proposed new sewer system (Table 1). 

These sites are often multi-component, and include Euro-American components that 

result from occupation and use of the structures as well as pre-contact Native American 
2

BOSTON SEWER

components that are unrelated to the structures and predate them by several centuries 

or millennia. For ease in record keeping, the archeological sites’ boundaries are usually 

considered to be contiguous with the historic property parcel on which they occur, 

even though the actual distribution of features and artifact scatters or middens may be 

more restricted in area than the property boundaries. In a few cases, site numbers span 

multiple historic lots and include archeological deposits from multiple, unique historic 

sites (e.g., 33SU267). Despite the use of property boundaries to basically define the sites, 

the sites are not completely continuous across any of the individual parcels, but instead 

may include grossly disturbed/destroyed areas as well as areas originally devoid of any 

archeological resources. These factors will be considered on a case by case basis for each 

parcel in a later section of the report where the sites are described and defined relative 

to the configuration of the proposed sewer project. The presence of these disturbed or 

non-site zones within and between the numerous sites allowed planners to work with 

Midwest Archeological Center (MWAC) archeologists to design a project that would 

avoid all adverse impacts to archeological resources.

This report provides detailed data regarding the archeological resources in 

Boston in support of the park’s finding of “No Adverse Effect” under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. 

The report consists of several related chapters. This INTRODUCTION provides 

a basic summary of the report’s purpose and content. The PROJECT BACKGROUND 

chapter summarizes the project’s environmental and cultural setting including: the 

topography and geomorphology of Boston, the local prehistoric sequence, a summary 

of sites in the Boston vicinity, the Euro-American history of Boston beginning with the 

pre-Ohio and Erie Canal era and ending with the National Park era, and the history of 

archeological investigations in Boston. The primary goal of this chapter is to develop 

data for placing the archeological sites considered later in the report in relevant 

environmental and cultural perspective. 

The PROJECT METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN chapter outlines 

the research strategies and field and laboratory methods for the multiple projects 

documented in the report. The PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM chapter defines the 

scope and components of the proposed wastewater collection system. This section also 

describes the planning process used to avoid adverse impacts to significant sites that 

occur in the general project area, along with the character of ground-disturbing actions 

expected to accompany the project. Emphasis is placed upon how the project planners 

worked with the available archeological data to reduce the scope of ground disturbance 

to the most minimal amount feasible. They also placed the project components, which 

consist primarily of linear sewer lines and short connectors to each property to be 

served, along with a small number of lift/pumping stations, in previously disturbed 

areas. Park and URS Group, Inc. project planners worked closely with the authors of 

this report to develop an innovative design that completely avoids adverse impacts to the 

archeological sites in Boston.
3

INTRODUCTION

The chapter titled HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 

WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED BOSTON 

SEWER PROJECT summarizes the name, location, history of investigation, content, 

context, and significance of each of the archeological resources that occur on the 

grounds of the historic properties to be served by the new sewer system. Details on 

site stratigraphy, features, artifact scatters and/or middens, chronology, depositional 

integrity, and disturbance factors are presented for each of those sites. Wherever possible 

this data presentation relies on tabular summaries and synthetic discussions, rather than 

lengthy verbal descriptions. A specific finding of effect for the sewer project is also made 

for each archeological site considered in the report. An important point raised there and 

in other report chapters is that no undisturbed, significant archeological deposits occur 

directly within the construction prisms proposed for the sewer project. 

The final chapter of the report, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 

reiterates the basic project findings detailed in earlier chapters and provides a suite of 

recommendations for protecting intact archeological resources that are in some cases 

present adjacent to the proposed sewer project installation prisms. The application of 

these recommendations would ensure that sites are not inadvertently damaged during 

construction by activities occurring outside the direct impact zone.

The REFERENCES CITED section lists the sources referenced in the text. 

APPENDIX 1 includes Ohio Archaeological Inventory forms that were revised or 

newly developed for sites discussed in this report. APPENDIX 2 is the Degraded Site 

Reclamation Form for Government Tract 118-79. 
4

BOSTON SEWER
5

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Environmental Setting

Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CUVA) is located in the northeast corner of 

Ohio, forming a green corridor between the cities of Akron and Cleveland. The park 

covers 33,000 acres of a glacially sculpted landscape along the banks of the Cuyahoga 

River in an area that is characterized by the active river floodplain, flat riverine and 

lacustrine terraces flanking the floodplain at various elevations, steep and gentle valley 

walls, tributaries and their ravines, and upland plateaus. 

CUVA is situated along the western edge of the glaciated Appalachian Plateau 

province in northeast Ohio, an area marked by relatively flat uplands with deeply 

entrenched drainage ravines and valleys. The local topography was established 

following the Wisconsin glacial retreat about 14,000 years ago (Brose et al. 1981). This 

physiographic region is comprised of buried north-to-south trending Paleozoic river 

valleys that are largely covered by glacial deposits. The present glacial topography is 

comparatively smooth, but generally follows the contour of the underlying bedrock, 

which includes Devonian, Mississippian, and Pennsylvanian strata (Brose et al. 1981). 

The major valley fill within CUVA consists of deposits from two pro-glacial 

lakes that occupied portions of the valley. Cuyahoga Lake was formed circa 13,000 B.P. 

from the Wabash Moraine and covered the area north of Akron to the southern border 

of Cuyahoga County. Later and further north, Lake Independence was formed by the 

Defiance Moraine around 11,800 B.P. As the glaciers retreated from the Cuyahoga 

Valley, subsequent drainage of the lakes and down-cutting of the Wabash moraine 

created a gradient that permitted the northeasterly flow of the Cuyahoga River into Lake 

Erie. During the latter glacial developments, the Cuyahoga River cut through overlain 

deposits and into the underlying bedrock. Today the elevation of the floodplain near the 

project area is 650 ft above mean sea level (amsl). Terraces in the park are the elevated, 

abandoned floodplain segments of the Cuyahoga River, its tributary streams 

(Finney 2002), and perhaps some of the remnants of glacial Lake Cuyahoga and 

Lake Independence. 

The upland soils in the park consist of poorly draining clayey loam while the 

floodplain and terrace soils are highly fertile, well-drained sandy silt loams. The 

floodplain soils developed intermittently over the past 12,000 years and have always 

been considered prime agricultural land (Brose et al. 1981). 

The middle Cuyahoga Valley has a mild continental interior climate with 

warm, humid summers and cold winters; a climate that has been relatively unchanged 

since the end of the Little Ice Age that spanned circa A.D. 1350 to 1850 (Fagan 2000). 

Northwesterly to westerly winds blowing off of Lake Erie affect temperatures in the 

project area by lowering them in the summer and raising them in winter. Located 

within the Lake Erie snow belt, the area can be covered in snow between 60 and 80 days 

annually. The mean minimum temperature in January is 19 degrees Fahrenheit and the 

mean maximum temperature in July is 83 degrees. There is an average of 180-200 
6

BOSTON SEWER

frost-free days, which is adequate for most crops on most soils, and 36 inches of 

annual precipitation (USDA 1974).

The region is in the temperate deciduous forest biome that developed following 

deglaciation about 10,000 years ago (Shelford 1963). Maple and beech were the 

predominant tree species, while other varieties included hemlock, chestnut, hickory, red 

oak, and cherry. The forest environment provided habitat for a wide range of animals, 

including white-tailed deer as the dominant large mammal, elk, mountain lion, black 

bear, rabbits, opossum, beaver, raccoon, and muskrat. Avian fauna included wild turkey, 

quail, owls, hawks, and ducks; aquatic animal resources were plentiful with freshwater 

gar, pike, catfish, bass, drum, and other fishes available in the rivers and lakes (Noble 

1988). The natural forest was impacted heavily through deforestation that took place 

during the Euro-American settlement period. According to Brose et al. (1981:17), “...

the present environmental setting of the region would have provided a large number 

of seasonally available resources for prehistoric and historic exploitation [and] the 

subsistence resources in the site region appear to have been more than adequate to 

maintain the aboriginal population.” 

The core of Boston is situated on a flat, wide riverine terrace at an elevation of 

about 665 ft amsl. Very limited floodplain areas flank the Cuyahoga River in the center of 

Boston, with riverine terraces approaching close to the river on the east and west. Further 

north, on the north edge and beyond the small community, more typical floodplains 

occur on both sides of the river. The uplands rise quickly to the west of Boston, and 

higher terraces and/or uplands are present to the east as well. The Clayton Stanford 

House and associated archeological site 33SU105 and the Hines Hill Conference Center 

and its associated site 33SU99 are positioned on higher benches at 700 and 749 ft amsl, 

respectively. Not surprisingly, all of the soil associations for sites in the Boston area are 

formed on level, or nearly level, landforms with slopes of less than 6%. Most are on 0-2% 

slopes. This is because the sites are all situated on flat benches, including the floodplain 

of the Cuyahoga River (e.g., 33SU35 and 33SU106), flat riverine terraces flanking the 

river (e.g., 33SU268, 33SU269, 33SU270, 33SU138, and several others), or on higher 

benches (e.g., 33SU99 and 33SU105) that may represent older riverine terraces or glacial 

outwash benches. The soils on the primary terrace in Boston are classified as Fitchville 

silt loam (USDA 1974:77; Map 5). The Fitchville soils are deep and are formed on terraces 

and glacial lake beds throughout Summit County. When cultivated, it consists of about 

10 inches of dark grayish-brown silt loam over a (dark) yellowish-brown, silty clay loam 

B horizon. The Fitchville silt loam in the immediate project area is coded as FcA, a 

Fitchville silt loam that formed on slopes of less than 2%. 

The floodplain areas at the north edge of Boston and beyond are characterized 

by two soil series. These are the Chagrin and Holly series (USDA 1974:68-69;Map 5). 

These soils are both classified as silt loams, but the Holly silt loam (coded as Hy) of the 

project area is poorly drained while the Chagrin silt loams (Ck and Cm) are well drained. 

Given this primary difference, it is not surprising that the known sites in the floodplain 

north of Boston all occur on the better drained Chagrin series soils. This soil formed on 

nearly level landforms and is deep and well drained. 
7

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Three of the sites considered in this report occur on flat benches that are elevated 

above the primary flat terrace that forms the core of Boston. Site 33SU99, situated on a 

flat bench located between Boston Mills and Stanford Roads, is dominated by Chili loam, 

a soil that formed primarily on outwash terraces (USDA 1974:69). This loam is relatively 

well drained. Site 33SU417, located a short distance north of 33SU99 on a slightly lower, 

but much sandier, bench, occurs on the Conotton Series gravelly sandy loam. This well 

drained soil formed on outwash gravel and sand of Wisconsin age. Finally, site 33SU105 

at the historic Clayton Stanford House exhibits the Caneadea site loam series (CcB), a 

somewhat poorly drained silt loam that quickly grades to a silty clay and then to a silty 

clay loam. This soil typically formed on undulating terraces (USDA 1974:65), which is a 

good description of the setting at site 33SU105. 

Culture History

Several very detailed reports have been prepared on the prehistory and history 

of Cuyahoga Valley. A brief discussion is provided; for more detailed discussions readers 

are directed to Brose et al. (1981) and Finney (2002). 

Paleoindian Tradition

The Paleoindian Tradition began when humans first settled in North America 

by 14,000 B.C. and extends to approximately 10,000 years ago. Human occupation of 

northeastern Ohio became possible once the ice sheets began retreating northward 

around 14,000 B.C. As the glacial front moved out, the region’s pro-glacial lakes 

subsequently drained, and by about 12,000 B.C. the encroaching flora of the cool climate 

consisted of a mixed hardwood-conifer forest, which slowly changed to relatively 

modern flora by about 8000 B.C. In the Ohio Valley, the most acceptable evidence for 

the first human presence is from this transitional period between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C. 

(Brose et al. 1981:107-108).

Paleoindian groups were highly mobile hunters of large game such as mammoth 

and bison, whose adaptation strategies included short-term use of camps, small group 

size, use of high-quality raw materials, and sophisticated stone-working techniques. 

Plant resources would also have been utilized, but not emphasized in the diet (Neusius 

and Gross 2007:127-128). The material culture is characterized by the large, fluted, 

lanceolate projectile points attributed to the early Paleoindian stage (e.g., Clovis, Folsom), 

though Paleoindian assemblages include a variety of other stone tools such as gravers, 

scrapers, knives, and biface blanks; and bone tools (Fagan 1995; Finney 2002; Neusius 

and Gross 2007). Several sequential Early Paleoindian Tradition fluted point types have 

been recognized in the Great Lakes region, which differ from the classic Clovis points 

found west on the Great Plains. These are recognized as representing distinct cultural 

complexes that include Gainey (9000-8600 B.C.), Parkhill (ca. 8600 B.C.), and Crowfield 

(post-8600 B.C.). The Great Lakes regional variant is the Gainey fluted point, described 

as having a Clovis-like morphology but made by a Folsom-like technique (Finney 2002:16 

citing Stoltman 1993). 

The Late Paleoindian period transition is thought to have begun around 

8,800 – 8,400 B.C. with changes in projectile technology and an increasing reliance 
8

BOSTON SEWER

on Pleistocene bison as well as modern species (Lepper 1999). The material culture is 

marked by a dramatic increase in projectile point variation that Finney (2002:16-17) 

concludes could be evidence that populations were exploiting additional species within 

smaller territories, reflecting a greater role of collecting and gathering in the subsistence 

pattern. Examples of diagnostic Late Paleoindian, generally referred to as the Plano 

Tradition, point types are Agate Basin, Plainview, Eden, Hell Gap, and Scottsbluff 

(Justice 1987).

Paleoindian sites in Ohio occur most commonly in elevated locations along 

major river valleys, at upland bogs and wetlands, kettle lakes, gravel knolls, lake and 

stream margins, and in wide swampy floodplain bottoms (Finney 2002). These sites are 

characterized by small lithic scatters and isolated fluted projectile points. An exception is 

the Paleo Crossing site in Medina County (33ME274) where Early Paleoindian campsites 

have been identified. A particularly noteworthy discovery was a series of post molds 

representing a structure (Brose 1994a). Early Paleoindian points have been recovered in 

limited numbers as isolated surface finds from Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, and a 

small number of sites with Paleoindian components have been recorded within CUVA, 

none of which is located near the current Boston project area. 

Archaic Tradition

The Archaic period is marked by the onset of the Boreal climatic episode, as 

deciduous forests continued to spread north, replacing the conifer-hardwood forest and 

bringing about a more temperate climate (Hunt 1986 citing Wedlund 1978:278). This reestablishment of the eastern hardwood forest occurred in northeastern Ohio between 

about 8500 and 8000 B.C., and by 3000 B.C. essentially modern deciduous 

forest conditions were in place (Finney 2002). Another significant change 

during this period that would impact humans was the disappearance of the 

Pleistocene megafauna. 

The Archaic Tradition in northeast Ohio is commonly considered in terms 

of three temporal subdivisions: the Early Archaic from 8000 to 6000 B.C., the Middle 

Archaic from 6000 to 4000 B.C., and the Late Archaic from 4000 to 1000 B.C. (Finney 

2002:18). Prufer has suggested viewing the Tradition more as a continuum, “...a cultural 

unit between [ca.] 7500 and 1000 B.C., during which the archaeological assemblages 

exhibit no more than gradual changes in artifact styles” (Prufer 2001:187).

Early Archaic populations adjusted to the changing environment by developing 

an increasingly diversified hunting and gathering economy characterized by small, 

mobile bands exploiting a wider variety of animal and plant resources within smaller 

areas. Subsistence activities became more seasonally oriented and focused on wellexploited territories. This change in subsistence was closely related to population 

growth, settlement organization and mobility strategies, and as the period progressed, 

populations continued to grow and become more sedentary (Hunt 1986:7; Neusius and 

Gross 2007:520). Such trends continued into the Late Archaic, which also witnessed long 

distance trade, ceremonialism (including mound architecture), utilization of cultigens, 

and increased regional specialization (Brose et al. 1981; Fagan 1995; Finney 2002). 
9

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Archaic adaptive strategies correspond with material cultural changing from 

lanceolate spear points to smaller, more diversified notched and stemmed points, 

scrapers, knives, drills, and ovoid blades. Also present are woodworking and food 

preparation tools such as axes, adzes, awls, celts, and grinding stones. The Middle 

Archaic is marked by the presence of ground and polished stone tools including 

atlatl weights. Late Archaic stone tool assemblages are noted for the range of stylistic 

variations for functionally similar tool types, particularly illustrated by the diversity of 

projectile points (Brose et al. 1981). 

Archaic manifestations are common in the region and numerous archeological 

sites with Archaic components have been recorded in Cuyahoga Valley (Finney 2002: 

Table 3). Locally and regionally available cherts, including those that occur in glacial 

till, were heavily utilized for tool manufacture. Exotic materials were also used, though 

there is more evidence of this use in the earlier phase. Two types of settlements seem to 

be represented in Cuyahoga Valley: large base camps on high ground along the rivers 

and major streams, and small hunting camps in upland settings. Prufer (2001:188-189) 

has reconsidered this archeological distinction and concluded that all open sites appear 

to represent small, uniform, and probably repeated occupation on suitable high ground 

near water. Archaic hilltop sites are often initially recognized from sparse lithic scatters 

with few diagnostic artifacts. More intensive investigations often yield additional 

artifacts with the majority of Archaic age (Prufer and Long 1986:11-12). 

Most Archaic site components within CUVA occur in upland settings as 

isolated finds at later Woodland and Late Prehistoric sites, and most have been 

recorded in Cuyahoga County. 

Woodland Tradition

The Woodland Tradition is also commonly divided into sub-periods including: 

Early Woodland (1000-100 B.C.), Middle Woodland (100 B.C.-A.D. 450), and Late 

Woodland (A.D. 450-1000). These developments are followed by the Late Prehistoric 

(A.D. 1000-1600) adaptation that shares elements of Woodland and Mississippian 

Traditions. The distinctions between the threefold Woodland subdivision accommodate 

observed changes in material culture and cultural adaptations. Woodland cultural 

traditions arose from a culmination of long-term adaptive and cultural trends that had 

emerged during the Archaic. Three major hallmarks of the Woodland period are pottery 

manufacture, deliberate cultivation of native plants, and interment under earthen 

mounds (Fagan 1995:397). 

During the Early Woodland, Archaic trends in settlement and subsistence 

patterns continued as did general material culture elements. Notable additions include 

pottery, recognized as thick-walled and cordmarked; more finely worked bifacial tools; 

and new projectile point styles, including contracting-stemmed, square-stemmed, and 

side-notched varieties (Fagan 1995; Neusius and Gross 2007). Subsistence strategies 

focused on hunting, plant food collection, and fishing, supplemented by limited 

horticulture (Finney 2002:23). Sites from this period occur on upland bluffs, floodplain 

terraces, and hilltops with a settlement pattern that appears to represent scattered, 

semi-permanent small villages that were occupied from late spring through fall by 
10

BOSTON SEWER

populations involved in a complex seasonal round of activities (Brose et al. 1981:133; 

Finney 2002:23). In CUVA, Early Woodland sites include possible villages, rockshelter 

camps, isolated caches on upland plateaus, and small artifact scatters that may represent 

temporary special function camps (Brose et al. 1981:133). Ceremonial sites consisting of 

small circular earthworks and burial mounds from this period have also been identified 

in the park (Hunt 1986:8). 

Nearly 20 sites with Early Woodland components have been identified in various 

settings throughout the park. One of the best known and well-documented is at Stanford 

Knoll, site 33SU138, where excavations yielded the oldest type of aboriginal pottery 

in Ohio (Lee 1986a). This site is within the current project area and will be discussed 

further in a later section of the report. Similar, thick Early Woodland sherds were 

recovered in small numbers from another site within the current project area, 33SU417 

(Bauermeister 2002a). That site is south of Stanford Knoll on a higher, sandy bench that 

appears to be an outwash terrace of Wisconsin age.

Middle Woodland populations appear to have remained semi-sedentary, relying 

heavily on hunting and gathering, though settlements during this time may have been 

more nucleated and there is evidence that horticulture played an increasingly important 

role (Brose et al. 1981:134). Pottery develops into distinctive wares with variable vessel 

shapes and decorative treatments, and a set of distinctive projectile point styles also 

emerges (Neusius and Gross 2007). The dominant manifestation in Ohio during this 

period was the Hopewell Culture, characterized by elaborate geometric earthworks 

associated with burial mounds and a diverse assemblage of exotic ceremonial artifacts. 

Such sites are most recognized further south in the Scioto River valley where Hopewell 

was defined, although the influence of Hopewell Culture extended across much of 

eastern North America (Finney 2002:24). The evidence for Hopewellian occupation in 

northern Ohio is more subtle, but certainly present, and a number of Hopewell sites 

have been recorded throughout CUVA. Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts include 

projectile points, bladelets, and pottery. Most are within riverine environments and 

characterized as generally small in size and associated with nearby mound locations 

(Volf 2000:35). 

When Ohio Hopewell is discussed, focus is typically placed on southern Ohio, 

particularly the Scioto Valley, where numerous large earthwork sites are well known 

and extensively studied. While this emphasis on southern Ohio is to be expected 

given the impressive character and long history of investigation of the sites, there was 

also a Hopewellian presence in the Cuyahoga Valley in northeastern Ohio that has 

been known, albeit poorly, for many years (Brose et al. 1981; Finney 2002). Evidence 

for Hopewell sites in the Cuyahoga Valley is available from antiquarian studies of the 

middle-nineteenth century that focus primarily on mounds and earthworks (e.g., 

Bierce 1854; Whittlesey 1871), from university or museum-based research projects (e.g., 

Brose 1974), and from recent, small-scale archeological compliance-related projects, 

many of which have occurred at historic nineteenth-century house sites within CUVA 

(Finney 2002). Over the past twenty years, this latter project type has provided data 

for developing a preliminary chronological context for Hopewell use of the Cuyahoga 

Valley (Richner and Bauermeister 2011). 
11

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The best-known site with a Middle Woodland Hopewell component in the 

current project area is among the sites considered later in this report, the Stanford Knoll, 

33SU138. Excavations carried out prior to the installation of a water storage cistern at 

this multi-component prehistoric site on the grounds of the historic George Stanford 

House revealed evidence of Hopewellian occupation (Lee 1986a). The excavations 

located two features that contained Flint Ridge flint bladelets and several McGraw 

cord-marked pottery sherds. These are diagnostic Middle Woodland Hopewell 

artifacts. Radiocarbon dates from charcoal found in the features support the features’ 

Middle Woodland temporal placement. Dates of 1650+/-60 B.P. (Beta-15011) for Feature 

1 and 1780+/-60 B.P. for Feature 11 (Beta-15012) (Lee 1986a) are fully consistent with 

other Middle Woodland dates from the park area, including several from the Szalay Site, 

33SU434 (Richner and Volf 2000; Richner and Bauermeister 2011). 

Site 33SU105 at the Clayton Stanford House, also within the current project 

area a very short distance south of site 33SU138, is reported in a 1979-1980 Cleveland 

Museum of Natural History site form to have yielded bladelets. If that identification is 

accurate, the site probably includes a Middle Woodland Hopewell component. 

The beginning of the Late Woodland Tradition corresponds with the end of 

the Hopewell phenomena, when the exchange systems and mortuary ceremonialism 

of the former period declined substantially. Subsistence continued to be based upon 

hunting and gathering, while plant domestication appears to be fully established and 

increasingly emphasized; settlement is more fixed, and population increases (Noble 

1988:13). Groups continue to make and use mounds, but not like the large earthwork 

complexes of the Middle Woodland. The settlement pattern involves limited seasonal 

movements between major river valleys and smaller interior drainages (Finney 2002:26). 

It appears that smaller groups dispersed in the interior valley hunting camps during 

the cold seasons and larger groups occupied summer villages with a mixed economy 

in the river valleys (Brose et al. 1981:135). Late Woodland material culture shows subtle 

variations in projectile point styles and ceramic attributes. Pottery vessels tend to be 

plain, sometimes cordmarked, thinner-walled with grit temper, and could withstand 

higher cooking temperatures. Formal stone tools of exotic materials are replaced by more 

expedient tools made from local glacially derived cherts. Slate and shale woodworking 

tools are also reported as are numerous notched and un-notched triangular projectile 

points that coincide with the widespread adaptation of the bow and arrow (Neusius 

and Gross 2007:533-534; Finney 2002). The local manifestation of the Late Woodland 

in the region is the Hale Phase (ca. A.D. 500-900), characterized by the predominance 

of grit-tempered Cuyahoga Cordmarked ceramics and lithic artifacts subjected to latestage heat treatment (Brose et al. 1981:141). Within the park, many Late Woodland sites 

are recorded at locations interpreted to be villages, campsites, hunting camps, as well as 

rockshelters and burial mounds (Brose et al. 1981:Table 17). 

Late Prehistoric Tradition

The Late Prehistoric Tradition is marked by a continuation of the Late 

Woodland Tradition with significant changes in subsistence economies, as the previous 

hunter-gatherer or intensive collector strategies give way to lifeways that emphasize 

horticultural and agricultural activities (Hunt 1986:10; Finney 2002:27). Major trends 
12

BOSTON SEWER

from this period include: intensification of food production with corn agriculture, new 

technologies used in food production (e.g., shell-tempered pottery and bell-shaped 

storage pits), population growth, and distinct regional complexes. In northeastern Ohio 

the culture developed into a distinct complex known as the Whittlesey Tradition. The 

Whittlesey Tradition has been divided into four phases, recently revised (see Finney 

2002:29), based upon ceramic and lithic tool analysis, including: Riverview (A.D. 900-

1250), Vaughn (A.D. 1250-1400), Tuttle Hill (A.D. 1400-1500), and South Park (A.D. 1550-

1650) (Brose 1994b:107). 

The Riverview Phase is characterized by a pottery assemblage comprised of grittempered wares dominated by the type Fairport Plain (Noble 1988:14). Chert obtained 

from bedrock sources appears to have been used more than it was formerly (Finney 

2002:30). The settlement subsistence system was similar to that known for the Late 

Woodland Hale phase, with groups utilizing seasonally based small villages and large 

campsites (Hunt 1986:10). More than 20 sites have been identified within CUVA that 

have Riverview Phase components, including the well known South Park Site, 33SU8, 

located in the northern part of the park in Independence Township. 

The Vaughn Phase marks the appearance of shell-tempered pottery in the 

region. This ware exhibits plain or smoothed surface treatments that largely replace 

the previous cordmarked varieties. During this phase there is a marked increase in 

the use of debitage for tools at villages (Finney 2002:31). The two types of occupations 

that occur are similar to those from earlier phases and include summer horticultural 

villages and winter hunting camps. The warm season villages were large and tended to 

be placed along secondary valleys and lake estuaries, a trend that indicates the emphasis 

on horticulture and also fishing activities (Finney 2002:30-31). Fourteen sites assigned 

to the Vaughn Phase have been recorded in CUVA and none are located within the 

vicinity of Boston. The nearest are over 2 kilometers north of Boston in Jaite Village. 

The Jaite Papermill, 33SU13, is located in the floodplain along the east side of the 

Cuyahoga River, 2 kilometers from Boston. This Whittlesey village site was identified 

based on numerous pit features, post molds, and a substantial artifact collection that 

includes shell-tempered pottery sherds (Finney 2002:180). Vaughn Village, site 33CU65, 

is a significant Whittlesey village site with components from the Vaughn and South Park 

Phases that is listed on the NRHP (NR 87001902). It is located 2.8 kilometers north of 

Boston and 1.1 kilometers northwest of Jaite Papermill on a 650 foot remnant terrace on 

the west side of the river. The Kurtz Site, 33CU25, is 600 meters west of Jaite Papermill 

and about 2.2 kilometers north-northwest of Boston. This site, also in the floodplain, is 

multi-component with early Late Woodland, Whittlesey, and Historic American Indian 

components. All of these sites were heavily impacted and/or destroyed during extensive 

topsoil stripping operations conducted commercially in the area from the 1950s through 

the 1970s. 

During the Tuttle Hill Phase, the pottery is similar to the preceding phase, 

however, the lithic assemblages exhibit much greater variability between winter 

campsites and summer villages (Noble 1988:19). A greater number of projectile points, 

mostly triangular, are present in both settings and quarried chert appears to be favored 

over locally available glacial materials in chipped-stone technology. A continuing trend 

from the previous phase that is specific to summer villages is the use of debitage as 
13

PROJECT BACKGROUND

tools (Finney 2002:31). Ten sites with Tuttle Hill Phase components are recorded in the 

park (Finney 2002:Table 3). The closest to the project area is the aforementioned Jaite 

Papermill, 33SU13, which is almost 2 kilometers to the north. 

The South Park Phase is the terminal phase of the Whittlesey Tradition, 

and it lasted until the time of European contact around A.D. 1650. Sites from this 

period provide evidence for agricultural villages, typically palisaded and sometimes 

containing longhouses, that were occupied year-round, with smaller camps used during 

the spring and fall (Brose 1994b). There is a decline in pottery variation and very few 

non-local pottery types are present. There also appears to be an increase in the use of 

quarried Plum Run and Upper Mercer cherts, and triangular points continue to be the 

predominant point style (Finney 2002:32). It seems that the population was subjected to 

continued stress throughout this phase. Within CUVA, no European trade goods have 

been found in any Whittlesey artifact assemblage and there is no archeological evidence 

for any post-contact Whittlesey occupation (Brose 1994b; Hunt 1986:11). South Park 

components have been identified at 15 sites within CUVA, none of which is located near 

the project area (Finney 2002:Table 3). The closest is 2.9 kilometers north at the Vaughn 

Site, 33CU65, in Jaite Village.

Historic Background

Historic Period Overview. The early historic period in the Middle Cuyahoga 

River Valley can be dated from A.D. 1640 to 1796 and during this time very few Europeans 

visited northern Ohio and fewer settled there. Cuyahoga Valley served primarily as a 

transportation route connecting the surrounding areas and it is not clear what Native 

groups inhabited the valley during this period (Finney 2002:33). It seems likely that 

Iroquoian pressures from the east may have forced local aboriginal groups to vacate 

the entire southern shore of Lake Erie. French influences had reached this part of the 

country as exotic goods quickly replaced traditional material culture through trading 

middlemen, and while there were profound influences of French and British emigrants, 

they left little physical evidence within the Cuyahoga Valley (Noble 1988:15-16). Three 

eighteenth-century American Indian sites have been recorded within the park: Flood 

Fort (33CU60), Kurtz (33SU25), and Riverbank 1997-1 (33SU431). Other sites from this 

period that are reported in historic literature include: the Moravian Indian Village 

of Pilgerruh (1786-1787), Mingo Town (ca. 1743-1753), and two 1786 North West 

Company British trading posts. However, their precise locations have not been 

verified (Finney 2002). 

The Pre-Canal/Initial Settlement era spanned 1796 to 1824 with the early 

settlement of the area that occurred following the Revolutionary War. The beginning 

of this period is marked by the sale of Connecticut’s Western Reserve lands, which 

included more than 3 million acres in Ohio, to shareholders in 1796. The following year 

the Connecticut Land Company arranged to have the lands surveyed into 5-mile square 

townships that were then divided into a series of lots. Many shareholders subdivided 

their holdings and sold lots to farmers interested in inhabiting the Western Reserve 

frontier. The settlement pattern in northern Ohio tended to be dispersed, inhabited 

both by unauthorized squatters and legal resident landowners, with families living in 

relative isolation from one another (Brose et al. 1981; Finney 2002:43; Noble 1988:16). 
14

BOSTON SEWER

Most were engaged in subsistence-level agriculture. The local economy was depressed 

during this period and very slow to develop, especially prior to the end of hostilities 

related to the War of 1812. Because of the scattered settlements, isolation from eastern 

markets, and poorly developed transportation and communication systems, this period 

could be characterized as a frontier settlement (Richner 1992a:3-4). An important event 

occurred in 1820, when plans for a canal were initiated. A few years later the route of the 

Ohio and Erie Canal was selected and construction north of the Portage Summit began 

(Finney 2002:44). 

The Canal Era began in 1825 when construction started for the Cleveland to 

Akron segment of the Ohio and Erie Canal. Land speculation increased dramatically 

as people and money necessary for canal construction flowed into the region (Noble 

1988:16). Canal construction brought dramatic local economic impacts. About 1,500 

workers were employed in the Akron to Cleveland section, which brought a much-needed 

influx of cash into the local economy. When this section of canal was completed in 1827, 

the Cuyahoga River Valley benefited substantially from this marked improvement in 

transportation and communication. The canal brought people and goods into the valley 

and served to focus settlement; the local economy began to diversify and improve. Towns 

were established in proximity to the transportation routes and the former situation of 

isolated families and subsistence farming gave way to interdependent communities and 

commercial farming (Noble 1988:16). The canal meant that local products could readily 

be transported out of the valley and exotic goods imported. It is a period of commercial 

and social transformation that resulted in the development of a capitalist economy and 

a highly stratified social system (Hunt 1986:13). However, the canal had a relatively 

brief period of florescence (1827-1840) after which it suffered a long, but steady, decline. 

Although the canal’s effectiveness began to decline rapidly by the 1850s due to regional 

competition from railroads, its local decline was hastened further by development of the 

Valley Railway in 1880. Despite a bewildering series of repairs and renovations, the canal 

was abandoned in 1913 following a disastrous flood. 

The Late Developmental Period began in 1861 with the onset of the American 

Civil War and ended in 1913 when the Ohio and Erie Canal was abandoned. During this 

period, the railroad and other transportation improvements contributed to the growth 

of many small crossroad settlements, such as Everett, and the railroad also provided a 

direct connection between the coal fields of east-central Ohio and Cleveland’s steel mills 

(Finney 2002:47). The state’s population also rose and Ohio was increasingly integrated 

into the national scene through telegraphic communication (Noble 1988:17).

The Urban-Industrial Period began in 1914 and continues today. Large-scale 

industrialism was developed in the valley to meet the needs created by the advent 

of World War I. Cleveland became an increasingly important Great Lakes port and 

continued its role as a major center of iron and steel, oil refining, chemicals, automobiles, 

and other products, and Akron’s rubber manufacturers enjoyed great success as a result 

of the rising popularity of automobiles (Finney 2002:48; Noble 1988:18). This changed 

with the Great Depression. The effects to the region were similar to what the rest of 

the country was experiencing: slowed industrialism, a depressed economy, and high 

unemployment rates. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was established in 1933 

as a work relief program for young men from unemployed families. Their efforts are well 
15

PROJECT BACKGROUND

recognized in Cuyahoga Valley, since their projects helped build the highway, bridges, 

buildings, and recreation facility infrastructure within the area that would become 

CUVA (Finney 2002:49). World War II served to stimulate the economy by again creating 

industrial demands and the industries of Cleveland and Akron renewed high production 

levels. As a result, the Cuyahoga Valley was impacted by urban sprawl, industrial waste, 

interstate highways, and other intrusions (Noble 1988:18). In 1974 Congress created 

Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area as an urban unit of the National Park System 

and in 2000 the recreation area became a national park. The 33,000 acre park and all 

of its resources, both cultural and natural, are now protected and preserved under the 

park’s enabling legislation (Public Law 93-555).

Early Regional Settlement History. The early-nineteenth-century settlement 

pattern of Boston Township and the Village of Boston reflects a unique system of land 

purchase and resulting dispersed population. Prior to the 1780s, many of the original 

eastern seaboard states owned property outside of their state boundaries. These lands 

were eventually sold and organized into other states. Connecticut held about three 

million of its extra-boundary lands until the 1790s, when it complied with congressional 

requests and disposed of a large strip along the south shore of Lake Erie. Since this land 

had been reserved by Connecticut during previous land sales, it came to be known as the 

Western Reserve. After the Indians released their claim to lands east of the Cuyahoga 

River through the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, plans for subdividing and selling the 

acreage were developed. The lands west of the Cuyahoga did not become part of the 

United States and open for settlement until after the 1805 Treaty of Fort Industry. Only 

minimal settlement of the Western Reserve lands began before that date. 

Survey of the Western Reserve lands east of the Cuyahoga River in 1796 and 

1797 occurred through division of the large tract into five-mile-square townships. The 

system of square-mile sections and 36-square-mile townships, so well known for much 

of the United States, does not apply to the former Western Reserve lands. Instead, the 

townships were divided into a series of variably sized lots. A group of speculators and 

investors purchased the land from Connecticut and organized under the Connecticut 

Land Company. 

The 49 shareholders in the Connecticut Land Company acquired a total of 34 

land parcels by lottery. Not all of these owners ever saw their new property. Many 

shareholders subdivided their holdings and sold lots to farmers ready to start a new 

life on the Western Reserve frontier. The hardships faced by these first settlers are 

well documented (Hatcher 1991). With these land-owning settlers came squatters who 

occupied and “improved,” but did not own, other parcels. For many years, there was 

little economic differential between the land owners and squatters, owing to the isolated, 

scattered pattern of settlement, and the complete lack of governmental and economic 

infrastructure (Brose et al. 1981). There were few roads, and a true cash economy was 

not in place for several decades. Subsistence farming and a barter economy characterize 

the early years of settlement. A scattered settlement pattern resulted from the nature 

of the initial lottery system and subsequent subdivision of the Western Reserve lands 

(Scrattish 1985). Between 1800 and 1820, settlement was dispersed, with the population 

widely distributed in very small clusters. Only a few minor concentrations of population 
16

BOSTON SEWER

occurred along rivers during this era (Hatcher 1958). Typically, the early settlers had no 

neighbors for as many as 20 miles distance.

Settlement continued very slowly until the threat of hostilities had been removed 

with the end of the War of 1812. Even then, settlement proceeded at a sluggish pace for 

several more years. The years 1817 to 1825 marked a second phase of immigration that 

led to a more rapid, but still moderate, population increase. The start of construction 

of the Ohio and Erie Canal in 1825 spurred a major influx of settlers, and marked the 

end of the initial, isolated frontier period (Brose et al. 1981; Unrau and Scrattish 1984). 

Approximately 1,500 workers toiled on the canal segment from Cleveland to Akron, and 

they brought a much-needed influx of cash into the local economy. Difficulties were 

many, as disease was rampant and transportation systems remained primitive. 

After completion of the first segment of the canal in 1827, the economy began to 

diversify. The creation of jobs and a shift to cash crop farming and a local constructionrelated economy took place. Lumber production, stone quarrying, coal mining, and 

other commercial activities increased in scope and importance. Wheat and cattle raising 

replaced subsistence pig and corn production, and the canal opened the Cuyahoga 

Valley to U.S. and European markets. Local products (e.g., wheat, coal, flour, beef 

and cheese) were shipped north on the canal, and general merchandise, salt, fish and 

other goods were sent south. The availability of up-to-date British ceramics and other 

manufactured goods after 1827 contrasts markedly with the relative lack of such goods 

during the earlier decades of the nineteenth century (Miller and Hurry 1983). As other 

segments of the canal were completed, trade flourished and local crop prices and land 

values increased. It was during this period of optimism, growth, and relative prosperity 

that the community of Boston grew as a small commercial and farm-based settlement 

along the bustling canal. Development often centered on Canal locks, and Lock 32 

formed a key component of the developing community.

The boom era of the canal was brief, lasting only until about 1840, after which 

a steady downward spiral of importance is documented (Scrattish 1985; Unrau and 

Scrattish 1984). The tonnage shipped on the canal peaked in 1851, but even before 

that, infrastructure problems began to seriously erode its effectiveness. Upkeep of the 

complex hydraulic engineering systems became continuous and ever more costly. The 

canal’s initial monopolistic role in local and regional transportation systems ended as 

competing canals were built. During the 1850s, extensive regional rail development drew 

considerable business away from the slow and ponderous canal. Between 1851 and 1853, 

four major railroads began operation in Cleveland initiating a long-term decline in the 

importance of the canal. The canal fell into disrepair after the 1860s, but a bewildering 

series of repair episodes maintained it at a functional level through the remainder of 

the nineteenth century. It lingered as a quasi-effective transportation artery until the 

disastrous flood of 1913 ended the local canal era.

The History of Boston Township and Boston Village. Since there were no roads 

through the Western Reserve lands during the earliest years of settlement, riverways 

and a few Indian trails functioned as the sole transportation routes. Connecticut Land 

Company shareholders and other settlers found their way to their isolated land parcels 

with great difficulty via semi-navigable streams and by wagon and afoot through the 
17

PROJECT BACKGROUND

dense hardwood forests. The Cuyahoga River was one of the short rivers plied by the 

early settlers, often with extreme hardship (Hatcher 1991:52). The location that was later 

to be named Boston served as a boat landing very early in Western Reserve settlement 

history. Benjamin Tappan Jr. made his way to his father’s parcel at Ravenna by landing 

at Boston by boat in 1799 (Hatcher 1991:51). He stored his goods there and began to cut 

a road toward his property. Other settlers followed similar routes to their isolated land 

holdings, with blazed township lines as their only guide. 

Alfred Wolcott surveyed Boston Township in 1806. Hailing from Connecticut, 

he and Samuel Ewart from Ireland are among the first settlers of Boston Township 

(Tackabury, Mead, and Moffett 1874:24). James Stanford, another member of the Boston 

Township survey party, settled at the north edge of the current village of Boston (Perrin 

1881:902-903). Legend has it that he suggested the name “Boston” for the township 

(Doyle 1908:854). Stanford, originally from Ireland, brought his family to a 169-acre 

tract east of the Cuyahoga River in March, 1806. This is a short distance north of the 

area that would later be developed as Boston Village. Like so many other settlers in the 

Western Reserve, the Stanfords began their life in Boston Township in a humble log 

cabin, but as their farm began to prosper, they were later able to build a frame home. The 

Stanford family is still prominent in Boston, and George (James’ son) Stanford’s 

Greek Revival home stands adaptively restored and is used by the Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park Association. It is one of the properties that will be served by the new 

Boston Sewer System. 

As in other areas of the Western Reserve, roads were either non-existent or very 

poor during the early settlement era of Boston Township. In October of 1811, John Melish 

traveled on horseback along the Cuyahoga River through Boston to Cleveland hoping to 

visit Hudson, the most prosperous and well-established town in the region. The road 

was so bad that he was unable to reach Hudson (Hatcher 1991:66). In Boston Township 

his horse sank to its knees in mud. Melish described his eight mile trek through Boston 

Township as “the worst road I had ever seen in America” (Hatcher 1991:66). Melish saw 

only primitive log houses and widely scattered settlers sick with fever. His impressions 

may have been more favorable had he reached Hudson, but his narrative clearly points to 

the generally poor living conditions on the Western Reserve frontier.

Other references to early (pre-canal era) settlement in Boston are few in number 

and rather poorly documented. Winstel and Machuga (1995) found that Upton’s (1910) 

report of a grist mill and store in Boston in 1814, Grismer’s (1950) comments about 

Mather’s general store and Bronson’s grist mill in 1821 and construction of a saw mill 

in Boston in 1825 are among the only local/county historical references of note. The 

Portage County Auditor’s Report indicates that Boston consisted of five structures in 

1825 (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). While the brief mention in the local histories of these 

developments is intriguing, no other historic documentation for those dates or structures 

was discovered despite intensive tax records searches (Winstel and Machuga 1995). 

Former CUVA Historian Chester Hamilton referred to a grist mill and house owned by 

Mather being present on Lot 63 in 1827 (CUVA park files). However, Boston Village Lot 

63 did not exist in 1827, since the Boston Plat was not commissioned until late 1834 by 

Watrous Mather. Only Township Lots 44 and 45 would have existed prior to 1835, with 

the village lots carved out of the larger Township lots. Perhaps the 1827 tax reference 
18

BOSTON SEWER

Hamilton found to Mather’s structures on Township Lot 45 was assumed to refer to 

the same mill that was later known to be present on Lot 63. Hamilton’s findings seem 

plausible, since Watrous Mather is thought to have built a mill and house on the east 

bank of the river in 1826 after acquiring the property. Jesse Thompson of Connecticut, 

possibly a land speculator, sold Lot 45 to Watrous and Hannah Mather in 1826 (Quinn 

Evans/Architects 1995; Richner 1996:8) and it is on that parcel they must have built the 

house, mill, and store mentioned in the tax records and early historic accounts. Tax 

records for 1827 examined by Hamilton indicate that the Mather grist/saw mill and 

house were valued at $2,469 (Quinn Evans/Architects 1995). The Mathers also owned 

Boston Lot 44, a larger parcel to the north of Lot 45.

Along the Cuyahoga River, conditions improved rapidly after completion of the 

Ohio and Erie Canal in 1827. In Boston, commercial enterprises (especially those related 

to milling) probably developed or expanded as the canal was being built, and more 

extensive development followed in the 1830s. By 1831, and possibly as early as 1827, the 

Mathers had established the “Commercial Hotel” (Richner 1996:8; Stefanic and Winstel 

1991). They sold this property with its small lot, later designated Boston Lot 58, to their 

daughter Lucy in 1831. 

By the middle 1830s, during the height of functionality and success of the Ohio 

and Erie Canal, a surge of development occurred in Boston. The community of Boston 

was developed from original Boston Township Lots 44 and 45. Together, they consist 

of 190 acres. 

The original plat of the town of Boston was drawn by County Surveyor Samuel D. 

Harris at the request of Watrous Mather in 1834. This plat was developed from Watrous 

and Hannah Mather’s Boston Township Lots 44 and 45 (Figure 2). Although the surveyor 

(Harris) indicates that the 1834 plat is at a scale of 100 feet-to-the-inch, the actual plat 

that was later transcribed was drawn at a scale of 200 feet-to-the-inch. Further, it is 

not precisely drawn to scale. One useful aspect of the 1834 plat is that the dimensions 

of the lots, occasionally accompanied by associated compass bearings of lot lines, are 

affixed to many of the lot lines. These measurements are very important, since several 

of the lots in the current project area are various irregularly shaped quadrilaterals. The 

existing drawing of the original Boston survey, although authorized in late 1834, bears 

a transcription date of December 15, 1898. This plat depicts essentially the same lots as 

the later, better-known 1856 plat (Figure 3), with the exception of a few lots that were 

first numbered in 1856 and a few others that are renumbered from the 1834 depiction. 

No structures are depicted on the 1834 plat, although, in the accompanying transcribed 

narrative of surveyor Harris, a brick house owned by Jelotes [?] Mather is referenced 

regarding placement of a datum stone for the survey.

The owners of a small number of lots in Boston are listed on the transcribed 1834 

plat. Among the landowners in Boston in 1834 are James (Jim) Brown (Lots 58, 59, and 

another lot with no number depicted on the 1898 transcribed plat), Abraham Holmes 

(Lot 60), Henry Adams (Lot 61), Russell Dyer (a lot with no number depicted on the 1898 

transcribed plat), and A. McBride (Lot 57). Brown, the son of the famous abolitionist 

John Brown of Hudson, Ohio, was an infamous local character who became involved in 

counterfeiting and other activities (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). Brown spent much of his 
19

PROJECT BACKGROUND

life evading law enforcement and considerable time in jail. After his release, he died in a 

fall while traveling on the Ohio and Erie Canal. He married the Mather’s daughter, Lucy, 

and was the owner of the Commercial Hotel in 1834 on Lot 58 along with a structure 

locally known as the “Red Store” or “Red House” on Lot 59. Brown left the Boston 

area by 1837 or 1838 (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). Adams (later shown as Wadhams in 

the tax records) built a store on Lot 61 just west of the Brown’s hotel sometime before 

1839. Holmes’ Lot 60 was also the location of a store in that early time frame (Stefanic 

and Winstel 1991). McBride was later known to operate a grocery store close to the lock 

on Lot 57. So, in 1834 when Boston was platted, all of the owners of lots within Boston, 

including the Mathers who owned all the remaining lots, had, or would soon have, 

commercial developments on their holdings. 

Watrous and Hannah Mather sold all but seven of the newly-platted village 

of Boston lots as part of a 190-acre parcel of Boston Township Lots 44 and 45 to Irad 

Kelley, Thomas M. Kelley, and Alanson Penfield in November, 1835. Those seven lots are 

certainly the same seven depicted in the 1834 plat as having other owners, as summarized 

above. Kelley, Kelley, and Penfield were to found the Boston Land and Manufacturing 

Company and soon build a store on Lot 56. Quinn Evans/Architects (1995) report 

that the Mather’s house, along with the mill, was part of the sale, but they do 

not provide documentation to indicate how they determined that the house was 

included in that transaction.

The history of the Boston Land and Manufacturing Company has been 

presented in considerable detail elsewhere (Richner 1996, 1997; Richner and Volf 2002; 

and Quinn Evans/Architects 1995) and will not be repeated here except to indicate the 

general history of ownership of the lots in Boston. Although one important part of 

their development, the Boston General Store on Boston Lots 55 and 56 has survived to 

the present day, the decline of the canal after 1840 caused significant problems for the 

original owners of the company and all of the subsequent owners of their large holdings 

in Boston. The three men constituting the Boston Land and Manufacturing Company 

owned the Boston General Store, grist mill, and saw mill through about 1840 (Richner 

1996:9). From their 1835 purchase through about 1840, they owned 58 of the 60-some lots 

in the village. Through most transactions over the next several decades, these 58 lots were 

transferred as a single unit. There are several inconsistencies in the historic tax records 

regarding ownership of most of the lots in Boston in the 1840s and 1850s. According to 

interpretation of tax records, Arthur Lathum owned all 58 lots from 1841-1852, and had 

joint ownership with Joseph Myers from 1852 through 1856. Julius D. Edson had partial 

ownership with Myers and Lathum from 1857-1859, after which Myers was no longer 

an owner in 1860 and 1861. After that date, Edson owned the properties alone. The tax 

records are confusing at best, and do not match the deed records, which indicate that 

Thomas Kelley’s family did not convey their interest in the company to Edson until 1860. 

Moreover, the 1850 U.S. Industrial Schedule lists the “Edson Saw Mill” and “Edson 

Grist Mill,” with no mention made of Lathum. The 1856 plat of the village suggests that 

Edson owned most of the significant businesses, including the grist mill, saw mill, flour 

mill, lath factory, turning shop, lumberyard, and store and attached warehouse at that 

date. The names Lathum and Myers do not occur on that plat. The probable reason for 

these apparent discrepancies and inconsistencies is that there was a difference between 

the ownership or management of the Boston Land and Manufacturing Company and 
20

BOSTON SEWER

the actual ownership of the buildings and lots. Available data are insufficient to resolve 

the ownership questions at present (Richner 1996:9). More important to the current 

study is the documentation of these multiple businesses in Boston in the 1840s and 1850s 

era. Unfortunately for Edson, he was acquiring control of the company’s interests as the 

canal began its long, slow decline. 

According to annotations on the 1856 plat of Boston, other commercial businesses 

in Boston at that date included: McBride’s grocery (Lot 57), Odekirk’s [boat business], 

Dormer’s [?] blacksmith shop (lot number not depicted), Barnhart and Fayerwether’s 

Boat Yard and Dry Dock (Lots 12, 13, and 14), Conger and Jackson’s Brick Yard (lot 

number not depicted), Morton’s Store (Lot 59), J.D. Smith’s Broom Factory, and a hotel 

(Lots 58 and 61). The later is the former Mather’s and later Brown’s “Commercial Hotel.” 

Boat building was an important activity in Boston in the mid-nineteenth 

century (Finney 1997:58-63; Stefanic and Winstel 1991). Boston, along with nearby 

Peninsula, contributed more canal boats to the local Ohio and Erie Canal than any 

other communities. During the canal’s period of prosperity, Boston developed as an 

important boat building location, with boat yards owned by Arthur Lathum, Barnart 

and Fayerwether, Rufus Sanborn, and Daniel Odekirk (Burch 1882; Finney 1997; and 

Stefanic and Winstel 1991). The best known of the Boston boat yards was that of William 

Barnhart and James B. Fayerwether. Barnhart, born in New York in 1812, came to Boston 

in 1832 and his house, thought to date to about 1835, is located on Stanford Road (Finney 

1997:60; Stefanic and Winstel 1991). The house, referred to in the National Register 

Nomination for Boston as the Barnhart House, but more commonly known as the Nina 

Stanford House, is one of the properties that will be served by the new Boston Sewer 

Project. He probably began building boats soon after his arrival, and continued until 

sometime after 1874 (Finney 1997:61). James B. Fayerwether, born in Connecticut in 1819, 

arrived in Boston in 1834. Like Barnhart, he began canal boat building in Boston prior 

to 1849 and continued until some time after 1874. Fayerwether died in Boston in 1885 

(Finney 1997:62). Rufus Sanborn was probably the last boat builder in Boston, operating 

there from about 1880 to pre-1886. He may have used Barnhart and Fayerwether’s earlier 

dry dock and yard (Finney 1997:63). 

Edson appears to have owned 58 lots in Boston until about 1870, when the sheriff 

ordered sale of the lots to Lorenzo and Philander Hall for $2,500 (Richner 1996:9). This 

very low value indicates that the businesses were in serious decline and/or that the Halls 

obtained the parcels at a bargain price. The Halls continued the businesses until 1891, 

after which the Halls’s heirs began selling company assets after the deaths of Lorenzo 

and Philander. The tax value of their lots increased to $5,580 in 1881, probably due to the 

construction of the Valley Railroad train depot in Boston, west of the Cuyahoga River. 

That development, however, caused a further decline of the importance of the canal, 

which was ultimately closed after a disastrous flood in 1913. 

Although Boston probably reached its initial developmental zenith prior to about 

1842, boat building and other activities kept it somewhat vibrant, despite a clear decline 

in the 1860s and 1870s. By 1874, occupations of Boston residents included farmer, boat 

builder, ship carpenter, carpenter, lumberman, blacksmith, and lawyer (Stefanic and 

Winstel 1991). The arrival of the railroad in Boston late in 1879 signaled the start of a 
21

PROJECT BACKGROUND

new era, although there was minimal, if any, community growth until about 1900. The 

commercial base of Boston shifted dramatically in 1900 when the Akron Bag Company 

developed a large factory west of the River. This did not directly overlap any of the 

earlier commercial developments discussed above. Immigrants, especially Poles, came 

to Boston to work at the paper company. Numerous houses and duplexes were built in 

Boston after about 1902 until 1923 when the paper plant closed. However, the parent 

company continued its plant at nearby Jaite for several more years, and some of the 200 

workers at the Boston location may have found jobs there (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). 

Boston remained a small residential community after that date until portions of 

the town were incorporated into Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, established 

in 1974, which became Cuyahoga Valley National Park in 2000. Under the management 

of the National Park Service, the original towpath of the canal was restored as a multipurpose trail, and several historic structures, notably the Boston General Store and 

the George Stanford House, were adaptively restored. While still a small residential 

community consisting of several houses, many of which date to the Akron Bag Company 

era, and a few dating to the initial or second efflorescences of Boston in the 1820s and 

1830s era, Boston now serves as a visitor destination and resting location for the myriad 

of users of the towpath trail. 

Given this historical background, there would be expectations for archeological 

sites and deposits to occur in portions of Boston beginning in the first years of the 1800s 

and continuing until the post-1920s era. As will be shown in a subsequent section of the 

report, numerous sites fitting those expectations have been discovered and studied from 

the 1970s though 2009. 

History of Archeological Investigations in Boston

The following summary is presented in chronological order and considers all 

professional archeological field research that has occurred within the current Boston 

Sewer Project area. We have considered all sites at historic properties to be served by 

the proposed system, and have also included all sites within the community as well as 

several in the general area to provide an overview of the range of sites present and the 

scope of work that has occurred in the area. 

Although several former residents of Boston amassed artifact collections from 

sites within and near the current project area over many years, relatively little is known 

about the content of those collections. The Stanford family had a large collection, 

probably obtained from sites on the original James Stanford Farm such as 33SU35, 

33SU105, 33SU106, 33SU138 and others. A few, smaller local collections were recorded 

by members of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in the 1970s (Finney 2002), 

and some of those items were donated to the Museum and now reside there. A longtime avocational archeologist, the late Joe Jesensky, recorded the presence of only two 

sites in the Boston area based upon his knowledge of sites in the area and reports by 

other amateur archeologists and artifact collectors. He numbered these #41 (the current 

location of the Boston Moral Cemetery, Government Tract 109-91) and #42 (the current 

location of site 33SU99) (Jesensky 1976). The former, according to Jesensky (1976:5), was 

the location of a “large Indian burial ground.” The historic cemetery occurs on a roughly 
22

BOSTON SEWER

circular, raised bench that is a very distinctive landform surrounded by lower river 

terrace and floodplain benches. Jesensky attributes the identification of the prehistoric 

cemetery at that location to early settlers, and suggests that a settler named Dickinson 

confirmed that identification. Finney (2002), in his discussion of site 33SU61, which is a 

prehistoric artifact scatter located west of the cemetery, repeats this identification and 

cites later Jesensky reports for his source. Of site #42, Jesensky only notes that it was a 

suspected large village site. He includes both the area now defined as 33SU99 as well as 

the long sloping area to the north, which would overlap and extend beyond site 33SU417, 

within his #41.

Although antiquarian investigations of archeological sites within the general 

area of CUVA extend back to the 1820s, with purposeful survey efforts beginning in 

the 1850s (Finney 2002:58) and with considerable focus in the 1870s (Whittlesey 1871), 

no documented fieldwork is recorded for the immediate project area until 1971 when 

the first of several projects was accomplished by members of the Cleveland Museum 

of Natural History (CMNH). The initial work in Boston was conducted under the 

Northeast Ohio Survey (NEOS), a National Science Foundation funded effort directed 

by David S. Brose. The late Nancy Wilson conducted surveys in Summit County under 

this program, including locations within Boston. Her work included land owner 

interviews and some follow up archeological testing (Finney 2002:79-80).

The NEOS project included work at two sites reported to Wilson (1971) by 

Steven Clark. The Clark Site (later formally recorded as 33SU106) and Clark Home Yard 

Site (later recorded as 33SU105) were both subject to test excavation by CMNH crews 

(Engebretsen 1978; Finney 2002:211-212; and Wilson 1971). Both sites were subject to 

more intensive investigations by CMNH teams a few years later. 

Several sites in Boston were investigated by David S. Brose, Stephanie Belovich 

and their CMNH associates in 1979 and 1980 as part of a contract with the National 

Park Service to inventory the archeological resources of CUVA (Brose et al. 1981). They 

conducted relatively large-scale evaluative test excavations at 33SU105 and 33SU106 

and inventory and limited testing at 33SU110 (McBride Brewery and Grocery), 33SU61 

(Boston Cemetery Site), 33SU35 (Boston Mills Village), 33SU38 (Oil Pumping Site), and 

33SU99 (Gioia Site) at what would later be known as the Hines Hill Conference Center, 

all within the current project area. They also conducted inventory and testing at sites 

33SU87 (Columbia Road Village), 33SU102 (Riverview Site), and 33SU104 (Columbia 

Road House), all located on upland plateaus in the heavily dissected uplands a short 

distance west of Boston. The work at all of these sites, conducted in 1979 and 1980, 

was accomplished in a consistent and structured manner and resulted in formal site 

designations for several of the sites that had been known, but relatively poorly recorded, 

before their efforts. The artifacts and field records for the 1979-1980 CMNH

projects are curated at the Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska, under

accession MWAC 72.

In 1983, Al Lee of the CMNH conducted the first of several projects at site 

33SU138 (Stanford Knoll) on the grounds of the historic George Stanford House at the 

north edge of the current project area. His work, conducted in anticipation of restoration 
23

PROJECT BACKGROUND

of that significant house, focused upon examining the sequence of construction of the 

multiple house components (Lee 1983). 

In 1984, the Midwest Archeological Center of the National Park Service 

conducted the first of several projects spanning the next 25 years in Boston. The 1984 

effort (Rossillon 1985) was a follow up to Lee’s work the previous year at the Stanford 

House (33SU138). Like Lee, Rossillon (1985) conducted small-scale testing around the 

perimeter of the house and recorded aspects of building construction history as well as 

evidence for intact, significant prehistoric deposits, including a pit feature, in extremely 

close proximity to the north façade of the house.

In 1985, Archeologist Mark J. Lynott (1985) of MWAC conducted close interval 

(4 meter) shovel testing in the yard west of the barn at 33SU138 within a proposed septic 

system leach field location. He found scattered historic objects, including glass and 

ceramic sherds, but they did not occur in any obvious concentrations. The leach field 

was subsequently constructed within the surveyed area. 

In 1985, Archeologist Al Lee and a CMNH team returned to site 33SU138 to 

examine the area proposed for installation of a water storage cistern and an associated 

water line that would connect the cistern to the house. These were planned to be 

positioned a short distance southwest of the west (front) house façade near the west edge 

of the terrace landform near its juncture with the Cuyahoga River floodplain. He made 

an important discovery of numerous in situ prehistoric features associated with Early, 

Middle, and Late Woodland site components, and these findings are discussed in detail 

in Lee’s (1986a) report. As a result of this project, the site has subsequently been known 

as the Stanford Knoll Site.

In 1985 in anticipation of future, unspecified restoration actions at the historic 

Boston General Store on Boston Village Lot 56, the CUVA staff entered into an 

agreement with the CMNH under the direction of David Brose to conduct evaluative 

test excavations on the grounds around the structure. The site did not receive a formal 

state of Ohio site number for several more years. A final report was not written for this 

project. Data from the project were later incorporated in Richner’s (1996) report on 

the MWAC’s 1991 survey and testing program at the site. Stephanie Belovich directed 

the fieldwork through a CMNH archeological field school. Most emphasis was placed 

along the east facade at the towpath. There, several contiguous units were excavated 

to examine a former door in the foundation that was subsequently blocked in. A single 

unit was placed at the southwest corner of the structure to search for evidence of the 

warehouse foundation. Finally, single units were placed in the northwest corner of the 

building’s interior, and on the grounds just southwest of the structure. The interior unit 

was intended to examine evidence for previous basement floors, while the exterior unit 

was positioned to potentially intersect more of the warehouse foundation. 

In 1986, Alfred Lee, Associate Curator of Archaeology, and Stephanie Belovich, 

Assistant Curator of Archaeology, of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History 

conducted archeological test excavations at a small, proposed trailhead parking area 

in Boston Village (Lee 1986b). The location is east of the Ohio and Erie Canal and 

immediately south of Boston Mills Road near the former Johnson Barn. The barn was 
24

BOSTON SEWER

extant during their study, but was in highly degraded condition and was later removed. 

The team excavated three 1-x-1-m test units within the footprint of the parking area. On 

the basis of the results of excavation of these test units, Lee (1986b:13) concluded that 

the cultural deposit, which contained a small assemblage of prehistoric Late Woodland 

and historic nineteenth-century materials, was completely confined to the plowzone. 

He also reported that no intact archeological deposits were present in the project area 

and that “the archeological site represented by materials recovered from the plowzone 

lacks physical integrity, and is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places” (Lee 1986b:15). He concluded by stating that no further research 

was warranted prior to construction of the parking areas as planned. Although an 

Ohio Archeological Inventory (OAI) form was not developed for the site at that time, 

the authors of the current report have completed an OAI form for 33SU481 that is 

included in APPENDIX 1. 

That same year, Al Lee of the CMNH returned to the George Stanford Farm 

where he conducted inventory of a proposed parking area on the east side of the large 

historic barn. Results of the inventory were largely negative, although a few historic 

items were collected (Lee 1986c). 

In 1991, Jeffrey J. Richner directed the first of three MWAC projects at the Boston 

Store (Richner 1996). This project consisted of interval shovel testing and limited test 

excavations on the grounds around the store. Work occurred on Village of Boston Lots 

51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56 (Richner 1996). These lots form a strip south from Boston Mills 

Road circumscribed by the Cuyahoga River and the Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath. The 

majority of the work occurred on Lots 55 and 56 where the Boston General Store and its 

former warehouse were constructed. A total of 38 shovel tests was excavated in a series 

of linear transects oriented parallel with the east and west facades of the store (Richner 

1996:Figure 4). The narrow west yard, south mowed turf yard, and the unmowed brushy 

area directly south of the store to the Cuyahoga riverbank were investigated. Dense 

accumulations of artifacts were found on the grounds near the structure, covering 

nearly all of the current mowed turf area. A very sparse scatter was found to the south in 

the then-overgrown area that was dominated by various weeds and small walnut trees. 

The primary focus for the 1991 project was to conduct additional evaluative 

testing immediately adjacent to, and near, the structure. That work resulted in discovery 

of numerous structural features including: sandstone pier/post supports from the former 

warehouse addition, builder’s trenches from the store, a warehouse addition and/or an 

associated outbuilding, a post mold possibly associated with the warehouse, and a deeply 

buried brick cistern. Various historic grade surfaces were discovered and recorded, and 

a large amount of information on historic fill sequences on the grounds was compiled. 

The condition of the foundation of the building, especially along the east and west 

facades was also recorded through detailed mapping, profiling, and photographic 

documentation. Build-up of grade along the foundation since construction in the mid1830s was found to be considerable, especially along the store’s east, or canal, side. A 

large artifact inventory was also collected, much of which occurred in distinct, buried 

middens or near-surface sheet scatters in close proximity to the structure.
25

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The 1991 fieldwork revealed that considerable structural evidence for the 

warehouse is present on the grounds, and that other structural features are very 

numerous in proximity to the store. Artifacts spanning the nineteenth and early 

twentieth century use of the building are also numerous, and in some areas occur in 

distinct, and datable, contexts. The archeological findings both embellish the relatively 

scant historic record, and provide an independent data set from which to examine 

questions of site function.

In 1991, Archeologists William J. Hunt and Vergil E. Noble from MWAC 

investigated several properties where structures, all of which were surplus to the needs 

of the park and slated for removal by CUVA, were in the general vicinity of Boston. 

Field methods consisted of shovel testing in close intervals (5 meters or less) around the 

perimeters of the buildings. If potentially significant archeological deposits were found, 

either associated with use of the building or completely unassociated with the building’s 

use, the removal process was planned in a manner that would leave the terrain around the 

house undisturbed. If cellars were present, they would be breached and filled in rather 

than collapsed. If no archeological deposits were found, building removal was completed 

without restrictions on ground disturbance. At Tract 109-101, known as the Wolschleger 

House (Noble 1991), no archeological remains were found in direct association with 

the modern brick house. However, Noble reported that deposits associated with an 

early Boston historic structure that was no longer extant could be expected to occur at 

the southeast corner of the lot, outside of the area that would be directly disturbed by 

removal of the modern Wolschleger House. He recommended that the former historic 

structural site area be protected from disturbance. The modern Wolschleger House was 

situated on Boston Lot 59 on Boston Mills Road in the middle of Boston Village, just 

west of the canal. This lot was the former location of a small structure once owned by 

Jim Brown, son of the famous abolitionist, John Brown. This area was later assigned the 

formal site number 33SU268 (Mustain et al. 1996).

At Tract 118-79 within Boston Village, Noble (1991) shovel tested around the 

perimeter of the Johnson Barn, a structure that was thought to date to about 1910. The 

barn’s superstructure was in dilapidated condition at the time of his visit. Noble found 

isolated pieces of iron and stoneware during his inventory and concluded that 

the planned demolition of the barn would not cause any adverse impact to 

archeological resources.

Later in 1991, Archeologist Richner (1991) returned to the former location of the 

Johnson Barn, which had been removed subsequent to archeologist Noble’s visit earlier 

that year. The park had left the concrete foundation, including one tall segment at the 

earthen ramp, in place to mark the location as a ruin. However, that vertical concrete 

feature was by then leaning off vertical and posed a severe safety hazard to park visitors 

using the nearby trailhead parking area. Further historic research had also revealed 

that the barn was not as old as previously thought and dated to the middle-twentieth 

century. Accordingly, Richner concurred with the park’s recommendation that the 

unsafe concrete foundation should be removed to alleviate a significant safety hazard. 

Richner (1991) recommended that the work be accomplished with a rubber-tired vehicle 

operating under frozen ground conditions. That approach was used and the foundation 

slab was removed with no resulting ground disturbance. 
26

BOSTON SEWER

The grounds around four structures located on Stanford Road north of the 

George Stanford Farm were investigated in 1991 prior to removal of the buildings (Hunt 

1991; Noble 1991). These structures were all in close proximity to each other and all were 

located to the north of the current Boston Sewer Project area. Inventory at the Mathies 

(Tract 107-58) and Lindenberg (Tract 107-62) houses were both negative for the presence 

of archeological resources (Noble 1991). Possibly due to some confusion in park record 

keeping regarding their structural removal program, MWAC was asked to inventory the 

Lindenberg House again in 1993. As in 1991, the inventory was negative (Richner 1993a). 

Inventory at the Shueren House (Tract 107-59) and Mackey House (Tract 107-61) both 

yielded evidence for multi-component archeological deposits (Hunt 1991). At both sites, 

prehistoric materials, apparently relating to the Woodland or Late Prehistoric Periods, 

were found along with middle- and late-nineteenth-century artifacts. The latter are 

associated with the occupation and use of the structures, while the prehistoric materials 

obviously pre-date the structures by many hundreds of years. At Shueren, Hunt 

recommended that there be no ground disturbance when the structure was removed, 

while at Mackey, recommendations were made to coordinate with MWAC before 

removal. That was accomplished and the site area was protected when the structure was 

removed. To date, no follow-up inventory efforts have occurred at these locations 

that would allow development of pertinent data such as the full extent and content 

of the sites. 

In 1992, Jeffrey Richner of MWAC conducted an inventory at the Johnson/

Bradley House on Tract 107-37 (Richner 1992b). That house was located on Stanford 

Road, well to the north of the current Boston Sewer Project area. Results of the inventory 

were negative.

In 1993 Richner returned to the Boston General Store area and conducted a 

second season of intensive inventory and limited evaluative test excavations. Fieldwork 

in 1993 expanded on the MWAC inventory conducted in 1991, with all remaining 

portions of Lots 51, 52, 53, 58, 61 and 63 south of Boston Mills Road, east of the 

Cuyahoga River and west of the canal inventoried via interval shovel testing (Richner 

1997: Figure 2). A total of 101 additional shovel tests was excavated, with multiple, dense 

accumulations of historic artifacts recorded (Richner 1997: Figures 7-12). The ownership 

history of the lots was synthesized from data collected by CUVA historians (Winstel 

1991; Winstel and Machuga 1995) so that the archeological findings could be placed in 

historical perspective. Archeological evidence for former structures was recorded on 

several of the lots. On Lot 51, a dense nineteenth-century artifact deposit was recorded 

in the area where a structure formerly occurred (Richner 1997:42-43). Artifacts were 

collected on Lot 52 that are thought to relate to use of one of two historic structures 

that were formerly present on that lot (Richner 1997:43-44). A primary finding on 

Lot 52 was that the Cuyahoga River has washed away a significant portion of that lot 

since it was platted in 1834. This damage included the loss of an area where a structure 

was depicted on the 1856 plat of Boston. Lot 53, which formerly contained an historic 

structure, was determined to have been completely eroded away by the Cuyahoga River. 

At Boston General Store Lot 56, a large sandstone foundation for a former porch was 

recorded along the east façade of the store. On Lot 58, foundation elements for the 

former 1820s-era “Commercial Hotel” were discovered along with an associated earlyand middle-nineteenth-century historic artifact scatter. Similar results were obtained 
27

PROJECT BACKGROUND

on Lot 63 where a dense midden deposit and structural remains were recorded from the 

former nineteenth-century structure that stood there prior to 1898 (Richner 1997:41).

In 1993, Jeffrey Richner (1993a) of MWAC conducted an inventory at the Clayton 

Stanford House, where site 33SU105 had been recorded by a CMNH team. This work 

was conducted in anticipation of installation of a leach field. The 1993 fieldwork was 

conducted in association with adaptive reuse of this circa 1906 structure. Discovery of 

a pre-1850s-era artifact scatter allowed the team to plot the approximate location of the 

1806 James and Polly Stanford log cabin to the southwest of the existing house. More 

intensive and extensive excavations would be required to determine its precise location, 

but the work suggests that site component is likely largely intact and not destroyed by 

construction and use of the 1906 structure. Richner’s team also found prehistoric 

artifacts that were comparable with the findings of previous CMNH test excavations 

at the site. However, since no formal test excavations were conducted, the sample of 

prehistoric artifacts recovered in 1993 was very small compared to the earlier work at 

the site. Richner’s team expanded their inventory to an area where no archeological 

resources were recorded and that area was subsequently selected as the leach field 

development zone.

Also in 1993, Jeffrey Richner (1993b) of MWAC conducted a small-scale 

inventory of a proposed parking lot development/expansion project at the Hines Hill 

Conference Center (then known as the Gioia property). This work occurred in a narrow 

strip along Hines Hill Road at the easternmost edge of the property. Small quantities of 

lithic debitage and fire-cracked rock were recovered in a disturbed plowzone context 

in several of the shovel tests excavated there. No temporally diagnostic artifacts were 

recovered. These materials are associated with site 33SU99, which previously had been 

thought to be more restricted in extent. Recommendations were made to protect the site 

area or to conduct additional study of the proposed development zone by stripping off 

the plowzone and searching for sub-plowzone features. The latter option was selected 

by park management, and no features were discovered.

In 1994, Jeffrey Richner of MWAC inventoried the Theil House on Tract 107-41 

with negative results. This house was located well north of the current Boston Sewer 

Project area on Stanford Road. The house was later removed since it was surplus to the 

needs of the government.

In 1995, Archaeological Services Consultants, Inc. (ASC Group, Inc.) was 

contracted by McCoy and Associates, Inc. to conduct an archeological and architectural 

reconnaissance inventory of a proposed Boston Mills Road realignment and bridge 

replacement project (Mustain et al. 1996). Although significant portions of their work 

occurred within the boundaries of CUVA, they did not seek or obtain the necessary 

permit from the National Park Service under the Archeological Resources Protection 

Act. Coordination with the National Park Service did not occur until the field portion 

of the project was completed. Fieldwork included placement of twelve 0.5-x-0.5-m 

shovel test units across Boston Village Lots 56, 58, 61, and 63 within an area previously 

inventoried and evaluated by MWAC archeological teams (Richner 1996, 1997). Their 

work also included inventory of Boston Village Lots 59, 60, and 62 as well as within 

other parcels with no formal Boston Village lot numbers. Their inventory zones were 
28

BOSTON SEWER

narrow, rectangular strips flanking the north and south sides of Boston Mills Road, 

extending from the Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath on the east to about 50 meters west 

of the Valley Rail tracks west of the Cuyahoga River. They subdivided the area into 10 

individual survey areas and recorded archeological sites 33SU264, 33SU265, 33SU266, 

33SU267, 33SU268, 33SU269, and 33SU270 within these survey areas. While site 

numbers and boundaries for sites 33SU265, 33SU268, 33SU269, and 33SU270 roughly 

correspond to Boston Village Lots 62, 59, 60, and 56 respectively, the site designations 

are more reflective of the defined survey areas and the discoveries within those areas, 

rather than of the historic lots. This is despite the fact that the sites are all of historic age. 

The authors did not effectively use existing historic maps and plats of Boston in their 

study. For example, they stated (Mustain et al. 1996:35) that “no building is indicated” 

at the Boodey House location on the 1856 map of Boston, yet that map clearly depicts 

three structures on Lot 60, including a structure in the exact location of the existing 

Boodey House. The site numbering sequence that resulted from the study is particularly 

awkward for site 33SU267. Prior to their work, the area where they define site 33SU267 

was known to include multiple, distinct artifact scatters, midden deposits, and structural 

features associated with the use and occupation of non-extant historic structures on 

Boston Village Lots 58, 61, and 63. Those lots had unique ownership and use histories 

(Richner 1996, 1997; Winstel 1991; Winstel and Machuga 1995). 

Mustain et al. (1996:39-40) clearly stated that they were well aware that their study 

area and site designations, especially at sites 33SU267 and 33SU270, included only small 

portions of the actual sites, since their project area was of limited extent. They found 

that site 33SU271, encompassing part of the former Cleveland Akron Bag Company, site 

33SU264, the ruins of the “Edson Gristmill and Sawmill Dam” and site 33SU266 were 

outside the project area and would not be impacted by the proposed bridge replacement 

project. They found that the latter two sites were not significant. Further study, including 

deep testing, would be required to further assess site 33SU271. They also concluded that 

sites 33SU265 (Edson Gristmill and Sawmill Foundation and Retaining Wall), 33SU267 

(a nineteenth-century midden), 33SU268 (a nineteenth-century midden), 33SU269 (the 

Wise/Boodey House Site), and 33SU270 (the Boston General Store) were potentially 

significant archeological resources and should be avoided during the construction 

project. CUVA staff subsequently worked with project planners to protect these sites, 

especially the highly significant deposits on adjacent sites 33SU267 and 33SU270 on the 

south side of Boston Mills Road. All of the sites identified for protection by Mustain et al. 

(1996) were avoided during the bridge replacement project. This proved possible since, 

with the help and input of NPS planners and managers, road realignment was reduced 

to a very small alteration from the pre-1995 alignment, all of which occurred within the 

existing road right-of-way.

In 1995, ASC Group, Inc. was contracted by McCoy Associates, Inc. to conduct a 

literature review and cultural resources inventory of a proposed realignment of a portion 

of Riverview Road in the Boston area (Whitman et al. 1996). Two archeological sites 

(33SU275 and 33SU276) were recorded and two previously recorded sites (33SU266 and 

33SU271) were relocated during the project. None of these sites was adversely impacted 

by the project. 
29

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Site 33SU266 is associated with the Valley Railway and consists only of cinder and 

gravel fills. Whitman et al. (1996), like Mustain et al. (1996), found it to be not significant. 

Site 33SU271 includes the remnants of the Cleveland Akron Bag Company 

and dates from about 1900 to 1932 (Whitman et al. 1996:42). Whitman found intact 

structural evidence for the site by using some of the techniques suggested by Mustain 

et al. (1996). Site 33SU275 is a residential site dating to about 1900-1963. The site area, 

already occurring under fill, was further filled during the road realignment project and 

is preserved under multiple modern fill zones. Site 33SU275 was found to be a multicomponent site with historic and prehistoric components. The historic component 

is associated with a former structure evidenced by a sandstone foundation remnant. 

The prehistoric component consists of a single piece of chert debitage. The historic 

component is potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places, while the prehistoric component is not (Whitman et al. 1996:53). Site 33SU276 is 

an historic site associated with a large concrete pad and a cut sandstone foundation. The 

precise function of this site was not determined. It is thought to date to the middle-tolate-nineteenth century (Whitman et al. 1996:47).

Also in 1995, Richner returned to the Boston General Store with a team from 

MWAC (Richner and Volf 2002). They were assisted by a group of European volunteers 

through the organization Volunteers For Peace. All test excavations focused on the 

perimeter of the structure in anticipation of adaptive restoration of the building, 

including repair of foundations and reconstruction of the former extensive porches on 

the front (north) and east facades. Extensive evidence was found for the configuration 

of the original and subsequent porches along with a large artifact assemblage. Among 

the material culture is a large sample of white clay tobacco pipes, including unused, 

reconstructible examples that appear to reflect discard of broken store stock. The store 

was subsequently restored to its 1830s-era appearance and now serves as a visitor center 

and community meeting place. 

In 1995, Richner (1995) also conducted a small inventory and evaluative testing 

project at site 33SU99 at the Hines Hill Conference Center. The work was conducted in 

response to park plans for installing a sewage line north from the existing house along 

the west edge of the high, flat bench where site 33SU99 had previously been recorded. 

The excavation of several shovel tests and three small test units revealed the presence of 

surprisingly well preserved prehistoric deposits on a site that had been reported (Brose 

et al. 1981) to be grossly disturbed and of questionable significance. The intact area 

discovered in 1995 is coincident with a slight, but perceptible, low rise or ridge on the 

otherwise relatively flat landform. An intact pit was recorded that contained pottery and 

other temporally and functionally diagnostic Late Prehistoric artifacts. Those materials 

are considered in more detail in a later section of this report. As a result of this discovery, 

Richner recommended that the sewer line not be installed in this area. The park followed 

that request and delayed decision making on the best approach to sewage treatment at 

the property until further archeological studies of the site could be completed. 

In the final project of the very busy 1995 season of archeological study in Boston 

Village, Fred Finney, then with Cleveland State University (CSU) and the Institute for 

Minnesota Archaeology, conducted fieldwork in Boston as part of a larger project in 
30

BOSTON SEWER

CUVA via a CSU archeological field school (Finney 1997). This work was conducted 

under the National Park Service’s Midwest Region Archeological Resource Protection 

Act Permit No. 1995-1. His work in Boston focused upon Village of Boston Lots 12 and 

13 where the boat yard and dry dock of William Barnhart and James B. Fayerwether had 

existed from about the 1830s until the early 1870s (Finney 1997). Although numerous 

artifacts were recovered, no structural remains from any boat yard structures were 

identified at the site, designated 33SU298 (Finney 1997:65).

In 1997, ASC Group, Inc. was contracted by HNTB Ohio, Inc. to complete a 

literature review and cultural resource inventory for replacement of an existing bridge 

on the Ohio Turnpike (U.S. Route 80) over the Cuyahoga River (Whitman and Randall 

1997). This bridge is located south of the Village of Boston. No archeological sites were 

identified within the project area.

In 1998, Jeffrey Richner of MWAC returned to site 33SU99 at the Hines Hill 

Conference Center and conducted a close-interval shovel test inventory of most of 

the upland bench portion of the property (Richner 1998). This approach had been 

recommended in 1995 when intact deposits were found in a very limited shovel testing 

and test excavation project completed at the western-most edge of the site. The 1998 

inventory revealed that a sparse prehistoric artifact scatter occurs across the entire 

mowed grounds area of the landform, beginning near a man-made pond along Hines 

Hill Road and extending west to the edge of the bluff where the 1995 discoveries were 

made. Except for a small portion of the area investigated in 1995, the site deposit occurs 

in very shallow, rocky soil, much of which is heavily disturbed by intensive and extensive 

landscaping actions that occurred during the Gioia occupation of the property. During 

that private ownership era, massive changes were made to the barn, chicken coop and 

other structures on the site, a tennis court was installed and other modifications were 

made. Accompanying that work was considerable grading and other modifications of 

the ground surface. It was those disturbances that had led Brose et al. (1981) to consider 

the whole site to be grossly disturbed. However, the 1995 and 1998 fieldwork efforts 

revealed that, despite the rather extensive disturbances that occurred prior to NPS 

ownership of the area, the artifact scatter across the property maintains some integrity, 

particularly along the west edge of the site area investigated in 1995 (Richner 1995, 1998). 

In 2000, Jeffrey Richner conducted an inventory of the Dover property (Tract 107-

38) on Stanford Road north of the current Boston Sewer Project area. No archeological 

resources were recorded at this property, and subsequently, the modern house was 

removed since it was surplus to the needs of the government (Richner 2000).

In 2001, MWAC Archeologist Ann Bauermeister (2002a) continued sewer projectrelated work begun at the Hines Hill Conference Center area by Jeffrey Richner in 1995 

and 1998. Her inventory focused upon a sewage line proposed to lead north from the 

house and an area proposed for an evapo-transpiration tile field. The route for the line is 

the same that Richner proposed based upon his 1995 inventory, during which significant 

and intact archeological deposits were located along the western edge of site 33SU99 

north of the existing house. The line was rerouted along the western-most edge of the 

raised bench landform to avoid the intact site area. Seven shovel tests were excavated in 

the proposed route of the line, and revealed that the route would avoid the intact portion 
31

PROJECT BACKGROUND

of site 33SU99 (Bauermeister 2002a). The evapo-transpiration field was proposed to be 

located to the north of site 33SU99 on a lower sand and gravelly bench that was previously 

disturbed by extensive cultivation. There, Bauermeister recorded a sparse pre-contact 

artifact scatter in disturbed depositional context (33SU417). The most interesting artifact 

from the project, a rim sherd consisting of three refitted fragments, was recovered from 

a disturbed animal burrow at the north edge of the lower bench (Bauermeister 2002a). 

The rim is consistent with an Early Woodland association of the type Leimbach Thick 

(Shane 1967). The area where the sherds were found is outside the impact area for the 

evapo-transpiration field, but also in a badly disturbed setting. Despite this disturbance, 

given the presence of this fragmentary vessel well north of site 33SU99, the relative 

scarcity of Early Woodland pottery in the park area, and the location of the artifacts on 

a lower landform, site number 33SU417 was assigned to the sparse scatter found in the 

general area of the proposed evapo-transpiration field. Installation of the new sewer 

line and evapo-transpiration field was determined to have no adverse effects on either 

site 33SU99 or newly recorded site 33SU417 (Bauermeister 2002a). 

In 2001, Archeologist Ann Bauermeister (2002b) of MWAC conducted the first 

of three seasons of archeological inventory and test excavation at the Savacoal (formerly 

known as Hopkins) property on Tract 109-107. That tract appears to include all of 

Boston Village Lot 7 and part of Boston Village Lot 48. Those lots are unnumbered on 

the original, 1834 plat of Boston Village, but are depicted on the 1856 plat. Although a 

structure is depicted on the Lot 7 in 1856, the current Savacoal House is thought to date 

to about 1920 (Bauermeister 2011:34-35, 39). A small structure, probably a blacksmith 

shop (Stefanic and Winstel 1991), was depicted on the southeast side of Boston Lot 48 

on the 1856 and 1874 plats of Boston (Richner 1997:Figures 5-6). The Savacoal Barn 

now occupies much of that portion of the lot. The Savacoal property is recorded as 

archeological sites 33SU423 (Hopkins/Savacoal House) and 33SU419 (Savacoal Barn). 

Bauermeister recorded prehistoric and historic artifacts, all in greatly disturbed context, 

flanking the barn in 2001. She (2011) determined that the disturbed context of site 

33SU419 precluded its eligibility for nomination to the NRHP.

Bauermeister returned to the Savacoal property in 2002 and conducted inventory 

and limited testing on the grounds around the house, designated as site 33SU423 

(Bauermeister 2011). She returned to the site again in 2007 and expanded the test 

excavations begun in 2002. As a result of this work, she recorded a multi-component 

site containing prehistoric and historic nineteenth- and twentieth-century components. 

The artifacts occur in mixed context, which greatly limits the research potential of 

the site. However, the historic assemblage, which is associated both with the original 

house and the extant 1920 era house that appears to occupy the same location as the 

earlier structure, was considered to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP (Bauermeister 

2011:39). Proposed small-scale improvements to the parcel (installation of a cistern, 

construction of a walkway, and improvement of an existing gravel parking area) were 

situated in areas of the site that lacked depositional integrity, and/or were placed in 

shallow contexts that caused minimal disturbance. Accordingly, these very minor 

developments were found to have no adverse effects upon the qualities of the site 

that would make it eligible for the NRHP. Questions remain at the Savacoal property 

regarding the relationship of the original and extant houses as well as the possibility of 

continued existence of any intact evidence of the blacksmith shop.
32

BOSTON SEWER

Also in 2002, Archeologist Bauermeister (2002b) conducted an inventory of the 

Rodhe House (Tract 118-77) in Boston prior to its removal. Very limited non-significant 

historic and modern debris was recovered from this effort and no additional fieldwork 

was recommended prior to removal of the structure. 

In 2003, MWAC Archeologist Bauermeister returned to the George Stanford 

House, then used by the American Youth Hostel for overnight stays, to conduct an 

archeological inventory of a proposed campground. Fieldwork was conducted in a 

formerly cultivated field east of the barn in an area where no previous archeological 

fieldwork had occurred (Bauermeister 2004). A relatively large area (18,000 sq. m) was 

inventoried, with a 15-x-20-meter area within the larger survey zone found to contain 

prehistoric chipped stone, fire-cracked rock and a single pottery sherd (Bauermeister 

2004). The scatter occurs on a small knoll or rise in the otherwise flat field. The pottery 

is thought to be of Early Woodland association comparable to examples found by Lee 

(1986a) at the Stanford Knoll Site (33SU138) in the front yard of the Stanford House, and 

to those collected by Bauermeister at site 33SU417 at the Hines Hill area south of the 

Stanford Knoll Site in 2001 (Bauermeister 2002a). Based upon the presence of the sherd 

and the small scatter of other artifacts, Bauermeister recommended that the site be 

completely avoided should plans for the campground eventually be formalized. This site 

area was included as part of 33SU138 and the site boundary was expanded accordingly.

Also in 2003, MWAC Archeologist Bauermeister (2004) conducted archeological 

inventories at the Schaedel (Tract 107-063) and Schmidt (Tract 107-064) Houses. These 

properties are located on Stanford Road north of the Boston Sewer Project area in 

a location where previous inventories (1991) had occurred at other houses slated for 

removal (see above). No significant archeological resources were recovered during the 

2003 inventory and no additional archeological work was recommended in advance 

of removal of the two houses, which were determined to be in excess to the needs 

of the government. 

In 2004, Archeologist Bauermeister (2005) began inventorying components of an 

early design of what would eventually develop into the current Boston Sewer Project. 

One proposed development under consideration at that time was to place a pump station 

west of the Boston General Store on a parcel formerly owned by the Dzerzynski family. 

Included are a house and gas filling station/automobile repair facility. These buildings 

occur on Boston Village Lots 51 (the Dzerzynski House), 56 and 58 (the MD Garage). 

These span portions of archeological sites 33SU267 and 33SU270. Bauermeister (2005) 

examined a 12-x-12-m area and also reported that, previously, it had been inventoried and 

subject to limited test excavations by Richner (1997) and ASC Group, Inc. (Mustain et al. 

1996). The area was known to contain significant historic artifact deposits and cultural 

features associated with the use of structures predating the extant Dzerzynski buildings. 

Accordingly, she recommended that the pump station not be constructed in this area 

(Bauermeister 2005). The second project component inventoried by Bauermeister in 

2004 is a proposed sewage treatment area to be constructed in the form of a man-made 

wetland. This was proposed to be located in a grossly disturbed area about 91.5-x-91.5 

meters in extent located along the east side of the Cuyahoga River south of Boston. That 

area was grossly disturbed by the previous construction of Highway 271 and Interstate 
33

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Route 80. No cultural resources were found in the inventory zone, which, as expected, 

was found to be completely and grossly disturbed.

Also in 2004, Archeologist Bauermeister returned to the Hines Hill Conference 

Center and conducted additional shovel testing in anticipation of installation of a septic 

field to replace the existing system and to supplement a small evapo-transpiration field 

that was installed to the north of site 33SU99 after 2001 (Bauermeister 2002a). Like 

the 2004 archeological fieldwork work at the Dzerzynski property and the Interstate 

80 and Highway 271 wetland sewage treatment facility, the 2004 work at Hines Hill 

was considered to be part of a broader plan for treatment of waste water in Boston. 

Subsequently, that plan has been reworked and redesigned since it was originally 

proposed in 2004. She reexamined an area that had mostly been covered by Richner’s 

previous inventories of the Hines Hill area between the guest house and the pond. 

Her results replicated what Richner found across most of the rest of the landform. A 

scatter of prehistoric and historic artifacts occurs in shallow, rocky context in the 2004 

survey area. Despite obvious disturbances and the shallow, rocky soil characteristics, 

Bauermeister (2005) noted that there were many positive shovel tests and recommended 

that the system not be installed in the 2004 inventory area. 

Bauermeister conducted additional archeological work in Boston in 2004 at the 

Conger House in anticipation of rehabilitation of that structure (Bauermeister 2005). 

The entire property, other than the north side of the house where dense tree cover 

occurs, was inventoried through close-interval shovel testing. Evaluative test excavation 

was also conducted via four 1-x-1-m units. Numerous shovel tests were positive and all 

of the test units contained historic artifacts. The presence of historic artifacts across 

the inventoried and evaluated area led Bauermeister to recommend that no ground 

disturbing activities occur at the parcel without first consulting with MWAC in advance 

of any proposed undertaking. Site number 33SU412 was assigned to the property based 

upon the results of the 2004 project.

Bauermeister’s final field project in the Boston area in 2004 occurred at site 

33SU138 at the George Stanford House. There, water runoff on the northeast side of the 

house had been causing problems for many years. Attempts to resolve the problem with 

various drainage lines (an early ceramic tile line and a later polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

pipe) were not successful (Bauermeister 2005). Accordingly, a new plan was developed to 

create a shallow swale no more than eight inches deep to channel water away from the 

house and into the low area located immediately to the north. Bauermeister excavated 

a single 1-x-1-m unit in the proposed swale area and discovered evidence of previous 

drainage improvements in the form of the two drainage lines. She also demonstrated that 

the top 29.5 cm of the soil horizon was grossly disturbed through installation of those 

lines. Beneath the grossly disturbed zone, she recovered prehistoric slate, debitage, and 

pottery along with historic whiteware and other historic and modern materials. Since 

the disturbance would be so shallow (a maximum of 8 inches or 20.32 cm) and occur 

only within an already grossly disturbed zone and would not impact less disturbed, but 

still mixed, deeper deposits, she (Bauermeister 2005) did not recommend any additional 

archeological work in advance of creation of the small, shallow drainage swale.
34

BOSTON SEWER

In 2006, Archeologist Bauermeister (2007a) returned to the Hines Hill Conference 

Center location to inventory a proposed parking area expansion project. Work was 

proposed along the south edge of the existing parking area in an area about 20-x-40-m in 

extent. Of the 14 shovel tests excavated, four contained prehistoric cultural materials (2 

pieces of fire-cracked rock, 5 pieces of debitage) and one contained two small whiteware 

sherds and two pieces of coal cinders. The latter were not retained. The artifacts were 

found in shallow, disturbed context and were not considered to be significant. 

In 2007, Archeologist Bauermeister conducted three projects in the Boston area 

in addition to her work at the Savacoal property, which is described above under her 

2002 fieldwork at that property. At site 33SU269, associated with the historic Boodey 

House, Bauermeister inventoried and evaluated a small area where a new cistern was 

proposed for installation. This would replace an existing, outdated cistern in the small 

east yard. Previous shovel testing had been extremely limited in scope at the house, 

and the site in general, so Bauermeister (2007b) conducted intensive, close-interval (5 

m) shovel testing and excavated a single 1-x-1-m test unit. The A horizon of the original 

soil profile was missing in the project area, and there were rocks, gravel, and very recent 

silt, overlying the truncated B horizon. Depositional context was so greatly diminished 

in this area of the site that Bauermeister did not recommend any further archeological 

investigations prior to the installation of the new cistern. That feature was installed in a 

grossly disturbed area. 

In 2007, Bauermeister returned to the George Stanford House to inventory a small 

area where a water cistern was under consideration for use by the as yet undeveloped 

small tent campsite that Bauermeister inventoried in 2003. The park proposed placing 

the cistern, and possibly a pit toilet, just east of the large Stanford Barn, an area that was 

not investigated by Bauermeister during her original campground inventory. She (2007b) 

opened five shovel tests in a 15-x-20-m area and found debitage and a projectile point. 

Since these materials appear to be associated with the significant Stanford Knoll Site, 

33SU138, and suggest that the area east of the barn may contain significant deposits, 

Bauermeister (2007b) recommended that the park not place any amenities in this 

area. She instead suggested that there were zones in her large 2003 inventory that 

were devoid of archeological materials that could serve as functional locations for the 

cistern and pit toilet.

Bauermeister’s final 2007 project in Boston was to inventory the Giroski House 

property (Tract 118-78) (Bauermeister 2007b). This modern house and its associated 

site improvements (gravel driveway, garage, wooden retaining walls, and cisterns) were 

proposed for removal (Bauermeister 2009a). All recovered materials were of recent 

age and associated with this modern house--a factory-built modular unit that was 

moved to the property in 1999. Accordingly, the proposed removal of the house and 

its associated amenities was determined to have no adverse effect upon any significant 

archeological resources. 

In 2008, Bauermeister returned to the George Stanford House to investigate 

another component of the proposed Boston Sewer Project. This component includes 

a small pump station, two septic tanks, and an associated sewer line to the existing 

septic tank. The pump station and tanks were proposed on low ground off the large, 
35

PROJECT BACKGROUND

flat terrace on which the important site 33SU138 was previously recorded. Two pieces of 

debitage were collected from shovel testing along the proposed sewer line route, but the 

pump station area was found to consist solely of deep clay layers devoid of archeological 

materials (Bauermeister 2008). The area where the debitage was collected is previously 

disturbed by the original installation of the septic tank and no artifacts were found in 

primary context in that area. Accordingly, Bauermeister recommended that the pump 

station, tanks, and line be installed exactly where the park had proposed and marked the 

locations, and that no changes be made in that plan given the importance of the nearby 

Stanford Knoll Site. 

Additional work was conducted at the George Stanford Farm in 2008 via a 

Cleveland State University field school (Wanyerka 2008). The work was conducted 

under an Archeological Resources Protection Act Permit (2008-6) issued by the 

Regional Director of the Midwest Region of the National Park Service. Work was 

confined primarily to the area where Bauermeister had previously found a small scatter 

of artifacts within an area proposed for a small campground in a field east-southeast 

from the Stanford Barn. Ten 1-x-1-m test units were excavated in that area on a low rise, 

and a single test unit was excavated where Bauermeister previously found a lithic scatter 

just east of the barn (Wanyerka 2008:Figure 21). Artifact yields were very low, with 35 

pieces of debitage and a single, fragmentary projectile point midsection being recovered 

along with a small number of fire-cracked rocks (Wanyerka 2008:25). All artifacts were 

recovered from the plowzone. It is apparent that this easternmost area of the site does 

not contain the kinds of significant features and artifact deposits found to the west near 

the Stanford House by Lee and others in the 1980s. 

Also in 2008, Bauermeister (2008) conducted an archeological inventory at the 

Johnston-Rodhe property in Boston where a component of the Boston Sewer Project was 

originally proposed. That component, which has since been relocated to the footprint of 

the non-extant Rodhe House located southeast of the historic Johnston House, would 

consist of a small pump station that would force sewage to a treatment pond proposed 

for development farther south in a grossly disturbed area under the Interstate 80 and 

Highway 271 bridges. A very small scatter of mixed historic and prehistoric materials 

was found during the 2008 inventory effort at the Johnston House. These materials 

were included as part of the previously recorded Johnson Barn site, 33SU481, that was 

recorded on the same parcel to the east. Like the previous findings at Johnson Barn, this 

deposit lacks depositional integrity and is not considered to be significant or eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP. 

In 2009, Bauermeister returned to several sites in Boston to conduct additional 

investigations specifically related to the proposed sewer system (Bauermeister 2009b). 

First, she visited site 33SU269 at the Boodey House to inventory and evaluate site 

resources in the north yard where components for the new sewer system are proposed. 

These include a grinder pump system and connecting sewer line. These investigations 

sought to determine if the buried artifact-bearing strata of 33SU269 extends across the 

entire north yard and/or if portions of the parcel (and intact deposit) had been subject to 

previous ground disturbance. Close-interval shovel tests, auger holes, and two 1-x-1-m 

test units were excavated to intensively examine site stratigraphy, content, and extent. 

The results verified that an historic artifact midden associated with the circa 1830 
36

BOSTON SEWER

Boodey House exists in some areas and is absent elsewhere. The shovel tests and auger 

holes confirmed that the soil profile in the area of potential effect for the sewer project 

has been disturbed and does not contain the buried midden deposit identified elsewhere 

on the property. Bauermeister recommended that the pump station and connecting 

sewer line be installed where they are proposed and she had those areas flagged so they 

could be readily identified.

Bauermeister continued her inventory of the proposed connecting sewer line 

route from the Boodey property onto the adjacent parcel to the east. The Cuyahoga 

Valley National Park Association’s Trail Mix store occupies the historic 1910 building 

on this lot, which is part of the same historic Boston Village Lot (60) as the Boodey 

House. The building would not be served by the new system, but the property would 

be intersected by the connecting sewer line installed north and east of the garage. 

The area of potential effect was shovel tested and a 1-x-1-m test unit was excavated. 

Additional artifacts attributed to site 33SU269 were encountered, but the artifacts were 

found in disturbed soils and the area lacks the buried midden deposit that comprises the 

significant component of the site. Bauermeister determined that the sewer line could be 

installed along the proposed route without adversely impacting site 33SU269 and did not 

recommend any additional archeological work (Bauermeister 2009b). 

Bauermeister then shovel tested a single linear transect on the next adjacent parcel 

to the east known as the Wolschleger lot (Tract 109-101), where site 33SU268 is recorded. 

System components proposed at the lot include a new holding tank and connecting sewer 

lines. The connecting line runs at a southeast diagonal across the lot and through the 

existing leach field that will be abandoned for the new system. The holding tank would 

be placed at the south edge of the lot, west of where the current septic mound is located 

and just north of the road right-of-way. The area of potential effect for the current 

project is confined to areas that have been subjected to previous ground disturbing 

activities, including the removal of the Wolschleger House, the installation of the septic 

field, and road construction (Aument 1996). The 2009 excavations verified that the soils 

in this area are grossly disturbed. A few historic artifacts and one prehistoric artifact 

were recovered, but all derived from disturbed contexts. No additional archeological 

work was recommended by Bauermeister (2009b). 

Finally in 2009, Bauermeister conducted an archeological inventory at the 

Johnston-Rodhe (Tract 118-77) and Johnson Barn (Tract 118-79) properties. The 

proposed system for Boston Village includes installing a pump station southeast of the 

historic Johnston House and within the footprint of the non-extant, non-historic Rodhe 

House that the park removed several years ago. The connecting sewer line would run 

south from the Boston Mills Road right-of-way along the east edge of the driveway 

toward the pump station. From the pump station, a line would run at a southeast 

diagonal toward the overflow parking lot, near where the former Johnson Barn stood. 

Shovel tests were excavated along the proposed connecting line routes and at the pump 

station location. A small amount of historic material attributed to previously recorded 

site 33SU481 was recovered. The site is not considered significant because it lacks 

depositional integrity and therefore the installation of a pump station and connecting 

lines would have no adverse effect on any significant archeological resources. No 

additional archeological work is recommended prior to the proposed undertaking.
37

PROJECT BACKGROUND

To assist the reader in understanding the sequence of inventory and evaluative 

testing projects that were conducted in Boston through 2009, pertinent data are 

summarized in Table 1. In that table, the projects are summarized by location and/or 

site association. 

From Table 1 and the summaries provided above, it is apparent that many 

small, and a few larger and more intensive, archeological inventory and evaluative test 

excavation projects have occurred in the Boston vicinity since 1971. However, the Area 

of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed Boston Sewer Project would encompass only a 

small sample of the sites and inventoried areas in and near Boston. In a later section of the 

report, more detailed archeological information will be presented for the eight historic 

properties and/or archeological sites that are within the project APE. These include the 

Boodey House (associated site 33SU269), a sewer connection area at Wolschleger (site 

33SU268), the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson Barn properties (associated site 33SU481), 

the Savacoal House (associated site 33SU423), the George Stanford House (associated 

site 33SU138), the Clayton Stanford House (associated site 33SU105), the Hines Hill 

Conference Center (associated sites 33SU99 and 33SU417), and the Barnhart (also known 

as Nina Stanford) House (associated site 33SU456). Though not within the project APE, 

a detailed discussion on 33SU417 is presented in this report since the results of fieldwork 

there have not been formerly reported and because of its proximity to the project area.
38

BOSTON SEWER
39

PROJECT METHODS AND RESEARCH DESIGN

The fieldwork discussed in this report was conducted over many years through 

numerous individual field efforts. Accordingly, it is difficult to provide the precise 

details of dates of fieldwork, weather conditions, research strategy, historical and 

archeological background research, and other similar kinds of information that the Ohio 

Archaeology Guidelines (AG) (OHPO 1994) recommend including in Phase I and Phase 

II archeological reports. Accordingly, the following summary will provide an overview 

of the typical approaches used for each of the numerous inventory and site testing efforts 

conducted at Boston by the Midwest Archeological Center and archeological teams 

working under National Park Service Archeological Resources Protection Act permits. 

Where appropriate, more specific information is provided in the section of the report 

where individual historic properties and sites are discussed and described. Although 

considerable fieldwork conducted to date at Boston specifically was targeted toward 

study of the proposed Boston Sewer Project, other projects were conducted there for 

a variety of other reasons. However, all of the projects contribute information that was 

used to plan the sewer project to avoid all adverse impacts to archeological resources. 

Essentially all of the previous projects had the overall goal of developing information 

regarding the distribution and potential significance of archeological deposits across 

the entire grounds of the NPS-owned historic properties in Boston. CUVA management 

used that approach so that the properties could be understood, not just as historic 

structures in an architectural and historical context, but in the broader sense of use 

of the landforms in Boston over several thousand years. Although the inventories and 

testing projects at the properties had such various initial goals, the resulting data can 

be used for a variety of planning purposes, including placement of the various elements 

of the proposed Boston Sewer Project to avoid adverse impacts to the numerous sites 

that occur there. As we will demonstrate, avoidance of significant site deposits has been 

effectively accomplished through the Boston Sewer Project planning process, using data 

collected from numerous archeological projects conducted over many years. 

The following paragraphs summarize the methods used for the various projects 

in Boston, focusing on historic background and archival research, and archeological 

field methods.

Historic and Prehistoric Background Research

Historians, historical architects, and landscape architects employed at CUVA 

and the NPS’s regional office in Omaha, Nebraska began researching Boston soon 

after the park was founded and as select properties in and near the Village began to 

be acquired from private owners. The park and NPS constructed a series of files and 

databases, including tract files for each property, the List of Classified Structures, the 

Cultural Landscape Inventory, and other related data sources for the historic properties 

in Boston and the park in general. Beginning in the 1980s, park staff continued those 

studies as structural renovations and restorations of the buildings were undertaken. 

Background research into the history and architecture of Boston included, but was not 

limited to, synthesis of published (e.g., Bierce 1854; Cherry 1921; Hatcher 1958, 1991; 

Perrin 1881; Scrattish 1985; Tackabury, Mead and Moffett 1874; Unrau and Scrattish 

1984; Upton 1910) and unpublished historical reports, maps, tax records, other 
40

BOSTON SEWER

property records, architectural studies of the building fabric, oral histories, and other 

related avenues of research. As a result, a great deal is known about the history of the 

community and its various historic buildings. That information is included in the various 

databases listed above as well as in published reports. The latter include a Boston Mills 

Historic District National Register Nomination (Stefanic and Winstel 1991), a National 

Register Nomination for the George Stanford Farm from 1982, syntheses of local tax 

records for several of the lots in the Village (Winstel 1991; Winstel and Machuga 1995), 

and a highly detailed Historic Structure Report (Quinn Evans/Architects 1995) that 

provides considerable background information on the history and development of the 

community. When this information is added to other National Register documentation 

(Ohio and Erie Canal and other listings), detailed published reports on the Ohio and 

Erie Canal within the park (Scrattish 1985; Unrau and Scrattish 1984), and historical 

syntheses developed for various historical and archeological studies (Brose et al. 1981; 

Finney 2002; Mustain et al. 1996; Noble 1992; Richner 1996, 1997; Richner and Volf 

2002), it is apparent that the archeological studies of the historic properties in Boston 

were firmly framed in an appropriate historical and architectural perspective. 

Similar to the historical and architectural studies pertinent to Boston, a 

long history of archeological interest in the community’s historic and prehistoric 

roots provided numerous overviews of cultural historical developments and other 

background data (e.g., Brose et al. 1981; Finney 2002; Lee 1986a; Noble 1988, 1992; 

Richner 1996, 1997; Richner and Volf 2002; Rossillon 1985) for the various researchers 

who conducted archeological fieldwork there. Like the historical data cited above, 

pertinent archeological information is synthesized in the PROJECT BACKGROUND 

section of this report. 

Research Designs and Fieldwork

Archeological fieldwork was conducted by archeologists from the Midwest 

Archeological Center, via contracts overseen by MWAC and CUVA, and by local 

universities via Archeological Resource Protection Act permits in Boston in 1979, 

1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. Although many of the projects were of limited scope, 

a basic premise was used to guide the work. The overall goal has been to combine the 

results of the projects to evaluate the numerous historic properties in Boston with the 

purpose of providing NPS managers with basic information on the distribution and 

potential significance of all archeological resources that might be present. The reason 

for applying such a broad research strategy was to provide data that management could 

ultimately use to protect those resources while planning various development actions 

in the community as part of the park’s long-term adaptive restoration or rehabilitation 

of the historic properties. Even very small-scale investigations related to some minor 

proposed action, such as inventory for placement of a water cistern at a single property, 

contribute to a broader consideration of the historic property. That approach has 

proven to be successful. Sites are now known to occur and are actively protected and 

preserved at many of the historic properties. Data from the archeological projects have 

been routinely shared with the park as structural repairs and renovations have been 

accomplished. As a result, the grounds containing the sites have been protected and site 

integrity has been preserved. 
41

PROJECT METHODS

This report summarizes all pertinent previous work that has occurred at 

the properties within the APE of the proposed Boston Sewer Project, but focuses 

specifically on those projects that, previously, have not been formally reported. So, while 

the results of earlier, published projects are discussed and considered, most emphasis is 

placed upon detailed reporting of those projects that have not been included in existing 

archeological reports. As will be seen in the chapter titled HISTORIC PROPERTIES 

AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT OF 

THE PROPOSED BOSTON SEWER PROJECT, most of the fieldwork to be reported for 

the first time here is of relatively limited scope that yielded small artifact assemblages. 

However, when combined with the previously reported projects, the work forms a 

database for planning that has allowed the Boston Sewer Project to be designed in a 

manner that will protect the integrity of the numerous archeological sites within the 

Boston Village area. 

Archeological Field Methods

While Midwest Archeological Center field methods varied slightly from 

project to project, an essentially similar and consistent approach was applied to all of 

the numerous individual projects. Fieldwork occurred only during the warm season, 

usually summer, when conditions were optimal for shovel testing and limited test 

excavations. Since, given the lack of exposed ground around the historic structures, 

we did not rely on pedestrian inventory methods, the specifics of weather condition for 

each individual project are not critical to an understanding that all of the fieldwork was 

completed as planned and under good, if not optimal, conditions. Since we never relied 

on examination of exposures of the ground surface for these studies, and since nearly 

all of the inventoried parcels are maintained in mowed turf lawns, neither weather 

conditions nor vegetation coverage affected the results of the individual field efforts in 

any meaningful manner.

Typically, the project areas were inventoried via placement of shovel tests in grids 

paralleling Boston Mills or Stanford Roads, or oriented relative to the primary historic 

structure on the property under consideration. Five-meter intervals were the norm, with 

shovel tests of 35-40 cm diameter excavated at each 5-m grid point. While the OHPO 

(1994) recommends excavating 0.5-x-0.5-m shovel test units on a 15 meter grid, we have 

found through study of many dozens of historic properties at many national parks that 

a smaller interval provides more refined data on the distribution of artifacts at historic 

house sites as well as at prehistoric sites, many of which exhibit rather sparse scatters. 

In terms of amount of actual area sampled, the slightly smaller unit size that we utilize 

is compensated for by a more intensive level of coverage. Since the inventories at Boston 

occurred over many years at many different parcels, multiple grids were established, 

rather than using a single grid for the entire community. However, we typically used only 

one grid at each property, so the resulting inventories are clear and readily understood 

and reported. In some cases, a single grid was extended over multiple adjacent properties, 

such as at the lots adjacent to the Boston General Store. All of the historic buildings and 

other structures and surface features were drawn to scale on the grid. Typically, we tried 

to depict each component and addition for each house. Walkways, porches, driveways, 

and other elements were also plotted on the grids to scale. The resulting maps are 
42

BOSTON SEWER

therefore consistent across all of the properties. They were created with a combination 

of transit and stadia rod, Brunton and other compasses, and cloth tapes. 

After completion of shovel test grids across individual properties, 1-x-1-m test 

units of varying number were typically excavated to assess artifact scatters found during 

inventory and/or to examine aspects of the site’s stratigraphic profiles. The number of 

units ranges considerably across the sites depending upon each site’s complexity and 

content. The amount of excavation at each property and site is specifically discussed 

under each property considered in the chapter HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND 

ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT OF THE 

PROPOSED BOSTON SEWER PROJECT. Except in a few instances where disturbances 

or the presence of modern fills made it impractical or impossible, all shovel tests and test 

excavation units were excavated into the sterile level (well into the B Horizon) of each 

site’s soil profile. Excavations were typically conducted in 10 cm levels, although natural/

cultural layering was the basis for vertical control in some units. All excavations were 

documented through a variety of related methods including: standard MWAC shovel 

test, test excavation unit, and/or feature forms for each excavated level of each unit, scale 

stratigraphic profiles and plan views for select units, standard and digital photography, 

narrative field notes, and a variety of laboratory databases and other records. All 

excavated matrix was screened through 1⁄4 inch hardware cloth, with flotation sampling 

conducted for the very few prehistoric site features that have been encountered. Carbon 

14 and other special samples were collected wherever appropriate contexts were 

discovered, and the results of processing of those samples have been previously reported 

(Finney 2002:Table 10).

All of the archeological sites discovered in Boston as a result of the projects 

summarized in this report have been recorded via Ohio Archaeological Inventory 

(OAI) forms and formal trinomials have been assigned to the sites. Where we revisited 

previously recorded sites and collected new information, we revised the existing site 

forms accordingly. Following procedures used in many other national park areas, 

where feasible, we considered each historic lot in Boston separately for purposes of 

site recordation. The use of lot boundaries for identifying individual sites, particularly 

historic sites, has worked much better in Boston than site boundary and numbering 

approaches that have been applied by other archeologists (e.g., Mustain et al. 1996) 

working at Boston’s historic sites. Accordingly, a small number of the site designations 

(e.g., 33SU267) for Boston’s historic archeological sites are unwieldy and of limited use 

for interpretation and site management since they span multiple historic properties and 

combine materials from temporally and functionally disparate buildings and site 

occupations. Because of this, they fail to reflect the association of artifacts and 

features with the individual historic properties. 

Other site numbering and accounting methods could have been applied at Boston, 

such as assigning a single number for the community and managing each property or 

parcel as a subsite, but the existing numbering application works relatively well, with 

the possible exception of lumping unrelated scatters into single site designations for site 

33SU267 as noted above. 
43

PROJECT METHODS

In addition to the formal site recordation system used in conjunction with the 

OAI, the NPS also maintains a nation-wide archeological database for managing its 

archeological sites. At present, some 60,000+ sites are included in this database across 

the NPS, known as the Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS). 

It consists of numerous data fields, with multiple entries in each field, for each of the 

Service’s recorded archeological sites. All archeological sites within CUVA are included 

in ASMIS. The database is updated each time a site is visited by an archeologist.

Given the recordation of sites via the OAI and ASMIS databases, the artifact 

collection and project archival holdings at MWAC, and the fact that all archeological 

research in Boston since NPS ownership began in the 1970s is documented through not 

only those sources, but also via geographic information system-based site plottings and 

related project map layers, as well as through multiple parkwide archeological syntheses 

(Brose et al. 1981; Finney 2002), all pertinent archeological information for Boston was 

available to the authors of this report in advance of report preparation. 

Collections Management

The collections resulting from NPS-sponsered fieldwork in Boston to date are 

held in numerous Midwest Archeological Center Accessions including: MWAC 72, 

123, 166, 167, 172, 349, 350A, 350B, 350C, 351, 394, 440, 496, 526, 527, 565, 603, 698, 703, 

724, 751, 804, 911, 943, 945, 987, 1028, 1061, 1144, 1168, 1188, 1221, 1237, 1292, and 1293. 

These accessions include not only all recovered artifacts, but also all related forms, 

notes, photographs, maps, and other associated project archives. These are all stored 

under conditions exceeding the NPS’s standards for museum collections at the Midwest 

Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
44

BOSTON SEWER
45

THE PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM

Throughout its 175+ year-long history, the community of Boston has never been 

connected to a single, unified wastewater treatment system. In the nineteenth century, 

human waste was managed at each property via privy pits that would have been moved 

and replaced as they filled. Such features would have been a location for discard of 

unwanted household and personal items as well as human waste. An example of midnineteenth century privy contents for a property at CUVA is reported for site 33CU314 

(Richner 1992a). Gray water from kitchen and laundry use was probably dumped or 

merely allowed to flow into the ground near the buildings. By the late nineteenth or 

early twentieth centuries, some of the properties in Boston would have employed brick 

or concrete septic tanks, rather than pit privies. Still later, combinations of septic tank 

and leach fields or leach pits were constructed at several of the properties. For many 

years, the benefits of connecting the properties to a modern city wastewater system 

have been known and various plans have been developed through time for such 

connections. Among those benefits would be the cessation of constructing multiple 

facilities to replace old ones, especially leach fields and pits, as they lost effectiveness. 

This is an especially important consideration for archeological resources at Boston, 

since sequential modifications and additions to the wastewater treatment systems 

have previously impacted archeological resources. Recently, planners and engineers 

have designed a modern system that would connect to a single treatment facility and 

modernize all wastewater treatment at the structures in Boston owned by the National 

Park Service.

The proposed undertaking would replace multiple existing deteriorated septic 

systems in the Boston Mills Historic District, at the George Stanford property, the 

Clayton Stanford property, and at the Hines Hill Conference Center. The proposed new 

collection and treatment system includes new pump stations, force main lines, gravity 

sewer lines and a new centralized wetland treatment system. All NPS-owned residential 

and commercial buildings in the project area would be served. 

Four lift stations and 8,100 linear feet of gravity sewers and force mains would 

be installed in Boston and the surrounding area to collect sanitary flows and convey 

them to the new treatment system. All wastewater generated at the individual structures 

would first undergo primary settling in existing septic tanks located on the properties. 

Flows from the Hines Hill Conference Center would be pumped to the George Stanford 

property and then combined with flows from that property. The wastewater would then 

be pumped to a gravity sewer that would be installed within the right-of-way of Stanford 

Road beginning at the Barnhart House and then continuing south to the JohnstonRodhe property. Sewage from all NPS-owned structures in the Boston Mills Historic 

District would be collected in a gravity sewer system that would ultimately drain to a 

new, centralized pump station at the Johnston-Rodhe property. The new sewers would 

be located within the existing rights-of-way of Boston Mills Road and, as previously 

mentioned, Stanford Road. All wastewater would then be pumped from the JohnstonRodhe location via a 2 inch force main to the new treatment system which would be 

located in the previously disturbed lands between Interstate 80 (the Ohio Turnpike) and 

Interstate 271. 
46

BOSTON SEWER

The project was developed and designed by the firm URS, Corporation 

of Cleveland, Ohio along with National Park Service staff from Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park. 

The authors of this report met with and advised the NPS staff who planned 

and coordinated the project through the project planning phase regarding methods 

for preserving and protecting any archeological resources that might occur within 

the project area. Preservation of archeological resources through avoidance was a 

primary consideration in the wastewater system’s project design. As a result of those 

planning efforts and the close coordination of archeologists and other cultural resource 

specialists, engineers, and planners, an innovative system has been developed that 

involves very minimal ground disturbance while still meeting all pertinent standards for 

construction and wastewater treatment.

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project lies almost entirely within 

the disturbed footprint of existing road corridors, utility trenches, and underground 

tank and sewer line locations. Portions of the project footprint outside of existing 

road corridors, utility lines, and tank locations will be installed in grossly disturbed 

areas within archeological site boundaries, or in areas that do not overlap with any 

archeological sites. As the project was being designed, it was obvious that Boston 

is an area of considerable archeological sensitivity. As indicated in the PROJECT 

BACKGROUND chapter of this report, knowledge of archeological resources in 

Boston extends back to about 1971, with numerous small-scale archeological projects 

occurring there through 2009. The specific archeological projects that have occurred 

at the individual properties in Boston to be connected to the new wastewater system are 

detailed in the chapter on historic properties and archeological sites. For all previously 

published projects, the results of work at each parcel are summarized. For any projects 

that have not been previously published, full archeological reporting is presented in a 

later chapter of this report. 

This report’s authors not only participated in project design, but also carefully 

examined the project drawings (Boston Mills Historic District Sanitary System, 

644/60,549 Sheets 1 through 27). Based upon that review, we determined what areas 

within the APE were either not known to have been previously grossly disturbed and/

or had not been archeologically inventoried and evaluated. As a result of that review, 

six specific areas were archeologically examined in 2008 and 2009. These include small 

areas at the Boodey and Trail Mix properties (site 33SU269), the Wolschlager property 

(site 33SU268), the Johnston-Rodhe/Johnson Barn property (site 33SU481), the Hines 

Hill Conference Center (site 33SU99), and the George Stanford property (site 33SU138). 

Archeological fieldwork was undertaken in 2008 and 2009 to fully inventory the 

anticipated areas of ground disturbance at those locations. Fieldwork confirmed that 

significant archeological deposits do not exist within the project impact zones.

Data from multiple previous archeological projects were combined with the 

results of the 2008 and 2009 fieldwork to design a system that can be connected to each 

of the eight historic properties in Boston, all of which contain archeological resources, 

without adversely impacting the qualities for which any of Boston’s archeological sites 

are eligible for, or already listed on, the National Register of Historic Places. For the 
47

PROPOSED SEWER SYSTEM

properties along Stanford and Boston Mills Roads, the main lines would be placed in 

the grossly disturbed right-of-way on the north side of Boston Mills Road and along 

the east side of Stanford Road. Much of that installation would be accomplished using 

directional boring, rather than open trenches. Connections would then be made to the 

George Stanford, Clayton Stanford, and Barnhart properties along Stanford Road. The 

Hines Hill property would be connected to the existing septic tank system at the George 

Stanford property, rather than directly to the main line along Stanford Road. The 

route from Hines Hill to the Stanford location was selected along a steep slope where 

no archeological resources occur. The other two properties would be connected via 

short trenches that would be placed in previously disturbed areas. Along Boston Mills 

Road, the Boodey, Boston General Store, Savacoal, and Johnston-Rodhe properties 

along Boston Mills Road would be connected to a sewer line that would be installed in 

the disturbed right-of-way of Boston Mills Road. At each of these properties, except 

the Boston General Store, short trenches would connect the buildings to the main 

line. At each property, the route of the short connecting line has been chosen to avoid 

intersection with any significant archeological deposits. The Boston General Store’s 

existing leach field, north of Boston Mills Road, would be connected to the same line 

that would serve Boodey, so no ground disturbance would occur at the store or its 

associated site, 33SU270. As noted above, existing tank and utility corridors were used 

whenever possible. In all other cases, the routes for the short connecting trenches were 

chosen to avoid all significant archeological deposits. From Savacoal, the line would 

pass under Boston Mills Road to the Johnston-Rodhe property. That location does not 

contain any significant archeological resources. 

A second sewer line would pass along the east side of Stanford Road, within the 

grossly disturbed road right-of-way. As at Boston Mills Road, most of that installation 

would involve directional boring rather than open trenching. Connections to that line 

along Stanford Road would be made to the George Stanford, Clayton Stanford, and 

Barnhart (also known as Nina Stanford) properties. As at the properties on Boston 

Mills Road, the actual connecting lines would be installed in grossly disturbed existing 

utility prisms and/or in areas that avoid intersection with any significant archeological 

deposits. Significant archeological resources occur within certain portions of the 

George Stanford, Clayton Stanford, Barnhart, and Hines Hill properties along Stanford 

Road and at the Boodey, Boston General Store and Savacoal properties on Boston Mills 

Road. All intact archeological deposits at those properties are avoided by the project’s 

components. This was accomplished by utilizing disturbed, existing utility locations 

and by routing the connecting lines to avoid the intact portions of the sites.

From the Johnston-Rodhe property, the sewage would be pumped south via 

a small (2 inch diameter) force main through a grossly disturbed zone to an open area 

under the Highway 271 and Interstate 80 bridges over the Cuyahoga River. That line 

would be installed by a chain trencher, which would impact a very narrow prism, all of 

which is completely and grossly previously disturbed. A sewage treatment facility would 

be constructed within the area under the road overpasses, a completely compromised 

and grossly disturbed area (Appendix 2). This would take the form of a wetland, where 

wastewater would be cleaned through natural processes. A similar, but smaller, wetland 

treatment facility was developed many years ago at the Environmental Education Center 

at CUVA, and has proven to be highly effective. 
48

BOSTON SEWER

As a result of the planning and project design process, no adverse effects would 

occur at the numerous archeological sites that have been recorded to date in Boston. 

However, since significant archeological sites occur in relatively close proximity to 

some components of the proposed undertaking, we are recommending that a series of 

provisions be installed in the contract document that will ensure that no significant 

archeological deposits would be inadvertently damaged during construction. These 

specifications include limits and rules on vehicular traffic, placing of spoil materials, 

placement of fencing, use of geotechnical fabric, plywood and other barriers to protect 

the ground surface adjacent to the trenches, and other provisions specifically developed 

for this project. These are presented in detail, along with other related recommendations, 

in the final section of this report.
49

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN THE 

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED BOSTON 

SEWER PROJECT

The following narratives synthesize the available information for all archeological 

fieldwork projects conducted at the properties in Boston that will be served by the 

proposed sewer system and/or where other sewer project components are planned 

(Figure 4). Information on other archeological projects in or near Boston, but that are 

not within the specific Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the proposed sewer project, 

was presented in the PROJECT BACKGROUND chapter of this report. In the following 

pages, we have written summaries covering all previously published archeological 

work for each specific historic property and/or archeological site. Prior to the writing 

of this report, there was also some unpublished archeological information available 

for several of the properties. Typically, pertinent information exists in internal NPS 

memoranda, such as Trip Reports, but additional, more complete reporting for those 

efforts is presented here. The current report fully documents all of those previously 

unpublished MWAC archeological projects. This newly reported information includes 

multiple field projects conducted by the Midwest Archeological Center through 2009. 

We have described and presented the data from all of the previously published and 

unpublished projects in a consistent format for each of the sites under consideration. 

For the information first published here, we have developed a series of tables and figures 

to support the report narratives. Previously published narratives, figures, and tables are 

summarized and referenced, but are not reproduced here. Ohio Archeological Inventory 

(OAI) forms that were revised or newly developed for sites discussed here are included 

in APPENDIX 1 of this report. 

Since many of the historic artifact types considered in the report are extremely 

well known to archeologists, we have chosen to rely heavily on tabular presentation, 

rather than narrative descriptions, of the items. However, we have summarized 

background information and chronological implications for certain artifact groups, 

such as historic ceramics. In those cases, the information is presented within one 

of the site presentations where the items are numerous, rather than repeating such 

information for multiple sites. Temporally and culturally diagnostic prehistoric artifacts 

are infrequent from the projects described for the first time in this report. Accordingly, 

we have illustrated most of the diagnostic items from those collections, but have not 

illustrated the debitage and fire-cracked rocks. All of the artifacts, both historic 

and prehistoric, reported here for the first time are fully tabulated as well as 

discussed in the appropriate site data presentations.

Site 33SU269 at the R.E. Wise or Boodey House and Square Deal Food Store, also known 

as Trail Mix, Property

Description

A multi-component archeological site, 33SU269, is recorded on the grounds of 

the historic Wise/Boodey House and the adjacent Square Deal Food Store, now known 

as Trail Mix. The site and property are positioned at an elevation of about 664 ft amsl on 

the first raised terrace above the Cuyahoga River floodplain. This terrace is the primary 
50

BOSTON SEWER

topographic feature in the core of Boston and most of Boston’s structures are built on it. 

The early history of this historic house at 1571 Boston Mills Road at the southeast corner 

of Main Street is unclear (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). The house (HS-480) stands on the 

southwest corner of Boston Village Lot 60, on what is now within Tract 109-99. Although 

there is information in the form of a Summit County Century Home Association plaque 

indicating that it was built by a member of the well-known Mather family in 1822, local 

tax records are inconclusive regarding that assignation. It has been our experience that 

the early tax records for Boston, and the park area in general, are often incomplete, 

and occasionally contradictory. So, despite the lack of confirmation of age and original 

owner in those records, it is plausible that the house could be of early 1820s vintage. The 

house certainly stood at this location by 1835 when it is specifically mentioned in the 

tax records as valued at $246 and belonging to Abraham Holmes. Holmes is listed as 

the owner of Lot 60 on the original 1834 plat of the Village (Figure 2). Like other earlynineteenth-century CUVA structures, it is timber-framed, with hewn posts, beams, and 

sills. It is rectangular in plan, with its gable roof containing two interior end chimney 

stacks. The shed-roofed side porch is an early and historic feature, while the front gabled 

roof porch is a modern addition.

The former Square Deal Food Store, now known as Trail Mix, occupies the 

southeast corner of Boston Village Lot 60. It is located on Government Tract 109-100, 

which is a subdivision of original Boston Village Lot 60. This small, one-story gablefront building (HS-497) is one of only two former commercial buildings left in the 

Village, although nearly all of the Village’s earliest buildings had commercial functions. 

Built in 1911, the rectangular plan structure has exterior wall wooden and metal siding. 

The storefront, which faces south onto Boston Mills Road (address 1565), has a recessed 

entry that is flanked by four-light display windows. A small, low pitch, gable-roofed 

porch runs the length of the front façade. The elongated, rectangular building occupies 

and covers the footprint of an earlier building depicted at this location in 1856 (Figure 3). 

That building, of undetermined function, appears to have been roughly square in form. 

A third building, no longer extant, and also of undetermined age and function, is also 

depicted on Lot 60 on the 1856 plat (Figure 3). That small building was located to the 

north of the current Trail Mix structure. 

Archeological Information

The Boodey property was first investigated archeologically in 1995 during ASC’s 

Phase I survey for the Boston Mills bridge replacement project and site 33SU269 was 

identified as a result (Mustain et al. 1996). Archeological site 33SU269 was recorded as 

a buried (40-50 cm deep) early-to-mid-nineteenth century historic midden associated 

with the ca. 1830s Boodey House. The site was identified based on two positive shovel 

tests on the north side of the house that exposed a midden of artifacts dating from the 

1820s through the end of the nineteenth century. Mustain et al. (1996) reported that 

the site was significant because of its association with the Boodey House, which is a 

contributing element of the Boston Mills Historic District. No archeological resources 

were identified in the two shovel tests that were excavated on the east part of the lot near 

the Trail Mix Store. 
51

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

2007 Fieldwork. MWAC Archeologist Ann Bauermeister conducted investigations 

at the Boodey property in July 2007 in advance of a proposed cistern installation. The 

targeted cistern location was in the east yard, off of the northeast corner of the porch, 

just south of where an existing, defunct cistern is situated (Figure 5). This relatively 

narrow strip of land between the house and driveway was not previously inventoried for 

archeological resources since the area did not fall along any of the 15-m spaced shovel 

test transects used during the 1995 ASC inventory. The 2007 investigations included 

close-interval shovel testing and limited evaluative testing of the section of the east yard 

bounded on the north by the extant cistern and on the south by the Boston Mills Road. A 

single north-to-south row of shovel tests spaced approximately 5-m apart was excavated, 

with each of the four tests yielding historic materials (Tables 2-6). A 1-x-1-m test unit was 

then excavated at the north end of the project area near the proposed cistern location. 

The exposed profile (Figures 6-7) revealed an upper, 20-cm thick layer of silty loam that 

could have been deposited from a flooding event, or events. Both historic and modern 

materials were in this matrix. Underneath the upper layer was a thick deposit of cobbles, 

gravel and rocks that was nearly devoid of artifacts. A distinct layer of coal and cinders 

underneath the gravel layer was exposed in the west wall of the unit and it extended just 

slightly into the north wall, but was not present on the east or south sides. The remainder 

of the unit was comprised of yellowish-brown silty clay to 60 cm below surface followed 

by brown clay loam; the artifact bearing soils ceased by about 70 cm below surface. It 

is noted from this altered soil profile that the original grade A-horizon soils have been 

truncated in this area; this, coupled with the buried gravel layer is evidence for previous 

ground disturbance in this area. The disturbance could be attributed to the former 

cistern installation, or with other undocumented structural and/or site improvement 

activities undertaken at the property. 

The historic materials recovered from the 2007 excavations (Tables 2-6) are 

attributed to site 33SU269 and the site boundary has been expanded to include this area. 

This small portion of the site, however, is not considered significant because the artifacts 

occur in such a diminished depositional context that the deposit’s analytical potential is 

compromised. No additional archeological work was recommended in advance of the 

cistern installation.

2009 Fieldwork: Boodey Property. Ann Bauermeister completed additional 

investigations at the Boodey property in August 2009 in advance of the proposed 

installation of a grinder pump system and connecting sewer line for the new Boston sewer 

system. The preferred location for the pump station is in the north yard. Investigations 

there sought to determine if the buried artifact-bearing stratum identified by Mustain 

et al. (1996) extends across the entire north yard or if portions of the parcel (and intact 

deposit) had been subject to previous ground disturbance so that the system components 

could be installed without having an adverse effect on the site. At the start of the 

investigations, the crew was informed by park maintenance staff and the neighbor to the 

north of an existing septic tank in the backyard, but its exact location was not initially 

confirmed. It is also assumed that an associated leach field would have been situated in 

the north yard. The sewer connection on the north side of the house was identified and, 

based on its location, two 1-x-1-m test units were placed north of the house in an area 

that we presumed would intersect the original sewer line and/or have been impacted 

from the septic tank installation. As it turned out, the connecting line was installed at a 
52

BOSTON SEWER

slight northwest angle and it and the tank are located west of where the two units were 

excavated. This was verified by using a metal detector and sensor to relocate the sewer 

line and septic tank. 

The buried midden deposit first recorded in 1995 was identified in both of 

the 2009 test units. The artifacts are consistent in type and age with those previously 

identified at 33SU269; these have been included as part of the overall site assemblage 

(Tables 2-6) and are discussed in detail below. The soil profile is virtually the same in 

both of the test units and consists of 0-12 cm of medium brown silty loam, followed by 

gray-brown silty loam mottled with yellowish-brown clay from 12-22 cm, the midden 

deposit in medium brown silty clay from 22-45 cm (in some areas it extended to 55 cm), 

and culturally sterile yellow silty clay loam (B horizon) underneath (Figures 8-9). 

Shovel tests and auger holes were then excavated to examine the soil profile 

across the entire north yard. These were positioned to target the area of potential 

effect for the proposed pump station and to refine the sampling of the previous area 

of investigations by using close-interval spacing. Each location was measured and 

accurately plotted on the site map (Figure 5). The shovel tests and auger holes revealed 

varied profiles that include areas of previous disturbance where the soil profile has been 

substantially altered and where the buried midden does not occur (Table 7). Evidence of 

previous disturbance includes gravel and coal inclusions, a deeply buried (as much as 1.4 

m below surface) layer of burned/friable red and black sand, mottled clays, and buried 

utilities (e.g., drain tile, sewer pipe). Based on these results, it was determined that there 

are areas where intact site components exist and where they are absent. 

2009 Fieldwork: Trail Mix Store Property. Ann Bauermeister also undertook 

archeological investigations at the adjacent property east of the Boodey House in August 

2009. The Trail Mix Store occupies the historic building on the lot, which is operated 

by the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association. The building would not be served 

by the new system, but the property would be intersected by the proposed connecting 

sewer line that would run from west to east behind the garage that is northwest of the 

store. The parcel was previously investigated during the 1995 ASC shovel test inventory 

(Mustain et al. 1996) and no archeological resources were encountered. 

The 2009 investigations focused on the area north of the garage where the sewer 

connecting line is proposed and that was not included in the original 1995 shovel test 

inventory. One shovel test (ST 7) and one 1-x-1-m test unit were excavated behind the 

garage and three shovel tests (ST 1-3) were excavated along a single west-to-east transect 

positioned north and east of the garage along the proposed sewer line route. The soil 

profile here is different than at the Boodey House property and lacks the buried midden 

deposit that comprises the significant historic component of 33SU269. The test unit 

profile exhibits a top layer (0-8 cm) of sod and dark brown loam, followed by a layer 

of dark brown loam (8-34 cm) with coal, brick, and burned materials on top of sterile 

yellow silty clay (Figure 10). Artifacts were recovered throughout and are in mixed 

context with modern materials (plastic, cellophane) occurring in the same deposit as 

historic (whiteware, bottle glass, bone), and prehistoric (chert shatter) artifacts (Tables 

8-11). The artifacts are attributed to site 33SU269, since they occur on the same historic 

lot as the Boodey House, but the disturbed nature of the deposit compromises any 
53

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

meaningful research potential. A revised OAI form with updated information from the 

2007 and 2009 excavations is included in APPENDIX 1. 

Historic Component. All four test units, 14 shovel tests, and six of the 11 auger 

holes excavated in 2007 and 2009 yielded a combined total of 2138 artifacts, which are 

attributed to site 33SU269. The materials are considered part of a single assemblage 

from historic Lot 60 that encompasses both the Boodey and Trail Mix properties. The 

majority of the artifacts (n=1127) are domestic in function and include 433 curved 

glass fragments, 327 whiteware sherds (236 undecorated and 91 decorated), 192 bone 

fragments, 141 various ceramic sherds (75 terra cotta, 24 yellowware, 21 stoneware, 18 

porcelain, 3 redware), 26 bottle cap fragments (22 ferrous metal, 4 bakelite), flatware (1 

plastic fork tine and 2 pieces of a stainless steel spoon), aluminum foil, a brass kettle lug, 

and three pieces of a broken Pepsi-Cola bottle (Tables 2-6, 8-11). 

Architectural items are the next most abundant artifact class (n=868) in the site 

assemblage. This group consists of 384 nails (173 wire, 155 unknown, 55 cut, 1 wrought), 

264 flat glass sherds, 188 brick fragments, 22 drain tile fragments, five plaster fragments, 

three 1-cm square ceramic tiles, a screw, and a screw eye (Tables 4 and 9). 

The personal artifact group consists of 41 artifacts (Tables 5 and 10). Among the 

items are 11 white clay tobacco-pipe fragments (10 stems, 1 bowl), seven buttons (2 shell, 

1 glass, 1 ferrous metal, 1 non-ferrous metal, 1 bone, 1 rubber), six toys (4 doll fragments, 

1 car wheel, 1 clay marble) three rivets, three writing implements (1 carbon pencil, 1 

pencil ferule, 1 chalk stick), two clothing fasteners, two celluloid comb fragments, two 

decorative brass pins (one is in the form of a turtle), one perfume applicator, one brass 

key, an aluminum eyelet, a ferrous metal file, and one 1936 wheat-back penny. 

The remainder of the artifacts (n=102) belong to the miscellaneous category 

(Tables 6 and 11). There are 69 ferrous metal pieces (67 unidentified fragments, 2 

springs), 22 shell fragments, eight non-ferrous metal objects (2 lead scraps, 1 lead ring, 

2 brass wires, 1 brass washer, 1 lead plug with brass washer, 1 unidentified), a glass lid 

insert or bottle closure, one cylindrical piece of slate (possibly a slate pencil fragment), 

and a small bar of mica with a beveled edge.

For analytical purposes, the overall assemblage has been divided into two 

subsets, one for artifacts that derived from the buried midden deposit (20-55 cm below 

surface) encountered in TUs 1 and 2 north of the Boodey House, and one for artifacts 

that were found in disturbed, or non-midden, contexts, that derived from all of the 

other excavation proveniences. Greater consideration is given to the midden deposit 

because it is intact and retains more analytical potential than do the disturbed, 

non-midden contexts.

Midden Context. The midden deposit was encountered in the north yard of the 

Boodey House in TU 1, positioned with its southwest corner eight meters north and 

two and one-half meters west of the house’s northeast corner and in TU 2, located six 

meters north and one meter west of TU 1. The midden deposit is comparable in both 

units as previously noted; it consists of medium brown silty clay with a concentration 

of fragmentary artifacts, coal, and pebbles from about 20 cm to 50 cm below surface, 
54

BOSTON SEWER

though in some areas the artifacts continued to 55 cm below surface. The midden’s 

assemblage totals 1057 artifacts, 550 of which represent domestic activities, 458 are 

architectural in nature, 23 are personal items, and 26 fit within the miscellaneous 

category. All of the artifacts are extremely fragmentary and few exhibit any diagnostic 

landmarks, therefore most of the identifications were based on general classifications 

of color and type. Where possible, any temporal indicators are identified. To ascertain 

if the midden deposit is the same in the two units, the contents from each unit were 

compared to look for any distinct patterns, either horizontally or vertically, that might 

indicate discrete functional or temporal events. 

The midden in TU 1 yielded 909 artifacts compared to just 148 artifacts 

recovered from the midden deposit in TU 2. Within the TU 1 midden assemblage, most 

(n=444 or 49%) are from the domestic group, followed closely by architectural artifacts 

(n=429 or 47%), miscellaneous items (n=23 or 3%), and personal items (n=13 or 1%). The 

distribution for TU 2 is similar, but with an even higher percentage of domestic artifacts 

(n=105 or 71%), compared to the other categories of architectural (n=29 or 20%), personal 

(n=10 or 7%), and miscellaneous artifacts (n=4 or 2%). The units were dug in arbitrary 

10-cm levels and so it is possible to examine the vertical distribution of artifacts through 

the midden. In TU 1, artifacts were densest (n=406) in the middle of the midden deposit 

(30-40 cm) with only slightly fewer (n=373) in the upper (20-30 cm) layer, and noticeably 

fewer (n=130) in the lowest (40-55 cm) layer. The artifacts were more evenly distributed 

throughout the midden deposit in TU 2, with more (n=64) in the lower layer than in the 

top (n=51) and middle (n=33) layers. In both units, the artifact yield per discrete arbitrary 

level within the midden matched the same general artifact distribution for the midden 

deposit as a whole, indicating that the midden exhibits a consistent artifact discard 

pattern through its entire history.

Curved glass represents 37% of the domestic artifact group and 19% of the entire 

midden assemblage. Most of the glass is from broken bottles and jars, including several 

milk glass lid insert fragments, but the fragmentary condition of the artifacts prohibited 

much more than general identifications. The majority of glass sherds are colorless 

(n=136), followed by aqua (n=52), milk glass (n=5), solarized (n=4), amber (n=2), yellow 

(n=1), molded (n=1), and hobnail (n=1). Curved glass was dispersed throughout the 

midden in both units with the greatest variety of types (colorless, aqua, amber, yellow, 

molded, hobnail) occurring in the lowest layer and the greatest density (n=96 or 48%) in 

the upper layer. All four pieces of solarized glass derived from the center of the midden 

in TU 2; these fragments, which are sun-altered (amethyst in color), would have been 

produced from 1880-1915 (Munsey 1970). The hobnail glass fragment found in the 

lowest layer in TU 1 dates to post 1930s. 

Whiteware comprises 30% of the domestic assemblage and 16% of the overall 

midden deposit. Of the 167 total sherds, 125 are undecorated, 34 are transfer-print 

decorated (14 blue, 9 flow blue, 6 red, 3 black, 1 brown, 1 mulberry), six are hand painted, 

one is edge decorated, and one has a floral decal design. The sherds are fairly evenly 

distributed throughout the midden deposit (71 are from 20-30 cm, 54 are from 30-40, 

and 42 are from 40-55), though TU 1 contains more different types of decorated wares 

compared to TU 2. With the exception of edge decoration, all of the decorated ware 
55

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

types represented in the assemblage were found in TU 1. Hand-painted, brown transferprinted, and decal-decorated sherds were absent from TU 2. 

Only one named, blue transfer print pattern was identified from a single sherd 

from the lowest level of TU 1. It is the Canova pattern that dates to circa 1830-1848 and 

was made by T. Mayer or G. Phillips (Williams 1978). The various colored (red, black, 

brown, mulberry) transfer-print wares date circa 1830-1860 (Larsen 1975) and the rest 

of the unidentifiable blue transfer-print wares date circa 1790 to present (Coysh and 

Henrywood 1982). The brown transfer print, from the middle of TU 1, exhibits a partial, 

unidentifiable maker’s mark that includes a possible unicorn, which is part of the Royal 

Arms and occurs with a lion on many English maker’s marks. One of the larger flow blue 

sherds from the top of the midden in TU 1 is typical of the flow blue decoration produced 

in the 1890s; the fragment is part of a small bowl with an embossed, scalloped edge. This 

decorative technique had two distinct periods of popularity. The first was in the mid1800s and the second at the turn of the twentieth century (Richner 1992a:53). Among 

the hand-painted sherds are annular, fineline and sprig earthen-palette polychrome, 

and broadline blue-floral decorations. Annular ware was manufactured from 1790 

to 1930 and the earthen polychrome and blue floral designs both date to circa 

1830-1860 (Price 1979). 

Additional ceramics include 13 stoneware fragments, 12 yellowware fragments 

(including nine with colorless glaze and three with Rockingham glaze), 11 porcelain 

sherds, seven terra cotta flower pot sherds, and two glazed redware sherds. The 

Rockingham-glazed sherds were found in both test units in the upper and middle portion 

of the midden. This decorative technique was used between 1840 and 1900 (Leibowitz 

1985). The remainder of the domestic assemblage consists of 129 bone fragments found 

throughout the midden in both test units, but with a much greater amount (n=106) found 

in TU 1 compared to TU 2 (n=23). Six ferrous metal bottle cap fragments, all from the 

upper midden in TU 2, and one brass kettle lug from TU 1 complete the domestic 

assemblage from the midden context. 

A total of 458 architectural artifacts was recovered from the midden, and most of 

these (n=429 or 94%) were found in TU 1. The assemblage includes nails (n=207) brick 

fragments (n=127), flat glass (n=119), drain tile fragments (n=4), and one screw. The 

drain tile fragments and screw were recovered from the middle of the midden deposit 

in TU 1; the rest of the artifacts were found throughout the midden in both test units, 

though again with much less frequency in TU 2. Twenty-eight cut nails date to circa 

1790s to 1890s (Gilleo et al. 1980); 88 wire nails date from circa 1890s to present. The rest 

are badly corroded and unidentifiable. 

Personal items (n=23) make up two percent of the overall midden assemblage. 

Artifacts in this group include four porcelain doll fragments, eleven tobacco-pipe 

fragments (10 stem, 1 bowl), two celluloid comb fragments, two brass rivets, a glass 

perfume applicator, a decorative brass pin, a cloth strap with a rivet, and a glass button. 

One of the pipe stems, found in the upper part of the midden in TU 1, is stamped 

“MONTREAL” on both sides and is the product of the Montreal firm of James 

Henderson, which was in operation between 1847 and 1876 (Wilson 1971:18). Another 

pipe stem, found in the middle of the midden in TU 1, has a partial stamp of “DOUGAL” 
56

BOSTON SEWER

on one side and “GLASG” on the other side. This was made by the McDougall Company 

of Glasgow, Scotland, which was founded in 1810 and flourished during the middle 

of the 19th century (Wilson 1971:19). The artifacts from the personal group are evenly 

represented in both test units. 

Miscellaneous items (n=26) from the midden account for two percent of the 

assemblage. This group includes 15 unidentified ferrous metal fragments, two ferrous 

metal springs, three lead objects (1 unidentified fragment, 1 plug, 1 ring), one glass lid 

insert or bottle closure, one brass washer, one brass wire, one shell, and a slate fragment 

(possibly from a slate pencil). Almost all (n=23) of these items were recovered from TU 1. 

Non-Midden Contexts. The artifact assemblage derived from all other nonmidden excavated proveniences outside of the 20-55 cm midden deposit in the north yard 

of the Boodey property is summarized here. Similar to the midden component, domestic 

artifacts are the most abundant type in this subset, totaling 578. This group includes 

curved glass, ceramics (whiteware, yellowware, redware, porcelain, terra cotta), bone, 

and bottle caps. Flatware (stainless steel spoon, plastic fork tine), aluminum foil, and 

Pepsi-Cola bottle sherds were also recovered, but these are all recent in age and though 

included in the site inventory, are not attributed to the historic component. Also, as in 

the midden deposit, the artifacts are very fragmentary and their diminutive size and lack 

of diagnostic landmarks precludes identification beyond very general classifications. 

Where possible, any temporal indicators are identified. 

In the curved glass assemblage, eight different categories are represented 

including colorless (n=157), aqua (n=45), green (n=9), milk glass (n=9), amber (n=4), 

solarized (n=3), molded (n=3), and cobalt (n=1).The solarized glass fragments date to 

1880-1915 (Munsey 1970). Within the whiteware assemblage, nine types of decorated 

wares are represented. Thirty-one transfer-printed sherds were identified with color 

being the only discernable trait. Twenty sherds have blue transfer print, a decorative 

technique that dates circa 1790 to present, but was particularly popular from about 1795 

to 1860 (Coysh and Henrywood 1982). Four black, three red, and one mulberry transferprint decorated sherds are included, along with two blue edge-decorated sherds, which 

all date to circa 1830-1860 (Larsen 1975, Richner 1992a). Three sherds exhibit flow-blue 

transfer-print patterns, which date to the mid-1800s or early 1900s. Hand-painted wares 

date from 1820 to present (Magid et al. 1982), and seven very small pieces of these were 

recovered. Five mold-decorated sherds and four sherds with turquoise glaze complete 

the whiteware assemblage. Additional ceramics include undecorated whiteware (n=112), 

terra cotta flowerpot fragments (n=68), yellowware (n=12), stoneware (n=8), porcelain 

(n=7), and redware (n=1). Two of the yellowware sherds are decorated with Rockingham 

glaze and date to 1840-1900. The remaining artifacts include 63 animal bone fragments, 

16 ferrous bottle cap fragments, and four fragments of a threaded Bakelite cap. 

The architectural artifact assemblage includes 177 corroded nails, 145 pieces of 

flat glass, 61 brick fragments, 18 drain tile fragments, five plaster fragments, a screw eye, 

and three 1-cm square ceramic tiles. Twenty-seven of the nails are cut nails, 85 are wire 

nails, one is a wrought nail, a technique that dates to before circa 1800 (Visser 1996), and 

the rest are so corroded that they cannot be identified by manufacturing type.
57

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

Personal items include six buttons (2 shell, 1 ferrous metal, 1 non-ferrous metal, 

1 bone, 1 rubber), a brass clothing fastener and decorative pin, an aluminum eyelet, a 

rivet, three writing implements (carbon pencil, pencil ferule, chalk), a 1936 wheat-back 

penny, a ferrous metal file, a brass key, a clay marble, and a rubber toy car wheel. The 

miscellaneous group of artifacts consists of unidentifiable metal fragments (51 ferrous, 

1 non-ferrous, 1 lead), 21 shell fragments, 1 segment of mica with a beveled edge, and 

brass wire. 

Prehistoric Component. A single piece of non-diagnostic chert shatter is the only 

prehistoric artifact that was recovered from the site. It was found in the 30-40 cm level 

of TU 1 behind the garage at Trail Mix and was in the same depositional context as the 

historic artifacts. 

Site Disturbance Factors

Disturbance factors at the Boodey and Trail Mix parcels include:

•	 Cultivation of the north yard during the historic occupation(s),

•	 Gardening and landscaping, 

•	 Gravel and asphalt driveways and sidewalks,

•	 Installation of utilities including a septic tank, at least two cisterns, various 

connecting lines, and a suspected leach field, and

•	 Disturbed road rights-of-way, including roadside culverts, along Boston Mills 

Road and Main Street.

Site Significance

Site 33SU269 at the Boodey and Trail Mix properties is an historic artifact 

deposit associated with former occupations of the extant historic house at Boston 

Village Lot 60. A single piece of chert shatter represents the prehistoric component, 

however it was found in mixed context with the historic artifacts and is not considered 

significant. When it was originally recorded, the site was described as a buried midden 

deposit 40-50 cm deep with artifacts from the 1820s through the end of the nineteenth 

century that are attributed to the early occupation of the circa 1830 house, which is 

listed on the NRHP. The archeological site was considered significant because of its 

association with the house. Results from the recent 2007 and 2009 excavations confirm 

the presence of a buried midden of domestic refuse in the north yard, however the 

deposit encountered in this area was more extensive (22-55 cm deep) than previously 

reported and contains artifacts more consistent with later, mid-nineteenth century and 

subsequent, occupations. The investigations also determined that there are areas in 

the north yard where the midden is absent. Artifacts recovered both from the midden 

and non-midden contexts were examined comprehensively and independently and the 

analysis of the recent collections provides the basis for the following results. 
58

BOSTON SEWER

The overall assemblage is comprised of domestic refuse from activities that took 

place at the house over the past circa 180 years or more. The artifacts are indicative 

of typical household activities with a particular emphasis on food preparation and 

consumption. Unfortunately, the artifacts are extremely fragmentary and very few 

exhibit temporally diagnostic characteristics. Those that can be dated to period of 

manufacture include decorated whitewares (flow blue, colored transfer prints, edge 

decorated, hand painted) from the 1830s to early 1900s, solarized glass from the turn of 

the twentieth century, Rockingham-glazed yellowware from 1840 to 1900, and mid-tolate-nineteenth century tobacco-pipe stems. Architectural materials are the second most 

abundant artifacts at the site with an assemblage that is dominated by flat glass and nails. 

The structural debris could represent materials from former structures and/or from 

the extant buildings on the lot, or from modifications made to the house through time. 

Though lower in number, personal items and miscellaneous objects were recovered and 

are consistent with the residential function of the site. This general artifact distribution 

is the same across the site, although the artifact density decreases further from the 

house, and could indicate that the non-midden artifacts were either displaced from an 

original midden context, or that the historic refuse discard pattern was fairly uniform at 

this residence. In either case, this finding demonstrates that data on the assemblage are 

comparable regardless of provenience, at least in the north yard. There is no evidence for 

a vertically stratified deposit in the midden, and the midden deposit does not appear to 

be as intact as previously thought. All of the temporally diagnostic artifacts, including 

early historic through more recent (post 1930s) periods occur throughout the deposit 

and there is no clear contextual distinction in the entire 20-55 cm deposit. Further, 

residue from a coal burning furnace (coal, cinders, ash), a technology that would have 

been used in CUVA by about 1900, was found throughout the midden and its inclusion 

is evidence of a post-1900s intrusion into, and disturbance of, any earlier depositional 

component. Despite this, the midden deposit still retains the best data potential on this 

important residential lot and any portions of the site that contain the midden should be 

considered significant and be protected from disturbance. This is especially important 

since the recent investigations showed that much of the lot has been substantially 

disturbed. Where that disturbance has occurred, there is no potential for any significant 

archeological resources that would contribute to the qualities for which the site would be 

considered eligible for the NRHP. The artifacts have been displaced from their original 

depositional context and provide no new or meaningful data on the historic residence of 

the property. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

A grinder pump and connecting sewer line are proposed that would require new 

ground disturbance in the north yard of the Boodey House and north of the garage at 

the adjacent Trail Mix property. The grinder pump would be placed immediately north 

of the existing septic tank located 17 meters north of the house toward the center and 

near the back of the lot. The existing sewer line connection from the northeast corner 

of the house to the septic tank would be utilized. A short, new sewer line segment would 

connect the existing tank to the new grinder pump, and then a line would run east from 

the grinder pump, behind the garage, and toward the adjacent property (discussed 

under site 33SU268). Results from the 2009 archeological investigations verified that the 

historic artifact midden identified as 33SU269 at this property exists in some areas and is 
59

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

absent elsewhere. Importantly, the latter includes the locations where the grinder pump 

and connecting sewer line would be located. Shovel tests and auger holes verified that 

the soil profile in the area of potential effect for the sewer project has been disturbed and 

does not contain the buried midden deposit identified in test units located further south 

and closer to the house. An artifact scatter associated with the historic site component 

was identified, but careful analysis of the collection showed that data derived from

the non-midden contexts are, at best, duplicative of findings from the midden context

and have no potential for providing additional meaningful interpretation of the site or

surrounding area.

Site 33SU268 at the Wolschleger Property

Description

Site 33SU268, known as the Wolschleger House site, is an historic site recorded on 

Tract 109-101, which is on the north side of Boston Mills Road, just west of the Ohio and 

Erie Canal. This lot is part of historic Boston Village Lot 59 and is adjacent to the Trail 

Mix Store property, part of historic lot 60, to the west. This lot was the former location of 

a small structure once owned by Jim Brown, son of the famous abolitionist, John Brown. 

The structure may have been used as a store. More recently, the lot was also the site of 

a modern house known as the Wolschleger House. Site 33SU268 was identified during 

investigations undertaken prior to the demolition and removal of that modern house 

(Noble 1991), and during a survey for the Boston Mills bridge replacement (Mustain et al. 

1996). The site is a concentration of historic artifacts on the east side of the former house 

location facing the canal that appear to correlate with the location of the historic Brown 

structure. It was recommended that this area be protected from ground disturbance. 

Archeological Information

Site 33SU268 is a nineteenth-century artifact deposit that was identified on 

historic Boston Village Lot 59 during archeological investigations conducted and 

reported by Noble (1991) and Mustain et al. (1996). The deposit includes artifacts 

that could be associated with a non-extant structure depicted on 1856 and 1874 maps 

(Matthews and Taintor 1856; Tackabury et al. 1874) that was situated on the southeast 

corner of the lot and is thought to have been a store owned by Jim Brown. Aument (1996) 

concluded from his investigations that most of the site had been adversely impacted from 

ground disturbing activities, and more specifically, that cultural deposits in the existing 

right-of-way along the north side of Boston Mills Road were highly disturbed. 

2009 Fieldwork. MWAC Archeologist Bauermeister shovel tested a linear area 

along the south edge of the lot in August 2009 in advance of the proposed installation 

of a new septic tank and connecting sewer line for the Boston sewer system. Four shovel 

tests spaced five meters apart were excavated along a west-to-east transect placed on the 

north side of a split-rail fence (Figure 11). All of the shovel tests revealed grossly disturbed 

soils. The soil profile consists of a thin humus layer followed by very compacted mottled 

clay loam laden with gravel. A few artifacts were recovered from this heavily disturbed 
60

BOSTON SEWER

context (Table 12). The artifacts are included in the site assemblage for 33SU268, however

they are not considered significant because of the highly disturbed nature of the

deposit. Bauermeister also verified that the proposed route for a connecting sewer

line that would run northwest from the septic tank and across the lot toward the

Trail Mix property was within an existing leach field. No additional archeological

work was recommended.

Site Disturbance Factors

Disturbance factors at the Wolschleger parcel include:

•	 Residential activities associated with historic and modern occupations,

•	 Installation of utilities for the modern residence,

•	 Removal of the modern Wolschleger House and associated site improvements, 

•	 Installation of a leach field, septic tank, and mound for the current Boston 

sewer system, and

•	 Disturbed road rights-of-way, including roadside culverts, along Boston Mills 

Road.

Site Significance

Site 33SU268, known as the Wolschleger House Site, is recorded within the 

southern portion of original Boston Village Lot 59. As noted above, numerous actions, 

both historic and modern, have grossly disturbed the nineteenth-century deposits that 

occur within the site area as currently defined. These factors have disturbed the site so 

extensively and thoroughly that no intact, undisturbed deposits remain. It is conceivable 

that intact deposits might occur elsewhere on historic lot 59 beyond the currently 

recorded northern boundary of site 33SU268. 

By 1856, and probably more than 20 years earlier, a small commercial structure 

originally owned by Jim Brown and later (1856) by D. Morton, occurred on the southeast 

corner of Lot 59 within the area now defined as site 33SU268. A portion of a second, 

larger building is depicted on 1856 and 1874 plats of Boston Village at the northeast 

corner of the lot (Figure 3; Richner 1997:Figure 6), north of the current site boundary. 

Available evidence suggests that the immediate area around the so-called Jim Brown 

Store and the entire known portion of 33SU268 has been grossly disturbed by modern 

activities. However, it has not been verified that the more northerly building location has 

been adversely impacted by those activities. We conclude that, as currently defined, site 

33SU268 is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP since all known archeological deposits 

are thoroughly and grossly disturbed. Despite a probable association of at least a portion 

of the site’s artifact scatter with an historically important family, the Browns of Hudson 

Ohio, and with an early (pre-1834?) commercial enterprise, site context is lacking and 

the site offers no potential for addressing aspects of Jim Brown’s life or business career 

or the early historic development of Boston. 
61

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

Despite this negative finding, we would emphasize that site 33SU268 is recorded 

only on the basis of limited shovel testing and evaluative testing efforts. These studies 

have been project specific in scope and have not included all of historic Lot 59. The 

extent of that lot would seem to represent a logical boundary for historic site 33SU268, 

but a considerable portion of Lot 59, approximately the northern one half, has not 

been archeologically studied. It is likely that the site extends into the remainder of the 

lot, since the northern edge of the site scatter has not been found archeologically and 

the current boundary reflects only the zone studied, rather than any actual historical 

unit or a clearly defined archeological scatter. If the site does extend to the north as 

we anticipate, those deposits would need to be evaluated on their own merit. If intact, 

undisturbed deposits associated with Lot 59 and reflecting an extension of site 33SU268 

to the north are recorded in the future, our negative assessment of site significance 

would need to be reconsidered. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project 

System components proposed at the Wolschleger lot include a 2500 gallon holding 

tank and connecting sewer lines. The connecting line runs at a southeast diagonal from 

the adjacent Trail Mix lot across the western side of the lot through the existing leach 

field that will be abandoned for the new system. The holding tank would be placed at the 

south edge of the lot, west of where the current septic mound is located and just north 

of the road right-of-way. Site 33SU268 occurs on the lot and was recorded based on the 

results of investigations for the removal of the non-historic Wolschleger House (Noble 

1991) and for the Boston Mills Road bridge replacement (Mustain et al. 1996). The site 

is an historic deposit dating to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that correlates 

with the location of a non-extant nineteenth-century building along the west side of the 

canal that may have been Jim Brown’s Store. The area of potential effect for the current 

project is confined to areas that have been subjected to previous ground disturbing 

activities, including the removal of the Wolschleger House, the installation of the septic 

field, and road construction (Aument 1996). The 2009 excavations verified that the soils 

in this area are grossly disturbed. A few historic artifacts and one prehistoric artifact 

were recovered, but all derived from disturbed contexts. Noble (1991) determined that 

the best potential for significant archeological resources associated with the historic 

structure was along the eastern edge of the lot. It is also possible that archeological 

resources associated with another non-extant historic building that was located further 

north on the parcel exist; additional inventory and evaluation would be necessary to 

verify if such deposits are present. This area is outside of the area of potential effect for 

the proposed sewer project and will not be impacted in any way by the undertaking. 

Site 33SU481 at the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson Barn Properties

Description

This property is at 1538 Boston Mills Road, immediately east of the Ohio and 

Erie Canal prism on the south side of the road. The archeological site spans portions of 

adjacent Tracts 118-77 and 118-79. Currently, an early-twentieth-century frame house 

and corn crib occur on the property. The house is on Tract 118-77, which is referred to 

as the Johnston-Rodhe property, while the crib is to the east on Tract 118-79, called the 
62

BOSTON SEWER

Johnson Barn property. These tract designations and boundaries are of modern age and 

do not reflect the historic lot configuration, when both modern parcels were part of a 

single, unnumbered Boston Village lot. The corn crib is the last remaining building from 

the former Johnson Farm, while the house occupies a location where an early-to-middlenineteenth century structure once stood. The property is situated on the flat, first terrace 

landform that constitutes the primary topographic feature in Boston Village. Here, the 

terrace is at an elevation of about 665 ft amsl. To the south, the terrace extends about 

200 meters until it ends at the bank of the Cuyahoga River and an area greatly altered by 

the construction of the Interstate Highway 271 bridge over the Cuyahoga River Valley. 

To the east about 150 meters, the terrace abuts an irregular slope that extends up the 

river valley’s east wall into the uplands. Immediately to the west across the canal are 

the Boston General Store and its associated archeological site, 33SU270. The circa 1835 

store stands adaptively restored as a visitor center and community meeting place. A very 

narrow portion of the floodplain of the Cuyahoga River marks the western edge of the 

terrace landform about 120 meters west of the Johnston-Rodhe property. Beyond that 

is the river and on its west side, a steep slope up the western valley wall to the adjacent 

uplands. To the north, the terrace and the adjacent, flat, wide expanse of the Cuyahoga 

River floodplain extend for more than a mile, well beyond the current project area. 

The property, like many others in Boston Village and elsewhere in CUVA, has 

been known by multiple names through time. The property was named for the extant 

1910 house, the Woodrow O. and Helen R. Johnston House, on the Boston Mills Historic 

District National Register Nomination (Stefanic and Winstel 1991:13). The narrative 

in the Nomination seems to suggest that the house is not considered to be part of the 

Johnson farmstead, but documentation for that is not offered. Other than the corn crib, 

no other structures from the original Johnson Farm are still extant. As discussed in the 

PROJECT BACKGROUND chapter of this report, the farm’s early (or middle?) twentiethcentury barn stood in dilapidated condition on Tract 118-79, a short distance east of 

the house, until it was removed by the National Park Service. The corn crib’s fabric is 

not historic, and it was determined to be a non-contributing element to the District. 

The Woodrow O. and Helen R. Johnston House is a rectangular, gable front 

“Homestead House” built in 1910 (Stefanic and Winstel 1991:14). A shed-roof addition on 

the rear provides a second entrance. A hip-roof porch occurs on the front (north) façade 

and is supported by turned posts. A non-contributing garage and so-called “mother-inlaw” house (known as the Rodhe House) were located further south on the parcel in 

1991 when the Johnston House was listed as a contributing element of the Boston Mills 

Historic District. The other structures, including several sheds, were determined to be 

non-contributing to the District. The modern Rodhe House and all but one of the sheds 

were later removed by the NPS. Of the various structures that stood on this property 

into the late-twentieth century, only the Johnston House was included as a contributing 

element to the Boston Mills Historic District National Register listing. The house, corn 

crib, garage, and one shed are still extant.

Despite the NRHP focus on the circa 1910 era for this parcel and the names 

(Johnson, Johnston, and Rodhe) associated with the twentieth-century buildings, the 

parcel has a much longer occupation history. There is evidence from multiple historic 

maps for the presence of an earlier house in the same location as the existing 1910 
63

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

Johnston House. The property does not appear to have been assigned a Boston Village 

lot number when the community was platted in 1834 (Figure 2), but 1846, 1856, and 1874 

plats depict a lot that would have encompassed the later houses and their associated 

outbuildings, the barn, and corn crib. Later, this larger lot was subdivided into modern 

government tracts 118-77 and 188-79. On an 1846 county tax assessor’s plat of Boston 

Village (Richner 1997:Figure 4), in the area where the 1910 house now stands, is the 

hand-written notation “Brick House.” The 1856 plat of Boston (Figure 3) depicts a large 

structure, certainly a house since all commercial buildings are specifically identified in a 

key on the plat, on the parcel in the approximate location of the current Johnston House. 

Like the other structures on this detailed plat, the building is depicted as a solid black 

polygon. The structure has a primary, square core and what appears to be an ell addition 

on the rear. The structure’s footprint is nearly identical to that depicted for the nearby 

1835 Barnhart (also known as Nina Stanford) House where site 33SU456 has been 

recorded. It is likely that the house depicted on the 1856 plat is the brick house noted, 

but not depicted, on the earlier tax assessor’s map. It could conceivably be the same 

structure as the house mentioned on the notes on the 1898 transcription of the original 

1834 plat of Boston Village as J. Mather’s “brick house,” but such an association is highly 

speculative. Even if the former structure on what is now Tract 118-77 was not present in 

1834, a house was certainly extant by 1846, and was still present in 1856. No structures 

are depicted on the 1874 plat, so its possible survival to that date is undetermined. Given 

this background for the property, one might expect the parcel to contain archeological 

evidence for a domestic occupation minimally dating to the middle-nineteenth century, 

considerably earlier than the extant 1910 house. 

Archeological Information

Archeological site 33SU481 was recorded on the basis of artifacts recovered from 

multiple, discontinuous, small-scale archeological inventories conducted over a period 

of 23 years. Work has occurred south of the former Johnson Barn on Tract 118-79, near 

the former Rodhe House on Tract 118-77, and along a single transect on Tract 118-79 

between the Johnston House and former Johnson Barn. Artifacts were recovered from 

each of those three areas, which, even when combined, constitute only a small portion 

of Tracts 118-77 and 118-79. Historic and prehistoric artifacts have been recorded 

near the former barn and in the vicinity of the former Rodhe House. The extant 1910 

Johnston House has never been the focus for specific archeological inventory (it remains 

occupied), and the entire parcel has not been inventoried. Therefore, the extent and 

content of site 33SU481 remain incompletely defined. However, information is sufficient 

to evaluate the potential impacts upon the site from the proposed Boston Sewer Project. 

Previous Research. The Johnson Barn and Johnston-Rodhe properties were 

subject to previous archeological investigations, unrelated to the current sewer project, 

which identified the archeological resources defined as 33SU481. The previous fieldwork 

and results are summarized in the following section. 

1986 CMNH. In 1986, Alfred Lee, Associate Curator of Archaeology, and 

Stephanie Belovich, Assistant Curator of Archaeology, of the Cleveland Museum of 

Natural History conducted archeological test excavations and construction monitoring 

at a small, proposed trailhead parking area immediately south of the former Johnson 
64

BOSTON SEWER

Barn (Lee 1986b). The barn was extant during their study, but was in highly degraded 

condition and was later removed. The team excavated three 1-x-1-m test units within 

the footprint of the parking area (Figure 12). Along with CUVA staff, they also collected 

materials from the disturbed plowzone within the proposed parking area as shallow 

grading for the parking area was underway. On the basis of the results of this fieldwork, 

Lee (1986b:13), the sole author of the final report, concluded that the cultural deposit, 

which contained a small assemblage of prehistoric Late Woodland and larger numbers 

of historic nineteenth-century materials, was completely confined to the plowzone. He 

found that no intact archeological deposits were present in the project area and that “the 

archeological site represented by materials recovered from the plowzone lacks physical 

integrity, and is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places” 

(Lee 1986b:15). He concluded by stating that no further research was warranted prior to 

construction of the parking areas as planned. Although an OAI inventory form was not 

developed for the site at that time, the authors of the current report have completed an 

OAI form (33SU481) that is included in APPENDIX 1.

Lee’s report provides a brief summary of the artifacts collected from the parking 

project area in 1986, but did not include a detailed accounting of all of those materials. 

Accordingly, we have tabulated all of the artifacts collected from the site in 1986, as 

well as all others recovered in subsequent projects, in Table 13. The artifacts all derive 

from a shallow, plowzone context, and were recovered from three test units, narrow test 

trenches, and from the soil surface during monitoring of removal of the plowzone as the 

parking area was being constructed. 

Both prehistoric and historic artifacts were collected from the trailhead parking 

project (Table 13). The prehistoric objects include 50 pieces of chipped-stone debitage, 

one retouched piece, and one projectile point (Figure 13). The projectile point was 

identified by Lee (1986b:7) as conforming to the type “Raccoon Side Notched.” Justice 

(1987:219), while specifically stating that this point type is side notched, calls it the 

“Raccoon Notched” point type, apparently following Mayer-Oakes’ (1955:87) earlier 

nomenclature. That point type is within the Jack’s Reef Cluster of small side- and 

corner-notched points that represent the first true arrow points that occur over a large 

area of the northeast, Ohio Valley, Illinois Valley, and Tennessee Valley regions (Justice 

1987:217-220, Map 94). Raccoon Notched points are side notched, thin and biconvex in 

cross section, and relatively well made. They are diagnostic of the early Late Woodland 

Period and are thought to date within a temporal span of about A.D. 500 to A.D. 1000, 

although the dates of their first appearance and final use vary across their wide area 

of distribution. In some areas, especially to the southwest of the current project area, 

they do not seem to be present until about A.D. 800 (Justice 1987:220). At the nearby 

Stanford Knoll Site (33SU138) at the George Stanford Farm north of site 33SU481, a 

Raccoon Notched point was recovered from a site feature dated to A.D. 600 +/- 150 via 

thermoluminescence dating (ALPHA-2621) of associated pottery sherds (Lee 1986a:7). 

Across all of their range, Raccoon Notched points postdate Middle Woodland 

assemblages and predate the use of unnotched triangular arrow points. They are 

associated with bow and arrow, rather than atlatl and dart, technology. We reexamined 

the point and concur that it is a side-notched arrow point. However, its triangular 

(rather than excurvate) blade and form of its base and notches are more consistent 

with the Cahokia Cluster (Justice 1987:Figure 51a). This type, while not well known 
65

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

in Ohio, would date to about AD 1000-1150 and be associated with Late Prehistoric or 

Mississippian Traditions rather than early Late Woodland. 

The point’s presence at the trailhead parking area adjacent to the former Johnson 

Barn confirms that at least one of the artifacts from the prehistoric assemblage at site 

33SU481 is associated with the early Late Woodland or Late Prehistoric Traditions, 

although the mixed context at the site precludes a confident assignation of the 

retouched piece and 48 pieces of chipped-stone debitage to that same cultural and 

temporal placement. 

The prehistoric site component at 33SU481 should be considered in context with 

the large horizontal extent of its first terrace topographic placement. Seemingly discrete 

prehistoric artifact scatters occur at multiple locations on that extensive landform in the 

Boston Village area and reflect considerable time depth. It is not surprising that this flat, 

raised, well-drained landscape feature with its association with the Cuyahoga River, 

small steams, and springs, would have supported a variety of prehistoric occupations 

and uses over a long time period. The extent of the prehistoric scatter at site 33SU481 

remains undetermined, since that site component is recorded based solely upon 

discoveries made in the small parking lot project area. 

The historic scatter recorded at the trailhead parking lot project area is much 

denser than the prehistoric scatter, but, like the earlier component, is also confined to the 

shallow plowzone. A total of 1,496 items of historic and modern association was collected 

from test excavations and surface collections at the trailhead parking area (Table 13). 

Artifacts represent multiple functional groups including: kitchen/domestic (n=769), 

architectural (n=490), personal (n=35), and other/unidentified (n=14). The content of this 

assemblage is largely consistent with a domestic/residential function. The assemblage 

includes many items that are too old to be associated with the former Johnson Barn, 

which stood only a few feet north of the project area until 1991. Further, while some of 

the items (e.g., valve stem, file, battery terminal, electric insulator fragment, fence staple, 

concrete fragments, shingle fragments, and others) are undoubtedly associated with 

activities related to construction, maintenance and use of the barn, others (especially 

the food remains, whiteware, and other domestic items) reflect activities that one would 

more typically associate with a residence. 

The large kitchen/domestic functional group includes various ceramic wares 

(Table 13). Among those are: porcelain (n=34), redware (n=8), stoneware (n=52), 

yellowware (n=20), and whiteware (n=90). The porcelain sherds all represent very latenineteenth-century or early-twentieth-century vessels, likely of continental European 

manufacture. The stoneware includes 11 examples with Bristol Slip exterior, which are 

of comparable age to the porcelain, but would have been manufactured locally (Richner 

1992a). Other stoneware sherds (n=3) are salt glazed, and would appear to date prior to 

about 1880 and probably prior to 1860. Their association with the twentieth-century 

barn is very unlikely. Yellowware was in most common use from 1840 to 1900, again 

appearing to predate the age of the barn. However, the best evidence among the ceramic 

sherds for pre-Johnson Barn historic use of the site is reflected by the whiteware, which 

includes edge decorated, transfer print, and other decorative types that must certainly 

predate 1860. Other domestic or kitchen-related items include fragments from bottles 
66

BOSTON SEWER

(n=78) and a surprisingly large assemblage of butchered and discarded animal bones 

(n=490), a large number of which derived from a single excavated context (Lee 1986b). 

Although Lee does not characterize that scatter in any specific manner, other than to 

indicate it was confined to the disturbed plowzone, the presence of such a large faunal 

assemblage in association with ceramic and glass artifacts suggests that a domestic sheet 

midden, associated with the occupation of some non-extant house, occurred in the 

parking lot project area. We suspect that building was the residence that is depicted on 

the 1856 plat of Boston Village and mentioned as early as the 1846 plat. 

Architectural items are well represented at the parking lot area of site 33SU481 

(Table 13). Some (e.g., paint chips, rolled metal, shingle fragments, drainage tile, fence 

staple) are probably associated with construction, use, and maintenance of the Johnson 

Barn. Others (cut nails, brick fragments) are probably associated with use of some other 

structure, probably the nineteenth-century house that formerly stood in the approximate 

location as the 1910 Woodrow Johnston House. The brick fragments (n=41) include soft 

orange bricks that appear to be of middle-nineteenth-century age and two firebrick 

fragments from a former chimney fire box. We assume these items were originally 

part of the fabric of the non-extant nineteenth-century house. There is a large sample 

(n=323) of window glass fragments from the trailhead parking area of site 33SU481. 

While one might assume that all of the window glass sherds derive from broken barn 

windows, a closer look at the fragments indicates that many are much too old to have 

been associated with that structure. A large sample of the fragments, with tiny examples 

omitted from consideration, was measured to the nearest 0.5 mm in thickness. 

The window glass from the trailhead parking area of 33SU481 is consistent 

with an early-nineteenth-century, rather than an early-twentieth-century, date of 

manufacture and use. Window glass thickness is depicted in Figure 14. The distribution 

is essentially unimodal, with a few outliers at 3.2 mm. Those thick fragments are not 

within the typical range of single strength window glass. When they are removed from 

consideration, the sherds average 1.17 mm in thickness. Although available window 

glass dating formulae provide somewhat divergent results, both the primary modal (1.0 

mm) and mean (1.17 mm) window glass thickness values are consistent with window 

glass manufactured in the early-nineteenth century (Richner 1991:73-79, Table 27). The 

primary mode matches precisely with window glass thickness modes from the earliest 

occupation levels of site 33SU341, a former tavern, thought to date to as early as the 

middle 1820s, now adaptively restored as a CUVA visitor center. Except for a very few 

sherds of about 1.9 mm and thicker that occur in this sample, none of the sherds were 

made in the twentieth-century when the Johnson Barn was constructed. A probable 

early-nineteenth-century age for much of the window glass from the trailhead parking 

area and a middle-nineteenth- century age for the sherds in the 1.6 to 1.7 mm range 

indicate that artifacts derived from some non-extant structure contributed considerably 

to the existing historic artifact scatter at the trailhead parking area. It is possible that 

these and other early- or middle- nineteenth-century artifacts in that deposit were 

discarded from the house mentioned and/or depicted on nineteenth-century plats that 

predated the existing Johnston house.

Nails are another architectural artifact type that is well represented in the 

assemblage. Although all are corroded, 39 are of cut manufacture, 25 are wire, and three 
67

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

are of unidentified manufacture. The cut nails, which were quickly supplanted in use 

by wire nails after about 1895, would appear to be too early to have been used in the 

construction of the twentieth-century Johnson Barn.

A few personal items (including two children’s slate pencils, five tobacco-pipe 

fragments, two clay marbles, and a fragmentary handle from a child’s toy tea set) were 

also recovered from the site in 1986. The slate pencils probably predate about 1918 when 

paper writing tablets and graphite lead pencils supplanted the use of small slate boards. 

The clay marbles also appear to predate about 1920. 

Taken as a group, the artifacts from the 1986 evaluative test excavations and 

construction monitoring at the trailhead parking area of site 33SU481 reflect a temporal 

span of about 1830 through the circa 1920 era, fully overlapping the primary period of 

significance for the Boston Mills Historic District. Many of the artifacts predate the barn 

that once stood adjacent to the parking area, and would appear to reflect refuse discard 

from a nearby house that would have predated the extant 1910 Woodrow Johnston 

House. It is likely that the occupation and use of an earlier house that was known to 

occur at the same location as the Johnston House was the source of these artifacts. 

1991 MWAC. MWAC Archeologist Vergil Noble (1991) shovel tested around the 

perimeter of the Johnson Barn in advance of the proposed removal of the dilapidated 

structure. Noble observed isolated pieces of iron and stoneware during his inventory 

and concluded that the planned demolition of the barn would not cause any adverse 

impact to archeological resources.

Later in 1991, MWAC Archeologist Richner (1991) returned to the former location 

of the Johnson Barn, which had been removed subsequent to Archeologist Noble’s visit 

earlier that year. The park had left the concrete foundation, including one tall segment, 

in place to mark the location as a ruin. However, that upright portion of the concrete 

feature was by then leaning off vertical and posed a severe safety hazard to park visitors 

using the nearby trailhead parking area. Further historic research had also revealed 

that the barn was not as old as previously thought and dated to the middle-twentieth 

century. Accordingly, Richner concurred with the park’s recommendation that the 

unsafe concrete foundation should be removed to alleviate a significant safety hazard. 

Richner (1991) recommended that the work be accomplished with a rubber-tired vehicle 

operating under frozen ground conditions. That approach was used and the foundation 

slab was removed with no resulting ground disturbance. 

2002 MWAC. MWAC Archeologist Bauermeister completed a shovel test 

inventory around the perimeter of the modern Rodhe house on Tract 118-77 in advance 

the proposed demolition and removal of the structure. Very limited and non-significant 

historic and modern debris was found during the inventory (Table 14) and Bauermeister 

(2002b) did not recommend any additional work be undertaken in advance of the 

structural removal. 

Fieldwork Directly Related to the Sewer Project. Additional archeological 

investigations were undertaken by MWAC at the Johnson Barn and Johnston-Rodhe 
68

BOSTON SEWER

properties that specifically targeted areas where components for the new sewer system 

are proposed. The fieldwork and results are provided in the following section. 

2008 MWAC. Archeologist Bauermeister returned to the Johnston-Rodhe 

property in 2008 to inventory a small area where a new pump station for the sewer system 

was proposed. The targeted area was along the east side of the driveway for the Johnston 

House, just south of the base of the slope from Boston Mills Road. Shovel tests were 

excavated using a very close (2 meter) interval in an area 4.5 meters squared that was 

marked by project planners. The shovel tests revealed a sparse scatter of prehistoric (one 

flake) and historic materials (one undecorated and one blue transfer print-decorated 

whiteware sherds) found in mixed depositional context. One piece of modern curved 

glass and two wire nails were also recovered, but not collected. The soil profile in this 

area consists of sod from 0-5 cm, followed by medium brown loam to about 50 cm, 

beneath which is slightly mottled yellow-brown clay. The artifacts are included in the 

site inventory for 33SU481, and this small, ephemeral scatter is not considered significant 

because the few recovered artifacts are very fragmentary, lack any diagnostic landmarks, 

and were found in mixed context. No additional archeological work was recommended 

for the proposed pump station installation (Bauermeister 2008). 

2009 MWAC. In 2009, Archeologist Bauermeister visited the Johnston-Rodhe 

and Johnson Barn properties to conduct additional investigations based on plans for the 

Boston Sewer Project that had been revised after her 2008 project. The newly proposed 

location for the pump station is southeast of the historic Johnston House and within 

the footprint of the non-extant, non-historic Rodhe House that CUVA removed several 

years ago. The connecting sewer line would run south from the Boston Mills Road rightof-way along the east edge of the driveway toward the pump station. From the pump 

station, a line would run at a southeast diagonal toward the overflow parking lot. Shovel 

tests were excavated along the proposed connecting line routes and at the pump station 

location (Figure 12). A small amount of historic material attributed to site 33SU481 was 

recovered (Table 14). All of the artifacts (12 glass fragments, 11 whiteware sherds, 11 

animal bones, two stoneware sherds, one terra cotta sherd) were found in disturbed 

soils that have been impacted from various activities including the driveway installation, 

the construction and demolition of the modern Rodhe House, and cultivation. These 

results support the previous findings for 33SU481 that indicate the site, as investigated 

to date, is not considered significant because it lacks depositional integrity and research 

potential. Bauermeister (2009b) recommended no additional archeological work. 

Site Disturbance Factors

Typical of all the project areas considered in this report, the 33SU481 site 

area has been impacted by a variety of actions over the past 170 years. Known 

disturbances include:

•	 Construction and subsequent removal of several buildings including a midnineteenth-century house, the Rodhe House, the Johnson Barn, and multiple 

twentieth-century sheds, along with driveways and other elements associated 

with those structures,
69

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

•	 Disturbance in the vicinity of the barn caused by livestock as well as farm 

equipment,

•	 Cultivation to a depth of 25-30 cm below surface of most, if not all, of the site 

area,

•	 Installation of septic tanks and associated lines serving the Johnston and 

Rodhe Houses, and

•	 Construction of a trailhead vehicle parking area.

Site Significance

To date, no sub-plowzone deposits have been recorded at site 33SU481. All 

deposits at the Johnson Barn trailhead parking location, the Rodhe House area and 

along a proposed sewer line route are confined to the plowzone and are extensively 

disturbed and mixed. The few prehistoric artifacts recovered to date all derive from 

contexts within the plowzone that are extensively blended, and where historic and 

modern items occur in co-association with the prehistoric items. Similarly, the historic 

items are mixed within that plowzone. Three archeologists (Lee 1986b; Noble 1991; and 

Richner 1991) who worked at the Johnson Barn location all agreed that the deposit there 

was not significant and was not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. More recent findings 

at the Rodhe House location and proposed sewer line route are fully consistent with 

the earlier findings. In fact, the materials at the Rodhe House are of less archeological 

interest than those recorded at the Johnson Barn area in 1986 and 1991. Accordingly, 

we find that archeological site 33SU481 as currently defined is not significant and is not 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP since it lacks original depositional context and does 

not contain information that could contribute to any meaningful archeological research 

questions for the prehistoric or historic periods. 

Despite this clear finding, it is important to add that the extent of site 33SU481 

remains largely undefined. Although Boston Mills Road on the north and the Ohio 

and Erie Canal on the west form clear site boundaries, the extent of the scatter on the 

east and south are undetermined. Further, the area around the extant Johnston House 

has never been archeologically investigated. As described above, that house appears 

to occupy approximately the same location as an earlier house that minimally dated 

to 1846, and was probably of an earlier construction date. Should any intact deposits 

from that occupation occur near the former house, or if intact deposits relating to the 

1910 Johnston House should be discovered in the future, our negative assessment of site 

significance should be reconsidered. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

The two primary proposed sewer lines that would connect the properties on 

Stanford Road (George Stanford, Clayton Stanford, Hines Hill, Barnhart, and Savacoal) 

and Boston Mills Road (Boodey) would join on the north side of Boston Mills Road 

immediately north of site 33SU481 at the existing Johnston House. From there, the line 
70

BOSTON SEWER

would pass under the road and travel along the east side of the Johnston House to a new 

pump station. No significant archeological resources were recorded within the section 

of the line from Boston Mills Road south to the planned pump station. The pump 

station would be constructed within the former location of the non-historic Rodhe 

House, which was removed by the NPS after a determination was made that it was not 

historically or architecturally significant and that no significant archeological deposits 

occurred near the house. From there, a new line would travel south-southeast to the 

existing Buckeye Trail alignment. This segment of the line passes through an area of 

site 33SU481 that was previously found to be not significant. The force main would then 

follow the highly disturbed Buckeye Trail route a short distance to its juncture with the 

reconstructed towpath of the Ohio and Erie Canal. From there the small line (a two-inch 

force main) would continue south across a grossly disturbed area to a new bio-treatment 

wetland system where the sewer would be processed. The section of the Ohio and Erie 

Canal that the force main would parallel was completely built on fill, since the original 

canal and towpath were previously destroyed by flooding and by massive construction 

impacts from the building of the Highway 271 bridge. 

Based upon the fact that no significant archeological deposits have ever been 

recorded at site 33SU481 and that the line’s route through the site would occur only 

in areas that have been previously investigated and found to lack any significant 

archeological resources, we find that the project would have no adverse effect upon any 

qualities for which site 33SU481 would be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. No further 

archeological work is recommended in advance of Boston Sewer Project implementation. 

Site 33SU423 at the Savacoal Property

Description

Two small multi-component sites, 33SU419 and 33SU423, are recorded at the 

historic Savacoal property on Tract 109-107 at 5795 Stanford Road within the core of 

Boston Village. The property is at an elevation of about 670 ft amsl and is situated on 

the flat, raised terrace landform that is the primary topographic feature in Boston. The 

property includes Boston Village Lots 7 and 47. Lot 7 was renumbered from the original 

1834 designations some time prior to 1856, with the earlier Lot 7 located further north 

on Stanford Road. Old Lot 7 was renumbered Lot 46 by the time the 1856 plat was 

published (Figure 3). Lot number 47 seems to have been assigned to the adjacent lot to 

the east of the newly designated Lot 7 at that same time. Neither of those lots appear to 

have been numbered on the original, 1834 plat (Figure 2). The existing Savacoal House 

is not the earliest house that occupied the very small Boston Lot 7, but nothing is known 

about the older house except that it is depicted near the center of the lot on the 1856 

plat of the village. A small structure, probably a blacksmith shop, is depicted near the 

southeast corner of Lot 47 on the 1856 plat. Today, a small barn occupies the lot, but does 

not appear to overlap with the earlier structure. 

The current Savacoal House (HS-486) at 5795 Stanford Road is a 1 and 1⁄2 story 

structure, thought to have been constructed in 1920 (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). It has 

a rectangular shape and a perpendicular addition on the rear. Its narrower front façade 

faces west toward Stanford Road. The steep, pitched roof is cut by a central chimney 
71

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

and has two shed dormers on the front slope. A pent front porch is supported by four 

square posts. The house has raking freeze boards and end boards and is covered with 

shiplap siding. Windows on the core of the structure are one-over-one sashes with 

plain surrounds. A single six-over-six sash occurs on one façade. The small Savacoal 

Barn (HS-487) on old Boston Village Lot 47 is a vertical wood plank structure with a 

gable roof. A shed roof “crib” addition occurs on one side. Two small plain windows are 

present. Barn doors are present on the core and the addition and a hay door is present 

in the gable elevation. A gable-roof corn crib, with slated, sloping walls is located behind 

the barn. Both the house and the barn are contributing elements to the Boston Mills 

Historic District. 

Archeological Information

Archeological site 33SU423 is a multi-component site with a small prehistoric 

component that possibly dates to the Early Woodland period, and an undifferentiated 

historic component with artifacts spanning the entire 1827-1927 period of significance 

for Boston Village. All of the fieldwork summarized below has been fully reported by 

Ann Bauermeister (2011). The following narrative is developed from that report. No new 

fieldwork was conducted at the site for the current report. 

2002 Fieldwork. MWAC Archeologist Ann Bauermeister conducted an inventory 

of the Savacoal House grounds in 2002. This was the first time the residential portion of 

the parcel had been investigated for archeological resources and the work was initiated 

in response to plans to adaptively restore the house. The eastern part of the lot, where 

the Savacoal Barn is located, was archeologically inventoried in 2001 when 33SU419 

was identified and recorded. That archeological site area is discrete from the residential 

portion, which occupies the western part of the lot. Field methodology consisted of closeinterval shovel testing across the grounds of the house followed by limited evaluative 

testing in the north and east yards. The goal of the investigations was to collect data on 

the archeological resources of the property for use in ongoing planning efforts. 

Fifteen shovel tests were excavated on the grounds adjacent to the Savacoal 

House and all were positive for cultural materials, with nearly 500 historic artifacts and 

two prehistoric artifacts recovered (Bauermeister 2011:Tables 4-10). The historic artifacts 

are representative of residential activities and occur as a sheet midden of artifacts across 

the property, with greater artifact density noted on the north and east sides. The two 

prehistoric artifacts are a complete stemmed point comparable to the types of the 

Dickson Cluster, which are diagnostic of the Early Woodland (Justice 1987:189, 194), and 

a possible ground-stone artifact. Both of these artifacts were found in mixed context 

with the historic artifacts. The south yard was avoided by the inventory due to a buried 

gas line, a row of hedges, the road right-of-way, and roadside ditch/culvert.

Results from the shovel test inventory led to several conclusions about the 

Savacoal property. First, the soil profile revealed that the parcel has been subjected to 

variable levels of ground disturbance, including relatively recent (residential, utility 

installation, road right-of-way) activities and former household activities (gardening, 

refuse deposition). Second, residue from a coal burning furnace occurs across the 

property as a thick layer of coal and cinders interspersed with artifacts of varying age. 

The deposit would have been generated from occupations of the 1920s house when coal 

burning furnaces were used instead of former wood burning stoves, and therefore, any 
72

BOSTON SEWER

late-nineteenth century or earlier historic artifacts occurring within this deposit are 

intruded upon by later activities. Third, artifacts predating the 1920 construction date of 

the extant house support the map evidence for an earlier house that was present on the 

lot by at least 1856. Last, domestic artifacts are the most numerous artifact class followed 

by structural artifacts with the former more concentrated in the north and east yard and 

the latter more concentrated in the west yard. The personal effects were concentrated 

along the west façade, which is where the front porch is situated. 

To further evaluate the historic deposits, two 1-x-1-m test units were placed on 

the north side and one 1-x-1-m test unit was placed on the east side of the house. All of 

the units were later expanded to 1-x-2-m units. The test units yielded numerous historic 

artifacts and a few prehistoric artifacts (Bauermeister 2011:Tables 4-10), and three 

features were exposed. Feature 1 is a rectilinear brick and sandstone feature discovered 

on the north side of the house just north of the existing concrete sidewalk parallel to 

the house. It could be a former walkway associated with an occupation of the extant 

1920-era house. Feature 2 was revealed in the test unit adjacent to the same concrete 

walkway on the east side and is likely a continuation of Feature 1. Features 3A and 3B 

were observed in a 1-x-2-m test unit in the east portion of the yard and likely represent 

former postholes, such as from a post, fence, or trellis, which were filled in with soil and 

domestic refuse subsequent to their removal.

The results from the test unit excavations provide strong archeological evidence 

that the property served as a residence prior to the construction of the 1920 house. The 

artifact assemblage contains items dating from the early-to-mid-nineteenth century 

through the turn of the twentieth century that would most likely have been discarded 

prior to the construction of the extant house. The overall assemblage is highly indicative 

of domestic activities, with the majority of artifacts associated with household activities. 

Structural materials, mainly flat glass and nails, are the next most abundant artifacts at 

the site. The excavations also provided information about the depositional integrity of site 

components. The deposit occurs as an unconsolidated sheet midden of artifacts ranging 

in date from the early 1800s to present, with several prehistoric artifacts of indeterminate 

age in the same context. The sheet midden in the north and east yard extends from 0-40 

cm below surface and is a homogenous blend of nineteenth- and twentieth-century 

materials. As noted during the shovel test inventory, residue from a coal burning stove 

occurs as a thick layer across the entire parcel and is mixed throughout the deposit. The 

distribution of artifacts suggests a pattern of domestic refuse deposition where artifacts 

were discarded and then buried and mixed through the course of residential activities. 

The initial results from the 2002 investigations were provided to park planners to assist 

with their planning efforts for the property (Bauermeister 2002b). 

2007 Fieldwork. Bauermeister returned to the Savacoal property in 2007 to 

conduct additional evaluative testing in advance of the proposed installation of a cistern. 

Three 1-x-1-m test units were positioned in the northeast yard where the preferred 

cistern location, for access purposes, was identified. A total of 1800 historic artifacts and 

five prehistoric artifacts were recovered from the excavations (Bauermeister 2011:Tables 

4-10). The prehistoric assemblage consists of chert debitage, fire-cracked rock, and 

quartz, all of which are of indeterminate age and were found in the same context as 

the historic artifacts and therefore lack depositional integrity. This historic assemblage 

consists of 1188 domestic artifacts, 408 structural artifacts, 176 hardware artifacts, 24 

personal artifacts, and four miscellaneous items. The results from the 2007 excavations 

are consistent with those from the 2002 fieldwork and support the interpretation that 
73

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

the site is residential in nature and associated with multiple occupations of two different 

structures. The 2007 assemblage, like that from 2002, contains additional items dating 

from the early-to-mid-nineteenth century through the turn of the twentieth century. 

The 2007 excavation results also support the findings from 2002 regarding the poor 

depositional integrity of site components, specifically within the targeted project 

area, which have been impacted from previous ground disturbance. No additional 

archeological work was recommended in advance of the cistern installation.

Site Disturbance Factors

Disturbance factors at site 33SU423 include:

•	 Construction and demolition of the earlier house, 

•	 Construction of the existing house, 

•	 Gardening and landscaping, 

•	 Gravel driveways and sidewalks,

•	 Installation of utilities including a gas line, septic tank, at least two cisterns, 

and various connecting lines, and

•	 Disturbed road rights-of-way, including roadside culverts, along Boston Mills 

Road and Hines Hill Road.

Site Significance

The combined excavations at the Savacoal House resulted in the excavation of 15 

shovel tests, three 1-x-2-m test units, and three 1-x-1-m tests units. All of the excavated 

proveniences yielded historic materials attributed to multi-component archeological site 

33SU423. The historic artifact assemblage totals 5247 and includes 2944 domestic, 1859 

structural, 343 hardware, 91 personal, and 10 miscellaneous artifacts. The artifacts date 

to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and occur as an unconsolidated sheet midden 

across the residential grounds. The density of artifacts is slightly greater in the northern 

and eastern portions of the yard with the majority of artifacts recovered between 10 and 

40 cm below surface. Artifacts were found that predate the 1920 construction date of the 

extant house and support the map evidence for an earlier house that was present on the 

lot by at least 1856. The early historic materials were, however, all found mixed with later 

materials and lack primary depositional context. The artifact assemblage is therefore 

attributed to residential activities associated with the earliest historic residence that 

predates the extant house by at least 64 years, and also with subsequent occupations at 

the property. It is considered potentially significant and eligible for the NRHP because it 

is directly associated with at least two historic occupations at the property that occurred 

within the period of significance for which the National Register Historic District is 

defined. The site has the potential to yield data on residential activities that spanned the 

entire period of significance for the historic Boston Village, including those related to 

the Ohio and Erie Canal (1827-1913) as well as the period that followed. However, the 

compromised depositional integrity of the site does limit its interpretive and research 

potential. It is possible that historic features, such as privies, wells, and trash middens, 
74

BOSTON SEWER

occur elsewhere on the property, outside of the current area of potential effect, and 

those would have greater potential to provide additional unique data about the historic 

occupations. The amount of disturbance required for the connecting sewer line 

installation would be minimal in comparison to the rest of the site that has the potential 

to contain undiscovered cultural resources that may have better integrity. The level of 

previous and rather extensive disturbance noted at this relatively small parcel may have 

already seriously impacted any such intact deposits. Since this remains unknown, any 

future undertakings involving ground disturbance shall require additional professional 

archeological review. 

The prehistoric component of site 33SU423 consists of a small assemblage of 

artifacts that derived from disturbed soils. Artifacts included in the assemblage are one 

projectile point that could date to the Early Woodland period, three fire-cracked rock 

fragments, five chert debitage, one quartz shatter, and one possible ground stone. The 

ephemeral prehistoric component is not considered significant since all of the artifacts 

were found in disturbed context mixed with historic materials and therefore lack any 

primary depositional integrity. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

The existing septic tank at the Savacoal House would be utilized in the new sewer 

system proposed for Boston. The tank is located on the north side of the house, just east 

of center, and the short connecting line would run from the north side of the tank west 

to the force main within the road right-of-way. Ground disturbance required for the 

installation of the connecting sewer line is very minimal and crosses through an area of 

the site where no significant archeological deposits occur. This area of the site contains 

the same sheet midden of nineteenth- and twentieth-century artifacts that occurs as a 

non-stratified deposit across most of the parcel. It is not considered significant because 

it lacks vertical integrity and primary depositional context. Previous archeological 

investigations produced a large sample of the sheet midden deposit that is fully 

representative of this site component. The artifacts in the sample, though derived from a 

mixed context, still provide some information about the former residential occupations 

at this parcel. Any additional excavations in the current area of potential effect, however, 

are not warranted because any information that would be generated by such work would 

be totally redundant of data already collected from the site. The amount of disturbance 

required for the connecting sewer line installation would be minimal in comparison to 

the rest of the site that has the potential to contain undiscovered cultural resources that 

may have better integrity. Based on this information, the installation of the connecting 

sewer line would have no adverse effect on any significant archeological resources or on 

the qualities for which the site is considered significant and potentially eligible for the 

NRHP. No additional archeological work is recommended.

Site 33SU456 at the Barnhart Property

Description

An historic archeological site, 33SU456, is recorded on the grounds of the 

historic Barnhart property. The property is located on a flat bench, formed by the first 

raised terrace above the Cuyahoga River floodplain, at an elevation of about 666 ft amsl. 
75

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

This flat terrace landform forms the topography for the core of Boston Village and 

most of the structures within Boston are positioned on this bench. Immediately to the 

north-northeast of the site and property, the ground slopes up dramatically toward a 

high raised bench where site 33SU99 and the Hines Hill Conference Center property 

occur. Immediately to the west is the Ohio and Erie Canal prism that bisects the terrace 

landform on which site 33SU456 occurs. Further west, the terrace continues a short 

distance beyond the Cuyahoga River where it abuts a steep upland slope. South of the 

Barnhart House is the core of Boston, also positioned on the same terrace landform that 

the Barnhart property occupies. 

The Barnhart House (HS-493) is an historic structure located at 5877 Stanford 

Road a short distance north of the core of Boston Village (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). 

The house is more commonly known locally as the Nina Stanford House after its last, 

and best known, private owner. The Barnhart name reflects the house’s original owner. 

The house is listed on the NRHP as the Barnhart House and is a contributing element to 

the Boston Mills Historic District (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). It is positioned on a flat 

first terrace above the Cuyahoga River floodplain facing west toward the Ohio and Erie 

Canal. It occupies Tract 109-103, which was drawn from original Boston Village Lots 9 

and 10. “Wm Barnhart” is depicted as the owner of these lots on the 1846 tax assessor’s 

map of Boston Village and the 1856 Boston Village plat (Figure 3; Richner 1997:Figure 

4). A house is depicted as spanning Lots 9 and 10, and an unidentified building occupies 

the southeast corner of Lot 9 on the 1856 and 1874 plats of Boston Village (Figure 3; 

Richner 1997:Figure 6). William Barnhart, born in New York in 1812, came to Boston 

in 1832. A boat builder, he is thought to have begun building canal boats soon after his 

arrival. During this time, he partnered with another boat builder, James B. Fayerwether, 

who was born in Connecticut in 1819 and arrived in Boston in 1834 (Finney 1997). The 

partners continued to build boats until sometime after about 1874 (Finney 1997:61). 

Their boat yard was located along the west side of Stanford Road on the east bank of 

the Ohio and Erie Canal, south of Barnhart’s house on Boston Village Lots 12 

and 13. Fayerwether’s home was built on a higher bench not far northeast of 

Barnhart’s house in the location now known as the Hines Hill Conference Center 

and archeological site 33SU99.

The Barnhart House has been reported to date to 1835, within a year of William 

Barnhart’s arrival in Boston (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). It is in the Upright and Wing 

configuration with a 1 1⁄2 story gable front and a one story wing addition on the south. 

That configuration is depicted on the 1856 and 1874 plats of Boston Village, so the 

addition must predate 1856. The house is in the Greek Revival style, a very popular 

house and commercial property style in the Western Reserve area in the 1830s era. 

Greek revival elements include the wide eave overhang with molded cornice and 

prominent returns with a raked frieze board (Stefanic and Winstel 1991). All full-sized 

windows have six-over-six sash, plain surrounds and shutters. The main entry has a full 

entablature with self cornice. 

Archeological Information

Site 33SU456 was recorded at the Barnhart House as the result of the discovery 

in 2006 of historic and prehistoric artifacts during replacement and upgrading of the 
76

BOSTON SEWER

previously existing house plumbing. That work involved connecting all of the house’s 

waste water systems (sinks, toilet, bath) to the existing septic line and tank. No 

professional archeological work has ever occurred at the property and the artifacts were 

collected by park staff primarily under the kitchen floor where a primary connection to 

the house’s gray water system was made. Previously, it appears that the wastewater from 

the kitchen sink merely flowed “to light” somewhere on the grounds near the structure. 

The discovery of artifacts under the wooden kitchen floor was not anticipated, and 

strongly suggests that the kitchen, like the wing on the south side of the house, is an 

addition to the original, circa 1835, core of the structure. Additional artifacts, both 

historic and prehistoric, were collected by park staff from the exterior of the house 

where connections were made between the newly installed interior plumbing to the 

extant septic line that leads to an existing septic tank. 

The prehistoric site component is represented by five artifacts. These include: 

chipped-stone debitage (n=3), a pitted stone (a small sandstone rock exhibiting a shallow 

pit in an artifact form colloquially called a “nut stone”), and a projectile point. The point, 

a small, expanding stemmed or corner removed dart (Table 15, Figure 15) conforms 

very closely to the Merom Cluster, especially the type Merom Expanding Stemmed 

(Justice 1987:130-132; Winters 1969:41, Plate 13). Point types in this cluster exhibit 

expanding stems or side notches, are diamond-shaped or irregular in cross section, and 

are relatively crudely flaked. The example from the Barnhart House is a nearly precise 

match in size and shape with an example of the Merom Expanding Stemmed type 

illustrated by Justice (1987:Figure 27d). That example is from Spencer County, Indiana. 

The Barnhart House point also matches examples published by Winters (1969) from the 

Riverton Site. It is 31 mm long, with its greatest width (20 mm) occurring at its barbs. 

The blade is of triangular form. The points of Merom cluster, the very similar Merom 

Expanding Stemmed and Trimble Side-Notched types, are of Late Archaic association, 

dating to about 1600 to 1000 B.C. (Justice 1987:130). The Merom Expanding Stemmed 

point from the Barnhart House collection is made on a multi-colored, fine textured chert 

that is predominately dark gray, but includes small areas of lighter gray and white. This 

chert may derive from Flint Ridge, but visual identifications of chert types, especially 

those from sources as varied in color as Flint Ridge, cannot be made with certainty. The 

example from the Barnhart House appears to have been heat treated, given its lustrous 

and waxy texture. A small impact fracture is evident at the tip, extending down one face 

of the blade in the form of a very narrow flake. 

The historic component includes several classes of artifacts that commonly 

occur at comparable sites of nineteenth-century age at CUVA. Domestic (n=189) and 

personal (n=25) artifact classes dominate the assemblage, with architectural (n=2) and 

unidentified (n=2) classes very poorly represented. The sparse number of architectural 

items probably reflects the nature of the accidental discovery of most of the items under 

the kitchen floor, with ceramic sherds and glassware more readily observed and collected 

than objects like corroded nails. The domestic class of artifacts includes: fauna (n=11), 

whiteware (n=111), stoneware (n=5), yellowware (n=1), porcelain (n=10), milk glass (n=6), 

bottles (n=2), and curved glass (n=40). Personal items include: toothbrush fragments 

(n=3), a thimble, a porcelain doll fragment, two pennies, two lapel pins, and buttons 

(n=9). The architectural items are two industrial porcelain (non-glazed) electrical 

insulator fragments from “knob and tube” wiring that would postdate circa 1900. The 
77

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

historic artifacts contain very few temporally diagnostic items, but the ceramic sherds 

appear to span circa 1850 into the early-twentieth century.

Since the site was recorded based upon the accidental discovery of artifacts 

during wastewater system repair and upgrading under the kitchen floor and in a very 

limited area along the exterior of the house, the extent of the site is not known. However, 

if one assumes that the site minimally extends across the mowed turf yard that is 

coincident with the terrace landform, site extent would be approximately 1750 sq meters. 

Previous Research. No professional archeological fieldwork has even been 

conducted at site 33SU456. The site has been recorded solely on the basis of artifacts 

recovered by park staff during the repair and upgrading of the house’s interior plumbing 

and the connection of that new work to the existing sewer line that directs the house’s 

wastewater flow to an existing septic tank.

Site Disturbance Factors

Little is known about the historic use of the grounds surrounding the Barnhart 

House, which had been in private ownership from its circa 1835 construction until 

2006 when its last private owner, Nina Stanford, passed away. Despite this paucity of 

information, a few site disturbance factors can be identified:

•	 Land clearing and construction of the house, especially its basement, circa 

1835 probably disturbed the prehistoric site component,

•	 Gardening and landscaping throughout the 161-year era of private ownership,

•	 Installation of a wastewater line that led from the kitchen to an undetermined 

location on the grounds,

•	 Installation of a septic tank and associated line to the house, and

•	 Disturbance of the soil under the kitchen during the 2006 wastewater repair 

episode.

Site Significance

Although relatively little is known about site 33SU456, there are several factors 

that suggest that the site may be significant and eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. 

These include the association of aspects of the historic archeological component with 

its original owner, William Barnhart, who was an important figure in the history of 

Boston Village, and the association of that assemblage with the history of occupation of 

the house, which is listed on the NRHP. The prehistoric component may be significant 

as well, since functionally and temporally diagnostic artifacts occur in the meager 

prehistoric assemblage collected at the site in 2006. The site is positioned near the 

western edge of a prominent first terrace landform overlooking the Cuyahoga River to 
78

BOSTON SEWER

the west. Such settings are frequently the locus of various prehistoric uses over very long 

time periods. 

Given the inadvertent nature of the discovery of site 33SU456, the context of 

the historic and prehistoric site components are unknown. Data on site extent, both 

vertical and horizontal, are lacking. A formal, professional archeological inventory 

and evaluation of the site would be required to accurately assess site significance, but 

based upon the information that is currently available, we find that the site should be 

considered to be potentially significant. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

At the historic Barnhart House, very minimal ground disturbance would 

accompany the connection of the house’s existing sewer system to the proposed Boston 

Sewer Project. The new main sewer line would cross from the west side to the east 

side of Stanford Road just north of the house. That work would all occur well within 

the existing, disturbed Stanford Road right-of-way prism. From there, the line would 

continue north along the east side of the disturbed right-of-way only a few feet from the 

paved road surface. It would extend north to be connected to the Hines Hill Conference 

Center, the Clayton Stanford Property, and the George Stanford Farm. The only work 

that would actually occur within the grounds of the Barnhart House would be a 10-ft 

line to connect the existing septic tank to the new main sewer line. That very short run 

will be installed where an existing line already occurs. Therefore, there will be no new 

ground disturbance at the Barnhart House during the Boston Sewer Project, and thus 

we find that the project would have no adverse impact on any qualities of the site that 

might make it eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. No further archeological work is 

recommended in advance of Boston Sewer Project implementation.

Site 33SU99 at the Hines Hill Conference Center

Description

A multi-component archeological site, 33SU99, is recorded on the grounds of 

the former Fayerwether Farm, now known as the Hines Hill Conference Center. The 

property is situated on a relatively flat plateau elevated about 80 ft above Boston. This 

landform is restricted to an area between Hines Hill and Stanford Roads. The site and 

historic property occupy a gently undulating, roughly square bench about 100-x-100 

m in extent at a maximum elevation of 749 ft amsl. Very steep slopes down to lower 

terraces occur to the south-southwest, west-northwest, and east-southeast. To the 

north-northeast is a very steep slope up the valley wall toward the uplands flanking the 

Cuyahoga River Valley. Although views are impeded by tree growth, the property

and site overlook Boston Village and the lower riverine terraces of the Cuyahoga

River and its modern floodplain. 

Although this property was the location for one of the early-nineteenth-century 

homes in Boston, little remains of the improvements from that occupation and the 

existing structures on the property result from later construction and subsequent late-
79

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

twentieth century large-scale alterations of the three extant buildings. Information 

on the history of the parcel was provided to us by CUVA Historical Architect Paulette 

Cossel who gathered the material from park files. This property was originally owned 

by John Fayerwether, a carpenter who came to Boston in about 1834. One of his sons, 

James B. Fayerwether, owned the property after John’s death in 1857. James Fayerwether 

was a boat builder who, with his partner William Barnhart, owned a boat yard in Boston 

from the 1830s until sometime after 1874 (Finney 1997). It is likely that John Fayerwether 

constructed the original house on the property about 1834. The house was located 

along the southeast edge of the flat landform, overlooking the valley to the east, west, 

and south. The locations of the Fayerwether house and an outbuilding, probably a barn, 

relative to the Village are depicted on the 1856 plat of Boston (Figure 3). No lot lines 

or other parcel subdivisions are depicted on that map for the Fayerwether holdings, or 

for the nearby Stanford Farm. Topography is not depicted in any manner on the 1856 

map of Boston, nor on any of the other historic nineteenth-century plats. Although 

located on a different landform and at a considerably higher elevation, the Fayerwether 

House was not far from the Barnhart House where James Fayerwether’s boat building 

business partner lived (Richner 1997:Figure 5). Various members of the Fayerwether 

family appear to have owned the property until 1904 when it was sold to the influential 

business man, Charles H. Jaite. 

Mr. Jaite owned a paper mill and an associated worker’s community/company 

town that bore his name. The surviving buildings from the company store and worker’s 

dwellings in Jaite on Highland Road now form the core offices for CUVA. Mr. Jaite 

constructed a new house about 1904 on the same site as the original 1834 Fayerwether 

House and his family occupied the house by spring, 1905. It is thought that the new 

house encompassed the former footprint of the 1834 Fayerwether home. In 1926, Clayton 

Stanford, grandson of James and Polly Stanford who were among the very earliest 

settlers in Boston, became a caretaker of the Jaite House and associated farm. The Jaite 

family was known as the “rich people on the hill,” due to their business holdings and the 

location of the house at the edge of a steep, elevated slope. 

The property remained in Jaite family ownership until 1957 when it was sold to 

an eccentric nurse, Elizabeth Gerhard, who had cared for members of the Jaite family. 

She envisioned developing the property as a home for wayward boys, a plan that was 

never realized. Her modest means did not allow her to maintain the property, and it fell 

into disrepair. After she was forced to move to a nursing home, the property sat vacant 

for about a decade. A Cleveland banker, Richard W. Palmer, acquired the property in 

1971 or 1972, modifying and repairing the house, which had fallen into serious disrepair 

over the preceding years. Mr. Palmer made many improvements to the farm, since 

the barn and chicken coop also were seriously deteriorated when he purchased the 

property. Palmer enclosed a porch and made many internal modifications to the house. 

He installed an attached garage and built a tennis court. 

In 1975, Mr. Palmer then sold the property to Robert Gioia, a contractor who 

had assisted Mr. Palmer in renovating the deteriorating house, chicken coop and barn. 

During the Gioia ownership, massive additional changes were made to the chicken 

coop, barn and house, with materials salvaged from a variety of sources, including 
80

BOSTON SEWER

historic buildings in Cleveland, being added to the buildings. For example, the former 

chicken coop was transformed into a guest house with stone walls and a turret/bell 

tower. Changes and additions of similar scope were made to the barn and house. The 

Gioia family sold the property to the National Park Service in 1989. Today, the barn, in 

its highly modified condition, serves as a special event site. The buildings have been so 

significantly modified, that despite the fact that they are of considerable age (1904 or 

earlier), they are not significant from an historic architectural perspective. 

Archeological Information

A diffuse multi-component prehistoric and historic site (33SU99, the Gioia Site) 

occurs across the grounds of the Hines Hill Conference Center area. The site deposits 

are shallow and much of the area has been heavily disturbed by grading, landscaping, 

and other development-related activities during the Palmer and Gioia occupations 

after about 1971. The prehistoric scatter covers most of the bench-like landform, which 

is contiguous with the Hines Hill Conference Center use area and former core of the 

Fayerwether and Jaite farmsteads. Artifacts occur in a diffuse scatter, typically in very 

shallow context, within a plowzone and/or disturbed and mixed soil A horizon. The 

exception to this pattern occurs in a small area at the western edge of the site north 

of the circa 1904 house near the western edge of the elevated bench. There, on a low, 

but perceptible, rise, artifacts are more numerous and one sub-plowzone pit (Feature 

1) has been recorded. The area near the pit exhibits a slightly deeper soil profile than 

the remainder of the site area, with a shallow, culturally sterile, zone of silt overlying 

the A horizon soil in a small area. Like the remainder of the site, this area has also been 

disturbed by cultivation, but the presence of the pit feature confirms that at least a small 

area of the site retains sub-plowzone integrity. Based upon carbon 14 dating of charcoal 

for the Feature 1 pit, that feature and its associated lithic and ceramic artifacts date to 

the Late Prehistoric Whittlesey Tradition. 

The site’s historic component is more diffuse and less well preserved than

the prehistoric deposits. No significant historic deposits have been recorded at the

site to date.

The site has been investigated primarily via interval shovel testing, which has 

spanned the entire bench landform (Figures 16 and 17). Test excavations have been 

limited in scope and were focused only along the best preserved, western edge of the site. 

It is from the limited test excavation that intact sub-plowzone Feature 1 was discovered 

and recorded in 1995. Other features are probably preserved in that area of the site. It is 

conceivable that more extensive and intensive evaluative test excavation would expose 

intact, sub-plowzone prehistoric deposits across other portions of the site, but shovel 

testing has clearly demonstrated that the depositional integrity of most of the site area 

has been severely compromised by modern activities relating to major modifications of 

the house, chicken coop, and barn, as well as the construction of a tennis court and other 

amenities during the private ownership era of the 1970s and 1980s. Across most of the 

site, artifacts occur in a disturbed, shallow, rocky A horizon that has been cultivated and 

subsequently further disturbed by grading, landscaping, and other modern activities. 
81

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

Previous Research. Numerous archeological investigations, unrelated to 

the current project, were undertaken by CMNH and MWAC and resulted in the 

identification of site 33SU99. The previous fieldwork and results are summarized in the 

following section.

1979 CMNH. The Gioia Site, 33SU99, was named and recorded by David Brose, 

then of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History (CMNH), as a result of a parkwide 

inventory of CUVA sponsored by the National Park Service (Brose et al. 1981). The 

CMNH team completed project-specific site forms for all of the sites they investigated 

during their 1979-1980 fieldwork, and those original forms are on file at MWAC. We 

have recently revised and updated the information for site 33SU99 in an OAI form that 

is included in APPENDIX 1 of this report. The original site form defines the site as a 

prehistoric lithic and/or ceramic scatter and historic artifact scatter of unknown extent 

on the former Jaite estate. Prehistoric artifacts, which were recovered from interval 

shovel testing of unstated interval and extent, include debitage, fire-cracked rock, a 

pitted stone, and a single, grit-tempered pottery sherd (Table 16). Based upon the single 

sherd, the prehistoric component was reported to be associated with the Woodland 

Tradition. Very few historic items were recovered, but the CMNH team placed those 

items within a circa 1870-1920 time frame. 

The brief site description on the 1979 site form states “much of plateau destroyed,” 

a conclusion that was probably reached by the obvious changes to the landform wrought 

during the Gioia occupation that was occurring when CMNH recorded the site. 

Despite the obvious disturbances, the team found that the site was in “fair” condition 

and recommended that evaluative test excavations be undertaken. There is also a brief 

mention that Clarence Stanford had collected artifacts from this site at some time in the 

past. The specifics of that collecting effort were not documented in the site form.

1993 MWAC. The second archeological study at site 33SU99 occurred in 1993. By 

this time, the site had been in NPS ownership for about four years. MWAC archeologist 

Richner was assigned to inventory an area near the entry to the Hines Hill Conference 

Center off Hines Hill Road. With the highly modified barn now functioning as a 

conference center, the need for additional parking had arisen and the park proposed 

to expand an existing small, gravel-surfaced parking lot to accommodate additional 

visitors. The MWAC team excavated 51 shovel tests in five linear transects, oriented 

at about 211 degrees, across an area larger than the proposed parking lot expansion. 

This orientation paralleled the adjacent Hines Hill Road. A consistent soil profile 

was recorded in all 51 shovel tests. A dark brown silt loam graded very abruptly to a 

yellowish-brown clay loam between 16 and 34 cm below the modern ground surface. 

The soil change typically occurred at about 20 to 25 cm below surface, but was slightly 

deeper or shallower in some tests. This abrupt soil change is the result of the presence of 

a plowzone across the entire inventoried area. Twenty two of the shovel tests contained 

chipped-stone debitage in small numbers, with 43 pieces recovered from those positive 

tests (Table 16). Most of the chipped stone is Upper Mercer Chert, although chert from 

small, glacially-derived pebbles is also present. One piece of modified banded slate was 

recovered from Shovel Test 35 (Figure 18A). It is crudely chipped into an early stage 

biface, occasionally referred to as a “roughout,” that may have been intended to later be 

fashioned into a more refined biface, or, more likely, a ground-stone object. No pottery 
82

BOSTON SEWER

or fire-cracked rock was recovered from the shovel tests. A few very small pieces of 

historic ceramics and glass complete the inventory (Table 16). The historic objects are 

consistent with widely scattered items that occur in cultivated areas near farmsteads 

across nearly all of the Cuyahoga Valley. 

Based upon the results of the shovel test inventory, which revealed that the 

artifacts were confined to the plowzone, the deposit in the inventory zone was 

determined not to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Despite that, given the NPS’s 

mission of preserving its cultural resources wherever feasible, Richner (1993b) provided 

two options for parking lot development. One was to place the parking lot in some 

other area. However, Richner recognized that the site probably spanned the entire 

landform that was available for parking lot placement and that a second inventory of a 

newly selected parking lot location would probably result in findings similar to the first 

inventory. The second option was to place the parking lot in the inventoried zone, but to 

monitor the shallow (circa 25 cm) grading that would precede placement of the gravel 

parking surface. The park selected the second option. The work was considered to be an 

extension of the inventory and was treated as evaluative testing. The shallow plowzone 

was carefully removed with a front-end loader and the surface of the B horizon was 

examined for the possible presence of subsurface features. No features of any kind were 

exposed and the parking lot was installed as originally proposed. 

1995 MWAC. In 1995, Richner returned to site 33SU99 to examine a linear route 

where a septic line was proposed. This line was to lead to a new leach field further north 

on the property. The park proposed placing this line north from the parking pad on the 

north side of the house originally constructed by Mr. Jaite, and later highly modified by 

Mr. Gioia. Using the preliminary plan as a guide, the MWAC team excavated 10 shovel 

tests in a single linear transect (Figure 16). The grid established for this work included an 

arbitrary datum at the edge of the parking pad that was subsequently designated 200N/ 

200W. This was done with the expectation of future inventory of the parcel that would 

place all tests within a single quadrant north and west of a 0/0 grid point that would 

occur well off the raised bench landform containing site 33SU99.

The results of the small shovel testing inventory are summarized in Table 16. As 

expected, debitage was found in several tests (7 of 10), but other artifacts, including a 

modified banded slate object and a hammerstone, were also recovered. Shovel Test 6 

yielded 8 debitage, which was the largest number of prehistoric artifacts found in any 

shovel test at the site to date. Although most of the artifacts appeared to be confined to 

a circa 20 to 25 cm-thick plowzone, just as at the eastern edge of the site investigated in 

1993, the dark humus zone appeared to be thicker in the 1995 survey transect and in a few 

tests, a sterile silt zone capped the artifact-bearing deposit. Based upon those results, the 

team thought that is was prudent to conduct limited test excavations to further evaluate 

the depositional context of this portion of the site. Accordingly, three 1-x-1-m test units 

were placed along the proposed sewer line route (Figure 16). 

The artifacts recovered from Test Units 1, 2, and 3 are tabulated in Table 16. In 

Test Units 1 and 2, the top 10 cm of the deposit were devoid of artifacts. This reflects 

(purposeful?) placement of silt over the original grade in portions of the inventoried 

area. Relatively large numbers of chipped-stone debitage (n=353), pottery (n=18) and 
83

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

tools were recovered from the disturbed plowzone to a depth of 20 to 30 cm below 

surface. The tools included a distal fragment of a chipped-stone drill (Figure 18B), 

a scraper (Figure 18C), and a modified piece of banded slate; the pottery is all cord 

marked and undecorated (Figure 18D). At the base of the dark silty loam in Test Unit 3, 

an amorphous stain was exposed on the unit’s floor. Its dark color was consistent with 

the artifact-bearing A horizon, but was in sharp contrast to the light yellowish brown 

clay loam B horizon exposed across the remainder of the unit. The anomalous dark area 

was labeled Feature 1 and was excavated by trenching across the northern 1⁄4 of the test 

unit, effectively exposing the feature in profile along the north wall (Figures 19-21). The 

feature is a pit that extends 73 cm below surface. Its form is irregular and somewhat 

amorphous as a result of bio- and pedo-turbation. Feature edge outlines are mottled as 

a result of this post-deposition disturbance. It appears that the action of insects, such as 

cicadas, and perhaps small burrowing animals, are primarily responsible for the nowindistinct edges of the feature. Despite this, the feature is obvious and was cut well into 

the sterile B horizon soil. Its contents were excavated separately from the remainder 

of Test Unit 3 and included 28 pieces of debitage, six pottery sherds (Figure 18E), two 

fragments of red ochre, one pitted stone (Figure 18F) , one complete chipped-stone drill 

made from Upper Mercer Chert (Figure 18G), and a burned fragment of siltstone (Table 

16). A small amount of charcoal was also present in the feature fill. A sufficient sample 

was collected to process for carbon 14 dating, with a resultant date of 890+/-40 BP (Beta 

96185). This places the deposit with the Late Prehistoric Whittlesey Tradition.

Although the pottery from Feature 1, like all the other pottery recovered from 

the site, is undecorated, the sherds from the Feature 1 context are identical to those 

from plowzone contexts in shovel tests and other test units. This suggests that all the 

pottery may be of relatively early (circa A.D. 1060) Whittlesey Tradition (Riverview 

Phase) association. 

Given the presence of at least one subsurface feature within the proposed project 

area, Richner recommended that the sewer line and leach field not be built in this area 

of site 33SU99, and that the western portion of the site be carefully preserved. The park 

cancelled the proposed construction project and no development has subsequently 

occurred in that area. 

 1998 MWAC. In 1998, in response to the need to develop more data on the extent 

and content of site 33SU99 relative to future NPS use of the Hines Hill Conference 

Center, Richner returned to the site to conduct a broader inventory of the landform. 

Using the 200N/200W datum and grid orientation from 1995, 72 shovel tests were 

excavated at the site (Figure 16). The shovel tests were placed at 15 meter intervals, with 

a few exceptions that deviated slightly from that pattern to avoid hardscapes, buildings, 

and other modern amenities and to fall within the plateau landform. Of the 72 shovel 

tests, 53 contained prehistoric and/or historic artifacts (Table 16). Several pieces of 

slate, along with chipped-stone debitage constitute the great majority of the prehistoric 

assemblage. No pottery or fire-cracked rock was recovered, but a single biface (Figure 

18H) was found at grid point 125N/110W. Given the long history of Euro-American 

use of the site, the sparse yield of historic artifacts is somewhat surprising, but is in 

keeping with the gross disturbances that have occurred near the original Fayerwether 

house location.
84

BOSTON SEWER

Debitage appears to be essentially evenly distributed across the landform, with 

slightly higher numbers occurring near grid points 260N/95W and 215N/95-110W. Small 

fragments of slate, which are assumed to be of prehistoric association, rather than from 

historic slate roofs or children’s writing boards, are few in number but widely distributed 

across the site. Shovel tests were all excavated well into the sterile B horizon, accounting 

for the relatively deep depths of shovel test excavation presented in Table 16, but during 

excavation it appeared that all artifacts were derived from the disturbed plowzone to a 

maximum depth of 30 cm below surface. 

No specific development actions were undertaken by the park at the site 

after the 1998 inventory, which was designed to assist with future planning and 

site management issues. 

2001 MWAC. Archeologist Ann Bauermeister in June 2001 conducted 

archeological investigations at the Hines Hill property in advance of the installation of 

a new septic system to serve the main house. The proposed system included an evapotranspiration tile field situated on a small bench north of and down slope from the broad 

plateau where site 33SU99 is recorded. This area had not been included in any previous 

archeological inventory. The connecting sewer line would run from the northwest 

corner of the rear portion of the house along the western margin of the upper plateau to 

the tile field. Additional components included two septic tanks placed along the sewer 

line near the house and an inspection well located near the north end of the line. The 

investigations of the lower bench identified a small prehistoric artifact scatter with an 

Early Woodland component. Bauermeister considered the site discrete from 33SU99 

and recorded it as a new site, 33SU417, the Hines Hill site (Bauermeister 2002a). Results 

from the inventory indicate that this area has been heavily disturbed from cultivation 

for agricultural purposes. The very sparse amount of historic and prehistoric debris that 

was recovered in the fallow field was all confined to the plowzone. One rim sherd was 

found that is similar to types found at Early Woodland Period sites. The pottery was 

found near the edge of the landform within a rodent burrow, outside of the area where 

the tile fields were proposed, and also in very disturbed soils. The rest of the artifacts 

that comprise site 33SU417 are considered insignificant debris and Bauermeister did not 

recommend any additional archeological work for the tile field installation. This area is 

outside of the area of potential effect for the proposed sewer system.

On the upper plateau, seven shovel tests were placed along its western margin 

where the proposed connecting sewer line would be installed (Figure 17). The shovel 

tests were labeled from south to north R1 through R7. Four of the shovel tests yielded 

cultural material that is attributed to 33SU99. One flake each was recovered from shovel 

tests R1, R2, and R7; two pieces of glass were found in R5; and one porcelain sherd 

was found with the flake in R2. Based on the paucity of artifacts and because none are 

diagnostic of a specific temporal period or culture, it was determined that installation of 

the sewer line would have no adverse effect on the characteristics of the archeological 

resources at site 33SU99 that would qualify it for the NRHP. 

2004 MWAC. Archeologist Bauermeister conducted additional investigations 

at the property in July 2004 when plans to replace existing septic fields were being 

considered. An inventory utilizing close-interval shovel tests was completed for a 
85

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

100-x-150-ft area located on the east end of the property between the conference center 

and the pond. Shovel tests were labeled A through D from south to north and 1 through 

6 from west to east. Bauermeister did not realize that this area had been included in 

Richner’s 1998 shovel test inventory, which is why the areas of investigation overlap. The 

results from 2004, therefore, mirror what was observed in 1998. 

The 2004 inventory was positive for prehistoric, historic, and modern materials 

with prehistoric artifacts comprising the majority of the assemblage (Table 16). The 

prehistoric assemblage consists of 32 pieces of chipped-stone debitage, 26 pieces of firecracked rock, and two cores. The sparse historic and modern debris (5 glass fragments, 4 

nails, 1 porcelain sherd, 1 whiteware sherd, 1 plastic fragment) scatter is not considered 

significant. The artifacts were recovered from disturbed soils, with ground disturbance 

attributed to activities from the previous residents. None of the artifacts from the 

inventory area are culturally or temporally diagnostic and cannot be specifically 

attributed to either of the two temporal periods, Early Woodland and Late Prehistoric, 

represented at the property. While the area has been disturbed and the data potential is 

limited, given the high percentage of positive shovel tests Bauermeister recommended 

not using the area for the replacement septic field. Project planners agreed to pursue 

alternative plans, including one that would tie the septic system at Hines Hill into the 

system serving Boston, an approach that would require much less ground disturbance 

and would be less likely to impact intact archeological resources. 

2006 MWAC. In July 2006, Archeologist Bauermeister completed an 

archeological inventory in advance of a proposed expansion of the main, front parking 

lot, located along the west side of Hines Hill Road on the south side of the driveway. 

The proposed plans would expand the existing lot south by approximately 80 ft (25 

meters) to accommodate a total of 16 more cars, eight along either side of the lot. The 

2006 shovel test inventory covered a 20-x-40-m area adjacent to and oriented with the 

south end of the parking lot (Figure 17). The shovel test grid was set on 10-m intervals 

labeled A through C from west to east and 1 through 5 from north to south. A total of 

14 shovel tests was excavated and four were positive for prehistoric material (Table 16). 

Shovel Test A1 yielded three pieces of debitage and one piece of fire-cracked rock; A2 

yielded one piece of debitage; B4 contained one piece of fire-cracked rock; and one 

piece of debitage was found in C5. The artifacts occur as a small, ephemeral scatter that 

could be attributed to site 33SU99 but are not in a well-preserved context. They were all 

recovered from a shallow plowzone. The artifacts are neither temporally or culturally 

diagnostic, have little data potential, and are not considered significant. No additional 

work was recommended in advance of the proposed parking lot expansion. To date, that 

work has not been undertaken. 

Fieldwork Directly Related to the Sewer Project. Additional small-scale 

investigations were undertaken in 2009 based on the plans for the proposed 

sewer system. 

2009 Fieldwork. MWAC Archeologist Bauermeister shovel tested a small area at 

the property in August 2009 in advance of the proposed installation of a new septic tank 

and grinder pump for the Boston sewer system. Two shovel tests were excavated at the 

targeted location, which is about 10 meters east of the conference center and just north 
86

BOSTON SEWER

of an existing septic tank (Figure 17). Both of the shovel tests revealed heavily disturbed 

and compacted soils that were negative for archeological resources. Since no intact, 

significant portion of site 33SU99 would be impacted by the proposed undertaking, no 

additional archeological work was recommended. 

Site Disturbance Factors

The integrity of the prehistoric and historic components site 33SU99 has been 

extensively compromised by a variety of historic and modern actions. The shallow soil 

profile has been cultivated across the entire site area, with artifacts confined to the 

plowzone except where a single sub-plowzone feature was recorded in 1995 Test Unit 

3. Other similar features may occur at the western edge of the site near Feature 1. Their 

discovery would result only from intensive evaluative excavations, since it seems very 

unlikely given the existing disturbances and shallow character of the single recorded 

feature that geophysical inventory tools could isolate such ephemeral features. Among 

the activities that have disturbed the archeological site are:

•	 Land clearing and tree removal prior to construction of the circa 1834 

Fayerwether Farm, 

•	 Initial construction of the Fayerwether farm house and outbuildings,

•	 Cultivation to a depth of 20 to 30 cm across the entire site, which mixed all of 

the prehistoric deposits except those few features that may have been excavated 

to greater depths,

•	 Farmstead activities such as movement of vehicles, tending of domestic 

animals, gardening, and other ground disturbing activities beginning about 

1834 and continuing through the Jaite occupation until about 1971,

•	 Construction of a second house over the footprint of the original one in 1904,

•	 Installation of septic tanks, sewer lines, underground electric lines, and other 

utility developments by, or before, 1971, 

•	 Grading after 1971 of large areas of the site including installation of a pond 

with stone dam/retaining wall,

•	 Massive modification of the barn, house, and chicken coop after 1971 that 

resulted in extensive ground disturbance around those buildings,

•	 Installation of driveways, parking pads and other hardscapes after 1971, and

•	 Construction and subsequent removal of a tennis court.
87

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

All of these and other factors have combined to grossly disturb the shallow, 

diffuse artifact scatter that occurs at this location. 

Site Significance

Overall, the high levels of disturbance and great modifications to both the 

landscape and the structures at the Hines Hill Conference Center, or Gioia site, 33SU99, 

greatly limit its potential to contribute to meaningful research questions regarding 

either its prehistoric or historic archeological components. The historic component has 

essentially no integrity, with no midden deposits or subsurface features recorded despite 

relatively intensive investigations at the site in multiple stages. Even with the historical 

importance of both the Fayerwether and Jaite families, the owners of the site from 1834 to 

1971, we find that the lack of intact deposits from their occupations precludes eligibility 

of the historic component for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion 

D. No historic deposits have been discovered at the site to date that could contribute any 

meaningful information to study of nineteenth-century farming or other potential 

lines of inquiry. We therefore conclude that the historic component of site 33SU99 is 

not significant.

The prehistoric site component’s significance is difficult to assess. Most of 

the deposit is adversely impacted through cultivation, grading and the other ground 

disturbing actions listed above. However, the western-most part of the site maintains 

some depositional integrity, with pottery, chipped-stone tools, slate objects and at least 

one sub-plowzone occupation feature present. We anticipate that other features occur 

on the site and that they may not be limited in distribution to the small western edge 

where Feature 1 was recorded. The age of the entire scatter is undetermined, although 

the component represented by the pottery, drills, and pitted stone is associated with 

the Riverview Phase of the Whittlesey Tradition. Given the presence of at least some 

primary depositional integrity and the association with a known and important Late 

Prehistoric site component, portions of the site have the potential to contribute to a better 

understanding of the technology and land use patterns of one phase of the Whittlesey 

Tradition. Accordingly, with the understanding that site depositional integrity has been 

severely compromised across most of the landform, the prehistoric component of site 

33SU99 is potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion D, since it 

contains information that could address a limited range of research questions about the 

Riverview Phase of the Whittlesey Tradition. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

The Boston Sewer Project component at the Hines Hill Conference Center 

partially overlaps site 3SU99, but largely avoids the site and completely avoids all 

significant site deposits. Site 33SU417, also recorded at the property, is outside of the 

area of potential effect and will not be impacted by the proposed project. The work 

would consist of installation of a new sewer line that would connect existing septic tanks 

to the proposed Boston Sewer system. In addition, a single new septic tank would be 

constructed adjacent to one of the existing tanks a short distance east of the Conference 

Center (former barn) building. With the exception of one segment of the new sewer 

line that will connect that new tank and an existing tank to the new system, the entire 
88

BOSTON SEWER

length of new line that would be constructed to connect the Conference Center to the 

new system (about 322 ft) would completely avoid the site area. This new line would pass 

north of the site, intersecting the site in a single run to the tanks east of the Conference 

Center. The area where the line would intersect the site and where the new tank would 

be installed is shallow, with any artifacts completely limited to the existing plowzone, 

and grossly disturbed by landscaping and other activities subsequent to the earlier 

cultivation that mixed and blended the site deposit. The significant, western portion of 

the site that maintains better depositional integrity than the remainder of the site area 

would be completely avoided and preserved in place. 

Given this background, the installation of a new septic tank and a connecting 

sewer line through and adjacent to site 33SU99 would have no adverse impact upon 

any significant archeological deposits at the site. Most of the work would completely 

avoid the site, and the small component that would intersect the site would not cause 

any adverse impacts to the qualities for which portions of the site might be eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP. We find that the project would have no adverse effect upon 

significant archeological deposits at site 33SU99. No further archeological investigations 

are recommended in advance of Boston Sewer Project implementation.

Site 33SU105 at the Clayton Stanford Property 

Description

A multi-component archeological site, 33SU105, is recorded on the grounds at 

the Clayton Stanford property at 6033 Stanford Road. This property and archeological 

site are located north of the core of Boston, along the east side of Stanford Road. The 

property is at an elevation of about 700 ft amsl on a flat bench that appears to be the 

second riverine terrace above the Cuyahoga River floodplain. The Cuyahoga River 

floodplain lies to the west of the site. To the north is a large, flat riverine terrace that 

contains the historic George Stanford House and Farm and the important multicomponent archeological site, 33SU138, the Stanford Knoll. The Clayton Stanford 

property and site 33SU105, like the George Stanford House and site 33SU138, are 

within the former, circa 1806, 169-acre James Stanford Farm. Stanford was among the 

initial settlers in the Boston area (Perrin 1881), and, based upon his knowledge as one 

of the surveyors of Boston Township, he selected very fine land with excellent farming 

potential. His farm spanned the rich floodplain, wide first terrace, and higher, second 

terrace along the east side of the Cuyahoga River.

The historic Clayton Stanford property consists of an early-twentieth-century 

(circa 1906) house (HS-462), a shed, and a garage. Formerly, a barn was present, but 

the superstructure of that building is no longer extant. The former location of the barn 

(Figure 22) is apparent since the earthen ramp and the concrete floor are still intact. 

Access is via a driveway that ascends east up the sloping west edge of the landform 

from nearby Stanford Road. The house is a small, gable-roofed structure with a central 

entrance, clapboard siding, and double-hung windows with six-over-six lights. A shedroof porch spans the entrance façade. According to the CUVA Classified Structure 

Field Inventory of 1980, the house was reputedly built as a granary as part of the George 

Stanford Farm buildings a short distance to the north. Clayton Stanford, George’s son 
89

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

and James’ grandson, moved the granary to its present location and modified it to serve 

as a house. The non-extant barn is thought to have been built in 1906 when the granary 

was moved and refitted as a house. The shed and garage are modern structures.

Archeological Information

The property was formerly known as the Clark Home, based upon its owner 

in 1971 when the Cleveland Museum of Natural History conducted the first formal 

archeological investigation there (Engebretsen 1978; Finney 2002; and Wilson 1971). 

Today, following the convention for the historic structures in CUVA, it is usually known 

by the name of its original (or at least early) owner, Clayton Stanford. The archeological 

site on the property has been known by different names through time. CMNH 

developed a revised site form for the site as part of their parkwide inventory project at 

CUVA in 1981 when it was named the Clark Home Yard Site. A recently revised OAI 

form with updated information for 33SU105, also known as Clayton Stanford House 

Site, is included in APPENDIX 1 of this report.

Previous Research. The Clayton Stanford Property was previously inventoried 

for archeological resources during projects unrelated to the current sewer system 

project. As a result, site 33SU105 was identified. The previous fieldwork and results are 

provided in the following section. 

1971 CMNH. The Cleveland Museum of Natural History discovered and 

recorded this site as part of their Northeast Ohio Survey (NEOS) in 1971 (Engebretsen 

1978; Wilson 1971). They learned about the site through the son of its owner, Steven 

Clark, who had an artifact collection from the site. They identified an Archaic and 

historic scatter at the site, based upon Clark’s collection and their own limited test 

excavations (Finney 2002:211). The Clark family reported that a burial had been exposed 

by livestock behind the barn. The collections from the 1971 NEOS study are curated at 

the CMNH (Finney 2002:211).

1979-80 CMNH. The CMNH returned to the site during their parkwide 

archeological inventory of CUVA in 1979-1980, during which they conducted surface 

collections and additional limited test excavations. Finney (2002:211) reports that they 

excavated 18 0.5-x-0.5-m test units in the south yard, but the artifacts submitted to 

MWAC by the CMNH and cataloged and curated under MWAC Accession 72 include 

materials from only eight unique horizontal proveniences (Table 17). We have not located 

a map or drawing depicting the placement of those units, or of the 1971 test units. The 

CMNH team developed a revised site form for 33SU105 as part of their 1979-1980 work. 

That form, which is on file at MWAC, indicates that they investigated the site through 

surface survey and limited test excavations, and that the site had yielded various lithic 

tools including a pitted stone, axe, celt, and gorgets, in addition to scrapers, points, 

two bladelet midsections, and debitage. Historic earthenware sherds, glass, and brick 

are also listed. Two features, a pit and the burial reported by the Clark family, are also 

listed. The latter was reported to be found “behind the barn” (CMNH Site Form:1981). 

The form also notes previous disturbances through gardening or plowing, but the 

archeologists found the research potential of the site to be “good,” and recommended 

that additional evaluative test excavations be conducted. The section of the form on site 
90

BOSTON SEWER

size is left blank, but site use is listed as “flower bed,” suggesting that the site limit, as it 

was understood at that time, was somewhere in the yard near the house. That would be 

consistent with the site name given by CMNH to 33SU105, the Clark Home Yard Site. 

The collections from the 1979-1980 CMNH project are housed at MWAC. Since 

they have not previously been fully tabulated or reported, they are listed in Table 17. 

From that listing, it is apparent that the artifacts noted on the 1981 revised site form 

include items from the 1971 field project and Mr. Clark’s collection as well as from the 

1979-1980 efforts, since none of the polished stone or other diagnostic artifacts listed on 

the 1981 site form are among the artifacts that make up the CMNH accession resulting 

from 1979 or 1980 fieldwork. 

The revised site form indicates Woodland, Archaic, and historic site components. 

Although the specific Woodland component is not identified, the presence of bladelets 

would seem to indicate a Middle Woodland association for at least some of the 

prehistoric site assemblage. 

1993 MWAC. MWAC Archeologist Jeffrey Richner conducted a shovel test 

inventory of the grounds south and east of the Clayton Stanford House in 1993. The 

results of that project were summarized in an internal NPS memorandum (Richner 

1993b) and are fully reported here. The 1993 fieldwork consisted of monitoring minor 

development actions at the historic house and conducting interval shovel testing to assist 

the park in positioning water storage, septic fields, and utility lines. Multi-component 

site 33SU105 was known to occur in the yard prior to the 1993 inventory, but, as noted 

above, MWAC did not have access to drawings that specifically depicted the location of 

prior CNMH investigations. Richner monitored repointing of the house’s foundation, 

which included shallow excavation to expose the foundation to a depth of 18 inches 

below surface. Only the previously disturbed builder’s trench was impacted by this 

action and artifacts were limited to a horseshoe, a hinge, and a gouge or similar iron 

tool fragment. 

Initially, the proposed leach field area, cistern and utility line prism was 

investigated through 34 shovel tests (No. 1 through 22 and 24 through 35) placed in 5-m 

intervals in the south and east yards, covering an area about 36-x-36-m in extent. These 

were placed within the relatively flat ground in an area circumscribed by the gravel 

driveway that, in 1993, led to a small parking pad from Stanford Road (Figure 22). A highly 

disturbed zone consisting of deep ruts from vehicle traffic about 20-x-20-m in extent 

between the house and shed was not included in this shovel testing effort. Since a very 

large percentage of the tests contained chipped-stone debitage (in small numbers) and 

a variety of historic items, including several that seemed to predate the known 1906 age 

of the house (Table 17), 14 additional shovel tests (No. 36 through 44 and No. 49 trough 

53) were placed in the same survey area in close proximity to other positive tests (Figure 

22). The artifact scatter was clearly concentrated south and southeast of the house, with 

very little found to the east and northeast near the previously mentioned disturbed 

area. Prehistoric artifacts from the shovel tests consist of chipped-stone debitage (n=50), 

a fragmentary biface that appears to be a projectile point fragment (Archaic?) with 

a long impact fracture near the tip (Figure 23A), two fire-cracked rocks, one piece of 

pottery (Figure 23B), and one chipped-stone banded slate object that might represent 
91

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

a preform stage for later shaping into a ground-stone object, or alternately, a biface that 

was complete and intended to be used “as is.” These prehistoric objects occur within 

and below a very shallow plowzone. This is consistent with the CMNH identification of 

previous gardening on the 1981 revised site form. During the 1993 inventory, this area 

was vegetated with brambles and small trees, suggesting that the cultivation must have 

occurred many years ago.

In addition to the prehistoric artifacts, a surprisingly large, though highly 

fragmented, assemblage of historic materials was also recovered (Tables 17 and 18). 

With a few exceptions, these artifacts predate the 1906 Clayton Stanford House and 

are clearly not associated with its use and occupation. The historic artifacts are widely 

distributed within the primary inventory area and co-occur with prehistoric objects 

in many shovel tests (Table 17). An array of temporally diagnostic, pre-1860 items are 

identified in the historic assemblage. These include: whiteware and pearlware sherds 

including transfer-print, edge-decorated, and hand-painted decorative types, an 1823 

large cent, and an undecorated brass button (Figure 24). These artifacts occur in context 

with thin window glass, cut nails, and other items that could predate 1860. Many of the 

ceramic sherds, although highly fragmentary, are of decorative types one would expect 

to find at an 1810s through 1840s domestic site. This matches well with the brass button 

and large cent. The historic artifacts reflect a domestic use of the site prior to 1860, and 

probably prior to 1850, and are unrelated to the current Clayton Stanford House, built 

about 1906.

The historic artifacts are very likely associated with James and Polly Stanford’s 

original log cabin home, although we have not discovered any historic maps that depict 

the precise location of that structure. James Stanford brought his family to the 169-acre 

parcel that he purchased at this location in March, 1806 (Perrin 1881). Local tradition 

suggests that the Stanfords constructed a log cabin in the general area of the existing 

Clayton Stanford House. Polly Stanford died in 1814 and James died in 1827 (Miller 

1980), but their son George, and possibly other family members, are thought to have 

continued to live in the log home after James’ death. George may have left the original 

house sometime soon after his 1828 marriage, after which (circa 1830) he is thought to 

have built the large Greek Revival farm house to the north of site 33SU105 that still bears 

his name (Miller 1980). Although the National Register Nomination suggests a circa 1830 

date for the George Stanford House, others have suggested an 1843 date for that house 

construction. If that were accurate, it might suggest that the original cabin was in use 

through about 1842. That date would be consistent with the transfer-printed whiteware 

sherds from site 33SU105, several of which occur in black, green, and other colors that 

must certainly post-date 1830. 

Unfortunately, the history of the original log cabin is not recorded and its span of 

use and date of removal have not been determined. Although the 1993 MWAC field team 

did not identify the exact location of the 1806 cabin, the data from the inventory, local 

oral tradition, and the shape of the landform, strongly suggest it stood within the 

primary inventory zone, south of the current Clayton Stanford House. Additional 

inventory and testing, in combination with geophysical inventory, might reveal a 

more precise location of the cabin, although the area is disturbed through previous 

shallow cultivation. 
92

BOSTON SEWER

Given the presence of what appeared to be significant prehistoric and historic 

artifact deposits in the yard of the Clayton Stanford House, designated as archeological 

site 33SU105, Archeologist Richner (1993b) recommended that no ground disturbance 

be permitted in the intact portion of site 33SU105 south of the Clayton Stanford House. 

Accordingly, the archeological team was asked to inventory an alternate location for 

the proposed leach field. A flat, fallow, former agricultural field, east from the gravel 

driveway, was chosen as a potential alternate leach field location. The archeological 

team placed 26 shovel tests (No. 23 and No. 45 through 48 and alternate septic field No. 

1 through 21) in that area. All were negative. 

Six additional shovel tests were excavated near the garage, primarily along its 

east side (Figure 22). All of those tests were negative.

As a result of the MWAC inventory, Richner (1993b) made several 

recommendations for the management and protection of site 33SU105:

1. Install the proposed water storage cistern in the area proposed in the project 

drawings. This area was found to be deeply rutted and disturbed during the 1993 

inventory.

2. Avoid all ground disturbance at site 33SU105. Select alternate locations for the 

septic field and utility line route. If the site could not be avoided, data recovery 

excavations were strongly recommended. 

3. Install the septic field in the alternate area, a former agricultural field, southeast 

of site 33SU105. Route the septic line from the house to avoid site 33SU105. 

4. Install the shallow, proposed underground phone, electric, and intrusion 

alarm line within the disturbed footpath east of the house, rather than in the 

originally proposed location.

5. Insure that future occupants of the house engage in no activities that would 

disturb site 33SU105.

Those recommendations were followed and no additional developments or 

archeological fieldwork have occurred at the property since 1993. 

 Site Disturbance Factors

Site 33SU105 has been disturbed by the 1906 moving to this location of the 

former granary, retrofit to be the Clayton Stanford House, and activities related to is 

subsequent occupation and use. The site area has been cultivated, mixing the early- and 

middle-nineteenth-century component with the earlier Archaic and Woodland 

components in a shallow plowzone. The northeast edge of the site was disturbed 

by vehicle use prior 1993. 
93

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

Site Significance

Despite the significant and obvious disturbances to site 33SU105, there are 

several factors that suggest it is significant and eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The 

prehistoric materials, especially those from Clark’s collection and the 1971 CMNH 

NEOS testing project, include polished-stone tools and chipped-stone points, scrapers, 

and bladelets that appear to reflect Archaic and (Middle) Woodland use of the site. 

MWAC shovel tests revealed that at least some of those artifacts occur below the 

shallow plowzone, suggesting that undisturbed and intact deposits probably still occur 

in portions of the site. The 1979-1980 CMNH team found an intact, sub-plowzone pit 

that contained charcoal, among other materials, and it seems likely that other features 

are also present. Assuming that the CMNH attribution of bladelets in the prehistoric 

assemblage is accurate, it appears that a Middle Woodland, Hopewell component is 

present. As summarized elsewhere (Richner and Bauermeister 2011) such sites are 

known to occur within CUVA, including at the nearby Stanford Knoll, 33SU138. Any 

intact Hopewell site component within CUVA would certainly be eligible for inclusion 

on the NRHP. 

If our interpretation of the association of the artifact scatter with a former 1806 

log cabin is correct, the historic site component is significant due to its association with 

one of the earliest and most important settlers of Boston Township, James Stanford. 

This component would appear to be one of the relatively few historic archeological sites 

within CUVA that would partially predate the local Ohio and Erie Canal construction 

era (1825-1827), when settlement was sparse and scattered. If direct evidence for the 

cabin could be identified at the site, the significance of the historic component would be 

greatly enhanced. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

Minimal ground disturbance would be required to connect the existing sewer 

system at the Clayton Stanford property to the new Boston Sewer System. A new line 

would be installed from the disturbed right-of-way along the east berm of Stanford 

Road up the slope to the property. There it where it would be joined to the existing line 

that connects the house to the existing leach field. The new line would be installed in 

the existing, grossly disturbed driveway that curves up a steep slope from Stanford Road 

to the existing line. That existing line crosses the driveway and connects to the leach 

field. The new line would junction with the existing line within the disturbed driveway 

prism. No ground disturbance would occur where any cultural deposits from 33SU105 

have been recorded. The site area would be carefully avoided during installation of 

the new line. Accordingly, we find that the proposed installation of a component of 

the Boston Sewer Project immediately adjacent to the Clark Yard Home (also known 

as Clayton Stanford) Site (33SU105) would not disturb the site in any way. The project 

would therefore have no adverse impact upon any of the qualities that the archeological 

site might possess that would make it potentially eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places. No further archeological work is recommended in advance 

of Boston Sewer Project implementation.
94

BOSTON SEWER

33SU138 at the George Stanford Property

Description

A multi-component prehistoric and nineteenth-century historic site, 

33SU138, has been recorded at the historic George Stanford Farm. The site consists of 

discontinuous subsurface artifact scatters and occupational features that occur in close 

proximity to the historic house, as well as on the grounds that encompass the house and 

barn. Minimally, the prehistoric component includes Early, Middle, and Late Woodland 

components identified through absolute dates (Finney 2002:Table 10; and Lee 1986a) 

and temporally diagnostic artifacts. Evidence of other periods of prehistoric occupation 

(Archaic and Late Prehistoric?) also appears to be present based upon other temporally 

diagnostic artifacts. The historic component is more limited in extent than the 

prehistoric components, occurring close to the house and spanning about 1830 into the 

early- or middle-twentieth century (Lee 1983; Rossillon 1985). The historic component 

is the result of occupation and use of the property by George Stanford’s family and 

subsequent owners (Dickinson, Hatch, and Clark families), primarily in the nineteenth 

century. The site was initially referred to as the Stanford House, but was named Stanford 

Knoll after Archeologist Lee (1986a) of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History 

discovered an area of the site that contained multiple, preserved occupational features 

in buried context a short distance southwest from the front (west) house façade. The 

position of that deposit on a low rise near the west edge of the terrace landform caused 

him to name the site Stanford Knoll. 

The site occupies a large, relatively flat terrace that flanks the east edge of the 

floodplain of the Cuyahoga River at an elevation of about 670 ft amsl. The terrace 

is elevated only about 15 ft above the floodplain, but is a very distinct and important 

landform on which occurs many prehistoric and historic sites in and near Boston 

Village. The core of the prehistoric site, which is known as the Stanford Knoll due to its 

location on a low, but distinct, rise on the landform, and the historic site component are 

positioned near the western edge of the terrace overlooking the floodplain. To the south 

is a higher terrace where the Clayton Stanford House and associated archeological site 

33SU105 occur. To the east, the terrace landform continues for a considerable distance 

across fallow fields that formerly served as the core of the 169-acre James and Polly 

Stanford Farm, founded about 1806. The north edge of the terrace flanks a small, gently 

sinuous drainage that is partially fed by a flowing spring that is only a few feet north 

of the historic farm house. It is very likely that this spring, which remains active today, 

and the intersection of the terrace landform by its associated drainage, were important 

landscape elements that are primary determinants for the occurrence of all of the 

archeological site components at this location. The terrace landform is flat and relatively 

well drained, provides easy access to the floodplain and Cuyahoga River to the west, and 

was an ideal location for use over a very long time period. When the clear-water, active 

spring is added, the setting is optimal both for prehistoric hunters and collectors, or even 

horticulturalists, as well as nineteenth-century settlers and farmers. Given this setting, 

it is apparent why James Stanford, who was among the original surveyors of Boston 

Township, selected this land within his 169-acre purchase from the many thousands of 

acres available to him as one of the earliest settlers of the township. 
95

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

The house (HS-442), originally built about 1830 (or perhaps 1843?) by George 

Stanford, the son of James and Polly Stanford who purchased the 169-acre farm in 

1806, is built in the classic Greek Revival style (Miller 1980). The house is in the same 

configuration today as it appeared in an 1874 engraving (Tackabury, Meade, and Moffet 

1874:99), although the historic landscape features depicted in the 1874 drawing are no 

longer present. The house consists of a main two-story block, an ell on the rear, or east 

façade, and a kitchen addition on the east side of the ell. All of these components were 

present by 1874. The first level of the ell now consists of a dining room that connects to 

the formal parlor of the main block. The smaller, second addition on the east is used as 

a kitchen. Over the ell on the second floor is bedroom space, while storage space occurs 

over the kitchen addition. The second level of the main block includes four bedrooms 

and a storage room. 

Other structures near the historic house include a springhouse (HS-442A), a very 

large barn (HS-443), a corn crib (HS-444), and a brick smoke house (HS-445) (Miller 

1980). The house and its outbuildings were listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places in 1982, based upon a nomination written in 1980. At that time, the presence of 

archeological resources on the property was not known, but as will be described in more 

detail below, both the prehistoric and historic archeological site components are eligible 

for inclusion on the NRHP. 

Archeological Information

Stanford Knoll, site 33SU138, is a significant multi-component prehistoric and 

historic site recorded just north of Boston Village at the historic George Stanford Farm. 

The site was initially recorded by Lee (1983) during limited test excavations along the 

house’s foundation prior to NPS structural restoration efforts. Subsequent investigations 

near the house (Rossillon 1985; Lynott 1985; Lee 1986a; Bauermeister 2001, 2005) 

revealed additional site components. The most important of those were discovered 

by Lee (1986a) and resulted in the naming of the site Stanford Knoll. The deposits he 

investigated contained prehistoric pits, post molds, and middens that yielded numerous 

artifacts, as well contexts for thermoluminescence and carbon 14 dating. The artifacts 

and dates documented Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland 

occupations in very well preserved context (Finney 2002:Table 10; Lee 1986a). Both Lee’s 

earlier (1983) and Rossillon’s (1985) fieldwork also revealed the presence of significant 

historic archeological deposits in very close proximity to the house. The historic 

component consists of artifact deposits attributed to former occupations of the house, 

mainly from the 1800s, but also through the turn of the twentieth century. 

Fieldwork conducted in areas further from the house in subsequent small-scale 

projects resulted in the recovery of new information about site extent and content, 

but did not reveal the kinds of highly significant deposits recorded in the earlier 

investigations. Archeological investigations away from the residential component of 

the house were undertaken in advance of a proposed campground development in a 

formerly cultivated field east of the barn (Bauermeister 2004, 2007b; Wanyerka 2008) 

and for proposed small-scale sewer-related improvements south of the area where Lee 

(1986a) defined the Stanford Knoll site (Bauermeister 2008). The latter are directly 

related to the Boston Sewer Project. The campground would be modest with about five 

designated camp sites for tent camping only. In 2003, Bauermeister (2004) confirmed 

through intensive shovel testing that prehistoric materials attributed to 33SU138 extend 
96

BOSTON SEWER

this far east on the landform (Table 19). She identified a small knoll or rise within the 

field where a small scatter of chipped-stone debitage, fire-cracked rock, and a single 

pottery sherd were concentrated (Figure 25). The pottery is thick walled and resembles 

sherds found by Lee (1986a) in the front yard of the house that are attributed to the 

Early Woodland period. Bauermeister returned to the site in 2007 to investigate a 

15-x-20-m area located directly behind the barn, east of the parking lot, where limited 

amenities for the campground were proposed. Three of the five shovel tests excavated 

yielded prehistoric material, including stone debitage (n=4) and a projectile point (Table 

19). Given the high percentage of positive tests, the stone tool, and the setting within 

33SU138, Bauermeister concluded that this portion of the site is significant. Also, there 

are accounts of [prehistoric] burials being encountered when the historic barn was 

constructed. Given the potential for additional buried site resources in the project area, 

including those of a sensitive nature, she recommended that ground disturbance in this 

area be strictly prohibited (Bauermeister 2007b). 

In 2008, Phil Wanyerka and a team of students from Cleveland State University 

(CSU) conducted evaluative testing of the site area within the field east of the barn 

and of the area adjacent to the parking lot that Bauermeister investigated in 2007. The 

excavations were conducted under the direction of MWAC and for the purpose of 

evaluating resources identified during previous investigations (Bauermeister 2004, 

2007b). The CSU team discovered additional prehistoric materials (Table 19) within 

the disturbed upper plowzone, but did not encounter any intact deposits or features 

(Wanyerka 2008). Based on those findings, Bauermeister (2008b) did not recommend 

any additional archeological work for any components of the campground project 

that occur within the former agricultural field. She did, however, indicate that MWAC 

will continue to coordinate with the park on determining where to place the proposed 

amenities, which include a cistern and vault toilet.

Archeologist Bauermeister’s 2008 fieldwork is directly related to the Boston 

Sewer Project and is described below. 

Previous Research. The previous investigations are summarized in the 

PROJECT BACKGROUND section of this report and in the paragraphs above under the 

Archeological Information heading. Detailed information on those findings has been 

fully reported by Lee (1983, 1986a, 1986c), Lynott (1985), Rossillon (1985) and Finney 

(2002). Readers are referred to those accounts for additional information. The following 

discussion considers only the archeological work specific to the Boston Sewer Project. 

Fieldwork Directly Related to the Sewer Project. MWAC returned to the 

George Stanford Property to conduct additional investigations specifically related to 

the plans for the proposed sewer system. These investigations supplemented previous 

undertakings and the results are summarized in the following. 

2008 Fieldwork. In August 2008, MWAC Archeologist Bauermeister investigated 

two small areas at the George Stanford Farm where system components for the Boston 

sewer system are proposed. The first area is south of the house and the driveway where 

two existing septic tanks and a leach field are located. It is distinguished from the second 

area only because of its higher elevation on the landform above Stanford Road, the same 

terrace landform where the farm and associated site 33SU138 are situated. This area 
97

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

was previously inventoried in advance of the installation of the current septic system 

and found to contain no significant archeological remains (Lynott 1985). Lynott (1985) 

recorded a few artifacts representative of mid-nineteenth-century residential activities 

that were widely scattered and in no obvious concentration. He found no evidence of 

subsurface features. Bauermeister excavated two shovel tests in this area in a single 

transect along a proposed sewer line route, which would connect the existing septic 

tank to two new tanks and a pump station. This would allow the existing leach field to 

be abandoned. Each shovel test (ST1 and ST2) yielded one chert flake. The flakes are 

attributed to 33SU138, however they derived from disturbed soils in an area that was 

grossly disturbed by the installation of the current septic system in the middle 1980s and 

where Lynott (1985) had recorded no intact cultural deposits prior to that construction.

The proposed connecting line would run southwest from the existing septic tank 

toward the proposed location for the new septic tanks and pump station. The location 

for those sewer components is at the base of the terrace landform, along the east side of a 

section of a gravel driveway near its junction with Stanford Road. This small project area 

occurs at a lower elevation than the house and site 33SU138. Continuing downhill along 

the same transect to where the tanks and pump station are proposed, three more shovel 

tests were excavated. Investigations in this area revealed an abandoned ceramic drain, 

heavily disturbed soils devoid of artifacts, and deep deposits of alternating clays. Since 

no artifacts were encountered on this lower landform, the area is not included within the 

site boundary for 33SU138. Based on these results, no significant archeological resources 

exist within the area of potential effect for the Boston Sewer Project and the installation 

of sewer system components would have no adverse effect on site 33SU138 or any other 

archeological resources. Bauermeister (2008) advised that the system components be 

installed as planned and did not recommend any additional archeological work. 

Site Disturbance Factors

Disturbance factors at the George Stanford Farm parcel include:

•	 Construction of the historic buildings, driveways and parking areas, 

•	 Disturbed road right-of-way along Stanford Road, 

•	 Farming activities including cultivation, vehicle movement, and tending of 

animals across the grounds,

•	 Installation of a pond,

•	 Residential activities associated with historic and modern occupations,

•	 Middle-twentieth-century septic tanks and associated connecting lines,

•	 One or more nineteenth- and/or early-twentieth-century water cisterns near 

the south façade of the house, 
98

BOSTON SEWER

•	 Construction of a modern garage, and

•	 Installation of utilities, including a water storage cistern, leach field and septic 

tanks in the 1980s.

All of the disturbances except for the water cistern and modern septic tanks and 

leach field predate NPS ownership of the property. All projects that resulted 

in ground disturbance during NPS site ownership were preceded by thorough 

archeological investigations.

Site Significance

Site 33SU138, Stanford Knoll, is recorded on the same terrace that the historic 

George Stanford Farm occupies. The site is multi-component with historic occupations 

from the mid-nineteenth through the early-twentieth century represented in addition 

to prehistoric occupations that span the entire Woodland period, and possibly part of 

the Archaic and Late Prehistoric periods as well. The site was originally recorded on the 

residential grounds surrounding the Stanford House (Lee 1983, 1986a; Rossillon 1985) 

where highly significant, intact deposits and features were revealed. Later investigations 

(Bauermeister 2004, 2007b; Wanyerka 2008) confirmed what was originally suspected, 

that the prehistoric component extends further east across this terrace, but this eastern 

portion of the site has been adversely impacted by cultivation. Despite the disturbance, 

the site boundary for 33SU138 has been expanded to include the field east of the barn 

to the extent that archeological investigations have been completed and encountered 

artifacts (see revised 33SU138 OAI form in APPENDIX 1). The area of potential effect 

for the proposed sewer project to serve Boston Village is outside of the area where 

significant site resources occur, as demonstrated through archeological investigations 

(Lynott 1985; Bauermeister 2008). 

The archeological deposits at site 33SU138 include sparse and highly disturbed 

zones in addition to intact, stratified areas. The most important deposits recorded to 

date are in close proximity to the house and barn. Those deposits are significant and 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP for several reasons. The prehistoric site components 

contain information that could address a variety of research questions about chronology, 

subsistence, raw material acquisition (especially sources for chipped-stone tools), 

ceramic typologies and site placement in local and regional settlement systems, among 

others. These and other research questions could be addressed via data present at this 

site for the Early, Middle and Late Woodland (and Late Prehistoric?) traditions and 

possibly for the Archaic tradition as well. However, the site’s prehistoric components 

are not uniform across the recorded site area, and certain portions have been grossly 

disturbed by historic and modern activities. 

The historic component is also significant, especially due to its association with 

the Stanford Family. The original owners of the farm, James and Polly Stanford, were 

among the earliest settlers in the township, and James had been part of the team that 

conducted the original land surveys there. Their son, George, likely constructed the 

stately Greek Revival house to replace their earlier log cabin, which is thought to have 

been located south of the George Stanford House at nearby site 33SU105. Archeological 
99

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

deposits at site 33SU138 could address an array of questions about nineteenth-century 

life in Boston Township, including acquisition of goods, trade patterns, economic 

indicators, subsistence, and a variety of other studies. The deposits could be used to 

compare life at a prosperous nineteenth-century farm to sites of similar age, both in 

Boston and elsewhere within CUVA, of both similar and divergent function. These 

would include both farm (33CU341, the Frazee House, 33SU436, the Brown-Bender 

Farm, and 33SU440, the Point-Biro Farm) and non-farm (33SU434, the Szalay House, 

33SU136, the Kepner House, and 33SU134, the Chamberlin House) residential sites, as 

well as commercial stores (33SU270, the Boston General Store, and 33SU274, the Mustill 

Store), taverns (33SU314, the Canal Visitor Center Site), and other functional site types. 

There is a large database for historic archeological sites of comparable age at CUVA that 

could serve as a basis of comparison with the cultural materials at 33SU138 for a wide 

variety of material culture-related and other studies. For that reason, site 33SU138’s 

historic component is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion D. 

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

The proposed sewer system components for the Boston Sewer Project to be 

installed at the George Stanford Farm include a new pump station and two 2500 gallon 

tanks placed along the east side of Stanford Road, south of the Stanford House. A new 

sewer line would run from the pump station northeast uphill to where it will connect to 

the existing septic tanks located on the south side of the driveway south from the house. 

Stanford Knoll, site 33SU138, occurs on the same terrace as the George Stanford 

Farm, with the most significant site components found in the yard surrounding the 

Stanford House. Additional artifacts have been identified further east of the house, but 

are limited to disturbed plowzone soils in the formerly cultivated field. This significant 

site contains evidence of multiple previous occupations, possibly dating back as far as 

the Archaic period, through the entire Woodland period, and possibly into the Late 

Prehistoric period, and of historic occupations associated with the mid-nineteenthcentury house. The area of potential effect for the current project is restricted to areas 

where no significant archeological resources from 33SU138 occur. One part of the 

proposed sewer project, a sewer connecting line, intersects an area south of the house 

where only a non-significant, ephemeral artifact scatter was documented (Lynott 

1985). Further, this area was previously disturbed by a variety of historic and modern 

actions. No adverse effect to significant archeological resources would result from the 

installation of the proposed new septic system components on a lower landform, adjacent 

to Stanford Road, that has been heavily impacted by road construction and a drainage 

system, and that is devoid of archeological resources. This is where the new septic 

tanks and pump station would be installed. Archeological investigations of the area of 

potential effect have shown that no significant archeological resources at 33SU138, or 

any other archeological sites, exist within the project area. The intact portions of site 

33SU138 will be avoided by the project and will be preserved in situ. The proposed 

undertaking would therefore have no adverse effect and no additional archeological 

work is proposed in advance of the undertaking. 
100

BOSTON SEWER

Government Tract 118-79 

Description

South of Boston Village and on the east side of the Cuyahoga River is a portion 

of Tract 118-79 that is targeted for the bio-treatment wetland system component of 

the proposed Boston sewer system. A 40-acre area underneath the Interstate 271 and 

80 bridges on this tract was previously heavily impacted during the Interstate Highway 

construction in the late 1960s, prior to the designation of CUVA, when it served as a 

fill and spoil area. The original soil material was replaced with fill, leveled and seeded, 

but the seeding was unsuccessful because of the poor soil quality and consequently the 

area was subject to severe erosion, with as much as 10,200 tons of annual sediment loss 

reported. In 1983 the NPS proposed reclamation of the degraded site area and in 1987 

the reclamation work was completed (APPENDIX 2 and Plona personal communication 

2009). The wetland system fits entirely within the heavily disturbed area that was subject 

to reclamation.

Archeological Information

No archeological resources have been identified on Tract 118-79.

2004 Fieldwork. Ann Bauermeister of the Midwest Archeological Center 

completed a shovel test inventory on Tract 118-79 in June 2004 when a previous design 

for the Boston sewer system that also utilized a wetland system on this parcel was being 

considered. Given the documented history of the parcel, Bauermeister did not anticipate 

finding any intact buried cultural resources, but wanted to verify the level of disturbance 

and document the modified profile. The earlier design incorporated a 300-x-300-ft 

treatment area that would be connected to the Boston sewer system via a force main 

line. The shovel test inventory covered the entire project area as well as a single transect 

running toward Boston at a northeast diagonal from the northwest corner of the field, 

the boundaries for which were marked in advance by project engineers (Figure 26). Fifty 

shovel tests were excavated and all were negative for cultural materials. The excavations 

confirmed that the area has been grossly disturbed and is devoid of any archeological 

resources and of strata that would have the potential to contain any cultural deposits. 

The altered profile consists of a top layer of grayish-brown loam that ranges in depth 

from 10 to 40 cm below surface and is underlain by mottled orange, gray, and brown 

clays, and orange clay. These are culturally sterile C horizon soils.

Disturbance Factors

Disturbance factors on Tract 118-79 include:

•	 Construction impacts from Highway 271 and Interstate 80,

•	 Soil was removed for fill material during Interstate construction,

•	 Served as a spoil area during Interstate construction,
101

HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES

•	 Substantial sediment loss through severe gully erosion, and

•	 Reclamation work including adding fill material, grading, seeding, and 

mulching.

Finding of Effect for the Boston Sewer Project

A bio-treatment wetland system is proposed that would be placed toward the 

east edge of the open, grassy field underneath the Interstate 80 and 271 bridges on Tract 

118-79. The current system is configured differently than a previously proposed design 

and involves a larger footprint. The current system would consist of two contiguous 

wetland cells measuring approximately 250-x-380-ft combined, three adjacent manmade terraces to the west, extending about 820 ft north to south and 410 ft west to 

east, and two flow equalization and distribution tanks placed east of the wetland cells. 

A 2-inch force main would run northwest from the tanks toward the reconstructed 

Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath and then along the towpath, across the Johnson Barn 

property (also Tract 118-79), and to a pump station at the Johnston-Rodhe property 

(Tract 118-77). The area of potential effect for the entire wetland system would be 

contained within the 40-acre area that was heavily impacted in the late 1960s from the 

Interstate construction and from subsequent erosion, and where reclamation work was 

later undertaken. Results from the 2004 archeological investigations verified that this 

area is grossly disturbed and that no significant archeological resources, or strata that 

have the potential to contain cultural deposits, are present where the wetland system 

would be installed. There is no potential for significant archeological resources along 

the proposed sewer line since it runs through a reconstructed, modern segment of the 

towpath trail; the route and adjacent corridor for which was archeologically inventoried 

prior to trail construction with negative findings (Noble 1988). All of the proposed work 

will be undertaken within highly disturbed areas where no significant archeological 

resources occur and will therefore have no adverse effect. 
102

BOSTON SEWER
103

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As described earlier in this report, planners, engineers, and cultural resource 

professionals worked together from the inception of the proposed Boston wastewater 

project to fully consider and protect archeological sites. The project planning phase 

benefitted by the fact that the park had sponsored archeological inventory and 

evaluation projects beginning in 1979 at many of the historic properties to be served by 

the new system. Those projects were not focused upon any specific proposed wastewater 

system or other proposed development actions and instead were broader studies of 

the properties. For the few project areas that had not been adequately inventoried and 

evaluated by previous archeological projects, inventories were completed in recent years, 

especially in 2008 and 2009. These included proposed system connections at the Boodey 

House and Hines Hill Conference Center and a proposed pump station at the JohnstonRodhe property. This combination of previous archeological study and specifically 

targeted inventories and evaluative testing in 2008 and 2009 provided information on 

archeological resources at all of the parcels to be connected to the wastewater system 

so that a project could be designed that would protect and preserve all of the significant 

archeological sites at the historic properties. The resulting project design minimizes 

open trenching and traditional gravity feed project components. Primary sewer lines 

will be installed in the grossly disturbed rights-of-way of Stanford and Boston Mills 

Roads and a small force main will run from a pump station at a grossly disturbed area 

of the Johnston-Rodhe property through highly disturbed landscape to a bio-treatment 

facility. That facility is to be constructed in a grossly disturbed landscape where no 

archeological resources occur. Connections to the individual properties were also 

designed to avoid sites entirely and or to intersect only disturbed and non-significant 

site deposits, such as at 33SU268 and 33SU481. All significant archeological deposits that 

occur at the properties to be served by the new system, as well as any significant sites 

adjacent to the properties, would be avoided in this project design that uses innovative 

small diameter force mains, directional boring, and very small pump stations to move 

the wastewater from Boston to a new wastewater bio-treatment facility. 

Although significant prehistoric and historic archeological deposits occur on 

several of the historic properties in Boston, none would be adversely impacted by the 

proposed project. Instead, the project would help to preserve the sites by ending the cycle 

of sequential installation of septic tanks and leach fields through time as the old systems 

became obsolete. This report has summarized all previous published archeological 

work that has occurred in Boston and has presented the methods and findings of all 

previously unpublished work dating from 1971 through 2009. One consistent element in 

those findings is that there are many disturbances, some extensive, that have adversely 

impacted the archeological sites in Boston. This is to be expected where the sites occur on 

the small grounds flanking historic domestic and commercial buildings, some of which 

have been in use since the 1820s era. Intact archeological deposits are not uniformly 

present across the entirety of any of the historic lots in Boston. Instead, significant 

deposits are discontinuous, not only across historic lots, but within lots as well. Even 

within the areas defined as significant archeological sites are grossly disturbed zones 

of varying size. That is one important factor that has allowed the project to be designed 

to avoid the remaining intact, significant deposits. We have also proposed a series of 

protocols to be employed during the construction phase to further protect sites from 
104

BOSTON SEWER

inadvertent damage. Those will be included in the contract specifications for the project 

and are summarized later in this section of the report.

Archeological sites within and adjacent to the proposed wastewater project’s 

APE range in age from prehistoric Archaic through early-twentieth century historic. 

The flat, alluvial terrace that occurs across most of Boston and the adjacent higher 

benches or terraces above the Cuyahoga River and its floodplain formed an ideal setting 

for prehistoric as well as historic occupation and use. The result of this long-term use is 

a series of discontinuous artifact scatters across Boston. Most of the prehistoric scatters 

are ephemeral and have been subject to a series of post-depositional disturbances in 

the historic era. However, a few, notably site 33SU138 at the George Stanford House, 

are surprisingly well preserved and are eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places. A similar situation exists for the historic sites, although, as expected, 

they contain many more artifacts than the prehistoric sites, and are usually in close 

proximity to extant structures. 

The following narratives summarize the archeological findings for the properties 

considered in this report:

•	 Site 33SU269 at the Boodey House. A multi-component prehistoric 

(undetermined age) and historic (early-nineteenth through early-twentieth 

century) site occurs on original Boston Village Lot 60 around the historic 

Boodey House. The house is listed as a contributing element to the Boston 

Mills Historic District. The prehistoric component is represented by a single, 

non-diagnostic artifact and is not significant and not eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. The historic deposit exhibits intact deposits only in limited areas of the 

back (north) yard. There, a kitchen midden was recorded in a few shovel tests 

and test units. Additional archeological study of that deposit could address 

a variety of questions about nineteenth-century life in Boston and therefore, 

the historic component is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. However, most 

of the grounds around the house, even on the north side, are disturbed by a 

variety of previous actions including the installation of earlier utility systems. 

The presence of these disturbed areas has allowed planners to select a route for 

a new sewer line at the property that would connect to the existing septic tank 

in a manner that would avoid adversely impacting the intact historic deposits 

that are present. The project would have no adverse effect upon any of the 

characteristics of the historic archeological deposit that would qualify the site 

for inclusion on the NRHP. 

•	 Site 33SU268 at the former Wolschleger House. A highly disturbed nineteenthcentury archeological deposit occurs on Boston Village Lot 59, which was the 

former location for two historic structures and a modern house. The latter, the 

Wolschleger House, was removed after an archeological inventory revealed 

that no significant archeological deposits were in direct association with that 

modern building. Subsequently, it was determined that the entire grounds, 

with the possible exception of a very small area at the northeast corner of the 

lot, are grossly disturbed through various modern activities, including the 

construction of a leach field and Boston Mills Road. We concur with the finding 
105

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

of a previous evaluative testing effort that documented these disturbances and 

concluded that the historic site deposit lacked research potential and was not 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. Our work at the site in 2009 fully supported 

those findings and revealed the presence of grossly disturbed soils where a new 

sewer line would connect to the Boodey property and allow the abandonment 

of the leach field on Lot 59. The project would have no adverse effect upon 

any of the characteristics of any archeological deposits that quality the site for 

inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Site 33SU481 at the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson properties. A highly 

disturbed multi-component prehistoric (early Late Woodland and/or Late 

Prehistoric Tradition) and nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century historic 

site occurs on the grounds of adjacent Tracts 118-77 and 118-79 in Boston. 

These tracts were formerly part of a single, unnumbered Boston Village lot. 

Currently, a significant 1910 house (Johnston) that is a contributing element 

of the Boston Mills Historic District and non-significant corn crib, garage, 

and shed occur on the two tracts. Formerly, a non-significant early-to-middletwentieth-century barn was also present along with a non-significant modern 

house (Rodhe) and multiple non-significant sheds. The extant house would 

not be served by the new sewer system. Archeological investigations near the 

former barn revealed the presence of both prehistoric and historic materials, 

all of which were confined to the disturbed plowzone and that were found to 

be non-significant. A meager scatter of modern items was found around the 

Rodhe House prior to its removal, and a disturbed, shallow deposit of historic 

and modern items was found where the new sewer line would pass through 

the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson parcels to its junction with the Buckeye Trail 

prism and the Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath prism. No intact archeological 

deposits, either historic or prehistoric, have been recorded at site 33SU481 to 

date. Project components would include only a narrow connecting line and 

a new pump station, the former of which would pass through the parcel and 

the latter of which would be installed in the grossly disturbed footprint of the 

former Rodhe House. The project would have no adverse effect upon any of 

the characteristics of any archeological deposits that would quality the site for 

inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Site 33SU423 at the Savacoal House. Both prehistoric (Early Woodland 

Tradition) and nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century historic components 

are recorded on the grounds flanking the historic Savacoal House, which is 

listed on the NRHP as a contributing element to the Boston Mills Historic 

District. An earlier house, present at least by 1856, formerly stood in the 

same location as the existing, early-twentieth-century house. The cultural 

deposit at this site contains artifacts of various ages blended into a single, 

undifferentiated unit. Modern items, such as coal, extend to the base of the 

cultural deposit and there is no internal layering evident in site stratigraphy, or 

in the vertical distribution of artifacts. Artifacts of greatly divergent age occur 

throughout the deposit and are not ordered vertically by their original dates 

of discard and deposition. Despite this highly limiting site condition factor, 

the large numbers of historic artifacts and their classes and types provide the 
106

BOSTON SEWER

potential for some studies of the nineteenth-century occupation of the site and 

to examine lifeways in Boston in that temporal context. However, the minimal 

ground disturbance that would result from the project would have no adverse 

effect upon any characteristics of the archeological deposits that quality the 

site for inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Site 33SU456 at the Barnhart House. The Barnhart House is an earlynineteenth-century structure first occupied by a well known boat builder 

who worked for many years in Boston. It is listed as a contributing element 

to the Boston Mills Historic District. Relatively little is known about the 

archeological site that occurs on the grounds of the Barnhart House, since 

it is documented only through a park staff collection that was made during 

renovation of an antiquated house wastewater system. However, a projectile 

point from the collection demonstrates that, minimally, the site has a Late 

Archaic Tradition component. Historic artifacts, most of which are of 

nineteenth-century age, are directly associated with the former occupants of 

the house, including members of the Barnhart and Stanford families. Although 

site context, extent, and condition are unknown, the variety of materials 

suggests that both the prehistoric and historic components may be eligible for 

inclusion on the NRHP. Professional archeological inventory and evaluation 

would be required to confirm that assumption. Fortunately, there will be no 

new ground disturbance at this property as a result of the connection of the 

existing septic tank to the new sewer system. A very short, single connecting 

line is required to accomplish that. The new line would intersect a grossly 

disturbed linear prism where the context was altered prior to NPS ownership 

when the existing septic tank was installed. The project would have no adverse 

effect upon any characteristics of the archeological deposits that would qualify 

the site for inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Site 33SU99 at the Hines Hill Conference Center. Although this location was 

the setting for the home of a prominent early boat builder in Boston, Mr. 

Fayerwether, drastic modifications to the landscape have removed nearly all 

evidence of his nineteenth-century occupation. The later, existing buildings, 

including a former barn, house, and chicken coop are highly modified and 

are not listed on the NRHP. A multi-component archeological site, including 

a prehistoric (Late Prehistoric Whittlesey Tradition) component and a sparse 

nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century historic component occurs in 

extremely shallow context across the raised bench landform at this location. 

The prehistoric component lacks depositional integrity across nearly the 

entire plateau-like bench, with a notable exception of a small zone near the 

western edge of the scatter. There, a shallow pit feature containing diagnostic 

Late Prehistoric Tradition artifacts in datable context was discovered in 1995. 

That small area of the site retains sufficient integrity to have the potential to 

address a variety of research questions about the Whittlesey Tradition in 

northeastern Ohio, including ceramic typology, lithic raw material selection, 

internal Whittlesey chronology and other related avenues of inquiry. This 

research potential makes the prehistoric component in this area of the site 

eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion D. The mixed, sparse and 
107

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

badly disturbed historic component lacks integrity and has minimal potential 

to address any meaningful research questions, despite the fact that some of the 

artifacts appear to be associated with the early Fayerwether occupation. The 

intact, significant area of the site has been preserved since it was discovered 

in 1995 and will not be impacted in any way by the Boston Sewer Project. The 

existing septic tanks at the Hines Hill Conference Center will be connected 

to a new sewer line that will run from the Center grounds downslope to the 

west to a new main sewer line to be installed in the disturbed right-of-way 

of Stanford Road. The connecting lines at Hines Hill have been designed to 

avoid all significant deposits at the site and intersect only grossly disturbed 

areas. The project would have no adverse effect upon any of the qualities of the 

archeological deposits that would qualify the site for inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Site 33SU105 at the Clayton Stanford House. A multi-component prehistoric 

and nineteenth-century historic site has been recorded on the grounds 

primarily south-southeast of the circa 1906 Clayton Stanford House. The 

prehistoric component contains a variety of artifacts that appear to reflect 

multiple occupations occurring discontinuously over many centuries. These 

site components are significant and have the potential to address a series of 

research questions related to the Woodland occupations of the Cuyahoga 

Valley and northeastern Ohio. Studies including ceramic typologies, lithic 

procurement, chronological refinement and other related areas of inquiry 

could be addressed through the information contained within this relatively 

small site. Similarly, the historic component includes very early nineteenthcentury artifacts that appear to have derived from James and Polly Stanford’s 

occupation of a log house that was likely constructed on this site in 1806 and 

occupied for about 30 or 40 years by Stanford family members. These historic 

materials also represent a significant archeological deposit that is eligible 

for inclusion on the NRHP. No new ground disturbance would occur at site 

33SU105 as a result of this project. The work will be limited to installation of a 

single sewer line that would be routed up the steep slope of the existing gravel 

driveway and be connected to the existing sewer line where the driveway 

crosses the existing line from the house to the leach field. The leach field would 

be abandoned in place after the connection is made to the new sewer system. 

The project would have no adverse effect upon any characteristics of the 

archeological deposits that would qualify the site for inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Site 33SU138 at the George Stanford House. The George Stanford House, its 

associated barn, and springhouse, are listed on the NRHP primarily due to 

their architectural and historical significance. They may also be important 

due to their association with the James Stanford family, one of the first settlers 

of Boston Township. A multi-component prehistoric (Early, Middle and Late 

Woodland Tradition) and historic early-nineteenth- through early-twentiethcentury site occurs on the grounds around the existing buildings and extends 

east into a former farm field. The most important deposits, both historic and 

prehistoric, occur in close proximity to the house along all four facades. The 

prehistoric components are significant and contain information that could be 

used to address a variety of research questions ranging from technological and 
108

BOSTON SEWER

typological issues to refinement of local and regional Woodland chronologies 

to environmental reconstruction and other lines of inquiry. The nineteenthcentury historic component is similarly important and could be used to address 

many questions about nineteenth-century occupation of the Cuyahoga Valley 

and northeastern Ohio, especially those related to the character of successful, 

middle class farming efforts during that period. The proposed Boston Sewer 

Project will connect to the existing septic tanks at the Stanford Farm in a 

manner that will avoid intersection with any of the intact, significant deposits 

that occur at the site. A pump station and septic tanks will be constructed 

off the archeological site along Stanford Road and a single line will connect 

the new features to the existing sewer system. The line will traverse an area 

that is grossly disturbed and where no significant archeological resources 

have been recorded. The project would have no adverse effect upon any 

characteristics of the archeological deposits that would qualify the site for 

inclusion on the NRHP.

•	 Tract 118-79, no archeological site present, the bio-treatment wetland system. 

No archeological resources occur at the primary component for the new sewer 

system, which is a large bio-treatment facility to be constructed in the grossly 

disturbed area south of Boston within the impact zone of highway bridge 

construction. This project component would have no adverse impact upon any 

archeological resources.

By incorporating archeological information fully within the planning process, 

it has been possible to avoid adverse impacts at all of the archeological sites that occur 

at the properties to be served by the proposed Boston Sewer Project. However, since 

sites occur in close proximity to the undertaking, we took the additional precaution of 

recommending a series of protective measures to be employed during the construction 

process. These will be formalized in the contract documents and include:

•	 No vehicular or equipment traffic or parking will be allowed on site areas 

outside sewer line prisms, unless such use occurs on existing hardscapes such 

as gravel or paved pads, or on plywood or other sturdy temporary buffers,

•	 Soil spoil from trenching will be placed upon geotechnical fabric or plywood – 

never directly on existing grade surfaces,

•	 No stockpiling of materials will occur on any archeological sites. All primary 

supply stockpiles will be stored in defined, pre-approved areas off of the 

archeological sites. When supplies are brought to the individual properties 

in Boston, temporary storage will occur only on hardscapes, plywood, or 

similar buffers,

•	 Protective fencing will be installed as needed to protect sites adjacent to the 

installation prisms,
109

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

•	 No changes in the sewer line routes and pump station and tank locations as 

documented in the project plans will be permitted without prior input from 

MWAC archeologists,

•	 All site protection protocols will be built into construction documents, and

•	 Penalties will be assessed to the contractor for failure to comply with these site 

protection measures.

No additional archeological inventory, testing, or excavation is recommended in 

advance of installation of the Boston sewer system.
110

BOSTON SEWER
111

References Cited

Anonymous

1876 Some Curious Works in Northern Parts of Summit Co.: 1875. Tract 7:35. Western 

Reserve Historical and Northern Ohio Society, Cleveland, Ohio.

Aument, B.W.

1996 Testing of the Portions of 33SU267 and 33SU268 Lying within the Existing SUMCR 32 Right-of-Way and Proposed Slope Easement in the Village of Boston, Boston 

Township, Summit County, Ohio, as it Pertains to the Boston Mills Road Bridge 

Replacement (PID 8741). Cultural Resources Unit, Office of Environmental 

Services, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus.

Bauermeister, A.C.

2001 Trip Report, August 27, 2001. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2002a Archeological Inventory for Proposed Developments at the Hines Hill Conference 

Center, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Summit County, Ohio. Report on file, 

Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2002b Trip Report, December 20, 2002. Memorandum on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 

Lincoln, Nebraska.

2004 Trip Report, February 4, 2004. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2005 Trip Report, February 8, 2005. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2007a Trip Report, January 18, 2007. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2007b Trip Report, December 4, 2007. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2008 Trip Report, November 25, 2008. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2009a Archeological Inventory for the Proposed Removal of the Giroski House and the 

Restoration of the Property Located at Tract 118-78, Summit County, Ohio. Report 

on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.
112

BOSTON SEWER

2009b Trip Report, November 4, 2009. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska

2011 Archeological Investigations at the Savacoal Property in Boston Village, Cuyahoga 

Valley National Park, Summit County, Ohio. Midwest Archeological Center 

Technical Report No. 128. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Bierce, L.V.

1854 Historical Reminiscences of Summit County. T. and H.G. Canfield, Akron, Ohio.

Brose, D.S.

1974 The Everett Knoll: A Late Hopewellian Site in Northern Summit County, Ohio. 

The Ohio Journal of Science 74(1):36-46.

1994a Archaeological Investigations at the Paleo-Crossing Site, A Paleoindian 

Occupation in Medina County, Ohio. In The First Discovery of America: 

Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area, edited by W.S. 

Dancey, pp. 61-76. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus, Ohio. 

1994b The South Park Village Site and the Prehistoric Whittlesey Tradition of Northeast 

Ohio. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 20. Prehistory Press, Madison, 

Wisconsin.

Brose, D.S., S. Belovich, M.W. Brooslin, R. Burns, J. Hall, H. Haller, C. Pierce, and C.C. 

Ubbelohde 

1981 Archaeological Investigations in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. 

Archaeological Research Reports No. 30. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 

Cleveland, Ohio.

Burch, N.H.

1882 Akron City and Summit County Directory 1881-82. Beacon, Akron, Ohio.

Cherry, P.P.

1921 The Western Reserve and Early Ohio. R.L. Fouse, Akron, Ohio.

Coysh, A.W., and R.K. Henrywood

1982 The Dictionary of Blue and White Printed Pottery 1780-1880. Baron Publishing, 

Woodbridge, Suffolk, U.K.

Doyle, W.B. 

1908 Centennial History of Summit County, Ohio, and its Representative Citizens. 

Biographical, Chicago, Illinois.

Engebretsen, J.

1978 Cuyahoga Valley Interceptor Literature Search. Unpublished manuscript on file, 

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio. 
113

REFERENCES CITED

Fagan, B. M.

1995 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Second Edition, Thames 

and Hudson, New York. 

2000 The Little Ice Age, How Climate Made History, 1300-1850. Basic Books, New 

York.

Finney, F.A.

1997 Archaeological Investigations at Selected Sites in the Cuyahoga River Valley, 

Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, Ohio. Reports of Investigation No. 467. Institute 

for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

2002 Calumet, Canal, and Cuyahoga: An Archaeological Overview and Assessment of 

the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio. Upper Midwest Archaeology Contract 

Completion Report No. 22. Upper Midwest Archaeology, St. Joseph, Illinois. 

Gilleo, D., F. Levine, and D. Scott

1980 Some Common Artifacts Found at Historical Sites. U.S. Forest Service Cultural 

Resources Report No. 31, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Grismer, K.H.

1950 Akron and Summit County. Summit County Historical Society, Akron, Ohio. 

Hatcher, H. 

1958 A History of the Western Reserve. World Press, Cleveland, Ohio. 

1991 The Western Reserve: The Story of New Connecticut in Ohio. Kent State University 

Press, Kent, Ohio. Originally published 1949 by Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.; 

revised edition published in 1966 by the World Publishing Company.

Hunt, W.J., Jr.

1986 An Assessment of Archeological Resources Associated with Several Structures in 

Historic Everett Village, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Ohio. Report 

on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1991 Trip Report, August 28, 1991. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Jesensky, J.D.

1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Cuyahoga River Valley from the Cuyahoga 

Gorge – Summit County to Independence - Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Manuscript on 

file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Justice, N.D.

1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United 

States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
114

BOSTON SEWER

Larsen, E.B.

1975 American Historical Views on Staffordshire China. Third edition. Dover 

Publications, Inc., New York.

Lee, A.

1983 Test Excavations at the Stanford House: A Preliminary Report. Report on file, 

Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1986a Excavations at the Stanford Knoll Site, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation 

Area, Summit County, Ohio. Archaeological Research Reports No. 65 (1), 

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio. 

1986b Phase II Cultural Resource Survey of the Trailhead Parking Lot, Cuyahoga 

Valley National Recreation Area, Summit County, Ohio. Report on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 

Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1986c Archaeological Reconnaissance at the Proposed East Parking Lot, Stanford House, 

Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Summit County, Ohio. Archaeological 

Research Reports No. 65 (2), Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, 

Ohio. 

Leibowitz, J.

1985 Yellow ware: The Transitional Ceramic. Shiffer Publishing Ltd. West Chester, 

Pennsylvania.

Lepper, B.T. 

1999 Pleistocene Peoples of Midcontinental North America. In Ice Age People of 

North America, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K.L. Turnmire, pp. 362-394. Center 

for the Study of First Americans. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Lynott, M.J.

1985 Trip Report, May 9, 1985. Memorandum on file, Midwest Arheological Center, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Magid, B.H., K. Biedleman, and R.P. Napoli

1982 A Laboratory Manual for Alexandria Archeology. Alexandria Papers in Urban 

Archeological Educations. Volume 5. 

Matthews and Taintor

1856 Map of Summit County, Ohio [Wall Map]. Matthews and Taintor, Philadelphia. 

Copy on file, Cleveland Public Library, Cleveland.

Mayer-Oakes, W.J.

1955 Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley. Annals of the Carnegie Museum Vol. 34. 

Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh.
115

REFERENCES CITED

Miller, C.P

1980 National Register of Historic Places Nomination for the George Stanford Farm. 

Nomination form on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Miller, G. and S.D. Hurry

1983 Ceramic Supply in an Economically Isolated Frontier Community: Portage 

County of the Ohio Western Reserve, 1800-1825. Historical Archaeology 17(2):80-

92.

Munsey, C.

1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collecting Bottles. Hawthorn Books, New York. 

Mustain, C., D. Dobson-Brown, and K. Coleman

1996 Phase I Archaeological and Architectural Reconnaissance Survey of the Boston 

Mills Road Bridge Replacement and Road Realignment (BST 32-03.94; P.I.D. 

#8741) in the Village of Boston, Summit County, Ohio. Report submitted to McCoy 

Associates, Inc. by ASC Group, Inc. Report on file, Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Neusius, S.W. and G.T. Gross 

2007 Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology. Oxford 

University Press, New York.

Noble, V.E. 

1988 Report of an Archeological Survey Along the Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath, 

Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Summit County, Ohio. Report on 

file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1991 Trip Report, February 25 - March 1, 1991. Memorandum on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 

Lincoln, Nebraska.

1992 Final Report on a Phased Archeological Survey Along the Ohio and Erie Canal 

Towpath in Cuyahoga Valley NRA, Summit and Cuyahoga Counties, Ohio. Midwest 

Archeoligcal Center, Technical Report No. 13. Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO)

1994 Archaeology Guidelines. Ohio Historic Preservation Office, Ohio Historical 

Society, Columbus, Ohio.

Perrin, W.H., editor 

1881 History of Summit County with an Outline Sketch of Ohio. Baskin and Battey. 

Chicago, Illinois.
116

BOSTON SEWER

Price, C. 

1979 Nineteenth Century Ceramics in the Eastern Ozark Region. Center for 

Archaeological Research, Southwest Missouri State University, Monograph Series, 

No. 1.

Prufer, O.H. 

2001 The Archaic of Northeastern Ohio. In Archaic Transitions in Ohio and Kentucky 

Prehistory, edited by O.H. Prufer, S.E. Pedde, and R. S. Meindl, pp. 183-209. Kent 

State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Prufer, O.H. and D. A. Long 

1986 The Archaic of Northeastern Ohio. Kent State Research Papers in Archaeology 

No. 6. Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Quinn Evans/Architects

1995 Historic Structure Report: Boston General Store (Historic Structure 430). Report 

on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Richner, J.J.

1991 Trip Report., August 28, 1991. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1992a Archeological Excavation at Site 33-Cu-314: A Mid-Nineteenth Century Structure 

on the Ohio and Erie Canal. Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report No. 

14. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1992b Trip Report, June 19, 1992. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1993a Trip Report, May 17, 1993. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1993b Trip Report, August 5, 1993. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1995 Trip Report, August 24, 1995. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

1996 Archeological Investigations at Boston Village, Boston Township, Summit County, 

Ohio, Part I: Inventory and Evaluation of the Boston General Store, 1991. Midwest 

Archeological Center Technical Report No. 53. Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1997 Archeological Investigations at Boston Village, Boston Township, Summit County, 

Ohio, Part II: Inventory and Evaluation of the Grounds Surrounding the Boston 

General Store, 1993. Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report No. 54. 
117

REFERENCES CITED

Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1998 Trip Report, August 27, 1998. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

2000 Trip Report, August 24, 2000. Memorandum on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Richner, J.J. and A.C. Bauermeister

2011 An Archeological Inventory and Assessment of 14 Archeological Sites in the Everett 

Area, Boston Township, Summit County, Ohio. Midwest Archeological Center 

Technical Report No. 113. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Richner, J.J. and W.J. Volf

2000 Front Yard Archeology: Hopewell Occupation of the Szalay Site. Hopewell 

Archeology Newsletter 4(1):10-11. Midwest Archeological Center, National Park 

Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

2002 Archeological Investigations at Boston Village, Boston Township, Summit County, 

Ohio, Part III: Archeological Excavations at the Boston General Store, 1995. Report 

on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Rossillon, M.

1985 Archeology of the Stanford House, 1984. Report on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Scrattish, N.

1985 Historic Resource Study, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, Ohio. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Denver, Colorado. 

Shane, O.C.

1967 The Leimbach Site: An Early Woodland Village in Lorain County, Ohio. In 

Studies in Ohio Archaeology, edited by O. Prufer and D. McKenzie, pp. 98-120. 

Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

Shelford, V.E.

1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Stefanic, N.J. and J. Winstel

1991 Boston Mills Historic District National Register Nomination. Nomination on 

file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
118

BOSTON SEWER

Stoltman, J.B.

1993 Reconsideration of Fluted Point Diversity in Wisconsin. In Archaeology of 

Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by J. Stoltman, 

pp. 61-72. Archaeological Report No. 25. Mississippi Department of Archives and 

History, Jackson.

Tackabury, Mead, and Moffett 

1874 New Historical Atlas of Summit County, Ohio. Tackabury, Mead, and Moffett, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Unrau, H. and N. Scrattish

1984 Historic Structure Report, Ohio and Erie Canal, Cuyahoga Valley National 

Recreation Area, Ohio. National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Denver, 

Colorado.

Upton, H.T.

1910 History of the Western Reserve. Lewis, Chicago, Illinois. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1974 Soil Survey, Summit County, Ohio. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C.

Visser, T.D.

1996 A Field Guide to New England Barns and Farm Buildings. University Press, New 

England. 

Volf, W.J.

2000 The Szalay Site: Hopewellian Occupation in Northeastern Ohio. Unpublished MA 

Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Wanyerka, P.J.

2008 Archaeological Investigations at Two Sites in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 

Ohio: A Summary of the 2008 Cleveland State University Archaeological Field 

School at Howe Meadow (33SU430) and Stanford Knoll (33SU138). Manuscript on 

file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Wedlund, W.M.

1978 Holocene Man in North America: The Ecological Setting and Climatic 

Background. Plains Anthropologist 23(82):273-287.

Whittlesey, C. 

1871 Ancient Earth Forts of the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio. Tract No. 5. Western Reserve 

and Northern Ohio Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio.
119

REFERENCES CITED

Whitman, L.G., L. O’Donnell, and A. Epperson

1996 Phase I Literature Review and Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed 

Riverview Road Realignment and Improvement in the Village of Boston, Boston 

Township, Summit County, Ohio. Report on file, Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Whitman, L.G., and J. Randall

1997 Phase I Literature Review and Cultural Resource Survey for the Proposed Ohio 

Turnpike Bridge Replacement over the Cuyahoga River, Summit County, Ohio.

Report on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Williams, P.

1978 Staffordshire: Romantic Transfer Patterns: Cups, Plates, and Early Victorian 

China. Fountain House East, Jeffersontown, Kentucky.

Wilson, N.

1971 Summit and Portage County Survey Field Notes. Project Archives on file, 

Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio. 

Wilson, R.L.

1971 Clay Tobacco Pipes from Fort Laramie National Historic Site and Related 

Locations. National Park Service Division of Archeology and Anthropology, Office 

of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.

Winstel, J.

1991 Boston Land and Manufacturing Company Store Historic Function Study. 

Manuscript on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of Interior, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Winstel, J. and P. Machuga

1995 Boston Township Lots: 19th Century Tax Valuations. Manuscript on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, 

Lincoln, Nebraska.

Winters, H.D.

1969 The Riverton Culture. Illinois State Museum, Report of Investigations No. 13. 

Springfield.
120

BOSTON SEWER
121

Table 1. History of archeological investigations in the Boston Village area.

Site Number Site or 

Property Name

Year Investigator Organization Within 

APE?

Project Methods

Project Citation

33SU35 Boston Mills 

Village

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU38 Oil Pumping 1979, 

1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU61 Boston 

Cemetery

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU87 Columbia 

Road Village

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU99 Gioia/Hines 

HillConference Center

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH Yes IN Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

1993 J. Richner MWAC Yes IN Parking Richner 1993b1995 J. Richner MWAC Yes IN, ET Sewer Richner 19951998 J. Richner MWAC Yes IN Sewer Richner 19982001 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer Bauermeister 2002a, 

2002b

2004 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Septic field Bauermeister 20052006 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Parking Bauermeister 2007a2009 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer project Bauermeister 2009

33SU102 Riverview 1979, 

1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU104 Columbia 

Road House

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981
122

BOSTON SEWER Table 1. Continued. Site Number Site or Property Name Year Investigator Organization Within APE? Project Methods Project Citation 33SU105 Clark Home Yard/

Clayton Stanford House

1971 D. S. Brose CMNH Yes ET Northeast Ohio 

survey

Engebretsen 1978, Finney 2002, Wilson 1971

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH Yes IN, ET Parkwide survey Brose et al. 1981

1993 J. Richner MWAC Yes IN Sewer/Utility Richner 1993a

33SU106 Clark 1971 D. S. Brose CMNH No ET Northeast Ohio 

survey

Engebretsen 1978, Finney 2002, Wilson 1971

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU110 McBride 

Brewery and Grocery

1979, 1980

D. S. Brose,S. Belovich

CMNH No IN, ET Parkwide inventory Brose et al. 1981

33SU138 George 

Stanford House

1983 A. Lee CMNH Yes ET Structural history 

study

Finney 2002, Lee 1983

1984 M. Rossillon MWAC Yes ET Structural history 

study

Rossillon 1985

1985 A. Lee CMNH Yes ET, DR Cistern Lee 1986a1985 M. J. Lynott MWAC Yes IN Leach field M. J. Lynott 19851991 A. Lee CMNH Yes IN Parking Lee 19912003 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Campground Bauermeister 20042004 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN, ET Drainage swale Bauermeister 2005
123

TABLES

Table 1. Continued. 

Site Number Site or 

Property Name

Year Investigator Organization Within 

APE?

Project Methods

Project Citation

2007 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Cistern Bauermeister 2007b2008 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer Bauermeister 20082008 P. Wanyerka CSU Yes ET Field school Wanyerka 2008

33SU264 1995 C. Mustain ASC No IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 199633SU265 Edson 

Grist- mill and Sawmill foundation and retaining wall

1995 C. Mustain ASC No IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 1996

33SU266 1995 C. Mustain ASC No IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 1996

1995 L. Whitman ASC No IN Road relocation Whitman et al. 1996

33SU267 1995 C. Mustain ASC No IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 1996

1996 B. Aument ODOT No ET Bridge replacement Aument 19962004 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN Sewer Bauermeister 2005

33SU268 Wolschleger 

Tract 109-101

1991 V. E. Noble MWAC Yes IN Structural removal Noble 19911995 C. Mustain ASC Yes IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 19961996 B. Aument ODOT Yes ET Bridge replacement Aument 19962009 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer project Bauermeister 2009

33SU269 Wise/

Boodey House and Trail Mix (Lot 60)

1995 C. Mustain ASC Yes IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 1996

2007 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN, ET Cistern Bauermeister 2007b2009 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN, ET Sewer project Bauermeister 2009
124

BOSTON SEWER Table 1. Continued. Site Number Site or Property Name Year Investigator Organization Within APE? Project Methods Project Citation 33SU270 Boston General 

Store

1995 C. Mustain ASC No IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 19962004 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN Sewer project Bauermeister 2005

33SU271 1995 C. Mustain ASC No IN Bridge replacement Mustain et al. 1996

1995 L. Whitman ASC No IN Road realignment Whitman et al. 1996

33SU275 1995 L. Whitman ASC No IN Road realignment Whitman et al. 199633SU276 1995 L. Whitman ASC No IN Road realignment Whitman et al. 199633SU298 Boston Lots 

12, 13

1995 F. Finney CSU,

IMA

No IN, ET Field school Finney 1997

33SU412 Conger 

House

2004 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN, ET Building 

rehabilitation

Bauermeister 2005

33SU417 2001 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN Sewer Bauermeister 2002a, 

2002b

33SU419 Savacoal 

Barn

2001 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN, ET Building 

rehabilitation

Bauermeister 2002b, 2011

33SU423 Savacoal 

House

2001 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN, ET Building 

rehabilitation

Bauermeister 2002b, 2011

2002 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN, ET Building 

rehabilitation

Bauermeister 2011

2007 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes ET Cistern Bauermeister 2011

33SU481 JohnstonRodhe 

Tract 118-77

2002 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Structural removal Bauermeister 2002

2008 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer project Bauermeister 20082009 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer project Bauermeister 2009
125

TABLES

Table 1. Continued. 

Site Number Site or 

Property Name

Year Investigator Organization Within 

APE?

Project Methods

Project Citation

33SU481 Johnson 

Barn Tract 118-79

1986 A. Lee CMNH Yes ET Parking lot Lee 19861991 V. Noble MWAC Yes IN Structural removal Noble 19911991 J. Richner MWAC Yes IN Structural removal Richner 19912009 A. Bauermeister MWAC Yes IN Sewer project Bauermeister 2009

Boston General Store, Boston Village Lot 56

1985 D. S. Brose,

S. Belovich

CMNH No ET Planning/Field School Richner 1996

Boston General Store Lots 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

1991 J. Richner MWAC No ET Planning Richner 1996

Boston General Store Lots 51, 52, 53, 56?, 58, 61, 63

1993 J. Richner MWAC No IN, ET Planning Richner 1997

Boston General Store

1995 J. Richner MWAC No ET Planning Richner and Volf 2002
126

BOSTON SEWER Table 1. Continued. Site Number Site or Property Name Year Investigator Organization Within APE? Project Methods Project Citation Dover Property 

Tract 107-38

2000 J. Richner MWAC No IN Structural removal Richner 2000

Giroski House Tract 118-78

2007 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN Structural removal Bauermeister 2009

Johnson/Bradley House Tract 107-37

1992 J. Richner MWAC No IN Structural removal Richner 1992

Lindenberg House Tract 107-62

1991 V. E. Noble MWAC No IN Structural removal Noble 1991

1993 J. Richner MWAC No IN Structural removal Richner 1993a

Mackey House

1991 W. J. Hunt MWAC No IN Structural removal Hunt 1991

Mathies House Tract 107-58

1991 V. E. Noble MWAC No IN Structural removal Noble 1991

Ohio Turnpike Bridge

1997 L. Whitman ASC No IN Bridge replacement Whitman and Randall 

1997

Schaedel House Tract 107-063

2003 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN Structural removal Bauermeister 2004
127

TABLES

Table 1. Concluded. 

Site Number Site or 

Property Name

Year Investigator Organization Within 

APE?

Project Methods

Project Citation

Schmidt House Tract 107-064

2003 A. Bauermeister MWAC No IN Structural removal Bauermeister 2004

Shueren House Tract 107-59

1991 W. J. Hunt MWAC No IN Structural removal Hunt 1991

Theil House Tract 107-41

1994 J. Richner MWAC No IN Structural removal Richner 1994

, National Park Service

cheology

ea of Potential Effect

cheological Services Consultants

Explanation:APE - ArASC - ArCMNH - Cleveland Museum of Natural HistoryCSU - Cleveland State UniversityIMA - Institute for Minnesota Ar

cheological Center

ransportation

MWAC - Midwest ArNEOS - Northeast Ohio SurveyODOT - Ohio Department of T

esting ET - Evaluative T

IN - Inventory
128

BOSTON SEWER Table 2. Ceramics from the Boodey House (33SU269). Provenience Horizontal Vertical (cmbs) Por- celain Red- ware Stone- ware Terra Cotta Whiteware Yellowware Total Black Transfer Blue Transfer Brown Transfer Mulberry Transfer Red Transfer Colored Glaze Decal Edge Deco- rated Flow Blue Hand painted Molded Undeco- rated Blue Glaze Clear Glaze Rocking- ham Glaze 2007 ST 1 0-45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 

ST 2 0-70 - - 1 - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 11 - - 1 15 ST 3 0-80 - 1 - - 1 2 - - - - - - - 1 - 4 - 1 - 10 

ST 4 0-80 - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 6 

TU 1 0-10 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

TU 1 10-20 1 - - 5 1 - - 1 - 2 - - - 1 1 2 - - - 14 

TU 1 20-30 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 3 TU 1 30-40 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

TU 1 40-50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 2 - - 5 

TU 1 50-60 - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - 4 

TU 1 60-70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 

Subtotal 1 1 4 5 3 8 - 1 - 2 - - 1 2 3 26 2 1 1 61 

2009South of ST 4

Surface - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

AT 2 0-80 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 

AT 4 0-139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AT 5 0-122 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

AT 6 0-21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 3 

AT 7 0-138 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - 2 

ST 1 0-88 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 3 - 1 - 6 

ST 2 0-25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - 1 4 

ST 3 0-35 - - - - - 3 - - - - - 1 - - - 16 - - - 20 

ST 4 0-70 - - - - - 2 - - 1 - - 1 - - - 3 - - - 7 

ST 5 0-84 - - - - 1 - - - 2 - - - 2 - 2 11 - 3 - 21 

ST 6 0-27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - 3 

TU 1 0-10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TU 1 10-20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 - 4 

TU 1 20-30 8 - 7 - - 4 - - 1 - - - 7 4 - 40 - 5 1 77 

TU 1 30-40 2 1 6 7* 2 2 1 1 3 - 1 - - 1 - 34 - 3 1 65 

TU 1 40-50 - - - - - 5 - - 1 - - - - 1 - 16 - - - 23 

TU 2 0-10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TU 2 10-20 - - 1 1* - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - 3 - - - 7 

TU 2 20-30 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - 13 - - - 15 
129

TABLES

Table 2. Concluded.

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical 

(cmbs)

Porcelain Red- ware Stone- ware Terra Cotta

Whiteware Yellowware

Total

Black

Transfer

Blue 

Transfer

Brown 

Transfer

Mulberry 

Transfer

Red 

Transfer

Colored 

Glaze Decal

Edge 

Decorated Flow Blue Hand painted Molded Undeco- rated Blue Glaze Clear Glaze

Rockingham

Glaze

TU 2 30-40 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - 7 - 1 1 11 

TU 2 40-50 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - 1 - - 13 - - - 16 

TU 2 50-55 1 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 4 

TU 2 0-58 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 

Subtotal 15 2 14 8 4 24 1 1 9 - 1 3 11 7 2 175 - 15 8 296 

Total 16 3 18 13 7 32 1 2 9 2 1 3 12 9 5 201 2 16 13 357 

Explanation:AT - Auger TestST - Shovel Test

est Unit TU - T

* Noted, but not collected.
130

BOSTON SEWER Table 3. Domestic artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269). Provenience Horizontal Vertical Bone Bottle Cap Frag. Curved Glass Other Total Amber Aqua Green Hobnail Milk Molded Solarized Yellow Colorless 2007

ST1 0-45cmbs - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ST2 0-70cmbs 11 - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - 6 - 21

ST3 0-80cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 10 1(1) 11

ST4 0-80cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - 2 - 4

TU1 0-10cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 10 1(2) 11

TU1 10-20cmbs - 7 - - - - - - - - 8 - 15TU1 20-30cmbs - - - - - - 1 - - - 5 - 6

TU1 30-40cmbs - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - 2

TU1 40-50cmbs 5 - - 2 - - - - - - 2 - 9

TU1 50-60cmbs 2 - - 4 - - 4 - - - 5 - 15

TU1 60-70cmbs - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subtotal 20 7 - 8 1 - 6 1 - - 49 2 94

2009South of ST4 Surface - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AT2 0-80cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1

AT4 0-139cmbs - 1 - - - - - - - - 12 - 13AT5 0-122cmbs - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1

AT6 0-21cmbs - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1

AT7 0-138cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - 4 - 5

ST1 0-88cmbs - - - 5 - - - - - - 9 - 14

ST2 0-25cmbs - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ST3 0-35cmbs - - - 4 - - - - - - 1 - 5

ST4 0-70cmbs - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2ST5 0-84cmbs 3 - - 8 1 - 2 2 - - 4 - 20

ST6 0-27cmbs 2 1 - - - - - - - - 3 - 6

TU1 0-10cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2TU1 10-20cmbs 2 - - 3 - - - - - - 4 - 9

TU1 20-30cmbs 49 - 1 17 - - 1 - - - 64 1(3) 133

TU1 30-40cmbs 47 - - 12 - - 4 - - - 39 - 102
131

TABLES

Table 3. Concluded.

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical Bone Bottle Cap 

Frag.

Curved Glass Other Total

Amber Aqua Green Hobnail Milk Molded Solarized Yellow Colorless

TU1 40-50cmbs 10 - 1 10 - 1 - - - - 22 - 44

TU2 0-10cmbs - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2TU2 10-20cmbs 1 7 - - 4 - - - - - 20 2(4) 34

TU2 20-30cmbs 1 6 - 9 - - - - - - 4 1(4) 21TU2 30-40cmbs 6 - - - - - - - 4 - 4 - 14

TU2 40-50cmbs 15 - - 4 - - - 1 - 1 3 - 24TU2 50-55cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1TU2 0-58cmbs - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subtotal 140 15 3 77 5 1 7 3 4 1 194 4 454

Total 160 22 3 85 6 1 13 4 4 1 243 6 548

Explanation:(1) aluminum foil(2) plastic fork tine(3) brass kettle lug(4) Pepsi-Cola bottle fragmentAT - Auger TestST - Shovel Test

estUnit TU - T
132

BOSTON SEWER Table 4. Architectural artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269). Provenience Horizontal Vertical Brick Drain Tile Flat Glass Nail Other Total Cut Unknown Wire Wrought 2007 ST 1 0-45 cmbs 16 - - - - 1 - 4(1) 21 

ST 2 0-70 cmbs - - 6 1 - 1 - - 8 

ST 3 0-80 cmbs 19 - 12 - - - - - 31 

ST 4 0-80 cmbs - - 5 - - - - - 5 

TU 1 0-10 cmbs 2 - 3 5 - 14 - - 24 

TU 1 10-20 cmbs 14 - 18 - - 11 - 1(2) 44 

TU 1 20-30 cmbs 2 - 1 - - - - - 3 

TU 1 40-50 cmbs 3 - 3 3 - - - - 9 

TU 1 50-60 cmbs - - 6 1 - - - - 7 

TU 1 60-70 cmbs - - 4 7 - - - - 11 

Subtotal 56 - 58 17 - 27 - 5 163 

2009AT 2 0-80 cmbs - - 3 - - - - - 3 AT 4 0-139 cmbs - 1* - - - 2* - - 3 AT 5 0-122 cmbs - - 1 - - - - - 1 

AT 7 0-138 cmbs - - 4 - - - - - 4 

ST 1 0-88 cmbs - - 2 2 - 1* - - 5 ST 2 0-25 cmbs - - - 1 - - - - 1 

ST 3 0-35 cmbs - - 3 - - - - - 3 ST 4 0-70 cmbs - - 3 - - 1* - - 4 

ST 5 0-84 cmbs - - 17 1 - 1* 1 - 20 

ST 6 0-27 cmbs - - 1 - - 1* - - 2 

TU 1 0-10 cmbs - - - - - 1* - - 1 TU 1 10-20 cmbs 2* 13* 6 - 5* 5* - - 31 

TU 1 20-30 cmbs 16* - 46 9 16* 63* - - 150 

TU 1 30-40 cmbs 85* 4* 44 17 51* 19* - 1(3) 221 

TU 1 40-50 cmbs 25* - 10 2 21* - - - 58 

TU 2 0-10 cmbs 2* 2* 1 - - - - - 5 

TU 2 10-20 cmbs - - 12 - - 8* - - 20 

TU 2 20-30 cmbs 1* - 4 - - 6* - - 11 
133

TABLES

Table 4. Concluded.

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical

Brick Drain Tile Flat Glass Nail Other Total

Cut Unknown Wire Wrought

TU 2 30-40 cmbs - - 6 - - - - - 6 

TU 2 40-50 cmbs - - 5 - 3* - - - 8 

TU 2 50-55 cmbs - - 4 - - - - - 4 

Subtotal 131 20 172 32 96 108 1 1 561 

Total 187 20 230 49 96 135 1 6 724 

Explanation:(1) plaster fragment

ew eyeew

(2) scr(3) scrAT - Auger TestST - Shovel Test

est Unit TU - T

* Noted, but not collected.
134

BOSTON SEWER Table 5. Personal artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269). Provenience Horizontal Vertical Celluloid Comb Pipe Fragment Porcelain Doll Frag. Button Other Total Stem Bowl Bone Ferrous Glass Non- Ferrous Rubber Shell 2007

TU 1 0-10 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 2(1) 2 

TU 1 10-20 cmbs - - - - - - - 1 1 - 3(2) 5 

TU 1 30-40 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(3) 1 

TU 1 40-50 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(4) 1 

TU 1 60-70 cmbs - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 

Subtotal - - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 7 10 

2009AT 4 0-139 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(5) 1 

AT 7 0-138 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

ST 5 0-84 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

TU 1 0-10 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(6) 1 

TU 1 10-20 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

TU 1 20-30 cmbs 1 4 - 1 - - 1 - - - 1(8) 8 

TU 1 30-40 cmbs - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1(9) 3 

TU 1 40-50 cmbs - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 2 

TU 2 10-20 cmbs - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 

TU 2 20-30 cmbs - 2 - - - - - - - - 2(10) 4 

TU 2 30-40 cmbs - - - 1 - - - - - - 1(8) 2 

TU 2 40-50 cmbs 1 2 - 1 - - - - - - - 4 

Subtotal 2 10 1 4 - 1 1 - - 2 8 29 

Total 2 10 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 15 39 

Explanation:(1) penny, rivet fragment(2) pencil ferule, rubber toy wheel, brass clothing fastener(3) brass turtle pin

(4) chalk fragment(5) brass key(6) aluminum eyelette(7) ferrous metal file(8) brass rivet

(9) glass perfume applicator(10) cloth strap with rivet, decorative brass pin

AT - Auger TestST - Shovel TestTU - Test Unit* Noted, but not collected.
135

TABLES

Table 6. Miscellaneous artifacts from the Boodey House (33SU269).

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical Metal Fragment Shell Other Total

Ferrous Lead Non-Ferrous

2007ST 2 0-70 cmbs 14 - - - - 14 

ST 3 0-80 cmbs 1 - - 5 6 

ST 4 0-80 cmbs 3 - - - - 3 TU 1 10-20 cmbs 11 1 1 2 1(1) 16 

TU 1 20-30 cmbs - - - 7 - 7 

TU 1 30-40 cmbs 5 - - 1 - 6 

TU 1 40-50 cmbs - - - 4 4 TU 1 50-60 cmbs 5 - - - - 5 TU 1 60-70 cmbs 5 - - - - 5 Subtotal 44 1 1 19 1 66 

2009AT 11 0-63 cmbs 1* - - - - 1 

ST 3 0-35 cmbs - - - 1 - 1 

ST 6 0-27 cmbs - - - 1 - 1 

TU 1 10-20 cmbs 1* - - - - 1 TU 1 20-30 cmbs 2 1 - 1 1(2) 5 TU 1 30-40 cmbs 12* - - - 3(3) 15 

TU 1 40-50 cmbs 1* - - - 2(4) 3 TU 2 0-10 cmbs 1* - - - - 1 TU 2 40-50 cmbs 1 - - - 2(5) 3 Subtotal 19 1 - 3 8 31 

Total 63 2 1 22 9 97 

Explanation:

(1) worked mica bar(2) brass washer(3) lead plug with brass washer, lead ring, lid insert/bottle closure(4) spring fragment(5) brass wire fragment, slate pencil

AT - Auger TestST - Shovel TestTU - Test Unit* Noted, but not collected
136

BOSTON SEWER

Table 7. Auger Test Results from the Boodey House (33SU269).

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical (cmbs) Content

AT 1 0-25 brown loam

25-58 red-brown to very dark red-brown loam with cinders

58-89 friable red and black sandy loam, dense coal and cinders

AT 2 0-19 brown loam

19-62 yellow-brown to orange-brown silty clay

62-72 orange silty clay with coal and then gravel

AT 3 0-25 brown loam

25-33 brown loam grading to yellow-brown silty clay

33-51 yellow-brown clay mottled with brown clay

51-59 yellow-brown sandy clay

59-111 yellow-brown sandy clay mottled with gray-brown clay

111-133 red sandy clay with coal and cinders turning to red and black 

friable sand

AT 4 0-12 brown loam

12-29 very dark brown silty clay loam

29-39 brown loam

39-46 brown loam and yellow-brown silty clay

46-85 mottled yellow-brown silty clay and brown clay

85-117 orange silty clay mottled with gray clay

117-127 gray-brown clay mottled with orange silty clay

127-139 coarse black sand with burned materials and mottled with 

brown clay and orange silty clay

AT 5 0-43 brown loam

43-101 yellow-brown silty clay

101-112 brown clay

112-122 orange-brown clay

AT 6 0-21 dark brown clay loam, large rock at 21 cms

AT 7 0-60 very dark brown clay loam

60-84 reddish-brown clay

84-130 yellow-brown silty clay

130-138 brown clay with red sand

AT 8 0-25 brown loam

25-32 dark brown loam with coal and cinders

32-43 coarse red and black friable sand with coal and cinders

AT 9 0-18 brown loam

impenetrable dense gravel

AT 10 0-12 brown loam

12-19 brown loam and gravel

19-39 brown loam with cinders

39-46 brown loam

54-135 reddish-brown clay loam

yellow, orange, and brown silty clay

AT 11 0-12 brown loam

12-26 brown loam with gravel

26-63 brown to dark brown loam with coal and cinders
137

TABLES

Table 8. Domestic artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269).

Provenience

Horizontal Vert- ical 

(cmbs)

Bone Curved Glass Porcelain Stone- ware Terra Cotta Whiteware Yellow- ware Other Total

Amber Aqua Cobalt Green Milk

Solarized Colorless

Blue 

Transfer Colored Enamel

Handpainted Undec- orated Clear Glaze

ST 1 0-44 3 1 - - 3 - - 3 - - - - - - 1 - - 11 

ST 2 0-49 - - 1 - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 2(1) 5 

ST 3 0-63 - - - 1 - - 1 9 - - 62* - - - 14 - 4(2) 91 

ST 7 0-53 - 1 - - - - 1 5 - 1 - - - - - - - 8 

TU 1 0-10 - - - - - 1 - 9 1 - - 1 1 - 3 - - 16 

TU 1 10-20 - - 3 - - - - 4 1 - - - 1 1 2 - - 12 

TU 1 20-30 29 - 8 - - - 1 13 - 1 - 1 - 3 8 - - 64 

TU 1 30-40 - 1 - - - - - 5 - 1 - - - - 7 1 - 15 

Total 32 3 12 1 3 1 3 50 2 3 62 2 2 4 35 1 6 222 

Explanation:(1) spoon fragment(2) bakelite cap fragmentST - Shovel TestTU - Test Unit* Noted, but not collected
138

BOSTON SEWER

Table 9. Architectural artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269).

Provenience

Brick Flat Glass Nail Drain Tile Other Total

Horizontal Vertical Cut Unknown Wire

ST 1 0-44 cmbs 1* 2 - 1* - - - 4 

ST 2 0-49 cmbs - - 1 2* - 1* - 4 

ST 3 0-63 cmbs - 6 - 6* - - - 12 

ST 7 0-53 cmbs - 3 - - - 1* - 4 

TU 1 0-10 cmbs - - - 2* 2* - 3(1) 7 

TU 1 10-20 

cmbs

- 4 - - - - - 4 

TU 1 20-30 

cmbs

- 15 3 39* 27* - 1(2) 85 

TU 1 30-40 

cmbs

- 4 2 9* 9* - - 24 

Total 1 34 6 59 38 2 4 144 

Explanation:

(1) 1-x-1-cm ceramic tile

(2) plaster fragment with embedded brass tack

ST Shovel Test

TU - Test Unit

* Noted, but not collected 
139

TABLES

Table 10. Personal artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269).

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical Other Total

ST 2 0-49 cmbs 1 carbon rod (pencil lead?) 1

TU 1 20-30 cmbs 1 clay marble 1

Total 2

Explanation:

ST - Shovel Test

TU - Test Unit

Table 11. Miscellaneous artifacts from Trail Mix (33SU269).

Provenience

Horizontal Vertical Lithic Shatter Ferrous Metal 

Fragment

Other Total

ST 1 0-44 cmbs - - 1(1) 1 

ST 3 0-63 cmbs - 1* - 1 

TU 1 20-30 cmbs - 3* - 3 

TU 1 30-40 cmbs 1 - - 1 

Total 1 4 1 6 

Explanation:

(1) brass wire fragment

ST - Shovel Test

TU - Test Unit

* - Noted, but not collected.
140

BOSTON SEWER Table 12. Artifacts from the Wolschleger lot (33SU268). Provenience Prehistoric Historic

Total

Horizontal Vertical (cmbs)

Core

Shatter Bone Brick

Curved Glass

Flat Glass

Ferrous Metal Frag

Nail

Pipe Frag

Shell

Stoneware

Whiteware

Colorless Am- ber Aqua Cut Wire Un- known Junc- ture Undec- orated

Blue Transfer

Brown Transfer Flow Blue Hand- painted

ST 1 0-62 - 4 20 1 - 4 2 2 1 1 1 - - 1 - - - - 2 39 

ST 2 0-40 1 - - 3 - 7 1 - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - - 14 

ST 3 0-60 - 1 - 5 1 - 8 - - - - - 5 1 3 - 1 2 - 28 

ST 4 0-32 - 1 1 5 - 3 2 - - - - - - - 1 2 - - - 15 

Total 1 6 21 14 1 14 13 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 5 2 1 2 2 96 

Explanation:ST - Shovel Test
141

TABLES

Table 13. Artifacts from the Johnson Barn area (33SU481).

Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description

Horizontal Vertical

1986 Backdirt pile Prehistoric 2 Debitage 2 pieces of flint debitage.

Backdirt pile Personal 1 Marble 1 complete clay marble.North backdirt pile

Architectural 3 Brick Fragment 3 common brick fragments.

North backdirt pile

Architectural 2 Cut Nail Fragment 2 ferrous metal cut nail fragments. There are now three 

pieces instead of two since the original date of cataloging.

North backdirt pile

Architectural 1 Drainpipe 1 piece of redware drainpipe.

North backdirt pile

Architectural 3 Flat Glass 3 pieces of flat glass. Window glass.

North backdirt pile

Architectural 18 Shingle Fragment 18 pieces of roofing shingle.

North backdirt pile

Miscellaneous 3 Coal 3 pieces of coal.

North backdirt pile

Domestic 1 Stoneware 1 piece of slip decorated stoneware.

North backdirt pile

Miscellaneous 3 Cinder 3 pieces of cinder.

South backdirt pile

Architectural 4 Brick Fragment 4 common brick fragments.

South backdirt pile

Miscellaneous 4 Coal 4 pieces of coal.

South backdirt pile

Domestic 1 Mollusk Shell Fragment 1 mollusk shell fragment.

South backdirt pile

Miscellaneous 5 Cinder 5 pieces of cinder.

South backdirt pile

Prehistoric 1 Debitage 1 piece of flint debitage.

Surface Architectural 7 Brick Fragment 7 common brick fragments.Surface Architectural 1 Drainpipe 1 piece of stoneware? drainpipe. Earthenware or redware?
142

BOSTON SEWER Table 13. Continued. Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description Horizontal Vertical Surface Architectural 1 Dressed Mudstone 1 piece of dressed mudstone. Surface Architectural 2 Firebrick 2 pieces of firebrick. Surface Architectural 5 Flat Glass 5 pieces of window glass.

Surface Architectural 3 Nail Fragment 3 ferrous metal nail fragments.Surface Domestic 1 Bottle Glass 1 colorless bottle glass finish.Surface Domestic 3 Bottle Glass 3 amber bottle glass base sherds. Base reads "N 5/49." 

The three pieces fit together.

Surface Domestic 9 Bottle Glass 9 pieces of bottle glass including finish, body, and base 

fragments. There are colorless, aqua, and milk glass pieces.

Surface Miscellaneous 13 Coal 13 pieces of coal.Surface Domestic 1 Mollusk Shell Fragment 1 mollusk shell fragment.Surface Domestic 11 Stoneware 11 pieces of slip decorated stoneware. Includes rim, base, 

and body sherds.

Surface Domestic 10 Whiteware 10 whiteware rim, body, and base sherds. Five rim sherds 

including one edge decorated, one annularware one, and one with a molded design. Three base sherds including one with a possible blue transfer print design; and two body sherds.

Surface Domestic 3 Bone Fragment 3 unidentified mammal bone fragments.Surface Miscellaneous 7 Cinder 7 pieces of cinder.Surface Prehistoric 1 Debitage 1 piece of flint debitage.Surface Miscellaneous 1 Graphite 1 graphite fragment.Surface Miscellaneous 1 Plastic Fragment 1 piece of plastic.Surface Miscellaneous 1 Unmodified Stone 1 unmodified stone. This piece was originally i.d. as 

porcelain.

Surface Miscellaneous 1 Washer 1 complete ferrous metal washer. Corroded.Test Unit 1 Level 1, 

0-19 cmbs

Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of window glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 8 Brick Fragment 8 brick fragments. Common and firebrick.
143

TABLES

Table 13. Continued.

Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description

Horizontal Vertical

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 33 Cut Nail 33 ferrous metal cut nails and nail fragments. Most are 

complete.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 2 Electrical Insulator 

Fragment

2 electrical insulator fragments. One is from a household and one is from a telegraph.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass measuring 2.4mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass measuring 2.15mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass measuring 2.0mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass measuring 1.25mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.35mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 3 Flat Glass 3 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.6mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 7 Flat Glass 7 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.1mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural

8 Flat Glass 8 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.3mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 14 Flat Glass 14 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.45mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 20 Flat Glass 20 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.2mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 44 Flat Glass 44 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.0mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 1 Mesh 1 small piece of galvanized metal mesh.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 3 Paint Fragment 3 paint fragments.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 12 Plate Glass 12 pieces of plate glass measuring 3.2mm thick.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 1 Rolled Sheet Metal 1 piece of rolled sheet metal.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural

6 Shingle Fragment 6 shingle fragments.
144

BOSTON SEWER Table 13. Continued. Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description Horizontal Vertical Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Architectural 17 Wire Nail 17 complete ferrous metal wire nails. Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 5 Bottle Glass 5 pieces of colorless bottle glass. Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 1 Coach Screw 1 complete ferrous metal coach screw.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 4 Coal 4 pieces of coal.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 3 Whiteware 3 whiteware body sherds. One is decorated with an 

annular design and one piece looks like it has been burned and is a possible flow blue design.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 2 Battery Terminal 2 ferrous metal and lead battery terminals.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 30 Bone Fragment 30 assorted, unidentified bird bone fragments.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 247 Bone Fragment 247 unidentified mammal bone fragments.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 7 Cinder 7 cinder fragments.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 1 Fence Staple 1 complete ferrous metal fence staple.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 2 Ferrous Metal Scrap 2 pieces of ferrous metal scrap. Since the date these were 

originally cataloged they have corroded and broken into seven pieces.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 1 File 1 ferrous metal file fragment. Corroded.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 1 Hickory Nutshell 1 half of a Hickory nutshell.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 1 Identification Plate 1 bronze? identification plate. The plate reads "...1939.../...

UM..."

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 10 Sandstone 10 pieces of sandstone.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 8 Stone 8 pieces of stone.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 1 Valve Stem 1 chrome valve stem.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Domestic 1 Walnut Shell Fragment 1 walnut shell fragment.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Miscellaneous 9 Wood 9 pieces of unidentified wood.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 1 Bullet 1 complete, fired .45 bullet.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 2 Button 2 pieces of possibly the same button. General shank 

button?

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 3 Button 3 complete, 4-hole, milk glass buttons one measuring 18 

lignes and the other two measuring slightly less than 18 lignes.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 4 Lamp Chimney Glass 4 pieces of lamp chimney glass.
145

TABLES

Table 13. Continued.

Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description

Horizontal Vertical

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 6 Lamp Chimney Glass 6 pieces of lamp chimney glass measuring .5mm thick.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 3 Rivet Shank Button 3 complete, ferrous and non-ferrous metal rivet shank 

buttons.

Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 1 Slate Pencil 1 slate pencil fragment.Test Unit 1-East Level 1 Personal 1 Toy Handle 1 porcelain handle probably from a child's tea set.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 8 Brick Fragment 8 common orange brick fragments.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 3 Concrete 3 pieces of concrete.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 1 Cut Nail 1 corroded, complete ferrous metal cut nail.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 0.9mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.35mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.8mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 2.0mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 4 Flat Glass 4 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.25mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 4 Flat Glass 4 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.7mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 5 Flat Glass 5 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.4mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 5 Flat Glass 5 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.9mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 11 Flat Glass 11 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.45mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 11 Flat Glass 11 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.6mm thick. Window 

glass.
146

BOSTON SEWER Table 13. Continued. Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description Horizontal Vertical Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 12 Flat Glass 12 pieces of flat glass measuring 0.7mm thick. Window glass. Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 17 Flat Glass 17 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.3mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 25 Flat Glass 25 pieces of flat glass measuring 0.8mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 42 Flat Glass 42 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.2mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 49 Flat Glass 49 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.0mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 7 Paint Fragment 7 pieces of paint.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural 2 Shingle Fragment 2 roofing shingle fragments.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Architectural

8 Wire Nail 8 complete ferrous metal wire nails.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 45 Bottle Glass 45 pieces of assorted bottle glass including a colorless 

finish.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 16 Charcoal 16 pieces of charcoal.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 7 Coal 7 pieces of coal.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 1 Mollusk Shell Fragment 1 sample of mollusk shell.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 3 Redware 3 redware or possibly terra-cotta sherds. One is slip 

decorated and one appears to have been burned.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 29 Whiteware 29 whiteware sherds including rim, base, and body sherds. 

Blue transfer print design and possibly flow blue. Many of the pieces have been refitted with glue.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 33 Whiteware --Porcelain 33 whiteware and porcelain rim, body, and base sherds. 

One rim sherd has an annular design. Two pieces have been refitted with glue.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 7 Yellowware 7 Rockingham glazed yellowware rim, and body sherds. 

Two of the pieces refit. One sherd has a provenience written on it that reads TU 1-E instead of TU 1-W.
147

TABLES

Table 13. Continued.

Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description

Horizontal Vertical

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 9 Yellowware 9 pieces of clear glazed yellowware.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 11 Yellowware --Redware 

--Stoneware

3 yellowware body sherds, 4 slip decorated redware sherds, two of which fit together, and 4 slip decorated stoneware sherds.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 1 Bark 1 piece of bark.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 2 Bone Fragment 2 mammal rib bone fragments with saw marks. Butchered.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 3 Bone Fragment 3 unidentified bird bone fragments.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Domestic 188 Bone Fragment --Tooth 

Fragment

188 unidentified bone and tooth fragments.

Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 7 Cinder 7 cinder fragments.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Prehistoric 4 Debitage 4 pieces of flint debitage.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 3 Melted Glass 3 pieces of melted glass.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 1 Plastic Strip 1 dark colored plastic strip.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Prehistoric 1 Retouched Flake 1 retouched flint flake.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Miscellaneous 13 Stone 13 pieces of stone including granite, mudstone, and chert.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Prehistoric 2 Utilized Flake 2 utilized flint flakes.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Personal 1 Button 1 ornamental black glass button? Faceted.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Personal 1 Felt 1 piece of felt.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Personal 3 Lamp Chimney Glass 3 pieces of lamp chimney glass.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Personal 1 Slate Pencil 1 slate pencil fragment.Test Unit 1-West Level 1 Personal 4 Tobacco Pipe Fragment 4 pieces of tobacco pipe including one pipe bowl 

fragment, and three pipestem fragments.

Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass measuring 0.9mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass measuring 1.0mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.2mm thick. Window 

glass.
148

BOSTON SEWER Table 13. Continued. Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description Horizontal Vertical Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.4mm thick. Window glass. Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 1.9mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Architectural 2 Flat Glass 2 pieces of flat glass measuring 2.4mm thick. Window 

glass.

Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Domestic 17 Bone Fragment --Tooth 

Fragment

17 unidentified mammal bone and tooth fragments.

Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Prehistoric 34 Debitage 34 pieces of flint debitage.Test Unit 1-West Level 2 Miscellaneous 2 Sandstone 2 pieces of sandstone.Test Unit 2 Level 1 Domestic 1 Bottle Glass 1 colorless bottle glass body sherd.Test Unit 2 Level 1 Miscellaneous 14 Coal 14 pieces of coal.Test Unit 2 Level 1 Domestic 1 Redware 1 piece of possible redware.Test Unit 3 Architectural 3 Brick Fragment 3 common brick fragments.Test Unit 3 Miscellaneous

4 Coal 4 pieces of coal.

Test Unit 3 Miscellaneous 19 Cinder 19 pieces of cinder.Trench 1 Cleaning 

along south wall in east corner

Architectural 2 Brick Fragment 2 common brick fragments.

Trench 1 Cleaning 

along south wall in east corner

Domestic 1 Yellowware 1 probable piece of yellowware with Rockingham glaze. 

Originally i.d. as stoneware.

Trench 1 Cleaning 

along south wall in east corner

Miscellaneous

6 Cinder 6 pieces of cinder.
149

TABLES

Table 13. Continued.

Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description

Horizontal Vertical

Trench 1 Cleaning 

along south wall in east corner

Prehistoric 1 Debitage 1 piece of flint debitage.

Trench 1 Cleaning 

along south wall in east corner

Miscellaneous 1 Sandstone 1 piece of sandstone.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Architectural 4 Brick Fragment 4 common brick fragments.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Architectural 3 Cut Nail Fragment 3 ferrous metal cut nail fragments.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Architectural 1 Flat Glass 1 piece of flat glass. Window glass.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Domestic 1 Bottle Glass 1 piece of colorless bottle glass. Body sherd.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Miscellaneous 7 Coal 7 pieces of coal.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Domestic 1 Porcelain 1 undecorated porcelain rim sherd.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Domestic 2 Sanitary Can Fragment 2 ferrous metal pieces of an opener type sanitary can. 

Corroded.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Domestic 2 Whiteware 2 undecorated whiteware sherds. One body sherd and one 

looks like a possible base sherd.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Miscellaneous 1 Cinder 1 piece of cinder.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Prehistoric 2 Debitage 2 pieces of flint debitage.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Personal 1 Seed Bead 1 complete, cylindrical, red glass seed bead. There doesn't 

appear to be a hole through the bead.

Trench 2 Shovel 

shave

Personal 1 Tobacco Pipe Bowl 

Fragment

1 tobacco pipe bowl fragment.
150

BOSTON SEWER Table 13. Concluded. Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description Horizontal Vertical West profile Prehistoric 1 Flake 1 flint flake. Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 35 Tableware 35 fragments of plain whiteware, blue transfer print, blue edge trip, and green banded whiteware. Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic

8 Crockery, Stoneware 8 fragments of assorted plain, brown crock; Bristol exterior 

and Albany interior.

Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic

4 Crockery, Stoneware 4 fragments of assorted, plain, brown crock.

Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 2 Crockery, Stoneware 2 fragments: rim, molded, unglazed crock.Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic

4 Crockery, Stoneware 4 fragments of assorted, plain, clear glazed crock.

Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 3 Crockery, Stoneware 3 fragments of assorted, plain, cream glazed crock; Bristol 

slip exterior and Albany slip interior.

Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 10 Crockery, Stoneware 10 assorted vessel parts and glazes.Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 2 Crockery, Stoneware 2 base fragments, plain, brown crock.Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 3 Crockery, Stoneware 3 fragments of assorted, plain, clear glazed crock; salt 

glaze exterior and Albany interior.

Bladed topsoil Surface Miscellaneous 1 Coal 1 piece of coal.Bladed topsoil Surface Personal 1 Marble 1 complete clay marble.Bladed topsoil Surface Prehistoric 3 Lithic 3 assorted lithic objects, including a complete side-notched 

projectile point and 2 pieces of debitage.

Bladed topsoil Surface Architectural 1 Shingle 1 slate roofing shingle.Bladed topsoil Surface Architectural

8 Flat glass 8 fragments of flat glass.

Bladed topsoil Surface Domestic 13 Bottle glass 13 assorted bottle glass fragments, multiple vessel parts 

and colors.

Bladed topsoil Surface Unknown 14 Ferrous Metal 14 fragments of assorted ferrous metal.

1548
151

TABLES

(5) bone(6) terra cotta fragmentST - Shovel Test

Table 14. Artifacts from the Johnston-Rodhe Property (33SU481).

Provenience Prehistoric Historic

Other Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage Glass Metal Porcelain Stoneware Whiteware

2002ST 1 0-58 cmbs - - - - - - 1(1) 1 ST 2 0-66 cmbs - - - - - 1 - 1 ST 3 0-66 cmbs - 13 2(2) - 1 5 4(3) 25 ST 6 0-50 cmbs - 3 1(2) 1 - - 1(4) 6 ST 7 0-42 cmbs - 2 - - - 2 2(5) 6 Subtotal - 18 3 1 1 8 8 39 2008ST 2 0-17 cmbs 1 - - - - - - 1 ST 4 0-40 cmbs - - - - - 1 - 1 Subtotal 1 - - - - 1 - 2 2009ST 1 0-55 cmbs - 3 - - - 2 1(5) 6 ST 2 0-55 cmbs - 1 - - 1 1 9(5) 12 ST 3 0-51 cmbs - 7 - - 1 7 1(5) 16 

ST 6 0-40 cmbs - 1 - - - - 1(6) 2 ST 7 0-55 cmbs - - - - - 1 - 1 Subtotal - 12 - - 2 11 12 37 Total 1 30 3 1 3 20 20 78 

Explanation:(1) toy car(2) nail fragment(3) 1 quartz, 2 bone, 1 plastic(4) .22 caliber cartridge case
152

BOSTON SEWER Table 15. Artifacts from the Barnhart House (33SU456). Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description 2007 Kitchen Exterior Personal 1 Button 1 bone button Kitchen Exterior Domestic 1 Porcelain 1 pink glazed porcelain fragment Kitchen Exterior Domestic 1 Whiteware 1 undecorated whiteware rim sherd Kitchen Interior Domestic 1 Yellow ware 1 yellowware fragment

Kitchen Subfloor Personal 5 Button 5 milk glass buttonsKitchen Subfloor Personal 3 Button 3 shell buttonsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Chandelier tassel 1 colorless and faceted chandelier tasselKitchen Subfloor Fuel/Energy 2 Coal 2 pieces of coalKitchen Subfloor Domestic

4 Curved glass 4 aqua curved glass sherds: 2 bottle finishes, 1 stopper, 1 body sherd

Kitchen Subfloor Domestic 2 Curved glass 2 colorless panel bottle sherdsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Curved glass 1 colorless and gilded curved glass sherdKitchen Subfloor Domestic 31 Curved glass 31 colorless curved glass: 2 bottle finishes, 1 bottle base ("...LL 

MEAS..."), 1 lid sherd, 1 handle sherd, 26 body sherds; 4 minimum vessels: 2 cups, 2 plates

Kitchen Subfloor Personal 1 Doll head / torso 1 complete doll head and torso, numbered "285/2"Kitchen Subfloor Domestic 2 Eggshell 2 eggshell fragmentsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Fish bone 1 unidentified fish boneKitchen Subfloor Prehistoric 2 Debitage 2 chert flakesKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Lamp glass 1 colorless lamp glass sherdKitchen Subfloor Personal 2 Lapel pin 2 lapel pins: 1 blue (bird?) and 1 crescent w/ shamrockKitchen Subfloor Domestic 5 Milk glass 5 milk glass sherds, including 4 jar lid liner sherdsKitchen Subfloor Personal 2 Penny 2 pennies, dated 1912 and 192_Kitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Porcelain 1 undecorated porcelain fragmentKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Porcelain 1 hand-painted porcelain fragmentKitchen Subfloor Domestic 2 Porcelain 2 gilded porcelain fragmentsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Porcelain 1 molded and glazed porcelain fragmentKitchen Subfloor Domestic 1 Porcelain 1 molded and hand-painted porcelain fragmentKitchen Subfloor Domestic 3 Porcelain 3 molded porcelain fragments

Kitchen Subfloor Prehistoric 1 Shatter 1 quartz shatter

Kitchen Subfloor Domestic 5 Shell 5 mussel shell fragments

Kitchen Subfloor Domestic 3 Stoneware 3 stoneware fragments

Kitchen Subfloor Personal 1 Thimble 1 thimble

Kitchen Subfloor Personal 3 Tobacco pipestem 3 tobacco pipestems
153

TABLES

Table 15. Continued.

Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description

Kitchen Subfloor Personal 3 Toothbrush fragment 3 wooden toothbrush fragments

Kitchen Subfloor Domestic 14 Whiteware 14 undecorated whiteware fragmentsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 10 Whiteware 10 decal decorated whiteware fragments: 3 minimum vesselsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 5 Whiteware 5 gilded whiteware fragments: 3 molded rims, 1 maker's mark, 1‘ ringKitchen Subfloor Domestic 4 Whiteware 4 molded whiteware fragmentsKitchen Subfloor Domestic 37 Whiteware 37 blue transfer print whiteware fragments: 2 minimum vessels; 21 

pieces articulate (not all together); "Abbey" by Petrus Regout and Co., Maastrict, Made in Holland

Kitchen Drain Trench Domestic 3 Bone fragment 3 unidentified bone fragmentsNo Provenience Domestic 1 Bottle 1 colorless bottle, fully machined: embossed with "PINT" and "FULL 

MEASURE"

No Provenience Domestic 2 Curved glass 2 colorless drinking glass sherdsKitchen Drain Trench Unknown 1 Fused glass 1 green fused glass sherdKitchen Drain Trench Personal 4 Marble 4 blue and white glass marble fragmentsKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 1 Milk glass 1 milk glass lip sherdNo Provenience Prehistoric 1 Nutting stone 1 nutting stoneKitchen Drain Trench Architectural 2 Porcelain 2 porcelain insulator fragmentsNo Provenience Domestic 2 Stoneware 2 stoneware fragmentsKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 1 Tin cup 1 tin(?) cup, "Ovaltine" on bottom (zinc metal?)Kitchen Drain Trench Unknown 1 Unidenfied lead/brass 1 lead and brass objectKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 10 Whiteware 10 undecorated whiteware fragmentsKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 2 Whiteware 2 blue transfer print whiteware fragments: "Marino" by George 

Phillips, Thomas Phillips, and Thomas Godwin, 1834-1854 (Williams 1978)
154

BOSTON SEWER Table 15. Concluded. Year Provenience Group Ct. Object Description Kitchen Drain Trench Domestic 1 Whiteware 1 hand-painted whiteware fragment Kitchen Drain Trench Domestic 19 Whiteware 19 undecorated whiteware fragments

Kitchen Drain Trench Domestic 2 Whiteware 2 blue transfer print whiteware fragmentsKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 2 Whiteware 2 green transfer print whiteware fragmentsKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 1 Whiteware 1 molded and hand-painted whiteware fragmentKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 1 Whiteware 1 annular and gilded whiteware fragmentKitchen Drain Trench Domestic 2 Whiteware 2 dark blue whiteware fragmentsKitchen Drain Trench, "Y" intersection

Prehistoric 1 Projectile point 1 chert projectile point: weight = 3.5g, likely Upper Mercer chert

Kitchen, Under Floorboards

Domestic 1 Bottle 1 colorless glass bottle, fully machined, embossed with "HALF PINT" 

and "FULL MEASURE" on one side, "B" embossed near base on opposite side
155

TABLES

Table 16. Artifacts from the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99).

Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other

1979, 1980U I-2 Level 1 - - - 2(1) - - - - - - - - 2 

Garden surface - - - 2(2) - - - - - 2 - 1(3) 5 

U VI-1 PZ 6? - 1 - - - - - - - - - 7 

U VI-2 Level 1, 

plowzone surface to 36 cmbs

1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

U VI-3 2 5 - - - - - - - - - - 7 

-

U VI-4 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 5(4) 5 

U V-1 Unknown 

level

- - - 2(5) - - - - - - - - 2 

U V-2 PZ 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1(6) 3 

U V-3 Level 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

U V-2 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U V-3 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U VI-1 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U VI-2 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U VI-3 Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U VI-4 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U I-2 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

U V-1 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 

Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 
156

BOSTON SEWER Table 16. Continued. Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other U V-2 Level 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 U VI-3 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1(7) 1 Subtotal 12 5 1 6 - - - - - 2 - 25 51 

1993ST 1 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 3 0-25 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 5 0-20 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 6 0-18 cmbs - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 

ST 7 0-23 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 11 0-30 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 14 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 15 0-26 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 19 0-34 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 

ST 20 0-33 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 22 0-30 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 23 0-36 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 26 0-28 cmbs 5 - - - - - - - - - - - 5 

ST 28 0-25 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 29 0-23 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 3 - - 3 

ST 30 0-27 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 32 0-28 cmbs 6 - - - - - - - - - - - 6 

ST 33 0-27 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 34 0-27 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 35 0-25 cmbs - - - 1(8) - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 37 0-23 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 

ST 39 0-26 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1(9) 3 

ST 41 0-26 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 

ST 42 0-30 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 43 0-21 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 45 0-25 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 49 0-30 cmbs - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 
157

TABLES

Table 16. Continued.

Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other

Subtotal 43 - - 1 1 - - - 1 6 - 1 53 

1995ST 1 0-35 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 3 - - 4 

ST 2 0-40 cmbs - - - 1(10) - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 3 0-27 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 4 0-38 cmbs 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

ST 5 0-40 cmbs 1 - - 1(11) - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 6 0-30 cmbs 8 - - - - - - - - - - - 8 

ST 9 0-37 cmbs 4 - - 1(12) - - - - - - - - 5 

ST 10 0-38 cmbs 4 - - 1(10) - - - - - - - - 5 

Subtotal 25 - - 4 - - - - - 3 - - 32 

TU 1 Level 2, 

10-20 cmbs

91 2 3 - - - - - - - - - 96 

Level 3, 20-30 cmbs

28 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 31 

TU 2 Level 2, 

10-20 cmbs

118 - 1 1(13) - - - - - - - - 120 

Level 3, 20-30 cmbs

32 - 2 - - - - - - - - - 34 

TU 3 Level 1, 

0-10 cmbs

13 - - - - - - - - - - - 13 

Level 2, 10-20 cmbs

53 - 7 - - - - - - - - - 60 

Level 3 18 - 2 2(14) - - - - - - - - 22 
158

BOSTON SEWER Table 16. Continued. Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other Subtotal 353 2 18 3 - - - - - - - - 376 TU 3, Feature 1 28 - 6 5(15) - - - - - - - - 39 

Subtotal 28 - 6 5 - - - - - - - - 39 

1998ST 125N 110W 0-38 cmbs 1 - - 1(16) - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 130N 125W 0-55 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 145N 155W 0-36 cmbs 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - 2 

ST 155N 125W 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 155N 140W 0-65 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 

ST 155N 155W 0-31 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 158.5N 200W 0-47 cmbs 2 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 4 

ST 160N 185W 0-54 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 170N 125W 0-37 cmbs 1 - - - 3 - - - - 1 - 1(17)* 6 

ST 170N 140W 0-51 cmbs - - - - 3 - - - - 2 - 2(18)* 7 

ST 170N 155W 0-48 cmbs 1 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 2 

ST 170N 170W 0-40 cmbs - - - - 1 3* - - 1 2 - 1(19) 8 

ST 170N 185W 0-50 cmbs 3 - - 1(10) 2 1* - - - - - - 7 

ST 170N 200W 0-50 cmbs 3 - - 1(10) - 1* - - - - - - 5 

ST 182N 155W 0-38 cmbs 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - 2(20) 6 

ST 185N 95W 0-25 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1(17)* 3 

ST 185N 110W 0-48 cmbs 1 - - - 25 - - 7 - 2 - - 35 

ST 185N 125W 0-36 cmbs - - - - 2* 5* 1 - - - - 1(21) 9 

ST 185N 170W 0-43 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 185N 185W 0-47 cmbs 2 - - - 3 7* - - - 1 - 1(22) 14 

ST 185N 200W 0-76 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 186N 140W 0-45 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - 2 

ST 190.5N 140W 0-70 cmbs 3 - - - 12 3* - - - 1 - 1(9)* 20 

ST 200N 155W 0-45 cmbs 2 - - - 4 2* - - 1 1 - - 10 

ST 200N 170W 0-40 cmbs - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 

ST 200N 185W 0-50 cmbs 3 - - - 1 - - - - - - - 4 
159

TABLES

Table 16. Continued.

Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other

ST 200N 215W 0-50 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 205N 110W 0-52 cmbs 3 - - 2(10) 10 2* - - - - - - 17 

ST 215N 56W 0-26 cmbs - - - - - - - 2 - - - - 2 

ST 215N 95W 0-40 cmbs 6 - - - - - - - - - - - 6 

ST 215N 110W 0-52 cmbs 5 - - 1(10) 2 1* - - - - - - 9 

ST 215N 125W 0-50 cmbs 4 - - - 9 1* - 1 - - - - 15 

ST 215N 170W 0-43 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 215N 185W 0-45 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 215N 212W 0-45 cmbs 2 - - 1(10) 1 2* - - - - - - 6 

ST 230N 80W 0-30 cmbs 5 - - - - 1* 1 - - - - - 7 

ST 230N 95W 0-44 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1(23) 3 

ST 230N 110W 0-45 cmbs 6 - - - - - - - - - - - 6 

ST 230N 125W 0-40 cmbs - - - - 4 1* - - - - - - 5 

ST 230N 140W 0-37 cmbs 1 - - - - 1* - - - - - 1(24)* 3 

ST 230N 155W 0-40 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 230N 170W 0-60 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 3 

ST 230N 212W 0-60 cmbs 3 - - 1(10) - 1* - - - - - 3(25) 8 

ST 245N 110W 0-53 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 245N 125W 0-35 cmbs - - - 2(10) - - - - - - - - 2 

ST 245N 140W 0-30 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 245N 170W 0-43 cmbs 2 - - - 1 1* - - - 1 - - 5 

ST 245N 185W 0-50 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1(26)* 3 

ST 255N 110W 0-47 cmbs 3 - - 3(10) - - - - - - - - 6 

ST 260N 70W 0-50 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 260N 80W 0-30 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST 260N 95W 0-40 cmbs 6 - - 1(10) - - - - - - - - 7 

ST 260N 185W 0-55 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

Subtotal 114 - - 14 87 33 3 10 3 13 1 16 294 

2001ST R1 0-24 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST R2 0-56 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 
160

BOSTON SEWER Table 16. Continued. Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other ST R5 0-48 cmbs - - - - 2 - 1 - - - - - 3 ST R7 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Subtotal 3 - - - 2 - 1 - - 1 - - 7 

2004ST A1 0-55 cmbs 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - 3 

ST A2 0-45 cmbs 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - 1(17) 4 

ST A3 0-50 cmbs 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 4 

ST A4 0-30 cmbs 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - 4 

ST A5 0-44 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST B3 0-50 cmbs - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST B4 0-55 cmbs - 4 - - - - - - - - - - 4 

ST B5 0-37 cmbs 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST B6 0-37 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST C1 0-42 cmbs 1 - - - - 4 - - - - - - 5 

ST C2 0-36 cmbs 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - 3 

ST C3 0-53 cmbs 2 2 - 2(27) 1 - - - - - - - 7 

ST C4 0-55 cmbs 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - 4 

ST C6 0-44 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - 1 - - 3 

ST D1 0-36 cmbs 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - 5 

ST D2 0-40 cmbs - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST D4 0-30 cmbs 1 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 

ST D5 0-37 cmbs 5 - - - - - - - - - - - 5 
161

TABLES

Table 16. Concluded.

Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Redware Stoneware Whiteware Yellowware Other

ST D6 0-47 cmbs - 3 - - - - 1 - - - - - 4 

Subtotal 32 26 - 2 5 4 1 - - 1 - 1 72 

2006ST A1 0-40 cmbs 3 1 - - - - - - - - - - 4 

ST A2 0-35 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

ST B3 0-36 cmbs - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST B4 0-37 cmbs - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST C5 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

Subtotal 6 3 - - - - - - - - - - 9 

Total 616 36 25 35 95 37 5 10 4 26 1 43 933 

chert 
162

BOSTON SEWER Table 17. Artifacts from the Clayton Stanford Property (33SU105). Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Red- ware Stone- ware White- ware Other 1979, 1980

Unknown Unknown - - - - - - - - - - 2(1) 2 U I-1 Level 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - 2 1 3(2) 8 

U II-1 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - 4 - 4 

Backdirt 7 - - - - - - - - 3 - 10 U I-2, pothole Level 1 2 - - - - - - - - 5 - 7 U III-1 Level 1 1 - - - - - - - - 5 2(3) 8 U III-2 Level 1 1 - - - - - - - - 3 - 4 U IV-1 Level 1 2 - - - - - - - - 1 1(4) 4 U V-1 Level 2 - - - 2(5) 2 - - - - 4 2(6) 10 

U V-2 Level 1 - - - - - - - - - 2 4(7) 6 U VI-1 Level 1 - 2 - - - - - - - 1 2(8) 5 

U VII-1 Level 1 1 2(?) - 1(9) - - - - - 4 - 8 U VIII-1 Level 1 1 3 - 4(10) - - - - - - 6(11) 14 

U VIII-2 Level 1 3 - - - - - - - - 1 1(12) 5 U IV-1, Feature 1 Level 2, 58 

cmbs

- - - - - - - - - - 1(13) 1 

U IV-1, Feature 1 Level 2, 50-53 

cmbs

- - - - - - - - - - 1(13) 1 

Subtotal 18 8 - 7 3 - - - 2 34 25 97 1993ST 1 0-50 cmbs - - - 1(14) - - - - - - - 1 

ST 2 0-70 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - 1 - 3 ST 3 0-40 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 ST 4 0-35 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - 1 2 2(4) 8 ST 5 0-40 cmbs - - - - 1 - - - - - 1(15) 2 

ST 7 0-50 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 ST 8 0-32 cmbs 2 1 1 - - - - 1 - 3 - 8 

ST 9 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - 3 

ST 10 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 
163

TABLES

Table 17. Continued.

Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain

Redware Stone- ware White- ware Other

ST 11 0-30 cmbs 3 - - - - - - - - 3 2(4) 8 ST 12 0-30 cmbs - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 

ST 13 0-35 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 4 1(4) 6 ST 14 0-42 cmbs 1 - - - 2 - - - - 5 3(16) 11 

ST 15 0-40 cmbs 4 - - - 1 - 1 - - 6 - 12 

ST 16 0-30 cmbs 3 - - - - - - 1 - 4 - 8 

ST 17 0-32 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 

ST 18 0-41 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 ST 19 0-30 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 2(4) 2 

ST 20 0-40 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - 3 ST 22 0-25 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 ST 25 0-35 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(4) 1 ST 27 0-32 cmbs 2 - - - 2 - - - - 1 4(17) 9 

ST 28 0-65 cmbs 1 - - - 2 1 - - - 5 5(18) 14 ST 29 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - 2 - - - - - 2(19) 5 ST 30 0-44 cmbs 4 - - - 2 - - - - 9 3(20) 18 

ST 31 0-35 cmbs 2 - - - 1 - - - - 3 - 6 

ST 32 0-35 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

ST 33 0-39 cmbs 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 1(4) 3 ST 34 0-39 cmbs - - - - 1 - - 2 - 2 - 5 

ST 39 2 - - - - - - - - 1 1(21) 4 

ST 40 3 - - - - - - - - - - 3 ST 41 1 - - - 4 - - - - 2 4(22) 11 

ST 42 - - - - - - - - - - 1(23) 1 

ST 43 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1(4) 3 ST 44 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 1(24) 4 

ST 49 0-35 cmbs 2 - - - 1 1 1 - - 8 - 13 

ST 50 0-30 cmbs - - - - 1 - - - - 2 1(23) 4 

ST 51 0-30 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 1(25) 2 

ST 52 0-25 cmbs 1 1* - - - - - - - 2 - 4 ST 53 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - 3 
164

BOSTON SEWER Table 17. Concluded. Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Porcelain Red- ware Stone- ware White- ware Other Subtotal 51 2 1 1 24 2 2 4 1 74 37 199 Trench West façade 

of house

0-40 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 3(26) 3 

Disturbance Surface 1 - - - - - - - - 5 - 6 Test Trench Surface - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 Subtotal 1 - - - - - - - - 7 3 11 Total 70 10 1 8 27 2 2 4 3 115 65 307 

ous metal object 
165

TABLES

Table 18. Whiteware from the Clayton Stanford House (33SU105).

Provenience Decorated Transfer Print Flow

Undecorated Other Total Horizontal Vertical Annular Edge

Handpainted Black Blue Cobalt Green Red Blue

1993ST 2 0-70 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

ST 4 0-35 cmbs - - 1 1 - - - - - - - 2 ST 8 0-32 cmbs 1 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 3 ST 9 0-30 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 ST 10 0-30 cmbs - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 ST 11 0-30 cmbs - - 1 - - - - - - 2 - 3 ST 13 0-35 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 4 - 4 ST 14 0-42 cmbs - - 1 - - - - 1 - 3 5 

ST 15 0-40 cmbs - - - 1 1 - - - - 4 - 6 

ST 16 0-30 cmbs - - 1 - - - - - - 3 - 4 ST 17 0-32 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 ST 20 0-40 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 ST 28 0-65 cmbs - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 2 - 5 

ST 27 0-32 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 ST 30 0-44 cmbs - 1 1 - - - - 1 - 6 - 9 ST 31 0-35 cmbs - - - - - - - 3 - - - 3 ST 32 0-35 cmbs - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 ST 34 0-39 cmbs - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 

ST 39 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

ST 41 - - - - 1 - - - - - 1(1) 2 

ST 43 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

ST 44 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 

ST 49 - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - 4 - 8 ST 50 - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 2 

ST 51 0-30 cmbs - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 

ST 52 0-25 cmbs - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 2 

ST 53 - - 1 - - - - - - - - 1 Disturbed Surface

2 - 1 - - - - 2 - - - 5 
166

BOSTON SEWER Table 18. Concluded. Provenience Decorated Transfer Print Flow Undecorated Other Total Horizontal Vertical Annular Edge Hand- painted Black Blue Cobalt Green Red Blue Surface of Trench - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - 2 

Total 3 1 10 5 4 3 1 9 1 43 1 81 

Explanation:
167

TABLES

Table 19. Artifacts from the George Stanford Property (33SU138).

Provenience Prehistoric Historic

Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail

Stoneware White- ware Yellow- ware Other

Curved Flat

2003410N 510E 0-43 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

420N 510E 0-35 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

425N 550E 0-69 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

430N 450E 0-43 cmbs - - - - - - - - 1 - - 1 

430N 500E 0-37 cmbs 2 4 - - - - - - - - - 6 

430N 540E 0-83 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

430N 550E 0-80 cmbs 6 - 5 - - - - - - - - 11 

440N 540E 0-66 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - 2(1) 3 

440N 550E 0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

480N 570E 0-79 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 1(2) 1 

490N 570E 0-90 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

Subtotal 15 4 5 - - - - - 1 - 3 28 

2004TU 1 Lvl 1 0-20 

cmbs

2 - 1(3) 1(4) 1 - 18 - 3 - 4(5) 30 

11 or 16 cmbs - - - - - - - - - - 3(6) 3 

Lvl 2 20-30 cmbs

8 1 - - - 2 10 3 6 2 15(1) 47 

Lvl 3 30-40 cmbs

5 2 - - 2 - 1 - 2 - 17(1) 29 

Lvl 4 40-50 cmbs

12 2 2 - - - - - - - 1(1) 17 

Lvl 5 50-60 cmbs

7 - - - - - - - - - - 7 
168

BOSTON SEWER Table 19. Continued. Provenience Prehistoric Historic Total Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail Stone- ware White- ware Yellow- ware Other Curved Flat Lvl 6 60-70 

cmbs

1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

Bottom of Lvl 6

- - - 1(7) - - - - - - - 1 

Subtotal 35 5 3 2 3 2 29 3 11 2 40 135 

2007ST 1 0-45 cmbs 1 - - 1(8) 2 - - - 1 - 1(9) 6 

ST 4 0-47 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 5 0-54 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 

Subtotal 4 - - 1 2 - - - 1 - 1 9 

2008ST 1 0-40 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

ST 2 0-50 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

TU 1 N4979-4980 E5100-5101

0-21 cmbs 2 - - 1(10) - - - - - - - 3 

21-31 cmbs - - - 1(10) - - - - - - - 1 

TU 3 N4999-5000 E5150-5151

13-23 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

23-33 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

33-43 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

43-56 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 
169

TABLES

Table 19. Continued.

Provenience Prehistoric Historic

Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail

Stoneware White- ware Yellow- ware Other

Curved Flat

TU4 N4995-4996 E5145-5146

15-25 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

25-35 cmbs 7 - - - - - - - - - - 7 

TU 5 N4979-4980 E5150-5151

10-20 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

TU 6 N5000-5001 E5130-5131

0-21 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - 1(11) 2 

21-31 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

TU 7 N4980-4981 E5130-5131

10-20 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 

20-30 cmbs - - - 2(12) - - - - - - - 2 

TU8 N4990-4991 E5130-5131

0-20 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 

TU 9 N4985-4986

0-30 cmbs 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 

TU 10 N4965-4966 E5130-5131

0-20 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 

30-40 cmbs 4 - - - - - - - - - - 4 

40-62 cmbs 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 
170

BOSTON SEWER

(5) 2 bone, 1 plastic tobacco pipe, 1 pocket watch

e

 bone

(2) .22 caliber rifle slug (3) biface (4) biface or biface tip(6) 1 horseshoe, 2 bolts 

ough slate biface

ous metal object

ojectile point

Explanation:(1) (9) unidentified ferr(10) slate fragment(11) kaolin tobacco pipe bowl fragment(12) 1 banded slate fragment, 1 chert cor(13) 1 stone celt fragment, 1 banded slate fragment

 edware

(7) r(8) pr(14) r(15) milk glass bottle fragment

ST - Shovel Test

est Unit 

Table 19. Concluded.

TU - T

Provenience Prehistoric Historic

Total

Horizontal Vertical Debitage FCR Pottery Other Glass Nail

Stoneware White- ware Yellow- ware Other

Curved Flat

TU 11 N5014-5015 E5022-5023

10-20 cmbs - - - 2(13) - - - - - - 1(14) 3 

20-30 cmbs - - - 1(10) 1(15) - - - 2 - - 4 

Subtotal 32 - - 7 1 - - - 3 - 2 45 

Total 86 9 8 10 6 2 29 3 16 2 46 217 
171

Figure 1. The project area.

82

77

80

303

271

271

82

80

303

77

0 2 ml.

0 2 km.

Valley View

Tinkers Creek

Brecksville

Peninsula

Akron

Furnace Run

Ohio & Erie Canal

Cuyahoga River

Project 

Area

Lake Erie

Ohio

Cleveland

Akron

CUYAHOGA 

VALLEY N.P.

James A.

Garfield

N.H.S.

80

90

90

77 271

77

77

71

80

Michigan Lake Erie

Indiana

West Virginia

Kentucky

Penn.

CUYAHOGA VALLEY

N.P.

Perry’s Victory

I.P.M.

Cleveland

James A.

Garfield N.H.S.

Akron

Canton

Youngstown

Columbus

Dayton

Cincinnati

OHIO

William Howard

Taft N.H.S.

Mound City

Group N.M.

80

90

90

80

76

76

75

23 71

77

23

Toledo

70

71
172

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 2. 1898 transcription of 1834 plat of Boston Village. 
173

FIGURES

Figure 3. 1856 plat of Boston Village.
174

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 4. Portion of the 1994 Northfield Quadrangle (USGS 7.5’ topographic map) showing the 

project areas for the Boston Sewer Project. 
175

FIGURESFigure 5. Site map of the Boodey House and Trail Mix Store properties (33SU269) showing the area covered by archeological investigations. 

Car Port

A11

A5

ST 1

ST 5

ST 6

ST 4

ST 7 ST 1 ST 2 ST 3

ST 3

ST 2

Old

Cistern

Concrete Walk

Boston Mills Road

Maple

Porch

Step

Concrete Walk

Porch Boodey House

Stone Foundation

Cellar

Stairs A/C

New

Cistern

Concrete

Slab

Asphalt

Main St

Gravel Shoulder

Roadside Ditch / Culvert Asphalt Drive

Asphalt

Drive

Asphalt

Asphalt

Catch Basin

Slope

Gravel

Concrete

Trail

Mix

Store

Porch

Slab

Garage

Septic

Tank

TU2

TU1

TU1

Step

Slab

A4

A3

A2

A1

A10

A9

A8

A6

A7

3m

Sewer

Line

Boodey & Trail Mix, 33SU269

===

AugerShovel Test

1-x-1- Meter Test Unit

N

ST 4

ST 3

ST 2

ST 1

TU 1

2007 Investigations
176

BOSTON SEWER

10 YR 5/3 brown silty clay

10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay

10 YR 3/2 very dark grayish brown loam

cinder layer

rock

gravel layer

datum line

33SU269

TU 2007-1 (Boodey House)

West Wall Prole

7/19/2007

0 20 cm

Figure 6. Profile of the west wall of TU 2007-1 at the Boodey House (33SU269).
177

FIGURES

Figure 7. Photograph of the north wall profile of TU 2007-1 at the Boodey House.
178

BOSTON SEWER

A

B

C

D

10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown silty loam

10 YR 5/4 dark grayish brown silty loam mottled with yellowish brown clay

7.5 YR 3/1 very dark gray silty loam

10 YR 4/3 yellow clay mottled with brown loam

33SU269

Test Unit 1 (Boodey House)

West Wall Prole

8/25/2009

0 20 cm

concentration of fragmented artifacts, coal, pebbles

ash lens ash lens

ground surface

datum line

A.

B.

C.

D.

Figure 8. Profile of the west wall of TU 1 at the Boodey House (33SU269).
179

FIGURES

10 YR 4/2 dark grayish brown silty loam

10 YR 6/6 brownish yellow clay

10 YR 4/2 dark grayish loam with gravel, cinders, and other burned materials

10 YR 3/2 very dark grayish brown silty clay loam

10 YR 3/2 silty clay loam mottled with 10 YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay

10 YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty clay

A

B

D

E E

F

line level

33SU269

Test Unit 2 (Boodey House)

East Wall Prole

8/25/2009

0 20 cm

C

nail

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

Figure 9. Profile of the east wall of TU 2 at the Boodey House (33SU269).
180

BOSTON SEWER

A

B

C

10 YR 2/2 dark brown loam- some coal, brick

10 YR 2/2 dark brown loam- artifacts, coal, brick, burned material

10 YR 4/5 yellow clay mottled with gray brown loam

datum line

33SU99

Test Unit 1 (Trail Mix)

North Wall Prole

8/26/2009

0 20 cm

Figure 10. Profile of the north wall of TU 1 at Trail Mix (33SU269).
181

FIGURES

Figure 11. Site map of a portion of the Wolschleger lot (33SU268) showing the area covered by the 

2009 archeological investigations.
182

BOSTON SEWER

Ohio & Erie

Canal

Shed

Towpath

Gravel d

riveway

Johnston

House

Garage

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

+ +

+

+

+

+

+7

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

+

+

+

+

+

2008 shovel tests

N 10 m

Tract 118-77 Tract 118-79

2009 shovel tests 

Rodhe

House

not

extant

Chicken

Coop

Johnson Barn

not extant

TU1 TU2

TU3

Gravel parking lot

Trailhead sign

Driveway

Foot path

Buckeye Trail

Area stripped of

plowzone (1986)

Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson Barn, 33SU481 

+ = positive shovel test 

= negative shovel test 

+/ = 2002 shovel test

= 1986 1-x-1-m test unit

Boston Mills Road

Figure 12. Site map of the Johnston-Rodhe and Johnson Barn Properties (33SU481) showing the area 

covered by archeological investigations.

Figure 13. Projectile point recovered 

from Johnson Barn area (33SU481).
183

FIGURES

Johnson Barn

Thickness (mm)

.8 0.7 0 .9 0 1 .0 0 1 .1 0 1 .2 0 1 .2 5 1 .3 0 1 .3 5 1 .4 0 1 .4 5 1 .6 0 1 .7 0 1 .8 0 1 .9 0 2 .0 5 2 .1 5 2 .4 0 3 .2 0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Count

Figure 14. Window glass thickness, Johnson Barn area (33SU481). 

Figure 15. Projectile point recovered 

from the Barnhart Property (33SU456).
184

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 16. Site map of the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99) showing the area covered by the 1995 and 1998 archeological investigations.

Enclosed

Porch

Brick

Sidewalk

Terrace

Edge

Edge

of 

Mowed Area &

Terrace

Edge of

Terrace

Tennis Court 

Not Extant

Outhouse

Flower Bed

Pond

Pond

Wall

Dam

Sandstone

Patio

Sandstone

Lower Bench Covered

with Overgrown Vegetation

Slopes to the 

North

Weeds &

Saplings

Weeds

Rank

Weeds

Garage

Concrete

Sandstone

 Patio

Asphalt 

Walkway

Parking 

Lot

Unmowed

Grass

Edge of

Mowed

Turf

Concrete

Covered

Cistern

Brick

Base Flag

Pole

Blacktop Drive

Sandstone Walkway

Stone

Patio

Gas

Manifold

Well

House

Sandstone 

Walkway Manhole 

Cover Capped 

Well? Stone 

Patio

Maple Roots

Concrete &

Brick

Drive

+

-

Road Bed

Boulder

Hines

Hill

Road

Granary

Barn

Mowed Turf

Main House

Gate

0 10 20 30

Meters

N

Parking

Sandstone

Wall

Hines Hill Conference Center, 

Gioia Site, 33SU99

= Positive Shovel Test

= Negative Shovel Test

TU 1

TU 2

TU 3

-

-

+

ST 8

ST 7

ST 6

ST 5

+ST 2

+ST 1

200N 200W

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+ -

-

-

-

+

+ + 

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+ ST 10

+ST 9

+

+

+

+

140 W

+ST 4

+ST 3

+

1995 Shovel Tests and Test Units.

(All Other Shovel Tests Excavated in1998)

Middle

of Road

+

+

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

-
185

FIGURESFigure 17. Site map of the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99) showing the area covered by the 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2009 

archeological investigations.

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2004

2009

2006

+

+

+

+

-

-

-

+

Enclosed

Porch

Brick

Sidewalk

Terrace

Edge

Edge

of 

Mowed Area

&

Terrace

Edge of

Terrace

Tennis Court 

Not Extant

Outhouse

Flower Bed

Pond

Pond

Wall

Dam

Sandstone

Patio

Sandstone

Lower Bench Covered

with Overgrown Vegetation

Slopes to the 

North

Weeds &

Saplings

Weeds

Rank

Weeds

Garage

Concrete

Sandstone

 Patio

Asphalt Walkway

Parking 

Lot

Unmowed

Grass

Edge of

Mowed

Turf

Concrete

Covered

Cistern

Brick

Base Flag Pole

Blacktop Drive

Sandstone Walkway

Stone

Patio

Gas

Manifold

Well

House

Sandstone 

Walkway Manhole 

Cover Capped

 Well?

0 10 20 30

Meters

Stone 

Patio

Concrete &

Brick

Drive

Road Bed

Boulder

Hines

Hill

Road

Granary

Barn

Mowed Turf

Main House

Gate

N

Parking

Sandstone

Wall

2001

+

-

Hines Hill Conference Center, 

Gioia Site, 33SU99

= Positive Shovel Test

= Negative Shovel Test
186

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 18. Prehistoric artifacts recovered from the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99).
187

FIGURES

Figure 19. Profile of the north wall and Feature 1 in 1995 TU 3 at the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99).
188

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 20. Cross section of Feature 1 in 1995 TU 3 at the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99).
189

FIGURES

Figure 21. Photograph of Feature 1 in 1995 TU 3 at the Hines Hill Conference Center (33SU99).
190

BOSTON SEWER

l

l

l l l l

l

l

5

6

45

6

7

5

46

2

3

18

17 34

12

11

5

40

4

39

3 8

27 32

33 7 2

1

6 35

36

34

38

13

15

26

50

30

25

well

Ramp brambles

shed

water line

wire fence

wire fence

yew

yew

yew

24

ash

21

20

22

25

19

28 42

41

43

14

44

49

29

51

9

10

16

47

4

9

8

11

23

15

12

13

14

48

4

3

2

1

garage

Site of former barn

concrete floor intact

leach field

disturbed

gravel driveway

bluff

dumpster parked here 3/31/93

trench for repointing 3/31/93 circa 18” deep collection made

698’ amsl

former doors

structural ruinsconcrete foundation

dam

pond area

14 m to base of bluff

shovel testabandoned due to mud

cistern

671’ amsl Stanford Road Clayton Stan- ford House

N

= Shovel Test

steep slope up

10 20 30 40 Feet

brambles

brambles

Figure 22. Site map of the Clayton Stanford Property (33SU105) showing the area covered by archeological investigations.
191

FIGURES

Figure 23. Prehistoric artifacts recovered from the Clayton Stanford 

Property (33SU105).
192

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 24. Historic artifacts recovered from the Clayton Stanford Property (33SU105).
193

FIGURES Figure 25. Site map of a portion of the George Stanford Property (33SU138) showing the area covered by archeological investigations in 2004 for a proposed campground. The site boundary for 33SU138 was expanded to include this area.
194

BOSTON SEWER

Figure 26. Aerial photograph showing the area covered by archeological investigations for the 

proposed bio-treatment wetland system on Tract 118-79.
195

Appendix 1 Ohio Archaeological Inventory Site Forms
196

BOSTON SEWER
197

APPENDIX 1
198

BOSTON SEWER
199

APPENDIX 1
200

BOSTON SEWER
201

APPENDIX 1
202

BOSTON SEWER
203

APPENDIX 1
204

BOSTON SEWER
205

APPENDIX 1
206

BOSTON SEWER
207

APPENDIX 1
208

BOSTON SEWER
209

APPENDIX 1
210

BOSTON SEWER
211

APPENDIX 1
212

BOSTON SEWER
213

APPENDIX 1
214

BOSTON SEWER
215

APPENDIX 1
216

BOSTON SEWER
217

APPENDIX 1
218

BOSTON SEWER
219

APPENDIX 1
220

BOSTON SEWER
221

APPENDIX 1
222

BOSTON SEWER
223

APPENDIX 1
224

BOSTON SEWER
225

APPENDIX 1
226

BOSTON SEWER
227

APPENDIX 1
228

BOSTON SEWER
229

APPENDIX 1
230

BOSTON SEWER
231

APPENDIX 1
232

BOSTON SEWER
233

APPENDIX 1
234

BOSTON SEWER
235

APPENDIX 1
236

BOSTON SEWER
237

APPENDIX 1
238

BOSTON SEWER
239

APPENDIX 1
240

BOSTON SEWER
241

APPENDIX 1
242

BOSTON SEWER
243

APPENDIX 1
244

BOSTON SEWER
245

APPENDIX 1
246

BOSTON SEWER
247

APPENDIX 1
248

BOSTON SEWER
249

APPENDIX 1
250

BOSTON SEWER
251

APPENDIX 1
252

BOSTON SEWER
253

APPENDIX 1
254

BOSTON SEWER
255

APPENDIX 1
256

BOSTON SEWER
257

APPENDIX 1
258

BOSTON SEWER
259

APPENDIX 1
260

BOSTON SEWER
261

APPENDIX 1
262

BOSTON SEWER
263

APPENDIX 1
264

BOSTON SEWER
265

Appendix 2 Site Reclamation Form
266
267
268
269

APPENDIX 2
270

BOSTON SEWER