HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140108WASHINGTON COUNTY
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
A' Washington County Administrative Annex
80 West Baltimore Street
Hagerstown, Maryland 21740-6003
Telephone: 240-313-2430
FAX: 240-313-2431
Deaf and Hard of Hearing call 7-1-1 for Maryland Relay
AGENDA
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
CONFERENCE ROOM 1A & B
WASHINGTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX
80 WEST BALTIMORE STREET
January 8, 2014
7:00PM
M
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - 7:00 PM
A. Call to Order & Roll Call
B. Minutes —
C. Communications & Bills
D. Unfinished Business
E. Budget
F. New Business
1. National Register nomination — Potomac Mills
G. Other Business
H. Closed Session
I. Adjournment
* = written material enclosed
\HDC\Ajanuary20l4.DOC
NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MAY MEET IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.508, STATE GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE, ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND. INDIVIDUALS REQUIRING SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. CONTACT PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT (240) 313-2430 VOICE/TDD TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS PRIOR
TO THE MEETING.
www,washco-md.net RECYCLED PAPER
NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (expires 513112012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for Individual properties and districts. See instructions In How to Complete the National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "X" in the appropriate box or by entering
the Information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural
classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative
items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a).
1. Name of Property
historic name
other names Shepherdstown Cement Mill; Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) #WA -II -1198
2. Location
street & number River Road and Trough Road ❑ not for publication
city or town Shepherdstown ® vicinity
West Virginia; WV; Jefferson; 037;
state Maryland code MD county Washington code 043 zip code 25443
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this Li nomination u
request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic
Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60, in my opinion, the property ❑ meets 0 does
not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ❑ nationally ❑ statewide ❑ locally. (0
See continuation sheet for additional comments).
Signature of certifying ofcialflitle Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property 0 meets 0 does not meet the National Register criteria. (p See continuation sheet for additional comments).
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby, certify that this property is:
o entered in the National Register.
❑ See continuation sheet.
❑ determined eligible for the National
Register.
❑ See continuation sheet.
❑ Determined not eligible for the National
Register.
❑ removed from the National Register.
❑ other (explain):
Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
Potomac Mills
Jefferson Co, WV; Washington Co., MD
Name of Property
County and State
5. Classification
Ownership of Property Category of Property
Number of Resources within Property
(Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box)
(Do not Include previously listed resources in the count)
private ❑ building(s)
Contributing Noncontributing
® public -local ® District
0 0 buildings
public -State ❑ Site
1 0 sites
❑ public -Federal ❑ Structure
5 0 structures
❑ Object
0 0 objects
6 0 Total
Name of related multiple property listing
number of contributing resources previously
(Enter N/A if property is not pan or a multiple property listing)
listed in the National Register
N/A
0
6. Function or Use
Historic Functions
Current Functions
(Enter categories from instructions)
(Enter categories from instructions)
INDUSTRY/PROCESS [NG/EXTRACTION/manufactur
ing facility
VACANT/NOT IN USE
INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION/waterworks
VACANT/NOT IN USE
7, Description
Architectural Classification
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
(Enter categories from instructions)
MID- 19Tn CENTURY/Other
foundation Limestone
walls Brick
roof
other
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more
continuation sheets)
Potomac Mills
Jefferson Co. WV; Washington Co., MD
Name of Property
County and State
B. Statement of Significance
Applicable National Register Criteria
Area of Significance
(Mark "gin one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property for
(Enter categories from instructions)
National Register listing)
Industry
® A Property is associated with events that have made a
Archeology-Historic•Non-Aboriginal
significant contribution to the broad pattern of our
history.
❑ B Property associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
O C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction or represents
the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values,
Period of Significance
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components lack individual distinction.
1826— 1901
® D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information
Important in prehistory or history.
Significant Dates
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "gin all the boxes that apply)
1826; 1828; 1829; 1830; 1861; co. 1870
Property is:
❑ A owned by a religious institution or used for religious
Significant Person
purposes.
(Complete if Criterion 6 is marked above)
❑ B removed from its original location.
N/A
❑ C a birthplace or grave.
Cultural Affiliation
❑ D a cemetery.
Euro-American
❑ E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
❑ F a commemorative property.
ArchitectBuilder
❑ G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
N/A
within the past 50 years.
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets)
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets)
Previous documentation on files (NPS):
Primary location of additional data:
❑ preliminary determination of individual listing (36
® State Historic Preservation Office
CFR 67) has been requested
❑ Other State agency
❑ previously listed in the National Register
❑ Federal agency
❑ previously determined eligible by the National Register
❑ Local government
❑ designated a National Historic Landmark
❑ University
❑ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
❑ Other
#
Name of repository:
® recorded by Historic American Engineering Record
# W V-82
Potomac Mills Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Name of Property County and State
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property Approx. 19 acres
UTM References
(Place additional UTM references on a continuation sheet)
11181 (216 015 6 01 4 316 811 0 01 311 8I 1216 018 2 01 I4 316 715 8 01
Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing
21181 I2I6 019 6 0I I4 316 810 2 0I 41181 I2I6 013 4 01 I4 316 718 4 01
❑ See continuation sheet
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet)
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected on a continuation sheet)
i1. Form Prepared
name/title Paula S. Reed, Ph.D., Architectural Historian; Edie Wallace, M.A.: Historian
Organization Paula S. Reed & Associates, Inc. date 12/27/12; rev. 8/21/13
street & number I W. Franklin St., Suite 201 telephone 301.739-2070
city or town Hagerstown state Maryland zip code 21740
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps
A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs
Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional Items
(Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner
(Complete this item at the request of SHPO or FPO)
Name Jefferson County Landmarks Commission (18 acre parcel) State of Maryland (river resources)
street & number PO BOX 23 telephone
city or town Charles Town state WV zip code 25414
Paperwork Reduction Statement; This Information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a
benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et. sea,).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response Including the time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this form to the Chief. Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 01/2009) OMB No. 1024-0018 (Expires 613112012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 7 Page I
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
Description Summary:
The Potomac Mills complex is situated on the south bank of the upper Potomac River in
Jefferson County, West Virginia approximately one mile below Shepherdstown. The 18 -acre
property is situated on the river flood plain and the adjoining limestone hills. It is heavily
wooded and is bisected by River Road leading east to west toward Shepherdstown and Trough
Road leading north to south from the Packhorse Ford through a gap in the ridge toward Engle-
Molers Road (the old road to Harpers Ferry). The property is bounded on the north by the
Potomac River, where the remnant of the Potomac Mills dam can be seen. The south boundary
runs along the ridge crest of the limestone hills and through several ravines created by drainage
runs. The jagged cliffs of several abandoned quarries cut into the wooded hills and loom above
River Road as it passes along the river bank, bisecting the mill complex property. Near the
center of the narrow, wedge-shaped property sits the stone ruins of the Potomac Mills, the
roofless brick "office building" or warehouse/dwelling, and the still -standing battery of six stone
limekilns attached to the original small test kiln. Standing alone, the oldest stone limekiln sits
perched on the hillside within a ravine nearby.
General Description:
Setting: (Photo#1)
The peaceful wooded setting of the Potomac Mills complex along the south bank of the
seemingly quiet Potomac River belies its long history of industrial activity, and a record of
raging flood waters. The upper Potomac River at Shepherdstown is approximately 700 feet wide
and appears to flow gently, though the central channel has a notoriously swift undercurrent.
Here, the south bank of the river has a very narrow flood plain, bounded by limestone hills that
rise approximately one hundred feet to the south of the river bank. Deciduous woods of
primarily poplar, maple, and oak cover the river bank and the hills. One deeply cut limestone
quarry opens into the hillside near the west end of the property (Photo #6). The back of the
quarry stretches approximately 200 feet into an adjoining property. A smaller quarry fronts
directly onto River Road, an asphalt -paved county route, as it passes eastward toward its
intersection with the north -south running Trough Road (Photo #5). Trough Road, also paved
with asphalt, rises up from its intersection with River Road through a gap or ravine formed by a
creek draining from the surrounding hills. The "drainage creek" cuts across the east end of the
property under River Road through culvert of two metal pipes and continues through a relatively
deep ravine to the river's edge.
The Potomac Mills complex consists of the mill building ruin, the roofless brick "office
building" warehouse/dwelling, the Battery of Kilns with Test Kiln, the Large Kiln, a stone wall
remnant of the head race, and the remnant dam structure in the Potomac River (in Maryland).
NPS Form 10900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB Na 10240010
Nation& Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section 7 Page 2
•
(Expires 5131/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co„ MD
County and State
The quarries complete the industrial complex as an integral feature of the production process.
The two roads, Trough Road and River Road, and the Potomac River add to the setting of the
Potomac Mills property. The roads historically provided ready access to the mill complex, while
the Potomac River above the mill darn provided boating access across the river to deliver
products to the C&O Canal transportation network.
Mil! Ruin (1 contributing archeological site), built 1826, cement mill addition 1828-29, rebuilt
ca. 1870:
The ruin of the Potomac Mills mill building consists of the stone foundation/lower story
walls of the large main building and smaller east addition (Photos #7-14; Figure 1). The building
was initially constructed in 1826 as a grain mill and the cement mill addition was constructed in
1828-29. The building was burned in 1861 and reconstructed on the original stone foundations
after 1867. Historically the building was four stories including the stone lower story and brick
three stories above with a hipped roof and clerestory (Figures 2 and 3). The addition was two
brick stories over the stone lower story with a gable roof. None of the brick masonry remains
intact today and no wood features (joists, floors, window frames, doors, rafters, etc.) remain.
Stone segmental arches are located on the interior wall where the raceway passed through the
building. The ruin is overgrown with mature trees and underbrush.
Brick "Office Building" Warehouse/Dwelling (1 contributing structure), built 1829:
The brick structure is located on the south side of River Road approximately 150 feet east
of the mill ruin (Photo #17). The brick warehouse was constructed in 1829 by then -owners
Boteler and Reynolds to store cement for use in the construction of the C&O Canal. Locally this
building is called the "Office Building," however newspaper advertisements from 1846 and 1865
describe a dwelling house associated with the mill, but no office building. It is likely this
building was a warehouse converted to a dwelling house.
The brick walls of this three story building are still largely intact though the roof is gone
and the third story walls (probably mostly later additions) have begun to crumble. None of the
wood features remain intact, The lower story has three bays with a central entrance. The brick is
common bond, 5 rows of stretchers to one row of headers. All four walls show diamond
patterned vents in the brickwork. Most of the vent openings were later infilled (Photo #18 and
19), indicating the building's possible earlier use as a warehouse and later conversion to a
dwelling. Interior walls of the lower two stories are plastered and whitewashed. It appears the
third story was added by raising the front and back roof line, altering the gable end roof to a
hipped roof (Photo #19; Figure 3). There is a brick interior chimney rising on the west gable
end. There is an inscription in the plaster on the west interior wall "Boteler & Reynolds 1829"
(Photo #20).
NPS Form 10.900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 7 Page 3
OMB No. 1024-0018
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
Battery of Kilns with Test Kiln (1 contributing structure), built 1828-1830:
The Battery of Kilns is located on the river bank below the north edge of River Road
approximately 350 feet west of the mill ruin (Photo #22). The kiln bank was constructed in three
phases: the small stone test kiln on the west end (1828); the western bank of three stone vertical
kilns (1829); and a slightly later bank of three stone vertical kilns (1830) on the east end.' The
test kiln (Photo #21) sits near the top of the bank on the south west corner of the Battery of
Kilns. It is a small box -kiln constructed of stone with a brick -lined opening with a flat stone
lintel. The six vertical kilns are all constructed of stone (Photo #22). All have brick arched draw
pits. The western bank of three kilns has keystones (Photo #23) and eastern bank of three does
not (Photo #24). Some of the face stones on the western bank of three kilns have fallen out. The
tops of the kiln bank are nearly level with the River Road surface. All are filled in with debris
and appear only as depressions in the ground (Photo #25). See Figure 4 for kiln sections.
Large Kiln (1 contributing structure), built 1828-29:
The Large Kiln (Photos #26-29), in operation by April 1829, is sited on the east side of a
hill within a ravine, south/southwest of the mill ruin on the south side if River Road. It is a large,
heavily built stone vertical kiln with a slightly pyramidal shape and a brick -arched draw pit on
the east face, The interior kiln throat is stone and brick lined.
Riverside Stone Wall (head race wall) (1 contributing structure), built 1826:
The Riverside Stone Wall (Photo #15) is located along the south edge of the river. It is
approximately 289 feet long and runs from the south end of the dam remnant to about 25 feet
west of the mill ruin. It is likely a remnant wall of the head race. Part of the wall shows cement
repairs.
Dam Remnant (I contributing structure), built 1826.•
During periods of low water, the partial remains of the Potomac Mills darn can be seen as
a distinct ripple across the river (Photo #16). The remains are the stone foundation of the dam;
none of the historic log cribbing remains intact (Figure 2).
I Thomas F. Hahn and Emory L. Kemp, Cement dills Along the Potomac River, Institute for the History of Technology &
Industrial Archaeology (W VU), Monograph Series, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1994, p.42. Hahn and Kemp conclude from the documentary and
physical evidence that the battery of six kilns extant in the Potomac Mills complex are the ones constructed in 1829 and 1830. There
is lingering confusion however, because a Civil War soldier's account, written after the 1862 Battle of Shepherdstown (Battle of the
Cement Mill) describes only three kilns. Since these are recollections from the heat of battle, it seems prudent to be cautious in dating
the kilns based on those recollections.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB No. 1024-0018
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section 7 Page 4
Resource count:
I contributing archeological site
Mill Ruin
5 contributing structures
Brick "Office Building" Warehouse/Dwelling
Battery of Kilns w/ Test Kiln
Large Kiln
Riverside Stone Wall
Dam Remnant
(Expires 513112012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
The quarries are considered contributing elements to the overall significance of the Potomac
Mills complex but are not individually counted.
The two county roads which pass through the Potomac Mills property are considered part of the
setting of the mill complex but are not counted as contributing or non-contributing as they
continue far beyond the nominated boundary.
Evaluation of Integrity:
The Potomac Mills complex stands partly in ruins after more than 100 years of
abandonment and repeated flooding by the Potomac River. Still, the mill ruin, brick
office/warehouse, stone kilns, dam and headrace remnants, and the looming cliffs of the
limestone quarries clearly evoke the commercial activity that hummed beside the Potomac River.
The complex as a whole retains substantial integrity of location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
The Potomac Mills complex, abandoned since 1901, has been in various stages of
deterioration for over a century. The mill, a part of which was a grain and flour mill and
expanded to a cement mill, is in ruins but the remaining walls provide clear evidence of the
building's appearance when standing, showing the demarcation of interior spaces, windows,
dimensions and the ingress and egress route for the water that turned its wheel. In fact, the mill
was in ruins during the 1862 Battle of Shepherdstown, having been set on fire by Union forces in
1861. The raceway walls and the mill dam are discernible, although the upper log portion of the
dam is gone, The base of the dam is still present causing a rapid that runs in a straight line across
the river. The stone limekilns are largely intact as are the quarry walls that proved to be a death
trap for retreating Union troops trying to reach the safety of Maryland at the close of the Battle of
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 7 Page 5
OMB No. 1024.0018
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
Shepherdstown. The brick "office" warehouse/dwelling building, still standing three stories
high despite its loss of roof and floors, retains all four walls as well as window and door
openings and a fireplace with an inscription by its 1829 builders. Its transformation from
warehouse to dwelling shows clearly in the masonry.
The Potomac Mills complex is the best preserved of the ten known nineteenth century
cement mills along the Potomac River and the only one identified as both a grain and cement
mill,2 While having changed over time due to natural and man-made alterations, nevertheless the
property clearly communicates its history as an industrial cement and grain milling complex.
Though the Potomac Mills complex is now a standing ruin, it retains integrity as an
industrial archeological site, All of the original components retain integrity of association as an
industrial complex and possess the potential to provide information about the processes of
hydraulic cement production as it evolved through the nineteenth century. Repeated flooding has
laid multiple layers of silt over original ground levels, sealing any potential archeological
material for future study. The site has been recorded but not excavated.
2 Hahn and Kemp, pp. 73-84.
NPS Form 10.900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB No. 1024-0018
National Regster of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section 8 Page 1
Summary Statement of Significance:
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
The Potomac Mills complex is regionally significant under National Register Criteria A
and D (historic) in the area of Industry for its important role as an industrial cement mill,
appended in 1829 to Henry Boteler and George Reynolds' already active grain mill, producing
hydraulic cement used in the construction of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, regional railroads,
and for public building projects in Washington, D.C. through the late nineteenth century. Now a
standing ruin, the industrial complex has significant potential to yield archeological information
about the hydraulic cement production process during the nineteenth century. The Potomac
Mills complex gains additional significance on a local level under Criterion A as a merchant
grain mill established in 1826, which purchased and processed locally -grown grains for resale in
the port city markets of Georgetown and Baltimore, As both a grain and cement processing
facility, the Potomac Mills was an unusual combination.
The Potomac Mills complex is one of ten cement mills located in Maryland and West
Virginia associated with the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, and appears to be the best preserved of
the ten. Of the nine other plants identified in Thomas Hahn and Emory Kemp's documentation,
Cement Mills Along the Potomac River, only two were located in West Virginia —Hooks Mill in
Morgan County, the site of which has not been found, and Cedar Cliff in Mineral County, of
which only the kilns remain visible. In Maryland, the Carrollton Cement Mill (Frederick Co.),
Antietam or Potomac Cement Mill (Washington Co.), Round Top Mill (Washington Co.), and
Pinto Cement Mill (Allegany Co.) remain identified only by the kilns still standing; the
Cumberland Cement Mill (Allegany Co.) is identified only by its quarry; the Leopards Cement
Mill (Allegany Co.) has no extant remains; and the Tuscarora Cement Mill (Frederick Co.)
location remains unknown.' Thus the Potomac Mills is distinguished as a rare or unique survivor
with at least remnants of the entire milling complex.
The processing of grain in the Shenandoah Valley, particularly wheat and corn, in water -
powered mills helped develop not only a thriving local and regional industry, but also aided in
the transportation of agricultural products to the eastern port city markets by reducing their bulk.
Still, wagon transport over bad roads and the Blue Ridge Mountains made transportation
improvements in the region of primary importance, culminating with the 1828-1850 construction
of the Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) Canal along the northeast bank of the Potomac River. The
Potomac Mills, established in 1826 by Henry Boteler and George Reynolds, was initially a
merchant grain mill, but added a cement mill and processing complex by 1 829 primarily to meet
the C&O Canal construction need for hydraulic cement. Potomac Mills cement was also used in
Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) Railroad construction projects as well as many public buildings in
Washington, D.C. throughout the nineteenth century. Production all but stopped during the
American Civil War due to the Potomac Mills' location adjacent to a Potomac River ford,
3 Hahn and Kemp, pp. 73-84.
NPS Form 10.000-a (Rev. 0112009) OMB No, 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Continuation Sheet
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Section 8 Page 2
County and State
historically known as Packhorse Ford. The river crossing, known as Boteler's or Blackford's
Ford by 1861, crossed the boundary between the United States and the Confederacy and placed
the Potomac Mills complex in a dangerous position. In 1861 Union troops burned the buildings
and in 1862, the charred mill stood on the front line of the September 19 '-201h Battle of
Shepherdstown, also known as the Battle of the Cement Mill, on the heels of the Battle of
Antietam or Sharpsburg. The Potomac Mills buildings were rebuilt following the war,
processing both grain and cement for local and regional markets. While the region's grain
milling industry died out in the late nineteenth century, the Potomac Mills cement production
continued to thrive, producing building materials for construction projects in Washington, D.C.
In 1889, the C&O Canal was devastated by flood, remaining closed until 1896. Though the
flood closed the Potomac Mills only for a week, the canal's extended closure curtailed cement
production through the 1890s. Facing increasing competition from Portland cement production
elsewhere, the Potomac Mills closed permanently in 1901 and fell into ruin.
The period of significance for the Potomac Mills is 1826 through 1901, covering the
construction of the Potomac Mills beginning in 1826 and its years of industrial activity through
the 1901 closing of the mill complex.
Archeological Significance and Research Questions
The Potomac Mills complex is significant for its potential to answer important research questions
about the industrial processes of hydraulic cement production, how that might have changed over
time, and how those processes shaped the surrounding landscape.4
The Potomac Mills complex has been recorded but not excavated. Repeated flooding by the
Potomac River and the cause of the ruinous condition of the mill complex, has sealed historic
archeological horizons under layers of river silt. The standing ruins, now archeological features,
the below ground remains and the integrity of the property as well as archeological investigations
on similar sites provide the basis for the applicable research questions for this property including
but not limited to the following:
I. How was natural cement production organized and how is that organization reflected in the
Potomac Mills site?
2. How did that organization change over time?
3. Did techniques of quarrying limestone change over time as evidenced by the several
quarries?
4. How are changes in the power source reflected in the Potomac Mills site?
4 As part of the larger Battle of Shepherdstown Civil War battlefield site, the Potomac Mills site also has significant potential
to yield information pertaining directly to that 1862 battle. This potential should be noted for future reference in any archeological
investigation.
NPS Farm 10-900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Part< Service
OMa No, 1024-0818
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section 8 Page 3
(Expires 513112012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
5. In what way did transportation systems within and around the mill complex change over time
relating to transport of mill products to local and regional markets?
6. What artifacts are available to tell us about the lives and work of the Mill workers?
Historic Context:
Virginia began its attractive settlement policy in the 1720s, offering cheap land to settlers
who would improve the land for agricultural production, It was an attempt by colonial governor
William Gooch to reduce the Lord Fairfax claim to 5 million acres known as the Northern Neck
of Virginia. Migrants followed "The Great Waggon Road to Philadelphia," leading
southwestward from Pennsylvania through Maryland, crossing the Potomac River at the
Packhorse Ford and into Virginia. The Packhorse Ford crossing of the upper Potomac River —
then called Cohongoroota, an Indian name referring to the abundance of geese along the upper
Potomac — led settlers into the lower Shenandoah Valley as early as the 1720s. Settlers began
recording their land surveys there in 1732.5
By 1772, the population of the lower valley's Frederick County, carved from Orange
County in 1738, had grown to the extent that a new county called Berkeley was created. It was a
melting pot of Quakers, Pennsylvania Germans, and the sons of English plantation owners from
the overpopulated eastern lands of Maryland and Virginia. The settlers of German descent
brought with them a heritage of grain agriculture. Those that ventured westward from the
tidewater region — where tobacco was king —into the mountain and valley region quickly
adjusted to wheat as the primary cash crop, while still producing smaller amounts of tobacco.6
Wheat and corn, and to a lesser extent rye and oats, were processed in water -powered mills
into flour and meal, or distilled into whiskey. By the 1790s, the region was active with grist and
flour mills along nearly every waterway and stills located on nearly every farm. Berkeley
County land sale advertisements often included references such as, "a good mill seat," or
"particularly adapted to raising heavy grain." 1 Frederick County, Maryland, located east of
Berkeley County, Virginia, was representative of the region with as many as 80 grist mills and
300-400 stills reported on the 1798 tax record.8 Jefferson County, Virginia, a much smaller
county carved from Berkeley County in 1801, numbered 30 mills along its waterways according
5 Robert Brooke Survey Book, Thornton Perry Collection, microfilm copy, Ruth Scarborough Library, Shepherd University,
Shepherdstown, WV, This part of Virginia's Orange Co, became part of Frederick Co. in 1738, then part of Berkeley Co. in 1772, and
then Jefferson Co. in 1801; West Virginia was established in 1863.
6 "The Diaries of George Washington," Donald Jackson, ed., (The Papers of George Washington, Charlottesville: University
Press of Virginia, 1976), transcription online at: http://memory,loc,gov, accessed July 2012,
7 The Poronlak Guardian, and Berkeley Advertiser, 1791-1799, microfilm collection, Martinsburg & Berkeley Public
Library, Martinsburg, WV.
8T. S.C. Williams, Hisloly of Frederick County, Maryland, (Baltimore: Regional Publishing Co., 1967, reprint of the
original 1910 edition), p. 267.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Inc.i. C h
Section 8 Page 4
OMB No. 1024-0019
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 513112012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
to the map drawn by Charles Vane in 1809. These industries show the dominance of grain
production through the high number of mills and stills and the degree to which the area had
developed marketable finished goods. By 1810, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland led the
nation in flour production?
The processed grain commodities were transported to markets in Alexandria, Virginia,
Annapolis and Baltimore in Maryland, and to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. However
transportation from the Shenandoah Valley and the grain growing regions of west -central
Maryland and Pennsylvania was a problem. Rough wagon roads crossing several mountains,
and fords and ferries across rivers and streams remained the standard. Water transport — the
traditional form of transportation in the tidewater counties of both Maryland and Virginia — was
seen as essential for economic advancement on the western frontier. George Washington, whose
western Virginia land would certainly have benefited from transportation improvements on the
Potomac River, sought to improve the river for commercial shipping./° The Revolutionary War
interrupted the plans for improvement, but in 1785 the Patowmack Navigation Company was
officially incorporated, with George Washington at the helm. The company cleared channels
from Cumberland to the fall line at Great Falls, but it was not until 1802 that construction of the
skirting canals around Great Falls and Little Falls was completed. In the end the unpredictable
nature of the upper Potomac River made boating of goods to the tidewater ports unreliable. By
1827 the Patowmack Navigation Company had failed."
The first decades of the nineteenth century saw road improvements by turnpike companies,
spurred by construction of the National Road west from Cumberland, Maryland. However, the
Blue Ridge Mountains still stood between the farms of western Maryland and Virginia and their
markets to the east. Dreams of water transport persisted and in 1828 the first shovel of dirt was
turned on the construction of a still -water canal to run from the Ohio River to the tidal Potomac
at Georgetown, Maryland. The Chesapeake & Ohio (C&O) Canal was planned to follow the
northeast bank of the Potomac River through Maryland. Construction was slow, requiring the
excavation of the canal prism as well as construction of stone -lined locks, culverts, aqueducts
and dams. Hydraulic or natural cement, designed to harden in a water environment, was
essential to C&O Canal construction. Thus, hydraulic cement mills catering to canal needs were
established at locations along the route, including "Tuscarora, Maryland, above the Monocacy
Aqueduct; at Shepherdstown, (West) Virginia; at Hooks Mill, (West) Virginia, across the river
from Hancock, Maryland; at Round Top, Maryland; at Leopards Mill, Maryland, below Dam No.
9 Susan Winter Frye, Mill Settlement Patterns Along the Antietam Creek Drainage, Washington County, Maryland, bound
thesis, College of William and Mary, 1984, p. 45.
10 Grace L. Nute, ed., "Washington and the Potomac Manuscripts of the Minnesota Historical Society, [1754] 1769-1796,"
reprinted from the American Historical Review, Vol. XXVIII, no. 3, April 1923, p. 500.
11 Paula S. Reed & Associates, "Great Falls Park Virginia, Historic Resource Study," (Great Falls Park, GWMP, NPS, 2008),
pp. 31-70.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMa No. 1024-0010
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation het
Section 8 Page 5
(Expires 5/3112012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co„ WV; Washington Co,, MD
County and State
6; and at Cumberland, Maryland."12 The Shepherdstown (Potomac Mills), Round Top, and
Cumberland cement mills were the largest, "providing the C&O Canal and the Potomac Valley
with natural cement for many decades."13
At the same time and on the same day in 1828, the Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) Railroad
began construction in direct competition with the C&O Canal. Following approximately the
same route as the canal, the railroad was forced at the narrow southern tip of Washington County
in Maryland to cross the Potomac River into Virginia (now West Virginia) at Harpers Ferry. The
railroad reached Cumberland, Maryland in 1842 eight years before the canal arrived in 1850, and
continued westward, ultimately taking much of the transportation business away from the canal.
The C&O Canal never ventured further than its western terminus at Cumberland. The route of
the B&O Railroad through Virginia's Jefferson County became a significant factor during the
American Civil War as this major supply line for the Union army passed through Confederate
territory.
As the United States dissolved into civil war in 1861, the Potomac River became the
dividing line between Confederate Virginia and Union Maryland. Maryland was a border state, a
slave state still within the Union and its allegiance was wavering, particularly through the early
years of the war. With only a few miles of Maryland between Virginia and Pennsylvania, where
the easy terrain and abundant produce of the Cumberland Valley seemed vulnerable, Confederate
troops invaded this Northern territory several times throughout the Civil War. The food and
supply gathering mission undertaken by the Confederates as part of the Gettysburg Campaign is
well documented in the words of the Southern soldiers themselves describing the lushness of the
farms.14 In July of 1864 Confederate General Jubal Early led another invasion into Northern
territory, sending General McCausland into Franklin County to occupy Chambersburg. Early's
plan was to demand a ransom of $100,000 in gold or the town would be burned. It was a threat
on which his men followed through, leaving much of the town in smoldering ruins.15
Maryland was now firmly within the Union, but the Jefferson and Berkeley County
sections of the B&O Railroad, a company controlled by Baltimore native John W. Garrett, lay in
enemy territory, A regular target of Confederate sabotage, protection of the railroad kept Union
troops at Harpers Ferry and Martinsburg through much of the war. Ultimately, the railroad
helped determine the inclusion of both Berkeley and Jefferson Counties in West Virginia — a
Union state carved from Virginia in 1863 —despite their largely Confederate -leaning
populations. Protection of the C&O Canal, also a vital supply line for the Union army, located
along the northeast bank of the boundary river ensured the near -constant occupation of the
Maryland side of the Potomac River by various contingents of Union troops.
12 Hahn and Kemp, p.30.
11 Hahn and Kemp, p. 30.
14Spencer Glasgow Welch, A Confederate Surgeon's Letters to His Wife, (1911), p. 150.
15 Warner Beers & Co., History of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, (Unigraphic Inc., reproduction, (975), p. 130.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 8 Page 6
OMB No. 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
Throughout the 1860s and into the 1870s the railroads, once the savior of mid -Atlantic
farmers, spread across the prime farming regions to the west. The promise of new agricultural
land attracted many of the descendants of the industrious German farmers who had developed
Virginia's Shenandoah Valley grain economy. Soon the railroads were transporting large
amounts of grain from the west to the eastern markets, lowering grain prices. The farms of the
Shenandoah Valley by 1880, still burdened by debts incurred from losses during the war as well
as lower land values, faced unfamiliar competition from the new "bread basket" in the Midwest.
The eventual demise of the local milling industry around the turn of the twentieth century and of
the C&O Canal in 1924 left the region a quiet shadow of the bustling mid -nineteenth century
era.16
Resource History
Growth of the Milling Industry in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley
Enthusiasm for the future of the frontier development in the lower Shenandoah Valley is
evidenced by the establishment of mills and towns in the earliest decades of settlement. Thomas
Shepherd, who was granted 222 acres just west of the Packhorse Ford and The Great Waggon
Road, erected a grist mill and saw mill there before 1744 and by about 1755 had laid out a town
with twenty lots for sale.17 In 1762, when his town was officially incorporated, Shepherd named
it Mecklenburg (later called Shepherd's Town, now Shepherdstown) and recorded a plat with
more than 100 lots.18
The Potomac River crossing was improved by a ferry by 1755, officially established by
an Act of the Virginia General Assembly and operated by Thomas Swearingen with a landing
just below Shepherd's new town.19 The ferry crossing marginalized the old ford but did not put it
out of business, The 1809 Map of Berkeley and Jefferson Counties drawn by Charles Varle
showed both the "Ford" and the "Ferry" near "Shepherds Town." The map also illustrated a road
running from Shepherds Town along the river bank (today's River Road) to an intersection with
Hite's road (Trough Road) at the ford (Figure 6). Vane's map shows the extent of development
in the recently divided counties (Jefferson County was carved from Berkeley in 1801), with as
many as 30 mills along its creeks and Potomac River frontage, including Shepherd's mills still in
operation at the Shepherds Town location.
16 Paula S. Reed, Tillers of the Soil: A Histoy of Agriculture in Mid-Mary/and, (Frederick, MD: Catoctin Center for
Regional Studies, 2011), p. 61.
17 Frederick Co., VA Order Book 1, page 104, microfilm copy, Handley Library, Winchester, VA. This 1744 record was for
the appointment of the overseers for a road between the Opeckon (Opequmi) Creek and "Thomas Shepherd's Mill." Danske
Dandridge, Historic Shepherdstown, 1910 (http://books.google.com), p. 37, citing a lease agreement.
8 Dandridge, p. 263.
19 Mabel and Ann Henshaw Gardiner, Chronicles of Old Berkeley, 1938, p.57.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 01/2009) OMB No. 10240018 (Expires 5131/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Potomac Mills
Continuation Sheet Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Section 8 Page 7
County and State
Despite transportation improvements by the Patowmack Navigation Company along the
Potomac River leading to markets at Georgetown and Alexandria, and improvements to the roads
leading from Swearingen's Ferry toward the Baltimore and Philadelphia markets, the early
decades of the nineteenth century proved difficult for farmers. As the young United States
engaged in an embargo and then a war with Great Britain, sales of agricultural commodities such
as wheat were severely impacted. From the port of Baltimore, flour exports decreased by half
from 1807 to 1808, from 500,000 to 250,000 barrels.20 After the War of 1812, wheat farmers
were challenged again, this time by insects, as Hessian flies attacked the grain crop. Some
farmers responded by turning to other crops like clover, expanding acreage, or growing
livestock. Crop yields also increased through the use of fertilizers. Many farms had small
limekilns in which they burned the local limestone, producing lime for use as fertilizer.21
Thus by the second half of the 1820s the improved wheat crops encouraged
Shepherdstown physician Henry Boteler and local businessman George Reynolds to embark on a
merchant milling partnership. In an 1826 agreement recorded in the Jefferson County Circuit
Court, Boteler and Reynolds stated their intention: "...the said Henry Boteler and George
Reynolds are about to build a water Grist Mill on the Potomac River, near Shepherds Town..."22
Boteler owned the land along the river and agreed with Reynolds to hold in common "a lot of 30
or 40 acres of Land which shall be laid off along the margin of the river where the mill is to be
built," beginning "on the Potomac River near a Spring thence with said Boteler's line up the
fording road hollow..."2J The tract included that part of the river frontage identified in a 1734
land survey for Isaac Garrison, which also noted "the Waggon Road Ford." 24 The now -ancient
ford was still used by locals to avoid the cost of the nearby ferry crossing. Both the ford, by the
mid -nineteenth century known as Boteler's Ford, and its adjoining roads (today's Trough Road
and River Road) would provide ready access to Boteler and Reynold's mill.
George Reynolds was not new to milling. He and his father, George Reynolds, Sr.
owned and operated the former Hoffman Mill several miles to the south since 1819. The
Reynolds/Hoffman Mill (no longer extant) was a small mill, producing just 800 barrels of flour
from 1819 to 1820.25 By comparison, the merchant grist mill on the nearby Shenandoah River
owned by William Little and William Craighill (Avon Mill, later Hopewell Mill, no longer
20 Van Ness, "Economic Development," in Walsh and Fox, p. 176.
21 Paula S. Reed, Tillers of the Soil: A History ofAgriculmre in tv/id-Maryland, (Frederick, MD: Catoctin Center for
Regional Studies, 2011), p. 34.
22 Jefferson Co. (JC) Deed Book (DB) 14, p.35!, Agreement dated July 25, 1826.
23 JC DB 14, p. 351.
24 Robert Brooke Survey Book, Thornton Perry Collection, microfilm copy, Ruth Scarborough Library, Shepherd University,
Shepherdstown, WV.
25 1820 U.S. Population Census, Jefferson County, Virginia, microfilm copy, Ruth Scarborough Library, Shepherd
University, Shepherdstown, WV. The census taker for Jefferson Co. included "A List of Mills in Jefferson County with the quantity
of flour manufactured by each, from I" August 1819 to I" August 1820."
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
inzrn
Section 8 Page 8
0MB No. 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
extant) produced 10,000 barrels of flour over the same period. Boteler and Reynolds' new mill
was a "large merchant (i.e. grist) mill," according to a letter written by Henry Boteler in 1828 26
Merchant mill owners typically purchased the unprocessed grain from local farmers and, after
processing, shipped the flour or meat in bulk to larger city markets. It is likely that Boteler and
Reynolds were anticipating the construction of the C&O Canal along the river bank opposite the
new mill and its connection to the Georgetown market.
The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal and Potomac Mills Hydraulic Cement
Discussions about constructing a still -water canal along the Potomac River began among
producers, merchants, and legislators from Maryland and Virginia before 1 820 27 The advantages
of canal transportation were already being demonstrated by the construction of New York's Erie
Canal in 1817 and many in the Potomac region were anxious to gain that advantage. Isaac
Briggs, the engineer hired by the Maryland legislature to investigate the feasibility of a canal
along the Potomac wrote in a newspaper editorial in 1822:
In consequence of the long and narrow form of Maryland, this proposed
improvement will bring almost to our very doors, the cheapest, safest, and most
perfect of all possible modes of conveying our produce to market; and of bringing
home its returns. It will... establish the predominance of, the agricultural interest.28
Gathering the governmental and financial backing for such a large undertaking, however, would
take several more years. The Virginia charter for the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company was
confirmed by the Maryland legislature in January of 1825, followed by the U.S. Congress in
March of the same year. Subscriptions of stock were opened to the public in 1827 and
groundbreaking began on July 4, 1828.29
Canal construction, beginning with the Erie Canal in New York, was the primary catalyst
for the production of natural or hydraulic cement in the United States. Industrial historians,
Thomas Hahn and Emory Kemp observed in their monograph Cement Mills Along the Potomac
River: "It is clear from a study of the history of the natural cement industry that the canals of the
United States depended on the manufacture of natural cement."30 At its peak in 1899, there were
76 natural cement manufactories, most located in New York, Indiana, and Kentucky, while four
were in Maryland and one (Potomac Mills) in West Virginia.31 Natural cement's salient property
26 As cited in Hahn and Kemp, p.32.
27 Harlan D. Unrau, Historic Resource Study: Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, (Hagerstown, MD: US Dept. of Interior, NPS,
C&O Canal National Historical Park, 2007), p. 49.
28 As cited in Unrau, p. 51.
29 Unrau, pp. 55.56.
30 Hahn and Kemp, p. 17.
31 Hahn and Kemp, p. 17. These numbers are for the year 1899 only. Through the nineteenth century, beginning in 1828
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 0112009) OMB No. 10240010 (Expires 5131(2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Continuation Sheet
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Section 8 Page 9
County and State
was its ability to harden and remain hard under water — a necessity for the construction of dams,
locks, and bridges. Hahn and Kemp describe the manufacturing process:
Natural cement... is made from naturally occurring limestone with a suitable
argillaceous component usually 13 percent to 35 percent, of which 10 percent to 22
percent is silica... The cement rock (argillaceous limestone) is calcined [oxidized by
heating] at a slightly higher temperature than that used to produce quicklime...
The burned limestone is ground into a fine powder which, when combined with
water, produces a hydraulic paste with the main cementitious materials being
calcium silicates. This paste does not slake [chemically change to calcium
hydroxide], will set under water, and is waterproof.32
The kiln type used most commonly to burn (heat or calcine) the limestone was "usually a
truncated pyramid with a cone shaped opening inside, which, in later days, was lined with
firebrick," and for convenience "often built in batteries against a hillside so that they could be
more easily charged [filled] from the top." 33 "Continuous vertical kilns" could be continually
recharged with stone and coal, as described by Kenneth Reis in 1901:
In burning natural cement rock, the fire is first started in the bottom of the kiln, and
on this are spread alternating layers of coal and rock, The coal is of pea or chestnut
size commonly. As the burned stone is drawn from the bottom, fresh stone and fuel
are added at the top.. .The yield of these kilns is large, being 50-120 barrels of
cement per ton of coal.34
The limestone rocks loaded from the top rested within the cone or kiln throat above the arched
draw pit and heated to 1300 to 1500 degrees. The calcined rock was then transported to the mill
to grind it to powder, using often nothing more than "ordinary grist mill btthr-stones" through
much of the nineteenth century,J5 Thus the process required the appropriate limestone quarry,
vertical kilns in which to burn (calcine) the limestone, and a mill to grind the powder.
In January of 1828, six months before canal construction began, Henry Boteler wrote a
letter to the president of the C&O Canal Company, Charles Fenton Mercer, in which he
identified what he believed to be proper limestone for natural cement production:
with the Potomac Mills cement mill, there were a total of three plants in West Virginia and seven in Maryland. See Hahn and Kemp,
pp. 73.84.
32 Hahn and Kemp, pp. 8-9.
33 Hahn and Kemp, p. 9.
34 Kenneth Reis, "Lime and Cement Industries of New York," Bulletin of the New York State Museum, Nov. 1901, as cited
by Hahn and Kemp, p. 1 I.
35 Hahn and Kemp, p. 12.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
;rir• g :•Historic
�i
Section 8 Page 10
0MB No. 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
This stone is found in great abundance on my premises, below this place
(Shepherdstown]. It is found on the surface and under the ground to a considerable
depth. The hill, which appears to be entirely of this stone, is 200 feet high, and
nearly halfa mile around its base 36
The company sent John H. Cocke, Jr., who was already tasked with finding local supplies of
building and cement limestone, to test the stone at Boteler and Reynolds' mill site. Cocke tested
the stone in a small kiln in September 1828 and confirmed that it was good natural cement.37
Immediately Boteler and Reynolds made a proposal to the canal company, ".,.that they could
burn, grind, and deliver cement at the mill for 18.75 cents per bushel."38 The proposal noted
additional costs for delivering the powdered cement by river boat to Georgetown, Maryland
where the construction of the canal had begun just two months earlier.
C&O Canal construction was slow due to a shortage of laborers, land disputes, lack of
adequate funding, and an ongoing dispute with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad over the narrow
strip of right-of-way below Maryland Heights. While the railroad lost the right-of-way battle
and was forced to cross the Potomac River into Virginia at Harpers Ferry (now West Virginia),
still railroad construction greatly out -paced construction of the canal. Ironically, Boteler and
Reynolds provided the C&O Canal Company with natural cement calcined in kilns fired with
coal that was transported by the B&O Railroad'39
Boteler and Reynolds' Potomac Mills grew with the natural cement business. The
original stone and brick grist mill building had two sets of buhrs turned by water power drawn
from the Potomac River by a stone and log crib dam. Beginning in 1829, the grist mill
performed double duty during the harvest season, alternating between grinding grain and cement
stone. New buhr-stones made specifically for grinding calcined limestone arrived later in 1829,
along with a smaller cement mill addition to the original building. The first limekiln (Photo #s
26-29) was constructed on the hillside near the mill in late 1828 or early 1829 and was in
operation by April 1829. An additional bank of three kilns was constructed below the river road
closer to the mill in June -July 1829 and another three were added by April 1830. The battery of
six kilns was, according to Boteler and Reynolds, capable of producing as much as 1,000 bushels
of cement in a single day 40
36 As cited in Hahn and Kemp, p. 32.
77 The small kiln attached to the west end of the kiln bank on the Potomac Mills site today (20)2) is presumed to be the
experimental kiln used by John H. Cocke, Jr.
38 Hahn and Kemp, p. 33.
39 Hahn and Kemp, p. 38.
40 Hahn and Kemp, p.39-43. Hahn and Kemp conclude from the documentary and physical evidence that the battery of six
kilns extant in the Potomac Mills complex are the ones constructed in 1829 and 1830. There is lingering confusion however, because
Civil War soldier's accounts, written after the 1862 Battle of Shepherdstown (Battle of the Cement Mill) describe only three kilns.
Since these are recollections from the heat of battle, it seems prudent to be cautious in dating the kilns based on those recollections.
NPS Form 10.900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB No. 1024-0018
tiona Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section 8 Page 11
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
The Potomac Mills complex ground wheat into flour, and ground lime for architectural
plaster and fertilizer (also known as "plaster") as well as for natural (hydraulic) cement. Their
contracts with the C&O Canal Company were likely their most significant income producer. In
1829 Boteler and Reynolds were authorized by the canal company to erect a warehouse to
accommodate storage of the 2,000 bushels of lime ground per week in their mill for canal use.41
Their August 7, 1829 to May 15, 1830 contract was for 80,000 bushels at 19 cents per bushel; a
second contract extended from January 28, 1830 to September 1, 1830 for 60,000 bushels.
Additional contracts with the canal extended through 1837, after which cement was primarily
supplied to the canal construction from the Round Top Mill at Hancock, Maryland.4
By 1834, C&O Canal construction had reached Lock 38 opposite Shepherdstown. Nearly
all of the traffic on the canal to this point was agricultural produce, with flour topping the list.4
The Potomac Mills dam across the Potomac River, located just below Lock 38, allowed produce,
fertilizer lime or plaster, bags of natural cement, and other products to be boated across the river
from the landing at Shepherdstown:
The impoundment formed a slackwater pool that occasioned the construction of a
river lock in 1833-1835 to provide access to the canal from the river. This made
possible the tapping of an extensive Virginia trade, which was an important source of
business for the canal. Barges were loaded on the Virginia (West Virginia) side,
floated across the river, and entered the canal via the river lock.44
The Potomac River ferry, which remained in operation under the ownership of John Blackford,
also benefited from the slackwater. Blackford'sjournal from the year 1838 noted ferrying as
much as "3 ton plaster in two trips" from "George Reynolds mill."45 A thriving wharf
community grew at the ferry landing below Shepherdstown. In 1836, George Reynolds entered
into an eleven -year lease of the'/2-acre "Ferry Lot" with owners John Blackford and the
Swearingen heirs.46 The terms required that Reynolds build a warehouse on the lot (no longer
standing). Reynolds, in addition to the Potomac Mills business, owned and operated a canal
41 Unrau, p. 165, citing Proceedings of the President and Board of Directors, A, 276 and "Diary and Account Book, 1828-
1829," W. Robert Leckie Papers, Duke University Library. The vents in the brick bonding of the brick "office" building on the
Potomac Mills site and the 1829 inscription date are both indications that this building was likely this warehouse, later converted to a
dwelling house (as described in later sale advertisements).
42
Unrau, p. 166.
43 Unrau, pp. 437-440. Product -specific statistics were only available for the years 1831 (over 71,000 barrels of flour
transported) and 1832 (over 91,000 barrels of flour transported). The years 1833 and 1834 showed overall toll revenue increases as
the canal reached the Great Valley in Washington County, Maryland and by extension the lower Shenandoah Valley across the river.
44 Unrau, p. 671.
45 John Blackford, Ferry Hill Plantation Journal... 4 January 1838-15 January 1839, Fletcher Nt. Green, Thomas F. and
Nathalie W. Hahn, eds., (Shepherdstown, WY, 1975), P. 40.
46 JC DB 21, p.73.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 8 Page 12
OMB No. 1024-0018
(Expires 5(31/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co, WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
packet boat called "The Henry Boteler."47 Shepherdstown merchant William Shortt also located
his canal boating warehouse at the ferry landing. About 1849, Shortt replaced his wood building
with a large stone warehouse (today commonly known as the Tobacco Warehouse).48
In June of 1835, the partnership of Boteler and Reynolds was dissolved when Henry
Boteler sold his interest in the mill complex and theirjointly acquired tracts of land, a total of
nearly 400 acres, to George Reynolds for $25,932. Though Reynolds fulfilled his mortgage
obligation to Boteler for this purchase, by 1842 Reynolds was in debt to the tune of $27,000. In
his 1842 Deed of Trust to Henry Berry, George Reynolds mortgaged everything he owned as
security: his home farm and mill, the Potomac Mills and ferry lot warehouse, 3,000 acres in
Morgan County, 29 slaves, 30 horses, 20 mules, 40 cattle, several hundred sheep and hogs, nine
wagons, three carts, a Threshing Machine, and his four canal boats.50 In 1846, Reynolds
defaulted on this mortgage and was forced by Chancery Court to sell all of his property,
including the Potomac Mills 51 A newspaper advertisement for the July 1846 public sale of the
mill property described the "Very Extensive and Valuable Milling Establishment known as the
`Potomac Mills,' with 10 or 12 Acres of Land adjacent thereto":
The Mill -House is of Brick and very well built. It has Six Pair of Burrs, and
commands the entire water -power of the Potomac River. Besides the Merchant Mill,
there is a saw -mill, of the most approved construction, a Plaster Mill, and several
large and well -constructed permanent Lime Kilns, situated immediately on the River
and near the Mill, with every convenience for manufacturing the Hydraulic Cement
upon the most extensive scale.
Upon the premises are a large and well built Smoke House, Blacksmith's Shop,
several Work Shops, with a convenient Dwelling -House.
52
The adjoining tracts of land were to be sold separately. Alexander R. Boteler, son of Dr. Henry
Boteler, purchased the Potomac Mills complex for $15,100 (Figure 7).53 Boteler continued the
Potomac Mills name and operations through the 1850s, advertising both cement and grain
products in the local newspaper.54
47 Blackford, p. 40.
48 Shepherdstown Register, 1849-1850, microfilm collection, Ruth Scarborough Library, Shepherd University,
Shepherdstown, WV.
49JCDB 21,p.8.
50 JC DB 25, p.387.
51 JC DB 20, p. 399, Deed of Trust from Boteler to Reynolds June 1835, released; JC DB 28, p. 241 Chancery sale deed.
i2 4artinsburg Geteue, June 18, 1846, microfilm collection, Martinsburg Public Library, Martinsburg, WV.
53 JC DB 28, p. 241.
54 Shepherdstown Register, July 2, 1850 and November 26, 1853.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 01/2009) OMB No. 1024-0019 (E,,pires 5/91/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Continuation Sheet
Jefferson Co.. WV; Washington Co, MD
Section B Page 13
County and State
Alexander R. Boteler was elected to Congress in 1859 as an Independent. Born in 1815
in the Shepherdstown area to the wealthy landowning and slave -owning Boteler family, he was
opposed to the idea of dividin� the Union. It was apparently an opinion shared by a majority of
residents in Jefferson County. 5 But as the Union began to dissolve in 1861, following South
Carolina's secession and attack on Fort Sumter, the Commonwealth of Virginia's strong
sentiment toward states rights became evident. At the first special convention held in April 1861
initial votes went against secession; that changed to a vote in favor of Virginia seceding from the
Union in May 1861.56 Maryland, now sandwiched between Confederate Virginia and Union
Pennsylvania, was a wavering border state still within the Union.
The Civil War on the Border between North and South
Virginia's secession from the Union drew the line of division along the banks of the
Potomac River, The river served as a natural barrier between Union North and Confederate
South. However, though most bridges were burned early in the war, the several river fords
above Great Falls served both sides in their forays into enemy territory. By August 1861,
various Union regiments guarded the river fords on the Maryland side. At that time the 13th
Regiment Massachusetts Volunteers covered the "Shepherdstown Ford," the old Packhorse Ford
by then also commonly known as Boteler's or Blackford's Ford.57 Private James Ramsey, Co. E,
of the 13th Regt., was stationed at the ford on the night of August 18th, 1861. In a letter home
written later in October, Ramsey recalled the destruction of the Potomac Mills:
While we were at Sheppardstown [sic] we were in a dangerous position which we
then did not realize, our camp was situated on a hill within rifle range of the rebels,
on their side of the river they had thick foliage besides a four story factory which
some of our company burnt, as a good place of protection against our firing they
could pick off our guard without danger from our rifles.58
Potomac Mills owner, Alexander Boteler, by then a Colonel in the Confederate army and a
representative in the Confederate legislature, was specificali3y targeted when both his home and
the Potomac Mills were burned during the same Union raid. 9
55 Millard K. Bushong, A History of Jefferson County West Virginia 1719-1940, (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 2007),
p.279.
56 Bushong, p. 100.
57 Elliot Clark Pierce, "A Midnight Ride," as cited on "Head Quarters, 13th Regt. Rifles, Mass. Vol.," "Camp al Sharpsburg,
Md.," htt://13thmass.ore/l861/sharpsburg.html#mozTocld 170991, accessed July 27, 2012.
a As cited on "Head Quarters, 136 Regt. Rifles, Mass. Vol.," "Camp at Sharpsburg, Md.,"
nttp:// 13thmass.orgJ1861/shurpsburg.hlm I#mozTocld 170991, accessed July 27, 2012.
59 Unrau, pp. 166-167.
NP5 Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 8 Page 14
0MB Na. 1024-8018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 513112012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
Throughout the first year of the Civil War, Maryland's commitment to the Union was
fragile, with a divided legislature and even divided families with fathers, sons, and brothers
joining the fight in one or the other opposing army. Still, the majority of Marylanders professed
their loyalty to the Union, though perhaps sympathetic to the southern cause. And with the
nation's capital city of Washington located within the state's borders, Federal forces aimed to
keep the state within the Union. Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Maryland Campaign in
the late summer of 1862 sought to test the waters of rebellion in Maryland, and perhaps ease the
strain of near constant fighting in Virginia. By bringing the war into Northern territory, he hoped
to force a negotiated peace through public pressure on Congress 6o
On September 4, 1862, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia crossed the Potomac River at
White's Ford, entering Maryland in Montgomery County and turning north. At Frederick,
General Lee hatched his plan in Special Order No. 191, to divide his army between Harpers
Ferry, Boonsboro, and Hagerstown where they were to reunite and head north into Pennsylvania.
A mislaid copy of the order was later found in the field by a Union soldier and delivered to
Major General George B. McClellan, newly assigned commander of the Union Army of the
Potomac. Knowing that Lee's army was dangerously divided, McClellan took chase catching up
with the Confederate rear guard stationed near Boonsboro at South Mountain on the morning of
September 14th. The small contingent of Confederates held the three South Mountain gaps
throughout the day, blocking the Union army from passage until Harpers Ferry surrendered and
the Confederate forces reunited. But instead of reuniting at Hagerstown as planned, they
regrouped on the west bank of the Antietam Creek, occupying the rural Maryland town of
Sharpsburg with their backs to the Potomac River. Lee's grossly outnumbered force of less than
65,000 men faced McClellan's approaching army of approximately 80,000 — though both armies
were already reduced by casualties and stragglers — with only the Antietam Creek and the
ripened cornfields and orchards of the Sharpsburg area farms between them 61
The battle that raged throughout the day on September 17th, 1862, called the Battle of
Antietam in the North and the Battle of Sharpsburg in the South, left over 23,000 men killed,
wounded or missing. The day ended with little ground actually lost by Lee's Confederates. But
the overwhelming numbers of men still available to Union General McClellan left Lee little
choice but to retreat back across the Potomac River on September 18th (Figure 8). The following
day, September 19th, General McClellan sent a dispatch to Major General Henry W. Halleck in
Washington, D.C.:
Pleasonton is driving the enemy across the river. Our victory was complete. The
enemy is driven back into Virginia. Maryland and Pennsylvania are now safe.62
60 Paula S. Reed & Associates, Inc., "Cultural Resources Study, Monocacy National Battlefield;" (NPS, 2004), p. 42.
61 Paula S. Reed & Associates, Inc., "Cultural Resources Study, Monocacy National Battlefield," (NPS, 2004), p. 43; Paula
S. Reed & Associates, Inc., "Sharpsburg Historic District," National Register documentation, 2008, Section 8, p. 8.
62 As cited in Thomas A. McGrath, Shepherdston,n: Last Clash of the Antietam Campaign September 19-20, 1862,
NPS Form 10-900.a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB No. 1024-0018
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section 8 Page 15
(Expires 6/31/2012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
McClellan's dispatch, though ultimately true, would prove to be premature.
The nearby Boteler's (Packhorse) Ford of the Potomac River served as a conduit, first
bringing Major General Ambrose P. Hill's Confederate troops marching from Harpers Ferry to
join the fight at Antietam (Sharpsburg), then for the Confederate retreat back to Virginia
following the battle and the Union pursuit.63 The final battle of the Maryland Campaign occurred
on the Virginia side of the river crossing, around the burned -out ruins of the Potomac Mills, the
quarry cliffs above, and along the old "Waggon Road" by then known locally as Trough Road.
(Figure 9)
On the morning of September 19t1,, Union artillery located on the Maryland hillside
overlooking the Potomac River began pounding the Virginia bank in preparation for the Union
crossing. Confederate General Lee's instruction to his small force at the river was to "guard the
fords" at least until night and then prepare the infantry "to join their respective divisions on the
march to-morrow."64 The intended march was to head toward the Valley Road (today's Route
11) at Martinsburg and to re -cross the Potomac at Williamsport, continuing on toward
Pennsylvania. It seems neither Lee nor McClellan anticipated the battle about to unfold around
Alexander Boteler's ruined mill.
Just at sundown on the evening of September t 9th, as the Federal batteries renewed their
pounding fire, a group of 50 volunteer sharpshooters supported by the 4th Michigan Volunteer
Infantry waded into the river at Boteler's Ford. The shadows of the small Union force crossing
the river under the dark of the evening appeared to the Confederate artillerymen on the bluff like
"a million" men and their retreat began. 5 The abandoned Confederate artillery on the Virginia
side was easily captured. On the morning of the 20h, lulled by the success of the night prior, the
unsuspecting men of the Union's lsr Division, ls' Brigade, including the 118`' Pennsylvania
Volunteer Infantry "Corn Exchange Regiment," "splashed and paddled" across the ford to the
Virginia side. They deployed up the Charlestown Road (Trough Road) and down the river road
(today's River Road) by the mill ruin. Then they followed a path up the hill to the fields of the
Osbourn farm on the bluffs. 66 There the forces of Major General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson
surprised the Union troops. Despite renewed and reportedly vicious shelling from the Maryland
side, the Confederate line relentlessly advanced on the Union force formed above the quarry
cliffs 67 (Figure 5)
(Lynchburg, VA: Schroeder Publications, 2008), P. 59.
63 Jay Luvaas & Harold W. Nelson, Guide to the Battle ofAntietan, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996), p. 237,
Brig. Gen. Samuel McGowan, CSA, Commanding Gregg's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, wrote in his report: "We
made a forced march up the river, crossed the river at Boteler's Ford, a short distance below Shepherdstown, and arrived on the field
or Sharpsburg in the afternoon... reaching the actual presence of the enemy at 3:40 p.m., which was not a moment too soon..."
64 McGrath, p. 65,
65 McGrath, p. 80.
66 McGrath, pp. 101-I 12.
67 McGrath, pp. 116-1)8.
NPS Form 10.900•a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 8 Page 16
OMB No. 10240018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5(31/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
Union Major Genera! Fitz John Porter arrived on the Maryland river bank to view the
unfolding drama, Surprised by the extent of the reconnaissance -turned -battle, Porter recalled:
Seeing the small force of infantry on the opposite bank (two brigades of Sykes's and
part of one of Morell's), and the impossibility of getting over and forming sufficient
force in time to meet the attack, I ordered all to withdraw and take shelter within the
canal.68
Though the re -crossing began relatively orderly, as the columns collapsed into retreat they found
themselves under fire from the Confederates behind them and from friendly fire in front. In the
confusion, the green troops of the 118111 Pa. Corn Exchange were at the rear and still in line of
battle, not having been given the order to withdraw by their colonel 69
Nearly alone on the cliff above Boteler's mill ruins, the Corn Exchange bravely stood
their ground until they were completely overrun by Confederate troops. (Figure 10) Their wild
retreat down the ravine path over which they had initially arrived proved to be a death trap as
rebel guns fired on them from above. Others found themselves at the edge of the cliff, falling to
their deaths. Sharpsburg resident Jacob Miller, a southern sympathizer, described what he saw
as he watched the battle from his farm on the Maryland side of the river:
...at the cement quarry they ["the yankees"] made no halt but tumbled over into the
pit. Some broke their arms some their legs some their necks and some knocked out
their brains but nearly all that went over ware killed they ware piled on top of each
other eight or ten feet high.. 70
Those that did make it to the river alive faced the barrage of gun and artillery fire coming from
above and from across the river. Private Joseph Meehan slid down the bluff, "and reaching the
road at the bottom... ran a short distance till I came to three archways in the hill. Into the first of
these I got for protection."71 Meehan was not alone in his limekiln refuge. Remarkably, a
relatively large number of men reached the river's edge, only to face the river crossing:
From his position in the kilns, Joseph Meehan had a close-up view of the chaos near
the dam: "From our retreat we witnessed a scene of great excitement. Men were
trying to get across the river, the bullets dropping about them like hail. One or two
68 Porter's official report, as cited in McGrath, p. 124.
69 McGrath, p. 143, The order to withdraw given to Corn Exchange Colonel Charles Prevost was relayed to him through one
of his Lieutenants from the adjunct of Colonel James Barnes, commander of the I" Brigade at the time. Prevost, feeling that the relay
of orders occurred improperly, refused to withdraw his regiment. After a second order was relayed from Barnes personally (not from
his adjunct), and after Prevost was wounded, the regiment withdrew from its untenable position.
70 December 7, 1862 letter from Jacob Miller to his daughter Amelia Hauser, "Jacob Miller Letters," transcribed by Jan
Wetterer and Paul Chiles, Antietam National Battlefield, Sharpsburg, MD. Words are spelled as written by Jacob Miller.
71 As cited in McGrath, p. 157.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 01/2009) OMB Na. 1024-0018 (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Continuation Si
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Section 8 Page 17
2004.
County and State
were swimming, as being a safer plan. A breakwater ran across the river near us, and
it contained many dead and wounded men."72
Captain Frank Donaldson recalled: "I stood near the sluice way which intervened between the
dam proper and the riverbank, seeing to the passage of the same by such of my company willing
to venture across, and with aching heart witnessed the utter demoralization and rout of this fine
body of men, who, beaten, dismayed, wild with fright, all order and discipline gone, were
rushing headlong toward the dam, across which alone lay safety and escape."73
The Battle of Shepherdstown, also known as the Battle of the Cement Mill, ended
September 20th with 160 dead — 64 Confederate and 96 Union, of which 80 were from the 118111
Pa. Corn Exchange Regiment.74 Immediately following the bloody Battle of Antietam this
number seemed small, though the scenes were horrific and the results of the battle were
significant. General McClellan came away believing it nearly impossible to follow Lee into
Virginia, instead keeping his army encamped around Sharpsburg and along the Potomac through
October 1862. On November 8th, frustrated by the delay, President Lincoln replaced McClellan
with Major General Ambrose E. Burnside as head of the Army of the Potomac.
In the end, General Lee found no sentiment for rebellion in Maryland and did not
"anticipate any general rising of the people in our behalf."75 By the end of September 1862 Lee
found his army to be in such a poor condition as to prevent his plan to "threaten a passage into
Maryland," noting in his letter to Confederacy President Jefferson Davis:
I would not hesitate to make it even with our diminished numbers, did the army
exhibit its former temper and condition; but, as far as tamable to judge, the hazard
would be great and a reverse disastrous. I am, therefore, led to pause. 6
The Confederate army did not cross again into Maryland until the summer of 1863, once again
bringing the war to the North. Reaching as far as Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, their failure there
proved to be the last large invasion from the South. A smaller crossing occurred in July of 1864
when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early led a force of approximately 15,000 in an
attack on Washington D.C. in an effort to draw Grant's Union troops away from Richmond.
Early's plan was foiled when his force was delayed at the Monocacy River crossing near
Frederick by 6,000 Federal troops under the command of General Lew Wallace.77 Smaller
incursions for supplies and ransom continued throughout the war, but the Confederate hope that
72 McGrath, p. 157.
73 As cited in McGrath, p. 161,
74 McGrath, Appendix A.
75 Richard R. Duncan, "The Era of the Civil War," in Walsh and Fox, p. 357, quoting OR, series I, XIX, part 2, pp. 590-592.
76 McGrath, p. 184.
77 Paula S. Reed & Assoc., "Monocacy National Battlefield," National Register of Historic Places documentation update,
NPS Farm 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department o₹ the Interior
National Park Service
Section 8 Page 18
OMB Na. 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5131/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
Maryland would join the cause died with the end of the Maryland Campaign on the south bank
of the Potomac River by the ruins of the Potomac Mills.
Post -Civil War Reconstruction
Not surprisingly, Alexander Boteler's business collapsed with the destruction of the mill
in 1861. In September 1865, the property was again for sale at auction:
On Saturday, the 711i of October, next, that very desirable Property upon the south
bank of the Potomac, one mile below Shepherdstown, known as the
"Potomac Mills,"
including the Mill Lot of about Fifteen Acres and all its Valuable Appurtenances.
The Water Power
belonging to this Property is one of the most extensive in the State, comprising as it
does the full force of the Potomac river by means of a dam some seven hundred feet
in length, built against a ledge of rock, which extends at right angles across the bed
of the River, constituting thereby an indestructible natural dam of itself and affording
the best possible foundation for such a superstructure.
The
Hydraulic Cement Quarries
upon the premises are convenient to the kilns and capable of supplying an unlimited
amount of that Mineral of the very best quality.
Although the buildings have nearly all been destroyed during the recent war — the
Merchant Mill, Cement Factory, Saw Mill, &c., having been burnt by Massachusetts
troops in the summer of 1861 — the walls of the principle part of them remain
without material injury, being of the most substantial character, those for instance of
the Merchant Mill being one hundred feet long by fifty wide, three stories high of
brick, three feet thick at their base, and eighteen inches at top, resting upon a
limestone foundation six feet thick, built upon arches sprung on solid rock.
By means of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad every facility is afforded for transportation to and from this Property, which
from its situation in the fertile Valley of the Shenandoah, is admirably located in
every respect for the establishment of a Manufacturing village and is well worthy the
attention of enterprising capitalists.79
Following its sale to a group of trustees for $35,000, the money was to be used to reinvest in the
mill complex.79 In 1867, the Potomac Mills Mining and Manufacturing Company was formed
78 Shepherdstown Register, September 2, 1865, microfilm collection, Ruth Scarborough Library, Shepherd University,
Shepherdstown, WV.
79 JC DR 1, p. 244 (March 6, 1866) and 412 (September 26, 1866).
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 01)2009) OMO No, 10240019 (Expires 5/31/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Regster of Historic Places
Continuaflon Sheet
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Section 8 Page 19 County and State
and rebuilt the mills ca. 1870. Cement production resumed by 1875, according to the editor of
the Shepherdstown Register:
...the editor stated that a Major Hagan was running the mill to its "fullest capacity,
and making an excellent quality of cement, all of which is shipped to Washington
(presumably by canal) where there is a great demand for it, The Major puts things
`very likely' „80
Major Harry Blunt, a Washington builder who also owned a Jefferson County horse farm, leased
the Potomac Mills through the 1870s. In 1878, it was likely Blunt who purchased the complex
under the name of new trustees, William Webb and L. E. Coyle.81
Operations at the plant through the rest of the nineteenth century followed the seasonal
schedule of the C&O Canal, April through December, closing in the winter months. The canal
closed due to ice but the cement plant's primary clients, builders in Washington, D.C., also
suspended operations in the winter months.82 In 1879, the Shepherdstown Register gave a
detailed account of the Potomac Cement Mills operations:
The Potomac Cement Mills below town, are now running regularly, regularly [sic],
though not to their full capacity. The daily average is at about seventy-five barrels.
Some twenty or twenty-five hands are kept in constant employment under the
management of Mr. J.E. Lucas, the efficient Superintendent. There has recently been
put up in the mills a set of new and improved buhr for grinding the cement, which
are said to be superior to the old style of buhr. We noticed the other day, about one
thousand barrels of cement ready for market; about seven hundred of that number
has been shipped on the boat of Mr. J.W. Osbourn via the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal to Washington. The cement is now considered the best in the country and the
demand for it is rapidly increasing. The five [sic] kilns are constantly burning, and
the business of the mill has necessitated the building of a new packing machine,
which is now beinc made by that expert old millwright, Mr. Davy Karns, of
Williamsport, Md.
An 1883 description of the works published in A Practical Treatise of Limes, Hydraulic
Cements, and Mortars, detailed the quarrying, burning, and milling process at Potomac Mills,
called "The Shepherdstown Works":
The Shepherdstown Works comprise two run of four and a half French buhrstones
and the necessary crackers, driven by water power, and three perpetual
80 Hahn and Kemp, p. 54.
81 JC DB F, p. 498.
82 Hahn and Kemp, pp. 54-56.
83 As cited in Hahn and Kemp, p. 56.
NPS Form 10-900-e
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 8 Page 20
OMB No, 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5)31/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
kilns...Cumberland coal is used for burning. The stone is derived from deposits
which crop out in several places on the banks of the Potomac, near the mill. Though
considerably tortuous and irregular, their general position is nearly vertical. The
stone is quarried from the top of the hill, is then passed into the kilns, situated on the
slope below, and subsequently to flat -boats in the mill -race. These are then floated
into the mill, and the burnt stone is discharged through the hatchways up to the
crackers. The deposit is in two principal layers, one of which furnished a quick, and
the other a slow setting cement. The two are mixed together in nearly equal
proportions, a combination which is believed to yield a better cement than either of
the beds would if used alone.84
Hahn and Kemp observed that while this is the first description of the mill to include a mention
of "crackers," they were always a part of the process. A cracker literally cracked the burned
limestone, "to break the stone down into pieces small enough to be put into the grinding
stones."85
Like all Potomac River valley occupants, the Potomac Mills owners and workers had to
deal repeatedly with both flood conditions and drought. In 1884, the mill was closed in August
due to low water in the river. Low water affected not only the plant's ability to produce power to
turn the mill stones, but also to transport the burned stone to the mill by flat boat down the head
race, and to deliver the cement across the river to the canal. The C&O Canal, which also drew
its water from the Potomac River, was negatively impacted by low water with reduced traffic.
Major Blunt responded to the drought by installing a steam engine to power a "turbine wheel" at
the mill.86
More destructive to both canal and mills, floods or "freshets" were common along the
Potomac during the nineteenth century as woodland along the watershed was cleared for building
material, heating fuel, charcoal production, and farming. The June 1, 1889 Potomac River flood
was the worst ever recorded at the time, with a crest of 44 1/3 feet at Williamsport and 34 feet at
Harpers Ferry. The water level at Harpers Ferry was 21 feet above the canal towpath. It was
disastrous for the C&O Canal with numerous locks, gates, warehouses, and lockhouses washed
away, and hundreds of feet of canal breeches. The necessary repairs closed the canal for three
years, forcing it into receivership.87 The Potomac Mills main building was flooded to the second
floor, according to a newspaper report, and the railway just recently installed to transport the
limestone from the kilns to the mill was "swept away." 8 The cement mill was back on line by
the following week but the canal did not fully reopen until 1892, and then without the river lock
84 As cited in Hahn and Kemp, pp. 58-59.
85 Hahn and Kemp, p. 59.
86 Hahn and Kemp, p. 60.
87 Unrau, pp. 311-315.
88 Hahn and Kemp, p.62. citing Shepherdslomn Register, June 7, 1889.
NPS Farm 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
o
Section 8 Page 21
OMB No. 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 5/31/2012)
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
opposite the Shepherdstown landing. It was not until 1896 that cement could be delivered by
boat, a much less expensive proposition than hauling it to the railroad depot. But by then the
mill dam had fallen into disrepair which severely limited boating across the river.
The Potomac Mills produced cement sporadically through the remaining years of the
1890s. In addition to problems created by the river and transportation issues, competing
production of Portland cement in the U.S., "an artificial mixture of lime, silica, and alumina"
first produced in 1872 in Pennsylvania, had grown from 335,000 barrels in 1890 to 8,482,000 in
1900, and to over 92,000,000 by 1913.89 In the summer of 1900, Major Blunt prepared to reopen
the mill, rebuilding the log crib dam and repairing machinery, reportedly with plans to eventually
replace the dam with a concrete construction. With everything repaired by the close of the
season, the plant was ready to begin production in the spring. On January 12, 1901, Major Blunt
died, and though his son Harry W. Blunt, Jr. took up the reins of ownership, the Potomac Mills
went out of business after nearly 75 years of operation. By 1904, the property was again for sale,
reported the Shepherds/own Register, noting that cement from the Potomac Mills was used to
build the "Boundary Sewer in Washington" as well as the District's "Army and Navy
buildings."9B
In 1916, the West Virginia Geologic Survey reported that the Potomac Mills (called by
them the "Potomac Cement Company" or "Shepherdstown Cement Company") buildings had
not been in use since 1900 and that they were still in good condition.91 In 1924, a devastating
flood closed the C&O Canal for good and likely damaged the by then long -vacant mill buildings
beyond repair. The 1936 Potomac River flood was "the heaviest flood in the recorded history of
the Potomac Valley."92 That year Harry W. Blunt, Jr. conveyed the "Potomac Cement Mill
Property," with "buildings, mills, machinery, water rights, fixtures," to Harry W. Blunt (III).93
The property, now approximately 18 acres, remained in the Blunt family ownership until the
2011 purchase by the Jefferson County Landmarks Commission 94
89 George Perry Grimsley, County Reports and Maps, Jefferson, Berke/ey, and Morgan Counties, (Wheeling: West Virginia
Geological Survey, 1916), p. 494.
90 Hahn and Kemp, p. 67.
91 Grimstey, p.494.
92 Unrau, p. 318.
93 JC DB 158, p. I8.
94 JC DB 1102, p. 362, Harry W. Blunt IV to Jefferson Co. Landmarks Commission
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 0112009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
!' k
Section 9 Page 1
Major Bibliographical References:
OMB No. 1024-0018
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
(Expires 513112012)
Jefferson Co, WV; Washington Co, MD
County and State
Blackford, John. Ferry Hill Plantation Journal...4 January 1838-15 January 1839. Fletcher M.
Green, Thomas F. and Nathalie W. Hahn, eds., Shepherdstown, WV, 1975.
Bushong, Millard K. A History ofJefferson County West Virginia 1719-1940. Westminster,
MD: Heritage Books, 2007.
Dandridge, Danske. Historic Shepherdstown. Published 1910, http://books google com
accessed July 26, 2012.
Frye, Susan Winter. ivlill Settlement Patterns Along the Antietam Creek Drainage, Washington
County, Maryland. Bound thesis, College of William and Mary, 1984.
Hahn, Thomas F. and Emory L. Kemp. Cement Mills Along the Potomac River. Institute for the
History of Technology & Industrial Archaeology (WVU), Monograph Series, Vol. 2, No. 1,
1994.
"Head Quarters, 13`h Regt. Rifles, Mass. Vol.," "Camp at Sharpsburg, Md.,"
http•//l3tlunass org/l861/sharpsburg htint#mozTocld170991, accessed July 27, 2012.
Hofstra, Warren R. and Karl Raitz, eds. The Great Valley Road of Virginia. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, 2010.
"Jacob Miller Letters," Transcribed by Jan Wetterer and Paul Chiles, Antietam National
Battlefield, Sharpsburg, MD.
Jefferson County Land Records, Jefferson County Courthouse, Charles Town, WV.
Jefferson County Road Book 1, Jefferson County Courthouse, Charles Town, WV.
Luvaas, Jay & Harold W. Nelson. Guide to the Battle of Antietam. Lawrence: University Press
of Kansas, 1996.
McGrath, Thomas A. Shepherdstown: Last Clash of the Antietam Campaign September 19-20,
1862. Lynchburg, VA: Schroeder Publications, 2008.
Newspaper microfilm collection, Martinsburg Free Library, Martinsburg, WV.
Newspaper and U.S. Population Census, microfilm collection, Ruth Scarborough Library,
Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, WV.
O'Dell, Cecil. Pioneers of Old Frederick County, Virginia, Marceline, MO: Walsworth
Publishing Company, 1995.
Reed, Paula S. Tillers of the Soil: A History ofAgriculture in Mid -Maryland. Frederick, MD:
Catoctin Center for Regional Studies, 2011.
NPS Form 10-900-a (Rev. 0112009) OMB No. 1024-0018 (E,pires 5131/2012)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Regster of Historic Places Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Continuation Sheet
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
Section 9 Page 2
County and State
Reed, Paula S. & Associates, Inc. "Antietam National Battlefield." National Register Nomination
Update, 1999.
Reed, Paula S. & Associates, Inc. "Cultural Resources Study, Monocacy National Battlefield."
National Park Service, Monocacy National Battlefield, Frederick, MD, 2004.
Reed, Paula S. & Associates, Inc. "Monocacy National Battlefield." National Register
Nomination Update, 2004.
Reed, Paula S. & Associates, Inc. "Sharpsburg Historic District." National Register Nomination,
2008.
Reed, Paula S. & Associates, Inc. "Great Falls Park Virginia, Historic Resource Study." National
Park Service, George Washington Memorial Parkway, Great Falls Park, 2008.
"Robert Brooke Survey Book." Thornton Perry Collection, microfilm copy, Ruth Scarborough
Library, Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, WV.
Unrau, Harlan D. Historic Resource Study. • Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. Hagerstown, MD: US
Dept. of Interior, NPS, C&O Canal National Historical Park, 2007.
Walsh, Richard and William Lloyd Fox, eds. Maryland, A History. Baltimore: Maryland
Historical Society, 1974.
NPS Form 10-900-a
(Rev. 01/2009)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Section 10 Page 1
Verbal Boundary Description:
OMB No. 1024-0018
(Expires 5/3112012)
Potomac Mills
Name of Property
Jefferson Co., WV; Washington Co., MD
County and State
The boundary inclusive of the Potomac Mills complex, including the archeological
resources associated with the Mill, follows the legal boundary description of the 18 -acre
Potomac Mills property (reference Jefferson Co. Deed Book 1102, p. 362; see attached plat), the
River Road and Trough Road rights -of -way within that property, all located in Jefferson County,
West Virginia. Also one linear feature, the dam remnant, which is located within the Potomac
River in Maryland stretching from the Maryland north bank to the West Virginia south bank of
the river. The dam boundary begins at a point on the south bank of the river at the western end
of the head race Stone Wall and extends approximately 20 feet wide running northerly across the
width of the Potomac River, approximately 700 feet to respective points on the Maryland (north)
side of the river.
Boundary Justification:
The described boundary of the Potomac Mills property is the historic mill lot (13 acres)
as it was conveyed in 1846 (JC DB 28, p.241), 1866 (JC DB 1, p. 412), 1878 (JC DB F, p. 498),
and in 1936 (JC DB 158, p. 18) and includes all resources and archeology associated with the
Mill. The 5 -acre additional acreage is likely due to modern survey techniques and possibly low
water in the river — the difference is not specifically addressed in the most recent survey
(Appalachian Surveys, PLLC, 2012). A 2002 survey by Gates Associated, Inc. (Plat #10030)
notes: "The boundary along the Potomac River is intended to be along the meanders of the low
water mark as delineated in the referenced court decision [ 1910 case recorded in 30 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 630]. The bearings and distances shown represent chords and distances along the existing
located meander at the time of the survey." The nominated boundary includes also the dam
remnant, described verbally as approximately 20 feet wide to be inclusive of all underwater
remains. The dam is included because it is an integral feature of the mill property history.
rm
c
I
Aar
1q
00
s
w
eD
0
cD
Co
0-
Im
,om e11 al 14s15i 41ST p '4iSL pal 49tt.:4Jn3 MR 6�L e® flu aTtcaa..
•peps ® !0h qea$ ° °o 'cm ,e41 4n14m 4,®4 'f M VI& "
w l ' 12"1 4s! ... is 8®8
®84tpi epodd. Uwnnoe ep{e® p. ®1$ n1 witiam4 ®1 ee 14 haw an ® -► I i
'dsizkg 10.9.'8 @.ega®p p*om. sapaaspa:. �l pt6OS
i iiiiliiiiilj ul i' a klk
ltom S�e)lii A
IIuk 3 cI
hifluli
'l•
nil lhiuilhllifflfl
ID
��:leii {I{is�In. o°
r E t tkVMtttffttfrl
;', 4!~""
�
� l
Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
To be considered for listing under
Criterion A, a property must be as-
sociated with one or more events im-
portant in the defined historic
context. Criterion A recognizes
properties associated with single
events, such as the founding of a
town, or with a pattern of events,
repeated activities, or historic trends,
such as the gradual rise of a port
city's prominence in trade and com-
merce. The event or trends, how-
ever, must clearly be important
within the associated context: settle-
ment, in the case of the town, or
development of a maritime economy,
in the case of the port city.
Moreover, the property must have an
important association with the event
or historic trends, and it must retain
historic integrity. (See Part V: How to
Evaluate a Property Within its Historic
Context.)
Several steps are involved in deter-
mining whether a property is sig-
nificant for its associative values:
® Determine the nature and origin
of the property,
® Identify the historic context with
which it is associated, and
® Evaluate the property's history to
determine whether it is as-
sociated with the historic context
in any important way.
Examples of Properties Associated
with Events
Properties associated with specific events:
a The site of a battle.
w The building in which an important
invention was developed.
A factory district where a significant
strike occurred.
® An archeological site at which a
major new aspect of prehistory was
discovered, such as the first evidence
of man and extinct Pleistocene
animals being contemporaneous.
® A site where an important facet of
European exploration occurred.
Properties associated with a pattern of
events:
® A trail associated with western
migration.
® A railroad station that served as the
focus of a community's transporta-
tion system and commerce.
® A mill district reflecting the impor-
tance of textile manufacturing
during a given period.
® A building used by an important
local social organization.
® A site where prehistoric Native
Americans annually gathered for
seasonally available resources and for
social interaction.
® A downtown district representing a
town's growth as the commercial
focus of the surrounding agricultural
area.
TYPES OF EVENTS
A property can be associated with
either (or both) of two types of
events:
A specific event marking an im-
portant moment in American
prehistory or history and
® A pattern of events or a historic
trend that made a significant con-
tribution to the development of a
community, a State, or the nation.
Refer to the left for a list of specific
examples.
ASSOCIATION OF THE
PROPERTY WITH THE
EVENTS
The property you are evaluating
must be documented, through ac-
cepted means of historical or ar-
cheological research (including oral
history), to have existed at the time
of the event or pattern of events and
to have been associated with those
events. A property is not eligible if
its associations are speculative. For
archeological sites, well reasoned in-
ferences drawn from data recovered
at the site can be used to establish the
association between the site and the
events.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
ASSOCIATION
Mere association with historic
events or trends is not enough, in
and of itself, to qualify under
Criterion A: the property's specific
association must be considered im-
portant as well. For example, a build-
ing historically in commercial use
must be shown to have been sig-
nificant in commercial history.
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL
VALUES
Traditional cultural significance is
derived from the role a property
plays in a community's historically
rooted beliefs, customs, and prac-
tices. Properties may have sig-
nificance under Criterion A if they
are associated with events, or series
of events, significant to the cultural
traditions of a community.5
Eligible
® A hilltop associated in oral his-
torical accounts with founding
of an Indian tribe or society is
eligible.
a A rural community can be
eligible whose organization,
buildings, or patterns of land
use reflect the cultural tradi-
tions valued by its long-term
residents.
• An urban neighborhood can
be eligible as the traditional
home of a particular cultural
group and as a reflection of its
beliefs and practices.
Not Eligible
A site viewed as sacred by a
recently established utopian or
religious community does not
have traditional cultural value
and is not eligible.
Criterion A - The Old Brulay Plantation, Brownsville vicinity, Cameron County, Texas.
Historically significant for its association with the development of agriculture in southeast
Texas, this complex of 10 brick buildings was constructed by George N. Brulay, a French im-
migrant who introduced commercial sugar production and irrigation to the Rio Grande Valley.
(Photo by Texas Historical Commission).
5For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties.
13
Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information im-
portant in prehistory or history.
Certain important research ques-
tions about human history can only
be answered by the actual physical
material of cultural resources.
Criterion D encompasses the proper-
ties that have the potential to answer,
in whole or in part, those types of re-
search questions. The most common
type of property nominated under
this Criterion is the archeological site
(or a district comprised of archeologi-
cal sites). Buildings, objects, and
structures (or districts comprised of
these property types), however, can
also be eligible for their information
potential.
Criterion D has two requirements,
which must both be met for a proper-
ty to qualify:
• The property must have, or have
had, information to contribute to
our understanding of human his-
tory or prehistory, and
• The information must be con-
sidered important.
Under the first of these require-
ments, a property is eligible if it has
been used as a source of data and
contains more, as yet unretrieved
data. A property is also eligible if it
has not yet yielded information but,
through testing or research, is deter-
mined a likely source of data.
Under the second requirement, the
information must be carefully
evaluated within an appropriate con-
text to determine its importance. In-
formation is considered "important"
when it is shown to have a sig-
nificant bearing on a research design
that addresses such areas as: 1) cur-
rent data gaps or alternative theories
that challenge existing ones or
2) priority areas identified under a
State or Federal agency management
plan.
CRITERION D:
INFORMATION
POTENTIAL
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
Criterion D most commonly ap-
plies to properties that contain or are
likely to contain information bearing
on an important archeological re-
search question. The property must
have characteristics suggesting the
likelihood that it possesses configura-
tions of artifacts, soil strata, structural
remains, or other natural or cultural
features that make it possible to do
the following:
• Test a hypothesis or hypotheses
about events, groups, or proces-
ses in the past that bear on impor-
tant research questions in the
social or natural sciences or the
humanities; or
• Corroborate or amplify currently
available information suggesting
that a hypothesis is either true or
false; or
• Reconstruct the sequence of ar-
cheological cultures for the pur-
pose of identifying and
explaining continuities and dis-
continuities in the archeological
record for a particular area.
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES,
AND OBJECTS
While most often applied to ar-
cheological districts and sites,
Criterion D can also apply to build-
ings, structures, and objects that con-
tain important information. In order
for these types of properties to be
eligible under Criterion D, they them-
selves must be, or must have been,
the principal source of the important
information.
Eligible
• A building exhibiting a local
variation on a standard design
or construction technique can
be eligible if study could yield
important information, such as
how local availability of
materials or construction exper-
tise affected the evolution of
local building development.
Not Eligible
The ruins of a hacienda that
once contained murals that
have since been destroyed.
Historical documentation,
however, indicates that the
murals were significant for
their highly unusual design.
The ruins can not be eligible
under Criterion D for the im-
portance of the destroyed
murals if the information is
contained only in the documen-
tation.
21
Criterion D - Champe-Fremont 1 Archeological Site, Omaha vicinity, Douglas County,
Nebraska. This archeological site, dating from ca. 1100-1450, consists of pit houses and storage
pits which have the potential to yield important information concerning the subsistence pat-
terns, religious and morturay practices, and social organization of the prehistoric residents of
eastern Nebraska. (Photo by Nebraska State Historical Society).
ASSOCIATION WITH
HUMAN ACTIVITY
A property must be associated with
human activity and be critical for un-
derstanding a site's historic environ-
ment in order to be eligible under
Criterion D. A property can be
linked to human activity through
events, processes, institutions,
design, construction, settlement,
migration, ideals, beliefs, lifeways,
and other facets of the development
or maintenance of cultural systems.
The natural environment as-
sociated with the properties was
often very different from that of the
present and strongly influenced cul-
tural development. Aspects of the en-
vironment that are pertinent to
human activities should be con-
sidered when evaluating properties
under Criterion D.
Natural features and paleontologi-
cal (floral and faunal) sites are not
usually eligible under Criterion D in
and of themselves. They can be
eligible, however, if they are either
directly related to human activity or
critical to understanding a site's his-
toric environment. In a few cases, a
natural feature or site unmarked by
cultural materials, that is primarily
eligible under Criterion A, may also
be eligible under Criterion D, if study
of the feature, or its location, setting,
etc. (usually in the context of data
gained from other sources), will yield
important information about the
event or period with which it is as-
sociated.
ESTABLISHING A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
The information that a property
yields, or will yield, must be
evaluated within an appropriate his-
toric context. This will entail consult-
ing the body of information already
collected from similar properties or
other pertinent sources, including
modern and historic written records.
The researcher must be able to an-
ticipate if and how the potential infor-
mation will affect the definition of
the context. The information likely
to be obtained from a particular
property must confirm, refute, or sup-
plement in an important way exist-
ing information.
A property is not eligible if it can-
not be related to a particular time
period or cultural group and, as a
result, lacks any historic context
within which to evaluate the impor-
tance of the information to be gained.
DEVELOPING RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
Having established the importance
of the information that may be
recovered, it is necessary to be ex-
plicit in demonstrating the connec-
tion between the important
information and a specific property.
One approach is to determine if
specific important research questions
can be answered by the data con-
tained in the property. Research
questions can be related to property -
specific issues, to broader questions
about a large geographic area, or to
theoretical issues independent of any
particular geographic location.
These questions may be derived from
the academic community or from
preservation programs at the local,
regional, State, or national level. Re-
search questions are usually
developed as part of a "research
design," which specifies not only the
questions to be asked, but also the
types of data needed to supply the
answers, and often the techniques
needed to recover the data.
Eligible
• When a site consisting of a vil-
lage occupation with midden
deposits, hearths, ceramics,
and stratified evidence of
several occupations is being
evaluated, three possible re-
search topics could be: 1) the
question of whether the site oc-
cupants were indigenous to
the area prior to the time of oc-
cupation or recent arrivals,
2) the investigation of the
settlement -subsistence pattern
of the occupants, 3) the ques-
tion of whether the region was
a center for the domestication
of plants. Specific questions
could include: A) Do the
depoits show a sequential
development or sudden intro-
duction of Ceramic Type X?
13) Do the dates of the occupa-
tions fit our expectations based
on the current model for the
reoccupation behavior of slash -
and -burn agriculturalists?
C) Can any genetic changes in
the food plant remains be
dected?
Not Eligible
• A property is not eligible if so
little can be understood about
it that it is not possible to deter-
mine if specific important re-
search questions can be
answered by data contained in
the property.
22
ESTABLISHING THE
PRESENCE OF ADEQUATE
DATA
To support the assertion that a
property has the data necessary to
provide the important information,
the property should be investigated
with techniques sufficient to establish
the presence of relevant data
categories. What constitutes ap-
propriate investigation techniques
would depend upon specific cir-
cumstances including the property's
location, condition, and the research
questions being addressed, and could
range from surface survey (or
photographic survey for buildings)
to the application of remote sensing
techniques or intensive subsurface
testing. Justification of the research
potential of a property may be based
on analogy to another better known
property if sufficient similarities exist
to establish the appropriateness of
the analogy.
Eligible
• Data requirements depend on
the specific research topics and
questions to be addressed. To
continue the example in
"Developing Research Ques-
tions" above, we might want to
ascertain the following with ref-
erence to questions A,B,andC:
A) The site contains Ceramic
Type X in one or more occupa-
tion levels and we expect to be
able to document the local
evaluation of the type or its in-
trusive nature. B) The hearths
contain datable carbon deposits
and are associated with more
than one occupation. C) The
midden deposits show good
floral/faunal preservation, and
we know enough about the
physical evolution of food
plants to interpret signs that
suggest domestication.
Not Eligible
• Generally, if the applicable re-
search design requires clearly
stratified deposits, then subsur-
face investigation techniques
must be applied. A site com-
posed only of surface materials
can not be eligible for its poten-
tial to yield information that
could only be found in
stratified deposits.
INTEGRITY
The assessment of integrity for
properties considered for informa-
tion potential depends on the data re-
quirements of the applicable research
design. A property possessing infor-
mation potential does not need to
recall visually an event, person,
process, or construction technique. It
is important that the significant data
contained in the property remain suf-
ficiently intact to yield the expected
important information, if the ap-
propriate study techniques are
employed.
Eligible
• An irrigation system sig-
nificant for the information it
will yield on early engineering
practices can still be eligible
even though it is now filled in
and no longer retains the ap-
pearance of an open canal.
Not Eligible
A plowed archeological site
contains several superimposed
components that have been
mixed to the extent that ar-
tifact assemblages cannot be
reconstructed. The site cannot
be eligible if the data require-
ments of the research design
call for the study of artifacts
specific to one component.
PARTLY EXCAVATED OR
DISTURBED PROPERTIES
The current existence of ap-
propriate physical remains must be
ascertained in considering a
property's ability to yield important
information. Properties that have
been partly excavated or otherwise
disturbed and that are being con-
sidered for their potential to yield ad-
ditional important information must
be shown to retain that potential in
their remaining portions.
Eligible
• A site that has been partially
excavated but still retains sub-
stantial intact deposits (or a
site in which the remaining
deposits are small but contain
critical information on a topic
that is not well known) is
eligible.
Not Eligible
• A totally collected surface site
or a completely excavated
buried site is not eligible since
the physical remains capable
of yielding important informa-
tion no longer exist at the site.
(See Completely Excavated Sites,
below, for exception.)
Likewise, a site that has been
looted or otherwise disturbed
to the extent that the remain-
ing cultural materials have lost
their important depositional
context (horizontal or vertical
location of deposits) is not
eligible.
• A reconstructed mound or
other reconstructed site will
generally not be considered
eligible, because original cul-
tural materials or context or
both have been lost.
23
COMPLETELY EXCAVATED
SITES
Properties that have yielded impor-
tant information in the past and that
no longer retain additional research
potential (such as completely ex-
cavated archeological sites) must be
assessed essentially as historic sites
under Criterion A. Such sites must
be significant for associative values
related to: 1) the importance of the
data gained or 2) the impact of the
property's role in the history of the
development of anthropology/ar-
cheology or other relevant dis-
ciplines. Like other historic
properties, the site must retain the
ability to convey its association as the
former repository of important infor-
mation, the location of historic
events, or the representative of im-
portant trends.
Eligible
® A property that has been ex-
cavated is eligible if the data
recovered was of such impor-
tance that it influenced the
direction of research in the dis-
cipline, as in a site that clearly
established the antiquity of the
human occupation of the New
World. (See Criterion Ain Part
VP How to Identify the Type of
Significance of a Property and
Criteria Consideration G in
Part VII: How to Apply the
Criteria Consideration.)
Not Eligible
A totally excavated site that at
one time yielded important in-
formation but that no longer
can convey either its his-
toric/prehistoric utilization or
significant modern investiga-
tion is not eligible.
MI