Back to the InfoAge Homepage 
Back to the Cultural Resources Report Contents
Back to the InfoAge Homepage
Back to the Cultural Resources Report Contents|
AT FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY: CONTEXT FOR COLD WAR ERA, REVISION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES DOCUMENTATION, AND SURVEY OF EVANS AREA AND SECTIONS OF CAMP CHARLES WOOD by Mary Beth Reed Mark Swanson NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES Stone Mountain, Georgia Subcontractor for Geo-Marine, Inc. and Rebecca Procter Marsha Prior June 1996 |
NUMBER 125 Geo-Marine, Inc. 550 East Fifteenth Street Plano, Texas 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District 819 Taylor Street Fort Worth, Texas
|
Archeological survey of approximately 247 acres in the Camp Charles Wood and Evans areas of Fort Monmouth was undertaken by staff of Geo-Marine, Inc (GMI). Specifically, this involved approximately 36 acres of real property, with 246 housing units, comprising the Olmstead area of Camp Charles Wood and 217 acres of developed and undeveloped land in the Evans area. Survey in the Olmstead area was undertaken by Duane E. Peter and Melissa M. Green of GM I. Field staff for the Evans area included field director Deb Marcaurelle, crew chief Clark Moses, and crew members Lori Chace, Andrea Ohl, and Peggy Wishart.
Soils in the southwestern portion of the surveyed area
are part of the Sassafras-Downer-Woodstown group, nearly level to steep,
deep, well-drained and moderately well-drained loamy soils. In the
northeastern segment of the survey area, soils belong with the Evesboro-Klej
group, nearly level to steep, deep, excessively drained and moderately
well-drained to somewhat poorly drained sandy soils. Topography is
generally level, but there are also some very steep and heavily eroded
areas. Open, disturbed grassland, disturbed woodland with heavy undergrowth,
and wetlands characterize the area.
Survey in the Evans area proceeded by means of parallel
transects, at 50-m intervals in low probability areas and 30-m intervals
in high probability areas, with shovel test units placed in cruciform patterns
in areas of the transects where artifact material suggested the possible
presence of more extensive cultural deposits. Shovel tests were dug
in 5-20 cm arbitrary levels, to a depth sufficient to reach culturally
sterile soil. One site, 28-Mo-248, was recorded and mapped to help
interpret its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. Survey revealed
several late twentieth-century features, primarily associated with the
military presence in the Evans area, some dumping areas dating from the
turn of the century up to recent decades, and one prehistoric artifact,
a gray chert flake.
The area of Camp Charles Wood has been completely developed
for residential occupation (see Figure 15). A windshield survey,
including the taking of photographs, was conducted and was augmented by
pedestrian survey of exposed areas (“neutral grounds”). Multi-family
housing units parallel the streets of each block. A neutral ground
runs down the center of each block between the rows of residences.
These neutral grounds contain designated playgrounds, parking lots, and
sanitation pads, as well as underground sewer, water, electric, and telephone
lines. The amount of disturbance evidenced in these areas has impacted
any probable remnants of pre-installation contexts. Klein et al.
(1984:4-1-5) report two locations at Camp Charles Wood where prehistoric
remains were identified. The current project involved an attempt
to relocate these cultural resources, but no evidence could be obtained
that these materials still exist in their original location. It is
therefore recommended that no further work be done in this area and that
it be cleared for final disposition.
The area to be surveyed was divided into seven sub-areas
designated as low probability or high probability (Figure 35). Survey
began with Low Probability Areas I and II, proceeded to High Probability
Areas I-V, and concluded with the recording of site 28-Mo-248. Discussion
of results follows this order.
This segment of land is defined by Belmar Avenue on the
south, a perimeter fence to the west and north, and a line of trees to
the east, covering approximately 10.9 acres (Figure 36). The area
is an open, grassy field formerly used as a heliport. Six transects
were traversed in this area, at intervals of 50 meters. Six shovel
tests were excavated on the transects. The area appears highly disturbed
on the surface, and the highly variable soil profiles suggest subsurface
disturbance as well. About 25 cm below surface, however, soils appear
to be more intact. Soils are characterized as fine to very fine sands
and sandy silts. Artifacts noted include only a single piece of coal
and a fragment of poly-vinyl chloride (pvc) pipe (Appendix B). Features
constituting disturbances to the landscape include a ruined “observation
tower” of steel and concrete in the southwestern corner of the area, a
circular concrete turntable, roads, fences, and manholes leading into sewer
or drainage lines. It is recommended that no further work be done
in this area and that it be cleared for disposition.
Low Probability Area II is bounded on the southwest by
Belmar Boulevard, on the northwest by Lincoln Avenue, and on the northeast
and southeast by an installation road, encompassing approximately 11.9
acres (see Figure 36). The area is open grassland similar to Low
Probability Area I. Eight transects were traversed at 50-m intervals
and 33 shovel test units were completed. Disturbed soil profiles
predominate in this area, with subsurface disturbance apparent down to
about 25 cm below surface (bs). Soils vary from those of Low Probability
Area I in that they are siltier and more compacted, especially below 25
cm bs. The only artifacts recovered were coal fragments (see Appendix
B). Site FME-2, identified as the J. Stanton residence by Klein et
al. (1984:4-17) should have been present near the extreme western of Low
Probability Area II. The current project did not identify any remains
clearly associated with this site. This area has been subjected to
soil removal and heavy disturbance from road construction, therefore it
is unlikely that undisturbed remains of this residence are still present.
No further work is recommended for this area. It should be cleared
for disposition.
This survey area is located south of the south end of
Ridge Road, bounded on the north and east by a chainlink fence, on the
south by a road, and on the west partially by the same road (see Figure
36). It covers
Figure 35. Map highlighting
surveyed portion of Evans Area.
Figure 36. Map showing
Low Probability Area I and II, and High Probability Areas I and II.
an area of about 2.8 acres. The area is heavily
wooded and covered with dense undergrowth. Five transects were completed,
with 21 shovel test units excavated. Artifacts recovered include
one bottle glass fragment, one redware fragment, one piece of coal, and
one sherd of white earthenware (see Appendix B). Soil disturbance
is evident from the profiles. Soils are primarily sandy loams and
sands, with clays more predominant in the area of transect 3 in the western
part of the area. On the extreme western margin of the area, sandy
loams again are dominant. Slag and coal occur frequently in the upper
stratum.
Two major features of late twentieth century date have
impacted the area. One is an electrical switch box located between
transects 1 and 2; the second is apparently a power station constructed
on a concrete pad, with some remains of a wooden structure apparent around
the pad. Shovel tests excavated around the latter feature failed
to yield cultural material. The disturbed nature of the soil profile
and the lack of contextual integrity indicates that no further work should
be conducted in the area and that it should be cleared for disposition.
High Probability Area II is located north and east of Low Probability Area II, bounded on the northwest by Lincoln Avenue and on the northeast by the boundary fence of the installation, an area of approximately 3.6 acres (see Figure 36). The area combines a short stretch of open grassland, about 30 m long, with a rather densely wooded sector. Vegetation is not as heavy as in High Probability Area I, but still dense. Five transects were traversed, 30 m apart, and 20 shovel tests were excavated. Soils are fine sands to sandy loams, with some silty sands observed in transects 3, 4, and 5. Profiles exhibit strong evidence of subsurface disturbance. Artifacts include one fragment of whiteware, one fragment of calcined bone, and recent beer bottles (see Appendix B) associated with the dumping episode described below.
Late twentieth-century features encountered include a
concrete well with some rubber hose associated with it and a metal-encased
conduit pipe just north of the well, on transect 4. Just east of
this feature, a toppled tower of steel and concrete was also observed;
no other artifacts were associated. Finally, a recent scatter of
beach sand, shells, and beer bottles was noted in an area just south of
the northern boundary of High Probability Area II. No material was
collected from this feature. On the basis of soil disturbance and
lack of sites or significant cultural material, it is recommended that
no further work be done in this area and that it be cleared for final disposition.
This survey area corresponds in large part to what is known as the “Marconi Area” at Evans. The area is bounded on the west by Marconi Avenue, on the south by the Diana Radar Station, and on the north and east by wetlands associated with the Shark River drainage (Figure 37). Inasmuch as many of the Marconi-related structures are assessed as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP from the standpoint of architectural history and thus would be protected from additional disturbance, it was not within the purview of the archaeological survey to do further assessment. It covers approximately 12.3 acres. Areas not occupied by structures are heavily disturbed, with extensive evidence of modern dumping episodes and erosion. Very steep topography and extremely dense vegetation made survey difficult and testing impossible in places. More than 50 percent of this area is either swamp, steep slope, or covered with buildings, landfill, and leach field, so that the probability of locating any remaining cultural resources is low. Much of the area consists of wetland adjacent to the Shark River that may have expanded and contracted at various times, also lessening the probability that prehistoric or historic occupations were present there. Eight transects were completed at 30-m intervals, and 17 shovel test units were dug. Fine to medium sands and sandy loams typify the soils, with gravels common below 10 cm bs. Significant cultural material or features were not observed in the area, therefore, it is recommended that no further work be done and that the area be cleared for final disposition.
Figure 37. Map showing High Probability Area III (The Marconi Area).
High Probability Area IV consists of a roughly triangular plot of ground, approximately 34.9 acres, west of Watson Avenue, bordered on the west by Laurel Gully Brook, on the north by Brighton Avenue, and roughly on the south by Coolidge Street and a parking lot (Figure 38). This is an area of approximately 34.9 acres. Vegetation in this area is extremely heavy and recent disturbance is quite extensive. Sixteen transects and 135 shovel tests were completed for the area, with no sites located. Of approximately 32.4 acres that could be tested, an average of 4.2 shovel tests per acre was excavated. Portions of this area at the north and south extremes could not be tested because of very steep slopes. Artifacts were present on transects 4, 7, and 8, but intact subsurface contexts were not present. Objects recovered include whiteware, window glass, other types of glass, bone, and coal (see Appendix B). It is suggested that a large proportion of the artifacts are associated with military housing on this tract. Modern debris is very common—extensive surface dumping has taken place.
Soil profiles in High Probability Area IV are heavily
disturbed and there is evidence that much of the topsoil in this area has
been scraped. The most intact soils appear to occur on the wooded
upper terrace of land on transects 7-9. Sands and silty sands dominate
the soils, with some clays present, mostly below 20-30 cm bs. The
extremely heavy disturbance and lack of sites and intact cultural deposits
indicates that this area should be recommended for no further work and
preparations made for final disposition.
This area is defined by Watson Road to the west, Marconi Road to the east, Monmouth Boulevard to the south, and Brighton Avenue to the north, covering about 73 acres (Figure 39). Very dense vegetation made survey fairly difficult, and the steep terrain prevented subsurface testing in some parts of the tract. The area appears highly disturbed and the drainage pattern has evidently been subjected to change by structures (now gone), roads, water and sewage mains, and dumping of construction debris. Particularly around site 28-Mo-248, it is apparent that ground disturbance has moved large amounts of artifacts, possibly associated with the site, into a broad scatter surrounding it. Field personnel noted the difficulty of determining boundaries between this disturbed scatter and actual site boundaries, but indicated that site 28-Mo-248 or historical sites now destroyed may have been sources for this material. As noted below, additional investigation is needed to clarify the nature of site 28-Mo-248; such work should also involve delimiting the area of artifact scatter surrounding it and attempting to determine its original context.
Sixteen transects were traversed at 30-m intervals, with a total of 82 shovel tests excavated. Soils are predominantly medium to fine sands and silty sands, with gravel present in some areas. Gravel is most common below 30 cm bs, but does occur in small amounts above this level in some units. Soil profiles indicate disturbance and suggest a plow zone may be present.
Artifacts recovered in High Probability Area V include clear and aqua glass, whiteware, decorated porcelain, manganese glass, amber glass, coal, shell, an iron staple, a fragment of a porcelain doll, and a single chert flake, the only prehistoric artifact recovered on the survey. This flake was found at 20-25 cm bs in transect 3, on a heavily eroded “finger”; there was almost no intact soil nearby to allow for subsurface testing. Recent features include an electrical station on a concrete pad similar to the one located in High Probability Area I. Also observed was a possible wellhouse and holding tank of approximately 100-gallon capacity. At least one of the twentieth-century dumping areas observed contained material that may be as early as 1900 (see Figure 39). This area is located south of, and adjacent to, site 28-Mo-248 and contains ivory-tinted whiteware, granite ware, screw-top bottles, annular whiteware, wire nails, coal, manganese glass, clear and aqua glass, porcelain, shell, window glass, and a porcelain button. The high proportion of early twentieth-century material, in contrast to other dumps observed in the Evans area, and the likelihood of its association with site 28-Mo-248 warrants further investigation to determine its age and significance.
Figure 38. Map showing
High Probability Area IV.
Figure 39. Map showing
High Probability Area V.
Site 28-Mo-248, the only site recorded during the survey, is located in the central portion of High Probability Area V (see Figure 39). It has been termed an abandoned farm site, but shovel testing brought this into question. At the conclusion of the investigations, further research into site function was considered necessary. The site is approximately 160 m long, north-south, and 120 m wide, east-west. Surface features include structures, landscaping elements, a dump containing early and mid-twentieth century material in a ravine north of the site, and mounds and depressions of various types, some probably associated with disturbance by heavy equipment (Figure 40). Individual features are described in detail in Table 4. Twenty shovel test units were dug in a cruciform pattern, beginning at 10-m intervals, extended to 20-m intervals at the edges of the site because of the sparseness of cultural material there. Soils are comprised of silty sands and show considerable evidence of subsurface disturbance.
Disturbances to the area include laying of electrical cables, road construction, and a high level of erosion. The configuration of structures could suggest a barn and domestic farm structures, but survey personnel noted fairly extensive landscaping and a lack of remains of farm machinery that could also suggest the site was used for some other function.
Observation of differences in footings and building materials present suggests that there may have been two episodes of building at the site. Remains that appear to be earlier are of local sandstone, while later buildings appear to have been made of concrete, slate, and possibly brick. Artifacts that reinforce the case for a non-farming function at some point are the large numbers of fancy glass bottles and jars. Other artifacts include pipe, concrete and unidentified metal, building materials, coal, and ceramics. It is recommended that further archeological and archival work be conducted to confirm the age, function, and occupational patterns of this site.
Recovered artifact materials were examined by trained laboratory staff for particular attributes and diagnostic traits, using morphological and/or functional classification systems. Four primary categories were created for the assignment of recovered artifacts: Domestic, Architectural, Personal, and Activities. For items that are too fragmentary or cannot be assigned to a specific category, an Indeterminate classification is assigned.
A total of 91 historic artifacts was collected from the site (see Appendix B) representing three classification categories: domestic (n=76), architectural (n=6), and personal (n=4). Five items fell into the indeterminate category. Forty-two of these items were recovered from excavated units. Domestic items such as bottle glass (27.4 percent) and ceramics (55.0 percent) were predominant in the assemblage. Refined earthenwares dominated the ceramic assemblage with pure white whitewares (post 1890), light blue tinted whitewares (1880-1930), porcelains (post 1900), and ironstones (1840-1910) represented. Some of the decorative motifs represented include transfer prints, monochrome and polychrome floral decalcomania (1895-1950), relief molding, gilding (post 1890), banding, and imitation flow blue (1890-1920). Other diagnostics noted were printed makers’ marks and “hotelware” (1890-1930). Utilitarian ceramics were limited to stoneware and redware.
The bottle glass assemblage is made up of proprietary, cosmetic/toiletry, wine/liquor, soda/mineral water, and foodstuff bottles. Colors represented were amber, clear, aqua, manganese decolorized (solarized; 1880-1920), olive, ash tinted (post 1915), light green, and light blue. Lip finishes found in the assemblage are early crown, brandy, double ring, prescription, and small oil; base shapes were round, hub oval, and blake. Embossing, etching, and wheel engraving (on snuff tumblers) were also evident. One large amber bottle stopper was also recovered. Two pressed (to look like cut glass) bowl fragments of carnival glass (1890-1930) and ash tint (post 1915) represented the table glass. A single sherd of molded, red flashed glass from a Banquet lamp bowl or base (ground base) was also recovered.
Figure 40. Map of site 28-Mo-248.
Table 4
Feature Descriptions for Site 28-Mo-248, High
Probability Area V, Evans Area
Feature 1. concrete pad, 22.5 m x 9 m, oriented diagonally, SW to NE. Northeast end has rounded corners; pad appears poured in sections; edged on SW end with cinderblock footing up to Feature 3; north wall is brick up to 1.5 m of NE corner; wall shows brick impressions indicating running-bond type of construction, with metal wall ties, ca. 1900+; pad narrows to 7 m at abutment with Feature 2; different widths for the building along with the suggestion of rounded corners may indicate a specialized use, possibly part of a dairy operation.
Feature 2. brick-lined well opening with 1" pipe elbow of galvanized steel visible at bottom; opening partially capped with square slab; currently filled to within 70 cm of pad surface; surrounded by roots of maple tree growing on outside wall.
Feature 3. round structure of laid cinderblock,
3.5 m diameter, attached to Feature 1 on SE wall; inside finished with
coating of cement; roughly 60-70 cm of exposed wall shows below wall of
Feature 1; square pad associated with this feature is directly inside wall
of Feature 1; original height undetermined, but appears to be a storage
silo or water tank.
Feature 4. cinderblock foundation, 4.5 m x 3.5 m, located
approximately 1 m north of NE corner of Feature 1; foundation outlines
a concrete pad, 2" thick; structure runs parallel to Feature 1 at
a distance of about 1 m; function undetermined.
Feature 5. two segments of 3"-wide cement curb, possibly from a driveway, located east of Feature 1 and forming an arc to the northeast; may also be associated with a drainage channel just to the east (see Figure 26).
Feature 6. square-shaped cellar approximately 20 m east of Feature 1; walled with brick on three sides and a slate/cement wall on the south; appears to be approximately 2 m deep except in southern portion where there is a raised cement floor supported by a brick kneewall, gravel-filled; north wall contains a window well in center, about .65 m deep and 1 m wide, with some fieldstone construction; north, east, and west walls mounded with dirt, gravel, and rubble outside; mature maple tree growing out of west wall has caused damage; cellar currently filled with brick/cement rubble to a depth of about .3 m.
Feature 7. cement pad, 4 x 3 m, south of, and parallel to, Feature 6.
Feature 8. cement pad, 3 x 2 m, west of Feature 1 and northeast of Feature 6.
Feature 9. brick-lined well aperture, 1 m2, located approximately 6 m north of Feature 8; well is filled to within 15 cm of top of wall.
Feature 10. two circular steel collars filled with cement, located between Features 9 and 4 (see Figure 26); probably post supports, 9" in diameter, with ½" anchor bolts extending from centers, supports protrude 2-4 cm above ground surface.
Feature 11. series of three dump areas in
ravine north of site; artifacts include ironstone tablewares, bottles,
clamshells, whiteware, porcelain, glass insulators, jars, a shoe heel,
metal objects, and butchered animal bone; one aqua bottle with mark “John
Heldt Long Branch, NJ” (Table B-2); probable disturbance by bottle collectors.
(11A): located at head of ravine,
SW end, approximately 5 x 3 m; artifacts recorded, but not collected; subfeature
photographed and mapped.
(11B): located east of 11A, but much
larger; large number of artifacts recorded; may represent large dumping
episode at abandonment of site.
(11C): located east of 11C; similar
to other subfeatures, but contains more architectural items; some material
appears more recent than in other subfeatures.
Feature 12 four decorative tree collars of stone
and brick along road south of Feature 13; appear to have been
A, B, C, D landscaping items; 12A is most ornate, with
two tiers, 3.5 m diameter; 12B, C, and D are 2.5 m in diameter; 12A is
best-preserved, 12B is most heavily damaged; all collars are approximately
.65 m high.
Feature 13. cellar, with some additions; main structure is 5.5 x 4.5 m, with brick and mortar stairwell and bulkhead off SE corner (see Figure 26); cement pad is located on south side of structure, with a flagstone patio area; cellar is filled with rubble and partially collapsed; a large hole has been excavated east of the cellar and there are several bulldozer piles south along the road.
Feature 14. large lily patch, naturalized and expanded from its original planting; feature is located along an 8-10-m swath across SW border of site.
Additional artifacts recovered or collected include wire
nails (post 1880), window glass, a piece of brick, ceramic pipe fragment,
and a square nut. Two pieces of silver-plated tableware were collected.
The knife handle is hollow, made of some alloy, and was very decorative
though the pattern was not identified. The teaspoon contained a mark
identifying it as manufactured by the Stratford Silver Co., but the pattern
was not identified.
The Evans area survey was divided into seven transected areas, two of low-probability status and five of high-probability status. Survey transects were traversed at intervals of 50 m in low-probability areas and at 30 m in high-probability areas, with shovel tests placed where artifacts were apparent. Soils within the survey areas can be characterized as primarily fine to very fine sands, sandy loams, and silty sands, with some clays apparent. Gravels occur in some places, mostly below 20-30 cm bs and especially in wetlands close to the Shark River. Within the seven transected areas, one previously known historic site was recorded, revealing evidence of one and possibly two occupational episodes in the early to mid-twentieth century. A number of mid- to late twentieth-century features were recorded, including numerous dumping areas. At least two of these dumps may contain material of greater significance from the early twentieth century; one of these, south of site 28-Mo-248 in High Probability Area V, is recommended for further investigation, and the other is directly associated with site 28-Mo-248. The function and history of site 28-Mo-248 remain somewhat uncertain, and it is recommended that further archeological and archival work be undertaken to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP. Remains relevant to Criteria C or D of 36 CFR § 60, Part 4 may be present at this site.
Other features, sites, or intact cultural deposits of potential significance were not observed during the survey, therefore, it is recommended that no further work take place in Low Probability Areas I and II, or in High Probability Areas I through V, and that they should be cleared for final disposition. Intense disturbance above and below ground surface was noted in these areas from construction, demolition, dumping, and altered drainage patterns that created intensified erosion in some places.
Page updated December 30, 2003
page created December 27, 2000
Copyright© InfoAge 1998-2001 InfoAge. All
rights reserved.
Back to the InfoAge Homepage
Back to the Cultural Resources Report Contents
