Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18AP75 209 Main Street
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18AP75 (or 209 Main Street) consists of a late 17th to early 18th century refuse deposit in downtown Annapolis. This deposit appeared to be related to the operation of the Freeman Tavern that operated in this area from about 1697 until 1708. This hillslope refuse deposit is largely a remnant surrounded by later 18th, 19th and 20th century infrastructure and landscape features such as postholes/molds, builder’s trenches, and utility emplacements. The general area is heavily developed as an urban area, with sidewalks, graded and contoured road right-of ways, and commercial development. Soils at the site are Collington and Wist sandy loams, as well as human transported soils.
To identify the late 17th century and early 18th century owners of the property that now comprises Site 18AP75, it is necessary to review briefly the sequence of town planning in the city of Annapolis. The land on which Annapolis is situated was patented approximately four decades before the present street configuration was established by Francis Nicholson. In 1684, as a nucleus of settlers coalesced around what had been Thomas Todd’s 1651 boatyard, Richard Beard surveyed a 50 acre parcel that became known as Arundelton, the precursor of the City of Annapolis. Beard’s grid-like configuration was aligned roughly along the present-day Shipwright (Market) and South East (Duke of Gloucester) Streets. The plan followed or connected pre-existing development around the area formerly occupied by Todd’s boatyard, and it hugged the natural contours of the creeks and embayments that surround the present town.
Lots in the Arundelton plan initially were numbered in the order that they were purchased, but later they were renumbered consecutively in relation to their geographic positions. Plats of both Beard surveys are no longer extant. However, Site 18AP75 is believed to have been located within Lot #40 of Beard’s original survey. Any construction on this lot would have fronted on the present Duke of Gloucester Street, which was one of the main axes of the town under Beard’s original survey. The rear yard areas of the property would have extended in an eastwardly direction towards the State House.
In 1695, when Governor Nicholson devised his Baroque town plan for the new colonial capital, the existing lots within Arundelton were resurveyed to conform to the new town configuration. A new property and lot survey was executed by James Stoddert, and a new numbering system was instituted. Copies of the Stoddert map survive and these suggest that portions of Beard’s Lot #40 were incorporated into Stoddert’s Lot #48.
Depositions from a 1708 chancery case confirm that Margaret Freeman originally owned Lot #40. She apparently purchased the property jointly with Elizabeth Proctor, for the testimony suggests that Proctor later sold her “moiety” of the property to Margaret Freeman and her husband, John. Thus, John and Margaret Freeman became sole owners of the entire parcel.
John Freeman originally came from St. Mary’s County, where he served as “Register of the High Court of Chancery for the Province of Maryland”. As a government official, it is not surprising that he signed the petition of agreement supporting legislation that moved the colonial capital to Annapolis in 1694. In keeping with his position of responsibility, Freeman supervised the transfer of the provincial records to the new capital in 1695. Within two years of the move to Annapolis, the chancery court depositions indicate that John and Margaret Freeman improved their property by constructing a “large” dwelling house upon it. A 1697 proclamation by the Governor and Council of the colony clearly confirms that Freeman’s house was used to provide lodging for temporary residents of the new capital. Freeman’s house functioned as both an inn and as a meeting venue for civic groups, and records indicate that he continued to operate a tavern on the property until his death in 1708. In 1705, he apparently appeared as witness in civil proceedings during which the court acted to set a rate structure for tavern-owners, and he was granted a tavern-keeper’s license. At Freeman’s death in 1708, his widow Margaret inherited his estate.
The following April, Margaret Freeman married another substantial Annapolis landowner, Philemon Lloyd II. Lloyd, whose major family property holdings were located in Talbot County on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, also was a prominent political figure in colonial government. A delegate to the assembly until 1704, he served as Deputy Secretary of the colony between 1706 and 1710. Lloyd also apparently invested in Annapolis real estate. Land records in 1706 indicate that he held a mortgage on a £35 debt owed by Edward Hancox, who owned property on the north side of Prince George Street, north of the State House. Lloyd himself reportedly had a residence in town between Hanover and King George streets from 1709 on.
The 1718 Stoddert survey assigns Philemon Lloyd ownership of Lots #48 and #49. The metes and bounds of these lots clearly show that they encompassed Site 18AP75. Lloyd may have obtained title to Lot #48 as a result of his marriage to Margaret Freeman.
Early records for the City of Annapolis and the Maryland colony are spotty, due to the fact that many were destroyed in a state house fire. Therefore, there is no way to check the existing data to confirm whether or not Philemon Lloyd obtained a license to continue tavern operations on the former Margaret Freeman property. It is unlikely that Lloyd, with his own house in Annapolis and his extensive business commitments on the Eastern Shore, actually resided in the former Freeman residence. It is equally unlikely that a man of affairs like Lloyd would have permitted any potential income producing venture to languish. In fact, the presence of tavern-related deposits from this period within the property boundaries suggests that exactly the opposite is true. Unfortunately, archival research has failed to identify the name of the person or persons who actually operated the establishment.
The history of Lot #48 through the remainder of the eighteenth century into the 19th reflects the succeeding subdivision and intensification of development of the former Freeman/Lloyd tract. In 1748, Lloyd’s heirs, Daniel and Henrietta (Lloyd) Dulaney, transferred Lot #48, which by that time contained at least two houses, to Henrietta and Edward Dorsey. The property subsequently was inherited by the Dorsey heirs, William and Mary Paca.
In 1773, Charles Wallace, a prominent Annapolis merchant and landowner, purchased a large portion of Lot #48 from William and Mary Paca. On the parcel immediately south of 18AP75, Wallace’s sister Mary Howard operated the famous Maryland Coffee House, a mid-eighteenth century tavern that hosted many important meetings and social activities. In a separate transaction, Wallace also purchased from the Pacas a 22 ft frontage “on Church Street above Wallace’s present land” (an apparent reference to the Coffee House property). This separate small parcel, which had a new brick building on it, probably included 18AP75. In 1811, Wallace sold at least the western part of this parcel to the City of Annapolis, which used the site for construction of a courthouse and fire station building. The much altered structure survives today and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
In 1827, Dr. Dennis Claude, who had purchased the Maryland Coffee House property, bought “part of Lot 48, beginning at the corner of the Engine House on Church Street, lying between the engine house and the present property of Dr. Claude” from the City of Annapolis. The dimensions of Claude’s purchase suggest that it may have been intended to provide access into the interior of his property on the adjoining Maryland Coffee House lot. The property undoubtedly incorporated a portion of 18AP75.
During the late 19th century, fire insurance maps show that the building at 18AP75 was a two-storey frame structure utilized as a printing office, perhaps for the Maryland Gazette. In 1889, Weems and Grafton purchased the property from the Claude estate. The new owners apparently demolished the old frame structure and replaced it with a brick building that still stands. The building initially housed a pharmacy, but by 1908, the Ridout family had established a department store in the structure. The excavation site in front of this building and in the adjacent alley (18AP75), thus has the potential to illustrate a variety of functions over a span of approximately 300 years.
The site was first examined archeologically in 1995 as part of cultural resource management investigations for the Main Street Reconstruction Project in Annapolis. The project entailed replacing existing utilities and repaving the sidewalks and street of Main Street Annapolis from Church Circle to Compromise Street. The City of Annapolis received state financial assistance for the project, making it subject to compliance with Article 83B, Section 5-617 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. Locations were chosen along the street for investigation based on the planned installation of several Electrical Man-hole (EMH) vaults which were the construction activities deemed most likely to impact previously undisturbed ground.
Eight test units of varying size were excavated at 18AP75, in the vicinity of planned EMH 1 as a part of this project. Test Unit 4 was a 1 X 2.5 m unit paralleling Main Street within the sidewalk area. Test Unit 5 was a 1 X 2.5 m unit abutting Test Unit 4 on the south side. Test Unit 6 was an 80 cm X 2.8 m unit placed west (uphill) of Test Unit 4. Test Unit 7 was a 1 X 1.96 m unit placed east (downhill) of Test Unit 4. Test Units 8 and 9 were placed farther downhill to test the location of a proposed electrical conduit leading out of EMH 1. Test Unit 8 was a 1.43 X 1.44 m unit placed west of Test Unit 7. Test Unit 8A was a 43 X 66 cm unit placed along the eastern wall of Test Unit 8. Test Unit 9 was a 1.06 X 1.34 m unit located 164 cm east of Test Unit 8. Test Unit 10 was a 50 X 64 cm unit located adjacent to Test Unit 9.
The street or sidewalk pavement and underlying concrete bed was removed mechanically in each unit. Units were then hand-excavated below the pavement. With the exception of Test Units 5-7, all units were excavated in 10 cm arbitrary levels within natural or cultural stratigraphic levels. Test Units 5-7 were excavated in 5 cm arbitrary levels within the natural or cultural stratigraphy. An excavation level form, including recordation of the datum location and elevation, depth of the stratum, excavation method, artifact content and density, the presence or absence of features, and appropriate soil descriptions, was completed for each level. All units and features were mapped, photographed, and recorded. Representative plans and profiles depicting stratigraphic sequences within the unit were drawn. Soil characteristics were described using standard soil nomenclature and color chart designations. All soils were screened through hardware cloth. A 1 liter sample of soil was taken from selected stratigraphic and cultural levels for flotation analysis. Samples of brick, mortar, charcoal, and oyster shell fragments were saved. All other non-modern cultural materials were collected.
The placement of the units at 18AP75 was determined initially based on the location for the planned EMH vault (Test Unit 4), but later to better define and excavate the remnant intact cultural deposit that was discovered there. This deposit included a large pit feature (Feature 4-05) and a smaller intrusive pit feature (Feature 4-04), both of which contained large quantities of 17th century to 18th century tavern-related artifacts. These features were located in Test Units 4, 5, 6, and 7. Test Units 8, 8A, 9, and 10 were placed west of the feature in an area that would be affected by conduits to the electrical man-hole in order to determine if the features or related deposits were present in that area as well.
These excavations revealed three major stratigraphic units in this location: the current sidewalk and its concrete bed, a shell/rubble layer directly under the concrete bed, and remnant natural soils. The shell and rubble layer appeared to date from the beginning of the 19th century and is hypothesized to represent a bed for the early sidewalk paving of Main Street. A similar deposit was found in previous excavations around Church Circle and along West Street. These also may be related to this early public works endeavor.
A remnant of the natural soil stratigraphy was present across the site in locations that had not been cut by features. These soils resembled a disturbed Collington soil (the type mapped for the area). Three strata were present in this remnant soil: the two upper strata may represent remnant B horizons, while the subsoil clearly fits the description of the C horizon of a Collington soil. A total of 22 features was identified in Test Units 4-10. These included five builders’ trenches for utilities/drains, ten posthole/postmolds, three unidentified fill episodes, one curbstone builder’s trench, one brick construction (a possible coal chute or window vent), and the two large refuse pits (Features 4-04 and 4-05).
Artifacts recovered from the site, with the exception of tavern refuse pit Features 4-04 and 4-05 included 10 activity items, 1,152 architectural artifacts, 12 furniture objects, 59 clothing items, 966 ceramic sherds, 4,534 other kitchen-related artifacts (mostly faunal remains), 261 personal items (includes tobacco pipe fragments), 5 arms objects, and 1,418 miscellaneous items. Within the assemblage were 1 Jackfield, 9 Staffordshire manganese-mottled, 4 Buckley, 9 North Devon gravel-tempered, 4 North Devon thin, 58 tin-enameled earthenware, 240 creamware, 121 pearlware, 46 early porcelain, 31 miscellaneous slipware, 67 redware, 2 whiteware, 26 white salt-glazed stoneware, 49 British brown stoneware, 9 Rhenish stoneware, 12 Westerwald stoneware, 1 Ralph Shaw stoneware, 8 unidentified imported gray stoneware, 1 miscellaneous stoneware, and 268 unidentified ceramic sherds.
Feature 4-04, the smaller refuse pit feature, produced 4 activity items (1 piece of hardware, 1 horseshoe, and 2 pieces of harness hardware), 347 architectural artifacts (23 brick fragments, 201 handwrought nails, 94 unidentifiable nails, 16 other pieces of hardware, 6 window glass fragments, 4 pieces of plaster, 2 mortar fragments, and a piece of concrete), 19 clothing items (a buckle and 18 straight pins), 5,127 kitchen-related artifacts, 2 arms artifacts (French gunflints), 357 tobacco pipe fragments, and 49 miscellaneous objects. The kitchen assemblage consisted of 329 ceramic sherds (including 75 North Devon, 157 tin-glazed earthenware, 1 creamware, 1 pearlware, 1 other refined earthenware, 4 redware, 8 miscellaneous slipware, 4 Chinese export porcelain, 2 white salt-glazed stoneware, 14 British Brown stoneware, 29 Rhenish stoneware, 5 Westerwald stoneware, 5 Hohr stoneware, and 23 other imported stoneware sherds), 33 mold-blown glass bottle fragments, 1,082 non-machine made bottle glass fragments, 38 pieces of table glass, 1,883 mammal or bird bones, 5 reptile bones, 587 fish bones, 80 pieces of oyster shell, 953 unidentified faunal objects, and 137 pieces of kitchen metal/utensils.
Feature 4-05, the larger refuse pit feature, produced 5 activity items (1 piece of fishing gear and 4 pieces of hardware), 294 architectural artifacts (59 brick fragments, 133 handwrought nails, 66 unidentified nails, 2 hardware objects, 1 piece of window glass, 1 piece of roofing slate, and 32 pieces of mortar), 6 clothing items (straight pins), 3,484 kitchen-related artifacts, 276 tobacco pipe fragments, 2 arms artifacts (1 English and 1 French gunflint), and 239 miscellaneous objects. The kitchen assemblage consisted of 104 ceramic sherds (18 North Devon, 36 tin-glazed earthenware, 1 creamware, 3 redware, 6 slipware, 3 white salt-glazed stoneware, 11 British brown stoneware, 1 Nottingham stoneware, 10 Rhenish stoneware, 7 Westerwald stoneware, and 1 other imported stoneware sherd), 7 mold blown glass bottle fragments, 831 non-machine made glass bottle fragments, 32 table glass fragments, 851 mammal bone fragments, 144 pieces of bird bone, 3 reptile bone pieces, 763 fish bones, 126 oyster shell fragments, 1 dog whelk shell, 8 pieces of eggshell, 1 mussel shell, 548 unidentifiable bone fragments, and 65 pieces of kitchen metal/utensils.
Defining the chronology of deposition for Features 4-04 and 4-05 is made difficult by a number of disturbances in the features that potentially have skewed the data. These disturbances include the later postholes, utility trenches, a large rodent burrow, and the overlying shell layer. Despite these disturbances, the features retain a great deal of integrity in the artifact assemblage. It is apparent from the physical relationship of the two features that Feature 4-05 was excavated first and thus predates Feature 4-04. Two scenarios seem possible. First, the lower part of Feature 4-05, with a mean ceramic date (MCD) of 1710/1711 and a terminus post quem (TPQ) of 1650, may represent an earlier deposit, while the remainder of Feature 4-05 and all of Feature 4-04 were deposited in a relatively short period of time around 1720. Second, it is possible that the upper portion of Feature 4-05 also dates from around 1700 and that the later MCD and TPQ here is skewed by the presence of white salt-glazed stoneware that has been introduced into the features by one of the many disturbances. In this case, Feature 4-05 would date from around 1700, and Feature 4-04 from around 1720.
Although the refuse pits at 18AP75 represented an isolated deposit that had been cut off from its larger context, the rich artifact assemblage present in the intact features could be used to address research issues of assemblage characteristics, functions, and public foodways at early 18th century taverns. Archival research revealed that this was the site of a tavern operated by John and Margaret Freeman, beginning in about 1697 until John Freeman’s death in 1708. After John’s death, Margaret Freeman married Philemon Lloyd II. Although archival records are unclear about the fate of the tavern after this period, it is unlikely that the Lloyds operated the tavern themselves. However, the archeological deposit suggests that the tavern continued to function during the first quarter of the 18th century.
Analysis of the Freeman tavern deposits and comparison to other tavern sites of the era reveals that the 18AP75 assemblage resembles urban taverns of the time period, but is quite dissimilar from rural taverns. The Freeman tavern appears to have functioned primarily as a meeting space, based on a preponderance of drinking vessels in the ceramic assemblage. But food service and consumption were also important activities. Food consumption and storage vessels comprised about 30% of the assemblage.
Additionally, large quantities of faunal remains were recovered. The Freeman’s tavern assemblage shared characteristics with other urban taverns such as: higher proportions of domestic mammals, low proportions of wild mammals, few reptile, and many more domestic birds than wild birds in the faunal assemblage. However, the Freeman material also shares some characteristics with the rural pattern, notably a low proportion of commensals and a high proportion of fish. The high proportion of fish may relate to seasonal deposition. Another interesting pattern was a high proportion of caprines (sheep/goat) present in the faunal assemblage, young livestock, and the head skeletal components of animals when compared to contemporaneous sites. In early 18th century Annapolis, young animals and animal heads were high status foods. A sheep’s head was twice the price of a pound of mutton. Perhaps the best way to interpret the assemblage from Feature 4-04 and 4-05 is as a reflection of the Freeman’s attempt to present a high class table: an emphasis on lamb, veal, sheep heads, headless and footless chickens, and fish selectively purchased at the town dock.
Excavations at 18AP75 revealed historically significant, intact deposits and cultural features. The assemblages recovered from the site are capable of addressing research questions related to late 17th and early 18th century Annapolis, and specifically related to tavern operations. While the resource was significant, data recovery was required to mitigate the impact of the downtown project and much of the intact tavern-related features had to be excavated. The presence/absence of additional resources related to the tavern is not known as excavation was restricted largely to the near vicinity of the EMH vault installation.
|
