Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18HO284 Hoddinott Locus A-1
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Archeological site 18HO284, also known as Hoddinott Locus A-1, consists of the foundation remains and artifact deposits associated the Tierney Gambrel Roof House (MIHP #HO-163), a late 18th-early 20th century dwelling near the Clarksville crossroads in Howard County. The Tierney Gambrel Roof House was a 11⁄2 story gambrel-roofed log house that was burned down by vandals in the spring of 1977. Records and photographs indicate that the house had one brick chimney within the end wall and one brick chimney exposed. The gambrel was very steep, and had two shed-roofed dormers on the front façade. A small building, thought to be a privy, was located behind the house. The site is situated on an upland flat near the heads of two tributary creeks to the Middle Patuxent River. The surrounding terrain is characterized by gently rolling hills with few ridges or terraces. The site area is mainly an agricultural field, but a portion of the field is dedicated to the small Miller family cemetery. In both the cemetery and the former Tierney House location are deciduous trees, like sassafras and maple, with secondary growth throughout. Soils at the site are primarily Gladstone loams and sandy loams.
Secondary sources suggest that the house that was located at 18HO284 until it burned down in 1977, was built by Rachel and Cornelius Howard, or by Thomas Worthington as part of a dowry. Deed research indicates that the general site area is on land that was included in two tracts patented during the 18th century. Worthington’s Range was a 1,169 acre parcel patented by Thomas Worthington in 1733. Howard’s Chance was a 235 acre property patented by Cornelius Howard in 1749. The two tracts were contiguous. Worthington’s Range was located to the north, while Howard’s Chance was located to the south.
Thomas Worthington gave 369 acres of Worthington’s Range to his daughter, Rachel, in his 1753 will. He noted that the land was the part of Worthington’s Range, “on which her husband hath settled a plantation”. It is thought that the couple was married around 1740 and the land may have been given to the couple as a dowry. According to Worthington’s will, he bequeathed to five of his daughters land on which their husbands previously had established plantations, possibly confirming that the land was given earlier as dowries. Most of the originally patented 1,169 acre Worthington Range was divided among Rachel and two other daughters. The will required Rachel’s portion of Worthington’s Range to be transferred to her son, Thomas Cornelius Howard, upon her death.
The 369 acre parcel inherited by Cornelius and Rachel Howard was combined with the Howard’s Chance parcel to the south to establish their plantation. The 1749 patent certificate for Howard’s Chance notes, “twenty-five acres of cultivated land on which stands 300 panels of old fence”. This was likely the “core” of their farm and plantation. According to his 1772 will, Cornelius Howard later lived elsewhere, but held most of the Howard’s Chance tract until his death. He bequeathed 170 acres to his son, Thomas Cornelius Howard, who already was living on the property. The conveyance also included, “all negroes, stock of every kind, and all and everything else that’s on the plantation”, indicating that slave labor was used on the farm. The will described the tract as both Howard’s Chance and Worthington’s Range.
According to the 1783 Maryland state tax assessment, Thomas Cornelius Howard still possessed the 369 acre Worthington’s Range parcel (the size of his mother’s inheritance) and the 171 acre Howard’s Chance tract. The assessment provided information only about the Howard’s Chance tract, including the land value and the value of slaves, farm animals, and other property, likely his personal estate. Howard held 40 male and femal slaves younger than 8 years old and 8 male and female slaves from 8 years old to older than 45. Animals included 11 horses, 32 black cattle, and 49 sheep.
Thomas C. Howard still possessed both tracts at the time of the 1798 Federal Direct Tax. He owned 892 acres, including 349 acres of Worthington’s Range and 170 acre of Howard’s Chance. Howard held 16 slaves and owned one dwelling house and three outbuildings on less than 2 acres. The buildings were more specifically described as one frame dwelling house measuring 24 by 16 feet, one 36 by 16 foot log kitchen, one 12 by 12 foot log meat house, and one 32 by 14 foot log stable. The buildings were described as being located on Worthington’s Range.
In 1801, Thomas C. Howard willed to his son, Thomas Worthington Howard, “all that part of two tracts of land called Worthington’s Range and Howard’s Chance which lies on the east side of the main road leading from Snell’s Bridge to Ellicotts”. This is the location of 18HO284, which suggests that the buildings described three years earlier in the Federal Direct Tax were located on this extreme southern section of Worthington’s Range. After Thomas Howard Worthington’s death in 1818, the land passed to his wife, Amy, and then to his nephew, Thomas Hall Howard, after her death.
The land containing the site was transferred out of the Howard family in 1849, when Thomas Hall Howard agreed to sell 1791⁄2 acres out of the two tracts to Denton Miller upon the completion of his payment for the property. Howard was living in Frederick County, and the 1850 Census listed Miller as living in the Howard District of Anne Arundel County, so it is likely he lived on Howard’s property while paying off the debt. The 1850 census listed Miller as wheelwright with real estate valued at $6,000. Miller probably owned the wheelwright shop depicted on the west side of the Clarksville Pike on an 1860 map of the county, since two other wheelwrights lived in his household and the map also depicted him as the owner of a nearby property. The household also included his wife, Margaret, their six children, and two laborers. The 1860 map also depicts Miller occupying the property at 18HO284.
The two laborers were probably farmers. According to the 1850 agricultural census, Miller either owned or managed 139 improved acres and 78 unimproved acres, totaling 217 acres. The farm was valued at $6,000. The farm grew wheat, Indian corn, oats, Irish potatoes, and fruits and vegetables, hay, clover seed and other grass seeds, and hops, and also produced butter, wool, wine, and beeswax. The farm included $900 in livestock, including horses, milch cows, working oxen, other cattle, swine, and sheep. Miller was listed in the Federal slave censuses of 1850 and 1860, suggesting that the farm also was tended by slave labor. In 1850, there were 9 slaves, males and females between 1 year old and 58 years old. In 1860, Miller held or oversaw 11 slaves, males and females ranging in age from 8 to 70 years old, and one “slave house” was located on the property.
The executor of Howard’s estate conveyed the property to Miller in 1857 after the debt was paid. Although the 1860 census indicated that a wheelwright was still living with the family, it also showed that Miller’s occupation was now “farmer”. He might have wanted to maintain the wheelwright occupation until he owned the farm property and could start earning profits from it. The 1849 sale agreement stipulated that Miller could not earn profits until he owned the land. In addition to Margaret, Miller’s wife, the household included six children. Miller’s real estate maintained a $6,000 value.
The property was the subject of an equity court case beginning in 1868 after Miller defaulted on a mortgage. An 1871 advertisement for a trustee’s sale of Miller’s property indicated that his holdings totaled 214 acres along Clarksville Turnpike. If the entire property was not sold in one piece, then it would be divided into four lots, including: (1) a stone house and a dwelling with 58 acres, (2) a farmhouse, barns and outbuildings with 58 acres, (3) a blacksmith shop, a wheelwright shop and two dwellings with 37 acres, and (4) 40 acres of woodland. Based on the 1860 map, the lot containing the blacksmith shop, wheelwright shop, and two dwellings was located on the west side of Clarksville Pike.
In 1872, the trustees appointed by the equity court conveyed the 1791⁄2 acre portion to William Welling, who conveyed an 80 acre portion to William W. Watkins in 1877. According to a survey performed in 1871, this 80 acre parcel included 18HO284. Watkins was depicted in an 1878 atlas as the owner of the 180 acres that included the site. After Watkins died, his wife, Margaret, owned the property and was included in the 1880 agricultural census. Margaret Watkins farmed 116 acres of tilled land and 2 acres of orchards or meadows, and owned 17 acres of woodland. The land and the buildings were worth $5,000. The farm was less prolific than before the Civil War. It continued to grow Indian corn and wheat but did not grow oats or potatoes, and had a less diverse output of other products, producing milk, butter, eggs, hay, and cut wood. The value and types of livestock also dropped, to $800 including horses, milch cows, other cattle, swine, and poultry.
According to an 1878 tax assessment, the 80 acre parcel was valued at $1,600 and the improvements were valued at $500. Improvements maintained this worth when the property was sold in 1881.
Meanwhile, Denton Miller was buried on the property in 1878, even though he no longer owned it, suggesting that the burial location previously was established as a cemetery and that other burials occurred earlier. The burial at this location also suggests that it was Miller’s primary residence. A 1960 examination of the burial area (situated near, but not on the site) by the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution indicated that 5 other headstones were located near Miller’s but had sunk below ground level. At that time, an iron fence surrounded the graves. The graves were thought to contain Howard family members.
In 1881, Denton Miller’s son, James Nicholas Miller, bought the 80 acre property from the Watkins estate. He incorporated the property into a total holding of 246 acres, and owned the property until 1922. During his period of ownership, improvements consisting of “a new barn and sheds” were valued at $1,000 in April 1903, while $900 in improvements consisting of a barn, two sheds, a corn house, and a hen house were released from taxation at the same time (suggesting that they might have been demolished).
Clarence C. Adams purchased the 246 acre property in 1922 and operated a farm but reserved 15 perches for access to the burial ground. A 1922 tax assessment valued Adams’ dwelling at $2,500, a barn at $1,000, and six other buildings at $875 total. A 1926 assessment valued a silo at $400 and a dairy at $100. A 1928 tax assessment included the dwelling (increased to $3,000), a 40 by 57 foot barn valued at $1,200, a $25 meat house, a $25 chicken house, a $900 cow stable, a $400 cow shed, a $400 silo, a $75 silo, a $75 dairy, a $250 barracks, a $100 shed, and a $300 tenant house. A $200 frame bungalow was assessed in 1931 and a $300 shed was assessed in 1938. Taxes were abated on the barracks, suggesting the structure might have been demolished.
The property was sold in 1942 and passed through two owners. William C. and Grace W. Thompson and James J. and Anita R. Tierney purchased a one-half undivided interest in 1950. Interest in a reduced 89 acre portion, including Site 18HO284, was conveyed to the Tierneys in 1952. Following James J. Tierney’s death, Anita R. Tierney possessed sole interest in the 89 acre parcel, which was conveyed to Jeanne C. Hoddinott in November 1977. The old gambrel-roofed house burned in May 1977.
The site was first examined archeologically in 2008 during the course of a combined Phase I and II project in Clarksville. The archeological work was carried out in anticipation of new residential development of the 89 acre Hoddinott property. The property was to be developed into a new residential community of 150 dwellings known as the “Enclave at Tierney Farm”. Private residential lots would range between 6,000 and 14,600 square feet in size, with 53 acre set aside for open space. Development of the property was contingent on receipt of a US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands permit and, thus, Section 106 review was carried out to ensure adequate consideration for historical and archeological resources.
The Phase I work in 2008 entailed the excavation of 731 shovel test pits (STPs) across the 89 acre property as well as remote sensing work in the vicinity of the Miller family cemetery to identify unmarked grave shafts. In the vicinity of 18HO284 (a locale initially referred to as “Area A”) a total of 215 STPs were excavated: initially at 20 m intervals, with 10 m radial STPs excavated in all four cardinal directions around positive finds. The shovel tests measured 35 cm in diameter and were excavated 10 cm into sterile subsoil or to a depth of 40 cm. All excavated soils were screened through hardware cloth. Nineteen of the STPs produced artifacts and visible depressions and surface features aided in delineating the approximate boundaries of an archeological site: 18HO284.
A total of 199 artifacts were recovered from the site during Phase I work. The assemblage consisted of 37 architectural artifacts (19 window glass fragments, 14 cut nails, 1 wire nail, 2 iron spikes, and 1 iron hinge), 153 kitchen-related artifacts (53 ceramic sherds, 97 pieces of container glass, and 2 plastic container caps). Identifiable ceramic sherds included 2 creamware, 6 pearlware, 1 porcelain, 15 whiteware, 12 ironstone, 1 Rockingham, and 1 miscellaneous stoneware sherd. The pearlware and creamware sherds were recovered from a spatially discrete location within the site, suggesting that isolated deposits might be present dating back to the 18th century occupation of the property by the Howards. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was recommended.
Phase II testing at Site 18HO284 entailed the excavation of 18 formal 1 X 1 m test units. Placement of the test units was informed by the earlier Phase I shovel testing results. All units were hand-excavated. The unplowed soil was removed in 10 cm arbitrary levels within natural/cultural stratigraphic horizons and screened through hardware cloth. Plowed soils were removed as a single level and screened through hardware cloth as well. Archeological features were sampled, as necessary, to understand the nature and chronology of such features. The location of each test unit within the sampling pattern, the depths of the stratigraphic zones, and the presence or absence of cultural materials all were recorded in the field. All soil characteristics, included color and texture, were recorded according to standard soil nomenclature and methods.
Twelve potential cultural features were identified during the excavation of test units. Upon excavation, it appeared that ten of these features were cultural, while two were natural in origin. The cultural features included a cinder block and mortar-lined cellar hole, a stone foundation remnant and a possible stone foundation remnant, 3 post features, and 4 pits or depressions.
The Phase II investigations produced 7 prehistoric artifacts and 6,981 historic artifacts. The prehistoric artifacts included non-diagnostic distal point fragment, 3 rhyolite flakes, 1 quartz flake, 1 quartzite flake, and 1 piece of quartzite shatter. The prehistoric component appears to represent a low density lithic scatter of unknown specific temporal association, which has been impacted by historic activity at the site. The historic component at the site includes domestic occupation from the mid 18th through mid 20th centuries, but the most flourishing periods of farm use should be defined as ca. 1753-1865.
The Phase II historic artifact assemblage consisted of 86 activity items, 2,570 architectural artifacts, 36 clothing items, 6 furniture items (a porcelain knob, a porcelain shank, 2 brass knobs/handles, and 2 tacks), 3,974 kitchen-related artifacts (1,826 ceramic sherds, 1,815 glass fragments, 7 canning jar lids, 8 crown caps, and 318 faunal remains), 8 personal item (a porcelain figurine, 3 glass beads, 3 mirror fragments, and a penny), 18 tobacco-related artifacts (1 ball clay pipe, 4 ball clay pipe bowls, 11 ball clay stems, and 2 redware pipe bowls), 8 arms objects (3 brass cartridges, 4 shotgun shells, and a gun part), and 275 miscellaneous objects. The 86 activity items were 5 clay pigeon fragments, a glass marble, a harmonica part, 1 horse shoe, 52 miscellaneous hardware items, 15 iron container fragments, 2 lightbulb parts, 1 battery, and 8 terracotta flower pot sherds. The architectural assemblage consisted of 13 brick fragments, 1 piece of mortar, a pipe fragment, 119 electrical/copper wire fragments, 1 piece of electrical hardware, 805 window glass fragments, 16 drainage pipe fragments, 1,581 nails (905 cut, 675 wire, 1 unidentifiable), 7 spikes, 3 nuts, 7 bolts, 3 screws, 10 pieces of asbestos, and a screen fragment. The clothing items were 25 buttons, 2 buckles, 3 brass/copper eyelets, 3 snaps, 1 thimble, and a pair of scissors. The ceramic sherd assemblage included 11 buff- bodied earthenware sherds, 40 pieces of creamware, 196 pearlware, 44 miscellaneous earthenware, 17 porcelain, 448 ironstone, 475 whiteware, 36 yelloware, 61 Rockingham sherds, 391 redware, 1 scratch blue stoneware sherd, and 106 other stoneware sherds. The kitchen glass included 149 piece of tableware, 1,649 container glass fragments, and 17 glass lid liner pieces. The faunal assemblage included 2 bird bones, 309 mammal bones and teeth, 1 other bone, and 6 pieces of egg shell. And finally, the miscellaneous objects consisted of 15 pieces of plastic, 3 pieces of rubber, 3 aluminum fragments, 2 pieces of brass, 5 pieces of copper, 233 iron fragments, 2 pieces of lead, 1 piece of metal, 1 piece of slate, 3 coal fragments, 4 pieces of slag, and 3 other items.
The historic component of 18HO284 produced evidence for both vertical and horizontal integrity. Evidence for vertical integrity included data that portions of the site’s deposits may not have been frequently plowed since the late 19th century, and the presence of intact early to mid 19th century features. Evidence for horizontally separable activity areas included differentiable distribution of architectural and kitchen-related artifact concentrations, and chronologically discrete (late 18th to early 19th century) activity areas with little to no overlay of late activity.
The Phase II evidence for both horizontally distinct and vertically intact deposits associated with the historic component of Site 18HO284 suggested that the site could contribute significant data on time-specific farmstead development, spatial distribution of farm activities, refuse disposal patterns, and the socio-economic status of site inhabitants.
In June-September of 2016, Phase III data recovery excavations were conducted at 18HO284. Based on the Phase I and II archaeological work, a data recovery plan had been developed in accordance with State and Federal standards and guidelines, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended); Executive Order 11593; the Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974; the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (as amended); Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 60-66 and 800; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archaeological Sites; and Article 83B, Sections 5-617 and 5-618 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The data recovery plan was approved by the Maryland Historical Trust.
Subsequent to the approval of the data recovery plan, it was determined that no State or Federal permits, funding or other regulatory factors required site impacts to be mitigated by data recovery. However, Hoddinott LLC decided to proceed with the data recovery efforts in the interest of contributing significant data to the archeological and historical heritage of Howard County and the State of Maryland. All mitigative efforts adhered to Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland and to Archeology and Historic Preservation: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines.
A series of specific research questions that were thought to be addressable by data recovery of Site 18HO284 included:
1. What types of refuse disposal patterns have been employed at the site? Did they change over time? Do they reflect different activity areas within the farmstead?
2. What types of subsistence strategies were employed by site inhabitants?
3. What is the socio-economic status of site occupants?
The field methodology for data recovery at Site 18HO284 was designed to provide an adequate sample of the refuse disposal patterns and to uncover and excavate associated sub-surface features. Since Site 18HO284 contained an area with wooded growth and a large active agricultural field, field methods addressed both portions of the site. The first stage of the data recovery included a timed surface collection of the agricultural portion of the site, following plowing and disking. The timed surface collection was divided into 5 x 5 m blocks. The second stage of the data recovery included the hand-excavation of test units in the wooded portion of the site and the mechanical stripping of plowzone soils to expose sub-plowzone features in the agricultural portion of the site. In the non-agricultural area, which includes the former house location, eleven 1 x 1 m test units were excavated, mostly arranged in blocks of 2 x 2 m or 2 x 3 m. In agricultural portions of the site, 1,005 m2 was mechanically stripped of plowzone soils by backhoe in order to identify potential cultural features at the Ap/B horizon interface.
The timed surface collection yielded a total of 1,854 historic artifacts and 2 prehistoric lithic debitage. The historic assemblage includes 865 glass, 594 ceramic, 210 faunal, 93 manufactured, 59 metal, 22 stone, 10 synthetic, and 1 composite artifact. The ceramic assemblage consists of creamware (n=7), pearlware (n=18), whiteware (n=196), ironstone (n=89), porcelain (n=38), yellowware (n=4), redware (n=48), unidentified white bodied ceramics (n=100), domestic stoneware (n=56), German stoneware (n=1), Rockingham (n=5), and white salt glazed stoneware (n=3). Diagnostic nails include 1 handwrought nail and 2 wire nails. The date range of temporally diagnostic artifacts included those items that date from the eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries (the Howard occupational period) (n = 69), those from the mid-nineteenth century (the Miller occupational period) (n = 13), those from the late nineteenth to twentieth centuries (n = 140), and those with broader date ranges (n = 398). The horizontal distribution of artifacts from the Howard occupational period indicated a concentration of activity in an approximately 50 m2 area.
Two blocks of test units were excavated in the wooded portion of the site. Block A, a 2 x 3 m block, was situated near the remnants of the stone house foundation identified during the Phase II investigations. Historic artifacts recovered from Block A include 1,684 glass, 873 metal, 170 ceramic, 53 composite, 50 faunal, 37 manufactured, and 29 synthetic items. Temporally diagnostic artifacts include 267 wire nails, 216 cut nails, 111 machine-made glass fragments, 42 hand wrought nails, 56 whiteware sherds, 17 milk glass lid liner fragments, 16 pearlware sherds, 14 white granite ironstone sherds, 7 Rockingham/ Bennington sherds, 6 creamware sherds, 6 solarized manganese glass fragments, 6 bakelite items, 5 colorless glass fragments, 4 crown cap bottle caps, 3 transitional pearlware to whiteware sherds (1810 – 1840), 3 amber bottle glass fragments, 2 rimfire cartridges, 1 aqua soda bottle glass fragment, 1 composite metal cigarette fragment, 1 solarized selenite glass fragment, 1 bone china sherd, 1 buff-bodied stoneware sherd, 1 domestic gray stoneware sherd, 1 Continental hard-paste porcelain sherd, 1 brass shanked button, 1 Prosser process button, 1 Vaseline glass fragment, 1 refined white earthenware sherd, and 1 light bulb fragment.
In Block A, most artifacts of all types were recovered from the first stratum (n = 2,047), while a smaller number of items were recovered from the lower two strata (n = 836). No stratum showed chronological precedence and all were similarly mixed. The destruction of the house after the 1977 fire appears to have mixed earlier and later occupational components.
Block B, a 2 x 2 m block, was placed in an area that was near what appears to have been an outbuilding location in mid-twentieth century aerial photographs. Historic artifacts recovered from Block B include 1,092 glass, 673 ceramic, 269 metal, 163 faunal, 10 manufactured, 8 synthetic, 4 stone, and 3 composite items. Temporally diagnostic artifacts include 395 whiteware sherds, 113 wire nails, 112 machine-made glass fragments, 88 white granite ironstone sherds, 59 cut nails, 28 pearlware sherds, 16 Rockingham/Bennington sherds, 10 creamware sherds, 7 domestic buff-bodied stoneware sherds, 6 domestic gray stoneware sherds, 5 refined white earthenware sherds, 5 shotgun shell fragments, 3 solarized manganese glass fragments, 3 Bakelite fragments, 3 crown cap bottle tops, 2 Continental hard- paste porcelain sherds, 1 crown can, 1 milk glass lid liner fragment, 1 Vaseline glass fragment, 1 refined red earthenware sherd, 1 porcelain sherd, and 1 buff-bodied stoneware sherd.
In Block B, most artifacts of all types were recovered from the first stratum (n = 1,674), while a smaller number of items were recovered from the lower two strata (n = 548). No stratum showed chronological precedence and all were similarly mixed.
A 1x1m Test Unit was excavated in the wooded area in an effort to locate a possible stone pier based on the locations of stone piers in the adjacent stripped agricultural field portion of the site. Historic artifacts recovered from the TU included 145 ceramic, 100 glass, 82 metal, 11 faunal, and 6 synthetic items. Temporally diagnostic artifacts include 63 white granite ironstone sherds, 44 molded milk glass fragments, 39 whiteware sherds, 38 cut nails, 20 wire nails, 14 Rockingham/Bennington sherds, 6 domestic gray stoneware sherds, 4 yellow ware sherds, 3 machine-made bottle or jar glass, 2 hand wrought nails, 1 Jack field sherd, 1 refined white earthenware sherd, 1 creamware sherd, 1 bone china sherd, 1 solarized manganese bottle glass fragment, 1 medicine bottle, and 1 milk glass lid liner fragment. All artifacts were recovered from the Ap horizon and were mixed chronologically.
A total of 41 potential cultural features were identified in the 1,005 m2 of areas stripped of plowzone by backhoe. Upon closer examination, seven potential features were determined to be non-cultural or plow related. Features yielded a total of 5,124 artifacts. Pre-historic artifacts comprised less than one per cent of the total artifact assemblage. Recovered pre-historic materials included lithic debitage (n = 7), a biface (a possible Otter Creek point made of rhyolite), and a single fragment of prehistoric ceramic.
The majority of the historic period artifacts were organic materials (n = 1,955); the organic sub-assemblage comprised largely of faunal remains. Ceramic (n = 1,349), metal (n = 973), and glass (n = 748) materials were the next most common classes recovered in the feature contexts. The remainder of the artifact assemblage included manufactured (brick, plaster, daub, slag, etc.), stone, synthetic, and composite materials.
Fifteen features represented structural features, while eighteen represented refuse pits of varying sizes and depths of preservation below the Ap horizon. One feature was of uncertain function. Six features, including Feature 1-20, represented a distinctive cluster of refuse pit features within an approximately 6 x 8 m area that fit within the occupational period of the Howard family. Two additional features appeared to stem from the end of that period, and two others may have remained open beyond that period. Two features appeared to stem from the period of Denton Miller’s ownership, and a third may have remained open beyond that time. The remaining features either post-dated the site’s period of significance or were not datable.
Based on the information gleaned from the Phase III data recovery, the three proposed research questions were addressed. The first research question concerned the types of refuse disposal patterns, and whether they changed over time and reflected different activity areas at the site. The data recovery indicated that refuse pits were employed at the site beginning in the 1830s and continued to be a method of refuse disposal into the twentieth century. No evidence for intact sheet midden deposits was encountered. Thus, there was little indication of changing refuse disposal patterns. In terms of the spatial arrangement of farmstead activities, most refuse disposal was situated south of the dwelling, with a lesser amount to the north.
The second research question related to the types of subsistence strategies employed by site inhabitants. The quantity and variety of archeobotanical materials from the site during data recovery were so limited that no specialized analyses were undertaken. However, faunal remains were numerous and were analyzed in detail. The highly repetitive nature of the deposits across all of the time periods of site occupation was indicative of a long term dietary tradition. This tradition was based on a staple of pork and oysters supplemented by beef, chicken and mutton.
The final research question concerned the socio-economic status of the site inhabitants during its period of significance, ca. 1753 – 1865. The period of Denton Miller’s ownership (1849 – 1872) was represented by only about four scalable ceramic vessels. The remainder of its ceramic sub-assemblage included largely non-diagnostic body fragments that were inadequate for further vessel analyses. Glass, metal, and other categories of materials were limited and were mainly non-diagnostic portions or architecture-related artifacts such as nails. Consequently, no detailed analyses of the artifact assemblage from features dating from the ownership period of Denton Miller were undertaken.
By contrast, the period of Howard family occupation (ca. 1753 – 1849) provided an abundance of various types of artifacts from intact deposits, and was subjected to detailed socio-economic analyses. Most of the intact contexts from this occupational phase appeared to stem from the 1830s – 1840s demolition of a detached kitchen and the filling of refuse pits with its debris and that from formerly sheet midden materials near the kitchen. The socio-economic status evident in the ceramic and faunal assemblages from the cultural features of this period were not suggestive of a high status family like the Howards, but instead of lower status individuals. Therefore, it is plausible to understand the assemblage from the Howard period cultural features as related primarily to the enslaved African Americans who had resided there.
While it was not possible to preserve 18HO284, its excavation during the Enclave at Tierney Farm Project will ensure that the archeological data from the site will be available to both the scientific community and the general public for studies related to the historical heritage of Howard County and the State of Maryland.
.
|
