Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18AN596 The Wilderness
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Wilderness site (18AN596) is an intact mid-18th to mid 20th century farmstead located in the Arundel Mills area of northern Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The site is situated on a knoll with slightly sloping sides and south of a first order stream which flows into Deep Run. A small intermittent stream, is situated very close and just to the west of the site. At the time of the site’s discovery, it was a vacant wooded lot in secondary growth. The above ground remains of a roughly 5.5 X 6.7 m (18 X 22 ft) log dwelling are present at the site, along with the ruins of at least 2 other log outbuildings, and a large brick chimney. Soils at the site are of the loamy and clayey Land-Muirkirk-Evesboro association.
The site was first identified during a Phase I survey conducted in 1985 and 1986. The field project was carried out along three proposed alternates for the expansion of MD 100. The various highway alternatives would span the roughly 7.5 miles between MD 3 and US 1, passing the Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport. Since the highway improvements would receive state and federal monies, the mandates of the NHPA act and related state legislation required the fieldwork.
The field methods involved an initial ground reconnaissance of the three highway alternates to locate above ground structural remains, eliminate low probability areas from the testing strategy, and better determine moderate to high probability areas requiring further investigation. Low probability areas included steep slopes, industrial or residential disturbances, and wetlands. The remaining moderate to high probability areas were grouped together to form survey tracts and they were subjected to surface collection in areas of exposed ground surface and excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) to located buried archeological deposits. In the survey tract which contained 18AN596, survey work entailed only ground reconnaissance, since the site was easily identified by above-ground remains. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was carried out in 1987.
The 1987 Phase II work was also related to the MD 100 highway expansion project. At 18AN596 the Phase II work entailed archival research to place the site in its proper historic al context, as well as the excavation of 180 STPs and twenty-one 1 X 1 m test units.
Archival research revealed that from the mid 18th century, into the 20th century, the property on which the site is located was owned by a family of German immigrants and their descendants. During this time, the irregularly shaped tract assumed a variety of configurations, reductions, and new place names. The site is situated on a property originally patented (in 1755) as “the Wilderness” tract to Nathan Hammond, a well-known planter in Anne Arundel County. Hammond does not appear to have made any improvements to the land and simply held it until 1762. In 1762, Hammond sold the property to five German immigrants: Matthew, George, John, and Andrew Harman and Sebastian Hatler in a partnership known as George Harman & Co. Within a few years, the large tract was partitioned into individual holdings. Site 18AN596 is situated within the property partitioned off to Matthew (Matthias) Harman in 1775.
The Harman family came from Wimpfen, Germany, originally settling in Pennsylvania before moving to Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The Harmans, then, were part of the diaspora of Palatinate Germans who emigrated to Pennsylvania at the behest of William Penn’s agents in the early 18th century. A 1783 tax assessment for Matthew Harman shows that his portion of the Wilderness (126 ¾ acres) and an additional 73 ¼ acres that he owned were valued at £200. By the 1798 Federal Assessment Matthew Harman’s property had been improved with a large 1 story wooden dwelling house, and 7 outbuildings, with the entire property valued at $240.00. Matthew Harman was the largest property owner amongst his siblings.
The property was eventually inherited by Matthew’s son John Harman. He lived to be 54 and operated the property as a farm for his entire life. He did own one slave, a woman named ‘Nan’ who he manumitted, along with her son, in 1815. Essentially, the property remained in agricultural and domestic use into the 20th Century. The owner of the property in 1899 was one Charles A. Disney. He had inherited the property in that year from a Julia Anne Harman Disney. The 1899 deed states that Charles was Julia Anne’s grandson, the only son of her son William (who predeceased her). Charles Disney’s property was placed in a trusteeship when he was declared a lunatic after lunacy proceedings were held between 1906 and 1911. In 1911 the trustees sold the property to Bruner R. Anderson who subdivided the property and sold it to others.
At the beginning of fieldwork, the main portion of the site was heavily covered with honeysuckle, grape vines and poison ivy, as well as assorted weeds and brush. The wooded areas beyond the structures identified in Phase I were relatively open. Once the main compound area was cleared of vines and brush, a total of five or possibly six partially standing structures were found there. The structures uncovered by clearing consisted of a residence (named Structure 1), a root cellar (Structure 2), a log structure (Structure 3), a possible post-in-ground shed (Structure 4), a modern chicken coop outbuilding (Structure 5), and a possible summer kitchen (Structure 6). Following clearance of the vegetation, the site was surveyed with shovel test pits (STPs) to locate the site boundaries.
The shovel tests were placed at 10 m intervals along transects 10 m apart. Each was excavated to sterile subsoil (generally 50-60 cm below surface) and screened through hardware cloth to recover artifacts. STP artifact finds helped to define the edges of the site, but did not identify any significant artifact concentrations or activity areas. A number of cultural landscape features were encountered during this initial survey stage of the Phase II testing program. Among these were several access roads, a sawmill area for firewood, a spring, and a possible garden area.
Seven of the 1 X 1 m test units were placed in the vicinity of Structure 1, with one situated between Structure 1 and Structure 6. Seven more units were placed in the vicinity of other structures. One unit was placed within and one unit was placed adjacent to the possible root cellar (Structure 2). The log structure (Structure 3) was investigated with a single unit on its interior, adjacent to the southwest wall. One unit was placed south of Structure 5. Three units investigated the area around Structure 6, including one unit placed within the structure adjacent to a large fireplace remnant. The seven remaining test units were situated outside the main yard areas (the portion of the site that was cleared.
The test units were excavated in natural levels, except where natural levels exceeded 10 cm in depth. In the latter case, arbitrary 10 cm levels were used to subdivide the natural levels. All soil was screened through hardware cloth. Upon completion of each level, the unit was recorded on standardized forms, drawn, and photographed. Profiles were drawn documented upon completion of each full unit.
Generally speaking, the units in the cleared area around Structure 1 had fewer artifacts than units outside the cleared area or within the cleared area but around the outbuildings. In other words, the yard area around structure 1 appears to have been cleared. The seven units situated in and around the various outbuildings had much higher amounts of materials. This was especially true of units situated directly within structures. Six of the seven units yielded over 100 artifacts each and the seventh yielded 98. Generally speaking, one can conclude that trash was more readily disposed of in and around outbuildings than in the yard areas next to the main house. The units situated away from the cleared yard areas exhibited considerable variation in the amount of artifacts recovered. Only two units yielded more than 100 artifacts. These were the units situated closest to and just downslope from yard areas. These would seem to be prime disposal areas and indeed appear to have been used as such. The other 5 units appear to have been too far away from the main house compound or too inconveniently placed to have been prime disposal areas.
The artifact distribution data supports arguments that German settlers did not throw their debris into the yard areas next to their homes. Further, the data seem to indicate that this did not hold true for outbuildings, where trash fell and was apparently not collected. Three of the units with heavy concentrations of debris seem to indicate that there were some special areas for trash disposal. Beyond trash disposal patterns, the units also illustrate that aside from Structure 6 (which was demolished and cleared) and Structure 5 (which is mid 20th century in origin), the buildings were probably used throughout the occupation of the site.
Structures 1, 2, 3, and 6 appear to be the earliest structures on the site. Structures 1, 2, and 3 appear to have been used from the mid 18th century to the mid 20th century. Structure 1 appears to have been the main residence at the site. The earliest period of construction of the building consisted of a hall and parlor design with an interior chimney on the hall end of the house. There was evidence of a stairway to a second floor next to the chimney. From construction details this period dates to the mid 18th century. The second period was an addition onto the parlor end. From the cut nails and construction details, this addition was probably built around 1815. A door was cut through what had been the parlor’s exterior wall to provide interior access to the addition and a new back door was provided to the addition. The last period of construction was represented by the addition of two porches onto the front (north side) and rear of the house. These rested on cinderblock piers and are probably early to mid 20th century.
Structure 2 was reportedly a root cellar (according to informant interviews). Wrought nails in the logs and diamond shape notching at the corners indicate that the structure was probably built in the 18th century. It had a bulkhead entrance and a low, flat roof. Plastered walls and a cement floor appear to have been added in the 20th century. Structure 3 was a low log outbuilding with a very low doorway. It also contained wrought nails in the logs and diamond-shaped notching. Both Structures 2 and 3 rested on fieldstone foundations. The function of Structure 3 is undetermined.
Structure 6 may be the earliest building and was the first to be abandoned. The only above ground remains of this structure are a large stone chimney ruin and an associated brick scatter. Details of the chimney construction suggest that it was an external chimney, rather than an interior one. Wrought nails are imbedded in the exterior surface, indicating that it is probably eighteenth century. Based on the details of the construction (revealed in several features encountered in the units surrounding Structure 6) and its location and orientation (between the house and the other outbuildings and bordering the backyard) it seems likely that this was the house’s original summer kitchen. The fact that the building did not survive may indicate that it was a log structure resting on the ground, not on a stone foundation, as all of the other early structures did.
Structures 4 and 5 appear to have served as an animal pen/open sided shed, and a chicken coop respectively (based on informant interviews and construction details). Located further from the main house than the original outbuildings, Structrues 4 and 5 date to the 20th century. The early farmstead complex therefore consisted of a house, a kitchen, a large root cellar, and a small barn. It is possible that a low terrace north of the main compound was also the site of a structure, although no architectural features were found there. This means that there were at least four structures at the site in the 18th to early 19th century.
The historic assemblage consisted of some 5,674 artifacts. The Phase II testing yielded 939 activity items, 1,828 architectural artifacts, 219 clothing artifacts, 14 furniture items, 2,097 kitchen-related artifacts, 26 personal objects, 2 tobacco pipe fragments, 16 arms objects, and 533 miscellaneous items. Activity items included 42 toys, 30 storage items, 23 pieces of horse tack, 4 farm tools, 14 construction tools, 288 miscellaneous hardware items, and 538 other activity items. The architectural assemblage consisted of 345 pieces of window glass, 35 wrought nails, 31 cut nails, 789 wire nails, 446 unidentified nails, 6 spikes, 67 pieces of construction hardware, 79 door lock parts, and 30 miscellaneous architectural items. Clothing included 21 buttons, 2 hooks and eyes, and 196 miscellaneous clothing items. The furniture items were brass hinges and latches. There were 2,097 kitchen-related artifacts including 649 ceramic sherds, 1,254 fragments of bottle glass, 31 shards of table glass, 16 pieces of kitchenware, 77 fragments of bone/shell/wood, and 70 miscellaneous kitchen items. Among the personal objects were 6 keys, a Catholic religious medal, an early 20th century mechanical pencil part, coins and a hair comb. The arms items were all fragments of lead ball, shot, and sprue.
A minor prehistoric component was encountered at the site. It was centered in the southern portion of the site and is similar to the occupation at nearby site 18AN580. Though the prehistoric deposits were concentrated primarily in one area of the site, they do not appear to have any vertical integrity, and any subsequent work done on the historic component could be used to delimit the horizontal distribution of prehistoric material.
Only 172 prehistoric artifacts were recovered from Site 18AN596. Of these, the vast majority came from the test units. No prehistoric features were encountered. The prehistoric assemblage consisted of 6 biface fragments, 1 core, 150 flakes, 14 shatter fragments, and an unmodified cobble.
Archeological investigations to date, discovered the remains of six structures at 18AN596, four of them dating to the 18th century and two to more recent times. Deposits in two of the earlier structures were tested and found to contain intact deposits of material. Testing of a third showed that faint remains of house piers may still exist. The last early structure still contains enough intact rubble so that an architectural historian could probably reconstruct the house. There is a possibility, suggested by the terrain, but not supported by archeological or historic data, that a 7th structure was located on a low terrace north of the main house compound.
Yard middens seem to be thin due to sweeping the yard and possibly sheet erosion, but the backyard area still contains features with which to examine intrasite function. Evidence for historic dumping activities were found in three areas of the site. The trash dumps around two of the units appear to have been especially productive, with evidence of all periods of occupation. A spring, a possible garden area located nearby, a sawmill for firewood, and access roads round out the major features of the site.
In conclusion, Site 18AN596 is an intact mid 18th to mid 20th century farmstead. The site was occupied by the same German immigrant family until the early 20th century. The site contains discrete, as well as mixed, archeological deposits which have the potential for illuminating the study of intra-site function, culture change, socio-economics, and ethnicity of a German immigrant family over a period of a century and a half. There are also good historical and architectural data to act as a control on the archeological data.
The site is unusual in the county because of its combination of good historical, archeological and architectural data. Coupling this with the ethnicity of the first occupants and architectural details probably makes the site unique. The site is highly capable of providing new data on the European settlement of Anne Arundel County, the development of vernacular architecture, and the study of ethnicity and change. For these reasons the site is highly significant and has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Based on this finding, the highway extension project was re-designed slightly and the site remains preserved in a wooded median area. Should the site become threatened by future highway or other development, data recovery should be carried out.
|
