Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CV344 Field Locus # 8
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Young Property (18CV344) consists of a cluster of mid 18th-early 19th century structures of an impermanent nature (and associated artifact deposits) in Prince Frederick, Calvert County. When first identified (the 1990s), the site was an open agricultural field on the edge of a larger forested area. The field is situated on an interior flat north of Mill Creek. Two small feeder streams of the creek are situated west of the site. Soils at the site are generally Rumsford-Evesboro gravelly loamy sands and Sassafras fine sandy loams.
Historic research reveals that the property on which 18CV344 is situated was part of a 250 acre tract of land, called “Overton”, that was owned by the Hance family from the late 17th through the early 19th centuries. Overton was patented to John Little in 1666. By 1682, a John Hance owned it. In his 1709 will, John Hance left Overton and other land to his son, Benjamin. A 1733 tax assessment listed 26 slaves under Benjamin’s ownership and by 1746 he controlled at least 1,136 acres which were combined and resurveyed into the larger “Overton” plantation. Benjamin held Overton until his death in 1773 and was so closely identified with the tract that documents refer to him as “Benjamin Hance of Overton”. The main plantation dwelling is believed to have been located over 152.4 m (500 ft) east of 18CV344.
In his will of 1773, Benjamin left, “all the land I have title to on which I have lived called Overton” to his son Samuel. The will divided other land, slaves, and material possessions among Benjamin’s children and grandchildren. Samuel was the executor of Benjamin Sr.’s will and, in this capacity, he filed an inventory of his father’s estate in 1775. The inventory lists 52 enslaved African-Americans, some of whom were crippled and very old. A large number of livestock, many consumer possessions, and 11,620 pounds of tobacco are also listed in the inventory. Given his extensive landholdings, slaves, and other possessions, Benjamin Sr. appears to have been a man of significant wealth.
Eighteen century records and inventories suggest that the Overton Plantation had at least the main dwelling and two outlying “quarters”. A quarter in colonial Maryland could refer to slave residences or more generally to a residential area at a distance from the owner’s dwelling, regardless of whether other members of the owner’s family, tenants, or slaves liver there.
In 1782 and 1783 the newly independent state of Maryland levied property taxes to help pay for war costs and the assessment lists associated with these provide some very useful information. In 1782, Samuel Hance was assessed for ownership of 704 acres, including Overton and five adjoining tracts. Samuel was also assessed for ownership of 22 enslaved people. It is not clear if this Samuel Hance was the 53 year old son of Benjamin Sr. or if he was Samuel’s 25 year old son of the same name. Three Benjamin Hances are listed in the 1782 assessment, the youngest being assessed only for three horses and four cows (no land or slaves).
The property tax assessment lists for 1783 show a transfer of Overton ownership between 1782 and 1783. The 250 acres of Overton were assessed in 1783 to Samuel’s son, listed as “Hance, Benjamin of Samuel”. Samuel Hance was assessed in 1783 for ownership of 454 acres, including only the 5 adjoining tracts from the 1782 list (see above). Samuel’s livestock was reduced to one horse, while Benjamin’s livestock increased. Samuel Hance had his land resurveyed in 1785. The changes in land ownership and livestock indicate a redistribution of property within the family. Perhaps the elder Samuel was in the process of transferring his farming enterprise to the next generation.
Neither Samuel nor Benjamin was assessed for ownership of slaves in 1783. This fits with Quaker records showing that a Benjamin Hance joined the local Quaker meeting and manumitted his slaves in 1783. Other records strongly suggest that it was “Benjamin of Samuel” who manumitted his slaves in 1783. The 1800 census lists the household of “Benjamin of Samuel” as including 10 “other free persons” and lists no slaves in his ownership. This suggests that at least some of the newly free African-American people remained on the Overton plantation, perhaps working as tenant farmers or wage laborers.
Benjamin Hance’s manumission of the Overton slaves and his conversion to the Quaker faith were tied to each other and to his family history. Three generations of Calvert County Hances before him had been Quakers, starting with his great-grandfather John Hance, through his grandfather Benjamin Sr., and his father Samuel. It is clear from the inventory of Benjamin Sr.’s estate that Samuel still considered himself a Quaker in 1775. Debates about slavery and its incompatibility with the tenants of Quakerism began as early as the 1750s and the Maryland Quakers agreed as early as 1768 to disown members who bought and owned slaves. The Maryland Society of Friends outlawed slavery among its members completely in 1777. It was in this context that Samuel Hance appears to have left the Society of Friends in the late 1770s. Benjamin Hance’s 1783 conversion to the Quaker faith was thus a return to family tradition, to a faith that now required a different approach to slavery. Although the details of the 1783 manumission are not discussed, gradual manumission was apparently practiced at this time by Maryland Quakers attempting to achieve their spiritual goal while maintaining their tobacco plantations. The African-American residents of Overton probably played a significant role in bringing about the 1783 manumission and defining the terms of their freedom.
A series of family letters indicates that Benjamin and his younger brother Francis made a journey to upstate New York and Ohio in 1802, examining the potential for relocating. In 1803, Benjamin moved his family to Farmington, New York, selling his portion of the family plantation to Francis. Francis retained ownership of the Overton Plantation until 1815. Census data shows that Francis worked his plantation with the labor of enslaved people. The 1810 census lists 12 slaves in the ownership of Francis Hance. It appears that the issue of slavery divided the Hance brothers: Benjamin moved to New York to distance himself from slavery, while Francis continued to own slaves.
In 1805, Francis Hance attempted to convey his lands to his children, but he was sued by a family from whom he had borrowed money. They filed a lawsuit in chancery court to collect the unpaid debt. This lawsuit shows Francis as owner of a ca. 900 acre landholding including Overton and parts of six other tracts (mostly land listed in Samuel Hance’s ownership in 1782). Settlement of the lawsuit in 1815 involved the transfer of 400 acres to Robert Lowe. This land was described as “Overton, part of Purchase, and Hance’s Discovery”. Another 500 acres was sold back to Francis Hance as part of the 1815 settlement. Site 18CV344 fell within the 400 acre tract conveyed to Robert Lowe. Through a series of subsequent transactions, the property would eventually pass to the Young family, form which the site takes its name.
The site was first identified archeologically in 1995 during a Phase I survey prior to the widening of Maryland Route 2/4. The site was identified based on a large scatter of 18th century domestic artifacts on the surface of a plowed field. The observation of clusters of brick fragments suggested the presence of historic structures. Among the artifacts was a bottle seal bearing the date 1771 and the initials “IR”. Other materials included wine bottle glass, colonial white salt-glazed stoneware sherds, molded creamware, pearlware, and white clay pipestems. The site was located outside of the primary area of investigation for the highway project, the site’s boundaries were not determined and it was not examined further. At the time, the artifact concentration was simply referred to as “Field Locus #8”.
In 1997, the site was examined as part of another Phase I survey, this time for a private development company that was planning to construct townhomes in the vicinity. A 15.5 acre portion of the larger 25 acre property (which included 18CV344) was surveyed in compliance with Calvert County Zoning Ordinance 5-6.04 and based on an assessment of archeological potential made by the Southern Maryland Regional Center of MHT. Previously identified site 18CV344 was situated on the property and, after a planned delay of 11 months (following the Phase survey), a Phase II project was carried out at 18CV344 as well.
The Phase I survey entailed the excavation of 138 shovel test pits (STPs) at a 15.24 m (50 ft) interval across the level parts of the townhouse project area. They established the boundary of Site 18CV344 through excavation of an additional 45 STPs at a 7.62 m (25 ft) interval. It was determined that the site was approximately 91.4 X 76.2 m (300 X 250 ft) in size. The greatest concentration of artifacts was found on the northern end of the site, along a tree line. One shovel test in this northern area extended into a feature containing a dense deposit of historic materials such as mortar, kaolin pipe fragments, Chinese export porcelain, coarse redware, Jackfield, wrought nails, and faunal remains.
Since it was determined that the site was potentially significant following the completion of the Phase I work, Phase II testing was carried out 11 months later in the winter of 1998. The Phase II investigation included excavation of additional STPs, surface collection, excavation of test units, the use of ground penetrating radar, and magnetometer studies. Of the fourteen test units excavated, eight units measured 1.524 X 1.524 m (5 X 5 ft) in size and six units were 1.524 m X 76.2 cm (5 X 2.5 ft) in extent. The six ‘half units’ were placed in areas that had anomalous remote sensing readings. Excavation of the units during the Phase II study uncovered a storage pit/root cellar and a hearth on the northern edge of the site, and multiple buried plowzones in the central and southern parts of the site.
An exhaustive analysis and table of the 3,450 artifacts recovered during the 1997/1998 Phase I and II project is not provided in the full site report, but site forms and subsequent reports relay that at least 81 nails, 19 pieces of flat (window) glass, 518 ceramic sherds, 112 pieces of bottle glass, 11 faunal remains, 3 floral objects, 33 tobacco pipe fragments, and 1 arms object were recovered. The ceramic assemblage included 152 tin-glazed sherds, 4 Astbury sherds, 76 creamware sherds, 1 Whieldonware sherd, 1 Jackfield sherd, 73 pearlware sherds, 8 whiteware sherds, 6 Staffordshire slipware, 77 white salt-glazed stoneware sherds, 9 Rhenish sherds, 96 other stoneware sherds, and 15 Chinese export porcelain sherds. Also within this large historic site were seven prehistoric lithics, consisting of 3 flakes in one shovel test, one flake in another, and 3 fire-cracked rocks from separate shovel tests. Based on the historic remains, the site was recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Although plowing had disturbed the vertical integrity of much of the site, intact features below the plowzone indicated that the site retained some integrity.
Phase III data recovery was carried out at 18CV344 in 1999. Again, the archeological investigation was needed to comply with Calvert County Zoning Ordinance 5-6.04, which requires companies to consider the effect of proposed development on historic or prehistoric properties prior to rezoning. In this case, the site would be largely destroyed by the construction of townhouses and related infrastructure.
The Phase III data recovery involved three tasks: excavating test units to systematically sample the plowzones within three areas of major artifact and feature concentration (as defined during the 1997/1998 study), scraping and removing the plowzones with a Gradall in order to expose features, and documenting and excavating uncovered features.
Fifteen 1.524 X 1.524 m (5 X 5 ft) units were excavated within the three areas identified as the focus of the investigation. Twelve units were placed at 7.62 m (25 ft) intervals in the northern portion of the site (both in the open field and just inside the treeline. Two units were situated at a 7.62 m interval in the open field in the center of the site and one unit was placed in the open field in the southern portion of the site. Test units were excavated by natural strata to the level of culturally sterile subsoil. Soil from each stratum was screened through hardware cloth to retrieve any cultural materials. All artifacts were retained except coal and charcoal which were sampled and then discarded in the field. For each unit, field archeologists recorded the opening and closing depths of each stratum, soil descriptions (suing standard soil descriptions methods), and the locations of artifacts and features. Plow scars found at the bottom of each stratum within the excavation units indicated that the soils consisted of multiple layers of buried plowzones.
After the units had been excavated, a Gradall was used to remove the plowzones in the three areas in order to uncover features. Archeologists then documented, mapped, and excavated the features. The Gradall, fitted with a smooth bucket, slowly scraped away the plowzone layers down to the level of subsoil. Archeologists monitored the Gradall throughout the process in order to stop the machine if possible features were encountered. Archeologists also looked through the backdirt removed by the Gradall in order to recover additional diagnostic artifacts from each of the three investigation areas. In all, approximately 1,043 square meters (11,225 square feet) in the three areas was cleared to the subsoil level using the Gradall.
Nine possible features were uncovered during the Phase III plowzone removal. Each of the 9 potential features was documented, mapped, and photographed with both black-and-white film and color slide film. Each feature was bisected and excavated in halves according to internal stratigraphic layers. Cultural features were then profiled before the second half of each feature was removed. When excavation of half of a feature revealed that it was of natural origin, the second half was not excavated and no soil samples were taken. Feature fill was screened through hardware cloth to recover all cultural materials. In addition, a 3.8 liter (1 gallon) soil sample was taken from each stratum of each cultural feature. These soil samples were removed to the laboratory for water screening through finer mesh screen in order to recover small fragments of artifacts and faunal material. Of the 9 potential features, three were determined to be burned roots or trees. The remaining six features related to the historic occupation of the site in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Cultural features included two 122 X 61 cm (4 X 2 ft) rectangular storage pits, a 76 cm (2.5 ft) diameter circular storage or trash pit, a cluster of 5 postmolds (treated as one feature), a line of 5 postmolds (treated as one feature), and a shallow trench perpendicular to the line of posts. The storage pits (along with as additional storage pit and hearth features identified in the previous Phase II study) were probably associated with a group of small wooden dwellings. The presence of a fairly small amount of brick at the site, and a possible hearth feature that had been identified during the Phase II site evaluation suggested that the buildings had brick hearths. It appeared that previous plowing destroyed any evidence of the structural elements of the buildings except for the pit features. The posts and trench appear to represent fence lines. These features may post-date the domestic occupation of the site.
Based on a comparison of the features found at Site 18CV344 with similar features found at other sites in the Chesapeake region, it appears that the site was the location of a group of small, impermanent dwellings. The features taken together with the artifact types and quantities recovered suggest that 18CV344 was not the residence of the owners of the plantation (the Hances), but may have been left by any or all of a variety of household types: tenant, overseer, junior family member, slave, or free black.
The artifact assemblage recovered during Phase III work included 1,220 architectural artifacts (642 pieces of brick, 1 mortar, 1 slate fragment, 1 plaster fragment, 54 pieces of window glass, 202 wrought nails, 312 unidentified nails, and 7 pieces of hardware), 3 clothing objects (brass buckles pieces), 3 furniture items (2 tacks and a brass bracket), 1,249 kitchen-related objects (400 ceramic sherds, 314 pieces of glass, 272 faunal objects, 260 floral objects, and 3 miscellaneous kitchen items), 197 tobacco-related objects (white clay pipe fragments), 3 arms objects (gunflints), and 52 miscellaneous objects (a polished stone, a thin metal sheet, and 50 modern objects). The ceramic assemblage consisted of 80 tin-glazed earthenware, 5 Staffordshire slipware, 5 Buckley, 67 creamware, 1 Whieldonware, 61 Pearlware, 5 whiteware, 1 redware, 7 Chinese export porcelain, 45 white salt-glazed stoneware, 16 Rhenish, 1 Nottingham, 59 miscellaneous stoneware, and 47 unidentified sherds. Of the 314 glass container fragments, 291 were olive green bottle glass shards. The remainder of the kitchen assemblage consisted of a cast iron vessel fragment, 2 pewter vessel fragments, 118 pieces of oyster shell, 42 sheep bones, 10 pig bones/teeth, 49 cattle bones/teeth, 5 chicken bones, 3 turkey bones, 2 small bird bones, 3 catfish bones, 19 fish bones, 14 fish scales, 7 other animal bones, 259 pieces of wood charcoal, and 1 seed.
Site 18CV344 was significant as one of the few 18th century sites that had been intensively investigated in Calvert County. It provided unique information about a group of people (tenants or slaves) who are not widely documented in the Chesapeake region. However, it was deemed unlikely that additional information could be extracted from the remaining archeological deposits at 18CV344, given the previous disturbance (plowing) to the site’s integrity. Sufficient data was collected during Phase I, II, and III work at the site and it was recommended that construction continue without additional archeological investigation. Follow-up visits to the site have confirmed that it was largely or entirely destroyed by construction of the new townhomes.
|
