Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18MO1 Hughes
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Hughes Site (18MO1) is primarily a late Woodland village with additional minor components of Late Archaic and Early-Middle Woodland affiliation. While the larger site is multi-component, the village itself appears to represent a single Late Woodland Luray (or Keyser) component that was probably occupied for only a few decades between 1400 and 1500 AD. As such, it is one of only two Keyser Complex village sites known in the Potomac Piedmont. The site is located on the north bank of the Potomac River near Poolesville in Montgomery County, MD. The site is situated on the expansive river floodplain on agriculturally productive Huntington silt-loam soils. While the river is not navigable for a great distance downriver, its banks at least provided a pathway to the Maryland/Virginia coastal plain.
The site was discovered in 1937 by Nicholas and Roy Yinger. Roy had a fishing cabin located near the site and during a foraging expedition for wild greens he noticed a large, semi-circular soil stain and artifact scatter within an open plowed field. He immediately contacted his brother. Nicholas was a resident of nearby Frederick, Maryland and a self-taught amateur archeologist who had been digging artifacts from prehistoric sites in the Potomac Valley before his excavations at the Hughes site. Most of Nicholas Yinger's archeological endeavors were uncontrolled and poorly documented and the recovered collections were neither properly inventoried nor curated intact. Fortunately, Yinger’s activity attracted the attention of Richard E. Stearns, a curator for the Natural History Society of Maryland, who obtained permission to observe Yinger’s work and assist in the excavation. Stearns published details of Yinger’s investigations, providing a general description of the site, maps of features, and a description of some of the artifacts. Some of the artifacts and human remains encountered in the 1930s excavation were eventually curated at the Smithsonian Institution. However, a lack of field notes (though Yinger did keep some notes on burials he excavated) and a detailed artifact inventory have hampered the ability to use these data in site interpretation.
Only artifacts deemed “relevant” were retained for study (or display). Yinger reported on several occasions in his burial notes that no “artifacts” were found in the grave fill, but that the fill contained the usual village refuse including animal bone, chips, potsherds, charcoal, ash, and turtle and mussel shell. It is likely that few or none of these materials that Yinger considered to be refuse were kept, and the burial excavations represent the maximum of effort in his recovery work. It is apparent from the records that are available that he was far more interested in burials than in the numerous pit features he encountered in his search for burials. The limited records left by Yinger and the published report by Stearns describe a village outlined by an irregular circle of pits roughly 120 meters in diameter. There was a break in the circle of approximately 36.5 meters (120 ft) at its northern end. An additional cluster of pits was situated near the center of the circle. No evidence of a palisade was encountered, but Stearns noted that the excavation likely did not extend far enough to encounter such a feature.
Seventy-three burials were encountered in 44 of the aforementioned pits. These were concentrated into four main burial clusters throughout the site. Three of the burials were of later European origin and are considered anomalous as not a single item of European origin was found elsewhere at the site. The majority of the graves can be grouped into three general types as follows: single primary interments, multiple primary interments, and graves containing both primary and secondary interments. In addition, there was a single case of a grave containing only secondary interments, and there was one instance of a single secondary interment. The latter was the buried cremated remains of one individual, the only recorded cremation at the site. Cluster A, the largest of the 4 burial clusters, contained only single and multiple primary interments and no secondary burials. In addition to the cremation and the multiple secondary burial mentioned above, Cluster B contained four single primary interments and one mixed grave and no multiple primary interments. Cluster C, the smallest cluster, contained three single primary interments and one mixed grave. And Cluster D contained only one single primary interment, four multiple primary interments, and three mixed graves. Most of the bodies were either fully extended on their backs or flexed on their sides.
The burial population is typical of other agricultural communities from the time period, showing various signs of nutritional stress, the most dramatic of which were dental pathologies. Artifacts were encountered with 29 burials or multiple interment graves. There were 12 cases each where quartz points or where bone awls were buried with an individual. Shell beads were found in 10 cases. Whole pots were found in five cases, and bone beads and points of other raw materials were each found in four cases. Other artifacts that were found in one or two cases included shell pendants, pipe fragments, turtle shell rattles (pierced turtle carapace with pebbles in close proximity), bone pendants, and miscellaneous stone, bone, and antler tools. All of the whole pots were found with burials in Cluster A. All of the shell beads were also found in Cluster A, with the exception of those found with an isolated burial. The sample is small, but it also appears that shell beads were most frequently included with the burials of females and juveniles (where sex cannot be determined). The quartz points, on the other hand, tended to be associated with males. Bone awls in this sample were associated with almost equal frequency with both males and females. There was a considerable amount of evidence for traumatic death through violence. Two graves held the remains of individuals that had been partially dismembered prior to burial. One grave contained the poorly preserved flexed remains of an adult female and an adult male that were missing body parts, including both skulls (these missing parts were not included anywhere in the grave fill). Another grave contained the remains of two adult males who had been decapitated. The neck vertebra on both skeletons showed damage where the skulls had been cut off, thus indicating that they were removed while the skeleton was still in flesh. The skulls of both individuals were apparently placed carefully next to each body and not subsequently disturbed. In a vertebra of one of these individuals was embedded a small quartz triangular point. In two instances Yinger also noted what he thought could have been fatal skull wounds.
The most complete accounting of artifacts encountered during the 1930s excavations at Hughes comes from Stearns published report for the Natural History Society of Maryland. In all cases, the numbers presented here are minimal counts as absolute quantities are not provided in all cases or there are discrepencies between what Stearns actually observed and what Yinger recalled recovering in discussions with Stearns. Stearns smaller numbers are deemed more reliable here. Over 10,000 ceramic sherds were encountered at the site in 1937 and 1938. Most of these were shell-tempered and at least 80 of them were rimsherds. At least 6 clay pipe fragments were also encountered. Lithic artifacts include at least 236 triangular points. There was also at least 1 drill-shaped point and 3 other points among the flaked stone. Recall that debitage and other non-diagnostic tools were typically discarded in the field. Groundstone objects include 8 celts, 1 double-ended chisel, and 2 dark purple pieces of slate gorget. Use-modified stone tools include 3 hammerstones, 5 irregular steatite fragments, and a rubbed/polished piece of hematite (may have been used for pigment). A large number of faunal remains were also encountered, but only those which were apparent to the excavators as either decorative items (many in burials) or tools were described and retained. The faunal tool assemblage includes 150 bone awls, 79 bone fleshers/beamers, 10 antler projectile points, 1 antler flaker, 6 complete and 2 unfinished bone fishhooks, 2 bone pins, 2 flat bone needles, 1 beaver tooth cutting tool, and 5 other bone tools. The faunal decorative items are at least 100 shell beads (mussel, oyster, columnella, and marginella), 4 perforated oyster shell pendants, 2 small triangular-cut univalve pendants, 14 bird bone beads, 1 bead cut from mammal bone, 4 polished raccoon bacula pendants, and 7 turtle carapace sections (polished and perforated with pebbles in close proximity). The latter are interpreted to be turtle shell rattles.
In 1969, the Southwestern Chapter of the Archeological Society of Maryland conducted limited excavations at the Hughes Site. However, very few documents relating to these excavations have ever been located. The work apparently consisted of the excavation of about fifteen 1.524 X 1.524 meter (5 X 5 ft) test units. Details are too sketchy to provide any additional information here, but there is a 1969 accession number for materials from the Hughes Site in the collections of the MHT.
The most thoroughly documented research conducted at 18MO1, was under the auspices of the American University’s Potomac River Archeology Survey during the summers of 1990, 1991, and 1994. The survey used students enrolled in the university’s archeological field school. This work was conducted from a pure research perspective to understand this important site and clarify its place within regional prehistory, rather than as a salvage or CRM operation. Given the history of uncontrolled excavation by collectors at the site, one of the primary objectives of the research was to determine whether or not any of the site remained intact and, to the extent possible, determine how the village had been laid out. In addition, researchers hoped to obtain a less biased sample of material culture than was obtained during earlier excavations. To achieve these goals, 34 shovel test pits (STPs), one 1 X 30 meter trench, and 89 2 X 2 meter units were excavated in four areas of the site. Areas A and D were located in the western portion, Area B in the central part, and Area C in the eastern section of the village. The majority of the 460 archeological features in these four areas, including 390 postmolds, were exposed at the bottom of the plowzone. All soil was screened through hardware cloth and flotation samples were taken from the features.
Various types of subsurface features were uncovered, including storage pits, hearths, structural postmolds, three additional prehistoric burials, and a palisade. The palisade was not encountered until the 1994 season, when the excavation was expanded out to the west sufficiently to reach the edge of the village. The palisade appears as multiple linear patterns of postmolds. Only a very small area of palisade was exposed. Thus, it is difficult to determine if the multiple postmold lines are the remains of multiple palisade lines that existed simultaneously or if they represent episodes of repairs and/or rebuilding. Only by exposing additional portions of the palisade could such a determination be made. The burials were located on the western periphery of the site as well, probably near Yinger’s burial cluster B or isolated burial 38. The first burial contained the articulated remains of an infant extended on its back and oriented to the north. The grave itself was evidently dug for the sole purpose of containing the remains of this infant. No artifacts were directly associated with the burial, but some artifacts in the fill were likely accidental inclusion. The second grave contained the disarticulated remains of at least two individuals. Excavation of this grave ceased when it was realized that to continue would entail radical disturbance of the burials it contained. One of the individuals was an adult male, and judging by the size of the mandible, the second was either female or an adolescent male. The grave fill was dark and contained moderate amounts of flakes and sherds, but without further excavation it was not possible to discern if the pit had been used for the disposal of refuse. During the limited excavation of this grave, no artifacts were found that appeared to be associated with the human remains. The third grave was also only partially excavated, but sufficient to ascertain the age and sex of the individuals. One individual was an adult male, placed in a loosely flexed position oriented to the east and facing north. The disarticulated remains of the second individual, also an adult male, were placed slightly above the knees of the first. No artifacts were found associated with these burials.
Four radiocarbon assays have been obtained from features encountered at 18MO1. All four were obtained from charcoal samples in pit features, one sample each from storage pit Features 7 and 22, and two samples from basin-shaped pit Feature 45. For all cases the lab reported that the samples were of excellent quality and quantity and that all steps proceeded normally. In addition, all charcoal samples were obtained from contexts containing a significant number of Keyserware sherds. The sample from Feature 7 yielded an uncalibrated date of 510±50 years before present. The sample from Feature 22 yielded an uncalibrated date of 660±50 years before present. The sample from Feature 45 yielded an uncalibrated date of 420±60 years before present and a second date of 580±60 years before present. When calibrated, these dates range from AD 1290 to 1530, and at one standard deviation, they overlap only with the nearest date(s). When the maximum overlap of these dates is calculated at two standard deviations, 3 of the 4 date ranges overlap between AD 1340 and 1390 and again between AD 1410 and 1490. Thus, the evidence at hand suggests that the actual dates of the four samples most probably lie within the period of time between the years AD 1340 and 1490.
A very large artifact assemblage was obtained during the 1990, 1991, and 1994 excavations by American University. A total of 32,093 ceramic sherds were excavated during this work, the vast majority of which (28,742 sherds or 89%) were tempered with fresh-water mussel shell. All sherds tempered with shell were classifiable as Keyser ware.
The second most frequently occurring temper type was categorized as "sand and/or quartz" and comprised a total of 3,306 sherds (10 % of the total). These sherds are not assigned to a specific pottery “type”, but at least some are likely Shepard ware. Other ceramic sherds are sandstone tempered (36), limestone tempered (3), steatite tempered (4 – interpreted by some to be Marcey Creek), and 2 sherds of “other” temper. At least 510 of the sherds encountered are rimsherds. The only other objects of clay found during the excavations of the 1990s were a single fired clay ball of unknown significance and 32 decorated and undecorated clay pipe fragments.
Due to the enhanced data recovery procedures utilized by American University (compared to the work in the 1930s), a vastly greater number of lithic materials were encountered. The flaked stone assemblage includes 58,125 flakes, 22,324 pieces of shatter, 11,358 chunks, 238 cores, and at least 2,229 flaked stone tools. The vast majority of all flaked stone material is quartz, but quartzite, rhyolite, chert and chalcedony, siltstone, and sandstone are also present. Among the 2,229 tools are 116 whole points, 854 point fragments, 87 1st stage performs, 129 2nd stage performs, 334 3rd stage performs, 49 drills, 17 generalized bifaces, 21 scrapers, 2 spokeshaves, 1 graver, 230 modified flake tools, and 389 utilized flake tools. Diagnostics among the points and point fragments include 604 triangular points (602 Madison/Potomac and 2 elongate Levannas), 2 Piscataway points, and a Susquehanna Broadspear. Groundstone tools include 2 discoidals, an axe, 5 celts pieces, and a metate. Use-modified lithic objects are 71 wedge fragments and 28 hammerstones. And finally, a significant amount of fire-cracked rock was encountered throughout the various features and elsewhere at the site. A total of 8,253 fire-cracked rock fragments were reported.
Much like the lithic assemblage, the faunal assemblage from the 1990s is likewise much larger than the 1930s sample due to differences in data recovery methods. No formal analysis has been conducted on the entire faunal assemblage from the American University work, but an analysis was conducted on the animal bones collected during 1990 and 1991 as part of a dissertation project. The findings of that project reveal the presence of 27,024 unmodified animal bones and 122 modified animal showing signs of use wear of deliberate alteration. The residents of the Hughes Site concentrated on deer, gray squirrel, turkey, and raccoon, while taking little advantage of migratory species such as birds and fish. Among the 154 modified faunal objects (122 bone and 32 shell) are 22 small disk and elongated shell beads with cylindrical and beveled perforations, 10 marginella shell beads, 5 bone beads, and 117 unidentified bones with signs of human modification. Along with the faunal remains, other evidence of natural species utilized by the residents of the Hughes site include archeobotanical remains collected through flotation (a technology not available in the 1930s). Unfortunately, the flotation samples taken from pit features have not been analyzed and, to date, the only archeobotanical remains from Hughes that have been identified are several fragments of charred corn cob and fragments of charred nutshell (unidentified as to species).
In 2006, limited testing was again conducted as part of an Archeological Society of Maryland field session. Fieldwork focused on the southeastern edge of the site, which was poorly understood compared to other portions of the site. One of the key goals of the 2006 project was to attempt to locate any evidence of a palisade line (previously identified on the western edge of the site) that might be present in that locale.
A total of fourteen 2 X 2 m test units were excavated by the ASM along a baseline (oriented to the 1990s era grid) running east-west across the projected palisade arc or east village margin. Seven of these units were contiguous, and seven were placed in a checkerboard pattern. Each unit was excavated to a depth between 39 and 56 cm and soils were screened in all but two units. Standard level forms were completed for each level within excavation units. Following previous research at the site, excavations typically focused on three soil horizons: Level 1 or the plowzone (12-36 cm deep), Level 2 or mottled layer (6-16 cm thick), and Level 3 or subsoil. When troweled, the surface of the last layer best reveals any feature that might be present. A log was maintained by the principal investigator to provide a more textual account of activities. Feature forms were completed when warranted. Plan view drawings were made of all levels that revealed postmolds or features. All postmolds were cross-sectioned and drawings of their profiles were prepared. A total of 108 color slides and 120 medium format black-and-white images collected to document excavation. In addition to drawing postmolds and features within individual units, X-Y coordinates of all postmolds and features were collected relative to the site datum with a laser theodolite. Unit wall profiles (both north/south and east/west) were drawn from a large sample of the excavated units. Flotation samples were collected from all features.
The artifact assemblage recovered during the 2006 ASM field session at 18MO1 included at least 7,035 flaked lithic objects, 2,785 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 2,382 ceramic sherds, and numerous faunal remains (not quantified).
Ceramic finds closely mirrored those recovered in previous field seasons. Keyser ware ceramics, tempered with crushed river mussel shell, dominated. A total of 2043 Keyser Ware sherds were identified. Most were body sherds, but 68 were rim sherds. A total of 339 other sherds were recovered which could not be identified as to type. Lugs were seen on a number of rim sherds, and most of the body sherds were cord-marked and then smoothed. A measurements of rim curvature of some sherds indicated fairly wide-mouthed vessels, but the measurable sample was not large.
The lithic assemblage, as is true for most Late Woodland villages in the region, was rather expedient and contained a limited range of formal tool types. Enormous quantities of flakes (1,866 pieces) and shatter (5,035) were recovered. Some 94% of the total flakes recovered in 2006 were quartz along with 98% of the shatter. A total of 53 formal tools were identified along with 81 cores. The latter, in a variety of forms, appear to have been destined for final shaping into tools or were used to produce flakes that would be fashioned into tools. Only very small quantities of non-quartz lithic materials, quartzite, rhyolite, chert, siltstone, and jasper (all in quantities of 1% or less), were recovered. Most formal tools recovered were triangular points (26 examples). A striking almost complete Holmes projectile (Savannah River variant) was recovered on top of one small feature. This stray point manufactured of a creamy quartzite dates to the Late Archaic. It is important to note that there is a substantial Late Archaic site in the same field just east of Hughes, and in 1990 significant numbers of large quartzite flakes were discovered that appeared to date to the Late Archaic in two nearby units. These materials are either an extension of the aforementioned site or the Hughes site has a small Late Archaic component. The projectile may have been curated or even used by the Hughes villagers. Other tool types recovered, assignable to the Late Woodland component at Hughes, include generalized bifaces, quartz scrapers, two quartz spokeshaves, and a quartz drill. A small number of what might be termed “preforms” were also recovered. Perhaps the most interesting tool identified in these sample units was a jasper drill.
Six features were identified in 2006, three of which appear to have been medium-sized pits (one a basin-shaped feature). Another was a small pit, one was an irregular depression, and one was a trench excavated by Yinger. Two of the pits were not excavated as they extended into nearby unexcavated units. The irregular depression yielded charcoal, bone, animal teeth, and sherds, as well as a jasper triangular projectile (apparently heat-treated). Most of the bone and teeth were from white-tailed deer, with only a few other small mammal bones included in the fill. The small pit contained charcoal, bone, lithics, an antler, and the aforementioned Late Archaic point on the surface. The basin-shaped pit contained charcoal, bone, antler, ceramics, lithics, and fire-cracked rock. In addition to these features, a total of 28 postmolds were mapped and cross-sectioned. A total of 575 such postmolds had been cataloged at the site during the course of the earlier excavations. These appear to relate to four linear palisade lines.
Faunal remains from four features were identified by an archeozoologist from the Virginia Museum of Natural History. They identified seven species along with a great deal of additional material at the general level of small to large mammal as well as small to large bird. Among the more identifiable remains were great amounts of white-tailed deer as well as significant remains of wild turkey and box turtle. Also identified were dog, porcupine, fox squirrel, and the partial remains of a small carnivore.
Archeobotanical analysis was also completed on, not only the flotation samples from the 2006 excavations, but also those from 1990, 1991, and 1994. At the Hughes site a total of 6,901 fragments of charcoal weighing 368.8 grams were recovered from flotation samples. Identification of a significant sample of those fragments from each feature revealed that hickory was a preferred fuel 44% of the time followed by white oak at 22%. Remaining species identified included red oak, maple, elm, black locust, chestnut, pine, beech, and other unspecified oak species. Villagers obviously preferred hard woods dominated by two such species, hickory and white oak. When burnt, both offered increased BTU production and probably burned longer when compared to some other types, especially softwood species but even many other hardwoods.
Nutshell fragments were recovered from 74% of the samples. A total of 2000 fragments weighing 51.8g were identified. The recovered fragments were dominated by thick-walled hickory followed by some black walnut and acorn fragments. Carbonized seed remains numbered 17 whole or partial fragments recovered from 26% of the sampled features. Those recovered were dominated by wild grape (5 entire seeds along with 8 fragments). Smaller amounts of carbonized bedstraw seeds as well as knotweed and grass were also found. The remains of cultigens were well represented in 78% of the Hughes flotation samples. A total of 6,412 specimens of Meso-American cultigens were recovered, including maize (6,407 specimens) and the common bean (5 specimens). Actual carbonized corn cobs were also recovered during examination and radiocarbon dated.
Three new radiocarbon assays were made following the 2006 excavations. All three appear to clarify the occupation date range of the Hughes Site, suggesting occupation early in the 15th century. Charcoal recovered from Feature 79 (a basin-shaped pit also containing bone, antler, Keyser sherds, lithics, and fire-cracked rock) yielded an uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 550±40 years before present. When calibrated, this corresponds to a calendrical date range (2 sigma) of AD 1304-1438. Feature 13, which was excavated during the 1990s-era ASM excavations, produced fragments of a corncob when the flotation samples were analyzed in 2006. A radiocarbon assay on the corncob sample yielded an uncalibrated date of 490±40 radiocarbon years before present. When calibrated (2 sigma) this corresponds to a calendrical date range of 1324-1465. And finally, Feature 78 (the small pit with the Late Archaic Holmes point on top of it and containing charcoal, bone, lithics, and antler pieces) produced a sample which yielded a date of 580±40 radiocarbon years before present. When calibrated, this corresponds to a calendrical date range (2 sigma) of 1298-1421.
A review of data relating to village layout, economy, and style at the Hughes site presents a somewhat coherent, albeit partial, view of the village community that resided at the site. Several lines of evidence suggest that this community was a socially and economically autonomous unit that was capable of collective action, that in several arenas represented itself as an undifferentiated social entity, and that operated under egalitarian principles in terms of access to resources and the products of labor. The mortuary data provide a provocative counterpoint to this interpretation. The patterning in the burial data indicate, not surprisingly, that this social entity was composed of smaller social groups that were most likely based on household residence and kinship. What was somewhat surprising was to find that these groups evidently maintained a high degree of integrity in death and presumably in life, as well (the different burial clusters, coupled with apparent village layout). What is yet more surprising is to find that there were differences among these smaller groups that very possibly reflected significantly different conceptions of community and the role of personal identity in community (varying burial accompaniments). The possibility exists that beneath a façade of homogeneity lay several different, possibly competing, principles guiding social practice. What at first appears to us in the archeological record as a static unified whole, and what may in fact have been projected by the residents of this site, may have actually involved the dynamic negotiation of potentially conflicting ideas about the nature of communal life. Together these different lines of evidence bespeak a degree of complexity not previously considered for the community at this site or for prehistoric communities that resided at other regional village sites in the interior. Given the high interpretive value of the data collected to date at Hughes and its current state of preservation, the site retains considerable additional research potential relating to this topic of community structure and identity, along with other issues (warfare and violence, diet and nutrition, the earlier components at Hughes, etc.).
|
