Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18BA332 Tenant House
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Tenant House Site (18BA332), also known as the “Dolfield Black Tenant House Site” and the “Mack Tenant House Site”, was occupied from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. During the first half of the 20th century the tenants were African American. The site is located within the Red Run drainage, just southwest of Owings Mills, in Baltimore County, Maryland. It is situated on the outer part of a gently sloping to level west-facing ridge overlooking the upper part of a Red Run tributary and wetland. The site consists of a house foundation and the remains of two outbuildings. It is located about 750 meters south of the Dolfield summer house complex (18BA330). An old roadway runs north-south on the west side of the house foundation. The soil at the site is Baile silt loam.
In 1859, Frederick Dolfield purchased a 160 acre tract of land. Dolfield, originally a cooper, worked the land as a farmer. The 1876 Tax Assessment showed that structures on the land consisted of a frame dwelling, corn house, stable and a tenant house (probably Site 18BA331) which appears on maps from that time period. The McClure family was depicted at this location on maps dated from 1877 to 1915. The Moser family is thought to have lived in that house, as estate caretaker’s, during the latter part of the Dolfield ownership. Site 18BA332, a second tenant house on the property, was not listed on the tax record nor on maps but may also have dated from this time period. Frederick Dolfield’s son, Alexander, grew up to become a successful banker.
Alexander built the Dolfield summer house (see synopsis report for 18BA330) in the 1880s. It was a Victorian three-story structure used as a vacation home. Alexander Dolfield died in 1918, at which time probate proceedings divided the estate amongst a number of heirs. Those heirs transferred title of the property over to Dolfield’s son, Frederick A. Dolfield. The 1923 tax records showed that F. A. Dolfield owned 200 acres containing a dwelling, barn, other buildings and houses, and a corn crib. The dwelling, barn and one of the houses are thought to relate to Sites 18BA330 and 18BA330a. One of the other house sites mentioned is Site 18BA331 and the black tenant house is 18BA332. This is the earliest specific mention of the black tenant house in the historic record. It is believed that the Dolfield summer house was destroyed by fire sometime in the 1940s. In 1951, the property was sold to one-time caretaker Raymond Moser. F. A. Dolfield died a few years later. During the Dolfield ownership, several black and white families squatted on the Dolfield property and adjacent properties. These families lived on the western side of the property and were engaged as chrome miners. Several of the structures in which these families lived burned down. The Moser family never took up residence in the summer house, prior to its destruction. Finally in 1986, the Dolfield/Moser property was acquired by a local developer in Owings Mills.
The tenant house site at 18BA332 was first mentioned in the 1923 Baltimore County Tax list of District 2. However, there was an 1850s farmstead illustrated in the general vicinity and could be located at or near the site. The structure first appeared on a USGS map in 1944 and on topographic maps in 1953. No description of the building was given in the files of a 1964/65 equity court case involving the property on which the site is located. Therefore, it is believed that the site was abandoned sometime between 1953 and 1964. This date range is consistent with the artifact assemblage that would ultimately be recovered from around the structure. The family who lived at the site was identified as Wesley and Mary Mack (a gardener and a housekeeper) in the court files. They reportedly moved onto the Dolfield farm from a nearby log cabin in the early part of the 20th century. An informant indicated that the Macks on occasion would bring home chipped or cracked crystal and ceramic pieces given to them by their employers. No other historical information is known about the tenant house or its occupants.
In the 1980s, Baltimore County set up the Owings Mills Growth Area wherein areas were specified for either residential or commercial development. The Lakeside Development was a 432 acre residential development within the Growth Area. To facilitate the building of the development, the land owner was to fund the construction of the extension of two roads, which would cross over Red Run and its tributaries. In order to obtain the permits for the road construction, the developer was required to conduct a preliminary archeological and structural survey of the entire project area. The Phase I reconnaissance survey was divided into 2 stages of work: Stage 1 consisted of the survey of the proposed road alignments and ca. 150 acres of the development slated for construction in 1988 and Stage 2 consisted of the survey of the remaining 282 acres during the spring of 1988 while construction began in the Stage 1 area.
Stage 1 fieldwork was conducted during the winter of 1987 and halted in December due to cold conditions. The Phase I survey strategy entailed testing all geologic formations and all environmental zones within the Lakeside project area. The center line of the two proposed road alignments served as the north-south and east-west grid lines for the shovel testing program in the 150 acre Stage 1 area. A total of 135 shovel test pits (STPs) were excavated on slopes of less than 15%. On slopes greater than 15%, instead of digging an STP, a two m² area was raked, first to remove the overburden then to break the ground a few inches below surface in order to locate any materials near the surface. In areas where artifacts were present, one meter test squares were opened up.
During the 1987 survey, Site 18BA332 was determined to be indirectly affected by the construction of the roadways related to the residential construction. Therefore, an extensive survey and recordation of the site was undertaken. Several features were obvious including the stone foundation (see above) and concrete steps up to a porch, ruins of 2 outbuildings and an old road bed that went between the backyard of the house and the outbuildings. The backyard contained a shed, chicken coop, and privy. West of the shed and along the slope there was a dump site. Artifacts noted on the surface of the dump indicated that it was in use during the 1940s and 1950s. Twelve STPs were dug on either side of the main house, 6 on the east side and 6 on the west side.
A total of 64 historic artifacts were collected during the Phase I survey. In all, 28 architectural items were recovered including 7 brick fragments, 13 window glass/flat glass shards, 6 cut nails, 1 wire nail, and an iron door hinge. There were 16 kitchen-related artifacts in the collection including 8 bottle/container glass shards, 1 table glass shard, and 7 ceramic sherds (1 ironstone, 1 yellowware, 1 whiteware, 3 coarse redware, 1 unidentified). The personal group of materials consisted only of 10 white ceramic figurine fragments. A single brown glazed molded stoneware pipe bowl fragment made up the tobacco group. The 9 miscellaneous objects consisted of 4 unidentified glass fragments, 1 piece of coal and 4 unidentified lithics/rocks. The only prehistoric artifact identified was a quartz flake.
The area of the Tenant House Site was slated for development during later development phases of the Stage 1 area. It appeared, at the time, that the tenant house had been built in the second quarter of the 20th century and abandoned sometime between 1953 and 1964. Due to the late date of the site, and because of the presence of earlier structures elsewhere in the study area, the investigators recommended no additional testing for Site 18BA332.
A Phase I/II archeological testing program was undertaken within the Owings Mills New Town project area from March through June of 1989. Additional research had been requested by the Maryland Historical Trust for a portion of the Stage 1 area of the residential development project, as well as new investigations in the southern part of the section and in a Wetland Mitigation Exchange Area east of the Stage 1 section. The housing developer was initiating their construction phase at this time.
The 1989 Phase I work related to Site 18BA332 consisted of a site visit and a review of the earlier work done at the site. Additional background research was also required by MHT. Phase II fieldwork included the excavation of an additional 55 STPs and of two 1.5 m² test units. Grid north was used at the site, which was almost precisely magnetic south. It was determined that the house had burned intact with all or most of the occupant’s possessions inside. Excavation on the interior of the foundation revealed an intense concentration of artifactual material. Due to the high frequency of materials, artifact recovery was restricted basically to temporal, functional, and socioeconomic diagnostic types. The stone house foundation measured 13.5 x 4.5 meters and was constructed with sand mortar. The foundation extended to nearly 1 meter below the ground surface, which suggested that the building was either 1.5 or two-stories tall. Each end of the structure appeared to have had a brick fireplace. A concrete and cement capped stone addition on the east side of the house was probably at one time a front porch. Other additions that were apparently made to the structure were represented by a stone foundation that adjoined to the grid-south end of the original structure, and a concrete slab floor attached to the grid-west side of the original structure. A collapsed frame building to the grid-west of the foundation is a demolished privy enclosure.
Examination of the building remains suggested to the 1989 investigators that the structure at 18BA332 was built similarly to the structures identified at 18BA330 and 18BA331, both of which date to the 19th century. The architectural evidence combined with the identification of 19th century ceramic types in the assemblage, and the identification of siding common from the turn of the century to the 1940s, suggested that the site probably predates the 20th century. If this was determined to be a mid-19th century site, then it would represent one of the first farms in the area and could reflect the socioeconomic practices of tenants, during the Dolfield residence and ownership. Evaluating this site in combination with the Dolfield summer house (18BA330) and the farmer/caretaker’s house (18BA330a) would allow for the examination of socioeconomic practices as they were carried by people of different socioeconomic backgrounds.
There was no listing of artifacts recovered from the site within the text or in an associated appendix. There was a discussion of artifact patterning identified at the site as a result of the investigations, and a complete count of all artifacts came up with a total of 1,678 item recovered during Phase II operations. The main 19th century artifact scatter was found in the yard area west of the house. Fragments of bottle glass and pearlware, yellowware, redware, and annular whiteware sherds were identified in the assemblage. The artifacts were recovered from the interface of the topsoil and subsoil and 10 cm into the subsoil. Several sherds of whiteware and a few sherds of gray salt-glazed stoneware were recovered from the unit excavated adjacent to the foundation, and porcelain sherds and a pipe stem fragment were found inside the foundation. Some of the higher socioeconomic ware types may have arrived at the site in the form of gifts given to the inhabitants by their wealthier employers, or the occupants at 18BA332 may have shared the status level themselves. Later artifacts found at the site included an electric toaster (even though the structure reportedly had no electricity) and electrical hardware. These artifact quantities were estimated and recorded in the table above as 3 activity items (the toaster and hardware), 5 bottle glass fragments, 40 ceramic sherds (5 pearlware, 15 whiteware, 5 porcelain, 15 unidentified) and 1 tobacco-related item (a pipe stem fragment). All other artifacts are recorded as simply “miscellaneous items” in the table above, since the full site report does not provide sufficient detail.
The site was found to contain data that might have significant research value. Socioeconomic practices of the later 19th century and from the early part of the 20th century were represented. The ethnic and racial origins of the 19th century occupants are not known, but in the 20th century the site was inhabited by an African American family. Because the site appeared to retain subsurface integrity, important information regarding the different behavioral practices (and socioeconomic stratification) between these periods of occupation was deemed possible. As the site area was to be severely impacted by the proposed construction and avoidance was not feasible, a data recovery program was recommended.
Phase III data recovery operations focused on securing architectural, land-use, material cultural, and dietary information from the site and relating the data to questions concerning social, economic, and ethnic practices. The goal of the Phase III intensive recovery was to obtain a representative sample of the site’s cultural record and in doing so, preserve a record of the information as an adverse impact mitigative action. Other general research goals were the interpretation of site-specific and inter-site variability (such as history, settlement, ethnicity, diet, and socioeconomic practices) and hypotheses creation and testing. Data recovery was carried out from late October through late November 1989.
Phase III data recovery entailed topsoil stripping followed by the excavation of 1 X 1 m test units and features. Topsoil stripping (by the use of a Bobcat) was mainly concentrated in the rear of the house, with a much more limited amount of work on the east and north sides of the house foundation. A total of 146 square meters of topsoil was stripped, 14 excavation units were dug, and additions and further explorations of two previously excavated units started during the Phase II study were carried out. Excavation units were concentrated primarily on the interior of the house and the rear yard area on and above the west ridge. One unit was placed on the south end of the foundation exterior. Features, when identified, were mapped, photographed, and then excavated. Features were excavated by revealing a cross-section profile for study and classification as to purpose. Then, the remaining cross-section was profiled and photographed, then removed and screened through hardware cloth.
It was decided to give particular attention to the immediate area around features, particularly privies, because of the low artifact recovery for nearby sites due to the use of drawer-type privies. Excavation with a backhoe outside and adjoining probable privies revealed that they were indeed privies, and of the “shaft” type. However, concern was still held that artifact recovery might be low in frequency. For this reason, the general “privy area” was stripped, to expose areas immediately around the privies which could be directly related to these features. Upon stripping of the privy area (located on a terrace on the ridge west of the foundations) extensive cleaning by the use of flat shoveling and troweling was conducted in order to expose privy shafts and trash pits. In order to obtain information concerning area use during different time periods, excavation units were placed systematically in the area of the privies, since a tremendous amount of artifacts were observed. In some units, 10 cm levels were excavated within natural/cultural layers to obtain temporal stratification.
Another area, just northeast of the privy area, was stripped because of green vegetation observed growing in the area. Since large concentrations of artifacts were observed in the area that dated to the exclusively to the 20th century, an excavation unit was placed in the southwest corner of the stripped area in order to define temporal stratification, as was done in the privy area.
Feature numbers were assigned to privy shafts and areas defined as separate trash dumps that existed during a given time period. Some stripping was conducted on the north end of the site in order to locate possible wells. Also stripped was an area along the exterior east wall of the house foundation in order to define the boundaries of a rock feature discovered in an excavation unit during the Phase II.
A total of seven features were identified during the course of the data recovery project. Feature 1 was located at the northern end of the house interior and appeared to be the primary remains from a cabinet or hutch felled by the fire that destroyed the house. Many of the ceramic artifacts were still intact or only partially fragmented. Feature 2 was a shallow basin approximately 1 m in diameter, with a relatively flat bottom extending to around 40 cm in depth. The upper 16 cm contained wood remains which may have been a wood lining, but otherwise no artifacts were recovered in or near the feature. Feature 3 was an apparent privy, approximately 1.7 m across, and containing a wide array of artifacts types. Feature 4 was identified as a trash deposit during stripping of the topsoil. During excavation, a separate feature number (Feature 7 – see below) was given to the east area adjoining Feature 4. It was initially thought these deposits were older, but subsequent analysis of artifacts suggests that Features 4 and 7 are of the same deposit. The Feature 4 trash deposit measured 7 m east-west, 5 m north-south and extended 20 cm into the subsoil surface. Stripping on the slope revealed Feature 5, a trash deposit below the topsoil, which was roughly squarish in form and measured 2 m north-south by 4 m east-west. Feature 6 was eventually determined to be a rodent burrow. And finally, Feature 7 was a trash deposit area located on the side of the slope in the outer area of the rear yard. It was determined to be the same deposit as Feature 4.
Exact artifact counts are not provided in the body of the text in the full site report. Some artifact classes receive tallies, while others are only mentioned as being present. The amounts provided here and in the tables above are, thus, minimal estimates based on the data available. The Phase III assemblage included 37 activity items, 1,155 architectural artifacts, 107 clothing items, 11 furniture objects, 1,500 kitchen-related artifacts, 29 personal items, 6 tobacco-related artifacts, 2 arms objects, 2,923 miscellaneous historic objects, and 7 prehistoric items.
The activity items included at least 7 toys (a plastic doll’s head, 2 porcelain doll’s heads, 2 ceramic marbles, 1 other marble, and a metal toy animal), 8 lighting objects (a lamp shade fragment, a brass lamp part, 6 pieces of lamp glass), 8 tools (a rat tail file, a pair of needle-nosed pliers, a box wrench, a hoe, an auger bit, a garden cultivator part, a small hand pick, and a small hand paper punch), a porcelain electrical insulator (this is likely present due to repair activities at 18BA330 as the tenant house was not electrified), 2 locks/lock parts, 9 redware flowerpot sherds, a pre-WWII Ford hubcap, and a horseshoe. The architectural artifacts were 64 pieces of window glass, 4 pieces of window screen, 307 nails (156 cut, 120 wire, and 31 unidentified), 15 other hardware items (a tack, a spike, 2 staples, a hinge, 3 woodscrews, 2 bolts, a hasp, a piece of door/window hardware, and 3 unidentified hardware objects), a ceramic wall tile, a gas fixture, 8 ceramic sewer pipe fragments, and 755 architectural items otherwise unidentified in the text of the full report. The clothing items include 39 buttons (22 glass, 2 leather, 8 shell, 7 metal), 2 fastener snaps, 2 shirt studs, 51 shoe pieces (3 shoe grommets, 39 pieces of shoe leather, 9 other parts), 3 clothing grommets, 3 leather fragments, a celluloid garter, 3 belt buckles, a thimble, and 2 other objects. The furniture items consisted of 6 drawer/cabinet pulls, 2 picture frame parts, 2 clock parts, and a caster. The kitchen assemblage included 1,115 ceramic sherds (132 porcelain, 9 vitreous china, 833 whiteware, 31 yelloware, 33 redware, and 77 miscellaneous stoneware), 275 glass fragments (14 table glass, 70 miscellaneous jar fragments, and 191 other bottle glass shards), 10 metal dish fragments, 3 spoons, 2 forks, 3 knife fragments, a nut cracker, 4 metal cooking pot fragments, 48 faunal remains (35 animal bones, a clam shell, and 12 oyster shell fragments), and 39 floral remains (6 peach pits, 1 plum pit, 9 hazelnut fragments, 8 walnut fragments, and 15 unidentified nut fragments). The personal items include 4 keys, a key ring, a briefcase lock, a Parian vase fragment, 2 porcelain vase fragments, 2 chamberpot fragments, a mirror fragment, a cosmetic compact, a cosmetic jar piece, a woman’s watch part, 3 jewelry parts, 2 tortoise shell hair combs, 2 unidentified coins and tokens, 2 burned pennies, 2 whiteware figurine fragments, a porcelain figurine fragment, a Parian figurine fragment, and a bone toothbrush. Tobacco-related artifacts include a reed-stemmed pipe, 4 white clay pipe bowl pieces, and a cigarette lighter case. Arms items were a brass cartridge and a shotgun shell. The miscellaneous historic objects were an unidentified piece of glass and 2,922 items not classified in the text of the full archeological report. The only prehistoric artifacts encountered were 6 quartz flakes and a possible pestle.
The tenant residence, 18BA332, was organized around the house, which was connected to transportation by an earthen road that terminated at the front of the residence. The support structures, chicken coop, and privies were located in the middle and outer parts of the rear yard. No well for fresh water was found in the vicinity of the house. Because of this, it has been estimated that water was either carried for storage at the house from other sources on the Dolfield property or the occupants utilized the stream located in the valley behind the house. This was the only house on the Dolfield property that did not have a recognizable source of fresh water. This may be a possible indicator of the lower socioeconomic status of the site’s inhabitants relative to surrounding properties.
Refuse disposal from the daily occupation of the house was basically over-the-bank discard, which resulted in the build-up of waste materials in the outer part of the rear yard. There were no trash “pits” present. A substantial frequency of refuse was also found in all yard areas around the house, which indicates that value was not placed on keeping such areas free from refuse materials. All forms of waste material were found, including food remains. Poultry were also kept in the yard areas. This was the only site on the property where inhabitants utilized a shaft privy rather than drawer-type privies, suggesting there was less concern with removing odorous waste from the living space. These patterns were only observed at 18BA332, and not at the other sites. Again, they have been interpreted to reflect a low economic attribute.
The assemblage of materials from within the structure actually included a large number of high-status ceramic and glass items. The items were present in quantities not sufficiently different from those observed at the other Dolfield sites. The assemblages outside the residence were more utilitarian in nature, suggesting that cheap pieces were not highly valued and were discarded, while porcelain, crystal ware, etc. were curated by the residents. The distribution would be puzzling if not for the documented account of local informants, who stated that Mrs. Mack was often gifted second-hand pieces from the wealthy property owners, the Dolfields. Otherwise such an assemblage would typically be interpreted as an expression of wealth. Such curation has, however, been attributed in other studies to practices maintained by black families. Thus, it is one of the few evidences for ethnic identify recovered from the site.
The Dolfield Black Tenant House Site (18BA332), was apparently occupied from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. Little was documented concerning the earlier phase of its occupation, but some evidence was recovered (both archival and archeological) that the tenants of the frist half of the 20th century were African Americans of relatively low socioeconomic status. Most of the site was significantly altered following Phase III data recovery. The site has no remaining research potential beyond the work that has already been completed.
|
