Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH354 Bateman
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Bateman Site (18CH354) is primarily the archeological remains associated with a plantation house on the south side of Swan Point Neck in Charles County. The site is associated with the Wollaston Manor estate owned and operated by the Neale family and this particular dwelling was built sometime between the late 17th and early 18th century and occupied until possibly as late as 1780. A Late Woodland lithic scatter is also present at the site. The site is situated on level, forested ground within a floodplain terrain fronting the Potomac River. This wooded setting is both mixed and mature. The floral cover is dominated by oaks, sweet gum, holly, and other tree species with the most mature hardwoods exceeding 100 years. As is typical of floodplain settings, the topography surrounding Site 18CH354 is extremely flat as well. Soils at the site are primarily Liverpool silt loams.
The history of ownership of the land containing the Bateman Site begins with a 1642 land grant of 2,000 acres by Lord Baltimore to one James Neale (or Neal). Neale was born sometime in the year 1615 and was the son of Raphael Neale and Jane Forman of Drury Lane, London. At the time of Maryland’s founding in 1634, Neale was 17 years old and too young to own his own property or travel with Leonard Calvert and the first group of colonists on the Ark and the Dove. By the time he was 21 years old, however, around 1637, he established himself as a trader and set sail for Maryland, along with 5 servants, John Court, Francis Pope, James Longworth, William King, and Thomas Denier. The first mention of Neale in colonial records occurred in 1638, when under the request of Commissioner Jerome Hawley, he became a barter agent with the local native groups. This appeared to have been his primary role throughout the earlier years of the settlement period.
The next reference to Neale in historical documents was in 1641, when he both petitioned for and received a 1,000 acre tract of land from Lord Baltimore. The petition for this land was made in lieu of his transportation, along with five additional servants, to the Colony. That same year, Neale turned around and issued the acreage to Thomas Hebdon, giving up all claim and title to that property.
The reasoning behind this action remains unclear, however, in the following year of 1642 Neale once again received acreage from Lord Baltimore. This time, “James Neale, Gent., demandeth 2,000 acres of Land by Special Warrant from his Lordship”. By the 1640s, Lord Baltimore was only granting 1,000 acre tracts to the so-called “adventurers”, as opposed to the 2,000 acres ten years earlier. Despite this change, 2,000 acres was granted to Neale, which he referred to as “Wollaston Manor”, named after his family home in England. Lord Baltimore wrote to his brother Leonard in 1642 stating that he was to grant, “to James Neale, Gent., 2,000 acres to be created into a Manor with such and the like liberties, priveledges and immunities as one usually Granted to other Adventurers and undertakers”. Neale was granted this land for the service he previously and was then providing to the Colony. The legal description of Wollaston Manor provided in the early colonial records would have included Site 18CH354.
Questions have arisen regarding why Neale received the 2,000 acres instead of the 1,000 acres everyone else received. It is thought that Cecil Calvert and James Neale already had an established friendship back in England. It is believed that because Neale was too young to travel on the Ark or Dove, the 2,000 acres was previously promised to him.
Without the Lord Proprieter in the Colonies to look after his own interests, Cecil Calvert found it necessary to appoint a council to look after such affairs. Neale was one such individual to be appointed to the Council. As a council member, Neale acted as delegate and often was required to run missions for both Lord Baltimore and Governor Calvert. Both the Colony of Maryland and role Neale played in the colony remained virtually untouched for the first few years of the settlement. Late in 1643, however, an event occurred that threatened the very foundations of Maryland.
In the Fall of 1643, an individual by the name of Richard Ingle, a Cromwell supporter who was strongly against King Charles I, returned to Maryland with the intention of civil and religious unrest. For the first 9 years of settlement, Lord Baltimore had done his best to keep the religious strife that had swept across Europe out of Maryland. During his trip to Maryland, Ingle claimed that the “King was no king”, and was accordingly charged with treason and held by then acting Governor Giles Brent. Several members on the Council, including Neale, argued for the return of Ingle to his ship, “The Reformation”, with the view that his case would not hold up in court. Once he returned to his ship, however, he quickly made an escape beck to England. Those who were accused of arguing for the release of Ingle were suspended from Conucil, but Neale, who soon pleaded his case, was able to return.
Two years later, in 1645, Ingle returned with every intention of revenge against the Proprietary, Catholicism, and the Crown. In an attack known as Ingle’s Rebellion, Ingle and his men destroyed the Colony and the Proprietorship. During that time, 300 settlers evacuated the Colony, including Governor Calvert and James Neale. That same year, it is believed that James Neale married Anne Gill, daughter of Benjamin Gill, who also resided in Maryland. Soon thereafter they fled to either Spain or Portugal and resided there over the next fifteen years. In Europe, Neale was engaged in both commerce and political affairs, and acted as representative to both King Charles I and the Duke of York, although the actual relationship to the king remains unclear.
During their occupation in Europe, Neale’s father-in-law, Benjamin, served as their estate representative and executor. At that time the estate was known as “Wollaston Manor” and was actively farmed for tobacco. Neale had several servants working his land while he was away. Whether or not these servants actually lived in quarters on the 2,000-acre estate is unknown, but it is highly probable. Upon Gill’s death in 1654, Robert Cole, a neighboring planter, claimed himself as next of kin. Neale did not receive news of his father-in-law’s death for four years and, in 1658, he petitioned the Proprietor for help once again.
In his petition, Neale asked for assistance to, “recover what may bee of his estate, as allso my Land…and preserve it in the best manner that may bee, for my use, or the use of my wife and children and let no any thing be sould or diminished till further order from mee”. Neale had quickly claimed his intent to return to Maryland as soon as possible, along with his wife and his three children, Henrietta, James, and Dorothy, and what would later be newborn Anthony. The Maryland per se, which Neale returned to, however, was not the same place that they had left fifteen years prior. Religious strife severely limited the colony, and the proprietor’s rule was constantly overturned by groups of dissonant Protestants. Religion, along with turmoil from the English civil wars, economic depressions, higher food prices and labor shortages caused many to leave the colony and create a different environment altogether. The proprietary changed as well, for with the death of the 2nd Lord Calvert 12 years prior, his brother, Benedict, became the 3rd Lord Baltimore.
Despite all these changes, the Neale family returned at a fairly stable period in Colonial history, for the restoration of the Crown of England occurred with the coronation of Charles II. On March 7, 1659, Lord Baltimore issued the following decree, inviting Neale back to Maryland and allowing him to reclaim the lands he had left 15 years prior. The letter from Lord Baltimore proclaimed the following: “Whereas Captaine James Neale hath formerly beene an Inhabitant in Maryland, But upon certaine occasions of his Owne hath bene absent some yeares from thence, and is now Desirous to retourne thither againe with his family there to Reside knowe yee that wee doe hereby give him free Liberty There to inhabit and to posess any lands as he hath right into Or can lawfully clayme.”
As soon as the family settled in Maryland, James Neale drew up a contract with Francis West to build a house for his family on the land of Wollaston Manor. On July 22, 1661, the contract read as follows: “It is condiconed & agreed betweene James Neale, Esqr of the one party Franci West of ye other party as followeth, ye said Francis West doth hereby promise and oblige himself to build for ye said James Neale on his plantacon on Wollaston Manor one house of forty foot long & twenty foote wide framed worke to bee nine foot between ye groundsill & Wall plage & all ye groundsills to bee of Locust wood ye lower part to bee divided into five Roomes with two chimnies below & one small chimney above and build on to it a porch ten foote long & eight foote wide ye Loft to bee layed with sawed wood And to build two Dormer windowes above & other window at ye end of ye left And to point all Windowes & Dores below Stayres & all Completely finished except ye covering & weather boarding…”
Neale’s home, also called “Wollaston Manor”, was not the typical post-in-ground structure that had characterized the 17th century Chesapeake, rather it was laid upon groundsills. The very fact that the house consisted of five rooms suggested that Neale was wealthy, even though during the mid-to-late 17th century socio-economic standing was not as pertinent in society. That same year, in 1660, Lord Baltimore chose Neale to serve as representative in Amsterdam, with the duty of protesting the settlement of the Dutch and Swedes in the Delaware Valley. Upon his return from overseas on July 20, 1660, Lord Baltimore granted Neale the title of Captain and issued his “Trusty and well beleved Captaine James Neale” to serve as “commander in Chiefe” in the colonies to further protect Maryland and the Delaware Valley from the settlement of the Dutch. Not wanting to start war with Holland, this mission was quickly abandoned.
Five years later, between 1665 and 1666, Neale petitioned for the naturalization of his four children, Henrietta Marie, James Jr., Dorothy, and Anthony, all whom were born abroad. This ordinance would allow the children to have all natural born rights as citizens of Maryland, including the right to own, inherit, and bequeath property to their own heirs. The Neale children thus became the first naturalized citizens of Maryland.
Over the course of the following twenty years, Captain James Neale remained active in local Maryland politics. Given his heavy involvement with both the establishment of the colony, the protection against religious and political strife, and political guidance in its early years, Neale should be claimed one of the most significant players in early Maryland and Charles County history. By 1680, James Neale was sixty-five years old. That year, James Neale, Sr., deeded to his eldest son, James, Jr., one-half interest in Wollaston Manor, with full manorial rights, made legal when he married his first wife, Elizabeth Calvert, granddaughter of former Governor Leonard Calvert. By this deed, James Neale, Jr., became the subsequent Lord of Wollaston Manor, including the mansion house.
The following years, James Neale, Sr., deeded the remaining one-half interest in Wollaston Manor to his second eldest son, Anthony, pending his marriage to Elizabeth Roswell, the daughter of another prominent Charles County family. In 1683, Neale’s last official appointment recorded in Charles County records was the appointment to establish and lay out towns throughout Charles County. Unfortunately, this appointment did not last long, for Neale passed away the following year.
Captain James Neale, Sr., left behind a wife, Anne Gill Neale, and five grown children, all of whom were matched successfully and married. Maryland Provincial Wills and Testaments listed the will of Captain James Neale, dated 1684. In this will, Neale, Sr. reaffirms his bequest to his sons James, Jr., and Anthony, all those “tracts of Land, negroes, chattel and chattels which I have formerly given to them and their heirs”.
At the time of his death, it is believed that both James, Jr., and Anthony, and most likely their wives, lived at Wollaston Manor. Not soon thereafter, however, in 1704, Anthony Neale was listed as obtaining a 1,000 acre parcel of land to the North of Wollaston Manor, formerly known as White’s Ford, which he later renamed “Aquinsicke”. There, Anthony established one of the largest plantations in Charles County, where he resided with his family in a small house consisting of two rooms and an upstairs loft. Despite the estate being worth over 1,100 pounds sterling, it was believed that the Neale’s all lived modestly despite their wealth.
After James, Sr.’s death in 1684, it is probable that his widow, Anne, continued to live in the plantation house at Wollaston Manor with her son, James, and his first wife, Elizabeth Calvert. James and his wife Elizabeth had one daughter who they named Mary. By 1687, James Neale, Jr., was listed as having a second wife, whose name was Elizabeth Lord. It can be surmised that his first wife prematurely died and that James quickly remarried. By his second wife, James bore seven additional children. The eldest was also named James, who was born in 1694.
Widow Anne Neale passed away right before the turn of the century, in 1698. In that same year, she left behind a Last Will and Testament leaving all of her personal property to her children. In her will, Anne bequests to James her, “large silver Tankard and smaller silver scallopt punch bowle…” and to her son Anthony, her “large silver scallop punch bowle, [her] silver plate, silver porringer, large silver cup, [her] silver caudel cup, and [her] silver solt and peper box of silver…” Anne’s will subsequently listed items to be received by each of her children and various grandchildren, including tobacco, furniture, silver, livestock, and slaves. Based on this account, Anne Neale appeared to be fairly wealthy in late 17th century standards. Her total wealth was estimated to be 154 pounds which indicated her place in the upper economic tier during the late 17th century. After her death, her eldest son James, who already inherited the title “Lord of Wollaston Manor”, lived in the plantation house with his second wife, Elizabeth, and their small children. While no records were recovered as to the occupation of James Neale, Jr., it was likely that he was a planter.
James Neale, Jr., was a first-generation Creole, having inherited his wealth as opposed to earning his wealth. Around the time of the turn of the century, it was highly probable that the original Wollaston Manor home, made of locust wood, survived no longer than 40 years. Most earthfast, impermanent structures only lasted 25 years at most in the Chesapeake environment. Whether James Neale, Jr., still occupied the original wooden frame structure is unknown. The next reference to the house itself was in 1716, in a deed between James, Jr., and his son, also named James (the 3rd).
James Neale the 3rd was born in 1694 to his father and mother, Jane Boarman. He previously married a woman named Elizabeth, with whom he had one daughter, also Elizabeth. James was the eldest son of both marriages and was therefore likely to inherit the Lordship and title to Wollaston Manor. However, James received title to the land well before his father’s death, when he was 22 years old. In the 1716 deed, James, Jr., gave his son, James (the 3rd), out of love and consideration, all title to the 1,000 acre estate, including, “the Mansion house of the said James Neale Senior now stands”.
Referring to the “Mansion House”, it was quite probable that James Neale, Jr. rebuilt the family home, after the original structure had fallen into disrepair. Change, however, had been occurring rapidly throughout the Chesapeake region. Society was becoming more stable and the economy relying more heavily on a diverse method of agriculture as opposed to one cash crop. Because of these societal changes, planters and farmers began replacing the impermanent earth-fast structures of the generation before with permanent dwellings made of all brick or brick with timber framing.
James, Jr., died a decade later, around 1725, and left both a Last Will and Testament and extensive inventory account of his estate. His wife, Elizabeth died 7 years later, in 1734, and also left a detailed probate of her estate, much of which echoed her husband’s property. In 1727, James Neale, Jr.’s probate was listed as head of household, with an estate worth 304 pounds, indicating that he was (for the time) quite wealthy. James had nearly double the livestock that his mother Anne had at the time of her death. By the first two decade of the 18th century, the Neale’s had adjusted to a life of comfort as opposed to adaptation.
Signs of consumerism were evident throughout the probate inventories. More furniture was present, including six feather beds and 16 chairs. Signs of wealth included both capital and consumable property, and the probate listed items such as a parcel of books, a looking glass, several items of silver, and slaves. Other items, such as planter’s tools and a spinning wheel were suggestive of the Neale’s involvement within the local economy. Elizabeth Neale’s inventory reflected much on her late husband’s wealth, the only major differences being the addition of several slaves. The increased evidence of both moveable and capital property indicates a need for more space. Thus it is quite probable that by the first 2 decades of the 18th century, a new, larger, Neale dwelling needed to be constructed and was soon occupied. Site 18CH354 may have been the site of a newer, larger Neale family manor house.
James Neale (the 3rd) did not long survive his father, for a will was recorded for him 5 years later in 1730. James (the 3rd) died at an early age of 36 years, with the reason for his death unknown. He married twice and had four children between those two marriages. The Last Will and Testament of James Neale (the 3rd) listed his son James (the 4th) as having all “Right and Title of Woleston Manor”, including all lands he currently owned. James (the 4th) was to receive this title when he turned 21 years old, indicating that he was still a minor in 1730. The will also mentioned James’ (the 3rd) second wife, Jane Boarman, who likely still lived as and had the right to remain for the duration of her life at the manor house.
What transpired over the next 20 years is rather unclear. In Neale family genealogy, neither James (the 4th) or his 3 sisters are listed as married or having heirs, which suggests that they all died intestate at dates unknown. What happened to the manor house between 1730 and 1755 is unclear. In James’ (the 3rd) will he instructs that if his son James were to die before coming of age, then his daughters Jane and Mary Ann should inherit the manor and land. Later evidence suggests that both died intestate.
The next reference to the Wollaston Manor property was in 1745, in the Last Will and Testament of Raphael Neale, son of Anthony Neale (who was the younger brother of James, Jr.). Raphael, by this time, had inherited the second half-interest in the original 2,000 acres from his father, Anthony. During the early 18th century, Raphael Neale established a fairly large plantation and plantation house within his 1,000 acre parcel. In his probate inventory, recorded in 1745, Raphael’s estate was listed as being worth 1,307 pounds, placing him as one of the wealthiest men in Charles County.
The probate of Raphael Neale inventories all of his personal and real estate by room, suggesting that the mansion house consisted of at least 7 rooms. The inventory also listed him as owning 36 slaves, a substantial number for that time and indicating that he owned a very large plantation. Because the slaves, as well as other items were listed separately from the plantation house, it was surmised that there were separate living quarters set apart from Neale and his family.
In his Last Will and Testament, Raphael bequeathed to his children individual shares of his land and estate, which his grandson, John Lancaster, son of Elizabeth Neale Lancaster, later partitioned. In that deed, dated 1755, John Lancaster administered the partition of what was listed as 2,000 acres of Wollaston Manor. Of particular note was that Raphael had at some point inherited the second half of interest in the original Neale property, most likely because everyone who had interest in the land had died intestate, leaving Raphael as the sole eligible male heir.
A 1755 Plat of Wollaston Manor was devised during the partition of the Neale family land. This plat depicted a division of the acreage into six separate parcels. When that partition was made, it was decided that a lottery system would be issued, with each heir drawing a number and thus choosing a parcel of land. Raphael Neale and his wife, Mary Brooke, had five daughters: Elizabeth, Mary, Henrietta, Monica, Anne, and Eleanor. All of the daughters with the exception of Elizabeth married prominent members of society. The partition of Wollaston Manor occurred in the following manor: 183 acres known as Tract 1 or “Poplar Point” to Monica and Edward Digges, 183 acres known as Tract 2 or “Batemans” to Mary Hoskins Boarman (daughter of Eleanor Neale and Richard Boarman), 183 acres known as Tract 3 or “Shaws” to Mary Neale Taney and Thomas Taney, 183 acres known as Tract 4 or “Crab Grass” to Anne Neale Thompson and James Thompson, 183 acres known as Tract 5 or “Swan Point” to Henrietta Neale Brooke and Basil Brooke, and 183 acres containing the original homesite of Raphael and Mary Brooke Neale and where the said widow would have life tenancy known as Tract 6 or “Honest Tract” to John Lancaster Jr.
Site 18CH354 is estimated to be situated within the metes and bounds of Tract 1, also known as “Poplar Point”. The 1755 partition plat depicts a standing structure within Tract 1, but whether or not it was an abandoned structure or occupied is not known.
As mentioned previously, what transpired at Site 18CH354 between the years 1730 and 1755 is rather unclear. It has been speculated that James Neale (the 4th) died intestate and the family ceased occupying the home and began renting it out. With poor historical documentation on tenant farmers of middling-to-poor socioeconomic status during the early 18th century, it was surmised from the existing records that between 1730 and 1755, tenants occupied 18CH354 and eventually abandoned the residence when the Digges family received the parcel through partition.
Monica and Edward Digges, who were married prior to the death of Raphael in 1755, most likely built a new dwelling (probably at nearby Site 18CH350) sometime shortly after their marriage and the partitioning in the third quarter of the 18th century, and either lived there themselves or rented the domicile to a tenant family. Although likely too early, a 1752 map of Maryland and Virginia depicts two structures located within the vicinity of Tract 1 of the Wollaston Manor partition. In 1760, Edward Digges was listed in the census records as living in St. Mary’s County, indicating that they were not living in Charles County at the time of Raphael’s death. Forty years later, however, Edward was listed as Head of Household in Charles County for both 1800 and 1810.
In 1811, Edward devised unto Charles Hoskins Neale a total of 366 acres, including the original 183 acres known as Tract 1 or “Poplar Point”. Charles H. Neale was the son of James and Elizabeth Neale, and the great-great-grandson of Anthony Neale. Charles Neale did not live on the land known as “Poplar Point”, but rather likely lived at nearby Port Tobacco or St. Mary’s County. He soon thereafter died intestate, leaving his property to his three children, Elizabeth G. (Neale) Matthews, Mary Neale, and James Neale.
By that time, this property was referred to as “Lone Holly”, named for a lone holly tree standing on the property. Elizabeth Neale Matthews was the eldest daughter of Charles Neale and Eleanor Brooke, born in 1809. In 1831, when she was 21 years old, she married Dr. Francis Matthews. By the time of her marriage, it was unclear as to which portion of the 1/3 of Charles Neale’s estate she owned, but by 1844, she also had received another portion from her sister, Mary Neale.
While Francis Matthews was referred to as “Doctor”, no records were found in reference to him as a practicing physician. For example, the census records were absent for Dr. Matthews in 1840, yet the 1850 Census Record of Charles County noted that he lived in Allens Fresh District with his wife and 6 children. Ten years later, the 1860 Census Record for Charles County listed Matthews at age 51 as a farmer, whose real estate was valued at $19,000 and personal property at $12,000. That same census record listed Francis as Guardian of his nephew, John Neale, who was the son of his wife’s deceased brother, James (the 4th), who had died in 1847.
The Slave Census for 1850 listed Matthews as owning 20 slaves that year. He only had 15 slaves by 1860. An advertisement in a local 1855 paper advertised the sale of both equipment and slaves, with the estate being probated in November 1861. Apparently, Dr. Matthews owned a plantation and was a planter in addition to being a possible medical practitioner. By 1860, he was administering the estates of his nephews, who also held slaves on their plantations. In 1860, Matthews owned 200 improved and 184 unimproved acres. The main crop was tobacco, with the plantation producing 8,000 pounds that year. The plantation also grew Indian corn and wheat, which probably served as livestock feed. An 1862 US Coast and Geodetic Map of St. Mary’s, Calvert, and Charles counties depicts the “Lone Holly” residence, while an 1865 map of Charles County does not.
In 1860, one year before his death, Dr. Francis Matthews transferred to his son, James F. Matthews, all title to the land formerly known as “Wollaston Manor” and now referred to as “Lone Holly”. James F. Matthews, the eldest son, was listed in the 1860 census records as 26 years old. Geneological research recorded James as being married to Mary Victoria Brent in the year 1863, two years after the death of his father. No census record exists for James in 1870, however, the 1880 Census Record noted that he was 46 years old and was a lawyer by profession.
According to deed reference, James died intestate in 1905, and bequeathed to his son, F. Brooke Matthews, all title to the property and house known as Lone Holly. According to the 1908 Maryland Shell Fish Commission Map, a dwelling was present at the location of Site 18CH350, the site of “Lone Holly”, but none is depicted in the vicinity of 18CH354. Soon after this map was created, however, a fire completely demolished the house at 18CH350. Once the structure burned down, presumably the Matthews family moved and rebuilt a residence elsewhere.
Site 18CH354 was first identified during a 1991 archeological survey. This mid-18th century site was identified by shovel test pit (STP) excavations at 40 m (130 ft) intervals along two transects spaced 46 m (150 ft) apart along the Potomac River. When positive artifact finds were made, additional STPs were then excavated at 9-18 m (30-60 ft) intervals from the original find. Nineteen of the 22 STPs produced cultural materials. Historic artifacts recovered included 5 white salt-glazed stoneware, 1 pearlware, 3 Buckley earthenware sherds, coarse earthenware, colonial wine bottle glass, numerous brick fragments, and oyster shell. One handmade brick bat was also collected from the surface. Prehistoric artifacts in the form of debitage and fire-cracked rock were also found in the STPs and a triangular point base was found along the beach to the south of the site.
Site 18CH354 appeared to have a solid mid-18th century occupation and minor prehistoric one. The one pearlware sherd is small and was only tentatively identified. All of the other artifacts could date to before the Revolutionary War. It was determined that the site might represent a frame structure with one door flanked by two windows which appears on the 1755 "Wollaston Manor" plat (see above).
In 2007 Phase II testing was carried out at 8 sites on two properties slated for residential and commercial development in Charles County, one of which included 18CH354. The archeological evaluations were connected with the application for a wetland permit through the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment. Site evaluations were therefore required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended).
During the 2007 evaluation study, 162 shovel tests and 7 test units (five 91 X 91 cm and two 61 X 122 cm) were excavated. Excavations uncovered three architecture-related features, including a cellar hole with fill, a brick foundation wall, and an associated builder’s trench. The site was determined to have a horizontal dimension of 68.6 X 91.4 m (225 X 300 ft). A total of 2,926 artifacts were recovered and included the following broad affiliations and quantities: 2,920 historic artifacts and 6 prehistoric artifacts. The historic assemblage consisted of 10 activity items (1 hardware), 1,104 architectural artifacts, 1 clothing item, 94 ceramic sherds, 43 pieces of container glass, 1,594 faunal remains, 147 other kitchen items, 3 personal items, 2 arms objects, and 61 miscellaneous objects. The prehistoric assemblage consisted of 4 pieces of lithic debitage, a fire-cracked rock, and a fragment of a possible groundstone tool.
After examining the cultural remains, it was concluded that 18CH354 had a rural domestic function and an early-to-terminal 18th century temporal affiliation. The site was thought to have a middle-to-low socio-economic status based on the types of ceramic artifacts and fauna specimens recovered. The site was likely occupied by members of the Digges or related Neale family, or possibly an early tenant associated with such families. In consultation with Maryland Historical Trust archeological staff, it was concluded that Site 18CH354 had research value, was a significant archeological resource, and under Criterion [d], was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Phase III data recovery was carried out at the site in 2007 and 2008. The excavation strategy implemented at the site was rather simple because of the ubiquitous plow disturbance observed. Because Phase II work had determined that the footprint of the dwelling and the cellar hole were the only preserved portion of the site, this location was targeted during the data recovery investigation. In total, twelve 1.524 m (5 foot) squares were excavated nine 1.524 m squares were partially excavated within the brick foundation/cellar hole area.
Excavation was conducted manually and carefully using flat shovels and trowels. The soils were excavated stratigraphically according to natural strata and 5-7.6 cm (2-3 in) arbitrary levels. At times, the upper disturbed strata (classified as a plowzone layer) was excavated in thicker levels. Unit excavation was halted whenever a 10 cm (4 in) depth was excavated into culturally sterile soil or subsoil. Most excavated soils were screened on site using hardware cloth. Once a unit was excavated, a soil profile was prepared. The documentation process included a hand-drawn profile, as well as one photographed in color and black-and-white. The soil documentation process included descriptions of color and texture (using standardized nomenclature), depths, and noticeable artifact presence. A photograph log was maintained throughout the excavation process and included photographs of soil profiles.
All masonry features were horizontally exposed either by means of additional block excavation or the excavation of trenches or test probes which followed the feature lines. When intactness became architectural rubble, trenching was discontinued and the search moved elsewhere. Non-masonry cultural features were excavated separately from the surrounding soil matrix. If block excavation was able to expose the entire horizontal boundary of a feature, it was excavated through “cross-sectioning” or excavating half o
|
