Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CV151 Bowen Road II
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18CV151, the Bowens Road II site (or GAI-61/62) is the apparent remains of mid-18th to mid-19th century dwellings, most likely slave quarters, located northwest of Prince Frederick in Calvert County, Maryland. The site is situated on a gently sloping upland terrace in a modern-day agricultural field. Soils at the site are predominantly of the Dodon-Marr complex.
Archival research regarding the tract on which 18CV151 sits reveals that it was originally known as “Stoakley”; patented by Woodman Stoakley on November 22nd, 1658. Details of the early land transactions are sketchy because of a Calvert County courthouse fire in 1882 that destroyed most prior deed information. Primary and secondary sources do make it possible to generate a generally reliable reconstruction of property owners, however.
Woodman Stoakley is known to thave served as a Provincial Commissioner of Maryland and as a Burgess in the 1650s. Following Woodman Stoakley’s ownership of the 700 acre Stoakley tract, the property’s ownership is in question. It is known that an Edward Keene established and resided at a mill “at Stoakley” along Hunting Creek, but it is uncertain as to whether he owned the tract or not. John Beckett (or Buket) and his wife Priscilla are believed to have owned the property during much of the latter 17th century. Francis Hutchins (Sr.) and purchased the property from the Becketts sometime prior to Hutchins’ 1698 will. Hutchins’ will also mentions that he erected a mill along a creek on the property.
Francis Hutchins was born in Hunting Creek in 1653 and owned other tracts in the area. Hutchins and his wife, Elizabeth (Burridge), had five children. The Stoakley property eventually passed to their son, also named Francis (Jr.). Apparently in financial need by 1732, Francis Hutchins Jr made an indenture on September 15th of that year to sell part of Stoakley and an adjacent land tract to Philip Key. Key was given the rights to buildings, profits, improvements, and appurtenances for the property, but the sale would be voided if Hutchins could pay a debt owed George Plater, Esq. within the next year (40 £ plus interest). Hutchins paid Plater £74, 16 shillings and the property reverted to Hutchins. Francis (Jr.) apparently worked as a mariner.
In an indenture dated December 12, 1747, Francis Hutchins (Jr.) sold the Stoakley tract to Philip Key in an indenture. Key resided in St. Mary’s County, so the farm may have been worked by a tenant or under the direction of a farm manager. In 1750, just three years after he purchased Stoakley, Key sold the property to Elizabeth Hutchins and John Waters. Eizabeth’s relation to Francis Hutchins (Jr.) is uncertain.
John Waters petitioned and was granted permission to erect a mill on Stoakley in 1767. The timing for construction of this mill along Hunting Creek was unfortunate. One of the worst recorded hurricanes in the 18th century passed over Williamsburg and tracked northeast along the coast causing heavy damage in the Chesapeake Bay area on September 7-8, 1769. The 1769 storm caused flooding, destroyed homes, leveled trees, and ruined tobacco crops; devastating financially strapped families. John’s mill may have suffered heavy damage or destruction from high wind and floodwaters. Four years after the storm, Waters sold his Stoakley property to the Somervell family.
Information from a will ties the Somervell family to the Stoakley tract by 1773. The Somervells were a prominent family in Calvert County. By the time the Somerville Family purchased their Stoakley land holdings, the original land patent was divided into four parcels. James (Jr.) Somervell purchased 229.5 acres and his son, John, acquired 189.5 acres. Kinsey Hance owned 97 acres, and James Weems owned the remaining 200 acres of the Stoakley tract.
Somervell ownership of the property is confusing because James was a popular name for Somervell male children. The confusion is compounded because James (Jr.) died in 1873, leaving his young son, John, and other family members to care for the property until his estate was settled. The relationship between James and John is actually postulated, based on birth years for both men. James (Jr.) was born on Feb 4, 1763 to James (Sr.) and Sarah (Howe) Somervell. James (Jr.) married Susanna Dare and the couple had at least two sons: John, born May 15, 1756 and James (III) born April 19, 1758. James (Jr.) and his son, John, appear to be the Somervell family that acquired the two Stoakley tracts. James (Jr.) died on October 10, 1773, and was buried in a family graveyard on the Stoakley property.
The responsibilities of making this farm a profitable venture for the family would have fallen onto John Somervell, who was only 17 years old at the time. His crops likley suffered a major setback when “The Independence Hurricane” raged across the eastern seaboard between North Carolina and Newfoundland from August 29 to September 2, 1775. Heavy rains caused flooding and raging waters destroyed bridges, milldams, wharves, and waterfront storehouses.
The county tax assessment of 1783 indicates that John Somervell was assessed for a 189.5 acre portion of Stoakley (valued at $487.14), 2 male slaves, 3 horses, 12 black cattle, and 1 white inhabitant. It is interesting to note that John Somervell was the Tax Assessor for this district. James Somervell was assessed for ownership of 229.5 acres (valued at $334.50), 1 male slave, 2 horses, and 9 black cattle in 1783. There was no habitation assessed for James Somervell’s tract. James may have resided with his brother, John, or with other family members in Prince George’s County. The latter appears to be more likely, given that the birth of his daughter and death of his wife in the 1790s place him in Prince George’s county. James was probably an absentee owner and not actively involved in the running of the farm. He would eventually sell two parcels out of his Stoakley holdings to John.
Tombstones in the Somervell family graveyard (on the Stoakley tract) recorded burials from 1773 to 1857. Information from 15 tombstones was recorded in the early 20th century. The cemetery, itself has since been obliterated. The 1800 census states that John’s household included one male between 16 and 26 years of age, one male between 26 and 45 years of age (John), and 11 slaves. By 1810, he had 26 slaves.
Howe Somervell (another family member that owned part of Stoakley) was also recorded in the 1810 census for Clavert County. Howe was about 7 years younger than John and may have been his brother or cousin. Howe’s household in 1810 included one male over 45 (Howe), a woman between 26 and 45 (his wife?), a boy and two girls under the age of 10, a boy between 10 and 16, an unspecified person, and 23 slaves. The unspecified person may have been a farm manager or overseer. With 49 slaves between the two families, the farming activities at their Stoakley properties could be considered a moderate to large operation.
The 1813-1817 time periods may have been fraught with difficulties for residents of the property. A major storm (hurricane) struck the Virginia-Maryland Chesapeake Bay/coastal region each year for this 5-year period, causing extensive damage. These late summer/early fall severe storms had economic and social impact on the Chesapeake region. Severe winds and rains may have ruined tobacco crops, which take longer to mature (in the fields) than corn or wheat. Damp conditions may have helped spread diseases, like malaria and dysentery. Impermanent wattle-and-daub structures probably suffered damages and many homes may have required extensive repairs or rebuilding. These conditions may have played a factor in apparent decisions (evident based on the archeology discussed below) to move the planter’s house and surrounding nucleated settlement from marginal lands at 18CV151 to an area along nearby Stoakley Road.
Little is known about the period from ca. 1817-1859, but by 1817, the property on which 18CV151 sits had been sold by the Somervells to a Joseph Wilkerson. Wilkerson’s will, written in 1817, indicated that he owned the Stoakley tract. He would die in 1822, bequeathing Stoakley and another farm (Godsgrace) to his son, Thomas H. Wilkinson, in that 1817 will. Thomas H Wilkinson was born in Calvert County about 1782. He married Susan and they had a son, Nathaniel Dare Wilkinson, in 1829. Thomas died in 1863 and was buried at All Saints Church in Calvert County.
The Wilkinson family sold their Stoakley tract holdings to James S. Morsell. Little is known about James S. Morsell. He is listed with 46 slaves in the 1850 slave schedule, but is not listed in the population schedule for that census. By 1859 he had sold the property to the Morton family who owned the property that included 18CV151 until 1903.
The archeological site was first identified in 1981, during the course of a research project supported by the Maryland Historical Trust by a researcher at SUNY Binghamton. The research project was a large scale survey of the Patuxent River drainage basin, throughout several counties. Several of the agricultural fields in the vicinity of the site were a part of that survey. Site 18CV151 was discovered during an ungridded survey through an agricultural field, in which the project participants walked the field in transects spaced 10 m apart. At the time of the survey, the field was estimated to have 90% visibility.
Artifacts collected during the 1981 survey included 141 historic and 6 prehistoric artifacts; all returned to the landowner. Historic artifacts included 98 ceramic sherds, 39 glass fragments (38 green, probably bottle), and 4 pipestem pieces. Ceramics included tin-glazed earthenware (1), early Staffordshire slipware (1), Buckley (1), creamware (17), pearlware (14), whiteware (11), Chinese export porcelain (5), Westerwald stoneware (5), English Brown stoneware (9), white salt-glazed stoneware (4), redware (8), and other miscellaneous sherds (22).
The site was examined again in 1992 as part of a Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative (SMECO) powerline survey through Calvert County. The 30.5 m (100 ft) wide right-of-way (ROW) for the powerline was surveyed by excavating shovel test pits at 15.24 m (50 ft) intervals and all excavated soils were screened through hardware mesh. A total of 149 STPs were excavated in the survey segment that included site 18CV151. The site was re-located by a cluster of nine STPs within the ROW, all of which yielded artifacts. These materials appeared to be primarily slopewash debris from the core of the site, which was situated a short distance uphill from the powerline ROW. The 1992 researchers made surface observations of the area outside the ROW and reported finding materials suggestive of a mid-18th to 19th century occupation.
Artifacts encountered in the 1992 STPs include 19 brick fragments/flecks, a Buckley sherd, a piece of green bottle glass, 2 oyster shell fragments, and a white clay pipestem fragment. All of these materials were returned to the landowner. As the core of the site was outside the powerline ROW, no additional work was conducted in 1992.
The site was again a subject of interest during a Phase I survey in 2004 as part of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline project in Calvert, Charles, and Prince George’s Counties. The proposed construction work involved the installation of a 36-inch pipeline over 48 miles of right-of-way, as well as construction of ancillary facilities (e.g. pipeyards and access roads). As such, Phase I and, in some cases, Phase II work was conducted throughout the pipeline right-of-way and in other areas that might be impacted by the construction.
In the vicinity of Site 18CV151, this work entailed detailed site mapping, and shovel test pit, test unit, mechanical trench, and feature excavations. A site grid was established with the long east-west axis oriented parallel to the project corridor. STPs (161 total) were then excavated on 3.05 m (10 ft) grid intervals to refine site boundaries, identify artifact concentrations, and facilitate placement of test units. One hundred nine positive Phase II STPs resulted in the recovery of 804 historic artifacts and 4 prehistoric lithics. The distribution of total artifacts indicated three concentrations or clusters of artifacts within the ROW for the pipeline. The STP evidence suggested that 18CV151 was a domestic/residential location with three possible structures (the clusters) present.
Researchers excavated 10 test units (TUs 1 through 10) of varying sizes and two 1.83 X 10.67 m (6 X 35 ft) mechanically-excavated trenches to sample locations of higher artifact densities identified during Phase I and II shovel testing and to explore for features. Test Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 and one trench fell within the easternmost cluster. Test Unit 6 was located in the northern cluster. And Test Units 7 and 9, and the second trench were situated in the westernmost cluster. Two of the test units (7 and 8) were actually dug within the trenches (one in each) once mechanical excavation was complete. The test units were hand-excavated by arbitrary 10 cm levels within natural strata to a minimum depth of 10 cm into sterile soil and 10 cm below the last recovered artifact. All soils were screened through hardware cloth.
Again, trenches were mechanically excavated. They were mechanically dug to just above the plowzone/buried plowzone and subsoil interface except for the small sample areas where test units 7 and 8 would eventually be placed. Mechanical excavation in these portions of the trenches continued to the top of the buried plowzone so that hand-excavation could proceed in soils that were anticipated to contain features based on excavation in units adjacent to the excavated trenches.
Test unit excavations yielded 1,436 historic artifacts and 8 prehistoric lithics, exclusive of features. The majority of the artifacts were recovered from the plowzone with lesser quantities found in a buried plowzone present throughout much of the central and northern portions of the site. Features were encountered in six test units and both trenches. As a result of these excavations, a total of 23 soil anomalies (accounting for 17 historic cultural features) were identified during Phase II work. Many of the features were clustered in the eastern end of the site. More than 1,000 artifacts were collected from these features.
Features encountered during Phase II work included a possible clay extraction/daub processing pit, a storage pit, one (possibly 2) other pit(s), an unidentifiable linear feature, 5 postholes, 6 postmolds, a posthole with mold, and a possible brick chimney base. Flotation samples were taken from several features and processed for botanical analysis. Details of the ethnobotanical assemblage are provided in the linked ethnobotany profile, but much of the assemblage appeared to be charred refuse re-deposited in subsurface pits and postmolds. Taxonomically diverse wood dominated, possibly including the remains of burned structures. Corn and wheat, two of the principal domesticated crops grown in the region as food for both humans and livestock, were represented, but only in trace amounts. Other potentially edible plant resources present included wild mast nuts, both hickory and black walnut, as well as two choice seasonal fleshy fruits, elderberry and peach.
Overall, Phase II investigations recovered 3,373 historic artifacts and 17 prehistoric lithics (a projectile point base, a unifacially worked flake, and debitage). The historic assemblage included 4 activity items (1 piece of miscellaneous hardware and 3 pieces of lamp glass), 1,646 architectural artifacts (31 pieces of window glass, 1,565 brick pieces, 22 daub fragments, 1 cut nail 25 other nails/spikes, and a door part), 3 clothing items (buttons), 1 furniture object (hardware), 1,557 kitchen-related artifacts (including 903 ceramic sherds, 303 bottle glass shards, a piece of table glass, 148 bone fragments, 187 pieces of shell, and 15 charred nuts/seeds), 2 personal items (a silver Spanish Reale and a badly corroded coin), 49 white ball clay tobacco pipe fragments, and 111 miscellaneous objects (including 5 coal/charcoal fragments and 106 unidentified items). Diagnostic ceramic sherds from the kitchen assemblage include 350 creamware, 258 pearlware, 16 tin-glazed Delftware, 4 Astbury, 2 Buckley, 6 miscellaneous redware, 24 whiteware, 11 yelloware, 5 white salt-glazed stoneware, 10 English Brown stoneware, 1 Albany slip stoneware, and 15 miscellaneous stoneware sherds.
The archeological evidence uncovered during Phase II work at 18CV151 suggested that the site dates to the 18th and 19th centuries and included evidence for the presence of 1 or more domestic structures. The data suggested that the structures were impermanent, of the type that were common for agricultural workers’ dwellings of the period. The site might represent the remains of slave occupations associated with the 18th and 19th century plantations that operated here. Based on these findings, Phase III data recovery was recommended.
Phase III work was conducted from August to October of 2006. Phase III data recovery included the investigation of ten 1.52 X 1.52 m (5 X 5 ft) units to further sample the plowzone at the site and mechanical excavation and hand cleaning (shovel and trowel) of an 825 square meter excavation block. All units and the large excavation block were aligned to the Phase II grid. The plowzone in the units was hand-excavated in arbitrary 15 cm levels. All other strata were excavated in arbitrary 9 cm levels within natural strata. All soil was screened through hardware mesh. Excavations were documented on standardized forms and supplemented with photographs and plan view and profile drawings (as appropriate).
After the units were completed, an excavator was used to mechanically strip off upper plowzone soils and expose the underlying subsoil across approximately 58% of the site, within the proposed ROW. Grab-samples of artifacts observed were collected during this process. Mechanical stripping was halted at the plowzone/buried plowzone interface with subsoil. Exposed subsoil was cleaned with hand tools and examined for cultural features. Mechanical stripping of the site was undertaken on three occasions due to site logisitics associated with the approval of the Erosion and Sediment Control plan for the excavation submitted to Calvert County.
All features were mapped in plan view and then cross-sectioned using hand tools. Larger features were excavated in quadrants. Postholes and smaller features were bisected. Soil information was recorded, and feature profiles documented (drawn and photographed). Flotation samples were collected from features for processing in the lab. More than one sample was collected for larger features. Any unprocessed flotation samples were screened through hardware cloth. Artifacts recovered during this process were added to the artifact database. Geochemical soil samples were collected and processed for several features.
As a result of the Phase III data recovery, 58 cultural features (41 postholes/postmolds, 4 storage pits/root cellars, 3 ditches, 4 refuse pits, 4 other pits, 1 daub concentration, and 1 structure pier) were identified and excavated. Seventeen features documented during the Phase II study were also included in site interpretations. Four structures were identified on this late 18th to early 19th century occupation (three dwellings and one root cellar). The dwellings had interior root cellars as well, which have been interpreted as evidence of slave dwellings at other sites in the Chesapeake region.
Evidence from artifact distributions, soil chemical frequencies, and features identified activity areas. The clustering of all artifacts as well as clusters of certain artifact sub-classes (architectural materials vs. kitchen materials, etc.) were used as initial means by which to refine activity areas. Chemical analysis of the lower plowzone deposits then tested and refined patterns observed from artifact distribution data, and provided information on site usage. The frequencies of phosphorous, potassium, and calcium, are a good indicator of possible structure locations and activity areas. In addition to the 4 structures and three fencelines (evidenced through in-line postholes/molds), the study identified three wood ash deposits (from chimney sweepings), middens around dwelling locations, two refuse disposal areas, one possible animal pen, and three unidentified activity areas.
Data recovery investigations at Site 18CV151 produced 6,484 artifacts and faunal materials, including 4,389 historic artifacts, 2,069 pieces of bone and shell (included with the historic assemblage), and 26 prehistoric artifacts. In addition, 882 botanical remains were analyzed. The 26 prehistoric artifacts yielded during data recovery include 24 pieces of debitage, and two tools (an untyped Early Archaic point fragment and a retouched uniface. Lithic raw material was predominantly quartz (13 specimens), but also included chalcedony, quartzite, rhyolite, and chert. The full Phase III historic assemblage consisted of 18 activity items, 2,618 architectural artifacts, 6 clothing items, 3,697 kitchen-related artifacts, 1 personal item, 43 tobacco-related artifacts, 1 arms object, and 74 miscellaneous objects. The activity items were a stirrup, 3 horse or mule shoe pieces, a metal hook, and 13 pieces of lamp glass. The architectural assemblage consisted of 2,406 brick fragments, 108 pieces of daub, 10 fragments of mortar, 19 pieces of window glass, 2 roofing materials, 2 plumbing items, 69 nails/spikes (3 cut, 1 wrought), and 2 other architectural objects. The 6 clothing items were 5 brass buttons and a thimble. Kitchen remains include 1,188 ceramic sherds (4 Astbury, 3 Buckley, 27 tin-glazed earthenware, 396 creamware, 287 pearlware, 36 whiteware, 11 porcelain, 1 ironstone, 64 refined earthenware, 240 redware, 9 yelloware, 6 British Brown stoneware, 5 white salt-glazed stoneware, 1 Basalt stoneware, 6 Westerwald, 1 American Westerwald, 82 miscellaneous stoneware, and 8 potential Colonoware), 430 bottle/jar glass fragments, 1,133 pieces of animal bone, 936 pieces of shell, and 11 seed/nut fragments. The possible Colonoware was likely manufactured by the enslaved inhabitants of 18CV151, but may also be of Native American (Potomac Creek) origin. If so, its presence along with the Early Archaic point would suggest at least two different episodes of Native American activity at 18CV151. The personal item was a sherd from a redware chamberpot. The tobacco-related artifacts were white ball-clay pipe fragments. The arms object was a gunflint. And finally, the 74 miscellaneous objects included an unidentified ceramic item, 71 rusted/indeterminate metal objects, a piece of plastic, and a fragment of pewter.
Details of the archeobotanical analysis of flotation samples are provided in the linked ethnobotanical profile for the site. A total of 581 wood fragments were analyzed, identifying 14 different tree taxa. Hickory and oak were dominant, comprising 63% of the total. Other tree taxa identified, in descending order of numerical occurrence, including pine, chestnut, maple, sweetgum, walnut or butternut, poplar/willow, cherry, ash, Eastern red cedar, and elm. Very small nutshell fragments included hickory, black walnut, and other thick-shelled species. Of four carbonized seeds recovered, three were identifiable (wheat and a fragmentary specimen from the grass family, elderberry, and corn). Historically, elderberry is regarded as among the most desirable of seasonal wild fruits, with varied uses as the main ingredient in preserves, desserts, and wine. Corn cupules and glumes and a semi-charred peach pit were recovered from features by hand.
Based on analysis of the faunal assemblage, it appears that inhabitants of the site (1) possibly consumed beef over pork and other meat sources, (2) primarily consumed meat/marrow bone prepared in stews and soups, (3) rarely used wild animals or birds, and (4) possibly did not use fish, despite close proximity to the Chesapeake Bay.
Again, three possible dwellings were identified based on the presence of interior rectangular storage pit (or root cellar) and post hole features. A possible free-standing root cellar was also identified. These structures include a post-in-ground dwelling with a brick chimney base (ca. 1780), a separate post-in-ground root cellar (of unknown date), a log house with daub and chinking (abandoned ca. 1802), and a log or frame house constructed on posts and piers set in the ground (abandoned by 1820s). Similar features have been identified in association with pre-1865 domestic sites and interpreted as evidence of slave dwellings in the Chesapeake region. The presence of interior storage pit features, possible Colonoware ceramics, and faunal evidence (cuts for soups and stews) were also used to infer African-American occupation at 18CV151. The relatively low number of kitchen-related ceramics and glass from approximately 70 years of occupation likely indicates that the inhabitants had few material possessions (typical of a slave occupation. The site also lacked evidence of tools in the assemblage, also typical of slave sites.
If these interpretations are correct, then the site would most likely be the remains of the slave quarter of the Stoakley Plantation. The period represented appears to be that associated principally with the Somervell and Wilkinson ownership of the plantation. The historical record (see above) suggests that Stoakley at this time could best be described as a struggling middling plantation. Ultimately, the struggle would lead to changes in the spatial layout of the plantation and movement of the core areas to a new location.
Phase III data recovery excavations at Site 18CV151 focused on the main occupation area of the site within the LNG project area, as well as features along the eastern and western site edges. Excavation work led to important insights into mid 18th to mid 19th century slave occupations in the Chesapeake region. Data recovery work successfully mitigated adverse effects to the National Register site and approval was granted to proceed with pipeline installation. It is not know to what extent intact deposits may extend outside the original project ROW. If future work approaches the bounds of the site as previously defined, additional survey work (at a minimum) is warranted to determine if additional intact deposits are situated in the area. The site should be considered a significant archeological resource.
|
