Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR225 Melwood Park
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18PR225 consists of the archeological deposits associated with the standing Melwood Park structure (PG:78-15), the manor house of an 18th-19th century plantation west of Upper Marlboro in Prince George’s County. Although now sandwiched between a suburban park to the east, a residential subdivision to the north and west, and a highway to the south, Melwood Park was originally a country seat surrounded by level terrain, dissected here and there by tributaries of the Patuxent River. Prior to the early 18th century, most of the Melwood area was probably forested. By the middle of the 19th century, farms would have replaced the forests, with woodlots preserved only in those areas less suited to tobacco and grain agriculture. Soils at the site consist primarily of Marr fine sandy loam and Westphalia fine loamy sand.
The extant manor house is believed to have been built around 1714. It is a 64 ft by 20 ft dwelling built on a one-room deep, seven bay plan, with an eccentric roof line that creates a lean-to profile to the gable ends, effectively reducing the rear from 2½ stories to 1½ stories in height. The shouldered external end chimneys and general brickwork are executed in Flemish bond parged with scored stucco to create the illusion of regular dressed stone construction. The parging obscures the glazed headers that, despite loss of finish, continue to give texture and interest to the unparged portions of the walls. A three-layer belt course defines the second floor level. Second floor windows have 9/9 light double-hung sashes, while those of the first floor have 12/12 lights. The six windows on the second floor of the principle façade are not directly over those of the first floor, but appear to be balanced about the front door. The original hall and parlor structure measured 20 ft by 45 ft. It appears to have been a frame on brick pier structure, with a brick chimney at the west end, the latter destroyed when the dwelling reached its current configuration. Brick and mud noggin are clearly visible in the north façade.
The first documented archeological attention at 18PR225 occurred in 1984, when MHT staff made a brief site visit to document the site. Site survey forms were prepared with associated comments and preliminary maps noting the locations of some surface features. Included with the site form was a property survey map that depicted, among other things, the extent of exposed foundations north of the dwelling.
In 1988 and 1989, a Phase I/II level archeological survey and archival study was carried out at 18PR225. The archeological work was funded by Melwood Park Associates of Upper Marlboro, developers of a proposed residential/commercial project. The requested investigation primarily concerned the developer’s plans to incorporate portions of the historic period plantation/farmstead into their development. The work was being conducted in response to a request by the Prince George’s County Zoning Board preparatory to their consideration of a permit application for the construction of an inn and restaurant. The survey complied with existing cultural resource management legislation (Section 106, state, and local laws).
The archival research conducted as part of the 1988-89 study indicates that on May 30th, 1729, a Henry Darnall, Jr. sold to William Digges his 525 acre tract for 300 pounds sterling. The records of the sale do not mention any structure being present, but Digges’ will (proved in August of 1740) does. Thus, the Melwood Park manor house was long believed to have been built sometime between 1729 and 1740, becoming the new home of William and Eleanor Digges. Recent dendrochronological work reveals that the manor house was likely constructed in 1714. Felling dates determined on timbers used in the principal construction of the house ranged between 1711 and 1714, dating construction to the period in which Darnall, not Digges, owned the land. An architectural assessment of Melwood Park from the 18th century reveals that the house was approximately 64 X 20 ft, built of brick laid in Flemish bond. In his will, William Digges left the dwelling and plantation to his wife Eleanor for the remainder of her natural life, after which it would become the property of his son Ignatius Digges. Eleanor died shortly after her husband and Ignatius lived on the property for the rest of his natural life.
Ignatius Digges first married Elizabeth Craycroft, and then Mary Carroll. Later documents indicated that the plantation contained at least 91 slaves, and an 1825 obituary mentioned Ignatius Digges as, “a gentleman of great wealth and respectability”. Ignatius was a prominent member of the planter class, and Melwood Park hosted such personalities as Charles Carroll, John Carroll, various members of the Calvert family, and even George Washington. In Washington’s diary, there are numerous accounts of Washington either visiting the home of Ignatius Digges, or Digges visiting Mount Vernon during the period from 1768 to 1773.
George Washington aside, members of the extended Digges family, would have certainly visited the site, and many of them were prominent in their own right. During the Revolutionary War, Ignatius Digges served on several committees. In January of 1775, Digges and Thomas Sim Lee were selected to be part of a committee of inspection. In 1771, Thomas Sim Lee had married Ignatius’ daughter, Mary Digges after promising to raise their children as Catholics at the insistence of Ignatius. Lee was an important statesman, representing Frederick County. He would go on to be the second Governor of the State of Maryland in 1779. Both Lee and his wife Mary Digges were major supporters of the American Revolution, raising funds and provisions for the army from the local populace. Mary was known for enlisting the aid of Maryland women to make clothing for the soldiers in the southern army. Thomas Sim Lee also served as one of the delegates of Maryland to the Congress of the Confederation in 1783, and a member of the Maryland House of Delegates in 1787, before being elected to a second term as governor in 1792. Governor Lee reportedly died and was buried at Melwood Park, his body later exhumed and buried elsewhere (along with the other remains in the family cemetery).
Another prominent member of the family was the Reverend Thomas Digges, Ignatius’ brother. Thomas Digges was born on January 5, 1711, and entered into the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit order) in 1729. On February 2nd, 1747, he took the four vows of a professed Father, and became a Reverend at that point, serving mass at the chapel at Melwood Park. During his long life (he lived to be 95), Reverend Digges was involved in several historic events. He was sent on errands to Philadelphia by Archbishop John Carroll, but which he became acquainted with Benjamin Franklin. In October of 1784, the Roman Catholic Church of Maryland devised a set of “Rules for the particular Government of Members belonging to ye body of Clergy”. A standing committee, including Thomas Digges, was formed to hear complaints of priests. Several years later, Digges was a patron of the publication of the first American edition of the Catholic Bible. This work was printed by Matthew Carey in 1790. Reverend Thomas Digges finally succumbed to old age and died on February 18, 1805.
Ignatius Digges did not live as long as his brother, dying in August of 1785. He left Melwood Park to his wife Mary Carroll Digges for the remainder of her natural life, after which it was to pass to his grandson, Ignatius Digges Lee (the son of Thomas Sim Lee and Ignatius’ daughter Mary). He also stated his desire that some of the income of his several plantations be dedicated to the schooling of his grandson, who would receive his inheritance once he reached age 21. Ignatius Digges Lee was sent abroad to be educated at Liege, France. He was apparently following the desires of his grandfather to become a priest, for at Liege there was a Roman Catholic seminary. He died on the way home to Maryland, at sea, just before his 21st birthday.
The 1800 census of Maryland recorded that Mary Digges was the head of the household, and the persons residing at Melwood consisted of one white male, 16-26 years old; one white male, 45+ years old; and one female, 45+ years old. There were also 102 slaves at Melwood during that year. Between 1796 and 1812, the tax assessment records of Melwood consistently record an unchanging nature of the estate. In all records, there is 868 acres, valued at 1646 pounds. Between 1813 and 1825, the same acreage is recorded, but the value is put in American currency at $4,389.94. All of the accounts between 1796 and 1825 list Mary DIgges as the owner of Melwood. The 1810 census recorded that Mary Digges was the head of household, and that persons residing at Melwood consisted of one white male, 26-45 years old; one white male, 45+ years old; one female, 26-45 years old; and one female, 45+ years old. In that year, there were 111 slaves at Melwood.
It was during the ownership of Melwood Park by Mary Digges that the plantation became a temporary focus of attention during the War of 1812. In August 1814, the British attempted to attack the City of Washington. After landing at Benedict, Maryland on August 20th, they proceeded north to Nottingham, and then west through the area south of Upper Marlboro. On August 23, 1814 General Robert Ross encamped in the vicinity of Melwood. An American scout, Thomas McKenney, was apparently a witness to the establishment of the British bivouac on the plantation. He stated that Ross and Admiral Cockburn slept in a small shed on the property. At about 2:00 AM on the 24th, a short exchange of gunfire apparently occurred at the campsite, and then at 5:00 AM the British broke camp and proceeded towards their eventual Battle at Bladensburg.
Mary Carroll Digges died on Christmas Day, 1825. An extensive inventory of her estate was made and most of the items were sold at an estate auction held soon thereafter. The land and house (as well as some furniture) were inherited by her daughter Mary Digges Lee. Mary died only a year later and the estate was divided up. By the 1829 tax assessment, Benjamin Clarks was recorded as owning 552 acres of Melwood Park, Mary Lee’s heirs as owning 29¾ acres, and Nathan Summers as owning 404 acres.
By the time of the 1834 tax assessment record, much of the original Melwood estate had been purchased by John Pumphrey. Melwood had apparently been sold by the County Commisioners following the death of all of the Digges heirs. Pumphrey owned 400 acres at Melwood, and by 1836 had acquired an additional tract at Mount Airy (see synopsis report for 18PR221). The property remained in the Pumphrey family until 1883, when it was acquired by the Traband family. It remained in their hands until 1963, with tenants actually occupying the site for the duration of the 20th century. In 1963 it was purchased for development.
Initial archeological fieldwork in 1988 began with a general reconnaissance conducted over the site, which covered the fallow fields adjoining the residential and outbuilding complex. The reconnaissance largely confirmed information from the earlier MHT site visit. Brick foundation remains were noted north of the residence. Frame farm outbuildings were located behind the house and were aligned in an east/west pattern overlooking the cultivated fields. Fallow fields were located to the east, west, and north of the residential complex. During the survey, a new component was identified: prehistoric artifacts were noted in fields to the north and west of the house.
The next step in the investigation involved having the fields plowed and disked, because ground visibility was less than 50% and unsuitable for a controlled surface collection. The site was encompassed n a horizontal grid and a total of six fields were surveyed using 9.14 X 9.14 m (30 X 30 ft) collection units. Artifacts were bagged and cataloged by their respective units. Concentrations and indications of other features were noted for additional investigation.
Subsurface investigation was conducted in areas that could not be plowed for surface collection and in areas of high surface collected artifact concentration. Subsurface investigation entailed both the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) and about two dozen irregularly shaped test units. The shovel tests were placed judgmentally and on 9.14 m intervals along perpendicular transects. STPs were excavated stratigraphically and screened through hardware cloth. Each STP was drawn in profile and plotted on project maps. Formal test units were also excavated stratigraphically, recovering and recording artifacts by their soil layer and cultural feature. The size of such units was determined by the nature of the research being investigated. Sometimes unit enlargements took the form of “foundation chase” excavations, where it was necessary to dig in a linear form to follow a buried structural element. In the case of expansive arrays of buried building rubble, it was necessary to enlarge units following the form of the rubble to locate boundaries and intact structural elements. Soils were sifted through hardware cloth, and artifacts were bagged and cataloged by their provenience. In the case of shallow “foundation chase” units, modern artifacts (post-1950) and overburden were not screened. If pre-1950 diagnostic artifacts were recognized, they were recovered and cataloged. Formal units were recorded in profile and plan views.
A series of foundation features apparently dating to the late 18th and early 19th centuries (the plantation period for which the site is deemed principally important) were found adjoining the main house and at a short distance to the rear. On all four sides of the house are foundation elements (Features 8, 9, 10, 11, 14) that may have supported a porch. In front of the house is a limestone walk that may have led to the formal garden, and just to the rear may be a kitchen (Feature 12). A nearby small building’s foundation was identified (Feature 13). Its function remains undetermined. Farther to the rear of the main house is an excavation which may represent an ice house (Feature 6), and a short distance to the west may be the remains of a spring house (Feature 7). Three buried architectural rubble deposits were found in the adjoining fields (Features 2, 4, and 5). Feature 2 may be affiliated with an agricultural building.
Artifact data analysis indicates that the Digges family maintained and elevated socioeconomic ranking. Expression of this status appears to have followed a “Georgian mindset” pattern, where behavior and material possessions were used to reflect hierarchical position. Both socially and economically, the family held positions that were in the upper strata of Prince George’s County.
Artifacts encountered during the 1988 examination of 18PR225 include 14 activity items, 844 architectural artifacts, 9 clothing items, 1,539 kitchen-related artifacts, 5 personal objects, 76 kaolin tobacco pipe fragments, and 101 prehistoric items. The activity items were 3 glass marbles, a ceramic marble, 3 pieces of lamp glass, 3 lamp shade fragments, 3 horseshoes, and a slate pencil. The architectural artifacts were 136 brick fragments, a piece of wall tile, a Delftware tile, 206 pieces of window glass, 497 nails (31 wrought, 261 cut, 78 wire, and 127 unidentified), 2 spikes, and a doorknob. The clothing items were 3 glass buttons, a plastic button, a metal button, a buckle, 2 scissors, and a pair of embroidery shears. The kitchen-related artifacts were 355 ceramic sherds (23 tin-glazed earthenware, 1 flow blue, 1 Buckley, 10 creamware, 26 pearlware, 115 whiteware, 21 redware, 59 porcelain, 5 Chinese export porcelain, 39 gray or brown stoneware, 29 white salt-glazed stoneware, 18 Westerwald, 1 Bennington, and 7 miscellaneous stoneware), 824 pieces of kitchen glass (9 table glass and 815 bottle glass), 2 bone handles, a knife, a spoon, and 356 faunal remains (140 mammal bones, 17 bird bones, 12 unidentified bones, 185 oyster shell fragments, and 2 eggshells).
The primary finding of the 1988/1989 study was that three distinct occupation phases were represented at 18PR225: the elite plantation period from ca. 1729-1828 (Digges occupation), the family farm period from ca. 1834-1877 (Pumphrey occupation), and the tenant/dwelling period from ca. 1878 onward (Pumphrey ownership and tenants).
Additional work was carried out at the site in 1996, in the area north of the 20th century frame addition (plans for which were eventually abandoned). A utility corridor of uncertain location and a “horse shelter” (may have been a demolished barn northwest of the dwelling) were also examined. No final report for this work has been written. However, excavation work is known to have entailed digging 29 STPs, none of which revealed significant features or artifacts. The only artifacts for which there is a published record are those from the 13 STPs situated in the area of the proposed house addition. These include14 nails (handwrought, machine-cut, and wire), 7 whiteware, 52 nineteenth and twentieth century container glass fragments, and 2 possible late 18th century wine bottle shards.
By 2002, the 20th century rear ell of the dwelling at Melwood Park had fallen into such a state of disrepair that the structure was unsafe and required demolition. The ell was demolished later in that year and the property owners began the process of consulting with the Maryland Historical Trust for approval to rebuild the rear ell of their dwelling in accordance with the deed of easement held by the MHT. They also sought approval for construction of an outbuilding at the approximate location of a razed barn. Intact features were identified at the site during the 1988/1989 study. In addition, clapboarding on the central portion of the north façade suggested that an earlier addition was once present that pre-dated the 20th century ell in the very area in question. Thus, Phase II testing was requested by MHT, which was carried out in late 2002 and into 2003.
A series of seven 91 cm (7 ft) test squares investigated the interior and exterior of the north ell footprint, where a cellar hole and a brick outbuilding (previously identified in 1988/89) of unknown function had been exposed by the ell’s demolition. All units and subsequently investigated features were excavated by hand, proceeding by natural strata, with soils screened through hardware mesh. Artifacts were collected by unit and stratum, but brick and mortar rubble were discarded in the field. Four shovel tests situated at 15.24 m (50 ft) intervals were also excavated at the site of the razed barn. Field procedures for the STPs were identical to those for the formal test squares. Each STP was roughly 40.64 cm (16 in) in diameter.
Four test squares on the east and west sides of the cellar revealed mixed deposits, but those on the west side extended to depths below which they could be safely excavated, suggesting deep masonry rubble fill in a previously unidentified feature. Two units around the brick outbuilding foundation revealed a builder’s trench with a few ceramics pointing to a mid to late 18th century construction date, and clearing of recent surface deposits exposed the full dimensions of the structure.
One unit within the cellar exposed 10 distinct strata, including what appeared to be floor deposits with large wine bottle fragments. In order to increase the artifact sample, additional units were opened up after the mechanical removal of nearly a meter of soil by construction crews. The mechanical excavation was monitored by the project PI. The combined archeological monitoring and controlled excavation of the test squares in the area of the cellar hole led to the identification and recording of several architectural and archeological features. The exposed features include the exposure of all four original cellar walls, including a probable bulkhead entrance on the west wall (the PI interpreted the bulkhead as a fireplace, but MHT architectural historians assert that it was almost certainly a bulkhead entrance), building sequences and bonding patterns in the walls, deposits along the west wall pointing to a late 19th/20th century demolition of the original ell, a previously unknown partition wall, floor deposits form the earliest use of the cellar, and the excavation of pit features below the floor deposits (one pit in particular yielded a minimum of 23 wine bottles and a brass keg tap as well as 3 Chinese export porcelain vessels, a glass tumbler, and a glass dessert cup). The artifacts recovered from the cellar suggest use as a wine cellar in the early 19th century. The pits, and a large oval pit in particular, were surprising finds and were not fully excavated, preserved for future exploration.
Shovel testing and surface inspection of the demolished barn location and proposed site of a garage revealed no historically significant deposits or features.
Artifacts encountered during the 2002/2003 study at 18PR225 include 32 activity items, 1,074 architectural objects, 3 clothing items (a bone button, a shell button, and a rubber shoe heel), 2 furniture artifacts (a curtain ring and a mirror fragment), 1,049 kitchen-related artifacts, 15 personal items, 54 tobacco-related artifacts, 10 arms items (8 .22 caliber shells, 1 9mm shell, and a shotgun shell), 72 miscellaneous historic objects, and 3 prehistoric artifacts (2 quartz flakes and 1 quartz shatter fragment). The activity items were 2 porcelain doll fragments, 22 pieces of lamp glass, 2 wire fragments, a brass keg tap, a hand-wrought barrel hoop, a piece of unidentified hardware, 2 folding rules, and a slate pencil. The architectural assemblage consisted of 3 brick pieces, a piece of lead flashing, 2 mortar fragments, 8 pieces of plaster, 520 window glass fragments, 419 nails (167 hand-wrought, 90 cut, 49 wire, 1 L-shaped head nail, and 112 unidentified), a wrought spike, 7 screws, 2 nuts, 2 washers (1 plastic), an iron bracket, 2 unidentified hardware pieces, a porcelain electrical insulator, and 105 miscellaneous architectural objects. The kitchen-related artifacts consisted of 114 ceramic sherds (10 tin-glazed earthenware, 10 pearlware, 6 Canton porcelain, 12 other Chinese export porcelain, 18 other porcelain, 7 ironstone, 39 whiteware, 2 redware, 1 domestic gray or brown stoneware, 2 Nottingham stoneware, 3 white salt-glazed stoneware, 2 Westerwald, 1 miscellaneous stoneware, and 1 unidentified sherd), 611 glass pieces (61 pieces of table glass, a lid liner, 255 container glass fragments, 2 blown in mold bottle, and 292 wine bottle pieces), 5 beverage cans, a plastic bread tag, 5 bottle caps, a fork, a can lid, 4 pull tabs, a sardine can key, and 306 faunal remains (199 mammal bones, 72 bird bones, 10 fish bones, 3 fish scales, 11 unidentified bones, and 11 pieces of oyster shell). The personal artifacts were a skeleton key, an 1863 Indian Head cent, a 1941 cent, a plastic comb tooth, a plastic medicine vial cap, and 10 tin-glazed earthenware chamberpot fragments. The miscellaneous objects were 57 unidentified metal objects, 4 pieces of unidentified glass, a lead fragment, 7 pieces of plastic, and 3 coal chunks.
The 2002/2003 study revealed that the brick outbuilding north of the dwelling likely served as a kitchen built in the second half of the 18th century, removing heat and the threat of accidental fire from the main house. It appears to have been a framed dwelling set upon a brick foundation, but lacked a cellar. Its north wall was not completely exposed, and it appeared to have been the most seriously damaged as a consequence of demolition. The south wall sports a peculiar feature that might easily pass for a fireplace foundation, had it faced inward on the structure.
Precisely when the cellar and, by extension, the original ell were built or why remains uncertain. However, it was certainly filled in the early 19th century (two large sherds of pearlware in the floor deposits providing a terminus post quem for the formation of those deposits. Ceramics (Chinese porcelain) and bottles recovered from the pits in the floor support that dating. The combined architectural and archeological data indicate demolition of the 100+ year-old ell in the early 20th century and replacement with a new superstructure that met its end in 2002. Demolition of the earlier ell contributed to the partial filling of the cellar (nearly 1 m of fill), but the occupants continued to use the remnant cellar space until abandonment late in the 20th century. The earliest use appears to have been, at least in part, as a facility for the storage of wine kegs and for decanting wines into bottles for immediate use or further aging.
Additional archeological research was carried out at 18PR225 in July of 2011. The purpose of the investigation was to assess the extent and condition of any intact archeological features and deposits adjacent to the house foundations that could be impacted by future efforts to stabilize the structure, as well as to provide archeological and architectural data pertaining to the history of construction and modification to the house.
The 2011 research entailed the excavation of eight formal test units of varying dimensions. Six units were situated on the exterior of the structure and two were on the interior of the structure, under existing flooring in the east room. These were situated so as to expose the structure’s foundations on the north, east, and south side of the structure’s exterior, and to expose deposits not previously examined on the structure’s interior. All units were excavated with hand tools according to observed stratigraphic changes so that chronological data could be attributed to the strata sequences. Soils were sifted through hardware cloth and artifacts were bagged according to strata. Oyster shell, small brick fragments, mortar and stucco were generally noted but not collected. Brick rubble was measured by volume and discarded at the site.
The 2011 excavations resulted in the discovery of several extant buried cultural features associated with the construction and modification of the house. The information recovered from these excavations suggested that the archeological record at 18PR225 is relatively intact and has high potential for informing future restoration and rehabilitation efforts of the main residence. Features identified in the exterior test units included a brick footer for an early addition along the southern house wall, shallow builders trenches for a 1768 addition, several small postmolds and holes for construction scaffolding, a possible builder’s trench associated with the east chimney footer, several post holes/molds and pits along the north and west walls, and portions of a brick piers or footers for two different early porches at Melwood. Features identified in the interior test units included portions of a north-south running brick wall that likely represent the original (ca. 1714) eastern wall for the structure, portions of a builder’s trench for this wall, and an L-shaped brick wall segment.
The foundations of the dwelling at Site 18PR225 are comprised by and incorporate elements corresponding to different phases of construction and modification, extending from the earliest period of brick construction for the present structure during the early 18th century (potentially 1714), through the completion of subsequent additions in which the house attained its present dimensions in 1768. The depth and character of the house foundations are distinct from one phase of construction to the next, and they are not symmetrical from east to west. The foundations, thus, contain a varied and valuable record of the dwelling’s construction history. If it becomes necessary to expose house foundations that are not already documented, a systematic effort to document the existing foundations and associated stratigraphy and features through archeological data recovery is recommended.
Archeological features remaining from the former porch on the southern side of the dwelling have been documented adequately to indicate the dimensions of this structure, measuring approximately 19.5 m (64 ft) from east to west and either 3.5 m (ca. 12 ft) in depth for the earlier porch, or 3 m (ca. 10 ft) for the later porch. Significant historic archeological deposits may still be present within the footprint of the porch, particularly as the porch would have sealed an earlier surface and deposits at the time of its construction. Extant historic deposits and features in this area of the property could also demonstrate how the house was tied to the surrounding landscape, especially at the approach to the house. While it was not clear from the 2011 research that significant intact deposits are present on the south side of the structure, ground-disturbing activities in this area should be avoided until the presence and condition of extant archeological deposits is assessed.
Archeological testing on the interior of the eastern room of the dwelling has demonstrated the presence of intact historic architectural features, specifically a series of brick wall foundations located west of the existing hearth and extending towards the north, south, and west. These were interpreted as indicating the former locations of exterior walls corresponding to earlier periods of construction from ca. 1714 to 1768. One or more of these features may also be interpreted as a brick wall footing for a pre-1714, or possibly even 17th century dwelling or other structure in the location of the Melwood House. In either interpretation, these features contain significant potential to refine our understanding of the architectural history of the present structure, as well as the cultural history of the site during the early 18th century and perhaps earlier.
No inventory of artifacts is provided with the full research report for the 2011 excavations, thus, these artifacts are not included in the tables above.
Fieldwork at 18PR225 has revealed evidence of intact and stratified archeological deposits dating from the 18th century through modern times. In addition, many of the features exposed during fieldwork have not been fully excavated (such as some of the pits in the cellar feature exposed in 2002/2003). Thus, 18PR225 retains significant archeological research potential. Furthermore, as a site linked through archival evidence to important figures and events in American and Maryland history, and to a locally prominent planter family, 18PR225 should be treated as an extremely significant site and managed accordingly.
|
