Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18MO778 Gaither Howard House
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18MO778, also known as the Gaither Howard House site, is a late 18th century Anglo-American and African-American stone ruin and farmstead in Patuxent River State Park in Montgomery County, Maryland. The ruins of the Gaither Howard House (M:23-8A) is part of the site, as is the Howard Family Cemetery (M:23-8), located about 300 feet south of the Gaither Howard House. The Greenbury Howard House (M:23-8B/18MO779) also sits south of the site. The Patuxent River is located approximately 1,600 feet northeast of the Gaither Howard House. Soils are Glenelg silt loam 3-8%, and the site is in a wooded setting surrounded by agricultural fields.
The land on which the Howard houses stands is part of several original land tracts, including Gaither’s Forest, Mount Calvary, Hard to Get and Dear Paid For, and Green Spring Resurveyed. The Gaither Howard House is a two-story stone dwelling with a single-story ell with a cellar constructed by Beale Gaither around 1790. A date stone that was noted to have been located in the north gable end read “B.G. 1790,” but has since disappeared amid the deterioration of the structure. The MIHP paperwork describes the location as the north gable end, but according to the hand-drawn map included within, the north arrow was inaccurate and thus the gable end with the datestone would have been the west side.
Beale Gaither, the son of Henry and Martha Gaither, farmed this property and it remained under Gaither family ownership until 1862. The land had been owned and farmed by the Gaither family prior to this point, it is unclear where they lived, though there are several other Gaither family houses recorded in the area. Henry Gaither, Beal’s father, paid taxes to the Proprietor for several tracts, including Gaither’s Forrest and Green Spring, showing that the family was present in the area from the middle of the eighteenth century (1753 to 1773). Little is known of the occupation of the Gaither Howard House by the Gaithers; Federal Census records for 1790 through 1820 show that Beal Gaither was a slave owner, and that he was the sole white person living on the farm between 1790 and 1810. Over time, until the 1820 census, Beal steadily increased the number of people he held enslaved; from 5 in 1790 to 12 in 1810. In 1820, the first year that reporting included a breakdown of the ages of those counted, the household of Beal Gaither also changed dramatically. In addition to Beal, there was a free white woman (aged 45+ years), two free-black girls (aged under 14 years), five enslaved black children (aged under 14 years), and one enslaved black woman (aged 26-44 years). Beale Gaither died in 1839; leaving his “dwelling plantation” to his brother, Frederick, and his nephew (not Frederick’s son), Samuel R. Gaither. Frederick’s daughter Maria was married to Samuel R. (m. 1823). It is likely that Samuel and Maria began living at the Gaither Howard House starting around 1839 or 1840. However, their occupation was short because Maria passed away in 1851 while Samuel R. Gaither died in 1860. The property then reverted to Frederick Gaither’s granddaughters.
Enoch George Howard (1814-1895, referred to as George Howard going forward) was born with a slave status in 1814 likely to enslaved parents Jack and Polly on the Griffith farm near Unity, Maryland. Basil (1759-1841) and Ruth Gartrell Griffith (1763-1850) owned the farm Fairview (MIHP No. M:23-71) east of Sunshine where George was born and first enslaved. In 1841, when Basil Griffith died, George was valued in the estate inventory at $600, the second highest valued enslaved person; only the enslaved blacksmith was valued at more: $750. Sometimes an owner’s death would result in the enslaved being sold or sent to new owners within a family. That did not occur at Fairview. John Griffith, Basil’s son, reported in the final accounting of the Basil Griffith Estate that he had sold various items “being all except the negroes.”
Even before Basil Griffith died, George Howard’s life had begun to change. George married Harriet Ann Lee Howard (1818-1882) around 1838, while both were enslaved by different people, Harriet was enslaved by Samuel R. Gaither (the nephew of Beale Gaither). Their first son, John Henry Howard (1839-1923), was born August 25, 1839, followed by Mary Alice (1842-1886), and Martha Elizabeth (1846-1915), all born while Harriet was enslaved by the Gaither family; as such, the children were all born with slave status. On March 31, 1851, George filed his Manumission Deed with the Clerk of the Montgomery County Court wherein Sarah Griffith, Mistress of Montgomery County, released Howard from his servitude, and established his name as George Howard. He was not charged to purchase his freedom, but it was given for “diverse good causes and considerations”. Likewise, on September 5, 1853, Harriet Howard’s Manumission Deed, released her from Samuel R. Gaither’s ownership on account of “diverse good causes and considerations”.
In 1855, George Howard began to rent about 200 acres of land from Jeffrey F.D. Magruder; the land was located near Beale Gaither’s farm, now owned by Samuel R. Gaither. By 1860, the Howards had saved enough money to purchase the freedom of their four children from Samuel. R. Gaither. It is unclear where the family is living after George and Harriet gain their freedom, but it is likely not far from where their children are still living enslaved by Samuel at the Gaither Howard House. The 1850 Federal Census Slave Schedule, lists that Samuel owns eight people, including four children with ages that correspond to the ages of the Howard children at that time. Harriet is also listed on the schedule, as she didn’t gain her freedom until three years later. The 1860 Federal Census shows the entire Howard family, living together in Olney, Montgomery County. The Howard’s welcomed another child, this one born free, Maria Gaither Howard (1857-1910) in 1857. On April 4, 1862, George Howard purchased 289.5 acres from Frederick Gaither’s granddaughters for a sum of $3,000. The land included that which Beal Gaither had bequeathed to Frederick Gaither: his stone house and farmlands. George Howard had purchased the farm and house where his wife and children had recently been enslaved. In 1869, George purchased the Magruder land that he had been renting since 1855. On the 1865 Martenet and Bond Map of Montgomery County the Gaither Howard House falls within the crease, but a label is just visible, with the beginning of an initial letter and ending in “ither,” and possibly reads “B. Gaither” or “F. Gaither.” By 1865, the house belonged to George Howard, the map was likely surveyed before the transaction had been completed or was based on older maps or information.
George Howard’s farm produced mainly rye and oats, along with lesser quantities of corn, rice, and barley. Howard's livestock included eight milk cows, 14 pigs, four cattle, a pair of mules, a pair of horses, and two pairs of oxen. More common on Midwestern farms than in Maryland, the four oxen provided a powerful resource in plowing the farm's large acreage. In 1870, the agricultural census listed nearly 70 percent of Howard's land as improved, at a value of $10 per acre. Howard continued buying and selling land in Montgomery and Howard counties through the 1880s; land records showed him purchasing at least 650 acres and selling over 420 acres during his lifetime. Howard invested portions of his wealth in stocks, owning $200 in private securities in 1867, and increasing his securities to $797 by 1869. He also invested in gold or silver plate and watches, valuable assets. George used his funds to assist other African Americans in purchasing land. In 1870, for instance, he lent Wilson Lincoln and Thomas R. Bond the funds to buy 125 acres of land near Unity. Howard also left solid evidence of his involvement with the local African American community that surrounded his property near the Patuxent River. In 1878, George (himself illiterate) sold a tenth of an acre of land for a school for African American students. The schoolhouse appears as “Schl. Ho. No. 2” on Hopkins 1879 map of Montgomery County.
In 1862, John Henry Howard married Harriet A. Gaither, remaining in Montgomery County as a farmer. In 1864, Mary Alice Howard married Benjamin F. Harding, a non-slaveholding white farmer in Barnesville, and was listed as white in the 1870 census. Martha Elizabeth Howard married the Civil War veteran John H. Murphy in 1868, later providing $200 to help her husband found Baltimore's historic Afro American newspaper. Greenbury W. Howard and Rebecca Nettles married in 1876, and lived on the Howard family farm for the rest of their lives.
In 1885, Maria Gaither Howard graduated from Howard University with a teaching degree, married an African American physician, Jacob B. Oliver, and they moved to Indiana by 1900. In 1885, George sold 100 acres each to his two sons, Greenbury and John. It is likely that the Greenbury Howard House is built around this time. Even as their children grew up and left home, Enoch George and Harriet Howard’s house remained full, with various relatives and friends living with them throughout the years. As early as 1860, two adolescents named Flodorado and Gilbert Howard were living in the Howards’ household. James Howard, a 45-year-old African American farm laborer from Virginia, resided with the family in 1870, along with two children named Gustavus and Elijah Dorsey. Harriet Coxon, Frances Murphy, James Blair, and William Holland were among the other names listed in the Howard residence in 1880.
Several sources even attribute Howard with providing lodging for the slave Dred Scott during the controversial Scott vs. Sanford case. Scott had sued for freedom after his owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott into the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans—whether slave or free—were ineligible for citizenship and therefore unable to legally petition their freedom in court. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, a pro-slavery Maryland native, also held that slaves who were taken into free territory remained enslaved. Unfortunately, no known documentation exists in support of Scott's reputed sojourn at Howard's home. However, according to local legends and Howard family history, Howard assisted runaway slaves as well, with the family's history also recounting two of Howard's sons escaping to Canada through the Underground Railroad before George Howard’s purchase of his family's freedom.
George Howard passed away on January 14, 1895. On January 25th, the Montgomery County Sentinel reported that “George Howard, an old and highly respected colored man of this community, died at his home on Tuesday last.” In his will, Howard distributed his entire estate equally among his five children, giving each of his sons and daughters one-fifth of his property. He was buried at Howard Family Cemetery, adjacent to the Gaither Howard House, along with his wife Harriet, who had died on December 22, 1882.
It is unclear when the Greenbury Howard House was built; it is not shown on the 1879 Hopkins Map of Montgomery County, Maryland, but the 1880 Federal Census indicates that Greenbury was living next to his father and working in farming. Greenbury bought out his sister Martha’s share of 88.5 acres in 1898. The Federal Census from 1910 and 1920 indicate that Greenbury was still living in the house and likely stayed there until his death in November 1926.
In each of the Federal Census rolls, it is noted that Greenbury is a farmer and owns his farm outright. The 1910 and 1920 Federal Census also indicates that Greenbury’s son, George S., has moved into the Gaither Howard House. George Samuel Howard (1876-1961) likely lived there until at least 1940. Rebecca Nettles Howard (1856-1935), Greenbury’s widow, is still living in the Greenbury Howard House in 1930. No other Howards appear to be living near George Samuel in the 1940 Federal Census. The houses were reportedly used as summer residences after they ceased to be used for permanent homes. In 1960, the Howard family sold 299.5 acres to Thomas Blair and Mary Virginia Middleton, who then sold 200 acres, including the houses and family cemetery, to DNR. Neither house was ever connected to water, electric, or gas service. The houses have fallen to ruin over the last 50 years.
In Spring 2021, Maryland Department of Transportation State Highways Administration (MDOT SHA) suggested archaeological investigations of each resource prior to stabilization of the houses by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Gaither Howard House (M:23-8A) and the Greenbury Howard House (M:23-8B) are both proposed stops along a planned Patuxent River State Park interpretive trail that was funded in part by MDOT SHA. Investigation was recommended because the sites contain a high potential for archaeological deposits related to the lives and activities of the past occupants. For example, historic surface features such as stone foundations, wells, and sheet middens, along with artifacts exposed on the ground surface, were observed at each site. This study proposed to recover archaeological information that will be used to assist in the structural and landscape stabilization, and public interpretation of both historic resources as part of trail construction by DNR. Archaeological investigations performed by MDOT SHA would also inform DNR’s methods to avoid or minimize impacts to each of the sites.
A total of 54 STPs, and 15 TUs were excavated at the Gaither Howard House in addition to one area of surface collection within a 1-acre study area. Initial testing at the Gaither Howard House was completed in two ways: first through 25-foot interval transects across the site, then judgmental STPs were utilized to examine areas of interest or areas that were missed or fell outside of the transects. In an effort to clearly discuss activity areas surrounding the structure the STPs and surface collection area have been divided into four different survey areas.
The east and south yard areas at the Gaither Howard House Site (18MO778) are grouped together because they exhibited similar soil profiles and artifact types and densities. This area of the yard includes a portion of the stone house wall that collapsed toward the east, obstructing some of the surface. A total of 173 historic artifacts and one faunal remain was collected from STP excavations in the east and south yard area around the Gaither Howard House. Overall, the most common artifact group is architectural (60.3 percent) with items including window glass, nails, concrete, and sheet metal. Domestic/kitchen group artifacts (29.3 percent) included glass containers and tableware and a low density of ceramic artifacts including ironstone, Jackfield-type earthenware, pearlware, whiteware, and yellowware. Indeterminate glass and metal artifacts constitute 8 percent of the total, while three fragments of milk glass beauty jars account for the personal group artifacts (1.7 percent). Lastly, one piece of barbed wire represents the industrial group (0.6 percent). The high number of window glass and nails present is likely related to the proximity to the structure and its repair and collapse. The relative lack of domestic/kitchen items may indicate that the east and southeast sides of the structure were not where refuse was carried to be discarded by house occupants. This area may have been reserved for more leisurely or recreational activities and may have been swept of refuse.
The area north of the Gaither Howard House consists of a narrow grassy yard area, then a small step down into a driveway or road, beyond which the ground is level heading into the woods. A total of 375 historic artifacts and six faunal remains were recovered from STPs in the north yard and driveway area. The most common artifact group are kitchen/domestic artifacts (n=276, or 73 percent), including a majority of small fragments of bottle and vessel glass and a low density of ceramics such as whiteware, ironstone, redware, stoneware, and porcelain. Architectural group artifacts (n=56, or 15 percent) are divided between window glass and ferrous metal items including nails, staples, and wire. Indeterminate group artifacts (n=31, or 8 percent) include mostly unidentifiable glass fragments along with several ferrous and copper alloy items. Arms group artifacts (n=5, or 1.3 percent) consist of bullet casings. The remaining artifacts recovered from the area come from the personal, clothing/adornment, furniture, tobacco, and industrial groups and are represented by milk glass beauty jars (n=2, personal), a rubber shoe sole (n=1, clothing/adornment), a cast iron knob (n=1, furniture), pipe stems (n=2, tobacco), and a stirrup (n=1, industrial). Many of the artifacts recovered, especially those from STPs located within the driveway area, are smaller, likely from increased traffic through the area over time, resulting in compacted soil and crushed artifacts.
The yard area west of the structure is overgrown with grasses and is bounded by a thin strip of larger trees which separates the agricultural field from the Gaither Howard House area. An area adjacent to the structure is covered with the stone from the collapsed west wall of the house, obstructing the surface. A total of 23 STPs were excavated in this area. A total of 335 historic artifacts and six faunal remains were recovered from the STPs excavated within the west yard. Artifacts from the area come from various contexts, some of which were more fully investigated with TUs and will be discussed below. Overall, the artifact density was lower in the west yard, though soil anomalies or other features indicated more intense use of the area when compared to the other areas surrounding the Gaither Howard House. Overall, kitchen/domestic group artifacts were most common at 55.2 percent (n=185), including glass vessel and bottle fragments, various ceramics, metal, and fragments of plastic tableware. Next, architectural group artifacts (n=110, or 32.8 percent) include nearly equal amounts of window glass and ferrous nails and hardware along with one fragment of mortar. Indeterminate group artifacts account for 6.9 percent (n=23) of the total artifacts and consist of small unidentifiable fragments of glass and ceramic and corroded and unidentifiable metal. Clothing/adornment group artifacts (n=6, or 1.8 percent) include one white plastic bead, copper alloy two-piece buttons (n=3), and grommets (n=2). Arms group artifacts (n=4, or 1.2 percent) consist of .22 caliber bullet casings. Household activities group artifacts (n=3, or 0.9 percent) include coal, a glass marble, and a bracket, while industrial group artifacts (n=3, or 0.9 percent) include ox shoes (n=2), and a washer. A white-ball clay pipe stem fragment is the sole representative of the tobacco group (0.3 percent). Four faunal remains recovered from the area include one cattle tooth, a large mammal long bone, and unidentified bone. Artifacts recovered from west yard STPs are varied representing high quantities of domestic/residential type artifacts and architectural/work related artifacts.
The former crossroads is located at the intersection of the Gaither Howard House driveway, the road leading south to the Greenbury Howard House, and a former road that led east toward the Patuxent River. Three STPs were placed in a transect across the current farm access path and a 10-foot square surface collection area was collected within the agricultural field. STP excavations and surface collection at the Farm Crossroads resulted in a limited collection of kitchen/domestic group artifacts. Glass vessel and bottle fragments account for 67 percent (n=33), while the remaining consists of various ceramics including stoneware, redware, whiteware, ironstone, and Jackfield-type earthenware.
TUs were excavated to further investigate interesting artifact-bearing deposits or features encountered during STP testing and/or to search for features related to landscape design. A total of 15 TUs were excavated; TUs 1-4 and 7-14 measured 5 feet square while TU 5 measured 2.5 feet square and TUs 6 and 15 measured 2.5 by 5 feet. A total of 3,728 historic artifacts and 130 faunal remains were collected during TU and feature excavations. Three precontact artifacts were recovered from the north and east yards of the Gaither Howard House. Two quartzite debitage fragments were collected from A-horizon soils and likely represent items dropped or left behind in those places by indigenous occupants of the region. One rhyolite Early Woodland Fishtail type projectile point was collected from Stratum I in TU 13, and since it was discovered in a more recent living context, may have been found in the adjacent fields or stream banks and brought back to the Gaither Howard House by European or African American occupants or workers.
A total of fifteen TUs and seven features were excavated at the Gaither Howard House Site (18MO778). Two TUs (10 and 11) were excavated in the east and south yard, while the remainder were in the west yard. All features were found during TU excavations: one was determined to not be cultural (Feature 3), Features 1 and 4 to 7 were determined to be postholes, while Feature 2 is a stone foundation. All features were located in the west yard.
East and south yard TUs revealed two yard surface deposits that show a mixture of domestic and architectural artifacts. Stratum II included an increased number of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century artifacts, suggesting that it was utilized for a longer period of time, and the upper surface is more modern. West yard TUs revealed a generally thin Stratum I over the entire area; this is likely related to later cleanup, demolition, and removal of material at the site as the artifacts are mixed and include both domestic and architectural artifacts and few farming-related items. The excavation block of TUs 1, 7, and 12 uncovered a layer of tumbled rock below Stratum I which included a high concentration of artifacts, mostly domestic ceramics, but also cut nails and pipe stem fragments. Artifacts found in TUs 1, 7, and 12 include kitchen/domestic (n=550), architectural (n=255), clothing (n=7), hardware (n=1), personal objects (n=21), arms (n=8), tobacco (n=13), furniture (n=1), industrial (n=7), indeterminate (n=23), and faunal (n=37).
The evidence suggests that the soil that was mixed with the stones, likely during the demolition of outbuildings was rich in domestic refuse. According to historic aerial photographs, there appears to be a structure just southeast of the well in 1957, which may be the source of the stone in the excavation block. Nearby TUs 4 and 14 did not encounter the amount of tumbled stone as in the excavation block. Artifacts found in TU 4 include kitchen/domestic (n=175), architectural (n=91), clothing (n=7), hardware/household (n=23), personal objects (n=20), industrial (n=4), indeterminate (n=18), and faunal (n=9). Artifacts found in TU 14 include kitchen/domestic (n=66), architectural (n=54), personal objects (n=6), tobacco (n=1), industrial (n=1), indeterminate (n=14), and faunal (n=20). Though some stone was observed in TU 4, more interesting is a lens of dark soil mottled with mortar in TU 14, possibly related to the disassembled stone structure that is spread out under the surface and excavated in TUs 1, 7, and 12. Approximately 10 feet east of the tumbled stones is the intact Feature 2, a substantial stone foundation for an unidentified outbuilding, though it is resting on top of subsoil. Artifactual evidence found surrounding Feature 2 indicate it may have been part of a stable, but its proximity to the residence makes that interpretation questionable. TUs 5, 8, 9, 13, and 15 were focused on excavating Feature 2. The exposed portions of Feature 2 indicate that it is a substantial portion of a foundation lying on subsoil with the southern edge of the feature located in TU 8 and a western edge in TU 9. A roundish cavity appears along the east side, facing the current house structure. In TU 13, the feature may continue as a thinner wall northward, toward the driveway. It represents at least a portion of an unidentified outbuilding. There are no clues based on soils, artifacts, or features that help to identify Feature 2, its use, or purpose. A total of 589 historic artifacts and 22 faunal remains were recovered from the Feature 2 block excavation, including kitchen/domestic (n=243), architectural (n=280), clothing (n=14), hardware/household (n=5), arms (n=15), tobacco (n=1), industrial (n=10) indeterminate (n=21), and faunal (n=22).
The excavation of TUs 2, 3, and 6 south of the house revealed two postholes. Artifacts found in TUs 2 and 6 include kitchen/domestic (n=330), architectural (n=311), clothing (n=4), hardware/household (n=4), personal objects (n=16), arms (n=11), industrial (n=2), indeterminate (n=4), and faunal (n=11). Artifacts found in TU 3 include kitchen/domestic (n=101), architectural (n=245), clothing (n=1), household (n=1), personal objects (n=8), industrial (n=12), indeterminate (n=1), and faunal (n=1).
TU 3 included two fills overlying the yard surface that are related to the later deterioration and collapse of the structure, as nearly all artifacts recovered are nails and window glass. Stratum III in TU 3 included a more diverse collection of artifacts associated with occupation. TUs 10 and 11, in the east yard near the driveway, exhibited two strata identified as a yard surfaces, one more recent, associated with the post-occupational history of the house, while the underlying yard surface is thicker and more artifact rich. Several features have been identified as postholes; historic aerial photographs and the undated photograph of the Gaither Howard House (Features 73 to 75) show several fence lines that would have been used to delineate different activity areas throughout the property. Fencing could have been used to separate work areas from recreation/presentation areas, contain livestock, and restrict movement around important buildings and line driveways or paths. One posthole (Feature 4) continues far deeper than other similar features excavated at the site; its proximity to the corner of the house may indicate that it was used as a support for scaffolding for the construction or repair of the house. Feature 7, a posthole to the west of the house, appears to have been repaired at one time. An undated historic photograph shows a fence parallel to the west side of the house, leaving a space of about 20 feet, which includes a gate (opened in the photograph). The space within the fence includes some platform or table-like structures, one under the northern window and one straight through the gate, and two large canisters at the northwest corner of the house. It appears that there are fence posts along the driveway to the north of the house, though there are no rails discernable; the fence posts may support wire fencing or may be used for some other purpose.
In summary, excavations at the Gaither Howard House Site (18MO0778) and Greenbury Howard House Site (18MO0779) demonstrated distinctive contexts that relate to the specific use and occupation history of each dwelling. The Gaither Howard House Site was occupied for a much longer period, and from its construction was the basis of a large farming operation. Beale Gaither held enslaved people who presumably provided labor to his large farm. The Greenbury Howard House, constructed in the late nineteenth century, included other domestic and agricultural-related outbuildings. It seems likely that the Howard family continued to work their fields in the same way before and after George sold portions of the land to his sons, particularly any land that was contiguous and surrounding the Gaither Howard House. Since some of the structures for farming were located at Gaither Howard, the areas immediately surrounding the Greenbury Howard House Site were, for the most part, reserved for domestic activities, at least for the first 50 years or so of occupation. No farming-related artifacts, including horse or ox shoes, were recovered from the Greenbury Howard House Site excavations whereas, horse and ox shoes, plowblade fragments, stirrups, buckles and sleigh bells were recovered from Gaither Howard excavations. The presence of some agricultural outbuildings, discussed in the MIHP form for Greenbury Howard, do suggest that farm activities took place in the vicinity, though the activity areas were much more dispersed than those at Gaither Howard. The presence of more horse and farming-related equipment at the Gaither Howard House Site and not at the Greenbury Howard House Site confirm that the latter was largely a domestic center, while the former was a mixed domestic and industrial/farming area.
Both sites have been highly impacted by mid- to late-twentieth-century occupation, demolition, and agricultural practices, which have disturbed and obscured intact cultural contexts, leaving mixed artifact assemblages with hints of eighteenth-century occupation (in the case of the Gaither Howard House), or an artifact assemblage so crushed that most of it is unidentifiable (in the case of the Greenbury Howard House).
The investigation at the Gaither Howard House revealed nineteenth- and twentieth-century work yards to the west of the house, which contained several postholes and a large stone foundation. Later clearing and dismantling of farm outbuildings in the mid- to late-twentieth-century somewhat disturbed these contexts. Other areas surrounding the Gaither Howard House were either lightly used, frequently cleared of refuse, or disturbed at later times, as lower concentrations of artifacts and no features were found outside of the west yard. Subsurface excavations and historic research revealed that construction and clearing activities in the vicinity of the Greenbury Howard House during the twentieth century have heavily disturbed any intact cultural contexts that may have existed. The Patuxent Quarry Site #1 (18MO0780), located east of the Howard houses, is a possible source for building material throughout the complex. Overgrown vegetation at the quarry site obscured any possible features or cultural material on the surface during a visit. Additional investigations at the Gaither Howard House targeted to specific areas, such as the walled enclosure to the northeast and the outbuilding complex to the west, may provide additional information. Additional data may help to more fully answer some of the research questions posed at the start of the SHA funded project.
|
