HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC.
714 S. Clinton Ave. Trenton, NJ 08611 Tel. 609/695-0122
A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY NEW JERSEY
Prepared for: Township of Princeton Valley Road Building 369 Witherspoon Street Princeton, NJ 08540-3496
June 1991 HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC.
714 S. Clinton Ave. Trenton, NJ 08611 Tel. 609/695-0122
A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY NEW JERSEY
Prepared for: Township of Princeton Valley Road Building 369 Witherspoon Street Princeton, NJ 08540-3496
June 1991 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This report describes an archaeological survey of an area of about 52 acres in the approximately 80-acre Mountain Lakes Preserve in Princeton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. The purpose of the survey was to identify and make a provisional evaluation of the significance of any cultural resources in the project area, which was defined on the basis of the potential impacts of proposed remedial works to two earth and stone dams erected in 1882 and 1904. The survey identified a total of 17 cultural resources, all of them historic. Two of these features may date to the 18th or earlier 19th centuries when the area functioned as a small farm, but the bulk of the remainder can be related to the use of this property for commercial ice production between 1883 and 1929, firstly by the Margerum family as Riverside and Mountain Lakes Ice Companies (to 1906), and latterly by the Princeton Ice Company. In addition to the dams, the sites of a number of structures relating to the ice industry were identified, including the site of a boiler house, the foundations of a probable artificial ice plant of 1909, water control features, and a hay-barn foundation. The hay barn was in all probability used for storage of hay needed for insulating the ice-houses, and it utilized a labor-saving hay-carrying system, substantial remains of which remain on the site. A number of additional structures are known from documentary references, but no physical remains of these features were identified. Some may lie on the property but beyond the project boundaries. The main ice-house, however, lay within the project area immediately south of the lower of the two dams, but no physical remains of this large frame structure were identified. Consideration of the nature of the remains and of the historical background of the site indicates that the landscape and cultural features which relate to the ice industry of 1883-1929 should be viewed as a Rural Historic Lansdcape. This landscape is considered to be eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places, although it is recommended that the whole of the Mountain Lakes property be surveyed and evaluated before a formal nomination is made. Various recommendations are made for avoiding, reducing or mitigating the impact of the dam rehabilitation operations on identified resources. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Management Summary List of Figures List of Plates Acknowledgement s
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 A. Project Background and Scope-of-Work 1-1 B. Criteria of Evaluation 1-4 C. Definition of Terms 1-5 D. Project Chronology 1-5 E. Previous Research 1-6
2. GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING 2-1
3. PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND 3-1
4. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4-1
5. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 5-1 A. Field Methodology 5-1 B. Surface Examination 5-2 i) Dams and Related Features 5-2 ii) Structure South of Lower Dam 5-5 iii) Other Cultural Features 5-5 C. Subsurface Testing 5-16
6. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE, ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1 A. Preliminary Evaluation of Significance 6-1 B. Assessment of Impact 6-4 C. Recommendations 6-4
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDICES A. Summary of Subsurface Testing A-l B. Artifact Inventory B-l C. Office of New Jersey Heritage Bibliographic Abstract C-l D. Resumes D-l LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES Page Figure 1.1 Location of Project Area 1-2 1.2 Detailed Location of Project Area 1-3 2.1 Physiographic Location of Project Area 2-2 4.1 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Map of 1840 4-2 4.2 Otley and Keily Map of 1849 4-3 4.3 Lake and Beers Map of 1860 4-4 4 .4 Everts and Stewart Map of 1875 4-5 5.1 Site Plan Pocket 5.2 Plan of Concrete Foundation and Chimney [Site 7)] 5-4 5.3 Concrete Foundation [Site 10] 5-6 5.4 Barn Foundation [Site 17] 5-11 5.5 Harpoon Hayfork and Swivel Carrier 5-12
Plate 4.1 Historic Photograph, c.1906 4-7 4.2 Historic Photograph, 1910 4-8 5.1 Concrete Foundation [Site 10] 5-7 5.2 Concrete Foundation [Site 10] 5-8 5.3 Bank or Field Wall [Site 15] 5-10 5.4 Support Pier, Barn Site [Site 17] 5-13 5.5 Metal Swivel Carrier [Site 17] 5-14 5.6 Metal Harpoon Hayfork [Site 17] 5-15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared with a grant from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental Services. Many people have contributed to this study and to the completion of this project report. Robert V. Kiser, Engineer for the Township of Princeton, and Christine Lewandoski provided help and guidance and managed the project on behalf of the Township. We also received much advice and assistance from a number of individuals active in the management and future planning of the Mountain Lakes Preserve. Wanda Gunning, Gail Colby (Mountain Lakes Preserve and Friends of Princeton) and Peggy McNeill (Chair, Princeton Township and Borough Joint Environmental Committee) all provided valuable information on the site and the area. Thanks are due to the staff of the New Jersey State Museum and the Office of New Jersey Heritage for allowing access to site files and other information. Pamela Stephenson of the Office of New Jersey Heritage drew attention to the need to consider the project area as a Rural Historic Landscape. We are also grateful to the New Jersey State Archives and to the Historical Society of Princeton for access to archival materials relating to the project area. This project was undertaken under the overall direction of lan Burrow. Historical research was completed by Richard Porter with assistance from Carolyn Hartwick. Fieldwork was undertaken by Carolyn Hartwick, Terrence Epperson, Frank Dunsmore and Lynn Rakos. The report was written by lan Burrow and Carolyn Hartwick, and drafting was carried out by William Liebeknecht. Artifact analysis was by Harriet Kronik. Final editing was by Richard Hunter, and report assembly by Cathe Burrow. lan C. Burrow, Ph.D. Principal Investigator CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
A. Project Background and Scope-of-Work The following report describes cultural resource investigations performed in connection with the proposed rehabilitation of two of the three dams in the Mountain Lakes Preserve, Princeton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). This work was carried out by Hunter Research, Inc. under contract to the Township of Princeton. Cultural resources investigations were required in this instance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) as a consequence of the involvement of the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the project. Design services for the rehabilitation of the dams are being provided for the Township by the Soil Conservation Service. The Mountain Lakes Preserve comprises approximately 80 acres of land surrounding a body of water now called Palmer Lake, created by a series of dams which impound the Mountain Brook tributary of Stony Brook. These dams are associated with the Mountain Lakes Ice Company, which constructed a large earthern dam in 1884 supplemented by a second dam in 1902 as well as large ice storage houses and other structures. Prior to the presence of the ice industry on the property the land appears to have been farmed. The proposed repairs involve renovation of the upper stone/masonry dam, possible removal and replacement of the lower earth embankment dam, and possible dredging of the lake with temporary water diversion and on site disposal of the spoil. Associated impacts are likely to include the establishement of access routes and work areas well as material storage compounds. The High Impact Area defined by the Township of Princeton comprises approximately 52 acres extending southeastwards from the northern limits of the lake to a point some 500 feet southeast of the earthen dam, and east and west of the lake as far as the adjoining property lines. The area is currently mostly wooded, with slight to moderate slopes rising from the eastern and western sides of the lake. It was agreed with the client that the investigations would involve the following work tasks: preliminary backround research; field investigation including subsurface testing; analysis of all recovered data; and preparation of a project report. Identified cultural resources were to be documented and preliminarily evaluated in terms of their historical significance, with recommendations for the protection and/or reduction of impact to those resources regarded as significant in order to preserve the site's historic integrity and appearance.
1-1 75° 74°
41° 4V
New York
Newark
New Brunswick
40' Philadelphia 40°
9 Atlantic City
39° 39°
NEW JERSEY 0 20 i miles
75* 74' A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 1.1 Location of Project Area (Starred). 1-2 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 1.2 Detailed Location of Project Area. Source: USGS Princeton Quad, 1970.
1-3 B. Criteria of Evaluation The information generated by this survey was considered in terms of the criteria for evaluation outlined by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Program: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and: A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his productive life; or D. a cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendant importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or
1-4 F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historic significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.
C. Definition of Terms The following definitions are from the Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places 36 C.F.R. 63 (Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 183, Wed. Sept. 21, 1977, pp. 47666-67): 1. A "district" is a geographically definable area, urban or rural, possessing a significant concentration, linkage or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects which are united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also be comprised of individual elements which are separated geographically but are linked by associations or history. 2. A "site" is the location of a significant event, or prehistoric or historic occupation or activity or a building or structure whether standing, ruined, or vanished where the location itself maintains historical or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structures. 3. A "building" is a structure created to shelter any form of human activity such as a house, barn, church, hotel or similar structure. "Buildings" may refer to a historically related complex, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. 4. A "structure" is a work made up of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern or organization. Constructed by man, it is often an engineering project large in scale. 5. An "object" is a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical, or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable yet related to a specific setting or environment.
D. Project Chronology Authorization for commencement of work on this project was received on December 18, 1990. Background research was carried out at various times during December and January, 1990. Archaeological fieldwork was begun on Jaunuary 15,1991 and continued on January 17 and 18,1991. At this time fieldwork was interrupted for approximately one month due to poor weather conditions including rain, snow, and extreme cold. Fieldwork was then resumed on February 27, 1991 and completed during March 5 through 7,1991. Analysis of field data and report preparation were performed in March through early June, 1991.
1-5 E. Previous Research The Princeton area has been the subject of a number of historically and architecturally- based studies. The work of Greiff, Gibbons and Menzies is a landmark in the scholarly study of the cultural resources of the town of Princeton and its immediate surroundings (Greiff et al. 1967). This work was substantially augmented by the Princeton Architectural Survey (Craig 1981), which discussed numerous buildings and their general historical and cultural contexts. Cultural resources studies mandated under State and Federal legislation and regulations have taken place close to the project area along U.S. Route 206, both from Princeton northwards towards Somerville (Louis Berger and Associates 1983, Kraft 1983) and southwest of Princeton at Stony Brook (Heritage Studies, Inc. 1990; Hunter Research, Inc. 1990), and along the Western Trunkline of the Princeton Sewerage System (Research and Archaeological Management, Inc 1987,1988). These latter studies traversed the southern portion of the project area to the south of Mountain Brook. Subsurface testing in this area identified a small amount of early 20th-century artifactual material, but this was deemed not to be significant and to be the result of domestic refuse dumping (Research and Archaeological Management, Inc. 1988:40-41).
1-6 CHAPTER 2 GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING
The project area is located within the Piedmont Lowlands physiographic province, just south of the Rocky Hill Ridge. The Rocky Hill Ridge, considered to be part of the Schooley peneplain, is a diabase sill mostly covered with boulders which stands above the surrounding soft red shale lowlands (Figure 2.1; Wolfe 1977:244, 248). Three soil types are located on the Mountain Lakes Preserve property: the Penn series; Readington series, and the Bowmansville series. West of the lake lie Penn shaley silt loams (PeD), shallow and moderately well drained soils on uplands. These soils were formed in materials weathered from red shale and siltstone of the Triassic Brunswick Formation, and have a high hazard for erosion. Runoff is rapid with gullies common. East of the lake lie Readington and Abbotstown silt loams (RaZB), moderately deep, well drained, sloping soils on uplands. These soils were formed in a silty mantle underlain by bedrock of Triassic red shale or argillite. South of the lake lies Bowmansville silt loam (Bt) a moderately deep, poorly drained, nearly level soil. This soil is located on floodplains of the major streams of the Piedmont section of Mercer County where floods are frequent (Jablonski 1972:14, 37,41). The Mountain Lakes Preserve is located just west of U.S. Route 206 in the northern section of Princeton Township (Figure 1.2). Palmer Lake was created by the impounding of Mountain Brook, a tributary of Stony Brook into which it flows a little over one mile southwest of the Preserve. The valley sides are moderately steep, but the valley bottom appears to have been about 200 feet wide prior to the creation of the lakes, and in its natural state the stream probably meandered across this floodplain. At the northern end of the project area a small tributary, now impounded by a third dam (not discussed in this report), joins Mountain Brook. At the confluence of the two drainages is a low tongue of land now occupied by a modern house and forming the type of setting frequently favored by prehistoric groups. The topography surrounding the lake is dominated by lightly wooded, gently sloping uplands with sparse ground cover. These upland areas appear to have been cleared, open pasture land in the recent past and have undergone regrowth with various hardwood species, hemlock and cedar. South of the lake, following Mountain Brook, is a low-lying, lightly wooded and poorly-drained floodplain. Altitude ranges from about 110 feet ASL south of the lake to about 175 feet ASL on the western side. The Mountain Lakes Preserve supports a variety of mammal and birds typical of this environment including large numbers of geese and deer.
2-1 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 2.1 Physiographic Location of Project Area. Source: Wolfe 1977:245.
2-2 CHAPTER 3 PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND
A human presence is detectable in the Mid-Atlantic region beginning approximately 12,000 to 13,000 years ago. The chronological sequence for the region is generally divided into three major cultural periods: Paleo-Indian (circa 12,500-8,000 B.P.), Archaic (circa 8,000-3,000 B.P.) and Woodland (circa 3,DOTTB.P. - A.D. 1600). Outlines of the prehistory of New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic region have been presented elsewhere by other authors on many occassions (e.g. Cross 1941; Chesler 1982; Kraft 1986) and will not be reiterated here. Examination of the records of the New Jersey Indian Site Survey and site files at the New Jersey State Museum, and files of the Office of New Jersey Heritage at the Department of Environmental Protection, revealed no previously recorded prehistoric sites in the project area or immediate vicinity. The closest recorded site is 28-Me-19, a poorly-documented locale about 1.75 miles to the south above the valley of the Millstone River. The nature and cultural affiliation of the site is unclear, though finds of argillite are recorded from it. The apparent scarcity of prehistoric sites on the Piedmont topography in the Princeton area is somewhat surprising. Cultural resource surveys immediately west of Princeton Borough along U.S. Route 206 on either side of Stony Brook (Hunter Research, Inc. 1990), and along the Western Trunkline Sewerage alignment to the north, west and southwest of the town (Research and Archaeological Management, Inc. 1987, 1988) identified no prehistoric materials in intensive subsurface testing and surface examination. U.S. Route 206 in this area is traditionally held to follow the alignment of an Indian Trail connecting the fall lines of the Delaware and Raritan Rivers (Tyler 1965:4), but no occupation sites have been identified along its line in the area. East and north of the study area, Kraft (1983:29) similarly encountered no sites in the adjacent part of the Piedmont. This ostensible paucity of sites on the Piedmont topography is in marked contrast to the situation on the adjacent portion of the Inner Coastal Plain, where the ecological opportunities presented by the wetland environment of the Upper and Great Bear Swamps appear to have attracted Native American groups from at least the Archaic period onwards. Numerous sites are known from the area where Stony Brook emerges from the Piedmont onto the Plain, the nearest site in this setting being at Updike Farm [28-Me-199] to the east of the Stony Brook floodplain about two miles south of the present project area. Further to the south in the Stony Brook drainage is a group of Late Archaic sites west of Princeton Junction [28-Me-231,28-Me-232 and 28-Me236-8], and there is an additional concentration of sites in the Assunpink drainage immediately to the south.
3-1 As with all archaeological distributions, it is essential to consider inherent biases in information gathering which may be distorting the true picture. Prehistoric sites are relatively easy to identify in the Inner Coastal Plain. Much of the area has been cultivated during the last 100 years, providing excellent conditions for locating prehistoric artifacts. Lithic materials and other artifacts are readily identified against the background of cultivated sandy loams which typify the area. In recent years the pace of development in the Inner Coastal Plain has been rapid, with a consequent increase in ground disturbance, a proportion of it subject to archaeological review under the range of regulations and legislation now in place. On the Piedmont the situation is somewhat different. The stony, argillaceous soils which typify the project area and its vicinity make surface identification of prehistoric lithic artifacts much more difficult, since they are frequently composed of similar materials to the parent rock. Additionally, agricultural cultivation tends to be less intensive. There has been a historical emphasis on grazing and forage crops (Hunter and Porter 1990:45-49), which does not expose soils to inspection very frequently, and much of the area of the Rocky Hill Ridge immediately north of the project area has probably never been effectively converted to agriculture in any case. Despite considerable residential and commercial development around Princeton, there have been relatively few associated cultural resources studies since much of the development has been private and has not fallen within the purview of the historic preservation legislation. There must therefore be some doubt as to the validity of the current distribution pattern, with its apparent marked contrast between the Inner Coastal Plain and the Piedmont. It may be accepted that the more lush and varied environments of the former may well have been more attractive to Native American groups, particularly at certain times of the year, but the reasonable certainty that a major Indian Trail (now U.S. Route 206) ran across the Stony Brook drainage in the Piedmont less than a mile south of the project area, and the presence of suitable topographic locations for prehistoric settlement all along the drainage, combine to suggest that more prehistoric sites await identification in this portion of New Jersey. This survey was seen as presenting an opportunity to test this assertion through a systematic examination of a portion of Piedmont landscape.
3-2 CHAPTER 4 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Mountain Lakes project area falls within a large tract of 5,500 acres confirmed to William Penn in 1693 (Greiff et al. 1967:5). In 1701 Penn sold the bulk of this tract to Richard Stockton, who constructed a house on part of the property south of Stockton Street (U.S. Route 206). The area, lying in the Province of East Jersey, was included in Middlesex County until 1709/10 when it was placed within the County of Somerset. Local organization remained less clearly defined until 1745 when the Western Precinct was formed within the County. In 1798 Montgomery Township was established from portions of the Western Precinct. The local governmental configuration took on its present form in 1838 with the creation of both Mercer County and Princeton Township (Snyder 1969:29-30,161,164, 224, 226). The property remained in the Stockton family until late in the 18th century, but by 1806 the project area was part of a 'Farm Plantation' sold for $3,732.33 to Samuel Updike by Jacob Stryker, whose brother Peter had aquired it from the Stocktons in 1796 (Som. Co. Deed D 621). The Updikes remained in possession of the property until the death of Samuel in 1863, at which time it was still clearly a small farm (Mercer Co. Inv. 1492K). By 1840 a house and outbuildings had been erected in the southeastern angle of the property at the corner of Bayard Lane and Mountain Avenue (Figure 4.1). The project area was by this time mostly improved for agriculture, with a number of arable and pasture fields and a woodlot being shown on the survey of that time. No additional structures are shown on maps of 1849 or 1860 (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Between 1863 and 1883 the property passed through a number of hands. In 1868 Charles Hendrickson sold it to William Alien for $6,400 (Mercer Co. Deed 68 606), the boundaries given in the deed corresponding to those appearing in later deeds, including the sale to the Princeton Ice Company in 1906 (see below). The same property was sold in 1871 to Edward Kinney for $6,000 (Mercer Co. Deed 93 262), and Kinney was in residence in 1875 (Figure 4.4). Kinney died intestate in 1883. The value of the property had declined markedly by that time, and after some legal disputes Stephen Margerum was able to acquire it for only $3,800, including 'houses and buildings' (Mercer Co. Deeds 137 492; 137 494). Stephen Margerum (1822-1901) was a member of a prominent and long-established Bucks County family who had moved to the Princeton area and raised a large family. Three of his sons (Stephen, William and James) served together in the 22nd Regiment of New Jersey Volunteers during the Civil War, all returning safely to the Princeton area (Warburton 1987:32-33). It was Stephen Margerum who began the major transformation of the landscape of the project area. On his acquisition of the property it was merely a small, possibly somewhat neglected farm on the edge of Princeton, with a house and outbuildings in its
4-1 *-"••• $$fi#-\ '--' t, . , ^ . A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE Figure 4.1 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Interior Topography, Princeton and Vicinity, New Jersey, Surveyed in 1840. Published 1880. Scale 3 inches = 1 mile approx. Project 4-2 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 4.2 Otley and Keily. Map of Mercer County. 1849. Scale 1 inch = 3,520 feet approx. Project area outlined. 4-3 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 4.3 Lake and Beers. Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and Trenton. 1860. Scale 1 inch = 4,400 feet approx. Project area circled. 4-4 J>.g-tfps ...„„,,,„_,_.,,,,_^w^ ,^.*.. i' . r f"-""• ' -j' V Vl,-**^7 SBS&fSk£*^'lr ••.'-• •'-•••*?£ . I ;-,..£«** '/W- ^^&^ ; ikilJkoTV-+(/! •f^V^a /7\ f • i\ A Ajwwv"6*^ ' \\«'v'*::«->^^ .&¥-^^^:* t* 'i ^ / ^^^^^*^9^^ ,:^l| :; ' ^i^JSW ^W>£*«, A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE, PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 4.4 Everts and Stewart. Combination Atlas Map of Mercer County. 1875. Scale I inch = 3,300 feet. Project Area outlined. 4-5 southeastern corner close to the intersection of Bayard Lane and Mountain Avenue. By 1884, however, Margerum had established the Riverside Ice Company (renamed the Mountain Lakes Ice Company by 1887) and was already selling ice commercially (Margerum Family Papers, Historical Society of Princeton). Stephen died in 1901, and in the division of property specified in his will, his youngest son James inherited the 80-acre 'Hendrickson Farm' property and its now well-established ice business (Mercer Co. Will S 233). James operated the business for only five years, and in 1906 sold it as a going concern to a group of local businessmen for $50,000 (Mercer Co. Deed O 524). This deed provides a wealth of information on the ice industry facilities at that time. Included in the sale were: 'two (2) ponds, one (1) brick house, one (1) double frame house, one (1) eight room ice house with a capacity of at least 9000 tons, three (3) wagon houses, corn crib, barns, horse barn, and five (5) open wagon houses, two (2) hay barns, scale house and scales, cement house, ten (10) horses.... Nine ice wagons, all tools and machinery belonging to the ice business, five (5) markers and ice plows....' Margerum also agreed to 'complete the tower, the boiler house, road and bridge and all other improvements now underway on said property' while the Princeton Ice Company undertook to complete 'the small ice-house which the said Margerum is about to build'. It is clear from this deed not only that the ice business was substantial, but also that James was actively investing in the property at the time of sale. Two photographs in the Margerum Family Papers (Princeton Historical Society 197) show the Lower Dam and associated structures at around this time. What can be deduced to be the earlier of the two photographs (Plate 4.1) is a view to the southeast showing workers on the frozen lower pond. Behind the dam can be seen a large wooden building of at least three conjoined bays. To the right (i.e. west) of this building is a partially complete frame structure from which two ramps descend to the surface of the dam on the pond side. To the left (east) of the large central building is a small shed-like structure. In the second photograph, which is labelled 'Princeton Ice Co 1910' (Plate 4.2), taken looking southwestwards from a point on the spillway at the southeast corner of the pond, the structure west of the large building is now complete. A long ramp extends from a one- storey wooden building set on the dam up to an enclosed area at the top of the frame structure, from where a second, enclosed, ramp descends to the south. On the hill to the west is a large barn. Interpretation of these features can be attempted by reference to general studies of the ice industry (Hill and Hughes 1977). The large building centrally located below the dam on the photographs is almost certainly the eight-room ice house of the 1906 deed. Such buildings could be extremely large, capable of holding up to 40,000 tons of ice, and were constructed with cavity walls which could be packed with insulation material, typically straw. The structures to the west of the ice house were erected for preparing the ice prior to storage and for transporting into the ice house itself. Once the ice was cut on the surface of the pond it was floated towards the shore where it could be manhandled onto ramps or a conveyor. At this point the ice was normally planed to create blocks of consistent dimensions for more efficient storage. It seems probable that Plate 4.1. shows essentially unmechanized ramps and conveyors to the west of the ice house, while Plate 4.2. shows the situation a few years later when a planer has been constructed on the shore, and a mechanized conveyor completed to raise the ice to the 4-6 Plate 4.1. Historic photograph of the area of the Lower Dam. Comparison with Plate 4.2 and correlation with information in the 1906 sale deed suggests that this photograph was taken in about 1906, perhaps the winter of 1906-7. The view is to the east-southeast from the west side of the lower lake. Prominent in the center of view is the frame ice house. To the left is a small building of uncertain function, probably corresponding to Structure 5 identified in the current survey. To the right of the ice house is the partially completed ramp and conveyor structure for taking ice from the lake and into different portions of the ice house. The figures on the ice appear to be preparing to remove snow prior to ice cutting. (Collections of the Historical Society of Princeton) Plate 4.2. Historic photograph of the area of the Lower Dam. Reversed caption reads "Princeton Ice Co. 1910". The view is to the southwest from the east side of the lower lake. From left to right the visible structures are probably the main ice house, the tower and elevators for transporting the ice into the ice house from the planing shed on the edge of the dam. To the right of the planing shed a probable chimney stack is visible, probably the site of the boiler house [Site 7]. The barn [Site 17] can be seen on the skyline. (Collections of the Historical Society of Princeton) 4-8 height of the upper portions of the ice house, from whence it could be directed into different parts of the building. It is tempting to relate the changes between these two photographs to the 'improvements' in progress in 1906. Power for the planer and conveyor would probably be supplied from a coal-fired steam engine for which the 'boiler house' would be required. The barn on the western hillside, while ostensibly a reflection of the earlier agricultural history of the property, is just as likely to be a new construction reflecting the need for large quantities of straw for insulation purposes. It is not shown on any of the maps pre-dating the Margerum ownership. The Princeton Ice Company continued to function for more than 20 years, despite increasing competition from mechanical refrigeration systems from about 1920 onwards. In 1929 the Company sold the 80-acre tract to Edgar Palmer, the later developer of Palmer Square in Princeton (Mercer Co. Deed 650 344). This sale appears to have marked the end of commercial ice production at Mountain Lakes, and the property remained largely abandoned until 1946, when G and T Dudley Clark acquired it, completing the house which lies on the east side of the lakes in the mid-1950s. Although the property was sold for development in 1983, Princeton Township was able to acquire it with the help of the New Jersey Green Acres program in the late 1980s, with the intention of maintaining the Mountain Lakes Preserve as a natural area for public use. 4-9 CHAPTER 5 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS A. Field Methodology The field investigations were primarily directed towards two main aspects of the the history of the project area. Firstly, cultural features associated with the ice industry were to be identified and their significance assessed. Ruined structures located around the lower dam were examined in an attempt to identify their function, date and archaeological integrity. The second issue was related to landscape history prior to 1883, before ice operations began on the property. Landscape elements such as roads, field boundaries and sites of buildings and structures were to be identified and placed in a chronological and cultural-historical context. There was considered to be only slight potential for prehistoric resources in the project area. Despite the plentiful water supply, the topographical setting which characterizes the project area has not as yet produced much evidence of prehistoric activity (see above, Chapter 3). Since the confluence location and much of the valley sides (areas potentially attractive to prehistoric populations) have been flooded due to the dam impoundment, testing for evidence of prehistoric land utilization was concentrated on the relatively dry, upland slopes. Areas currently underwater may however be archaeologically significant and are further discussed in Chapter 6. A combination of surface examination and subsurface testing was employed during the field investigations. A detailed surface inspection of the entire project area was conducted in order to locate and identify cultural landscape elements visible as surface features, and to assess the archaeological potential of the project area as a whole. Observed site locations were documented through written descriptions, photography, and measured sketch plans. Planning entailed the measurement of all key dimensions and orientations, but did not include cross-checking and the taking of diagonal measurements. The plans included in this report should be considered as portrayals of the general disposition and appearance of the sites, but not as exhaustive documentation of the visible remains. This surface examination led to a model for the placement of subsequent subsurface testing, selection being made on the basis of observed site locations, possible prehistoric potential and project impacts. These series of shovel tests were employed to define the presence or absence of subsurface cultural features. Each shovel test was approximately 18 inches square and was excavated down to bedrock or ground water. All soil was sifted through 1/4-inch mesh hardware cloth. Artifacts were bagged according to the strata from which they were recovered and the soil profiles were recorded on pre-printed forms. Field operations were also recorded through photography and in site notebooks. 5-1 B. Surface Examination In this section the observed surface features are described and illustrated where appropriate. Some details of the dams are taken from the 1986 structural report (Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc. 1986). The numbers used are keyed to the overall site plan (Figure 5.1). i). Dams and Related Features 1. Upper Dam (Figure 5.1; Shovel Test 5). The upper dam is approximately 268 feet long and 6.5 feet wide at its crest. The dam has a 1.20-foot thick stone and mortar face on the downstream side, fronting a 3.8-foot wide concrete slab which forms the upper surface. A spillway approximately 175 feet long is centrally located on the dam and is depressed about 1.2 feet below the main dam crest. This spillway begins 80.7 feet from the eastern end of the dam, which was located in Shovel Test 5 (see below). The main body of the dam is believed to be of earthen construction (Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc. 1986:7). Analysis: This dam was reputedly constructed by James Margerum in 1902 to augment the original Lower Dam built by his father (Request for Proposal from Township of Princeton dated 8/28/90). It was certainly in existence in 1906 at the time of sale to the Princeton Ice Company. 2. Spillway (Figure 5.1). A wet ditch with a bank on its western (lake) side, is traceable for approximately 930 feet, commencing just southeast of the eastern end of the Upper Dam and running parallel to the east shore of the lake to a point southeast of the Lower Dam [3], where it appears to have been filled in by the construction of a trail descending the slope from the northeast. It presumably emptied into the stream south of the dam, taking excess water from the upper pond in order to keep the water relatively still in both ponds, an optimal condition for forming ice. The feature is about 20 feet in overall width. Analysis: The spillway must be contemporary with or later than the construction of the Upper Dam of 1902. 3. Lower Dam (Figure 5.1) The lower earth embankment dam is approximately 350 feet long, averaging 30 feet wide and 13 feet high. The crest of the dam is generally overgrown with small trees and brush. A stone and mortar wall approximately 50 feet long is centrally located on the downstream side of the dam. Two flow control pipes project out of the stone wall and into a stone and concrete-lined basin which has an outlet to the south. The northern face of the dam appears to be constructed of (or at least faced with) rip-rap and concrete in the center, but is probably of earthen construction elsewhere (Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc. 1986:7). Analysis: This dam was probably built in 1884 in the early stages of Stephen Margerum's development of the ice industry on the property. 5-2 4. Stone and Concrete Spillway (Figure 5.1). The stone and mortar spillway at the southern end of the lake is approximately 116 feet long and 6 feet wide at its crest. A concrete cap, broken in places, covers the spillway crest At its southern end, the spillway has a seven-foot long concrete abutment where it joins the eastern end of the Lower Dam [3]. Analysis: This structure appears to be integral with the Lower Dam, although the junction of the two has been strengthened. 5. Structure on Lower Dam (Figure 5.1; Shovel Tests 71 and 72). The earthworks of a structure, approximately 16 feet wide and 36 feet long, are located just east of the stone wall on the downstream side of the Lower Dam [3]. A six-foot wide U-shaped earth berm forms a 10 x 24-foot depression which abuts the toe of the earth embankment. Analysis: This earthwork may correspond to the small structure of unknown function visible on the historic photograph of c. 1906 (Plate 4.1). 6. Stone-lined Basin (Figure 5.1). A stone-walled basin approximately 25 feet long, 15 feet wide and 2 feet deep is located at the base of the stone wall in the center of the Lower Dam [3], The basin stands below the two flow control pipes which project through the stone wall of the dam. At its southern end the basin leads to a box culvert directed downstream. Analysis: The date of this feature is unclear, but it was probably constructed in the ice-production era before 1929 rather than later. 7. Concrete and Brick Structures (Figures 5.1 and 5.2; Shovel Tests 68-70). These remains consist of two separate concrete foundations, the southern one having a chimney stack, now largely collapsed, at its northern end. The northern concrete foundation is approximately 13 feet wide and 18 feet long, and consists of poured concrete footings with metal anchor bolts protruding from the upper surfaces. The southern rectangular concrete foundation slab, although not entirely exposed, appears to be 20 feet wide and 30 feet long. Analysis: These two foundations may represent the boiler house and associated machinery for powering the elevator carrying ice up the 'tower' which lay immediately to the east and which is visible on the 1910 photograph (Plate 4.2). 8. Ditch and Bank (Figure 5.1). A ditch with a two-foot high earth berm runs parallel to the western half of the embankment to the stone-lined basin [6]. The ditch begins at a breach or washed-out area of the embankment just north of the concrete and brick structures [7] forming a channel draining towards the basin. Analysis: This feature appears to be an attempt to control water flowing from a wash-out in the western part of the dam. It must post-date the removal of the large ice house and tower structure which existed in this location at least as late as 1910. 5-3 •REACH _„ _—• y v TT\\TT f T7>LOWER DAM I . I CON(CONCRETE FOUNDATION WITH ANCHOR VOLTS 1 • • 9—— 1 BRICK D CHIMNEY CONCRETE SLAB FOUNDATION m 30FT A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 5.2 Measured Sketch Plan of Concrete Foundation and Brick Chimney [Site 7]. CONCRETE PIERS 13 CO • ANCHOR CONCRETE FOUNDATION •OLTS PLATE ^.2 (D I IT) I • " ' * I | • * * * I LlZI £ fLATE 5.1 CONCRETE WALL FOUNDATION ST73 3 OFT A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 5.3 Measured Sketch Survey of Concrete Building Foundations [Site 10] . D CONCRETE PIERS r Q T~l CONCRETE FOUNDATION ST74 T ANCHOR CONCRETE FOUNDATION BOLTS * \ PLATE 5.2 PLATE 5.1 CONCRETE WALL FOUNDATION ST73 0 30FT A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 5.3 Measured Sketch Survey of Concrete Building Foundations [Site 10]. Z.-S 111 ire i UT JO am mojj aqti OOfr [01 f-g 5.2 10]. of of lan IRI 5-8 13. Stone Bridge (Figure 5.1). The north-south trail which runs along the east side of the lower lake crosses the stream south of the Lower Dam by means of a small but finely constructed stone bridge. The bridge has an eight-foot span and is 21 feet wide. A stone revetment extends downstream along the left bank of the stream for approximately 100 feet between this stone bridge and the lower concrete slab bridge (see below). Analysis: This feature, with its traditional and vernacular construction, may pre-date the Margerum period and be a remnant of the preceding industrial landscape. In this context it would have provided access from the farm complex to the south both to meadows in the valley bottom and to the higher ground to the east. 14. Concrete Bridge (Figure 5.1). A concrete slab bridge which crosses the stream is located downstream of the stone and mortar spillway. The concrete deck has a 14-foot span and is 15.7 feet wide, and rests on stone piers. Steel I-beams support the deck. Analysis: Although no certainty is possible, it seems likely that this is the bridge which James Margerum agreed to complete as per the conditions of the 1906 sale deed. This structure afforded access to the main complex of buildings immediately south of the Lower Dam, which Margerum was also improving at that time. 15. Bank (Field Wall) (Figure 5.1; Plate 5.3). A low embankment, averaging 1.5 feet in height and about six feet in overall width, can be traced for about 350 feet along the top of the valley side on the northwest side of the lower lake. Probing of the bank indicated that it was composed of stone rubble. From its location and scale it is most likely to represent a former field boundary. Analysis: With the Stone Bridge [13], this feature may be a landscape feature from the pre-Margerum agricultural period. The field which it partly delineates was almost certainly used for hay production during the ice-production era, but it may be anticipated that field patterns established in the 18th and 19th centuries (such as those presented on the 1840 map reproduced as Figure 4.1) would have been retained rather than replaced after 1883. 16. Quarry (Figure 5.1). A small stone quarry lies on the western side of the lower lake, about 400 feet south of the Upper Dam [1]. 17. Barn Site (Figures 5.1,5.4 and 5.5; Plates 5.4-5.6; Shovel Tests 54-57). The remains of this site lie in open woodland about 300 feet west of the western terminal of the Lower Dam. The extent of the building is delineated by 16 brick support piers, each about two feet high, enclosing an area about 48 feet east-west by 18 feet north-south. The disposition of the piers indicates that the structure was tripartite, with a central bay flanked by two chambers, each 16 by 18 feet in plan. This configuration alone would be sufficient to indicate that this is the site of a frame barn with a central passage way for the through passage of wagons and storage areas on either side. In addition, however, a number of artifacts were present on the surface in and around the building providing further support for its interpretation as a barn and also giving an indication of its date. 5-9 5.3 or 15] of on the of the In lan HRI 5-10 \\ 4 TINE HAY FORK ST56 ST55 /V ST54 \\ METAL 4'X 4 BEAM 4'X 4' BEAM BRACKETS \^ PLATE 5.4 PLATE 5.6 HARPOON • SHOVEL TESTS « ' HAY FORK * SURFACE COLLECTED BOTTLES ST57 ^ BRICK SUPPORT PIERS DOUBLE STEEL h 1AY CARRIER TRACK A ULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE rXINCETON TOWNSHIP,, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY r '.gure 5,4 Measured Sketch Survey of Earn Site, showing Hay Carrie" Track and Harpoon Hayfork [Site 17] Hay Pitching Tools. Hay tools are now so well known that_it is hardly necessary for UB to go into detail in description of them. The goods we sell are made by one of the largest makers of this class of goods, and under an- other name are sold at much more than our prices. We list here a full line and at prices which (quality considered) are below com petition. No. 18328. The Double Harpoon Hay Fork, for general use. Made from best quality iron and ateel. Weight, about 18 Ibs. Price each ...... 6Sc No. 18327. The Long Time Double Harpoon Hay Fork, for loose etraw, etc., made in same quality as above. Distance from crose-bar to end of tines. 82 inches: Weight, 30 Ibs. Price each...... 81.3O No. ls34ti. ±ian jjer Hook, with rafter irons. Per Bet, hook and 1 rafter iron...... lie No. 18348. Onr Swivel Carrier for doable steel track possesses, all the «ood feat u r • s d • - scribed in oar wood track hanger. Guar anteed in every r e • p e c t Weight, about 30 Ibs. Track forms hod i a lengths of 6, 8, 10 or 12 feet. Price for Carrier only...... S3.5* No. 18349. Track for above Carrier, including coop- Imcs and bamner. Per foot...... ~ "* A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE, PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Figure 5.5 Double Harpoon Hayfork (a.) and Swivel Carrier (b.) for Double Steel Track, as advertised in mail order catalog, 1897. Source: Sears, Roebuck 1897:165. 5-12 £l~ f: 'fi8N 111 UT atR • [£| |-g 5.5 17]. for hay In the In 1991. HRI leg. 5-14 5.6 17]. and to HRI leg. 5-1 Lying about 15 feet south of the southern row of piers was a length of steel rail, somewhat bent but about 46 feet long when straightened. Close to the center of the rail was an iron and steel element set on the rail (Plate 5.5). A short distance to the north was a large complex fork-like implement (Plate 5.6). This metal 'harpoon' type hay fork has a U-shape, is approximately 3.25 feet long, 1.50 feet wide, and 0.10 feet thick, and its once moveable parts are now badly rusted together. These features together comprise the remains of a late 19th- and early 20th-century system for the removal of hay from wagons and its transportation into barns. This system was widely available and was advertised in catalogs of the time (Figure 5.5; Sears, Roebuck 1897:165). Although detailed accounts of the operation of this system have not been located, it was clearly well understood in the period around 1900. It can be deduced that the hay carrier track was installed inside the building, probably along the ridge. The swivel carrier moved freely along the carrier track, and could be pulled in either direction by means of ropes. The harpoon hayfork was suspended from beneath the carrier by means of the same rope used to pull the carrier laterally. When tension on the rope was released, the jaws on the hayfork would open and it would fall downwards onto the haycart below. Once a bale or mass of hay had been placed between the jaws, the rope would be tightened, closing the jaws and then lifting the hayfork and its pay load upwards. Once the hayfork had reached the height of the swivel carrier, the upward movement would change to a lateral one, with the carrier and hayfork moving along the track for the desired distance before being released. Analysis: This structure appears on the 1910 photograph of the area of the Lower Dam (Plate 4.2) as a tall frame structure with vertical exterior clapboards. It was probably constructed in the late 19th century to store hay used for insulating the ice houses. Its use of labor-saving, mass-produced, hay-shifting machinery indicates an interest in efficient farming methods and capital investment at this time. C. Subsurface Testing A total of 80 subsurface tests were excavated during the course of these investigations (Figure 5.1; Appendix A). These tests were excavated to document soil profiles as well as to locate any historic or prehistoric cultural materials in the project area. Historic artifacts were recovered from 13 shovel tests. These materials consisted primarily of ceramics and glass, the majority ascribable to the second half of the 19th century or later, although on fragment of pearlware from Shovel Test 6 should be dated somewhat earlier. No evidence of prehistoric activity, either in the form of artifacts or buried features, was encountered. Shovel Tests 1 through 4, 6, and 75 through 80 were excavated in the upland area east of the lake at 50-foot and 100-foot intervals. The soil sequence in this area appears to be relatively consistent, with a clay loam overlying a clayier subsoil containing more shale stone. Only two tests yielded historic artifacts. All of the cultural material was recovered from the topsoil and no subsurface features were identified. 5-16 Shovel Test 5 was placed just east of the Upper Dam [1] in an attempt to locate the end of the dam which is now below grade. The eastern edge of the concrete dam was found in this test 0.85 feet below the surface and 80.7 feet from the stone step-down to the present spillway on the dam crest. Overlying the concrete was a clay loam with some stone containing brick, animal bone and a whiteware sherd. There was no structural data which could be related to a sluice or channel for the spillway [2] down the east side of the lake. This feature must, however, have had an outlet from above the Upper Dam at this point. Shovel Tests 7 through 53 and 58 through 67 were located in the upland area west of the lake and excavated on a grid using a 100-foot spacing. These all contained similar soil profiles consisting of a shallow clay loam overlying a subsoil with a higher clay and shale content. Only six shovel tests contained artifacts. Otherwise no features or structures were encountered. Shovel Tests 54 through 57 were placed around the barn site [17] located in this upland area (Figure 5.4). Shovel Tests 54,55, and 56, all located inside the area of the brick foundation piers, had soil profiles similar to the other tests in the area. No cultural material or features were encountered. Shovel Test 57, located 3.5 feet south of the barn site, uncovered a large, mechanical hay fork approximately 0.20 feet below the surface which was subsequently completely uncovered (see above). Shovel Tests 68 through 70 were located around the concrete and brick structures [7] along the southwestern edge of the Lower Dam (Figure 5.2). Shovel Test 68, placed inside the concrete foundation, contained a thin clay loam containing window glass and wire nails. Underlying this layer was an extremely compact clayier soil which was culturally sterile. Shovel Test 69, located just to the south of the concrete foundation, contained a deposit of coal and coal ash in a clay loam overlying a culturally sterile clay loam with shale stone. This coal deposit, almost one foot deep, also contained window and vessel glass and building materials. Shovel Test 70 was located next to the fallen brick chimney. Shovel Tests 71 and 72 were located at the structure [5] on the Lower Dam. Shovel Test 71 was located inside the structure and contained a clay loam. One small piece of flat glass was found near the surface and discarded in the field. Shovel Test 72 contained a clay loam overlying a clayier subsoil, no cultural material was recovered. Shovel Tests 73 and 74 were located around the concrete foundations [10] south of the Lower Dam. Both tests contained extremely mixed strata with historic material found down to a depth of approximately one foot below the surface in both tests. This subsurface testing program did not add substantially to the data already obtained from historical research and surface inspection and mapping. No concentrations of prehistoric or historic activity were identified by testing, and subsurface investigations around identified structures provided only limited additional information. There was no indication that any substantial activity had taken place in the area before the late 19th century. Large amounts of artifactual material do not appear to be present on the site, which accords well with its primary historic use for ice production. 5-17 CHAPTER 6 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE, ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Preliminary Evaluation of Significance This cultural resource survey has examined a portion of the Mountain Lakes Preserve, the boundaries of which remain as they were in 1806, if not earlier. This compact and topographically coherent piece of landscape has gone through three major phases of use in the historic period. Until 1883 it was used as a small farm, the main farm buildings apparently being located at the southern end of the property. From the 1880s until the 1920s the landscape was transformed by the ice industry developed by the Margerums and the Princeton Ice Company. The major features surviving from this phase are the ice dams, but several additional features which can be definitely related to this phase have been noted during the current survey. From the 1920s the pattern of land use can be characterized as benign neglect for the most part: many of the ice industry features were removed or fell into ruin, and formerly open land has returned to woodland. A fourth landscape phase of managed recreational use is now commencing, with the repair of the two main dams forming an important early stage in this process. Prehistoric landscape usage is undocumented at this point. It has been suggested (see above, Chapter 3) that prehistoric resources are most likely to be identified at the confluence of the main stream and the small dammed tributary at the northern end of the upper lake. If there is a prehistoric site in this location, much of it is currently inundated. This could have had a beneficial effect on the resource by promoting the preservation of organic materials (wood, vegetal and faunal remains) associated with this hypothesized occupation. The extent of survival of any such resources will, however, be dependent on the degree to which the landscape was modified during the initial creation of the ice pond, and also on the amount of subsequent dredging and disturbance which has taken place. If a prehistoric site does survive in this location it is almost certain to meet Criterion D for eligibility for the National and State Registers, since it will be likely to yield information important for the poorly-documented prehistory of this portion of the New Jersey Piedmont. The remainder of the project area and the Preserve as a whole appear on present evidence to be unlikely to produce evidence for prehistoric activity, although the discussion of site distributions presented in Chapter 3 should be kept in mind here. Of the phases of this landscape's history - postulated prehistoric occupation; early historic farming; ice industry; and benign neglect - only the landscape of ice production can presently be considered significant. Prehistoric materials, if identified in future surveys, will also require evaluation, but nothing further can be concluded about such resources at present. The early fanning landscape is represented within the project area only by the Preserve boundaries and possibly by the stone bank and field wall [Site 17] on the west side of the lake and the Stone Bridge [13] to the east. Archaeological resources relating to the farmhouse and associated farm buildings, which appear to have lain in the extreme southern part of the Preserve close to Mountain Avenue, may be identified if this area is subject to a detailed survey, but this would not of itself afford significance to the whole property. 6-1 Almost all of the cultural features recorded in this survey, with the probable exceptions of Sites 11 (utility line), 12 (quarried area) and 8 and 9 (ditches) can be related to the ice industry landscape of 1883 to c. 1929. Most of the features were probably constructed or at least commenced during the Margerum ownership, as can be deduced from details in the 1906 deed and from the historic photographs. The concentration of structures along the southern side of the lower dam, and the barn to the west, were apparently reaching their final form about 1906, although there may have been later modifications during the Princeton Ice Company ownership, including perhaps the construction of Site 10 some distance south of the dam. A number of features mentioned in the 1906 deed cannot at this point be physically identified on the ground, although they may lie on portions of the Preserve not examined in this survey. These include two houses (probably lying to the south), seven wagon houses, a second hay barn, a corn crib, a cement house, and the 'small ice house'. The location of the larger ice house can be deduced from the historic photographs, although physical remains of the structure have not been identified. In evaluating the significance of these features a number of factors need to be considered. The ice industry period at Mountain Lakes (c. 1880-1930) falls into the Immigration and Agricultural, Industrial, Commercial and Urban Expansion, 1850-1920 historic context developed by the State of New Jersey. Within this context the ice industry may be seen as a reflection of rising material expectations and standard of living among an increasingly urbanized population. Commercial ice production of the type seen at Mountain Lakes was viable only where there was either an efficient transportation network or a nearby concentration of population and industry to provide the market. Ice was produced not just for domestic consumption, but also played an important role in dairying, meat packing and brewing. By the 1880s, however, mechanical refrigeration systems were being increasingly employed in industrial concerns (Hill and Hughes 1977:4,7). Given the character of the Princeton community, and the documentary evidence located in this study, it appears that the Mountain Lakes Ice Company, and probably the succeeding Princeton Ice Company, concentrated on the domestic market (Historical Society of Princeton: Margerum Family Collection [197]; handbills recording orders to domestic users in 1884 and 1887). Details of the labor force used for the cutting and processing of the ice are not available, but Mountain Lakes was well located to take advantage of seasonally plentiful labor and horse teams from the adjacent farms, as seems to have been the case elsewhere (Hill and Hughes 1977:9). This was essentially a rural-based industry, probably using local, rather than immigrant, labor, serving an urban and suburban market. The Mountain Lakes/Princeton Ice Company complex can therefore be viewed as an example of an industrial enterprise which occupied a particular niche in the latter part of the 1850-1920 period: catering to the needs and aspirations of increasingly affluent urban households in the period when technological developments had made the large scale industrial and commercial use of ice uncompetitive, but before small domestic refrigeration systems were available to the middle class domestic market. Individually, most of the identified elements lack distinction. The most visually impressive and structurally most informative features are undoubtedly the dams. These will retain important structural and technological information about late 19th century dam construction (Leffel 1881; Hunter Research, Inc. 1991) and can therefore be regarded as significant under Criterion D. The remaining elements have only limited significance under this criterion. Structures 5,7 and 10 and the Barn Site [17] are represented by 6-2 the bare foundations of complex frame structures which contained machinery materials or equipment for the ice industry. In their present state they provide only limited information about the functioning of that industry, although the data recovered from the Barn Site has certainly thrown useful light on one aspect of the operation (see above, Chapter 5). Testing around these structures has demonstrated that only very limited stratigraphic and artifactual data can be anticipated from them. Taken as a group, however, these elements can be viewed as comprising a significant historic landscape worthy of preservation and management because of its historical asociations with a locally significant family, its local importance for the Princeton area in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and because it can stand as a representative example of a once-common rural industry. The U.S. Department of the Interior (1990) has developed guidelines and a methodology for the evaluation and documentation of rural historic landscapes which have been used in this assessment. A rural historic landscape is defined as: 'a geographical area that historically has been used by people, or shaped by or modified by human activity, occupancy or intervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural features' (U.S. Department of the Interior 1990:1-2). The Mountain Lakes Preserve is considered to be an example of a locally significant rural industrial landscape of this kind. It is viewed as potentially significant under Criterion B because of its association with the Margerum family, locally prominent in the Princeton area and in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, and the subject of recent detailed genealogical research (Warburton 1987). However, greater weight should be given to eligibility under Criterion C, since this association of elements does appear to 'represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.' The Mountain Lakes landscape is dominated by the physical features and structures created by the requirements of commercial ice production in this rural setting, immediately adjacent to the small but affluent and influential university community of Princeton. Although the individual remains are not imposing, and the ice industry here was probably typical of such enterprises in the northeastern United States around 1900, the site is considered to be sufficiently distinctive and coherent to be eligible under this criterion alone. Eligibility under Criterion D as been discussed briefly above. Most of the elements of the site are not considered to meet this criterion, the main exceptions being the two dams, which are likely to contain much detailed information on the technology of dam construction in the late 19th century. Overall, therefore, it is felt that the portion of the Mountain Lakes Preserve examined in this survey is eligible for the the State and National Registers of Historic Places as a Rural Historic Landscape. Formal preparation of nomination documentation should probably be deferred until the remainder of the preserve, whose current legal boundaries correspond both with that of the ice companies' property and with those of the preceding farm landscape, have been surveyed to the same level of detail. 6-3 B. Assessment of Impact At the present time the extent of the rehabilitation work which will be needed to stabilize the dams is unclear. Actions currently under consideration for the Lower Dam include regrading the upstream and downstream slopes and replacing the spillway structure, repairing or replacing the low-level outlet stucture in the center of the Lower Dam, and raising the crest of the dam by up to four feet (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1985; Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc. 1986). On the upper dam, masonry repair and concrete capping of the dam and renovation of the outlet system is also envisaged. These operations will almost certainly require the draining and dredging of the lakes. The major direct adverse impacts of these stabilization measures will clearly be on the dams themselves. However, it is clear that engineering operations on the southern dam could also damage the features on its southern side (sites 5 through 9). Some of these impacts may be unavoidable because of the engineering requirements of the stabilization measures, others may be avoidable with prior planning of on site procedures to avoid particular areas. The need to create or improve access routes for vehicles and equipment may also have an adverse impact on some sites, and these procedures should also be designed to avoid cultural resources wherever possible. It is understood that extensive rehabilitation of the dams may call for large amounts of fill material which could be obtained through quarrying within the Preserve itself. While it would be possible to identify areas within the Preserve where this would have no adverse effect on known resources, the visual impact of this activity would be considerable in both the short and longer term. It is felt that off-site materials should be used if possible for this purpose. The partial or total drainage and dredging of the lakes will also have potential adverse effects. Two potential impacts can be identified. The lake sediments may contain examples of ice harvesting equipment such as saws, snow harvesters and scrapers, spud bars and other items lost through the ice during harvesting operations. It would be important to retrieve such items and ensure their preservation or permanent record. The second impact concerns the potential for prehistoric remains at the northern end of the upper lake. This resource would be affected only if dredging operations were taken below the bottom of the lake as originally excavated in the 1880s. It may, however, be difficult to identify the original bottom during dredging without some initial evaluation of conditions in this area. C. Recommendations General Recommendations 1. The Mountain Lakes Preserve is a Rural Historic Landscape and should be considered as potentially eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places as a Historic District. 6-4 2. While it would be possible to prepare National Register Documentation for the property on the basis of the present survey, it would be preferable to subject the remainder of the Preserve to a similar level of survey with a view to identifying and documenting other elements of the ice industry and those of earlier and later periods. Following this, the eligibility of the property as a whole should be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer and, if appropriate, National and State Register Nomination forms should be prepared for the proposed District. 3. Proposals for the rehabilitation of the dams and ponds should include procedures for mitigation of adverse effects on elements of the proposed Historic District. Such measures should include avoidance of known features where possible and adequate documentation of features which will be disturbed or destroyed by essential engineering operations. 4. Future planning for public recreational use of the Preserve should include an interpretive mamagement plan for the ice industry. Such a plan could include development of trails linking some of the features, unobtrusive signage, and brochures. Future planning should also address a site management regime to ensure that the sites do not deteriorate from human or natural agencies. Specific Recommendations 1. The Dams and Stone Spillway [Sites 1,3 and 4]. Rehabilitation of these important features will inevitably uncover and partially disturb structural features. It is considered essential that archaeological documentation of the rehabilitation form an integral part of the rehabilitation process. Archaeological documentation of the demolition of the much larger Union Lake Dam at Millville, Cumberland County, New Jersey (Hunter Research 1991) provides an example of the types of information that can be recovered during this type of operation. At Union Lake, an archaeologist experienced in water-power systems and dam construction was on site during critical periods of the demolition. On-site agreement between the main contractor, the client and the archaeological company ensured that authorities, responsibilities and procedures were fully understood by all parties, thus ensuring that the recording was fully coordinated with the demolition. It is important to include specifications for the archaeological work in the main contract documents so that the main contractor is fully aware of the archaeological aspects of the work at the earliest stage. 2. The Lakes. Dredging of the lakes should also be accompanied by archaeological monitoring designed to salvage important artifacts (chiefly relating to the ice industry) from the dredged materials, and to ensure that the potential for prehistoric resources at the northern end of the upper lake is addressed that the significance of any identified resources is assessed. The main objective in the latter case will be to avoid disturbance of the original confluence area at the northern end of the upper lake from the dredging operations. A limited program of subsurface testing should be undertaken after the lakes have been drained, but prior to the commencement of dredging, in order to provide data on the postulated prehistoric resources here. 6-5 3. Features south of the Lower Dam (Sites 5 through 9, and site of the Ice House). These features are probably the most vulnerable to disturbance during the rehabilitation. The first option should be to avoid the features if at all possible. If the engineering requirements are such that disturbance is inevitable then the following actions are recommended: Site 5 (Scale House?). This feature should be archaeologically investigated to determine its character and function. Site 6 (Stone Basin). This should be measured and photographed to standards laid down by the Historic American Buildings Survey, and its removal monitored archaeologically. Site 7 (Boiler House?). This should be measured and photographed to standards laid down by the Historic American Buildings Survey, and its removal monitored archaeologically. Site 8 (Ditch and Bank). No action. Site 9 (Ditch). No action. Site of Ice House. This area should be further evaluated to establish whether any significant remains of the building foundations survive. This is considered unlikely, but if it proved to be the case a data recovery plan would need to be devised to fully record the site before its destruction. 4. Bridges (Sites 13 and 14). Care must be taken to avoid damage to these two features. The stone bridge (13) is probably the older of the two and may pre-date the Margerum purchase. Site 14 is likely to be the bridge mentioned as under construction in 1906. Recording to HABS standards would be required if they were to be removed or modified. 5. Other Ice Industry Features (Spillway [Site 2], Concrete Foundation [Site 10], Bank/Field Wall [Site 15], Quarry [Site 16], Barn Site [Site 17]). These features should be flagged and avoided during rehabilitation work to the dams. 6. Other Features (Utility Line [Site 11] and Quarried Area [Site 12]. No action necessary. 6-6 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE TESTING APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE TESTING: SHOVEL TESTS ST Esc. Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 1 0.65' 0-0.35' silty clay 10YR 3/2 0.35-0.65' clayey silt 10YR 3/4 0.65' ground water impasse 2 1.40' 0-0.40' silty clay 7. SYR 3/4 0.40-1.40' clayey silt 7. SYR 4/2 1.40' ground water impasse 3 1.30' 0-0.40' clayey silt 7. SYR 3/4 0.40-1.30' clayey silt 7. SYR 4/2 1.30' ground water impasse 4 1.30' 0-0.40' silty clay 7. SYR 3/4 0.40-1.30' clayey silt 7. SYR 4/2 1.30' ground water impasse 5 0.85' 0-0.25' root mat 7. SYR 3/2 bldg. materials* 0.25-0.85' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 ceramics; bldg. materials; fauna 0.85' concrete southeast corner of upper dam 6 1.30' 0-0.25 root mat 7. SYR 3/2 ceramics 0.25-1.30' clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 1.30' stone impasse 7 1.30' 0-1.10' clay loam 10YR 4/2 ceramics 1.10-1.30' clay loam w/ stones 10YR 4/2 1.30' stone impasse 8 2.00' 0-0.55' clay loam 10YR 4/2 0.55-1.75' loamy clay 10YR 4/4 1.75-2.00' mottled loamy clay 10YR 4/1,4/4 2.00' stone impasse 9 1.65' 0-0.40' clay loam 10YR 4/2 0.40-1.65' loamy clay 10YR 4/4 1.65' stone impasse 10 1.30' 0-0.55' clay loam 10YR 3/2 0.55-1.30' loamy clay 10YR 4/3 1.30' stone impasse * discarded in field A-l APPENDIX A., Cont. ST Esc. Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 11 1.30' 0-0.50' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 0.50-1.30' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 5/4 1.30' stone impasse 12 1.80' 0-0.30' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 0.30-1.40' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 1.40-1.80' mottled loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2,5/6 1.80' stone impasse 13 1.40' 0-0.90' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 glass*; fuel/waste* 0.90-1.40' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 1.40' stone impasse 14 1.20' 0-1.20' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 bldg. materials* 1.20' stone impasse 15 1.10' 0-0.60' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 0.60-1.10' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 1.10' stone impasse 16 1.30' 0-0.60' loam 7. SYR 3/2 glass* 0.60-1,30' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 1.30' stone impasse 17 1.30' 0-1.30' loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 1.30' stone impasse 18 1.30' 0-1.30' loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 1.30' stone impasse 19 1.50' 0-0.50' loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.50-0.90' clay loam 7. SYR 3/4 0.90-1.50' clay loam 7. SYR 4/6 1.50' stone impasse 20 1.30' 0-0.70' loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.70-1.30' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 1.30' stone impasse 21 1.05' 0-1.05' loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 1.05' stone impasse * discarded in field A-2 APPENDIX A., Cont. ST Exc. Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 22 1.10' 0-0.50' loam 7. SYR 3/2 - 0.50-1.10' loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 1.10' stone impasse 23 1.00 0-1.00' loam w/ rocks 7. SYR 3/2 - LOO' stone impasse 24 1.60' 0-0.90' loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.90-1.60' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.60' stone impasse 25 1.10' 0-1.10' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 fuel/waste* 1.10' stone impasse 26 1.40' 0-0.60' loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.60-1.40' clay loam 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.40' root impasse 27 1.40' 0-1.40' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.40' stone impasse 28 1.60' 0-0.60' loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.60-1.60' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.60' stone impasse 29 1.20' 0-0.50' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 0.50-1.20' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.20' ground water impasse 30 1.50' 0-0.60' clay loam 10YR 3/2 0.60-1.50' loamy clay w/ stone 10YR 4/3 - 1.50' stone impasse 31 1.60' 0-0.60' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 0.60-1.60' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/2 - 1.60' stone impasse 32 1.30' 0-1.30' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 - 1.30' ground water impasse 33 1.30' 0-0.60' clay loam 10YR 3/6 ~ 0.60-1.30' silty clay loam 10YR 4/4 1.30' stone impasse * discarded in field A-3 APPENDIX A., Cent. ST Exc. Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 34 1.40' 0-0.70' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 - 0.70-1.40' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 1.40' ground water impasse 35 1.50' 0-0.50' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.50-1.50' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.50' stone impasse 36 1.50' 0-0.60' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/2 ceramics 0.60-1.50' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 1.50' ground water impasse 37 1.60' 0-0.40' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.40-1.10' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.10-1.60' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 1.60' stone impasse 38 1.20' 0-1.20' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.20' stone impasse 39 1.10' 0-1.10' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/2 - 1.10' stone impasse 40 1.50' 0-0.90' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 fuel/waste* 0.90-1.50' loamy clay w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 4/2 1.50' stone impasse 41 1.10' 0-0.40' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 0.40-1.10' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/4 1.10' stone impasse 42 1.10' 0-0.70' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.70-1.10' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.10' stone impasse 43 1.00' 0-0.50' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 0.50-1.00' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/3 - 1.00' stone impasse 44 1.00' 0-1.00' clay loam w/ stones 10YR 3/2 - 1.00' stone impasse 45 1.20' 0-1.20' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 - 1.20' stone impasse * discarded in field A-4 APPENDIX A., Cont. ST Ezc, Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 46 1.90' 0-1.10' clay loam 7, SYR 3/2 fuel/waste* 1.10-1.90' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 1.90' stone impasse 47 1.70' 0-1.20' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 1.20-1.70' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 : 1.70' stone impasse 48 1.60' 0-0.70' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.70-1.60' loamy clay w/ stone 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.60' stone impasse 49 1.30' 0-0.60' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.60-1.30' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.30' stone impasse 50 1.40' 0-0.70' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.70-1.40' loamy clay 7. SYR. 4/2 - 1.40' stone impasse 51 1.50' 0-1.50' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 - 1.50' stone impasse 52 1.60' 0-0.50' clay loam 10YR 3/2 0.50-1.60-' loamy clay 10YR 4/3 - 53 1.30' 0-0.60' clay loam 10YR 3/2 - 0.60-1.30' loamy clay 10YR 4/3 54 1.60' 0-1.00' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 fuel/waste* 1.00-1.60' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 1.60' ground water impasse 55 1.50' 0-0.40' loamy clay 10YR 3/3 0.40-1.00' loamy clay 10YR 3/4 1.00-1.50' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.50' ground water impasse 56 1.60' 0-0.80' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 - 0.80-1.60' silty clay 10YR 5/4 57 0-0.20' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 0.20' hay fork impasse * discarded in field A-5 APPENDIX A., Cont. ST Exc. Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 58 1.50' 0-0.40' clay loam 10YR 4/3 glass 0.40-0.80' loamy clay 10YR 4/4 0.80-1.50' silty clay 10YR 4/6 1.50' stone impasse 59 1.40' 0-0.40' clay loam 10YR 3/2 glass* 0.40-1.00' loamy clay 10YR 4/4 1.00-1.40' silty clay 10YR 5/4 1.40' root impasse 60 1.30' 0-0.70' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 metal* 0.70-1.30' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 61 1.40' 0-0.70' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 ceramics 0.70-1.40' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 62 1.40' 0-0.70' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 0.70-1.40' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 63 1.10' 0-0.60' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.60-1.10' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 1.10' stone impasse 64 1.30' 0-0.70' clay loam 7. SYR 4/2 ceramics* 0.70-1.30' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 1.30' stone impasse 65 1.60' 0-0.80' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 glass 0.80-1.60' loamy clay w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 4/2 1.60' stone impasse 66 1.60' 0-0.80' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 0.80-1.60' loamy clay w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/4 1.60' stone impasse 67 1.30' 0-0.80' clay loam w/ angular gravel 7. SYR 3/2 ceramics 0.80-1.30' loamy clay 7. SYR 4/2 1.30' stone impasse 68 0.80' 0-0.30' clay loam w/ coal 10YR 3/2 glass; bldg. materials - 0.30-0.80' compact loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 stone impasse * discarded in field A-6 APPENDIX A., Cont. SI Exc. Depth Layer Soil Description Munsell Color Cultural Materials 69 1.50' 0-0.90' clay loam w/ coal and coal ash 7.5YR 2/0 glass; bldg. materials 0.90-1.50' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 4/2 - 1.50' stone impasse 70 1.10' 0-1.10' clay loam w/ coal 7. SYR 4/2 glass* 1.10' root impasse 71 1.40' 0-1.40' clay loam 10YR 4/2 glass* 72 1.50' 0-0.60' clay loam w/ stones 10YR 3/2 0.60-1.50' loamy clay 10YR 4/3 - 73 1.40' 0-0.30' clay loam w/ coal and brick 10YR 3/1 ceramics; glass bldg. materials; fauna 0.30-1.00' loamy clay w/ some coal 7. SYR 3/4 ceramics; glass 1.00-1.15' loamy clay SYR 5/3 - 1.15-1.40' loamy clay 7. SYR 3/4 74 1.70' 0-0.60' clay loam w/ coal ash 10YR 3/1 glass*; fuel/waste* 0.60-1.70' clay loam w/ coal ash 10YR 5/4 fuel/waste* 75 0.70' 0-0.20' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 0.20-0.70' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 : 0.70' stone impasse 76 1.20' 0-1.20' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.20' stone impasse 77 1.40' 0-0.80' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 0.80-1.40' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 5/4 - 78 1.00' 0-0.60' clay loam w/ stones 7. SYR 3/2 0.60-1.00' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 - 1.00' stone impasse 79 1.30' 0-0.80' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 glass 0.80-1.30' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 1.30' stone impasse 80 0.80' 0-0.50' clay loam 7. SYR 3/2 - 0.50-0.80' loamy clay w/ stones 7. SYR 3/4 0.80' stone impasse * discarded in field A-7 APPENDIX B ARTIFACT INVENTORY APPENDIX B. ARTIFACT INVENTORY SHOVEL TEST 5, LEVEL 2: CERAMICS - Ironstone - 1 plate rim sherd, underrated BUILDING MATERIALS - Brick - 1 red brick fragment, (5 grams)* FAUNA - Mammal - 1 large mammal rib bone fragment, species unidentified SHOVEL TEST 6, LEVEL 1: CERAMICS - Pearlware - 1 sherd, undecorated SHOVEL TEST 7, LEVEL 1: CERAMICS - Ironstone - 1 sherd, undecorated SHOVEL TEST 36, LEVEL 1: CERAMICS - Ironstone - 1 sherd, undecorated SHOVEL TEST 58, LEVEL 1: GLASS - Vessel - 2 bottle/jar base/body fragments, clear, molded vertical rib decoration SHOVEL TEST 61, LEVEL 1: CERAMICS - Semi- - Porcelain - 1 plate rim/body sherd, undecorated, 9" diameter SHOVEL TEST 65, LEVEL 1: GLASS - Vessel - 8 fragments, clear SHOVEL TEST 67, LEVEL 1: CERAMICS - Whiteware - 1 sherd, interior underglaze transfer printed brown decoration * discarded in laboratory B-l APPENDIX B., Cont. SHOVEL TEST 68, LEVEL 1: GLASS - Flat - 1 window light fragment, pale aqua - Vessel - 1 curved fragment, clear; 1 curved fragment, pale aqua; - 1 curved fragment, pale aqua, thermally altered BUILDING MATERIALS - Iron - 4 nail fragments, wire*; 1 nail, wire* SHOVEL TEST 69, LEVEL 1: GLASS - Flat - 1 window light fragment, pale aqua - Vessel - 1 curved bottle fragment, clear, exhibits partial embossed lettering "...BO...", "...RI. BUILDING MATERIALS - Brick - 1 red brick fragment, (6 grans}* - Iron - 1 nail fragment, wire*; 1 nail fragment, cut with machine formed head SHOVEL TEST 73, LEVEL 1: CERAMICS - Whiteware - 1 sherd, uundecorated - Ironstone - 4 sherds, undecorated; 1 rim sherd, undecorated GLASS - Flat - 1 window light fragment, pale aqua - Vessel - 1 curved bottle/jar fragment, pale grey; 1 curved fragment, pale aqua, thermally altered BULILDING MATERIALS - Iron - 1 nail fragment, wire*; 1 nail, wire* FAUNA - Shell - 2 oyster shell fragments, (21 grams)* SHOVEL TEST 73, LEVEL 2: CERAMICS - Whiteware - 1 sherd,undecorated - Ironstone - 1 sherd, undecorated GLASS - Vessel - 1 curved fragment, light amber SHOVEL TEST 79, LEVEL 1: GLASS - Vessel - 1 bottle neck/shoulder fragment, pale aqua, blown * discarded in laboratory B-2 APPENDIX B., Cont. SURFACE COLLECTION: GLASSS - Vessel - 1 bottle base/body fragment, pale violet, cylindrical, mold manufacture, exhibits embossed horizontal letters "REGISTERED", above letters "B. S. FEATHERSTONE", "BOTTLER", "PRINCETON, N.J." with letters "THIS BOTTLE NOT TO BE SOLD" directly below, diameter 2 5/8"; 2 bottle base/body fragments, pale aqua, square body with chamfered corners, exhibits Owens suction scar, probably medicinal bitters vessel, body width 3"x 3", two mend as one; 1 bottle fragment, full profile, olive green, turn mold manufacture, cylindrical with tapered neck, hand applied flat string rim closure, exhibits push up base * discarded in laboratory B-3 APPENDIX C OFFICE OF NEW JERSEY HERITAGE BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABSTRACT APPENDIX C OFFICE OF NEW JERSEY HERITAGE BIBLIOGRAPHIC ABSTRACT Hunter Research, Inc. A Cultural Resource Survey at the Mountain Lakes Preserve, Princeton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey (May 1991) Location: Princeton Township, Mercer County Drainage: Stony Brook USGS Quad: Princeton Project: Proposed rehabilitation of dams at Mountain Lakes Preserve Level of Survey: Phase 1 Cultural Resources: Late 19th and 20th century ice industry features: dams, ponds, spillway, remains of structures; Late 19th century hay barn foundations probably associated with hay production for insulating ice-houses. C-l APPENDIX D RESUMES HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. , no IAN C.G. BURROW Tel.Trenton, 609/695-0122 NJ 08611 Vice„, President/Principal_ , , ^ ,_ , , , Archaeologist,, , -, , ^ Ph.D„. rs Education Ph.D, History and Archaeology, University of Birmingham, England, 1979 B.A., History and Archaeology, University of Exeter, England, 1971. Experience 1988- Principal Archaeologist, Hunter Research, Inc., Trenton, N.J. Managerial and technical responsibilities for all aspects of archaeological and cultural resource projects. Participation in: - Project management, costing and scheduling - Proposal preparation and client negotiation - Hiring and supervision of personnel - Supervision of research, fieldwork, analysis and report preparation 1986-1988 Director, Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford, England Principal in charge of archaeological projects. Responsibilities included: - Overall management of organization - Project design and cost analysis - Survey, excavation, analysis and reports - Public education, fund raising and public relations - Implementation of computerized finance system - Recruitment and supervision of personnel 1986-1988 Associate Staff Tutor, Department of External Studies, University of Oxford, England Provided: - Aid to Staff Tutor in Archaeology in planning, organizing and teaching courses - Administration of Oxford University Archaeology In-Service Training Program - Design and teaching of courses for summer schools run jointly by the University of Oxford and U.S. universities and institutions - Teaching within adult education program D-l 1979-1986 County Archaeologist, Somerset County Council, England Responsibilites for public archaeology in a county of 1500 square - miles containing c.10,000 sites included: - Survey, excavation, analysis and reports - Project planning, budgeting and scheduling - Recruitment and supervision of personnel - Promotion of public interest in local archaeology and historic preservation 1975-1979 Archaeological Field Officer, Shropshire County Council, England Designed and compiled comprehensive archaeological data base for use in historic preservation and planing. 1974-1986 Adult Education Tutor, Universities of Birmingham and Bristol, England Designed, prepared and taught numerous courses on historic and prehistoric archaeology. Selected Publications "Contracting Archaeology? Cultural Resurce Management in New Jersey, U.S.A." (with Richard Hunter). The Field Archaeologist (Journal of the Institute of Field Archaeologists) 12, March 1990, 194-200. "Excavations at 5-8 Fore Street, Taunton 1979." Somerset Archaeological and Natural History 132 (1988), 95-164. Oxford the Buried City. Co-editor, Oxford Archaeological Unit, 1987 "Hillforts and the Iron Age." In The Archaeology of Avon, ed. M. Aston and R. lies, Avon County Council, 41-51, 1987. "Conservation Archaeology and Planning" (with D. Baker). The Planner. February 1986. County Archaeological Records: Progress and Potential. Editor and contributor. Association of County Archaeological Officers. 1985 "Hillfort and Hilltop Settlement, 1000 B.C.- 1000 A.D." In The Archaeology of Somerset: A New Review to A.D. 1500, ed. I.C.G. Burrow and M. Aston, Somerset County Council, 82-97, 1982. "Hill-forts after the Iron Age: The Relevance of Surface Fieldwork." In Hill-fort Studies: Essays Presented to A.H.A. Hogg, ed. G. Guilbert, Leicester University Press, 122-149, 1981. D-2 "Roman Material from Hillforts." In The End of Roman Britain, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 11, 212-229, 1979. "Air Photography and Shropshire Archaeology." Aerial Archaeology 2: 64-68, 1978. "The Town Defences of Exeter." Transactions of the Devonshire Association 109: 13-40, 1977. Editor of and frequent contributor to the journal Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, 1979-1986; frequent contributor to the journal Popular Archaeology, 1980-1983. Professional Affiliations Society for Historical Archaeology Archaeological Society of New Jersey Institute of Field Archaeologists, Contract Archaeology Steering Committee (Invited Member) Association of County Archaeological Officers (Chairman 1984-1986) Council for British Archaeology (Member of Executive Board, 1985-88; Invited Member on Working Party on Public Attitudes to Archaeology, 1981-1983; Chairman for Southwest England Regional Group, 1980-1985) Awards Elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London Elected Founder Member of Institute of Field Archaeologists Colt Fund Award (from Society of Medieval Archaeology) Maltwood Fund Award (from the Royal Society of Arts) D-3 MIINTPD Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. 714 S. Clinton Ave. Trenton, NJ 08611 Tel. 609/695-0122 RICHARD L. PORTER Vice President/Historian, MA Education M.A., American History, Rutgers College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., 1981 B.A., History, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA., 1975 Experience 1986- Historian, Hunter Research, Inc., Trenton, N.J. Technical and managerial responsibilities for historical research components of all projects. Participation in: - Archival and cartographic research - Oral historical research - Project planning and scheduling - Report preparation and historical writing 1983-1986 Historian, Heritage Studies, Inc., Princeton, N.J. Responsible for historical research and writing on archaeological and architectural history projects in the Northeastern United States. 1981-1988 Archival Technician, Bureau of Archives and Records Management, Archives Section, Department of State, State of New Jersey. Supervised weekend services offered by the State Archives and provide professional assistance to members of the public engaged in historical and genealogical research. 1981-1983 Senior Historian, Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., East Orange, N.J. Directed all historical research on major cultural resource surveys and mitigation projects in the Mid-Atlantic region. Primary responsibility for all historical sections of reports with additional writing and editing responsibilities for other report components. D-4 1979-1981 Historical Consultant, Morristown, N.J. Worked with various firms and individuals providing full range of historical research and writing for cultural resource surveys, architectural surveys, preservation plans, and National and State Register nominations. 1977-1979 Historian/Archaeologist, Rutgers Archaeological Survey Office, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Conducted historical research and writing and participated in archaeological fieldwork for numerous cultural resource surveys and mitigation projects. Major projects included: the survey and excavation of Raritan Landing, Piscataway Township, Middlesex County, N.J.; cultural resource surveys for the proposed Raritan Confluence Force Main, Pumping Station, and Reservoir in Somerset and Hunterdon Counties, N.J.; the cultural resource survey for Route 1-195 in Howell Township, Monmouth County, N.J. Publications "American Steel in the Colonial Period: Trenton's Role in a 'Neglected' Industry." In Canal History and Technology Proceedings IX, 83-118, 1990. Richard W. Hunter, co-author. Hopewell: A Historical Geography. Township of Hopewell. Richard W. Hunter, co-author. Forthcoming. Linseed Oil Mills in New Jersey. Olearius Editions, Kemblesville, Pa. Carter Litchfield, co-author. Forthcoming. Professional Affiliations American Historical Association Society for Historical Archaeology Society for Industrial Archaeology National Trust for Historic Preservation Council on America's Military Past Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology New Jersey Historical Society Preservation New Jersey Old Barracks Association D-5 HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. 714 S. Clinton Ave. Trenton, NJ 08611 CAROLYN HARTWTCK Tel. 609/695-0122 LAKOLXN HARTWIU*. Archaeologist Education B.A. Archaeology/English, Rutgers University, Douglass College, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1987. Experience 1988- Assistant Archaeologist Hunter Research, Inc. Trenton, N.J. Technical and supervisory responsibilities for selected field and laboratory operations and report preparation. Participation in: - survey and excavation - supervision of personnel - field photography - stratigraphic and artifact analysis - lithic analysis - report preparation 1990 Field Archaeologist, Archaeological Services, Inc. Stockton, CA (June - August) Field archaeologist assisting in the recovery of Native American burials at the Skyrocket Site of Royal Mountain King Project, Copperolis, CA. 1989 Field Archaeologist, Grossman & Associates, Inc. New York, N.Y. (January - March) Field archaeologist on mitigation project at prehistoric Ensenada site, Rincon, Puerto Rico. 1988 Field Archaeologist, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. East Orange, N.J. (April - November) Field technician on several cultural resource surveys and mitigation projects thoroughout the Northeastern U.S. Other Related Experience 1987 Intern, Archaeology/Ethnology Department, New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, N.J. 1986 Field Assistant, Rutgers University Field School, Nohmul Project, Belize, C.A. (Spring) 13-6 HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. T14 S Cli?!°noe^ TERRENCE W. EPPERSON Trenton, NJ 08611 „ , , , , „ Tel 609/695-0122 Senior Archaeologist, Ph.D. Education Ph.D., Anthropology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 1991 M.A., Anthropology/Cultural Resource Management, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID, 1977 B.S., History, Towson State University, Baltimore, MD, 1975 Experience 1986- Senior Archaeologist, Hunter Research Inc., Trenton, NJ Technical and managerial responsibilities for prehistoric and historical archaeological projects. Participation in: - Survey, excavation, analysis and reports - Project supervision and on-site management - Preparation of proposals - Recruitment and supervision of personnel 1986-1987 Part-time Adjunct Instructor, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA; Widener University, Chester, PA and Community College of Philadelphia, PA. 1985-1986 Archaeologist/Historian, Heritage Studies, Inc., Princeton, N.J. Responsible for organizing and directing archaeological survey and excavation projects; also responsible for analysis and report preparation. 1982-1986 Teaching and Research Assistant, Anthropology Department, Temple Universty, Philadelphia, PA 1983-1985 Project Archaeologist, Cultural Heritage Research Services, Brookhaven, PA Conducted documentary and archaeological research, artifact analysis and report preparation on survey and excavation projects in the Mid-Atlantic region. 1981-1983 Principal Investigator, Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., East Orange, N.J. Directed prehistoric and historic research on major cultural resource surveys and mitigation projects in the Mid-Atlantic region. Participated in: D-7 - Project design and client negotiations - Field direction and supervision of personnel on large scale field projects - Survey, excavation, analysis, report preparation - Project management, planning, and scheduling 1979-1981 Principal Investigator and Project Archaeologist, Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archaeology, Baltimore, MD Directed historical and archaeological projects for Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Maryland Department of Transportation 1979- Field School Co-Director, Idaho State University, Pahsimerioi Valley Cultural Ecology Project 1978-1979 Preservation Historian, Idaho State Historical Society/Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 1977-1978 Historic Sites Surveyor, Carbon and Emery Counties, Utah Division of State History, Salt Lake City, UT 1975-1977 Project Archaeologist, Idaho State Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, ID Publications "Race and the Disciplines of the Plantation," In Plantation and Farm: Archaeological Approaches to Southern Agriculture, edited by Charles E. Orser, Jr. Society for Historical Archaeology Special Publication, No. 8, 1990. "Settlement Patterns and Social Structure: A Prelude to Architectural and Archaeological Analysis of the Central Idaho Frontier." Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 14 (2), 1980. Final Report on 1976 Archaeological Evaluation of Bureau of Reclamation Upper Snake River project, Salmon Falls Division, Idaho. Archaeological Report No.9 of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History. 1977. Archaeological Inventory of the Challis Planning Unit, Bureau of Land Management. Archaeological Report No.11 of the Idaho State Unversity Museum of Natural History. 1977. Cultural Resources Survey of the U.S. Forest Service Cassia No. 1 Timber Sale: Twin Falls and Cassia Counties, Idaho. Archaeological Report No. 13 of the Idaho State University Museum of Natural History. 1977. D-8 Professional Affiliations American Anthropological Association Society of American Archaeology Society for Historical Archaeology Northeast Anthropological Association Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology Archaeological Society of New Jersey HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. ______ 714 S. Clinton Ave. Telephone 609/695-0122 Trenton, NJ 08611 FAX 609/695^)147 LYNN RAKOS Assistant Archaeologist/Assistant Historian, BA Education B.A., Anthropology, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey, 1987 M.A. Candidate, Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1989 Experience 1987- Assistant Archaeologist, Hunter Research, Inc., Trenton, N.J. Technical and supervisory responsibilities for selected field and laboratory operations and report preparation. Participation in: - survey and excavation - stratigraphic and artifact analysis - supervision of personnel - documentary research and report preparation - field photography - monitoring of heavy equipment 1987 Field and Laboratory Assistant Pluckemin Archaeological Project, Pluckemin, N.J. (January-March, 1987). 1984-1986 Crew Chief, Field and Laboratory Assistant, Historic Conservation & Interpretation, Inc., Newton, N.J. (part-time employee). Participated in the 60 Wall Street and the Sullivan Street (Manhattan), and Mount Hope archaeological projects. 1985-1986 Assistant Resources Planner (Intern), Envirosphere Company, a Division of Ebasco Services, Inc., Lyndhurst, N.J. Assisted in report preparation and evaluation, documentary research and field investigations. 1985-1986 Crew Chief, Burrowes Mansion, Matawan, N.J. (Matawan Historical Society) 1985 Intern, Bureau of Archaeology and Ethnology, New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, N.J. Assisted with collections management program. D-10 Other Related Experience 1987,1990 Crew Chief, Galways Plantation Project, Montserrat, West Indies 1985 Foreign Study Program, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Professional Affiliations Society for Historical Archaeology Society for Industrial Archaeology Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology Society for the History of Technology American Canal Society Archaeological Society of New Jersey National Trust for Historic Preservation Old Barracks Association Proprietary House Association Awards Phi Beta Kappa Joannie L. Huberman Award (Rutgers) D-ll HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. 714 S, Clinton Ave. WILLIAM B. LIEBEKNECHT Laboratory and Drafting Supervisor/Assistant Archaeologist, BA Education B.A., Anthropology, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin, 1984 M.A. Candidate, Public History, Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey, 1989 Experience 1988- Laboratory and Drafting Supervisor Hunter Research, Inc., Trenton, N.J. Technical and supervisory responsibilities for laboratory operations and graphics production. Participation in: - artifact processing and analysis - prehistoric and historic ceramic analysis - field drawing and site recording - all aspects of report graphics production - artifact collections research - preparation of artifact inventories and reports - computerization of artifact data - supervision of laboratory and drafting personnel - field survey and excavation - artifact photography 1988 Field Supervisor University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research, Newark, DE. (June - August) Technical and supervisory responsibilities for crew personnel on field projects in Delaware. 1985-1988 Laboratory and Field Supervisor Research & Archaeological Management, Inc. (RAM) Highland Park, N.J. Supervised analyses of artifact assemblages from various cultural resource projects in the Northeast. 1984-1985 Research and Field Assistant, Historic Sites Research, Princeton, N.J. Publications "The Fort Elfsborg Spoon," Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey, 1986, No. 40, 45-46. D-12 Professional Affiliations Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference Eastern States Archaeological Federation Archaeological Society of New Jersey, Third Vice President Lower Delaware Chapter of ASNJ, Museum Curator/Chapter Representative Council fo Northeast Historical Archaeology Archaeological Society of New York Archaeological Society of Delaware Wisconsin State Archaeological Society Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology Salem Historical Society Pennsville Historical Society, Archaeological Chairman Southeastern Archaeological Conference Tennessee Anthroplogical Association Awards Archaeological Society of New Jersey Award of Appreciation, 1990 D-13 HUNTER Cultural Resource Consultants RESEARCH, INC. 714 S. Clinton Ave. Trenlon, NJ 08611 Tel. 609/695-0122 HARRIET KRONICK Laboratory Assistant Education A.A. Psychology, Bucks County Community College, Newtown, Pennsylvania, 1988. B.A. Candidate, History/Archaeology, Thomas Edison College, Trenton, New Jersey, 1989. Experience 1988- Laboratory Assistant Hunter Research, Inc. Trenton, N.J. Technical responsibilities for selected laboratory operations. Participation in: - artifact processing and analysis - prehistoric and historic ceramic analysis - artifact collections research - preparation of artifact inventories - computerization of artifact data - assisting draftsperson - administration of field and laboratory equipment - public education of laboratory techniques 1987-1990 Research and analysis of ceramic materials recovered from the Lightfarm annual excavations conducted by Bucks County Community Newtown, PA. Publications "The Archaeology Experience in a Community College Setting." In Eastern Community College Social Science Association, New York. Lyle L. Rosenberger, co-author. 1990. "Lightfarm Pipes: A Preliminary Report." In Proceedings of Rochester Museum and Science Center Smoking Pipe Conference, New York. Lyle L. Rosenberger, co-author. Forthcoming. "Changing Career: A Community College Experience." Profiles in Success: Reflections on the Community College Experience. American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, National Monograph Publication, Washington, D.C. 1991. (Article was selected as result of competition to represent Bucks County Community College in this publication.) 1991. D-14 Professional Affliations Archaeology Club of Buck County Community College, Founding President Archaeology Society of New Jersey Archaeology Society of New York Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology Society for Historical Archaeology Bucks County Historical Society Society for Clay Pipe Research, England Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology National Trust for Historic Preservation Awards and Community Activities PTK Honor Society Award of Appreciation, 1988 Invited speaker to Bucks County Community College, Trenton State College, Archaeology Conference of Pennsylvania Museum and Historical Commission Co-chairperson and organizer of Bucks County Community College Material Culture Conference, November 1990. D-15 REFERENCES Chesler, Olga (ed.) 1982 New Jersey's Archaeological Resources from the Paleo-Indian Period to the Present: A Review of Research Problems and Survey Priorities. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. Craig, Robert 1981 The Princeton Architectural Survey. Princeton Joint Historic Sites Commission. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. Cross, Dorothy 1941 The Archaeology of New Jersey (Vol. 1). The Archaeological Society of New Jersey and the New Jersey State Museum, Trenton. Everts & Stewart 1875 Combination Atlas Map of Mercer County. Everts & Stewart, Philadelphia. Greiff, Constance M. et al. 1967 Princeton Architecture: A Pictorial History of Town and Campus. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Heritage Studies, Inc. 1990 Historic Architectural Survey of U.S. Route 206 Over Stony Brook. On file, Bureau of Environmental Analysis (NJDOT), Trenton. Hill, Dewey D. and Elliot R. Hughes 1977 Ice Harvesting in Early America. New Hartford Historical Society, New Hartford, New York. Hunter, Richard W. and Richard L. Porter 1990 Hopewell: A Historical Geography. Township of Hopewell, Historic Sites Committee, Titusville. Hunter Research, Inc. 1990 An Archaeological Survey of U.S. Route 206 Over Stony Brook, Princeton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. On file, Bureau of Environmental Analysis (NJDOT), Trenton. R-l Hunter Research, Inc. 1991 A Report on Archaeological Monitoring Carried out in Connection with the Rehabilitation of the Union Lake Dam, City of Millville, Cumberland County, New Jersey. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. Jablonski, C.F. 1972 Soil Survey of Mercer County, New Jersey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Kraft, Herbert 1983 Route U.S. 206 from N.J. Route 27, Princeton to Somerville Circle, Technical Environmental Study, Volume IV, Prehistoric Archaeology. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. Kraft, Herbert 1986 The Lenape: Archaeology, History and Ethnography. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark. Lake, D.J. and S.N. Beers 1860 Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and Trenton. C.K Stone and A. Pomeroy, Philadelphia. Leffel, James 1881 The Construction of Mill Dams. Reprinted by Noyes Press, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1972. Louis Berger and Associates 1983 Route U.S. 206 from N.J. Route 27, Princeton to Somerville Circle, Technical Environmental Study, Volume III, Historic Archaeology. On file, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. Mercer County Deeds Copies on file, New Jersey State Archives, Trenton. Mercer County Wills Copies on file, New Jersey State Archives, Trenton. Otley, J.W. and J. Keily 1849 Map of Mercer County. L. Van Derveer, Camden. Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc. 1986 Report of Inspection of Mountain Lake Dams, Princeton Township, New Jersey. Copy on file, Princeton Township Engineering Department. R-2 Pugh and Downing 1903 Map of Mercer County. Irving C. Hicks, Philadelphia. Research and Archaeological Management, Inc. 1985 Archaeological Survey. Route U.S. I/Quaker Bridge Road Interchange. Lawrence Township and West Windsor Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. On File, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. 1987 Cultural Resource Survey, Stage IA. Princeton Sewer Operating Committee: Rehabilitation and Replacement of the Western Trunkline. On File, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. 1988 Cultural Resource Survey, Stages IB and II. Princeton Sewer Operating Committee: Rehabilitation and Replacement of the Western Trunkline. On File, Office of New Jersey Heritage (NJDEP), Trenton. Sears, Roebuck 1897 Catalog (Reprinted by Chelsea House Publishers, New York 1968). Snyder, John P. 1969 The Story of New Jersey's Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968. Bureau of Geology and Topography, Trenton. Tyler, Donald H. 1965 Old Lawrenceville (Formerly Maidenhead, New Jersey): Early Houses and People. Donald H. Tyler, Lawrence Township. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 1840 Interior Topography: Princeton and Vicinity, New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and and Documenting Historic Landscapes. National Register Bulletin 30. Warburton, Jessie M. 1987 The Margerum Family of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. J.M. Warburton, Morrisville. R-3 Wolfe, Peter E. 1977 The Geology and Landscapes of New Jersey. Crane Russak, New York. Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1985 Results of Preliminary Evaluation, Palmer Lake Dams, Princeton Township, New Jersey. Copy on file, Princeton Township Engineering Department. R-4 111111111«11111111 11 111111111 M 111111 rniTTi 111111 /Til11111111111111111 STONE & CONCRETE SPILLWAY WITH CONCRETE UPPER DAM 4 \ $ CONCRETE DECK FOUNDATION (EARTH WITH) 10 '(STONE & CONCRETE) MOUNTAIN LAKE (FACING) 1 CONCRETE BANK (FIELD WALL ?) FOUNDATION & CHIMNEY 7 SHOVEL TESTS INFORMAL ROADS DISTURBED EASEMENTS CONTOURS IN 5FT INTERVALS SITE OF ICE HOUSE PROJECT BOUNDARY A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AT THE MOUNTAIN LAKES PRESERVE PRINCETON TOWNSHIP, MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY FIGURE 5.1. SITE PLAN