Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18AP2 Hammond-Harwood House
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Hammond-Harwood House Site (18AP2) consists of a standing 18th century urban mansion and its formal gardens in downtown Annapolis. The five-bay main house was built between 1774 and 1775 for Mathias Hammond in the symmetrical Georgian style of the period. It is believed to be the last design project undertaken by the Colonial architect William Buckland. The site is situated on an urban city block at the intersection of King George Street and Maryland Avenue and is operated as a historic landmark and interpretive center open to the public. The surrounding landscape is heavily developed as an urban area. Soils at the site are Collington and Wist sandy loams.
Again, the Hammond-Harwood House was built in the years immediately preceding the American Revolution by Mathias Hammond, a wealthy planter in Anne Arundel county. The original house lot consisted of 4 acres assembled from assorted urban lots that Hammond began to acquire in 1772. The combined lots became known as “Hammond’s Square” and would eventually contain the opulent Georgian/Palladian mansion, its gardens, and any dependencies that the mansion required. Ironically, Hammond probably never occupied the home as he left Annapolis for his family's country estate when the Revolution broke out in 1776. He would die in 1786, but may have rented the mansion out to Judge Jeremiah Townley Chase for the intervening years.
Local Annapolis lore holds that Hammond originally built the structure following his engagement to an unknown woman in Annapolis. Supposedly, Hammond became so involved in the construction and furnishing of the building that his fiancée called off the wedding and married another. The story has a basis in truth, but not one which had anything to do with Mathias Hammond. Instead, it was his nephew, Philip Hammond, who had a fiancée that ran off with another man. One James Nourse, who at the time of the events was renting Philip Hammond’s property Acton, wrote in his diary that “Hammond’s fiancée” ran away with another man while he (Hammond) was away in Philadelphia buying furniture. However, the “Hammond” that Nourse is referring to is undoubtedly his landlord, Philip Hammond and not Mathias.
Upon Mathias Hammond’s death, the house was inherited by his nephews John and then Philip Hammond. Philip would sell the house to Ninian Pinkney in 1810. In 1811, Pinkney sold the house to Judge Jeremiah Townley Chase, who gave it to his daughter Frances Townley Chase Loockerman. The historical records indicate that Judge Chase continued to occupy the northeast wing of the house, which he purportedly had rented from the late 1770s, shortly after the house was built. The house was held in trust for Frances Loockerman and her family and eventually passed, in 1857, to her daughter, Hester Ann Loockerman, who married William Harwood. Harwood was the great-grandson of William Buckland, the architect of the house.
For a number of years the Harwood family resided in Alabama, but by 1857, they had returned to Annapolis. Apparently around the time of the Civil War, economic conditions were such that parcels of land from Hammond’s Square began to be sold off. Some confusion appears to exist from the documentary evidence on the exact sequence of events in this process, but by the last quarter of the 19th century and early 20th century, the once 4 acre lot had been reduced to its present size.
William and Ann’s only son having been killed in the Civil War, the Hammond-Harwood House passed to their youngest daughter, Hester Ann Harwood. Hester Ann Harwood (the daughter) lived alone in the house for many years. Her occupancy probably did much to protect the historic integrity of the house as very few modifications were undertaken during her lifetime. When she died in 1924, without heirs or a will, the house was put up for sale.
In 1925 the house, and other Annapolis Mansions, were purchased by Francis Garvan of New York who with a Professor Halsey, artist in residence at St. John’s College, wanted to establish a museum of the decorative arts. The Great Depression, however, forced Garvan to withdraw his support leaving St. John’s College to hold the mortgage. The house stood empty and closed up for 5 years and only reopened in 1938. In 1940 title passed to the Hammond-Harwood House Association which has maintained the house ever since.
The first documented archeological work to be conducted at 18AP2 occurred in 1965. This work was performed by students at the Milford High School Chapter of the Archeological Society of Maryland. The work was undertaken in response to the planned paving of a large area for a parking lot. A total of twelve 1.22 X 1.52 m (4 X 5 ft) test units were excavated adjacent to one another in two rows of 6 units each in the vicinity of the planned parking lot. Fill soils were screened.
Details of this early excavation , conducted by high school students no less, are difficult to piece together, but a brief overview was written for the society journal. The excavators note that the soil was rather disturbed due to landscaping activities, but that a midden deposit and sheet refuse from the nearby kitchen were encountered. All artifact types reported are typical for such a location and for the period of occupation. No artifact table is provided so they are not included in the tables above. Some of these artifacts have been put on display by the Hammond-Harwood House Association.
The only other documented archeological work at 18AP2 occurred in 1983 and 1984. A need for archeological testing and mitigation arose when the Hammond-Harwood House Association made plans to modify the existing gardens on the property. The gardens are under easement to the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). The Hammond-Harwood House is also a National Landmark property. Initial plans called for grading and filling as well as the construction of a brick patio and retaining wall, all of which would have significant impacts to any archeological resources in the area of planned work and thus MHT stipulated that testing and (potentially) data recovery take place. Ultimately, the first phase of archeological work in 1983 (site testing) resulted in modifications to the plans for garden planting and construction to protect the archeological record of the site. A second phase of work (data recovery) was then undertaken to mitigate any possible impact by the modified plan to the archeological deposits.
Archeological testing and data recovery excavations on the property included the excavation of thirteen 1.52 X 1.52 m (5 X 5 ft) test units and one 1.52 X 3.05 (5 X 10 ft) test unit, as well as 39 shovel test pits (STPs). These test units were placed along a grid consisting of 3.05 X 3.05 m (10 X 10 ft) cells superimposed over the entire garden. The STPs were excavated to a depth of approximately 91 cm (3 ft) at the intersecting points of the grid. Each STP was excavated and screened as a single unit and soil samples were collected from each and subjected to a flotation process. Ultimately, no floral remains of historic origin were recovered from these samples. STPs were concentrated in the lower garden area, because early test unit excavation indicated that the terrace area was composed of cellar fill dating to the construction of the house, and thus in secondary context.
All but one of the formal test units were excavated in stratigraphic levels with all soil matrices being screened. Test Unit 7, situated in the southern portion of the garden, was an exception to this rule and was excavated as a single unit. Soil profiles were drawn with archeological features recorded separately. Over 250 color as well as black and white photographs were taken to document the excavation. Standard archeological reporting forms were also completed for the test units. Test Units 1, 3, and 4 were excavated to extract information on the nature of a terrace at the rear of the house. Test Unit 2 (the larger unit) was excavated to examine the interface between the terrace and lower garden. Test Units 5, 6, and 7 (first phase of excavations) and Test Units 10-14 (second phase of excavations) were excavated to examine the original ground surface in the lower garden. Test Unit 8 was excavated inside the cellar of the east wing and Test Unit 9 was excavated at the entrance to this cellar. All test units were excavated to sterile subsoil.
In addition to subsurface testing, a detailed topographic map was prepared to document the existing garden contours.
Excavations in 1983 and 1984 yielded 4,646 artifacts and revealed thirteen features.
The formation of the modern topography of the site is relatively straight-forward. During most of the 18th century (before house construction) this parcel of land was gently sloping towards the rear of the garden. However, at the time of the house’s construction modifications were made using the soil resulting from the excavated cellar hole for the house construction. These re-deposited soils were used to create the extant garden terrace, dividing the yard into an upper and lower garden. The soils were re-deposited in reverse of their original stratigraphy, creating three distinct layers of unsorted soil fill. Five test units were excavated through these terrace soil layers to the original 18th century land surface below.
Feature 1 appears to have been some type of small buried barrel or bucket. Artifacts within Feature 1 appeared to be primarily 18th century types and it may be related to the original construction phase of the house due to its location at the interface of terrace fill soils and the original 18th century grade level. Feature 2 was a modern sewer line trench. Feature 3 was deemed to be likely natural and not cultural in origin. Feature 4 was a concentration of 18th and 19th century artifacts near the kitchen area. It may be a disturbed sheet midden. Feature 5 was situated in the lower garden area and consisted of a concentration of brick crumbs and brick dust. Its function could not be determined. Feature 6 was a similar concentration of brick of uncertain function. Located in close proximity to Feature 5 was Feature 7 (both in the same unit), a dense concentration of ceramics, pipestems, and bowls, as well as bottle glass, bone, and architectural debris. All of the artifacts were assignable to the 18th or very early 19th century. The large amount and nature of the bone recovered (much of it butchered) suggested that it was either a butchering area or used for the disposal of scrap meat by the service class at the site. Features 9 through 13 were postholes and molds surrounding Feature 7. At least two of these predate Feature 7. Feature 8 was a brick pavement first encountered in a shovel test and subsequently excavated by test unit during the second phase of work in 1984. Probing beyond the limits of the unit revealed that the pavement was about 4 ft (1.22 m) wide and extended some 18 feet (5.5 m) long. Its function is uncertain, but it does not appear to be a walkway leading to the house in any event. It suggests that some sort of structure was present in this area of the lower garden. Handwrought nails and other architectural debris also clusters in this section of the site.
Twenty-four artifacts were recovered from the shovel test pits at 18AP2. The STP assemblage included 2 architectural artifacts (1 handwrought nail and a piece of window glass), 21 kitchen-related artifacts (1 tin-glazed earthenware sherd, 1 Staffordhire slipware sherd, 2 creamware sherds, 1 pearlware sherd, 2 porcelain sherds, 1 whiteware sherd, 1 hard buff-bodied earthenware sherd, 2 pieces of bottle glass, 4 animal bones, and 6 pieces of shell), and 1 personal item (a ceramic wig curler). Artifacts recovered from the formal test units at 18AP2 included 5 activity items (toy marbles), 1,693 architectural artifacts, 12 clothing items (buttons), 2,692 kitchen-related artifacts, 1 personal item (a coin), 56 tobacco-related artifacts (27 pipe stems and 29 pipe bowls), 3 arms objects (gunflints), and 156 miscellaneous objects (67 pieces of household glass and 89 unidentified metal fragments). The test unit architectural assemblage consisted of 294 pieces of brick, 55 mortar fragments, 782 window glass fragments, 95 handwrought nails, and 467 unidentified nail fragments. The kitchen-related assemblage from the test units included 1,146 ceramic sherds (73 tin-glazed earthenware, 1 North Devon Sgraffito, 11 North Devon Gravelly, 15 Staffordshire, 19 miscellaneous earthenware, 399 creamware, 173 pearlware, 13 Chinese export porcelain, 1 Chelsea porcelain, 73 other porcelain, 96 whiteware, 177 redware, 2 Rockingham, 7 yelloware, 4 English Brown stoneware, 8 Westerwald stoneware, 14 Scratch Blue stoneware, 27 other white salt-glazed stoneware, and 33 miscellaneous stoneware), 550 pieces of glass (270 olive green bottle glass shards and 280 other bottle fragments), and 996 faunal objects (770 animal bones and 226 pieces of shell).
The findings of the 1983 and 1984 study clearly indicate that intact subsurface remains and features exist at 18AP2, the Hammond-Harwood House. These deposits date to an important chapter in American history and preserve the material culture related to one of the most prominent properties in Annapolis. The project succeeded in delineating areas containing significant artifact deposits and features that can be investigated further. Landscaping and construction plans were adapted to protect these deposits and features for future research. The site is well-preserved and should be considered a significant archeological resource.
|
