Docstoc

LEIGH FARM PARK ASSESSMENT

Document Sample
LEIGH FARM PARK ASSESSMENT Powered By Docstoc
					LEIGH FARM PARK ASSESSMENT

             Prepared for:
            City of Durham
    Department of Parks & Recreation
          400 Cleveland Street
          Durham, NC 27701

              Prepared by:
   Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc.
          Post Office Box 1171
    604 West Morgan Street, Suite B-7
          Durham, NC 27702

             October 2006
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.      List of Figures and Tables                                           3

II.     Introduction                                                         4

III.    Cultural Background                                                  8

IV.     Historical Background                                               14

V.      Building Descriptions, History and Condition Assessments            34

VI.     Prioritized Repair Outline, Maintenance History (1992-2006),        67
                and Scope of Restoration Work

VII.    Archaeological Investigation                                        85

VIII.   Potential Use and Public Access Analysis                            99

IX.     Action Plan                                                        106

X.      Recommendations for Further Study                                  109

XI.     Bibliography                                                       111

Appendix A. Photographs                                                    A-2

Appendix B. Site Plan, Elevations and Floor Plans                          B-2

Appendix C. Structural Engineering Report                                  C-2

Appendix D     Contractor Bids and Product Specifications                  D-2

Appendix E. Cyclical Maintenance Plan                                      E-2
                   Quarterly Checklist

Appendix F.    Public Meeting Minutes                                      F-2

Appendix G. List of Museums and Historic Sites in Durham, Orange, Wake,    G-2
                    Alamance and Mecklenburg Counties

Appendix H. Leigh Farm Artifacts at the North Carolina Museum of History   H-2
                   and the Historic Preservation Society of Durham

Appendix I.    Professional Qualifications                                 I-2



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                        2
                      I. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure                                                                          Page

1.       Leigh Farm Park Property Ownership Map                                  7
2.       Richard Stanford Leigh                                                 16
3.       Leathy Hawkins Hudgins Leigh                                           19
4.       L. Johnson, “Map of Durham County, NC,” 1887                           23
5.       Richard Stanford Leigh Estate Division Survey Map                      27
6.       C. M. Miller, “Map of Durham County,” ca. 1910                         28
7.       Cleora Hudson visits Leigh Farm, February 9, 1991                      33
8.       Leigh Farm, looking northeast                                          34
9.       Leigh Farm Site Plan                                                   36
10.      Leigh Farm First Floor Plan                                            37
11.      Leigh Farm Second Floor Plan                                           38
12.      Leigh House, South Elevation                                           39
13.      Sandstone Chimney, Dining Room Wing                                    43
14.      Slave Cabin #1, Southwest Oblique                                      44
15.      Slave Cabin #1, Shed Addition Stabilization                            45
16.      Slave Cabin #1, East Elevation                                         46
17.      Slave Cabin #2, Northwest Oblique                                      47
18.      Dairy, Southwest Oblique                                               49
19.      Dairy, Southwest Corner Post                                           50
20.      Well House, Northwest Oblique                                          51
21.      Smokehouse, Southwest Oblique                                          53
22.      Pump House, Southeast Oblique                                          55
23.      Carriage House, Northeast Oblique                                      56
24.      Corn Crib, Northwest Oblique                                           58
25.      Grape Arbor, Northeast Oblique                                         60
26.      Tobacco Barn, Southeast Oblique                                        61
27.      Tobacco Barn, Log Deterioration, West Elevation                        62
28.      Pack House, East Elevation                                             63
29.      Overgrown Area Southeast of Corn Crib                                  65
30.      Fence North of Planting Beds                                           66
31.      EPE Archaeological Survey Map                                          87
32.      Sketch of Leigh Farm by Walter Curtis Hudson, 1940                     90
33.      Akaline-glazed stoneware, two pearlware fragments, cut nail fragment   92
34.      Partial view of planting beds, looking west                            93
35.      Biface fragment and rhyolite debitage                                  93
36.      Corn Crib and Shuck House, early twentieth century                     94
37.      View of New Hope Creek Bottom, near possible mill location             95

Table

1.       Leigh Farm Restoration Cost                                            67
2.       Previously Identified Archaeological Sites                             88

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              3
                               II. INTRODUCTION
On January 15, 2006, the City of Durham Parks and Recreation Department engaged
Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. (EPE) to examine the history, document the
condition and analyze the future use of Leigh Farm Park, located just north of Highway
54 at the Interstate 40 interchange. The 82.8-acre property is jointly owned by the City of
Durham and the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (Figure 1). The
Department of Cultural Resources owns the core seven-acre tract, which includes the
Leigh House and most of the mid-nineteenth century outbuildings, in addition to three
large outlying parcels (a total of 47.2 acres). The seven-acre tract was listed in the
National Register of Historic Places in 1975. The 35.6-acre property owned by the City
of Durham encompasses a 1909 tobacco barn, a 1911 pack house, a mid-nineteenth-
century slave cabin with a 1930 Rustic Revival log addition, several mid-twentieth-
century residences and wooded acreage that was historically open agricultural land. The
City of Durham Parks and Recreation Department serves as the management entity for
the entire property.

The Leigh Farm Park assessment project has many interrelated documentation and
research components in addition to a public input component. EPE Architectural
Historian Heather Fearnbach coordinated the project, served as principal investigator and
wrote the report. EPE staff from the North Carolina and Georgia offices conducted the
survey, research and documentation from January through July, 2006. The project
deliverables are as follows:

       ● Measured Drawings;
       ● Site Plan;
       ● Archaeological Survey;
       ● Expanded Social and Agricultural History;
       ● Building Condition Assessments;
       ● Restoration Plan with Cost Estimates, Priorities and Scope of Work; and
       ● Potential Use Analysis/Public Access Plan.

An important first step in site documentation was the creation of a site plan and measured
drawings illustrating the farm’s primary resources. EPE staff measured each building
over the course of several months, assisted by EPE intern Lechelle Vernon-Yates. EPE
Architectural Historian Clay Griffith drew each elevation of the Leigh House, as well as
significant interior features and floor plans and the primary elevations of each
outbuilding. Griffith also produced a site plan that indicates the overall relationship of
the buildings to each other. This particular map was used to delineate the features
discovered during another component of the project—the general archaeological survey
of the site.

Previously, the Archaeology Branch of the Department of Cultural Resources undertook
a limited reconnaissance survey of the proposed Interstate 40 corridor in 1978, and
sampled a few sites associated with Leigh Farm. In 2006 the EPE archaeological team—
Amanda Regnier and Garrett Silliman—conducted another round of excavation,

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                4
attempting to determine the location of no longer extant outbuildings including the yard
kitchen, privy, stable, livestock barn and shuck house on the Leigh Farm complex. They
also examined the area west of the Leigh House for evidence of Native American
occupation. Garrett Silliman and Lynn Pietak, EPE Senior Archaeologist, authored the
Cultural Background and Archaeological Survey chapters of the report.

The archaeological investigation added an important dimension to the historical
background narrative, which was expanded to encompass the entire site occupation
history, from prehistory to the present. The social and agricultural history also includes
new information from a variety of sources examined by Heather Fearnbach and EPE
Architectural Historians Cynthia de Miranda, Jennifer Martin and Martha Teall.
Receipts, account books and journals spanning the period of Leigh-Hudson family
ownership (circa 1835 to 1950) are housed in the North Carolina Collection at the Wilson
Library at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and in the private collection of
Leigh family descendant Curtis Booker of Chapel Hill. Mr. Booker also possesses a
collection of invaluable photographs and sketches that document the early-twentieth-
century appearance of the property.

EPE staff examined deeds, wills and estate files at the Durham and Orange County
Courthouses and the Federal Census, the North Carolina Farm Census and newspaper
articles at the State Archives in Raleigh and local libraries. Oral history interviews with
Curtis Booker, African American families historically associated with the property and
site caretakers Chris and Debra Bronson have served to fill the voids left by official
documents.

Armed with this extensive background information, Heather Fearnbach began a
comprehensive analysis of the conditions of the buildings on the property. Mitch Wilds
and Peter Sandbeck from the State Historic Preservation Office (NC-HPO) helped to
examine the Leigh House from the attic to the basement in order to document change
over time. Todd Dickinson, a restoration contractor and log building preservation
specialist, spent an afternoon at the site evaluating the condition of the log slave cabins
and outbuildings. David Fischetti, a structural engineer with more than thirty years of
experience assessing historic buildings, evaluated the stability of the foundation and
chimneys of the main house, the slave house with the log-and-splint chimney, the dairy,
the corn crib and the smokehouse.

Creating a restoration/rehabilitation plan with cost estimates, priorities and a scope of
work was the next item on the project agenda. Heather Fearnbach compiled an overall
site restoration priority list and an itemized list of repair needs for each building,
including options for items such as different roof treatments, given that there is not
sufficient funding to complete the entire site restoration at the same time. A number of
contractors, including Life Safety Security and Fire Detection Systems, Red Cedar
Roofing of Raleigh, Scotland Neck Heart Pine (millwork) and Bowman Mechanical
(HVAC), provided estimates for specialized systems.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                     5
During the same period, Heather Fearnbach consulted other park and historic site staff
regarding issues such as budget, visitation trends, visitor needs and expectations,
interpretation, operations, site maintenance and support groups in order to create a
realistic vision for the future use of Leigh Farm. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Historic Sites Section staff Lisa Turney, Doug Aycock, Jann Brown, Dale
Coats and Thom Rhodes; Ken Turino of Historic New England; Jon Gates from Historic
Latta Plantation; Ingrid McNair of Historic Johnson Farm; Harry Mashburn of Cedarock
Park; Beth Highley, Recreation Manager, West Point on the Eno; Sara Drumheller of
Historic Oakview County Park; Terry Harper and Bill McCrea of the Department of
Cultural Resources and Ron Little of the Office of State Construction provided input and
guidance on variety of topics.

Durham Parks and Recreation and EPE staff held two meeting to garner public opinion as
to the future use of Leigh Farm Park. Heather Fearnbach presented the history,
restoration needs and a few options for the future use of the site at the first meeting on
May 23, 2006. The focus of the second meeting, on July 18, 2006, was to impart the
results of the archaeological survey, restoration cost analysis and future use evaluation.
Input received at the meetings was incorporated into the discussion of public access and
park use included in this report. In order to facilitate the next phases of the project, a
suggested action plan was outlined. Finally, as additional research is needed to clarify
some aspects of the Leigh Farm story, the last chapter of this report makes
recommendations for further study.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               6
                Figure 1. Leigh Farm Park Property Ownership Map


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                          7
                            III. CULTURAL BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the prehistoric and historic cultural development of the
Piedmont of North Carolina, in order to provide a context for assessing the significance
of archaeological resources recovered from the project area.

THE PALEOINDIAN PERIOD (ca. 12,000–8,000 B.C.)

It is during the Paleoindian period that human occupation of the New World began. At
present, it is uncertain when the first human populations permanently settled the western
hemisphere, although most scholars believe it was sometime between 20,000 and 13,000
years ago, in the last stages of the Pleistocene glaciation. Reliable dates as early as ca.
11,800 B.C. have been obtained from a Paleoindian site in Monte Verde, Chile.1 The end
of the Paleoindian period coincides with the Pleistocene/Holocene transition and in most
areas of the Southeast is given an arbitrary terminal date of 8,000 B.C. In the Southeast
and North Carolina, the Paleoindian period is typically divided into three broad temporal
categories, Early, Middle and Late, based, in part, on the occurrence of specific point
types.2

Traditional characterizations of Paleoindians portrayed them as nomadic hunters of
Pleistocene megafauna, such as mammoth, mastodon and bison. However, these
descriptions were based on data from archaeological sites in the western United States.
Recent reevaluations, based on data from the Southeast and the Northeast, suggest that
these groups relied on a broader diet that included small mammals and plants.3 These
new interpretations further indicate that settlement patterns were probably less mobile or
nomadic than traditionally thought.



        1
         T. C. Dillehay, Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile (Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989).
        2
          David G. Anderson, “The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the
Southeastern United States,” In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, Research in
Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, edited by Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley (Greenwich,
Connecticut: JAI Press, 1990), 163-216.
        3
          Carl J. Clausen, A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman and J. J. Stipp, “Little Salt Spring,
Florida: A Unique Underwater Site,” Science 203 (1979): 603–614; Kenneth E. Sassaman, Mark J. Brooks,
Glen T. Hanson and David G. Anderson, Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley,
Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers No. 1. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River
Archaeological Research Program (Columbia: South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, 1990); Kathleen A. Cushman, “Floral Remains from Meadowcroft
Rockshelter, Washington County, Southwestern Pennsylvania,” In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the
Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage, edited by Ronald C. Carlisle and
James M. Adovasio (Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, 1982), 207-220.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                                8
The well-known Hardaway site is located in Stanly County in the Southern Piedmont of
North Carolina, southwest of the project area. This site contains the earliest stratified
cultural remains excavated in the state; the majority of Paleoindian finds have been
surface collected.4 Although a debate still surrounds the dating of Hardaway, most
archaeologists believe the earliest levels are associated with the Late Paleoindian.5
Amateur archaeologists were the first to collect the site followed by Joffre Coe’s work in
the late 1940s and 1950s, which was summarized in his 1964 book, The Formative
Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont.6 Coe and others continued excavations at the site
until the early 1980s, when the University of North Carolina’s lease expired. Since this
time, Randy Daniel has reexamined much of the Hardaway material collected during the
1950s as well as from more recent excavations.7 He and others have argued that the
Hardaway and Hardaway-Dalton complexes are best understood as manifestations of the
Early Archaic period.

The end of the Paleoindian period (ca. 8,000 B.C.) is associated with the end of the
Wisconsin Ice Age and a shift to modern environmental conditions. New settlement and
subsistence patterns were established as populations grew and regional technologies
changed. These trends are associated with the subsequent Archaic culture period.

THE ARCHAIC PERIOD (ca. 8,000–1,000 B.C.)

The transition from the Paleoindian to the Archaic period is gradual and related to the
evolution of modern climactic conditions, similar to those the first European explorers
and settlers encountered. In North Carolina, the transition has been somewhat arbitrarily
designated as 8,000 B.C. Changes in technology, population demography and diversity in
social organization characterize this era. The growth of subregional traditions is
indicated by the appearance of a range of notched and/or stemmed hafted biface types
across the Southeast.8 The Archaic period is generally divided into three subperiods,
Early, Middle and Late.

During the Early Archaic period (ca. 8,000-6,000 B.C.), a dramatic increase in
population—based on the identification of a larger number of archaeological sites dating


        4
          H. Trawick Ward, “A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of
Change,” In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis
and Jeffrey J. Crow (Raleigh: North Carolina Division of Archives and History, 1993), 63-64.
        5
          H. Trawick Ward and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., Time Before History: The Archaeology of North
Carolina (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 38.
        6
          Joffre L. Coe, The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont, Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 54, part 3 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1964).
        7
           I. Randolph Daniel, Jr. “Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast” (Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1994); Hardaway
Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998).
        8
            Sassaman et al., Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                                9
to the period—resulted in decreased group mobility and exploitation of a wider range of
food resources. The larger variety of Early Archaic tools suggest more specialized tasks
were undertaken as sites were occupied for longer periods. The population was likely
organized into small bands of twenty-five to fifty individuals that coalesced at specific
times of the year to more efficiently exploit seasonal resources and to take advantage of
the benefits provided by a wider social network.9 In contrast to this view, Daniel has
suggested that the availability of high quality raw materials may have been the influential
factor in determining band territories and movements.10 Overall, even within the North
Carolina Piedmont region, there is notable variability in the form of Early Archaic spear
points, which is likely related to chronology, usage and the type and quality of raw
material.11

The Middle Archaic period (ca. 6,000-3,000 B.C.) has been divided into three phases in
the Piedmont: Stanly, Morrow Mountain and Guilford, based on distinct, stemmed spear
point styles which contrast significantly with the corner-notched specimens of the Early
Archaic. Excavations by Coe and others during the late 1940s at the stratified Lowder’s
Ferry site in Stanly County and the Doerschuk site in Montgomery County initially
defined this chronology. In addition, the use of the spear thrower or atlatl is first noted
during the Stanly phase. Middle Archaic sites are numerous in the Piedmont and appear
to reflect temporary camps without a clear preference for environmental niche. These
groups were small and foraged across the landscape to obtain resources.12

In the Piedmont, the Late Archaic period (ca. 3,000-1,000 B.C.) is characterized by a
dramatic rise in population and increased sedentism. Both small, temporary camps and
larger, apparently more permanent camps, are represented in the archaeological record.
However, the full range of Late Archaic culture, which in coastal areas includes large
shell middens often containing burials, is not seen in the Piedmont.13 Savannah River
Stemmed is the prevalent projectile point, which decrease in size over time and culminate
in a type called the Small Savannah River Stemmed.14 Steatite is first used in the
Piedmont for making atlatl weights and as “cooking stones.” Later, bowls are produced
from this material. Cultural differences among Coastal Plain and Piedmont groups
continued. For example, Piedmont groups, who were slower to develop and utilize fiber-


        9
          David G. Anderson and Glen T. Hanson, “Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United
States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley,” American Antiquity 53 (1988): 262-286.
        10
             Daniel, Hardaway Revisited.
        11
             Ward and Davis, Time Before History, 55.
        12
             Ibid., 63; Ward, “A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont,” 65-69.
        13
             Ward and Davis, Time Before History, 64.
        14
          Billy L. Oliver, “Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point
Sequence,” In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and H.
Trawick Ward (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1985): 204.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             10
tempered pottery, continued to produce soapstone cooking vessels.15 It is the widespread
adoption of ceramic technology that marks the beginning of the Woodland period in the
region.

THE WOODLAND PERIOD (ca. 1,000 B.C.– A.D. 1600)

Archaeologists also divide the Woodland into early, middle and late subperiods. The
Woodland period in the North Carolina Piedmont is characterized by the gradual
incorporation of pottery-making, horticulture and the establishment of semi-sedentary
villages. However, hunting and gathering continued to contribute significantly to
subsistence; maize agriculture was not important until ca. A.D. 1000.16 Overall, the
cultural traditions of the Piedmont were largely unaffected by the elaborate Hopewell and
Swift Creek cultures, and later by the Mississippian chiefdoms that evolved across much
of the Southeast. This continuum of Woodland culture is referred to as the Piedmont
Village Tradition.17

The earliest Woodland phase is called Badin, which dates to around 500 B.C.18 However,
the lack of strong stratigraphic evidence separating Badin from the later Yadkin Phase,
described below, suggests that in some areas of the Piedmont, the latter may precede the
former.19 Badin Fabric Marked and Cord Marked pottery is mostly sand-tempered and
the vessel forms consist of straight-sided jars with conical bases. Badin Triangular points
are believed to be associated with the introduction of the bow and arrow.20

Radiocarbon dates for the Yadkin Phase fall between 290 B.C. and A.D. 60.21 Yadkin
ceramics are quartz-tempered and cord and fabric marked like Badin pottery as well as
check, linear check and simple stamped. Yadkin projectile points are large, triangular
forms. The Yadkin Phase continues until roughly A.D. 800 in the Central Piedmont.22

The chronological position of two other Early/Middle Woodland wares identified in the
Piedmont, Vincent and Clements, is less clear due to the fact there is only a single


        15
             Sassaman et al., Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley.
        16
             Ward, “A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont,” 73.
        17
             Ward and Davis, Time Before History, 78-79.
        18
           Dennis B. Blanton, Christopher T. Espenshade and Paul E. Brockington, Jr. “An Archaeological
Study of 38SU83: A Yadkin Phase Site in the Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina” (Manuscript on file,
TRC, Inc., Atlanta, 1986), 10.
        19
             Ward and Davis, Time Before History, 86.
        20
             Ibid., 80.
        21
             Blanton et al. “An Archaeological Study of 38SU83,” 10.
        22
             Ward and Davis, Time Before History, 24.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                           11
radiocarbon date for the Clements Phase. This date—A.D. 685 + 75—was obtained for
Clements pottery found in a pit feature at the Thorpe site. Vincent appears to be earlier
and probably overlaps with the Yadkin Phase.23 Overall, “the stratigraphic and stylistic
relationships among the various ceramic types made during the first half of the Woodland
period are still unclear” and reflect a merging of influences from different areas.24

The Late Woodland period (A.D. 800-1600) is characterized by population consolidation
and intertribal conflicts.25 Again, change did not occur uniformly across the Piedmont.
The archaeological complexes identified in the project area are likely ancestral to the
Siouan-speaking groups who were living in the region when Europeans explorers first
arrived.

The earliest Late Woodland phase is called Uwharrie (A.D. 800-1200). These sites are
widely distributed across central North Carolina. The villages were relatively small and
garden crops were becoming important supplements to the mainstays of hunting,
gathering and fishing. Large pits were used to store surpluses. Burials were flexed and
placed in oval pits with shell beads and other ornaments.26 In the north central Piedmont,
the early part of the Haw River Phase (A.D. 800-1200) shows continuity with the
Uwharrie Phase in ceramic styles and dispersed settlement systems. However, over time,
the phase marks a transition from small scattered settlements to palisaded villages.27

The Wall site, located on the Eno River at Hillsborough, is a good example of the
nucleated villages that characterize the Hillsboro Phase (A.D. 1400-1600). House
patterns, multiple stockade alignments, burials and other pit features have been identified
at the site, which has a long excavation history, initiated with Coe’s work in the late
1930s. The inhabitants relied on hunting and gathering as well as the cultivation of corn,
beans and squash.28

THE CONTACT PERIOD (A.D. 1600-1710)

The first exploration of the North Carolina coast occurred in 1525, when parties under the
command of Pedro de Quejo, made several landfalls during their voyage from the
southern Georgia coast to the Delaware Bay area looking for potential settlement areas.
Later, in 1540, Hernando de Soto traveled through west central North Carolina.29


       23
            Ibid., 94.
       24
            Ibid., 97.
       25
            Ibid., 98.
       26
            Ibid., 100-101.
       27
            Ibid., 103.
       28
            Ibid., 112, 115.
       29
            Ibid., 229.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                12
The Sissipahaw Indians, who lived along the Haw River in northern Chatham County
during the last half of the seventeenth century, occupied the Central Piedmont region of
North Carolina. The Mitchum site and associated Mitchum Phase (A.D. 1600-1670) are
attributed to this group. The Mitchum site contained a small stockaded village, various
types of pits and two burials. Subsistence combined hunting and gathering with
cultivation of beans, corn and squash. Archaeologists recovered some trade goods from
the site.30

The contemporaneous Jenrette Phase (A.D. 1600-1680) is similarly known from the
excavation of a single site, Jenrette, located on the Eno River near Hillsborough. Jenrette
may represent the remains of a stockaded Shakori village. The excavation yielded some
house remains, pit features, a few burials and some European trade goods. Subsistence
practices were similar to those at the Mitchum site.31

The Fredericks Phase (A.D. 1680-1710) is associated with the archaeology of the
Occaneechi, following their move from the Roanoke Valley to the Eno River. The
Fredericks site is currently the only one assigned to this phase, and it was a small,
stockaded village, adjacent to the Jenrette site. A small structure in the center of the
village is interpreted as a sweat lodge. Burials were placed in three cemeteries and they
were associated with a wide variety of European goods, reflecting expanding trade with
the English. The high mortality rate associated with sustained contact with European
settlers is reflected in the small settlement size relative to the large number of burials.32




         30
              Ibid., 235-236.
         31
           Ibid., 237-242; R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr., “Settlement Structure and Occupational History at the
Fredricks-Jenrette Site Complex, Orange County, North Carolina,” In The Archaeology of Native North
Carolina: Papers in Honor of H. Trawick Ward, Southeastern Archaeological Conference Special
Publication 7, edited by Jane M. Eastman, Christopher B. Rodning and Edmond A. Boudreaux III (2002):
29-31.
         32
          Davis, “Settlement Structure and Occupational History at the Fredricks-Jenrette Site Complex,”
29-31; Ward and Davis, Time Before History, 242-244.



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                                13
                            IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first landowners in the part of the North Carolina backcountry that became Durham
County included speculators, surveyors and crown officials, most of whom did not live in
the frontier, but rather sold property to settlers moving west from more established areas
in the coastal plain or to those migrating south down the Indian Trading Path from
Virginia. These settlers, who were predominantly English in origin, purchased several-
hundred-acre tracts on the Neuse, Little and Flat Rivers and New Hope Creek. In 1752,
as the area became more populated, the colonial government introduced a bill to establish
Orange County from parts of Granville, Johnston and Bladen counties. The county seat,
originally referred to as Orange Court House, was named Hillsborough in 1766.33

The nebulous nature of early land records makes discerning the chain of title for Leigh
Farm difficult. According to historian Allen Markham Sr. and Leigh family descendant
Curtis Booker, the first land grants including property that became Leigh Farm were to
William Rhodes and Robert Campbell.34 However, Markham’s basis for this conclusion
is almost impossible to follow without his research notes. There is no record of a land
grant from the State of North Carolina to William Rhodes although he was an early
settler in eastern Orange County.35 The 1791 will of William Rhodes does not mention
the location of his estate.36 Robert Campbell purchased three hundred acres adjacent to
New Hope Creek for 150 shillings from the State of North Carolina circa 1780.37 Robert
and his wife Mary subsequently sold 620 acres to Samuel Daniel on July 11, 1782.38
Robert T. Daniel purchased a 250-acre tract “whereon the said Samuel Daniel now lives”
on October 5, 1797.39




         33
          Durham County was not created until February 28, 1881; Jean Bradley Anderson, Durham
County (Durham: Duke University Press), 17-21, 24.
         34
           Allen Markham Sr., map of early land grants, in the possession of Curtis Booker; Curtis Booker,
interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 5, 2006.
         35
              Anderson, Durham County, 23, 41.
         36
          Will Book B, pages 120-121, Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough.
         37
           Deed Book 2, page 359, Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough. This land grant is undated, and the surrounding grants are not in chronological order. It
appears likely that the grant was issued around 1780 based on later references to the document.
         38
          Deed Book 2, pages 382-383, Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough.
         39
          Deed Book 6, pages 433-435, Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                                 14
John Leigh (1742-1821), the patriarch of the Leigh family in North Carolina, settled in
what became southwestern Durham County in the 1780s.40 Born in Virginia, he married
Leah Bingham around 1767 in Orange County. They had nine children over the next
twenty years. Leah died after giving birth to Leah Leigh in February 1787, and John
married Caty Watts on September 16, 1787. John and Caty Leigh had eleven children.41

John and Leah’s fifth child and third son, Sullivan Leigh (1777-1854), married Nancy
Shepherd on March 27, 1809. They had two sons, Richard Stanford and William, and a
daughter, Susan Elizabeth.42 Many of Sullivan Leigh’s papers survive, including daily
correspondence, account books, tax receipts and an assortment of extraneous documents
such as an 1817 license from the Commissioner of Revenue allowing him “to work a Still
for distilling Spirits from Domestic Materials.”43 Sullivan settled near his father,
purchasing acreage including a parcel of land on the third fork of New Hope Creek.44
After Nancy’s death Sullivan married her sister, Catherine Shepherd Clifton, the widow
of Joseph Clifton, on November 18, 1828.45 His third and final marriage was to Mary
Herndon Lambeth, the widow of Thomas Lambeth and the daughter of Edmund Herndon,
on October 1, 1842.46 A fascinating invoice dated November 1, 1842 details the notions
Hillsboro tailor William Nelson used to make Sullivan Leigh a green merino wool cloak
lined with flannel. The document indicates that the cloak, at $10.08, “cost more than
expected.”47

Sullivan and Nancy Leigh’s son, Richard Stanford Leigh (1809-1898), married Nancy
Ann Carlton (1816-1861) on July 17, 1834. Period documents and family tradition
establish that Richard Stanford Leigh was called Stanford and Nancy Ann Carlton went

        40
            Anderson, Durham County, 1, 70; Allen Markham Sr., “The Orange County Leighs,” Undated
genealogy notebook in the possession of Curtis Booker, page 1. Different sources give John Leigh’s birth
date as 1741 or 1742. It appears that the exact date may have been unknown even to him, as a daybook
kept by his second wife, Caty Watts, lists his date of birth as “1741/2.” Zerox copy of the daybook of Caty
Watts, in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        41
             “John Leigh,” Ancestry World Tree Project, ancestry.com.
        42
         Anderson, Durham County, 70; “Sullivan Leigh,” ancestry.com; Allen Markham Sr., “The
Orange County Leighs,” page 7.
        43
           Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 3, Folders 26-29, Southern Historical Collection,
Manuscripts Department, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; License in the
possession of Curtis Booker.
        44
          Deed Book 21, pages 214-215, Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough.
        45
             “Sullivan Leigh,” ancestry.com; Allen Markham Sr., “The Orange County Leighs,” page 7.
        46
            “Sullivan Leigh,” familyorigins.com; Allen Markham Sr., “The Orange County Leighs,” page 7.
Sullivan’s second and third marriages did not result in any issue.
        47
             Invoice in the possession of Curtis Booker.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                               15
by Ann.48 Ann was the daughter of Daniel and Nancy Carlton and the granddaughter of
John Daniel. The Daniels, like the Leighs, were early and prosperous settlers in what was
then eastern Orange County.49




       Figure 2. Richard Stanford Leigh, ambrotype, courtesy of Curtis Booker




        48
           “R. S. Leigh’s Registered Book of his family names,” Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box
20, Folder 160, Southern Historical Collection, Manuscripts Department, Wilson Library, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill; “Richard Stanford Leigh,” ancestry.com; Allen Markham Sr., “The Orange
County Leighs.”
        49
            Anderson, Durham County, 41. Two John Daniels appear in early Orange County records. The
elder John Daniel, a Revolutionary War veteran, surveyed the land that became University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1792 and donated 107 acres of his property to the cause of establishing the
university town in 1796. Earlier accounts of the Leigh Family assume that this John Daniel was Ann’s
grandfather; subsequent research by Curtis Booker proved otherwise. William D. Snider, Light on the Hill:
A History of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1992), 15, 18.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             16
Sullivan Leigh purchased five hundred acres on “the waters of New Hope” from Richard
Tapp on October 9, 1834, and family tradition holds that he immediately gave the
property to Stanford Leigh as a wedding present. Deeds tell a slightly different story,
however, as there is no record of Sullivan deeding Stanford land until September 24,
1838, when he gave him 250 acres matching the description of a section of the Tapp
parcel. Sullivan deeded Stanford an additional 250 acres on October 18, 1846.50 It is
entirely possible that Sullivan gave Stanford and Ann property as a wedding gift, but
there is no primary source documentation to corroborate this assertion.

The only mention of buildings on the land Sullivan Leigh gave Stanford is a generic
reference to houses and outbuildings, which is standard language in deeds of the period.51
The original section of the Leigh House, a two-room dwelling with a hall-parlor plan,
appears to have been constructed in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, making
it entirely feasible that it was built around 1835, soon after Stanford married and set up
his household.

Stanford Leigh owned six slaves in 1840, a sign of modest prosperity. It is possible that
one of Stanford’s slaves was a “negro girl named Elizabeth,” inherited by his wife Ann
from the estate of her grandfather, John Daniel. The average number of slaves on farms
in the immediate vicinity was seventeen. Among the largest slaveholders in the area
were Sullivan Leigh, who owned fifteen slaves, and William Barbee, a wealthy planter,
who owned seventy-seven.52

Stanford Leigh purchased an additional 237 acres adjoining his 500-acre farm from the
estate of William Barbee Sr. on November 19, 1849.53 The 1850 census reflects that
Stanford owned 200 improved and 480 unimproved acres, farm equipment valued at $80,
4 horses, 2 milk cows, 9 other cows, 12 sheep and 50 hogs. His farm produced 40
bushels of wheat, 450 bushels of Indian corn, 100 bushels of sweet potatoes, 100 pounds
of butter and 20 pounds of wool. Stanford’s farm was worth an estimated $1,700 in
1850, $200 more than his father’s, although Sullivan owned more land (500 improved
and 600 unimproved acres) and livestock and had a much greater crop yield. Stanford
Leigh’s farm was about average for the township in terms of size and level of production.
A neighboring planter, William Barbee Jr., owned one of the largest farms in the area,




        50
         Deed Book 28, page 444; Deed Book 32, page 330; Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange
County Courthouse, Hillsborough.
        51
             Ibid.
        52
          United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedule, Orange County,
North Carolina, 1840.
        53
          Deed Book 34, page 23, Office of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
Hillsborough.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                          17
with 4,624 acres valued at $13,000. On his expansive farm he kept 5 horses, 13 mules,
20 milk cows, 2 working oxen, 30 other cows, 60 sheep and 150 hogs.54

Sullivan Leigh died in 1854. His will of March 4, 1843 leaves 281 acres, slaves, cattle,
other livestock, crops and furniture to his wife Mary with the provision that upon her
death or remarriage the property would be equally divided between his son Richard
Stanford and his daughter Susan Trice. He states that he gave his “son Richard S. Leigh
five hundred acres of land lying on New Hope valued at twelve hundred and fifty dollars”
and dictates that upon his death his daughter Susan Trice should “have twelve hundred
and fifty dollars worth of my estate to make her equal with my son Richard S. Leigh.”55

It appears that Stanford Leigh inherited some land from his father’s estate, as deeds do
not reflect that he purchased the additional acreage listed in the 1860 census reports. By
1860, Stanford owned 787 unimproved acres and 200 improved acres of farmland, 16
slaves, 6 horses, 1 mule, 8 milk cows, 12 other cows, 45 sheep and 66 hogs. He
diversified and increased his crop production, harvesting 3 bales of ginned cotton (400
pounds each), 125 bushels of wheat, 1,250 bushels of Indian corn, 300 bushels of sweet
potatoes, 20 bushels of Irish potatoes and 200 bushels of peas and beans in the 1860
growing season. Beehives on the farm generated 25 pounds of honey and 2 pounds of
beeswax. Dairy cattle produced milk and 150 pounds of butter. The annual sheep-
shearing yielded 40 pounds of wool. The census taker valued Stanford Leigh’s real estate
at $7,500 and his personal property at $18,000.56

Stanford Leigh’s account books reflect that he was providing a variety of goods and
services for his neighbors during the 1850s. He sold staple foodstuffs including beef,
pork (bacon, ham), poultry (chickens, guinea hens, turkeys), lard, butter, eggs, corn,
potatoes, peas, molasses, sugar and salt in addition to coal, fodder, hats, shoes, leather
and tools. Stanford—or someone in his employ—repaired wagons and plows.57 Stanford
was also active in community affairs, serving as an Orange County magistrate and
attending Berea Baptist Church on Fayetteville Road.58

The early 1860s brought not only the Civil War, but great changes to the Leigh family.
Ann Leigh, Stanford’s wife, died on July 10, 1861 after giving birth to twin girls, Louetta
and Louvena. Three of Stanford and Ann’s sons—Anderson, John and Peregrine—


        54
         United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population and Agriculture Schedules,
Orange County, North Carolina, 1850.
        55
             Will Book G, pages 49-50, Orange County Courthouse, Hillsborough.
        56
         United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population and Agriculture Schedules,
Orange County, North Carolina, 1860.
        57
             Stanford Leigh, Account Book, 1859-1874, in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        58
             Curtis Booker, interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 5, 2006.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                           18
enlisted in the Confederate Army. Peregrine caught the measles and died on April 30,
1862 in Ashland, New Hanover County, Virginia. Anderson and John returned home at
the conclusion of the war, although Anderson continued to suffer from the complications
of the tuberculosis he contracted during his service.59

Stanford Leigh married Leathy Hawkins Hudgins (1831-1900), the daughter of a woman
he hired to help care for his children, in 1864 and they had five more children.
Correspondence between Leathy and her friends indicates that she was an accomplished
seamstress, an assertion corroborated by her lace samples and quilts that survive in family
collections.60




         Figure 3. Leathy Hawkins Hudgins Leigh, courtesy of Curtis Booker



        59
           Betsy Gohdes-Baten, “Leigh Farm,” from survey file located at the State Historic Preservation
Office, Raleigh; “R. S. Leigh’s Registered Book of his family names,” Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580),
Box 20, Folder 160, Southern Historical Collection, Manuscripts Department, Wilson Library, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
        60
             Curtis Booker, interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 11, 2006.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             19
Leigh Farm was at the center of activity late in Civil War. Union soldiers plundered the
farm in April 1865, taking livestock and provisions, and one of the last skirmishes of the
Civil War in North Carolina occurred on Stanford Leigh’s land. Union soldiers
attempting to traverse the property discovered that Confederate soldiers had destroyed the
Old Stagecoach Road bridge over New Hope Creek. As the Union forces forded the
creek, the Confederates attacked, withdrawing after killing three soldiers. The
Confederate artillery blocked the advances of the Union troops about a mile upstream,
but a cease-fire was called with news of the truce declared by generals Sherman and
Johnston.61 Stanford Leigh’s first cousin, Nancy Leigh Bennett, and her husband James
lived on a farm nearby and hosted generals Sherman and Johnston as they negotiated the
terms of the Confederate surrender on April 17. Stanford tried for years to recover
payment for his lost horses, a mule, cows, corn, bacon and fodder from the Federal
government, and it appears that he was eventually successful.62

Perhaps in an attempt to subsidize his farm income and create an official venue for the
exchange of goods and services he had been informally providing for some time,
Stanford Leigh constructed a mill and store on New Hope Creek around 1866. Entries in
his account books indicate that he partnered with William H. Atkins (who married his
eldest daughter, Demarius Marion Leigh, on July 7, 1855) in the mill endeavor. Stanford
paid Joseph Atkins Sr. and Josh Atkins $1.00 a day on several occasions in 1865 and
1866 to work on the mill. The type of mill is not initially specified, but an 1867 entry
reflects that Stanford employed H. Sutherland to construct sheds and a cotton room,
implying the existence of a cotton gin. A series of 1867 entries indicates that Stanford
paid Joseph Atkins, Henderson Harward and Charles Mayson to build a bridge. A
September 1868 entry itemizes Joseph Atkins’ compensation for work on a saw mill.
Another 1868 entry states that Henry S. Marcom worked on an apple mill.63

As was customary in country stores, Stanford provided a wide array of goods and
services to his family members and white and African American neighbors. He sold
staple goods, tobacco, farm equipment, loom parts, revenue stamps, marriage licenses
and medicine; arranged for doctor’s visits; and made coffins (for which he usually
charged about five dollars). Notations in his account book from the late 1860s reflect the
changing status of newly freed slaves. George and Nancy Trice, listed as “colored” and
“freedman” respectively, purchased items including shoe leathers, pants and cotton cards
and were paid for corn. They bartered for four chairs (the exact terms of the transaction
are not detailed). The account of Henry Marcom indicates that he purchased foodstuffs
such as potatoes, lard and butter and was given credit for providing grape vines, repairing




        61
          “Last Shots: The Creek of New Hope, Carolina Campaign,” Wayside exhibit produced by North
Carolina Civil War Trails.
        62
             Stanford Leigh, correspondence in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        63
             Stanford Leigh, Account Book, 1859-1874.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                       20
tools and other work. Richard Carlton purchased a well bucket and a bushel of wheat and
cut hay for store credit.64

Stanford Leigh’s role as a community leader is also illustrated in his account books, as he
notes that he was appointed guardian of the children of J. D. Carlton and assisted with the
settlement of Willie Marcom’s estate.65 County records reinforce his high standing, as he
witnessed countless wills and other legal transactions.

Stanford Leigh’s resources were greatly diminished following the Civil War. In 1870,
his real estate was valued at $2,700 and his personal property at $700, a drastic reduction
from the valuations reported in the 1860 census. Although deeds do not indicate that he
sold land during this time, his reported holdings—150 improved acres, 300 wooded acres
and 220 other unimproved acres—were also reduced. The number of livestock on the
farm, numbering 3 horses, 1 mule, 3 milk cows, 13 other cows, 21 sheep and 17 hogs,
was significantly depleted compared to reports from the previous census. Crop
production decreased, with the exception of cotton, which rose to 4 bales of ginned cotton
(450 pounds each). Other crops harvested in the 1869 growing season included 84
bushels of wheat, 3 bushels of rye, 425 bushels of Indian corn, 50 bushels of oats, 50
bushels of sweet potatoes, 5 bushels of Irish potatoes, 5 bushels of peas and beans and 2
tons of hay. Stanford reported a tobacco harvest (50 pounds) for the first time. The farm
produced 20 gallons of molasses, 100 pounds of butter and 25 pounds of wool, but did
not yield honey or beeswax.66

Stanford paid his farm help—including at least two of his sons and tenant farmers—$225
in wages over the course of the year. An 1871 note in Stanford’s account book lists the
weight of his children’s cotton and the amount of money he gave them for it. Henry, the
highest producer, processed 236 pounds of seed cotton and 79 pounds of lint cotton and
received $16.98 in compensation.67

Stanford Leigh’s son Anderson and his wife, Leantine, were enumerated in a separate
household in 1870 along with two African American laborers, eleven-year-old Thomas
Leigh and sixty-year-old Oston O’Kelley, both of whom worked on the farm.68
Anderson Leigh lived in a log house on his father’s land not far from his family home.
He was not individually listed in the 1870 or 1880 agricultural schedules, probably


        64
             Ibid.
        65
             Ibid.
        66
         United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population and Agriculture Schedules,
Orange County, North Carolina, 1870.
        67
             Ibid.; Stanford Leigh, Account Book, 1859-1874.
        68
          United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedule, Orange County,
North Carolina, 1870.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                           21
because he did not purchase acreage from Stanford until 1898 and was therefore, in
effect, working on his father’s farm.69

Stanford purchased new equipment from the Brown Cotton Gin Company of New
London, Connecticut in July 1879; it was delivered via the Old Dominion Line steamship
Hatteras to West Point, Virginia, and then transported by the Piedmont Air Line Railroad
to Durham. He corresponded with the Snow Camp Foundry and Machine Shops in
September 1879 regarding turbine wheels and a circular saw, and with Wayne Allcott, a
farm equipment dealer, in May 1880 about engines for the “saw mill, grist mill or gin.”70
Stanford purchased an engine and boiler, fly wheels, machinery, saw mill fixtures, a saw,
a pulley and other assorted wheels from Talbott & Sons. A receipt dated June 4, 1880
states that the equipment weighed 10,000 pounds, and Durham delivery via the
Richmond and Danville Railroad Company cost $75.71

By 1880 Stanford Leigh was cultivating less acreage but the number of hogs and poultry
on his farm increased significantly from 1870. The 1880 Agriculture Schedule reports
that he owned 60 improved acres, 377 wooded acres and 150 other unimproved acres,
buildings and fences worth $4,000, farm equipment valued at $350 and livestock worth
$400 in 1879. Stanford spent $20 on building repair and paid his farm labor (African
American and white) $350 in wages over the course of the year. Livestock and poultry
on the farm included 5 mules, 5 milk cows, 13 other cows, 14 sheep, 38 hogs and 40
chickens. Cow milk was used to produce 100 pounds of butter and 17 pounds of cheese,
sheep fleeces weighed 30 pounds and the chickens yielded 50 dozen eggs. Crop
production continued to decrease, with the exception of cotton, which continued to rise to
6 bales. The only other field crops harvested during the 1879 growing season were 60
bushels of wheat and 300 bushels of Indian corn. A 3-acre orchard included 30 fruit-
bearing apple and 100 peach trees.72 An 1884 list of Stanford’s taxable property includes
4 mules valued at $1.25; 15 head of cattle, 4 cows and calves at $40; 7 yearlings at $40;
37 head of hogs at $50; 43 head of sheep at $43; and land at $21.48.73

Stanford Leigh and William Atkins signed a chattel mortgage on March 1, 1883, using
the steam engine, saw mill, grist mill and cotton gin “situated on our land in Hew Hope”
to secure a six hundred dollar loan from Robert McCauley to Leigh, Atkins & Co. They
may have used the money to expand their mill and store operation. It appears that Leigh

        69
          United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Agriculture Schedules, Orange County,
North Carolina, 1870, 1880.
        70
             Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 4, Folder 33, Southern Historical Collection.
        71
             Receipt in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        72
          United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Agriculture Schedule, Orange County,
North Carolina, 1880.
        73
           The People’s Regulator and Pocket Companion, 1880s account book of Stanford Leigh in the
possession of Curtis Booker.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             22
was also working on his house in 1883, as a personal receipt itemizes the purchase of
forty-eight window panes along with cloth and other sundries.74




               Figure 4. L. Johnson, “Map of Durham County, NC,” 1887



        74
         The locations of the Leigh mill, store and house are indicated on the 1887 L. Johnson map of
Durham County, but Stanford does not appear in Branson’s North Carolina Business Directory until the
1890s, when he is listed as a farmer. Mortgage and receipt in the possession of Curtis Booker.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                               23
Stanford Leigh entered into a share-cropping agreement with John Whitaker in January
1886. It is possible that John had been living and working on the Leigh farm for some
time, as his household is enumerated just before Stanford’s in the 1880 census. Stanford
agreed to provide “land sufficient for a one horse crop for corn, cotton and tobacco” in
addition to “horse power and tools to cultivate the same with” in exchange for John’s
assistance maintaining fences, clearing ditches and feeding livestock. John was to retain
half of the crops raised on his acreage.75 John, who was 78 in 1886, was undoubtedly
assisted in these tasks by his 33-year-old wife, Harriett, and their children, Elizabeth,
William and Wesley, all of whom were identified as “mulatto” in census reports.76

Another small household—including thirty-five-year-old Ann Council (mulatto), her
daughter Cenora (mulatto), son Commedore (black) and niece Bonean [illegible]
(black)—appears between that of the Whitakers and the Leighs in the 1880 census. Ann
Council’s occupation is listed as “laborer,” and Stanford’s account books confirm that
she was working on the Leigh farm. Stanford lists the number of days Ann worked per
month from April to October 1891, for a total of 88.5 days at twenty-five cents at day.
Cenora helped “bring wheat” for fifty cents a day, and the family picked 2,533 pounds of
cotton, for which Stanford compensated them at a rate of one-half cent per pound. Ann
Council purchased meal, meat, corn, flour and molasses at the Leigh Store.77

Stanford Leigh’s account books indicate that his store did a steady business during the
1880s and 1890s. He continued to provide goods and services for cash and barter. An
1884 list shows that Haywood Hargrave, Elsie Clark, Jack Lloyd and William Clark
received varying amounts of cotton seed in exchange for the promise of a portion of the
harvested cotton crop. Daniel Davis’s account reflects credits for fence rails (Stanford
paid him five dollars per thousand rails) and labor on the farm (stripping tobacco, etc.) at
forty cents a day. Daniel purchased meat, meal, potatoes, tobacco, salt, molasses, cotton
thread, cloth and boots. An entry from October 1887 itemizes a doctor’s bill, and in
January 1888 Stanford sold Daniel Davis a coffin for $6.50. Abe Trice bought meat, sack
flour, potatoes, coffee and salt in 1892 and 1893, and worked on the Leigh farm at a rate
of thirty-five cents a day to settle his account. Levi Marcom and John Barker also traded
labor for staple goods. Levi provided wood, cotton, fodder and labor in exchange for
meat, meal, molasses and flour, while John’s account reflects credits for cotton seed, corn
shucks, fodder and plowing in exchange for meat, potatoes, meal, corn and flour.78


        75
             Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 4, Folder 36, Southern Historical Collection.
        76
          United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedule, Orange County,
North Carolina, 1880.
        77
           Ibid.; The People’s Regulator and Pocket Companion, 1880s account book of Stanford Leigh in
the possession of Curtis Booker; l890s account book of Stanford Leigh in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        78
           Pierce’s Memorandum and Account Book with 1884-1885 calendar, account book of Stanford
Leigh in the possession of Curtis Booker.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                              24
The Leigh household was full of young girls in the 1880s. Ina Markham ran a
subscription school during this time at the old Barbee house near the Leigh property, and
Anna, Rose, Ida and Katie attended. Students paid three dollars for a three-month term.
A later receipt for tuition interest indicates that Ida attended the Durham Female Institute
in the 1890s.79

Katie Leigh married Henry Quinton Hudson (known as Quint) on September 24, 1890
and it appears that they resided in the Leigh House during much of the first decade of
their marriage and the birth of their first three children—Walter Curtis, Oliver Wendell
and Nellie Edith—between 1892 and 1897. Quint worked for Mr. Wyatt, a local
merchant, through 1898.80

Stanford and Leathy sold a few tracts of land in the last decades of the nineteenth
century, the largest of which were purchased by Stanford’s sons. Henry Leigh paid $702
for 78 acres in January 1887, and Anderson Leigh bought 42 ¼ acres for $236 in January
1898.81 Stanford continued to operate a general store, although his last account book,
which covers the period from 1891 through 1896, indicates that he was not doing as
much business as in earlier years.82

Stanford Leigh died on September 1, 1898 and was interred in the family cemetery near
the house. His will stated that his wife Leathy was to inherit one hundred acres including
his “mansion house,” outbuildings, other improvements, household and kitchen furniture,
livestock and farm equipment. His daughters Louetta, Louvenia, Rosa and Ida were each
to receive a “bed stead, bed and bedding.” He stated that each of his surviving children
should receive an equal share of his land, with Katie, Anna, Ida and Rosa’s shares to
come from their mother’s (Leathy’s) acreage. John, Anderson, Donough and Bettie had
already improved portions of the property, and they or their heirs were to inherit an
amount of real estate equal in value to that of their siblings, without taking into
consideration the value of the improvements they had made. The heirs of his deceased
daughters, Demarious, Texanna and Nannie, were also to inherit equal shares. John and
Anderson, his oldest surviving sons were appointed executors of the estate.83




        79
             Receipts in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        80
           H. Q. Hudson’s daybook, Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 158, Southern
Historical Collection.
        81
         Deed Book 7, page 275; Deed Book 31, page 105; Office of the Register of Deeds, Durham
County Courthouse, Durham.
        82
             1891-1896 account book of Stanford Leigh in the possession of Curtis Booker.
        83
          Will Book A, page 451, Office of the Clerk of Court, Durham County Courthouse, Durham.
Anderson died on November 15, 1898.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             25
Leathy passed away in April 1900, and according to family tradition the Leigh estate
beneficiaries divided the property into equal parts and drew lots to determine what they
would inherit. Ida drew the lot for the house and outbuildings, but later traded her share
with her sister, Katie, for farmland. J. E. T. Massey surveyed the estate and the Durham
County Superior Court formalized the property division on September 28, 1900.84

As is so often the case with complicated estate settlements, however, the question of
property ownership was not completely resolved at that time. Disagreements as to the
division of parts of the estate resulted in Bertie Leigh (Bettie Leigh’s daughter)
petitioning for the sale of the contested land in a special proceeding against J. Claudius,
Lola, Nannie and Foy Leigh (Anderson Leigh’s children). The petition was recorded in
the Durham County Superior Court on February 17, 1904. W. H. Duke, guardian for the
young defendants, agreed that the land in question should be sold. The superior court
appointed H. A. Foushee commissioner and directed him to advertise the sale of the
property. Foushee reported on March 29, 1904 that General Roberson, an African
American farmer, was the highest bidder for three tracts of the Stanford Leigh estate.
Roberson paid six hundred dollars for the property, half in cash and the rest in notes. The
first tract consisted of 42.25 acres Anderson Leigh had purchased from his parents in
1898, the second 26.25 acres (tract number five) and the third 18.15 acres (tract number
6) from the special proceedings survey.85




        84
           John Baxton Flowers III and Catherine W. Cockshutt, “Leigh Farm,” National Register of
Historic Places nomination, 1975; Special Proceeding #380, pages 21-25, Office of the Clerk of Court,
Durham County Courthouse, Durham.
        85
             Special Proceeding #380; Deed Book 30, page 616, Durham County Courthouse, Durham.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                               26
             Figure 5. Richard Stanford Leigh Estate Division Survey Map


Katie and Quint Hudson also established themselves at Leigh Farm during this time.
Quint was employed at Wyatt & Young in 1899, Young & Stone in 1900 and is listed as
“machinist” in the 1900 census. According to Curtis Booker, the Hudsons moved to
Durham before the birth of their fourth child, Stanford Leigh, in 1901. Quint then
worked as a streetcar conductor and in a machine shop, a furniture factory and a foundry
for several years, but his daybooks and Katie’s diaries indicate that they moved back to
the “Leigh home place” on April 1, 1903.86



        86
           H. Q. Hudson’s daybook, Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 158, Southern
Historical Collection; United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedule, Durham
County, North Carolina, 1900.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                           27
Quint Hudson purchased an additional 7.25 acres from J. A. Fowler in 1906 and built his
first tobacco barn in 1909. His name appears on the 1910 Miller map of Durham County
in the location of Leigh Farm. Quint’s daybooks document the wide variety of expenses
involved in operating the farm, from the purchase of horse, cow and chicken feed to the
payment of laborers to help with the cotton crop. He also recorded domestic expenses
including clothing and groceries.87




    Figure 6. C. M. Miller, “Map of Durham County, North Carolina,” ca. 1910



        87
           H. Q. Hudson’s daybook, Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 158, Southern
Historical Collection; C. M. Miller, “Map of Durham County, North Carolina,” ca. 1910, North Carolina
Room, Durham County Public Library, Durham.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                               28
General Roberson’s name appears on the 1910 Miller map of Durham County next to
Quint Hudson’s. Some accounts indicate that Roberson (1844-1927) was a Leigh family
slave, but this has not been verified using primary source documents. He occupied the
house constructed by Anderson Leigh, and may have improved it (as the building is no
longer extant, it is impossible to definitely document the date of construction of various
portions of the house). Roberson’s grave marker in the abandoned Old Markham Chapel
Baptist Church cemetery mentions his first wife, Rebecca, but she is not interred there.
General and Rebecca’s son, H. R. Roberson (1886-1918), is buried in the family plot
along with General’s second wife, Sarah L. Daniel (1857-1923).88 General and Sarah had
four children: Rosa, Cora, Myrtle and Alonzo.

General Roberson purchased an additional 43.39 acres (tract number 7) from the Real
Estate Exchange Company (who bought the land from the heirs of Gustine Texanna Leah
Tilley, Stanford and Ann Leigh’s fifth child) on December 16, 1907 for “ten dollars and
other good and valuable considerations.”89 Mary Leigh Atkins, the eighth child born to
Stanford and Ann Leigh, sold her 41.75 acre-parcel (tract number 10) to Roberson on
February 28, 1911 for three hundred dollars.90 S. A. and Sallie Copeland sold him 37.47
acres (tract number 8, which had belonged to Henry D. Leigh) on August 2, 1919 for six
hundred dollars, bringing General Roberson’s total ownership of Leigh land to 209.26
acres.

General Roberson was enumerated after Quint Hudson in the 1920 census. Roberson,
who was 75, is listed as a farmer. His household includes his 61-year-old-wife, Sarah;
their 5-year-old grandson, Aaron; and a 21-year-old “hired man,” McConie, who worked
on the farm. The Roberson’s daughter, Myrtle, her husband, Earnest, and their four
children were listed in the next household.91

The Hudson’s children also stayed close to home, for the most part. Nellie Hudson
married Brodie Banks McDade and settled in Burlington. Walter Curtis left the farm to
work in the Norfolk shipyards during World War I. By 1920, however, the Hudson
household once again included their three boys in addition to Walter’s wife Pearl, and
Katie’s sister, Rosa. The men of the family all worked on the farm; Pearl was a public
school teacher.92

          88
          C. M. Miller, “Map of Durham County, North Carolina;” “Old Markham Chapel Baptist
Church,” Durham County, North Carolina Cemeteries, http://apdew.com/cemetery/durh/cem017.htm.
          89
               Deed Book 37, page 461, Office of the Register of Deeds, Durham County Courthouse,
Durham.
          90
               Deed Book 43, page 251, Office of the Register of Deeds, Durham County Courthouse,
Durham.
          91
          United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedule, Durham County,
North Carolina, 1920.
          92
          Curtis Booker, interview with Heather Fearnbach, April 24, 2006; United States Census,
Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedule, Durham County, North Carolina, 1920.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                           29
Farm census reports from 1925 indicate that the Hudsons planted 9 acres of their 99-acre
farm, while a tenant farmer living on the property cultivated 10 acres. They planted 5
acres in tobacco, 3 in cotton, 10 in corn and 1 in a home garden. Two fallow acres were
designated to be cut for hay and other plantings. The Hudsons used six tons of
commercial fertilizer in 1924. Oral tradition indicates that the family had an orchard, and
the farm census documents the existence of ten pecan trees. Ten hens and two milk cows
were the only livestock on the property.93

General Roberson’s farm tract was larger than the Hudson’s, but his cultivated acreage
was a bit less. According to the 1925 Farm Census reports, he planted 1 acre in tobacco,
1 in cotton, 8 in corn and ½-acre in a home garden. He used two tons of commercial
fertilizers in 1924, and owned twelve hens and two milk cows. Most farms in Patterson
township encompassed less than one hundred acres. The largest holding in the vicinity of
the Roberson farm was the 628-acre farm of Phillip Hutchins.94

General Roberson died December 10, 1927 and his property was divided among his three
daughters: Rosa, Cora and Myrtle. By 1935, Rosa and her husband Sampie Brown
farmed a 73-acre tract and lived in the Anderson Leigh-General Roberson House. The
Farm Census reflects that Myrtle owned 58 acres and Cora owned 61. They all grew
tobacco, cotton and corn; Cora’s six acres of tobacco was the largest amount planted by
an African American farmer in the township. Myrtle also planted soybeans, sorghum
cane, sweet potatoes, truck crops, hay and twelve fruit trees on twenty-one cultivated
acres. She owned two horses or mules and four dairy cows. Cora grew peas, small
grains, sorghum cane, Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes and truck crops on eighteen acres
and owned two horses or mules and three dairy cows. Sampie cultivated nine acres,
planting soybeans, truck crops and six fruit trees and owned one dairy cow.95

A series of entries in Quint Hudson’s daybook indicate that he worked from January to
July of 1930 on the construction of a “new house,” hauling, sawing and stacking logs and
lumber, painting and sealing. This building was most likely for his son, Stanford Leigh
Hudson, and incorporated an earlier hewn log dwelling (probably a slave cabin) into a
larger Rustic Revival-style, round log house. Quint calculated that the dwelling cost
$156.00 to build (52 days at $3.00 per day).96



        93
          North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports, 1925, Box
10 (Duplin-Durham), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
        94
             Ibid.
        95
          North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports, 1935, Box
50 (Duplin-Durham), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
        96
           H. Q. Hudson’s daybook, Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 158, Southern
Historical Collection.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             30
Quint Hudson died on January 1, 1934 after contracting pneumonia and was interred in
the family cemetery. Katie and Quint’s son, Oliver Wendell Hudson, served as
administrator of the estate.97 Farm production continued after Quint Hudson’s death.
The 1935 Farm Census reports that 21 acres of the Hudson farm—including 10 acres of
corn, 2 acres of tobacco, 5 acres of small grains, 5/10 of an acre of sweet potatoes and 1
acre of commercial truck crops—were cultivated; tenants farmed 15 of those acres. Six
acres were to be cleared that year. The orchard included twenty-four fruit trees of
bearing age. The only livestock listed were three horses and mules and two milk cows.98

Wendell Hudson married Cleora Bowlen of Marion, South Carolina. He attended the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and then worked in Baltimore for the
Emerson Drug Company. After his father’s death, Wendell visited North Carolina
frequently and provided for his mother, paying for everything from groceries to cow feed.
He had financed improvements at the farm in the past—entries in Quint Hudson’s
daybook show that Wendell frequently gave his parents cash and a 1933 receipt indicates
that he paid for the purchase of metal roofing, probably for the outbuildings—and he
continued this practice. He updated the house from May 29 to July 28, 1934, installing
water and electric systems, a bathroom, an electric range and a refrigerator at a cost of
$1,129.14. Katie Hudson’s journal entry from May 1, 1935 reports that Wendell
intended to paint the kitchen and paper the dining room and the “big room,” presumably
the largest room—the hall—of the 1830s section of the house. Period photographs
indicate that he also added some new windows and German siding in the 1930s.99

The 1945 Farm Census Report indicated that Wendell owned two tracts totaling 105
acres, 45 of which were cultivated, in the 1945 farm census. Six acres were planted in
corn, 9 acres in oats, 24 acres in hay and 9 acres in a home garden. He greatly increased
the number of livestock on the farm between 1935 and 1945, when he had dairy (22 milk
cows) and poultry (125 hens) operations in addition to 8 hogs.100

The farms of Sampie Brown (Rosa Roberson’s husband), Myrtle Roberson Davis and
Cora Roberson Mitchell were also listed in the 1945 Farm Census. It appears that no one
was living on Sampie Brown’s farm at the time, but four acres were planted in hay.
Myrtle harvested corn, hay, tobacco and truck crops and a home garden. She owned two
dairy cows and twenty hens. Cora also reported owning hens (twenty-four) for the first

        97
             Ibid.
        98
          North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports, 1935, Box
50 (Duplin-Durham), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.
        99
            Curtis Booker, interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 11, 2006; Loose “Budd-Piper Roofing
Company” receipt, H. Q. Hudson’s daybook pages 46-47, Box 20, Folder 158; Kate Leigh Hudson’s
journal, 1934-1938, Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 159, Southern Historical
Collection.
        100
          North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports, 1945,
Box 99 (Durham-Forsyth), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             31
time in 1945. She grew hay, soybeans, small grains and six fruit trees and owned two
dairy cows.101

The extended Roberson family continued to work for the Hudsons and on their own
farms throughout most of the twentieth century. Myrtle Davis’s children remember that
their family grew wheat, and took it to George King’s Mill on Farrington Road to be
processed. Myrtle did household chores for Katie Hudson, and as Katie had the only
television in the area, Myrtle’s children would come over to watch. The Davis children
attended school when they were not working for the Hudsons.102

Katie Hudson resided in the Leigh House until her death in 1946. She was buried in the
family cemetery following a funeral officiated by Rev. H. P. Miller, pastor of Ephesus
Baptist Church, at her home. Her obituary states that she “was born and lived her entire
life in the home in which she died.”103

Wendell and Cleora Hudson maintained a primary residence in Marion, South Carolina
until 1950, when they retired to his family home after Wendell suffered a heart attack.104
The couple hired D. C. May to renovate the Leigh House, adding cabinets to the kitchen,
updating the downstairs bathroom and adding one upstairs, constructing closets,
refinishing interior woodwork and enclosing the breezeway between the main block of
the house and the dining room ell. Cleora Hudson planted ornamental flowers and shrubs
including camellias, roses and a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees around the
house. The Hudsons rented some of the houses on the property to graduate students.105

Wendell and Cleora Hudson began selling outlying acreage in the 1950s. They sold
several parcels outright, but also developed a subdivision, Woodland Acres, in 1953. The
subdivision covenants required all houses to be at least 750 square feet and cost a
minimum of $6,000 to build. A 1958 plat shows twenty-one lots in Woodland Acres,
most of which were sold by 1956.106

Wendell Hudson passed away in 1973, and Cleora remained in the house until around
1976, when she moved to Kenansville to live with her niece, Peggy. A realty company


        101
              Ibid.
        102
              Raymond Davis and Louella Davis Alston, Interview with Chris and Debra Bronson, May 16,
2006.
        103
              “Mrs. Katie L. Hudson,” Durham Morning Herald, November 6, 1946.
        104
              Carolyn Satterfield, “Leigh Farm Gives View of Life of Yesteryear,” Durham Sun, April 25,
1975.
        105
              Curtis Booker, interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 11, 2006
        106
         Deed Book 215, pages 158-159; Plat Book 35, page 12, Office of the Register of Deeds,
Durham County Courthouse, Durham.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                                 32
divided the house into apartments and rented it and the other dwellings on the property
until 1991, when Cleora visited on February 9 and was very concerned about the overall
condition of the house and grounds. Her visit instigated a complicated series of events
that culminated in the acquisition of the property by the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources and the City of Durham, with financial and planning assistance from
organizations including Preservation North Carolina, Triangle Land Conservancy,
Friends of the New Hope, Historic Preservation Society of Durham, Junior League of
Orange and Durham Counties, New Hope Audubon Society, Durham County Open
Space Commission, Durham Urban Trails and Greenways Commission, Durham
Inventory of Cultural and Natural Resources, Durham City Council and the Durham
County Board of Commissioners.107




               Figure 7. Cleora Hudson visits Leigh Farm, February 9, 1991
                          Photograph courtesy of Curtis Booker




       107
             Ibid.; Coulter Associates, Leigh Farm Master Plan, November 1992.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             33
     V. BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS, HISTORY AND CONDITION
                       ASSESSMENTS




                       Figure 8. Leigh Farm, looking northeast


Setting and Building Overview

Leigh Farm survives as an intact example of the self-sufficient farmstead that dominated
the landscape of rural North Carolina during the nineteenth century. The complex is
located at the end of Leigh Farm Road just north of Highway 54 at the Interstate 40
interchange in the Patterson Township of southwestern Durham County. The Leigh
House faces west and is situated on a slight rise. Camellia, hemlock, cedar, maple, elm,
hickory, oak and crepe myrtle trees surround the house. The 82.8-acre Leigh Farm Park
is currently undeveloped other than a system of hiking trails. The farm complex serves as
the trailhead and offers limited parking at the southern end of the property, which is
managed by the City of Durham Parks and Recreation Department. Most of the acreage,
some of which was cultivated for much of the farm’s history, is now heavily overgrown
and wooded. Tributaries of New Hope Creek flow through the property and flood after
periods of heavy rain.

From about 1835 until circa 1880, the Leigh House underwent several major programs of
enlargement and remodeling that more than doubled its size, growing from a hall-parlor


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             34
plan house to a double-pile building with a finished upper story and a rear ell. The dairy
is the earliest outbuilding. This small, finely-finished building may have been
constructed at the same time as the original portion of the house (circa 1835), or even
earlier. The log smokehouse, corn crib and two slave quarters date to the mid-nineteenth
century and the frame carriage house and well house to the late nineteenth century. The
log tobacco barn was constructed in 1909, the frame pack house in 1911 and the brick
pump house in 1934. Representative building photographs are included in the report text;
additional views appear in Appendix A. A full set of building drawings is included in
Appendix B.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              35
                            Figure 9. Leigh Farm Site Plan




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                    36
           1880s
           Pantry           1950s
                           partition
                             wall




                            1880s
                            Dining
                            Room
                            Wing


                              Breezeway
                             Enclosed 1950s




                         ca. 1835             ca. 1835 Hall
                          Parlor



           1930s
         Bathroom

                            1850s                  1850s
                           Addition               Addition
                            North                  South
                            Room                   Room




                       Figure 10. Leigh House First Floor Plan


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                        37
                         1850s                   1850s
                         North                   South
                         Room                    Room




                      Figure 11. Leigh House Second Floor Plan




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                        38
                       Figure 12. Leigh House, South Elevation

Leigh House
Circa 1835, Additions circa 1850 and 1880

Description and History:

The Leigh House is a one-and-one-half-story, double-pile, three-bay, side-gable-roofed
building with a one-story rear dining room wing. The house rests on an early-twentieth-
century continuous stone foundation that replaced dry-laid stone piers. An open
breezeway originally connected the main block to the rear wing; the breezeway was
enclosed in the 1950s. Two single-shouldered stone chimneys with heavy Portland
cement mortar joints and replacement brick stacks occupy the south gable end of the
main block; a shed-roofed porch supported by square posts spans the chimneys. The
wraparound back porch, also supported by square posts, extends from the south end of
the east elevation of the main block of the house across the south elevation of the dining
room wing. Although the porch posts, floor and part of the roof farming have been
replaced, the hewn sills under both porches indicate that they have been in place since the
mid-nineteenth century. Another single-shouldered stone chimney with heavy Portland
cement mortar joints and a replacement brick stack stands at the east end of the dining
room wing; the base of this chimney is stepped.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               39
A shed-roofed appendage containing a pantry and a screened porch extends across the
north elevation of the dining room wing and is supported by a brick foundation. The
porch was originally open; it was screened in the mid-twentieth century. A tall brick
chimney stack that housed the kitchen stove flue pierces the north side of the dining room
wing roof at its intersection with the shed-roofed appendage. A metal roof shelters the
pantry and porch.

The small, square, shed-roofed addition in the approximate center of the north elevation
of the main block of the house has functioned as a bathroom since its construction in
1934. Three-over-one sash illuminate the interior. Early-twentieth-century photographs
of this elevation and careful examination of the sill did not provide evidence that
chimneys ever stood on this side of the house.

Wide German siding replaced most of the original clapboards on the main block of the
house in the 1930s. The louvered gable vents were probably added in the 1950s. It
appears from photos taken during the repair of the shed roof of the porch on the south
elevation that some of the original siding survives behind the porch roof. The east wall
of the main block of the house is sheathed with wide flush boards, indicating that a porch
has extended across this elevation since the wall was sided. The dining room wing
retains original weatherboards.

A combination of six-over-six and two-over-two windows light the interior of the house.
Some of the six-over-six sash are pegged and date to the mid-nineteenth century; others
are later replacements. The two-over-two sash were added in the mid-1930s. All of the
windows were set in metal tracks in the mid-twentieth century to improve their operation.
Modern aluminum storm windows protect most of the windows; a few windows on the
upper story retain wooden screens hinged to the top of the window trim. The board-and-
batten exterior doors on the main block of the house were replaced in the late nineteenth
century with raised-panel doors and again in the twentieth century with doors with raised
panels at the base and glazed lights in the upper portion. Aluminum storm doors replaced
wood-frame screen doors in the mid-twentieth century.

Like most vernacular farmhouses, the Leigh House evolved according to the needs and
economic success of the inhabitants. The house originally had a two-room, hall-parlor
plan, evidenced by the hewn sills and half-round log joists that support the earliest
section of the building. A stair in the northeast corner of the south room—the hall—led
to the upper floor. It is possible that the hall-parlor house stood on the property when the
Leigh family purchased it, but based on construction technology it is unlikely that the
house was built before 1820. For the purposes of this report, a circa 1835 date has been
assigned to the earliest section of the house, coinciding with the Leigh family tradition
that Stanford Leigh built the house soon after his marriage in July 1834.

Stanford Leigh constructed two rooms on the west elevation and additional rooms on the
upper floor in the mid-nineteenth century. The narrow and deep sash-sawn joists under
the two added rooms support this mid-nineteenth-century construction date. The current

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 40
roof framing system (lap-jointed and pegged sash-sawn rafters and plate; wide sash-sawn
shingle nailers) dates to this remodeling. The light framing members of the rear dining
room wing indicate that this portion of the house was constructed with lumber procured
from a sawmill, probably soon after Stanford Leigh purchased new equipment for the
Leigh, Atkins & Co. Mill in the 1880s.

The interior of the house reflects the series of additions to the building. The walls and
ceilings are sheathed with ten- to thirteen-inch wide pine boards, all of which were
heavily sanded, the nail holes filled with now-discolored putty, and lacquered, probably
in the mid-twentieth century. Small nail holes in the walls of the hall indicate that the
room was wallpapered in the early twentieth century. A small fragment of the
wallpaper—a blue-grey field with a white, stenciled, stylized leaf, berry and flower motif
within a lace-like grid with embellished corners—survives. It appears that the two
original window openings (now boarded over) on the west elevation of the hall-parlor
house were twenty-six inches wide. Modern carpet obscures the floor, but the original
six-inch wide floor boards are visible in the closet under the corner stair. Simple trim
with mitered corners and a beaded edge surrounds the window and door openings.

Original board-batten doors still hang on wrought hinges with leather washers at the
enclosed stair and the partition walls between the north and south rooms. The door for
the opening on the west wall of the hall, which originally served as the front, exterior
door, has been temporarily removed and stored in the south room of the 1850s addition.
The “outside” surface exhibits heavy weathering. Late-nineteenth-century rim locks with
porcelain or metal knobs have replaced most of the first-period door locks. The door
between the north and south rooms of the 1850s addition retains an original mid-
nineteenth century cast lock with a brass knob. The enclosed stair door exhibits a simple
wood sliding latch in addition to a later rim lock.

The mantel in the hall is a vernacular interpretation of a Georgian-style paneled mantel.
Four- to five-inch wide vertical panels flank the 7.5-inch wide central panel. The mantel
shelf has been replaced and trim boards added to each outside edge and around the
fireplace opening. The mantel in the south room of the 1850s addition is lighter and
more Federal in style, consisting of a large central panel surrounded by flat boards with
two layers of trim boards on the outer edges. The 1850s mantel in the south room of the
upper floor is virtually identical, although rendered at a smaller scale. All of the fireplace
openings were enclosed and woodstoves installed in the first half of the twentieth
century; ductwork for a mid-twentieth century HVAC system was run up through the
1850s chimney.

The Hudsons added closets to the two north rooms of the main block of the house around
1950 and 1970. The circa 1950 addition of closets on the wall between the two north
rooms was accomplished by removing the wide wall sheathing boards on the east
elevation of the 1850s (west) room and using them to construct a closet wall 28.5 inches
west of the original wall in the 1850s room. A door opening into the 1850s room was
added at the north end of the closet wall; a door opening into the 1830s room was added
at the south end of the closet on the west wall of the original parlor. Two small doors in

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  41
the upper portion of the closet wall provide access to storage space from the 1850s room.
A shallow (thirteen inches deep) linen closet was constructed north of the large closet on
the east wall of the 1850s room. The board-and-batten closet doors blend with the reused
wall sheathing boards.

The construction of the closet on the east wall of the original parlor circa 1970 was a
good bit simpler, as no attempt was made to match the earlier wall sheathing boards. A
lightly-framed closet wall was added two feet from the east wall and fitted with two
hollow-core doors.

The Hudsons also constructed a long closet on the east wall of the south room on the
upper floor around 1950. The closet extends 2.5 feet into the room and was finished with
a board wall and board-and-batten doors to match the existing walls. Small board-and-
batten doors on the east and west elevations of the north room provide access to storage
areas under the eaves and to the space above the dining room wing. The Hudsons
constructed a small bathroom in the northeast corner of the north room in the first half of
the twentieth century.

Chris Bronson renovated the 1930s bathroom on the north elevation of the house in 1992.
The beadboard walls, ceilings and bathtub were retained and vinyl flooring installed after
the subfloor was repaired.

The Hudsons divided the interior of the dining room wing in half in the twentieth century
with a board partition wall, which, according to family tradition, was constructed with a
wide central recessed area to accommodate a large sideboard. The east side of the wing
then functioned as a kitchen; the west side as a dining room. In an effort to gain more
space in the dining room, the west wall was extended west approximately two feet. A
line indicating the dimensions of the original room is clearly visible in the wall and
ceiling boards, as boards in the added section are narrower and beaded. Small nail holes
in the dining room wall indicate that the room was wallpapered; a small fragment of the
early-twentieth century paper—which has an off-white field and a clustered bluish
cornstalk-like pattern—survives. The ceiling has been painted white. A gas wall heater
has been installed on the north elevation.

An electric range stands in front of the simple post-and-lintel mantel on the east wall of
the kitchen. The Hudsons installed plain wood cabinets around 1950. The floor is
covered with faux brick linoleum. The walls and ceiling have been painted white.

Condition Assessment:

The Leigh House is in good condition. The roof has been recently replaced and remains
sound. The siding is in good shape; a fairly recent paint job is holding up well. The
windows and doors function properly. One section of fascia board on the south elevation
of the dining room ell needs to be replaced.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                    42
The areas of most concern are the foundation and chimneys. Excavation under the
original portion of the house to create a root cellar has resulted in erosion of the earth
walls under the stone foundation, creating an unstable situation (see Appendix C,
Structural Engineering Report). The construction of a new foundation will be required in
order to remedy the instability, during which time a true basement should be excavated
and finished to provide a clean, dry space for new mechanical, electrical and plumbing
systems.

The stone chimney on the dining room ell has settled and shifted away from the house.
The spalling, soft sandstone is in poor condition and the brick chimney stack was
replaced in the 1970s using inappropriate brick. It is possible that some of the existing
chimney stone could be reused in conjunction with supplemental local sandstone to
exactly replicate the base of the existing chimney and period-appropriate bricks and
mortar used to rebuild the stack.




                 Figure 13. Sandstone Chimney, Dining Room Wing


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                   43
                    Figure 14. Slave Cabin #1, Southwest Oblique

Slave Cabin #1
Mid-Nineteenth Century

Description and History:

This one-story, side-gable-roofed, log slave cabin is located east of the house outside the
complex of domestic outbuildings. The dwelling faces what was historically the farm
service road. A deep eave shelters the reconstructed log-and-splint chimney on the west
elevation; the splint-and-mortar stack extends about two feet above the metal roof. Wide
clapboards secured with cut nails sheath the gable ends. A centrally located board-and-
batten door and a four-over-four sash window pierce the south elevation. Another four-
over-four sash window on the west elevation north of the log chimney illuminates the
interior. Flat board trim with butt corners surrounds the door and window and openings.
The board-and-batten door on the east elevation provided access to a no longer extant
frame addition. Stone piers elevate the building roughly one foot off the ground; the sills
on the east and north elevations have failed due to insect damage and rest on the ground.

The only ornamentation in the interior is the simple post-and-lintel mantel with a central
panel under a replacement shelf that surrounds the stone-lined, parged firebox. A brick

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                44
hearth extends into the room. The wide floor boards are intact. Several ceiling joists
have been replaced with pole rafters from a tobacco barn. The plates on the north and
south elevations have been repaired with new sections of log.

The rear roof slope incorporates a log shed addition partially clad with board-and-batten
siding. Openings cut into the north elevation allowed for the insertion of a long,
horizontal row of reused, glazed sash. The six-over-six sash window in the west
elevation is opposite a door opening and small square window opening on the east
elevation. The floor system in the shed addition is missing.

Restoration contractor Pat Schell and his assistant Noah Read repaired and replaced logs
as needed and reconstructed the log-and-splint chimney in 1998. According to Curtis
Booker, the Hudsons had already reconstructed the chimney in the early twentieth
century. Kevin Svarro and Steve Wren stabilized the rear shed with a series of braces in
September 2003 and installed the existing metal roof in the spring of 2004.




               Figure 15. Slave Cabin #1, Shed Addition Stabilization




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                45
                      Figure 16. Slave Cabin #1, East Elevation

Condition Assessment:

Slave Cabin #1 is in poor condition. The east and north elevations of the main block of
the house and the entire shed addition are severely deteriorated due to insect infestation.
Approximately sixty-four percent (562 linear feet) of the logs need to be replaced with
properly seasoned and treated hewn material. The floor joists and boards in the main
block of the house also show signs of insect damage and should be closely examined and
replaced as needed. The entire floor system in the shed addition is missing and should be
reconstructed to match the floor in the main block of the house. Ideally, as David
Fischetti points out in his structural assessment (Appendix C) of other outbuildings, Slave
Cabin #1 should be placed on stone piers set on concrete footings to provide maximum
stability. The building will have to be partially reconstructed during the restoration
process; the foundation issues should be corrected at the same time. The site may require
some regrading to move water away from the building after the foundation is repaired.

The roof has been recently replaced and is protecting the interior and roof framing
system. The existing window sash are in good condition with the exception of the
glazing, which should be replaced. The existing board and batten doors are also in good
condition. The missing doors between the main block of the house and the shed (on the
north elevation) and on the east elevation of the shed should be reconstructed based on
the board-and-batten door on the façade. The area immediately adjacent to Slave Cabin
#1 should be kept clear of vegetation.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               46
                    Figure 17. Slave Cabin #2, Northwest Oblique

Slave Cabin #2
Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1930 Addition

Description and History:

This one-story, side-gable-roofed, log slave cabin is located southeast of the house at the
end of a paved drive. The original hewn-log single-pen cabin serves as the main room of
the house; a Rustic Revival round log addition extends to the south and east, more than
doubling the square footage. Board-and-batten siding sheathes the gable ends. A shed
porch supported by skinned log posts extends across the façade of the original log
building. A metal roof shelters the dwelling, which rests on a stone and concrete block
foundation. A reconstructed brick chimney stack pierces the roof.

A centrally located board-and-batten door and a six-over-six sash window pierce the west
elevation of the original building. Another six-over-six sash window on the north
elevation illuminates the interior. All of the windows in the building were replaced in the
1930s. Flat board trim with butt corners surrounds the door and window and openings.
The board-and-batten front door with long wrought strap hinges and a wrought thumb-
latch and plate—later secured with a deadbolt—dates to the 1930s renovation.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                47
The log walls and ceiling joists are exposed throughout the interior. The Hudsons
installed narrow wood floors and ceiling boards and constructed stone fireplace surrounds
in the 1930s. Board-and-batten doors lead to each room of the addition, which extends
across the rear (east) and south elevations and encompasses three bedrooms, a kitchen, a
small pantry and a bathroom. A screened shed porch is centrally located on the rear
addition. Slave Cabin #2 is approximately 36’ wide and 24’ deep.

Restoration contractor Todd Dickinson repaired the roof, replaced the bathroom floor
system and installed a tile floor, replaced the living room hearth, insulated the attic floor
and replaced the front porch framing, floor and posts in 1999. Jeff Bergman replaced the
kitchen sink, stove, refrigerator and cabinets in 2001. Todd Dickinson dug a swale
around the front of house to direct water away from the building, installed a gutter across
the front porch eave, replaced timber sills and deteriorated logs, repaired chinking, added
foundation vents, replaced damaged floor joists, repaired a small hole in living room
floor, fixed a roof leak and vented the kitchen stove through the attic in 2002.

Condition Assessment:

Slave House #2 is in good condition with the exception of the rear porch, which should
be repaired immediately due to sill and floor system failure. Approximately eighty linear
feet of logs need to be replaced with properly seasoned and treated hewn material. The
metal roof is in decent shape; if treated and painted, it could last several more years.
When it becomes necessary to replace the roof, either a cedar shingle roof or another
metal roof would be appropriate. The electrical system should be updated when the site
improvement budget allows. Central air conditioning would facilitate the preservation of
the logs by removing moisture from the building; an air conditioning unit could be added
to the existing system and the ductwork insulated. The vines growing on the house
should be removed and the area immediately adjacent to Slave Cabin #2 kept clear of
vegetation.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  48
                           Figure 18. Dairy, Southwest Oblique

Dairy
Circa 1835

Description and History:

The diminutive, finely-detailed dairy, located fifty-eight feet southeast of the Leigh
House, is the oldest outbuilding in the farm complex. Beaded clapboards are secured
with cut nails; part of the trim board on the northwest corner of the façade and one of the
hinges are secured with wrought nails. A deep overhang shields the board-and-batten
door on the façade, which is held closed by a wooden latch. The corner posts of the dairy
were originally earthfast. Due to advanced deterioration, they were pulled out of the
ground and reinforced with 4” x 4” posts. The bottom of the posts were lost to decay,
thus the dairy is almost two feet closer the ground than it would have been historically.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               49
The original wood plank roof has been replaced many times—with metal, asphalt
shingles and wood shingles. The current, inferior-grade, white pine shingle roof is
spongy with decay. The dairy is 6’ 2½” wide and 4’ 2” deep.

Although the wall cavities were probably originally filled with sawdust to keep the
building cool, it does not appear that any insulation remains. Flush boards sheath the
interior walls, which are lined on three sides with two tiers of wood shelves. The
Portland cement tray on the dairy floor was an early-twentieth-century addition.




                       Figure 19. Dairy, Southwest Corner Post

Condition Assessment:

The dairy is in good condition with the exception of the roof and corner posts. The
failing roof needs to be replaced immediately. Given the building’s small size, a quality
cedar shingle roof installation is recommended (see specifications in Appendix D). The
corner posts should be carefully replaced with treated or decay resistant wood (retaining
as much of the original upper portion of the posts as possible) and embedded in concrete.
Some deteriorated siding needs to be repaired or replaced, but as with the corner posts,
the utmost care should be taken to retain as much original fabric of this very significant
outbuilding as possible.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                50
                      Figure 20. Well House, Northwest Oblique

Well House
Late Nineteenth Century

Description and History:

The gable-roofed well house is located forty-nine feet southeast of the Leigh House. The
frame structure rests on top of a brick-lined well. The bricks are pressed with the imprint
of the Bordon Tile Company in Goldsboro. Wide horizontal boards sheath the base of
the well house; weatherboards cover the gable ends. Four corner posts support the roof
framing system. A metal roof installed over asphalt shingles with an OSB-board
underlayment currently shelters the structure. Mid-twentieth-century photos show that
the well house had a wood plank roof for much of its history. A wood lattice cover
encloses the central opening in the wood platform. A metal handle extends from the west
end of the wood roller for the well rope, which is mounted on the south side corner posts
just above the wood platform. The well was partially filled in the 1990s. The well house
is 3’ 6 ½” wide and 3’ 4 ¼” deep. The well protrudes approximately eight inches from
the base of the well house.



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               51
Condition Assessment:

The well house is in good condition, however, the excessive layers of roofing material are
too heavy for the structure. The OSB board and asphalt shingles should be removed and
the metal roof reinstalled. When it becomes necessary to replace the roof, either a cedar
shingle roof or another metal roof would be appropriate.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              52
                     Figure 21. Smokehouse, Southwest Oblique

Smokehouse
Circa 1850

Description and History:

The one-story, front-gable-roofed, log smokehouse is located approximately eighty-five
feet southeast of the house. Wide clapboards secured with cut nails sheath the gable
ends. A metal roof shelters the building, which rests on stone piers. The metal roof—
probably installed in 1933 when Wendell Hudson purchased a sizable amount of metal
roofing—replaced an earlier wood shingle roof. The deep overhang on the façade (west
elevation) protects a board-and-batten door hung on replacement late-twentieth-century
hinges (the original wrought hinges are stored inside). A pit with brick rubble—perhaps
the remains of a brick hearth—is located in the center of a replacement wood floor.
Salvaged building materials rest on a wood meat curing trough on the north side of the
interior. The smokehouse is 12’ 9” wide and 16’ 8” deep.

The lack of chinking evident in early-twentieth-century photographs of the smokehouse
indicates that it probably functioned as a storage shed rather than a smokehouse by that


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              53
time. Late-twentieth-century photographs show a board-and-batten, shed-roofed chicken
house extending from the south elevation.

Restoration contractor Pat Schell and his assistant Noah Read regraded the smokehouse
site in 1996 and installed a foundation drain around the north, south and west sides. They
also replaced entire and partial logs as necessary, replaced the floor joists and boards with
treated material and repaired and rehung the door.

Condition Assessment:

The smokehouse is in good condition. The most critical need at the moment is the
removal of the sediment fill on top of the foundation drain, which may require some
regrading. Ideally, as David Fischetti points out in his structural assessment (Appendix
C), the smokehouse should be placed on stone piers set on concrete footings to provide
maximum stability, but this is not a high-priority repair. Logs should be examined on a
regular basis for signs of insect infestation and deterioration, but are currently sound.
The sections of the lower two logs on the south elevation that have been repaired rather
than replaced should be closely monitored.

If treated and painted, the metal roof could last many more years. When it becomes
necessary to replace the roof, either a cedar shingle roof or another metal roof would be
appropriate. All of the debris and extraneous building materials should be removed from
the interior and carefully sorted to make sure that any significant items are salvaged,
inventoried and curated properly. The original hinges, in particular, are significant
artifacts and should be stored in a secure location. If the smokehouse is interpreted as
part of the historic farm complex, chinking made with locally available materials should
be applied to the gaps between the logs. Until then, the lack of chinking allows the logs
to dry out thoroughly, decreasing the likelihood of moisture-related deterioration.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 54
                     Figure 22. Pump House, Southeast Oblique

Pump House
1934

Description and History:

The one-story, front-gable-roofed, brick pump house is located approximately 125 feet
south of the Leigh House just east of the carriage house. A modern, frame, wood-sided
section rests on top of the original brick walls. A metal roof shelters the building. A
door with six horizontal panels is located on the south elevation. The pump house is 5’
6” wide and 6’ 5” deep.

The Hudsons constructed the brick pump house in 1934 when a new plumbing system
was installed in the Leigh House. Chris Bronson, the site caretaker, added the frame,
gable-roofed upper section in 1996, using materials provided by the Booker family and
the City of Durham.

Condition Assessment:

The pump house is in good condition and requires no maintenance at this time.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 55
                    Figure 23. Carriage House, Northeast Oblique


Carriage House
Late Nineteenth Century

Description and History:

The one-story, side-gable-roofed carriage house is located approximately 131 feet south
of the Leigh House just west of the pump house. Weatherboards span the frame except
for the gable ends, which are sheathed in German siding. The corner posts of the carriage
house rest on the ground. A number of mid-nineteenth-century timbers of unknown
origin (probably reused from an earlier building on the site) have been incorporated into
the carriage house framing. Shed-roofed additions extend from the east and south
elevations. The metal roof—which has been damaged and repaired—replaced an earlier
wood shingle roof. The two double-leaf doors on the façade (north elevation) are recent
replacements. The double-leaf board-and-batten doors that appear in early-twentieth-
century photographs were taller, narrower and separated by a few feet of wood siding. A
single-leaf board-and-batten door provides access to the east shed addition. The interior
is full of car parts, tools and equipment. The carriage house is approximately 39’ wide
and 28’ deep.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             56
Condition Assessment:

The carriage house is in good condition. Many framing components have been replaced
over the years and there is no visible evidence of active insect infestation. The mid-
nineteenth-century timbers incorporated into the framing should be preserved and
documented. Some deteriorated siding needs to be repaired or replaced. If the building
is going to be interpreted as part of the historic farm complex, the double-leaf doors
should be reconstructed based on photographic documentation. The metal roof is in
decent shape; if treated and painted, it could last several more years. When it becomes
necessary to replace the roof, either a cedar shingle roof or another metal roof would be
appropriate. The interior should be cleaned out and all flammable liquids stored in metal
containers or cabinets.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              57
                           Figure 24. Corn Crib, Northwest Oblique

Corn Crib
Circa 1850

Description and History:

The one-story, front-gable-roofed, log corncrib is located approximately 268 feet
southwest of the house. Wide clapboards secured with cut nails sheath the gable ends. A
metal roof shelters the building, which rests on stone piers. The metal roof—probably
installed in 1933 when Wendell Hudson purchased a sizable amount of metal roofing—
replaced an earlier wood shingle roof. Long wind braces extended across the underside
of the rafters serve to stabilize the roof system. The deep (2’ 9”) overhang on the façade
(north elevation) protects a three-board shutter covering an opening which originally
provided the only access to the interior. The shutter hangs on a unique wood hinge. The
Hudsons cut a door opening into the west elevation in the twentieth century and extended
an equipment shed from that elevation. The board-and-batten door is not tall enough for
the opening and may have been recycled from another outbuilding on the property. The
corn crib is 16’ 3 ½” wide and 10’ long.

Restoration contractor Pat Schell and his assistant Noah Read relocated the corn crib
approximately ten feet away from a tree in 1998; the equipment shed was in poor

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               58
condition and was removed at that time. They also replaced the log sills on the east and
west elevations with pressure-treated sills.

Condition Assessment:

The corn crib is in good condition. Ideally, as David Fischetti points out in his structural
assessment (Appendix C), the corn crib should be placed on stone piers set on concrete
footings to provide maximum stability, but this is not a high-priority repair. Logs should
be closely examined on a regular basis for signs of insect infestation and deterioration,
but are currently sound. The wood hinge supporting the window shutter is splitting due
to the use of twentieth-century screws in an attempt to stabilize it and needs to be
carefully monitored for ongoing problems. If treated and painted, the metal roof could
last many more years. When it becomes necessary to replace the roof, either a cedar
shingle roof or another metal roof would be appropriate.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 59
                     Figure 25. Grape Arbor, Northeast Oblique

Grape Arbor
1996

Description and History:

The scuppernong grape arbor is located fifty-three feet north of the corn crib. Chris
Bronson, the site caretaker, completely reconstructed the collapsed arbor in 1996. The
structure is composed round skinned log posts (three posts wide and four posts deep)
topped round posts that form the arbor. The grape arbor is 24’ wide and 34’ deep.

Condition Assessment:

The grape arbor is in good condition and requires no maintenance at this time.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                60
                         Figure 26. Tobacco Barn, Southeast Oblique


Tobacco Barn
1909

Description and History:

The one-story, front-gable-roofed, log tobacco barn is located northwest of the house near
I-40. Weatherboards secured with wire nails sheath the gable ends. The south end of the
building sits on the ground, the northeast and northwest corners rest on a stone
foundation. The central section of the north elevation is currently without any means of
support. The damaged metal roof—probably installed in 1933 when Wendell Hudson
purchased a sizable amount of metal roofing—replaced an earlier wood shingle roof. The
deep overhang on the façade (south elevation) protects a small weatherboard shutter
(hinged at the top) in the gable end and a low, boarded-up door opening. The collapsed
shed that extended from the north elevation protected two openings for metal flues. The
initials “E. S. T.” and the date “1909” are inscribed on the north end of a lower log on the
west elevation. The interior is full of salvaged building materials.



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                61
            Figure 27. Tobacco Barn, Log Deterioration, West Elevation


Condition Assessment:

The tobacco barn is in fair condition. The most critical needs at the moment are
foundation, roof and log repair. Ideally, as David Fischetti points out in his structural
assessment (Appendix C) of other outbuildings, the tobacco barn should be placed on
stone piers set on concrete footings to provide maximum stability. As the building will
have to be jacked up to facilitate log repair, the foundation issues should be corrected at
the same time. The site may require some regrading to move water away from the
building after the foundation is repaired. Logs should be carefully examined for signs of
insect infestation and deterioration. A cursory evaluation revealed that most logs are
currently sound, but approximately eighty-two linear feet need to be replaced with
properly seasoned and treated hewn logs.

The metal roof and some of the rafters have been damaged, probably by a falling tree
limb. A new metal roof would be the most practical replacement option given the
building’s location in a wooded area. If the tobacco barn is going to be interpreted as part
of the historic farm complex, the existing chinking should be removed and new chinking
replaced to match what remains of the existing. Until then, the missing chinking allows
the logs to dry out thoroughly, decreasing the likelihood of moisture-related deterioration.
All of the debris and extraneous building materials should be removed from the interior
and carefully sorted to make sure that any significant items are salvaged, inventoried and
curated properly. The area immediately adjacent to the tobacco barn should be kept clear
of vegetation.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                62
                        Figure 28. Pack House, East Elevation

Pack House
1911

Description and History:

This two-story, side-gable-roofed pack house is located northwest of the house and
southeast of the tobacco barn. Weatherboards secured with wire nails span the
lightweight frame. The west elevation rests on the ground, the other elevations on a stone
foundation. A shed roofed addition extends over the tobacco rehydrating cellar on the
rear (east) elevation. The damaged metal roof—probably installed in 1933 when
Wendell Hudson purchased a sizable amount of metal roofing—replaced an earlier wood
shingle roof. The two central door openings on the façade (east elevation)—one at the
first floor and one directly above—have been boarded up. The interior is full of salvaged
building materials and extraneous debris.

Condition Assessment:

The pack house is in fair condition. The west sill and northwest corner post are severely
deteriorated and need to be replaced due to the fact that the west elevation rests on the

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              63
ground rather than on a foundation. As the building will have to be jacked up to facilitate
the sill repair, the foundation issues should be corrected at the same time. The site may
require some regrading to move water away from the building after the foundation is
repaired. The weatherboards are in good condition; some are loose and need to be
reattached, a few need to be replaced. The northwest corner of the metal roof and the
adjacent fascia boards have been damaged, probably by a falling tree limb, and should be
repaired. If treated and painted, the metal roof could last many more years. When it
becomes necessary to replace the roof, a new metal roof would be the most practical
replacement option for this outbuilding given its location in a wooded area.

The rear shed addition is in poor condition and should probably be demolished before it
negatively impacts the stability of the front section of the pack house. The removal of the
addition will expose the very deep tobacco rehydrating cellar, which should be securely
covered or filled. It is important for this stage of the tobacco curing process to be
interpreted, but the project budget may not allow for reconstruction of the rear addition in
the immediate future, and the deep cellar would be a dangerous liability if left open.

All of the debris and extraneous building materials should be removed from the interior
and carefully sorted to make sure that any significant items are salvaged, inventoried and
curated properly. The wood-frame screen doors stored inside, for example, appear in
early-twentieth-century photos of the Leigh House. The area immediately adjacent to the
pack house should be kept clear of vegetation.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                64
                 Figure 29. Overgrown Area Southeast of Corn Crib


Landscape

The landscape of the Leigh Farm includes the fields, wetlands and woodlands contained
in the remaining 82.8-acre tract of 1,000-acre farm. Tributaries of New Hope Creek
meander through the property and once separated the house and outbuildings from
additional fields to the south and east. In order for the landscape to once again convey
the visual character typical of many Piedmont farmsteads during the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, volunteer trees and vegetation south and east of the farm complex
should be cleared to restore field and pasture patterns. The vegetation north and west of
the complex screens the property from I-40 and an office park, respectively. Many of the
trees and ornamental shrubs around the house were planted during the second half of the
twentieth century. A landscape restoration effort could be undertaken in this area
utilizing late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century accounts, photographs and sketches.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              65
                       Figure 30. Fence North of Planting Beds

Fences

The fences on the Leigh Farm property are early-twentieth-century three- and four-board
and post structures constructed around the perimeter of the area containing the Leigh
House and the primary outbuildings. Some sections of fencing remain in good condition,
others need to be repaired or replaced in kind.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                            66
         VI. LEIGH FARM PRIORITIZED REPAIR OUTLINE,
        MAINTENANCE HISTORY (1992-2006) AND SCOPE OF
                     RESTORATION WORK

Table 1.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006              67
                        PRIORITY REPAIR OUTLINE
The following list outlines the most pressing repair needs at Leigh Farm. A detailed
scope of work follows on subsequent pages.

Dairy Roof Replacement, Siding and Corner Post Repair                     $    1,865.00

Slave Cabin #1 Restoration                                                $ 78,977.56

Tobacco Barn Foundation Repair, Log Repair and Replacement,               $ 14,134.00

Slave Cabin #2 Log Repair and Replacement, Rear Porch Replacement         $ 15,000.00

Pack House Repair                                                         $ 10,790.00

Application of Glycol/Borate wood preservative to log buildings           $    3,710.00

Leigh House Foundation Stabilization                                      $ 100,000.00

Leigh House Chimney Stabilization and Reconstruction                      $ 25,000.00

Installation of Security and Fire Detection Systems (see spec sheet)      $ 69,965.00

TOTAL COST OF PRIORITY REPAIRS                                            $ 319,441.56




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              68
        MAINTENANCE HISTORY (1992-2006) AND SCOPE OF
                  RESTORATION WORK
*See Appendix D for contractor bids and product specifications and Appendix E for a
cyclical maintenance plan quarterly checklist.

OVERALL SITE ISSUES

Priority Projects:

Vegetation Control
● Remove vegetation from around all buildings—ongoing, Chris Bronson is currently
      responsible for house and core outbuildings; he has also cleared trails, pruned
      trees and maintained the cemetery.
● Slave Cabin #2, rented by the City, is becoming completely overgrown and vegetation
      removal needs to be addressed immediately.

Insect Prevention
● Application of Glycol/Borate wood preservative concentrate to log buildings
       *Consult with County Agricultural Extension Office regarding application
       regulations and procedures
       Materials: 6 five-gallon buckets Perma-Chink Systems Shell-Guard
               @ $325.00 each                                            $ 1,950.00
       Labor: 32 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                 $ 1,760.00

Fire Prevention/Detection and Site Security
● Removal of flammable debris and containment of flammable solvents throughout
       property
● Meet with local fire department to confirm that site access road is wide enough for a
       fire truck
● Installation of Security and Fire Detection Systems (see spec sheet)     $ 69,965.00

Future Work:

● ADA Accessibility—money may be available from the ACCESS North Carolina fund
● Open Rail Fencing
       Materials: 2,500 linear feet 4” x 4” treated pine posts and
              2” x 6” rails @ $3.50 per linear foot                $ 8,750.00
       Construction: 100 hours @ $55.00 per hour                   $ 5,500.00
● Restrooms/Picnic Shelter                                         $100,000.00
● Visitor Center/Museum, 2000 square feet                          $400,000.00
● Agricultural Landscape Restoration
● Trail Development
● Parking
● Gates


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             69
SITE IMPROVEMENT COST SUBTOTAL              $587,925.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                 70
LEIGH HOUSE

Completed Work:

City of Durham, 1995, 2002
● Replaced underlayment and installed asphalt shingle roof on the west slope of the
        main block of the house (1995) and the east slope of the main block of the house
        and kitchen wing roof (2002)

Chris Bronson, 1992-2006
● Repaired first floor bathroom (1992)
● Replumbed bathroom and kitchen (1992)
● Moved hot water heater to cellar (1992)
● Installed ceiling fans (1992)
● Updated electrical system (1992, 1994)
● Replaced porch floors (1992, 1993)
● Scraped, prepped and painted house (1993-1995)
● Glazed windows as needed (1993-1995)
● Replaced porch roofs and cornice (1994-1995)
● New space heater in kitchen ell (1999)
● Replaced hot water heater (2001, 2006)
● Removed water heater, sink, and kitchen cabinet from second floor (2002)
● Replaced plumbing in second floor bathroom (2002)
● Replaced bathroom roof (2004)
● Replaced sump pump (multiple times, most recently 2006)

Proposed Work:

Foundation Stabilization
● Excavate and finish true basement for new mechanical, electrical and plumbing
      systems
● Rebuild stone foundation as needed, retaining as much original material as possible
● Repair damaged sills and joists
● Replace wood support posts in cellar with steel or concrete
● Create a permanent pier support system under floor joists of dining room wing
● Archaeological monitoring during basement excavation/foundation reconstruction
      Estimated cost:                                                     $ 100,000.00

Chimney Stabilization and Reconstruction
● Rebuild kitchen chimney using any salvageable existing sandstone and
      matching local replacement stone
● Stabilize two chimneys on south elevation of house
● Archaeological monitoring during chimney stabilization and reconstruction
      Estimated cost:                                                   $ 25,000.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              71
General Demolition and Repair
● Remove and dispose of old ductwork (including some asbestos tape on ductwork) and
      extraneous debris from crawl space and cellar under house; remove insulation
      Labor: 6 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $      330.00
      Asbestos evaluation and abatement                                 $   3,000.00
● Removal of 1950s jalousie windows and aluminum screen doors
      Labor: 6 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $      330.00
● Remove carpet from interior stairs
      Labor: 2 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $      110.00
● Remove 1950s partition wall between kitchen and dining room; repair floor
      Labor: 4 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $      220.00
      Materials:                                                        $      100.00
● Replace fascia board on south elevation of dining room wing
      Materials:                                                        $       50.00
      Labor: 2 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $      110.00
● Repair window sash and glazing
      Materials: glazing compound                                       $       78.00
      Labor: 25 windows @ 2 hours per window @ $55.00 per hour          $ 2,750.00

Porch
● Removal of screen and infill boards from rear (north) porch
● Removal of brick and concrete steps
● Replace square corner post
● Replace flooring as needed
● Construct open wood steps (use early-twentieth-century photos of steps on south and
      west elevations as model)
      Materials:                                                         $     200.00
      Labor: 10 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $     550.00

Electrical
● Update System: replace panel box and wiring, install GFCI outlets      $   5,000.00

HVAC
● Install new central heating and air conditioning system (see spec sheet) $ 12,975.00

If house is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Siding
● Remove German siding from north, west and south elevations of main block of house
● Replace with salvaged heart pine siding
● Retain original flush board sheathing on east elevation and original weatherboards on
       dining room wing
       Materials: 2905 linear feet, 7 ¼” exposure, 3/8” to 5/8” taper
               @ $6.65 per linear foot                                     $ 19,318.25
       Labor: 160 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $ 8,800.00



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                            72
Windows
● Remove metal tracks from window casings and repair holes from installation
     Labor: 50 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                 $     2,750.00

Paint
● Remove paint from dining room wing (approximately 900 square feet of surface area)
      Labor: 80 hours @ $55.00 per hour                               $    4,400.00

Roof
● Remove asphalt shingle roof; repair underlayment; install cedar shingle roof
     (see spec sheet)                                                     $ 22,750.00

Chimneys
● Reconstruct stacks with period-appropriate brick and mortar          $    5,000.00

LEIGH HOUSE RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                  $ 241,361.25




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                          73
SLAVE CABIN #1

Completed Work:

Pat Schell and Noah Read, 1998
● Repaired and replaced logs as needed
● Reconstructed log-and-splint chimney

Kevin Svarro and Steve Wren, 2003-2004
● Stabilized rear shed (September 2003)
● Replaced existing roof with metal roof (Spring 2004)

Proposed Work:

Foundation Stabilization
● Construction of new stone piers set on concrete footings to adequately support the sills
      and floor joists utilizing stone from the site
      Labor: 18 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                   $     990.00

Log Repair and Replacement
● Repair or replace approximately 64% of logs
      Materials and Labor: 562 linear feet @ $120.00 per linear foot       $ 67,440.00

Floor System
● Joist and board replacement in main room and shed
        Materials: 290 square feet @ $ 9.00 per square foot                $   2,610.00
        Labor: 24 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                  $   1,320.00

Window Glazing and Sash Repair
     Labor: 6 windows @ 2 hours per window @ $55.00 per hour               $     660.00

Doors
● Replace two missing doors
      2 board and batten doors @ $350.00 each                              $     700.00

Estimated Time Frame: Allow approximately one year for project completion
       Building would need to be jacked up, taken apart, sorted       2 weeks
       Logs cut and hewn while green                                  2 months
       Log seasoning and treatment                                    6 months
       Reconstruction                                                 2 months

If building is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Roof
● Remove existing metal roof
● Repair underlayment

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              74
● Install cedar shingle roof   (see spec sheet)                             $ 5,257.56

General Comments:
Continue to closely monitor logs for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

SLAVE CABIN #1 RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                    $ 78,977.56




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             75
SLAVE CABIN # 2

Completed Work:

Dickinson Restorations, 1999, $7,168.00
● Repaired roof
● Replaced bathroom floor system and tile floor
● Replaced living room hearth
● Replaced front porch framing, floor, posts
● Insulated attic floor

Jeff Bergman, 2001, $2,000
● Replaced kitchen sink, stove, refrigerator, cabinets

Dickinson Restorations, 2002, $14,000
● Dug a swale around the front of house to direct water away from building
● Installed a gutter across the front porch eave
● Replaced deteriorated sills and logs
● Repaired chinking
● Added foundation vents
● Fixed roof leak
● Vented kitchen stove through attic
● Replaced damaged floor joists
● Repaired small hole in living room floor

Proposed Work

Log Repair and Replacement
● Repair or replace deteriorated logs
      Materials and Labor: 80 linear feet @ $120.00 per linear foot     $    9,600.00

Rear Porch
● Replace existing porch floor system, posts and roof system
      Materials: 136 square feet @ $ 30.00 per square foot              $    4,080.00
      Labor: 24 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                 $    1,320.00

Roof
● Treat with rust converter and paint
      Materials: 5 gallons rust converter primer and 5 gallons paint
              @ 30.00 gallon                                            $     300.00
      Labor: 12 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                 $     660.00

Electrical
● Update System: replace panel box and wiring, install GFCI outlets     $    2,000.00



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                           76
HVAC
● Insulate ductwork and install central air conditioning                    $    2,785.00

If building is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Roof
● Remove existing metal roof
● Repair underlayment
● Install cedar shingle roof (see spec sheet)                               $   16,225.06

General Comments:
Continue to closely monitor logs for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

SLAVE CABIN #2 RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                    $   36,010.06




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                               77
DAIRY

Completed Work:

Pat Schell and Noah Read, 1998
● Stabilized building
● Replaced some siding and post ends
● Installed new metal roof

Noah Read, 2001
● Replaced metal roof with inferior grade white pine shingles; this roof is already rotten
      and must be replaced immediately.

Proposed Work:

Roof
● Remove existing pine shingle roof
● Repair underlayment
● Install cedar shingle roof (see spec sheet)                                   $    545.00

General Repair
● Replace lower ends of corner posts with treated wood posts set in concrete
● Replace new insect-damaged siding (very minimal—retain as much original siding as
      possible)
      Labor: 24 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                   $ 1,320.00

General Comments:
Continue to closely monitor for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

DAIRY RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                             $       1,865.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  78
WELL

Roof
● Remove of asphalt shingle roof layers and OSB board under metal roof
● Reinstall existing metal roof
      Labor: 4 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                 $   220.00

If building is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Roof
● Remove existing metal roof
● Repair underlayment
● Install cedar shingle roof                                          $    550.00

WELL RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                        $    550.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                           79
SMOKEHOUSE

Completed Work:

Pat Schell and Noah Read, 1996
● Regraded site
● Installed foundation drain around three sides
● Replaced full and partial logs where necessary
● Installed new treated floor joists and floor boards, retaining as many original floor
       boards as possible
● Repaired and rehung door on new hinges

Proposed Work:

Site Work
● Remove sediment fill on top of foundation drain
● Regrade site as necessary to move water away from building
      Labor: 2 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                      $        110.00

Roof
● Treat with rust converter and paint
      Materials: 2 gallons rust converter primer and 2 gallons paint
              @ 30.00 gallon                                                $        120.00
      Labor: 6 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                      $        330.00

If building is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Roof
● Remove existing metal roof
● Repair underlayment
● Install cedar shingle roof                  (see spec sheet)              $    3,000.00

General Comments:
Continue to closely monitor logs for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

SMOKEHOUSE RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                        $     3,110.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 80
PUMP HOUSE

Completed Work:

Chris Bronson
● Constructed gable-roofed frame section on top of brick pump house (1996)

No maintenance needed

CARRIAGE HOUSE

Completed Work:

Chris Bronson
● Repaired large hole in roof (1992)
● Replaced rotten attic floor (1992)
● Buttressed and sistered new wood to attic floor joists (1992)
● Replaced missing metal roof (1992)
● Reframed gable end (1992)
● Removed debris (1992)
● Replaced double-leaf doors (1994)

Proposed work:

General Maintenance/Storage
● Clean out interior
● House all flammable liquids in metal containers/cabinets

General Repair
● Repair and replace siding
      Materials: 128 linear feet @ $6.50 linear foot                   $       832.00
      Labor: 20 hours @ $55.00 hour                                    $     1,100.00

Roof
● Treat with rust converter and paint
      Materials: 4 gallons rust converter primer and 4 gallons paint
              @ 30.00 gallon                                           $      240.00
      Labor: 10 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                $      550.00

If building is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Roof
● Remove existing metal roof
● Repair underlayment
● Install cedar shingle roof (see spec sheet)                          $     8,433.00



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                           81
CARRIAGE HOUSE RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                    $ 10,365.00


CORN CRIB

Completed Work:

Pat Schell and Noah Read, 1998
● Relocated building approximately ten feet away from tree, maintaining original
       orientation
● Removed shed addition on west elevation
● Replaced logs as necessary
● Minor roof and carpentry repairs

Proposed Work:

Roof
● Treat with rust converter and paint
      Materials: 2 gallons rust converter primer and 2 gallons paint
              @ 30.00 gallon                                                $        120.00
      Labor: 4 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                      $        220.00

If building is to be restored and interpreted to pre-1930 period:

Roof
● Remove existing metal roof
● Repair underlayment
● Install cedar shingle roof (see spec sheet)                               $   2,795.00

General Comments:
Monitor splitting wood on window shutter hinge and repair when necessary
Continue to closely monitor logs for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

CORN CRIB RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                         $ 2,795.00


GRAPE ARBOR

Completed Work:

Chris Bronson
● Total reconstruction (1996)

No maintenance needed



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 82
General Comments:
A second arbor could be added if the property is restored to its pre-1930 appearance.


TOBACCO BARN

Proposed Work:

● Remove debris and extraneous building materials from interior, carefully sorting to
     make sure that any significant items are salvaged, inventoried and curated
     properly

Foundation
● Use existing stone to reconstruct piers
● Set on concrete footings
       Labor: 12 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                    $        660.00

Log Repair and Replacement
● Repair and replace deteriorated logs as needed
      Materials and Labor: 82 linear feet $120.00 per linear foot           $    9,840.00

Roof
● Repair rafters
● Replace damaged metal roof with new metal roof (see spec sheet)           $    3,634.00

General Comments:
Continue to closely monitor logs for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

TOBACCO BARN RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                      $ 14,134.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 83
PACK HOUSE

Proposed Work:

● Remove debris and extraneous building materials from interior, carefully sorting to
      make sure that any significant items are salvaged, inventoried and curated
      properly
● Replace sill on west elevation
● Replace northwest corner post
● Replace weatherboards as needed
● Replace missing floor boards on first and second floors
● Repair fascia boards and metal roof at northwest corner
● Demolish rear addition
● Cover or backfill deep cellar/tobacco rehydration pit
                                                                          $ 10,000.00

Roof
● Treat with rust converter and paint
      Materials: 4 gallons rust converter primer and 4 gallons paint
              @ 30.00 gallon                                                $        240.00
      Labor: 10 hours @ $55.00 per hour                                     $        550.00

General Comments:
Continue to closely monitor logs for signs of insect infestation and deterioration

PACK HOUSE RESTORATION COST SUBTOTAL                                        $ 10,790.00




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 84
                VII. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

LITERATURE AND RECORDS SEARCH

Prior to fieldwork, EPE staff checked the files at the Office of State Archaeology in
Raleigh in order to collect information on previous cultural resource studies and
archaeological sites previously reported in the project area and nearby vicinity. EPE staff
also conducted background research at Emory University’s Robert W. Woodruff Library
in Decatur, Georgia.


ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

EPE archaeologists accomplished the field survey through pedestrian coverage of the
project area in June 2006. Conditions in the project areas were described in notes and
photographed with a digital camera. In addition, where warranted, sections of the project
areas were subjected to systematic and judgmental shovel testing. Shovel tests were not
excavated in disturbed, wet or inundated areas, or in areas of more than fifteen percent
slope. Shovel testing intervals were variable and dependent on topographic conditions as
well as building locations (see Figure 31). The shovel tests had a diameter of thirty
centimeters (cm) and were excavated to sterile subsoil. Soils were screened through
0.64-cm (¼-inch) hardware cloth for consistent recovery of any artifacts that might be
present.

In addition to shovel testing, EPE archaeologists performed numerous soil probes
throughout the project area. Soil probes have been used with effectiveness in
determining subtle shifts in soil compactness at archaeological sites. Often these subtle
changes in soil compactness are the result of breaks in the natural stratigraphic sequence,
and may indicate features that are no longer visible on the site’s surface such as walls,
footings or wells.

For the purposes of this project, an archaeological site is defined as the occurrence of five
or more artifacts of one broad cultural period recovered from shovel tests or the
occurrence of five or more artifacts on the ground surface within a thirty-meter radius. In
addition, the presence of surface or subsurface features, for example, a well or cistern,
fifty years or more in age, can be designated as an archaeological site. One
archaeological site, 31DH705 and 705** (**denotes a historic component), was
identified during the current survey.

LABORATORY METHODS

EPE archaeologists recovered a total of twenty artifacts from site 31DH705 and returned
all cultural material collected in the field to the EPE laboratory in Atlanta for processing
and analysis. Artifacts were washed, classified, and have been temporarily curated at that
facility. Analysis of prehistoric material included the identification of lithic raw material



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 85
and tool type. Analysis of historic artifacts encompassed the identification of artifact
type and function, styles and periods of manufacture.


CURATION

Notes, photographs, maps and other records produced during the survey are temporarily
housed at EPE offices in Atlanta. Project materials will be permanently curated at the
Research Center of the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  86
                     Figure 31. EPE Archaeological Survey Map



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                       87
               PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

A review of files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology revealed that seven
archaeological sites, identified during a reconnaissance survey conducted during the
planning phase of the proposed widening of I-40 in 1978, are located within a 1-km
radius of the project area. The following table contains the site information for
previously recorded archaeological sites in or near Leigh Farm Park.


  Table 2. Previously Identified Archaeological Sites Within a 1-km Radius of the Project
                                           Area


                                           National Register
                                                                  Type of           Distance to
Site Number          Site Type             of Historic Places
                                                                Investigation      Project Area
                                           Recommendation

                 Prehistoric Lithic
 31DH209                                       Unknown          Surface Survey        0.5 km
               Scatter/Historic Scatter

               Prehistoric Lithic and
 31DH212                                       Unknown          Surface Survey        0.9 km
                  Ceramic Scatter

                 Prehistoric Lithic
 31DH213                                       Unknown          Surface Survey        0.8 km
               Scatter/Historic Scatter

 31DH214      Prehistoric Lithic Scatter      Not Eligible      Surface Survey        0.8 km

              Historic Scatter/Building
 31DH215                                       Unknown           Subsurface           0.6 km
                      Remains

                Historic Scatter and
 31DH216                                       Unknown          Surface Survey        0.3 km
              Prehistoric Lithic Scatter

                                                                                    Located on
               Historic Cemetery and                                             Private Property
 31DH217                                       Unknown          Surface Survey
                Prehistoric Scatter                                              Adjacent to Leigh
                                                                                    Farm Park




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                      88
                                           EPE SURVEY

EPE archaeologists conducted an initial survey of Leigh Farm Park in June 2006. The
survey included systematic visual inspection, shovel testing and documentation of the
nineteenth-century farmstead. One archaeological site, 31DH705 and 705** (both
prehistoric and historic components), was identified and recorded during the course of the
investigation.

The EPE survey focused on the identification of archaeological remains in the core
seven-acre section of the property, which is roughly defined by the Leigh House, slave
quarters, smokehouse, well, dairy, planting beds, corn crib and adjacent areas. EPE
archaeologists excavated a total of thirty-eight shovel tests; four contained prehistoric
artifacts and four yielded historic artifacts. The remaining tests contained either no
cultural material or only modern materials (e.g. bottle caps, pull tabs etc.) that were not
collected. Typical stratigraphy for the site area consisted of 0-5 cm of 10YR 3/1 (very
dark gray) silty loam, underlain by 20 cm of 2.5Y 5/3 (light olive brown) silty sand; this
second stratigraphic unit is underlain by a mottled sandy clay subsoil of varying colors.

In addition to shovel testing and visual inspection, EPE archaeologists used an auger
probe to detect subtle variations in soil compactness. These variations can indicate
anomalies in the historic landscape including former building locations and buried
features such as trash pits or wells. As time was a critical factor during the investigation,
auger probing was used to help determine shovel test placement. The following section
provides the results of the archaeological survey in the order each area was investigated.

Slave Cabin #1

The investigation of Slave Cabin #1 focused on shovel testing around the building’s
perimeter. EPE archaeologists excavated seven shovel tests in the area of the slave
quarters; of these, two yielded historic artifacts. One shovel test adjacent to the
southwest corner of the structure produced one porcelain fragment and one redware
fragment. The redware fragment is most likely the remains of an unglazed flowerpot, and
is possibly modern in origin as people were living in the building until 1993.108 This
shovel test also yielded several flat slate fragments. Survey performed with the auger
probe confirmed the presence of additional slate and brick fragments along the building’s
south elevation. This linear feature is believed to be the remnants of a foundation
supporting the porch built sometime in the early 1970s that has since been removed.109
One shovel test excavated along the east elevation produced one piece of clear flat glass
and one cut nail fragment. Although cut nails are still produced today, they were



       108
             Chris Bronson, personal communication with Garrett W. Silliman, June 2006.
       109
             Ibid.



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  89
predominantly used from the 1820s to the 1890s.110 The northwest corner of the building
was not tested as the ground has been heavily disturbed by mole infestation. All artifacts
were recovered from 0-20 centimeters below the surface (cmbs).

Smokehouse

Investigations at the smokehouse consisted of four shovel tests excavated along the
perimeter of the building. One shovel test adjacent to the southwest corner produced two
pearlware fragments and a piece of clear flat glass. Pearlware was manufactured in
England beginning about 1780 and was a common ware in America during the first half
of the nineteenth century.111




              Figure 32. Sketch of Leigh Farm by Walter Curtis Hudson, 1940
                                Courtesy of Curtis Booker

Well and Dairy

EPE archaeologists excavated five shovel tests around the well and dairy. One shovel
test west of the well produced an alkaline-glazed stoneware sherd. Vessels of this type
were common in rural North Carolina during the nineteenth century and were likely
locally produced. The area west of the well and dairy was probed extensively to
determine the location of the no longer extant log kitchen. The approximate location of
the kitchen was based upon a 1940 sketch of the Leigh House as it appeared in the early


        110
              Lee Nelson, “Nail Chronology as Aid to Dating Old Buildings,” History News 19(7) (1963).
        111
           Robert Copeland. Spode’s Willow Pattern and Other Designs After the Chinese. London:
Cassell Publishing, 1999.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                                90
twentieth century. Auger probes indicated a roughly nine meter square area that
contained soil that was less compact than the surrounding soils. This variation in soil
compactness may indicate the presence of a depression that has been filled. Shovel tests
excavated along the edge of this anomaly revealed roughly 15 cm of mottled sandy clay
overlying 25 cm of loosely compact sand. The clay present in this area may be fill in the
depression left by the removal of the kitchen. The sherd described above was recovered
from the loosely compact sand layer.

Leigh House

Investigations around the Leigh House attempted to locate the privy, midden and no
longer extant buildings. EPE archaeologists probed the site using the auger to detect
potential subsurface anomalies, and discovered that an area of roughly 40 x 20 meters,
located between the house and Slave Cabin #1, has been heavily modified. The ground
in this area was extremely compacted and/or contained gravel fill as it was used for
parking and a turnaround during the last quarter of the twentieth century. A potential
privy location, located roughly 15 meters north of the house, was also investigated.112
Extensive probing in this area did indicate a soil anomaly; however, the excavation of a
shovel test in the vicinity of the anomaly revealed a buried terracotta sewer pipe at a
depth of approximately 50 cmbs. Another shovel test was excavated in an area roughly
15 meters northeast of the sewer pipe to investigate a possible trash deposit. This test
revealed that only modern trash had been deposited in this location.113 EPE
archaeologists probed the area adjacent to the west elevation of the house in an attempt to
determine the possible location of a porch, but discovered no anomalies indicating the
prior existence of porch piers.




        112
              Chris Bronson, personal communication with Garrett W. Silliman, June 2006.
        113
            Site caretaker Chris Bronson indicated that there was a former trash deposit located off the
southeast corner of the house that he removed several years ago for safety reasons, personal communication
with Garrett W. Silliman, June 2006.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                              91
    Figure 33. Alkaline-glazed stoneware, two pearlware fragments, one cut nail
                                  fragment (L-R)


Planting Beds

Investigations in this location focused on shovel testing the open, grassy area north of
Leigh Farm Road and west of the Leigh House. While plowing a small area for a garden,
site caretaker Chris Bronson recovered two side-notched rhyolite projectile points, which
probably date to the Early Archaic period (ca. 8,000-6,000 B.C.). EPE archaeologists
placed eleven shovel tests at ten-meter intervals along the open ridgetop adjacent to the
planting beds. Three of the eleven shovel tests produced a total of eleven prehistoric
artifacts: ten pieces of rhyolite debitage and one late stage biface fragment. This lithic
scatter appears to represent the location of later stage lithic tool reduction activity as the
majority of the material consists of biface thinning flakes. No cores, core reduction
flakes or other early stage lithic materials were recovered. The material type recovered
during the survey compares favorably with the material recovered by Mr. Bronson while
gardening. Based upon the similarity in material type and the stage of reduction
identified, there is a likely association with the previously recovered side-notched
projectile points and the debitage recovered during the survey. The stratigraphy in this
location differed slightly from other areas of the farm as there is a 30 cm-deep plowzone
throughout the grassy area adjacent to the planting beds.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  92
                Figure 34. Partial view of planting beds, looking west




               Figure 35. Biface fragment and rhyolite debitage (L-R)

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                93
Corn Crib

EPE archaeologists investigated the area around the corn crib to identify the previous
location of the building and the location of the no longer extant shuck house. Restoration
contractor Pat Schell moved the corn crib to its present location in 1996 as a tree was
growing into its northeast corner. Early-twentieth-century photographs indicate that the
corn crib stood just east of a larger structure believed to be a shuck house. Investigations
at this location focused primarily on probing to detect shifts in soil compactness that
might indicate former structure locations. Various anomalies were detected, flagged and
mapped. Probing just north of the present corn crib location revealed a roughly
rectangular outline relative to the compactness of the surrounding soil. As the soil was
more compacted in these locations and the anomalies not continuous, it is believed to
correspond to the location of the corn crib’s stone pier foundation. EPE archaeologists
detected a more linear pattern of compactness directly southwest of the corn crib’s
present location. This area is roughly twice the size of the corn crib and may correspond
with the location of the shuck house. The shovel test excavated adjacent to the presumed
southeast corner of the former corn crib location yielded no cultural material.




          Figure 36. Corn Crib and Shuck House, early twentieth century
                        Photo Courtesy of Curtis Booker




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                94
Other Investigated Areas

EPE archaeologists investigated the area northwest of Leigh Farm Road roughly twenty-
five meters west of the corn crib as it is believed to be a former barn location. A series of
probes surrounding a slight depression adjacent to the woods did not distinguish any
variation in soil compactness or detect subsurface foundation remains. Two shovel tests
were excavated in this area; one in the depression, and another roughly ten meters west of
the first. The shovel test dug into the depression revealed subsoil just below the humic
layer, which seems to indicate that the area was previously excavated. The test outside
the depression had a soil profile consistent with the area near the planting beds.

Other subsurface investigations were performed at the site of Slave Cabin #2. EPE
archaeologists excavated six shovel tests around the perimeter of the structure in order to
detect the presence of any historic material in the vicinity, but no cultural material was
recovered. In addition, it appears that the area surrounding the building has undergone
significant ground disturbance in the recent past, as indicated by the amount of mottled
clay mixed with modern debris.

During the course of the Leigh Farm survey, Chris Bronson guided EPE archaeologists to
an area believed to be the location of the Leigh, Atkins & Co. Mill. Mr. Bronson
informed investigators that he had observed a mill race adjacent to the creek in the New
Hope creek bottom. The creek bottom was saturated as a result of heavy rains and these
conditions prevented EPE archaeologists from assessing the presumed mill location.
Photographs of the general area and a GPS reading were taken to enable future
researchers to revisit the location.




      Figure 37. View of New Hope Creek Bottom, near possible mill location,
                                 looking north

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                 95
Following the completion of subsurface testing, EPE archaeologists visually inspected
the grounds surrounding the farmstead utilizing a hiking trail maintained by the site
caretaker. No additional surface remains were detected; however, inspection of the
grounds did suggest areas for potential future work at Leigh Farm Park.


RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During the course of investigations at the Leigh Farm Park, EPE staff identified
31DH705 and 705**, a site yielding both nineteenth-century domestic materials and
prehistoric artifacts. Subsurface excavations recovered nine historic artifacts and eleven
prehistoric artifacts. Site caretaker Chris Bronson had previously recovered two side-
notched projectile points from the area surrounding the planting beds. The material used
in the fabrication of these points compares favorably to the debitage and biface recovered
during the EPE survey. In addition, Mr. Bronson recovered a brass powder flask from an
area of brush cleared by a previous resident. The flask compares favorably to other
examples of mid-nineteenth-century hunting flasks, which would have been common on
rural farmsteads prior to the widespread use of metallic cartridges. Based on the
existence of these artifacts, it appears that the site possesses the potential to yield
information significant to the history and prehistory of the area beyond the current scope
of work. Specific areas that should be targeted for further archaeological examination are
outlined below.

Given the lack of historic artifacts recovered in association with the farm buildings
during shovel testing, similar, additional archaeological work is not recommended at
these locations. Although soil probes can be an effective means of detecting ground
anomalies, the results of the current investigation were often inconclusive. EPE
archaeologists did have limited success while soil probing locations throughout the farm
complex, identifying the possible locations of no longer extant outbuildings including the
kitchen and shuck house and verifying the former location of the corn crib. EPE
recommends the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) for future attempts to locate the
privy and other outbuildings as it has been employed with a great deal of effectiveness
detecting subsurface features on recent archaeological projects.114 Magnetometer
readings would be heavily affected by the amount of hematite reportedly present in the
bedrock of that area; therefore GPR would be the preferred method of non-invasive
investigation.

Another area of potential investigation is the former domestic garden location. Historic
records and photographs illustrate that the Leigh family had an extensive garden in the
now open area west of the main house. Given the limitations of a Phase I survey, EPE
archaeologists were not able to locate the remains of the Leigh garden or the surrounding

        114
           Shawn Patch, “Ground Penetrating Radar Investigations at Fort Frederica, Glynn County, GA,”
paper prepared for Fort Frederica National Monument and the Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
2004; Shawn Patch, “Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Investigations at Fort Pulaski, Chatham County,
GA,” paper prepared for Fort Pulaski National Monument and the Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, 2005.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                          96
fences. Future archaeological investigations, utilizing different methodologies, may be
able to locate these features of the historic landscape.

Future investigators would have three possible options for the detection of the gardens
and associated fence features. One method would be to remove roughly 10-15 cm of sod
from the area mechanically. This could be done in five by five meter swaths to minimize
the impact to the area. Any disturbance, in particular recent historic disturbances, will
leave an anomalistic signature. Early planting beds and fence post holes will appear
different from the surrounding soil matrix when exposed horizontally. Once elements of
these historic features are detected, additional areas can be stripped in order to fully
expose and map this aspect of the farm’s historic landscape. Mechanical excavation,
although effective in detecting subsurface features, is very invasive and may not be a
practical solution if the intention is to keep that area of the site intact. One alternative to
this would be the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR). As previously discussed, GPR
is a non-invasive remote sensing tool that can detect subsurface anomalies in the
landscape. Additional considerations for the use of GPR would be the increased cost in a
GPR survey versus mechanical stripping, and that there may be enough background
disturbance from subsequent earth disturbance activities that would make interpreting the
GPR data difficult. The final option would be to reconstruct the gardens and fences
based on historic data such as photographs and period descriptions. This method would
not identify or reconstruct the gardens exactly, but would provide a low-cost, non-
invasive alternative.

No additional archaeological work is recommended at the location of the site’s
prehistoric component. The component’s low density lithic scatter and plowzone context
indicates that the research potential is low. There are, however, several locations within
the Leigh Farm property that were not tested during the current undertaking that may
yield information significant to the prehistory of the area. EPE recommends that future
archaeological surveys be conducted along the wooded creek terraces of Leigh Farm
Park.

In order to augment our understanding of rural Piedmont slavery and mid-nineteenth-
century African American life, further archaeological work should be conducted at the
Leigh Farm slave quarters. During the current investigation, it was not possible to access
certain areas of Slave Cabin #1 which would have been occupied prior to 1865. As few
historical records exist describing the daily experience of slavery in the nineteenth
century, archaeological research has proven invaluable in understanding the social history
of enslaved peoples in the Carolinas.115 Restoration and partial reconstruction will be
necessary for the survival of Slave Cabin #1, affording researchers an opportunity to
access pre-1865 sections of the cabin. EPE recommends that archaeological
investigations be conducted prior to the reconstruction of the building. An archaeological
excavation open to public participation might offer the park a significant avenue for


        115
          Leland Ferguson, Uncommon Ground: The Archaeology of Early African America, 1650-1800
(Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992).


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                    97
outreach and education as well as providing a meaningful contribution to archaeological
research.

The Civil War actions of April 1865 are another possible direction for archaeological
research at Leigh Farm Park. The skirmishes at New Hope Creek represent the final
documented actions of Sherman’s Carolinas campaign, and were fought, at least in part,
on Stanford Leigh’s property. Sherman’s Carolina campaign ended in the surrender of
Johnston’s Army of Tennessee at the nearby Bennett Farm. Johnston’s surrender was the
single largest troop surrender of the war and ostensibly ended the conflict. The action at
New Hope Creek is significant historically as one of the last armed engagements of the
war, but could be potentially significant from an archaeological standpoint as well. By
April 1865, both armies understood that the war was nearing a close, and few written
records from this specific period of the war are available to modern researchers.
Archaeological investigations may illuminate aspects of this small but significant
engagement, as in the case of the March 10, 1865 Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads in Hoke
County.116




        116
            Douglas Scott and William J. Hunt. “The Civil War Battle at Monroe’s Crossroads, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina: A Historical Archaeological Perspective.” Prepared for the Department of the Army, Fort
Bragg, and the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 1998.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                            98
      VIII. POTENTIAL USE AND PUBLIC ACCESS ANALYSIS
The question of how to approach the future use of Leigh Farm Park is a complicated one
without a definitive answer. Coulter Associates prepared a master plan in 1992 (funded
by the Junior League of Durham and Orange Counties), which provided a sound basis for
public access analysis, but, after almost fifteen years, needs to be revisited. The master
plan included the following mission statement: “Leigh Farm represents the southern
anchor of the New Hope Corridor open space master plan and should be
preserved/restored for its historical, environmental, aesthetic, educational and
recreational significance and use.” Coulter Associates proposed that the house,
outbuildings and historic landscape at the core of the property should be preserved and
designated areas for parking, picnic shelters, a playground and hiking trails.117 This
multi-use, low impact approach will be critical to the successful operation of the site as a
public park.

A recent Durham Parks and Recreation master plan indicated there is public support for
an educational center at Leigh Farm Park that would teach citizen’s about Durham’s rural
heritage.118 Using the two master plans as a point of departure, other parks and historic
sites were consulted regarding issues such as budget, visitation trends, visitor needs and
expectations, interpretation, operations, site maintenance and support groups in order to
create a realistic vision for the future use of Leigh Farm Park. Based on input at the
public meetings, potential functions of the property as a historic site/living history farm, a
meeting/conference center and a recreational facility were explored (see Appendix F for
public meeting minutes).

                         Innovative Programming is Key to Viability

Given the number of other museums and historic sites in the surrounding counties, Leigh
Farm Park needs to complement, not replicate, recreational and historical activities
already available to the public (see Appendix G for a list of area museums and historic
sites). The breadth of Leigh Farm’s history and its intact 82.8-acre setting allow for a
great diversity of uses, from recreation and environmental conservation to historic
interpretation and farming. Dynamic, interactive and sophisticated programming is
imperative for the property’s long-term viability. Adequate support staff and creative
cooperative agreements are critical for the park’s success.

                                      House Museum Models

Established historic sites serve to demonstrate the challenges, successes and failures of
operating properties with a historic preservation component. Horne Creek Farm, one of
the more recent additions to the State Historic Site system owned and operated by the
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, is comparable to Leigh Farm in that it


       117
             Coulter Associates, Leigh Farm Master Plan, November 1992, 4, 7-8.
       118
             Durham Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2003-2013, 89-90.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  99
was a moderately-sized, self-sufficient farm from the mid-nineteenth through the early-
twentieth century. Its house and outbuildings have been meticulously restored or
reconstructed; in addition, a few acres surrounding the farm complex are actively
cultivated. The Horne Creek Farm Committee plays a critical role in funding and
promoting special events, and has sponsored the creation of an heirloom apple orchard on
the property. In order to include an outdoor recreation component, a system of trails
connects the farm to Pilot Mountain State Park. Despite the presence of authentic period
buildings in a setting that accurately depicts the farm’s historic appearance, attracting
visitors has been problematic—in 2005 only 10,099 people visited the site. Annual
event-driven visitation has been as high as 25,000. However, the three full-time staff
members found it impossible to continue to organize as many as sixteen special events a
year and cut back to only the most popular in 2005. The fall apple festival, October
cornshucking frolic and Christmas lamplight tour always draw large numbers of
visitors.119

Horne Creek’s visitation woes are reflected across the board at other state-owned historic
sites in North Carolina, most of which experienced a decided decline in visitation in
2005.120 This trend can be seen in the private sector as well. Sites such as Old Salem and
Colonial Williamsburg are also battling to bring visitor numbers up. Other properties,
such as Chinqua-Penn, a palatial 1920s estate in Rockingham County, have been forced
to close to the public due to low visitation coupled with increasing maintenance and
operating costs.

Even Historic New England, “the oldest, largest, and most comprehensive regional
preservation organization in the country,” has noted waning interest in traditional historic
house museums. Formerly known as the Society for the Preservation of New England
Antiquities, Historic New England felt that that a new public identity, in conjunction with
other marketing strategies, would “differentiate and reinvigorate” the organization.121
Ken Turino, exhibitions manager for Historic New England, has been involved with the
operation of the organization’s historic properties (now numbering thirty-seven) for many
years. He co-authored an article exploring options for the use of historic buildings other
than house museums based on discussions sponsored by the National Trust for Historic
Preservation (NTHP) and the American Association for State and Local History
(AASLH) examining the future of house museums.122

        119
              Lisa Turney, telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 2006.
        120
            Thom Rhodes, “Historic Sites Visitation, FY 01-02 through 05-06,” Historic Sites Section,
Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
        121
           Diane L. Viera, “Strike up the Brand: Creating or Enhancing Your Museum’s Brand Identity,”
American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet #232, included in History News,
volume 60, number 4, Autumn 2005.
        122
           Carol B. Stapp and Kenneth C. Turino, “Does America Need Another House Museum?,”
History News, Summer 2004, 7.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                               100
Richard Moe, president of the NTHP, asserted in a Forum Journal article that although
house museums have long “constituted the bedrock of the American Preservation
movement,” an overabundance of such institutions has resulted in chronic underfunding,
insufficient staffing, deferred maintenance, and low attendance at most of the thousands
of historic house museums in America.123 James Vaughn, the National Trust’s vice-
president for stewardship of historic sites, further noted that “the quality and appeal of the
traditional historic house interpretation does not successfully compete with other
contemporary sources of educational leisure-time activities.”124 AASLH/NTHP
discussion groups concurred that house museums can still provide meaningful,
stimulating learning experiences, but that it is time for new models, standards and
approaches that best address the long-term interests of a property and community.

To follow up on the discussion group conclusions, in March 2006 the NTHP collaborated
with global market research firm Synovate and travel research consulting group DataPath
Systems to gather statistics on projected house museum visitation. Survey results
indicated that thirty-five percent of respondents in the South Atlantic states intended to
make travel plans that involved visiting a house museum in the near future. Most of
those respondents were older (55-64) and more affluent. Only sixteen percent of young
adults (18-24) and thirteen percent of the general population planned to visit house
museums in the next two years. Carolyn Brackett of the NTHP asserted that these
statistics confirm that, in the face of scarce marketing dollars, house museums must
carefully target visitors and provide engaging programs in order to be successful.125

With these challenges in mind, Historic New England has been actively working on
reinventing the image of their historic house museums with an eye to making them more
user-friendly and attractive to the public. They have found that potential visitors are most
excited about properties encompassing a fresh, interactive interpretation of unique
resources and that interest in twentieth century interpretative programming is strong.
Historic New England manages many different types of historic properties, including
house museums, living history farms, study properties, historic gardens and landscapes
and stewardship properties. The best use for each resource is carefully examined before
the organization assumes ownership. Furthermore, most properties are gifted to Historic
New England with sizable endowments for restoration, operation and future maintenance
costs.126


        123
            Richard Moe, “Are There Too Many House Museums?,” Forum Journal, volume 16, number
3, Spring 2002, 4, 6.
        124
           Gerald George, “Historic House Museum Malaise: A Conference Considers What’s Wrong,”
History News, Autumn 2002, 21-22.
        125
           “First-Ever Survey on Historic House Museums Offers Insight Into Future Visitors,” AASLH
Dispatch, August 2006, 7.
        126
            Ken Turino, discussions with Heather Fearnbach during the Program in New England Studies,
June 19-24, 2006.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                         101
Historic New England’s most popular house museums use creative programming to draw
visitors. One example of this is the Gropius House in Lincoln, Massachusetts, the modest
1937 home of Walter Gropius, a leader in the Bauhaus design movement during the early
twentieth century and a Harvard Graduate School of Design professor. Although the site
is operated as a traditional house museum, its focus on twentieth-century architecture sets
it apart from other properties. Another Historic New England property, the Spencer-
Peirce-Little Farm in Newbury, Massachusetts is touted as “a family-friendly site with
activities for visitors of all ages.” Hands-on activities at the Spencer-Peirce-Little Farm
explore farming from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries. The house is
furnished with not only with period artifacts but also with reproduction items that can be
touched, sat upon and used by visitors. 127

                       Cooperative Agreements Help Manage Costs

The Spencer-Peirce-Little Farm partners with the Massachusetts Society for the
Preservation of Cruelty to Animals to serve as a foster farm for rescued animals, one
innovative way of mitigating the expense involved in a living history farm. Other
Historic New England properties rely on cooperative agreements with local farmers to
defer management costs and continue traditions of active agricultural use. The Watson
Farm in Jamestown, Rhode Island is a working family farm with heritage-breed cattle and
sheep. The farmhouse is not open for tours, but the self-guided walking tour of the
property draws a good number of visitors. Casey Farm in Saunderstown, Rhode Island,
is another Historic New England site with a novel approach to farm management. Local
farmers grow organic produce in a “Community Supported Agriculture” program and
offer tours of the farmyard and family cemetery. At Cogwell’s Grant in Essex,
Massachusetts, farmers rent the fields surrounding the historic house and store equipment
in the barns.128 These solutions not only help to alleviate the expense of operating a
historic farm, but provide a more interesting experience for visitors to Historic New
England properties. Historic New England’s innovative approaches to site management
are worth bearing in mind when exploring the future development of Leigh Farm Park.

                                North Carolina Park Models

A few North Carolina parks were also examined as they provide useful operational
models. Parks and recreation departments operate the following sites discussed at length:
West Point on the Eno (Durham), Historic Oak View and Yates Mill County Parks
(Wake County), Historic Latta Plantation (Mecklenburg County) and Cedarock Park
(Alamance County). Each park offers a wide variety of educational and recreational
activities intended to maximize visitation while preserving natural and cultural resources.


        127
          Historic New England, Guide to Historic New England, 2006 (Boston: Massachusetts, 2006);
Bethany Groff, “Animals at the Farm,” Historic New England, Summer 2006, page 1.
        128
              Ibid.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                       102
The Durham Parks and Recreation Department manages several historic properties as
part of the parks system. West Point on the Eno encompasses 388 acres along the Eno
River, the 1850s McCown-Mangum House, a working grist mill, the Hugh Mangum
Museum of Photography, picnic areas, hiking trails and canoeing and rafting
opportunities. The McCown-Mangum House has three furnished period rooms and a
catering kitchen available for event rentals, city offices in the basement and a caretaker’s
apartment on the second floor. Due to declining visitation, the house is now open for
tours only on the weekends or by appointment. Approximately 6,000 visitors toured the
house in 2005; the majority of the park’s 60,000 visitors attended events such as Festival
for the Eno. Supporters of Leigh Farm Park have indicated that they would like the
property to become a southern version of West Point on the Eno, but a more innovative
site management approach would be necessary to draw visitors without a universally-
appealing natural attraction like the Eno River. Spruce Pine Lodge, an unfurnished
Rustic Revival-style log retreat, is another city-owned historic property available for
event rentals. West Point on the Eno and Spruce Pine Lodge are north of downtown
Durham; Leigh Farm Park therefore provides a strategically located tract of open space in
southwest Durham.129

The Wake County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Department manages two historic
properties—Oak View and Yates Mill—both of which provide outdoor recreational
opportunities in conjunction with heritage education. Historic Oak View County Park in
Raleigh, which has been open to the public for ten years, consists of a mid-nineteenth
century house, a circa 1825 plank kitchen and a cotton gin house, carriage house and
livestock barn built at the turn of the twentieth century. The Farm History Center,
completed in 1997, displays tools from local farms and houses interactive exhibits and
education programs. The cotton gin house, naturally, functions as a cotton museum; a
small cotton field is planted just south of the gin house. Benton S. D. Williams
constructed the Greek Revival house around 1855, and the Poole family added a Colonial
Revival wing on its east side in 1940-1941. The interior was not restored to its earlier
period, but rather some of the downstairs rooms host traveling exhibits and the upper
floor serves as office space for two full-time and five part-time staff members. House
tours are available upon request but not given at set times; most visitors use the walking
tour brochure for a self-guided tour and enjoy the picnic facilities. As Historic Oak View
County Park is situated in the Wake County Office Park, county staff takes care of
grounds maintenance. Visitation in 2005 numbered approximately 100,000 people based
on a car-counting methodology. About 11,000 students visited last year, mostly from
Wake County schools. The Oak View Advisory Board meets quarterly to discuss site
management and advocacy.130




       129
             Beth Highley, interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 23, 2006.
       130
             Sara Drumheller, telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, July 13, 2006.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                  103
Oak View Park is a good model for Leigh Farm in that the initial community investment
in the preservation of the property, when the house and outbuildings were threatened with
demolition, translated into ongoing interest in and support of the site. Visitors enjoy
learning about changing agricultural practices, watching the three site goats, walking the
interpretive trails and picnicking at the well-maintained historic property.

Wake County took a different approach with Historic Yates Mill Park, which opened to
the public on May 20, 2006. Tours of the circa 1756 water-powered gristmill are offered
three weekends a month and on some Wednesdays and Thursdays. Wake County, North
Carolina State University, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Yates Mill Associates and others partnered to manage the native wildlife refuge
and provide guests with an “escape from the daily grind through a variety of recreational,
cultural, agricultural and natural experiences.” Support facilities include a field
classroom, the A. E. Finley Center for Education and Research (classrooms, offices, an
auditorium, exhibits, meeting rooms, laboratories), picnic areas and overlook decks.
Meeting rooms are available for rent by any group that fits the park mission. Several
miles of hiking trails run through the park’s diverse habitats (pond, creek, wetland, forest)
and fishing is allowed from designated boardwalks. Events including environmental
tours, lectures on historic mills and a harvest celebration are scheduled throughout the
summer and fall. Volunteers help maintain trails and remove debris from around the
millpond.131 The Yates Mill approach is applicable to Leigh Farm in that the
preservation of a historic property and the natural environment guided the development
of the park in tandem, resulting in a resource with appeal for a wide range of visitors.

The fifty-two-acre Historic Latta Plantation is only a small part of the 1,290-acre Latta
Plantation Nature Preserve twelve miles northwest of Charlotte. Like Leigh Farm Park,
Latta Plantation Nature Preserve is located in a rapidly developing part of North Carolina,
and the preservation of open space served as the impetus for the park’s creation. Historic
Latta Plantation is a nineteenth-century living history farm, complete with a two-story,
circa 1800, Federal-style house and original and reconstructed outbuildings. Although
Mecklenburg County carries out most of the building and grounds maintenance, the Latta
Place Foundation pays staff salaries (five full-time, two part-time) and has funded
building restoration and reconstruction. Events are the big visitor draw—forty special
events a year and a very successful children’s Civil War summer camp brought about
22,000 people to the historic complex in 2005.132 The Nature Center, located just inside
the park gates, serves as an environmental education center. The Carolina Raptor Center,
dedicated to the conservation of birds of prey, is home to the Southeast’s largest eagle
aviary. The Latta Plantation Equestrian Center offers guided horseback rides and lessons,



        131
          “Historic Yates Mill County Park,” promotional brochure accessed via Wake County
Government website at http://www.wakegov.com/parks/yatesmill/about; Wake County Parks, Recreation
and Open Space, Quarterly, Summer Solstice 2006.
        132
              Jon Gates, telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, April 2006.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                      104
a tack store and hosts horse shows. Hiking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking and picnicking
are other popular activities.133

Cedarock Park in Alamance County serves as a final example of the successful
incorporation of a historic property into a large park. The restored farmstead draws about
4,000 visitors a year—the 414-acre complex as a whole reported 130,000 visitors in
2005. The county funds four full-time and two part-time staff positions. Picnic shelters,
a lake, campground and hiking trails bring in steady contingent of visitors, but the most-
used facilities on the property are the two disc-golf courses.134 The Cedarock Park
visitation statistics support the notion that although historic resources often play an
important role in park development, they may not provide the visitor draw of other
recreational opportunities. A diversity of park offerings allows for more consistent
visitor use.

All of these parks serve as good models for Leigh Farm’s future development. Countless
other programs offer successful and diverse educational programming, from children’s
summer camps to teacher’s institutes. Summer teacher’s institutes at Stratford Hall,
Monticello, Colonial Williamsburg and the East Tennessee History Society are funded in
part by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Most such programs
focus on hands-on activities that allow teachers to experience history first-hand, an
opportunity that could certainly be afforded at Leigh Farm Park in the future.

Leigh Farm Park has the potential to be a successful operation. Its location just north of
Highway 54 at the Interstate 40 interchange allows for convenient visitor access. The
farm’s intact complex of mid-nineteenth-century buildings is significant, and the wealth
of documentation regarding the history of the Leighs and the African American families
associated with the property through the twentieth century provides for interesting
interpretation. The 82.8 acres surrounding the historic farm complex could be used for a
variety of recreational activities, from hiking to disc golf, without negatively impacting
the integrity of the farm.




       133
             Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department, “Latta Plantation Nature Preserve.”
       134
             Harry Mashburn, telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, July 2006.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             105
                                      IX. ACTION PLAN

In order for Leigh Farm Park to begin the transition from a dormant property to an
actively-used part of the Durham parks system, the following action steps should be
employed:

1. Stabilize Buildings
The Leigh House and associated outbuildings are a key component of the park. Most of
the complex is in good condition, but Slave Cabin #1, the dairy, the tobacco barn and the
pack house are in need of immediate attention. Slave Cabin #1 is one of only a few
buildings in North Carolina with an extant wood chimney.135 The dairy is also an
exceedingly rare survival. Continued deferred maintenance will result in the loss of these
important buildings. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office must approve
all building stabilization plans in advance of project execution.

2. Organize Non-Profit Support Group
Most successful museums and historic sites have associated support groups to promote
the mission of the property, assist with fundraising and supplement staffing. An active
support group with a diverse, professional advisory board will be critical to the success of
Leigh Farm. The North Carolina Center for Organizing Nonprofits provides free
assistance to groups interested in pursuing non-profit status.

3. Form Advisory Board
The advisory board should include professionals with experience in fundraising,
restoration and historic site management in addition to local residents and historians.

4. Network with other Museums, Historic Sites, Organizations, Agencies
The plethora of museums and historic sites in the Durham area translates into increased
competition for visitors and funding, but will also provide a wealth of experience for
Leigh Farm Park to draw upon. Environmental and civic organizations such as the Sierra
Club and the Junior League of Durham and Orange Counties have demonstrated interest
in Leigh Farm Park in the past, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources sections including Historic Sites, the State Historic
Preservation Office and the Office of State Archaeology will provide ongoing assistance
during the development of Leigh Farm Park. The North Carolina Department of
Agriculture promotes farms offering agri-tourism activities and offers resources and
guidance for starting agri-tourism ventures. The North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Office of Environmental Education would assist in
the evaluation of the potential of an environmental education center at Leigh Farm Park.
National organizations such as the American Association for State and Local History
(AASLH) and the Association for Living History, Farm and Agricultural Museums


        135
            The Boyette Slave House in Johnston County has a splint-and-mortar chimney; the O’Quinn
House in Moore County retains a log-and-splint chimney similar to Slave Cabin #1 at Leigh Farm. See
pages 5-8 in Catherine Bishir’s North Carolina Architecture: Portable Edition (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 2005).

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             106
(ALHFAM) provide access to a network of institutions experienced in historic property
management and publish informative technical bulletins and museum standards.

5. Improve Visitor Access to the Park
Leigh Farm Park does not yet feel like a public space. The creation of a designated
parking lot and public restrooms is imperative, and a picnic area would provide an
incentive for visitors to use the park as it is being developed. It may be possible to utilize
one of the existing houses along the access road for a site office and public restrooms
until funds are available for the construction of new facilities. The circa 1930s German-
sided house with a Rustic Revival log addition on the façade is the closest building to the
historic farm complex and would provide a convenient location for visitor orientation. It
is imperative to maintain a caretaker’s residence at Leigh Farm Park to insure the security
of the complex as site visitation increases. Slave Cabin #2 has been recently renovated
and would be the best building on the site for this purpose. Moving the caretaker
residence out of the Leigh House would allow the main house to serve as a location for
meetings, workshops and other special events.

6. Continue to Develop Trail System
Clearing, marking and maintaining trails would be a fairly inexpensive and expedient
way to encourage the recreational use of the site.

7. Explore Innovative Uses
Comments at public meetings indicate that a creative approach to the site management
would be welcomed. A professional market analysis would be prudent in order to
determine how local taxpayers would like to see the park utilized.136 An initial task for
Leigh Farm Park’s advisory board and non-profit support group would be to continue
investigating distinctive uses for the property. The popularity of organic farming in the
region suggests that such an endeavor would make good use of the fallow fields at Leigh
Farm Park. Cooperative agreements with local organic farms should be explored. The
public meeting suggestion that the property would be an ideal location for cooking school
is also innovative. Local restaurant owners could work with organic farmers to offer a
variety of workshops and classes. Another public meeting attendee asserted that
Freewoods Farm, a recently opened living history farm in Burgess, South Carolina (south
of Myrtle Beach in Horry County) would be a good model for the interpretation of the
post-Civil War African American history of Leigh Farm. Freewoods Farm replicates the
experience of African American farmers from 1865 to 1900.137 The sky is the limit at
this point in the development of Leigh Farm Park—all creative suggestions should be
fully explored.



        136
            See Diane L. Viera, “Strike up the Brand: Creating or Enhancing Your Museum’s Brand
Identity,” American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet #232, included in History
News, volume 60, number 4, Autumn 2005.
        137
          Martin Mobley, “Freewoods Farm: Living History Museum Honors Contributions of Freed
Slaves Who Became Successful Farmers,” Sandlapper, Winter 2005-2006, 42-45.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                            107
8. Identify Funding Sources for Educational Programming
It is never too early to identify possible funding sources for educational programming.
Children’s summer camps and teacher’s institutes are popular but expensive. The
National Endowment for the Humanities and the North Carolina Humanities Council are
good places to start. The Institute of Museum and Library Services and the United States
Department of Education have also offered grants to fund professional development
opportunities for teachers.138 As the facilities at Leigh Farm Park are developed, it will
become more evident what type of educational program offerings will be most
appropriate. Leigh Farm artifacts donated to the North Carolina Museum of History and
the Historic Preservation Society of Durham could, through loan agreements, be used to
develop educational exhibits about the farm’s history (see Appendix H for an artifact
list).




        138
           See Lisa N. Oakley, “Designing a Summer Teacher Institute,” American Association for State
and Local History Technical Leaflet #230, included in History News, volume 60, number 2, Spring 2005.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                         108
              X. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Leigh Farm has the potential to tell an important story beginning with the Native
American occupation of the site, encompassing the experiences of the Leighs and other
white and African American families associated with the property and continuing through
the restoration of the historic complex in the twenty-first century. Additional historical
research is needed to clarify some aspects of the story (see Archaeological Investigation
chapter for details of the recommendations for additional archaeological survey).

● The original chain of title is unclear and needs to be explored more fully. According
to Allen Markham Sr. and Curtis Booker, the first land grants including property that
became Leigh Farm were to William Rhodes and Robert Campbell.139 However,
Markham’s basis for this assertion is almost impossible to follow without his research
notes, and research during the course of this project was inconclusive.

● The extent and location of Civil War actions on the property should be investigated
using primary source documents and archaeology. Additional research would allow for
expanded interpretation in this area, and Civil War sites are typically popular tourist
destinations.

● Descendants of General Roberson, an African American farmer who purchased a
sizable portion of Richard Stanford Leigh’s farm, still live in Durham and their
perspective is vital to the accurate interpretation of the site. Oral history interviews
should be conducted as soon as possible.

● Other individuals historically associated with Leigh Farm should also be identified and
interviewed. Tenant farmers cultivated sections of the property through the mid-
twentieth century. Local residents undoubtedly have stories to contribute regarding life
in southwestern Durham County.

● A landscape restoration plan would be a useful component of the site restoration
process. Once again, a combination of the examination of primary source documents and
archaeology would allow for an accurate recreation of the nineteenth-century landscape.

● Measured drawings of the north and east elevations and interior features of Slave
Cabin #1 will be necessary for the accurate reconstruction of the building. Once the
building is dismantled, additional archaeological survey should be conducted before
reconstruction

● Continued investigation of the Leigh House is imperative. Ongoing photography is
recommended. Once the house is vacant the entire building should be carefully
documented with high resolution digital and/or black-and-white photographs. Elements


        139
            Allen Markham Sr., map of early land grants, in the possession of Curtis Booker; Curtis
Booker, interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 5, 2006.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                             109
of the house that are to be removed should be photographed, as should all elements of the
building fabric revealed during the removal.

● Paint analysis is needed to determine the exact color and composition of exterior and
interior finishes.

● Dendrochronology would result in definitive dates for the various sections of the
house.

● Measured drawings should be produced for the tobacco barn and pack house before
any restoration work takes place.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             110
                               XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, David G. “The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View
      from the Southeastern United States.” In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern
      North America, Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5, edited by
      Barry Isaac and Kenneth Tankersley. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1990.

Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson. “Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern
      United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley.” American
      Antiquity 53 (1988): 262-286.

Anderson, Jean Bradley. Durham County. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990.

Bishir, Catherine. North Carolina Architecture: Portable Edition. Chapel Hill: University
        of North Carolina Press, 2005.

Blanton, Dennis B., Christopher T. Espenshade and Paul E. Brockington, Jr. “An
       Archaeological Study of 38SU83: A Yadkin Phase Site in the Upper Coastal Plain
       of South Carolina.” Manuscript on file, TRC, Inc., Atlanta, 1986.

Boddie, Mary Nell. “Charm of the Early 1800’s is Retained in Leigh Household.”
      Durham Morning Herald. May 22, 1953.

Booker, Curtis. Interviews with Heather Fearnbach, April 24, May 5, May 11, 2006.

Bronson, Chris. Personal communication with Garrett W. Silliman, June 2006.

Bronson, Chris and Debbie. Interviews with Heather Fearnbach, April-July 2006.

Clausen, Carl J., A. D. Cohen, Cesare Emiliani, J. A. Holman and J. J. Stipp. “Little Salt
       Spring, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site.” Science 203 (1979): 603–614.

Coe, Joffre L. The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the
       American Philosophical Society, 54, part 3. Philadelphia: American Philosophical
       Society, 1964.

Copeland, Robert. Spode’s Willow Pattern and Other Designs After the Chinese. London:
      Cassell Publishing, 1999.

Coulter Associates. Leigh Farm Master Plan. November 1992.




Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                              111
Cushman, Kathleen A. “Floral Remains from Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington
     County, Southwestern Pennsylvania.” In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the
     Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage, edited
     by Ronald C. Carlisle and James M. Adovasio. Pittsburgh: Department of
     Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, 1982, 207-220.

Daniel, I. Randolph Jr. “Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast.”
       Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina,
       Chapel Hill, 1994.

________. Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. Tuscaloosa:
      University of Alabama Press, 1998.

Davis, R. P. Stephen Jr. “Settlement Structure and Occupational History at the Fredricks-
       Jenrette Site Complex, Orange County, North Carolina.” In The Archaeology
       of Native North Carolina: Papers in Honor of H. Trawick Ward, Southeastern
       Archaeological Conference Special Publication 7, edited by Jane M. Eastman,
       Christopher B. Rodning and Edmond A. Boudreaux III (2002): 29-31.

Davis, Raymond and Louella Davis Alston. Interview with Chris and Debra Bronson,
       May 16, 2006.

Deed and Will Books. Offices of the Register of Deeds, Orange County Courthouse,
      Hillsborough.

Deed, Will and Special Proceeding Books. Offices of the Register of Deeds and the Clerk
      of Court, Durham County Courthouse, Durham.

Dillehay, T. C. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Washington, D.C.:
       Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

Drumheller, Sara. Telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, July 13, 2006.

Durham Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2003-2013.

“Event Marks Progress in Farm’s Preservation,” Durham Herald-Sun, page C3, October
       20, 1995.

“Farm Nominated as Historic Site.” Durham Morning Herald, August 9, 1975.

Ferguson, Leland. Uncommon Ground: The Archaeology of Early African America,
       1650-1800. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.

“First-Ever Survey on Historic House Museums Offers Insight Into Future Visitors.”
            AASLH Dispatch, August 2006, 7.



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                            112
Flowers, John Baxton III and Catherine W. Cockshutt. “Leigh Farm.” National Register
      of Historic Places nomination, 1975.

Gates, Jon. Telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, April 2006.

George, Gerald. “Historic House Museum Malaise: A Conference Considers What’s
      Wrong.” History News, Autumn 2002.

Gohdes-Baten, Betsy. “Leigh Farm.” From survey file located at the State Historic
      Preservation Office, Raleigh.

Groff, Bethany. “Animals at the Farm.” Historic New England, Summer 2006.

Highley, Beth. Interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 23, 2006.

Historic New England. Guide to Historic New England, 2006. Boston: Massachusetts,
        2006.

“Historic Yates Mill County Park,” promotional brochure accessed via Wake County
       Government website at http://www.wakegov.com/parks/yatesmill/about.

Hudson, H. Q. Daybook. Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 158,
      Southern Historical Collection. Manuscripts Department, Wilson Library,
      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Hudson, Kate Leigh. Journal, 1934-1938. Elsie H. Booker Collection (#4580), Box 20,
      Folder 159, Southern Historical Collection. Manuscripts Department, Wilson
      Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Johnson, L. “Map of Durham County, NC.” 1887. North Carolina Room, Durham County
      Public Library, Durham.

“Last Shots: The Creek of New Hope, Carolina Campaign.” Wayside exhibit produced by
       North Carolina Civil War Trails.

“Leigh Farm Project Inches Forward.” Durham Herald-Sun, page C8, October 20, 1995.

“Leigh, John.” Ancestry World Tree Project, Ancestry.com.

“Leigh, Richard Stanford.” Ancestry.com.

Leigh, Stanford. Account Book, 1859-1874, in the possession of Curtis Booker

________. The People’s Regulator and Pocket Companion, Account Book, 1880s, in the
      possession of Curtis Booker.



Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                           113
________. Pierce’s Memorandum and Account Book with 1884-1885 calendar, Account
      Book, in the possession of Curtis Booker.

________. Account Book, 1891-1896, in the possession of Curtis Booker.

________. “R. S. Leigh’s Registered Book of his family names.” Elsie H. Booker
      Collection (#4580), Box 20, Folder 160, Southern Historical Collection,
      Manuscripts Department, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel
      Hill.

“Leigh, Sullivan.” Ancestry.com.

“Leigh, Sullivan.” Familyorigins.com.

Levy, Art. “Efforts begin to save log cabin in Durham.” Durham Sun, January 16, 1985.

Markham, Allen Sr. Map of early land grants in the possession of Curtis Booker.

________. “The Orange County Leighs.” Undated genealogy notebook in the possession
      of Curtis Booker.

Mashburn, Harry. Telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, July 2006.

Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department, “Latta Plantation Nature
      Preserve.”

Miller, C. M. “Map of Durham County, North Carolina.” ca. 1910. North Carolina Room,
        Durham County Public Library, Durham.

Mobley, Martin. “Freewoods Farm: Living History Museum Honors Contributions of
      Freed Slaves Who Became Successful Farmers.” Sandlapper, Winter 2005-2006,
      42-45.

Moe, Richard. “Are There Too Many House Museums?” Forum Journal, volume 16,
      number 3, Spring 2002.

“Mrs. Katie L. Hudson.” Obituary Section, Durham Morning Herald, November 6, 1946.

Nelson, Lee. “Nail Chronology as Aid to Dating Old Buildings.” History News 19(7)
       1963.

“19th-century Farm Gets Money for Preservation,” Durham Herald-Sun, page C3,
        October 3, 1997.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports,
       1925, Box 10 (Duplin-Durham), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             114
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports,
       1935, Box 50 (Duplin-Durham), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.

North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Statistics Division, Farm Census Reports,
       1945, Box 99 (Durham-Forsyth), North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh.

“North Carolina Museums by County.” North Carolina Museums Council website,
       http://www.museums.org/county.html.

Oakley, Lisa N. “Designing a Summer Teacher Institute.” American Association for State
      and Local History Technical Leaflet #230, included in History News, volume
      60, number 2, Spring 2005.

“Old Markham Chapel Baptist Church.” Durham County, North Carolina Cemeteries,
      http://apdew.com/cemetery/durh/cem017.htm.

Oliver, Billy L. “Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point
        Sequence.” In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy
        S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,
        1985.

Patch, Shawn. “Ground Penetrating Radar Investigations at Fort Frederica, Glynn
       County, GA.” Paper prepared for Fort Frederica National Monument and the
       Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 2004.

________. “Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Investigations at Fort Pulaski, Chatham
      County, GA.” Paper prepared for Fort Pulaski National Monument and the
      Southeastern Archaeological Conference, 2005.

Rhodes, Thom. “Historic Sites Visitation, FY 01-02 through 05-06.” Historic Sites
      Section, Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural
      Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson and David G. Anderson. Native
      American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley. Savannah River
      Archaeological Research Papers No. 1. Occasional Papers of the Savannah River
      Archaeological Research Program. Columbia: South Carolina Institute of
      Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, 1990.

Satterfield, Carolyn. “Leigh Farm Gives View of Life of Yesteryear.” Durham Sun, April
        25, 1975.

Scott, Douglas and William J. Hunt. “The Civil War Battle at Monroe’s Crossroads, Fort
        Bragg, North Carolina: A Historical Archaeological Perspective.” Prepared for
        the Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, and the Southeastern Archaeological
        Conference, 1998.

Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                             115
Skalski, Ginny. “A Piece of 19th Century,” Durham Herald-Sun, page B1, May 2, 2005.

Snider, William D. Light on the Hill: A History of the University of North Carolina at
        Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

Stapp, Carol B. and Kenneth C. Turino. “Does America Need Another House Museum?”
       History News, Summer 2004, 7.

Turino, Ken. Discussions with Heather Fearnbach during the Program in New England
       Studies, June 19-24, 2006.

Turney, Lisa. Telephone interview with Heather Fearnbach, May 2006.

United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population, Agriculture and Slave
       Schedules, Orange County, North Carolina, 1840-1880.

United States Census, Microfilm of Census Records, Population Schedules, Durham
       County, North Carolina, 1900-1920.

Viera, Diane L. “Strike up the Brand: Creating or Enhancing Your Museum’s Brand
       Identity.” American Association for State and Local History Technical Leaflet
       #232, included in History News, volume 60, number 4, Autumn 2005.

Wake County Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Quarterly, Summer Solstice 2006.

Ward, H. Trawick. “A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study
      of Change.” In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium,
      edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow. Raleigh: North Carolina Division
      of Archives and History, 1993.

Ward, H. Trawick and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr. Time Before History: The Archaeology of
      North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999.

Watts, Caty. Zerox copy of her daybook in the possession of Curtis Booker.

Wise, Jim. “A Home for City’s History.” Durham Herald-Sun, page C3, October 23,
       2004.

________. “Homeplace.” Durham Herald-Sun, page C1, June 19, 1995.

________. “Old Times in New Hope.” Durham Herald-Sun, page E1, September 12,
      2000.

________. “Oldest Surviving Duke Grad dies at 112.” Durham Herald-Sun, page A1,
      December 31, 2004.


Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. / 2006                                                116

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:29
posted:9/22/2011
language:English
pages:116