Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR376 Lower Notley Hall
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18PR376 is believed to be the archeological remains of the 18th and 19th century Admirathoria plantation house known as Lower Notley Hall near the Oxon Hill are of Prince George’s County. A Late Woodland ceramic scatter is also present at 18PR376. The site is situated on the floodplain of the Potomac River, to the south of Smoot Bay. At the time of the first archeological examinations in the late 1980s, the site was wooded in secondary growth forest, but today, the site is covered with a gravel parking lot. Soils at the site are primarily Downer and Hammonton loamy sands and sandy loams.
The land on which the site lies was probably first cultivated by Europeans in the late 17th century around the time it was purchase by Benjamin Rozer in 1679. In 1662, George Thompson patented the area as part of his “Admirathoria” tract. George Thompson sold the 2,500 acre tract to Benjamin Rozer in 1679 for £8,000. A 1712 map of the area confirms this sale, indicating a plantation on the east side of the Potomac River owned by a Mr. Rozer in the general vicinity of 18PR376.
Benjamin Rozer was a merchant who held the office of High Sheriff of Charles County. Land records indicate that at the time he bought the Admirathoria tract, he already owned a substantial amount of land in Charles County. An inventory taken at Benjamin Rozer’s death described him as “late of Portobacco”, suggesting that he resided in the town of Port Tobacco and not at Admirathoria. The tract eventually passed to Rozer’s son, Notley Rozer, who was named for his godfather Thomas Notley, the deputy governor of Maryland from 1676 to 1679. From his godfather, Notley Rozer also inherited nearby tracts of land called Duddington Pasture and Diddington Manor, which encompassed all of what is now Southwest Washington, DC.
Notley Rozer resurveyed the land at Admirathoria in 1715, and in 1717 sold 80 acres of the 2,137 acre tract to Thomas Addison. Unlike his father, it appears that Notley Rozer resided on the property at Admirathoria. When he died in 1727, the extensive inventory of his estate described him as “late of Prince George’s County”, and in his will he referred to, “the tract of land I now live on called Admirathoria”. While he lived at Admirathoria, he apparently derived additional income from the properties he inherited from his godfather. In 1714, for instance, he leased 50 acres of his land in Duddington Pasture to Charles Collyer at an annual rent of 500 pounds of tobacco. According to the terms of the lease, Collyer was required to plant fifty apple trees near what is now Buzzard’s Point. Notley Rozer also leased 50 acres, which included the present site of the Washington Monument, to Matthew Rogers under similar conditions.
The detailed 1727 inventory of Rozer’s estate reveals that Admirathoria was a sophisticated colonial plantation. The inventory of the main house was roughly arranged to show the contents of various rooms, such as the hall, and the rooms of Madame Rozer and a man named John William Whelenhall. It gives a detailed picture of the Rozers’ household goods, including such items as a japanned chamber table, linens for beds and windows, clothing, and cooking and eating utensils. The inventory also includes a listing of the items found, “at the Quart[ers] by the great house”. This list of tools, a chariot, twenty slaves, and 36 swine, probably referred to the contents of the various outbuildings on the plantation. An addendum to the inventory indicated that Notley Rozer owned an additional 140 swine and 83 cattle, and 100 barrels of Indian corn. One portion of the inventory listed Rozer’s belongings at “Turkey Buzzard viz.” This portion of the inventory doubtlessly referred to his plantation by that name located near present Buzzard’s Point, which is now the site of Fort McNair in Washington, DC. The items in the inventory suggest that Rozer farmed that tract as well, because it included “working tools for the plantation”, 13 slaves, two draft horses, and a mare. Although the inventory suggests that Notley Rozer was a prosperous planter, the total value of his property (£1,378) was significantly less than that of his neighbor, Thomas Addison, whose entire inventory was evaluated the same year at 3,656 pounds.
According to his will, Notley Rozer left all of his estate to his second wife, Elizabeth, stipulating that she was to leave Admirathoria to his only son, Henry, who was the child of his first wife, Jane, and was only six years old at the time. Rozer left to his daughter, Ann (who was also the child of his first wife), his land holdings within present Washington, DC. When the land became the national capital in 1800, Ann’s son Notley Young was one of the new city’s largest landholders, which made him and his family prominent members of early Washington society.
Elizabeth Rozer appears to have continued to run the plantation at Admirathoria after her husband’s death, because a 1733 inventory of her property indicated that she owned land and 29 slaves there worth a total value of £1,277. At some point in the mid 18th century, Elizabeth Rozer complied with her husband’s wishes and passed the plantation to his son, Henry Rozer. Census records indicate that by 1790, Henry Rozer was still running a large plantation at Admirathoria. According to the census, he owned 120 slaves. Tax assessments from 1796 indicate that he owned 99 slaves and 2,031 acres of land worth a total value of £9,799.
Four years later, in 1800, the tax assessment and census records appear to indicate the presence of two separate Rozer households on the property: that of Henry Rozer (who was by then nearly 80 years old), and that of Francis Hall Rozer. Henry owned 2,201 acres and 93 slaves, one of whom was trained as a carpenter, and two who were trained as smiths. Francis Hall Rozer owned only 436 acres and 21 slaves. The Assessment of Henry Rozer’s property also included 75 pounds for a new dwelling.
The presence of two separate households, as well as Henry Rozer’s assessment for a new house, may account for the construction of another dwelling on the property, although it cannot be positively confirmed whether the new building was Upper or Lower Notley Hall. According to a history of Upper Notley Hall (still extant, MIHP# PG 80-5) undertaken by MHT, that dwelling was the newer of the two. Based on architectural details, Upper Notley Hall is believed to have been erected sometime in the 1790s after Francis Hall married Henry Rozer’s granddaughter, Maria, in 1792. Hall took his wife’s surname, becoming Francis Hall Rozer, and the couple possibly moved into the new house at Upper Notley Hall. MHT files also state that architectural details in the existing building at Upper Notley Hall indicate a late 18th century construction date. If that is the case, then it is possible that it was Lower Notley Hall that served since the early 18th century as the Rozer family seat. An 1878 map of the Oxon Hill District of Prince George’s County depicts Upper Notley Hall in its approximate modern location with Lower Notley Hall positioned to the northwest in the approximate location of 18PR376.
When Henry Rozer died in 1802, he left the portion of his land including Upper Notley Hall and perhaps Lower Notley Hall, to Francis and Maria Rozer. He left a portion of land to the south of both residences to his other daughter, Harriet.
The Rozer family maintained the plantation system throughout the period from 1815 to 1870, continuing to farm the land with slaves and passing it from generation to generation. Throughout this period, however, portions of the plantation were gradually sold off, and the number of slaves used to farm it consistently decreased. After Francis Hall Rozer died in 1803, his wife, Maria remarried William A. Dangerfield. She kept part of the farm in the Rozer family, however, and in 1822 deeded 500 acres of Admirathoria to Francis E. Rozer, one of her sons by her first husband. Until his death in the 1840s, Francis occupied this remaining portion of Admirathoria, which by then was consistently referred to as Notley Hall. It is likely, however, that he occupied the newer dwelling at Upper Notley Hall. Although the Rozers are not listed in census records after 1800, a tax assessment of 1829 indicates that Francis Rozer was farming 500 acres there with 20 slaves. The 1841 tax assessment indicates that by that time, Francis E. Rozer was farming the land with only 3 slaves.
Tax assessments suggest that Francis E. Rozer died between 1841 and 1845 when his heirs were assessed for the 500 acre tract and four slaves. The estate passed to Francis Rozer’s sons, Charles B. and Francis W. Rozer, neither of whom ever appears in the census as a resident of the area. The fact that Maria Rozer Dangerfield requested in her will to be buried in the family vault at Notley Hall, even though she was living with her son by her second marriage, suggests that the family still had a significant presence at the plantation. By that time, however, the plantation was probably in decline.
By the time of the Civil War, in fact, tax assessment records appear to indicate that both Upper and Lower Notley Halls were unoccupied (at least by their owners). In 1862, the Rozer brothers were assessed for land and improvements at Notley Hall plantation, but neither was assessed for livestock or household furniture there. In 1862, Charles B. Rozer sold all of his interest in Notley Hall to his brother Francis for $15,000 Although the deed listed Charles Rozer as a resident of Prince George’s County, Francis Rozer was very clearly not living on the property because he was listed as a resident of Charles County.
With the outbreak of the Civil War, Francis W. Rozer reportedly sold 66 acres of Admirathoria to the federal government for the construction of Fort Foote. Because of the vicinity of Washington, DC, and the fortification at Forte Foote, the project area was documented by a number of Civil War-era maps. Unfortunately, these maps appear to show the area with varying degrees of accuracy. An 1861 map shows only the building of Lower Notley Hall, which is labeled simply as “Notley Hall”. In contrast, an 1863 map shows a cluster of buildings that probably represent Lower Notley Hall, but does not indicate the property’s owner or occupant. A building to the southeast at the present site of Upper Notley Hall, however, is labeled “Rozers”, although land records seem to suggest that the Rozers did not occupy the house at the time.
Although the Rozer plantation had begun its decline before the Civil War, during the period between 1870 and 1930, it was further subdivided, and its land was increasingly used for non-agricultural purposes. In 1870, Francis Rozer sold 246 acres of the Notley Hall tract, which included the brick house at Upper Notley Hall, to Daniel Seltzer of Juniata, Pennsylvania. Seltzer invested in the improvement of the house, adding a new mansard roof, and he resided on the property until the 1880s. Francis Rozer retained the portion of the tract containing Lower Notley Hall (and Site 18PR376). Both dwellings are shown on an 1878 Atlas of Prince George’s County, Upper Notley Hall labeled with Seltzer’s name and Lower Notley Hall, erroneously identified as the property of both “Frank and Charles Rosier”.
In February of 1881, Francis Rozer, who was then residing in Montgomery County, sold 100 acres of the Notley Hall tract to Mary Anderson, also of Montgomery County. The metes and bounds described in the deed appear to encompass the portion of the tract containing Lower Notley Hall. Later that year, Francis Rozer sold about thirty of the remaining acres of the Notley Hall tract to John Swift. Swift was probably already residing on the property, however, because a dwelling labeled with his name is shown on the tract in the 1878 map and possibly earlier.
Despite these land transfers, the house at Lower Notley Hall remained in the Rozer family, because Mary Anderson was married to a Charles B. Rozer. In 1900, Charles B Rozer was assessed for taxes on Lower Notley Hall, which was described as having 65 acres plus improvements. By that time, the land surrounding both Upper Notley Hall and Lower Notley Hall had been transformed into an amusement park. Designed for the African-American community, the amusement park was founded by the Notley Hall Asociation in 1894 and was run in cooperation with the Independent Steamboat and Barge Company. The waterfront park, which included three buildings and a pier, was accessed by steamboat. It featured a dancing pavilion, bowling, horseback riding, swings and a shooting gallery, and was touted in the Washington Bee (a DC paper for African-Americans) as a first-class excursion resort. The park was in operation until 1924.
The site was first examined archeologically in 1987 as part of a Phase I survey of a 123 acre area referred to as the Waterfront and Gudelski parcels. This project was later expanded to a Phase II testing program at 18PR376 (and other sites). The work was conducted for the PortAmerica Development Project (later the National Harbor) in order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and other federal and state legislation.
The Phase I work at 18PR376 entailed the excavation of shovel test pits (STPs) as well as 1 X 1 m test units. The STPs were initially placed at 20 m intervals in the western portion of the site and at 30 m intervals in the eastern portion of the site. Shovel tests were excavated to sterile subsoil, generally 35 to 45 cm below surface in the absence of cultural material, or to the limit of practical excavation. When artifacts were found, radial STPs were excavated to define the extent of the cultural deposit(s). Radial STPs were excavated in each cardinal direction from the location of the original find until two consecutive sterile STPs had been excavated. The interval between radial STPs was reduced to 10 m. Test units were excavated by natural or cultural stratigraphic soil layers. If a layer was more than 10 cm thick, it was excavated in 10 cm arbitrary layers. Soils (from both STPs and test units) were passed through hardware cloth to ensure uniform recovery of cultural remains. Artifacts were retained in bags and marked with provenience information.
A total of 85 STPs were excavated during the Phase I within the boundaries of what would be designated 18PR376. The site was found to measure 39,000 m2 and to encompass both prehistoric and historic components. The prehistoric component of the site measured 1,500 m2 and was confined to the southwest corner of the site. Some prehistoric artifacts from the shovel tests were recovered from below the ploswzone (ca. 40 cm). Based on these findings, a single 1 X 1 m test unit was placed in this portiong of the site. The other two test units were situated to the east, where historic structural foundations were identified.
The prehistoric artifacts recovered from the site during the Phase I survey included lithic debitage and Potomac Creek and Moyaone ceramic sherds. The excavation of the 1 X 1 m unit in this area produced additional prehistoric materials, but they were mixed with historic artifacts to a depth of 40 cm below the surface. The Phase I prehistoric assemblage consisted of 1 quartz flake, 4 Moyaone sherds, and 13 Potomac Creek sherds.
The historic component of Lower Notley Hall consisted of a half-cobble/half-concrete foundation (Feature 10), a large brick-lined well (Feature 11), a large brick rubble mound (Feature 9), and numerous associated artifacts. The majority of the historic artifacts were scattered over an area of approximately 10,000 m2 around the structural remains. Two 1 X 1 m test units were excavated aroud the structural remains. A test unit located in the brick rubble mound produced cultural material to a depth of 1 m below surface, and the second test unit, located behind the cobble and concrete foundation, produced cultural materials to a depth of 50 to 60 cm below surface as well as a posthole feature.
Diagnostic historic artifacts dated from the mid 18th century to the early 20th century. The full Phase I historic assemblage consisted of 1 horseshoe nail, 1 piece of wire, 1 spring, 2 brass washers, 1 metal chain fragment, 6 pieces of corrugated tin, 1 staple, 365 window glass fragments, 1 hinge pintle, 3 roofing nail, 80 cut nails, 69 wire nails, 157 unidentified nails, 1 spike, 2 wood screws, 1 brass furniture handle, 1 brass button, 1 glass button, 1 brass and glass button, 2 Buckley sherd, 1 North Devon sherd, 4 tin-enamelled earthenware sherd, 9 lead-glazed earthenware sherds, 25 creamware sherds, 21 pearlware sherds, 73 whiteware sherds, 23 redware sherds, 8 yelloware sherds, 15 ironstone sherds, 10 porcelain sherds, 2 Chinese porcelain sherds, 11 white salt-glazed stoneware sherd, 2 British Brown stoneware sherd, 1 Westerwald stoneware sherd, 10 miscellaneous stoneware sherds, 3 miscellaneous ceramic sherds, 3 glass table ware fragments, 54 olive green bottle fragments, 215 glass bottle/jar fragments, 180 animal bone/teeth fragments, 1 pewter medallion, 8 kaolin pipe fragments, two .22 rimfire cartridges, 2 gunflint fragments, and 56 unidentified metal objects.
Based on the presence of structural remains, a feature, undisturbed cultural deposits, and the historic importance of Lower Notley Hall, Phase II testing was recommended for 18PR376.
Phase II investigations were also carried out in 1987 and entailed the excavation of an additional 135 STPs in the eastern (primarily historic) portion of the site and another 12 formal 1 X 1 m test units, and an additional 18 STPs and seven 1 X 1 m units in the western (primarily prehistoric) portion of the site. Excavations methods utilized during the Phase II testing were the same procedures followed during Phase I.
Phase II work revealed that the western portion of the site exhibited a plowzone that varied from 25 to 30 cm deep. Roots were very dense and pebbles and small cobbles were found throughout. In most of the units there was a layer of dark yellowish-brown sandy loam in the first 20 to 30 cm of the plowzone. Below this was a compact brown or strong brown sandy loam. Plow scars appeared at this interface in five of the seven test units. A few artifacts appeared in this compact zone, including historic materials. The nature of this zone is unclear. Some of it was obviously plowed but the lower portions did not seem to be. However, it also contained ironstone, a ceramic ware that is not very common until the mid 19th century. The subsoil was also generally compact and darker with heavier gravel content and was strong brown silty clay.
The Phase II investigations recovered 50 prehistoric artifacts and encountered two potential features within the central portion of the western 1/3 of the site. Of the 37 ceramic sherds recovered, only 3 were Moyaone, the rest were Potomac Creek. None were decorated. The lithics were 26% of the collection and included 4 whole quartz and 4 whole quartzite flakes, a piece of quartz debris, a split quartzite cobble and a quartz cobble. A possible piece of fire-cracked rock was also recovered. A few ceramic and lithic artifacts were recovered from the compact zone (see above) but were mixed with historic material except in all but 2 of the 7 test units.
Feature 4 was identified in two test units and had a roughly oval shape. It measured approximately 90 cm by 60 cm and was 35 cm deep. It was first noted below the compact sediment zone and became visible as a slightly darker sediment with charcoal flecks at 32 cm below the surface. Excavation did not recover any definite artifacts, though a concentration of charcoal (probably a burned root) appeared about halfway down in the feature and a possible fire-cracked rock was found in the profile of the northern half. The irregular shape and lack of artifacts suggests that this was actually a natural rather than a cultural feature (perhaps a tree fall).
Feature 5 was a shallow trench or pit that was found in two units. The feature was 90 cm wide and 15 cm deep. The bottom surface was not regular, however, and the northwestern portion was considerably shallower. Although cobbles seemed to be lined up along part of one edge, cobbles were found throughout the subsoil. One Potomac Creek plain body sherd and one whole quartzite flake were found in the fill as was a small fragment of brick (discarded in the field). Plow scars were also found over the surface of the feature and could have been the source of the artifacts in the feature fill. In summary, the chronological and cultural affiliation of the feature is uncertain. It was assumed that it was cultural. The uneven bottom would be unusual for a cultural feature, however, the straight edges would be unusual for a natural feature.
The amount of prehistoric cultural material that may be in its original context appeared to be a small proportion of a small (less than 60) collection of artifacts. The preservation of faunal material in this portion of the site appeared to be quite poor when compared to the eastern portion of the site. The lack of artifacts, the uncertainty about the affiliation of features, and poor preservation and integrity suggest that the prehistoric component of the site does not contain sufficient information to warrant a recommendation of eligibility to the NRHP.
The eastern portion of the site has more variety of artifacts and features and virtually no prehistoric material. Within the eastern portion of the site was a yard area centered between Features 9 and 10 and the well (Feature 11), but extending 10 to 20 m beyond these structures. This yard area has the highest density of artifacts and features, as well as the earliest evidence of occupation. The natural stratigraphy in the whole eastern portion is generally similar to that found in the western portion of the site, although it does not seem to have been plowed. Plow scars were not identified. Absence of plowscars suggests that the primary disturbance factors in the yard area were yard activities and bioturbation.
The stratigraphy near the northwestern corner of Feature 9 (the easternmost building), was more complex, but reveals much about the basic sequence of the site. The lowest layers were characterized by small pieces of charcoal, shell, and brick in what was either the original ground surface or close to it. Ceramics in these layers were typical of the period between 1730 and 1780. Another characteristic of these strata here and elsewhere near the east building was a high relative and absolute frequency of animal bones.
These layers were sealed by a 25 cm thick layer of brick and mortar with charcoal and evidence of burning. Most artifacts were handwrought and cut nails. The upper two strata contained artifacts primarily from the middle and end of the 19th century into the 20th century and apparently accumulated after an early building had been destroyed.
The brick rubble layer was found in another unit near Feature 9, and it is believed that the brick resulted from the destruction and dispersion of building materials related to the building represented by Feature 9. The brick rubble was not nearly as dense, and no fill was deposited over the rubble. The layer covered a stratum that likely dates to the first half of the 19th century with a mixture of creamware, pearlware, and whiteware. The lower deposits have artifacts that primarily date to the pre-Revolutionary period.
Similar strata were encountered 20 m to the west, near Feature 11 (the well). The brick rubble layer was present, but not as thick and it began to dissipate from east to west across units. It rested on a large deposit of fill approximately 35 cm thick. This, in turn, rested on a stratum similar to that seen in the lowest strata near Feature 9, with many small fragments of charcoal, shell, and brick. The deposit under the brick layer, again, dated to the early to mid 18th century. Since the top of the well was close to the modern ground surface, this fill may have been added during the construction of the well. The fill above the bricks in this area had earlier artifacts (such as pearlware and a little whiteware) than were identified near Feature 9. This suggests that the occupants of different periods used different portions of the site more intensely or for different purposes. Another indication of differential use of the property is the dominance of creamware in the stratum immediately underneath the brick rubble/destruction layer.
While the brick rubble layer was identified in most of the other test units at the site, it clearly dissipated and eventually disappeared with distance further and further to the west. The stratigraphy in the unit situated furthest to the east and south, likewise, exhibited no brick destruction debris, but early pre-Revolutionary deposits were sealed from the middle to late 19th century deposits by a sterile fill layer. Immediately post-Revolutionary deposits did not exist in this unit (no creamware or pearlware were recovered).
In summary, occupation at the site began probably in the second quarter of the 18th century. A brick building, probably a house, was built and (years later) was destroyed. Since the sealed deposits have no pearlware (except for one sherd of possibly intrusive edged pearlware) it appears that the destruction occurred prior to the American Revolution. It is not known if the early building was rebuilt as Feature 9 or if Feature 9 was built in a new location.
Eight non-structural features were also found in the eastern portion of the site during Phase II. They can be divided into postholes (3), pits (2), and linear trenches (3). The presence of these features (in combination with the structural features previously described) suggests good integrity for the site’s historic deposits.
The historic ceramics from the site extend from the 18th century into the 20th century. The site could have been occupied as early as the 1710s, but there was not as much tin-glazed ware as might be expected if that were the case. There was a quantity of white-salt glazed stoneware that suggested initial occupation by Europeans most likely fell between about 1720 and 1730. The Phase II ceramic assemblage included 18 Chinese export porcelain sherds, 46 tin-glazed earthenwares, and at least 87 other ceramic sherds. Preliminary analysis of the distribution of artifact densities and the distribution of the different types suggests that the area between the well and the two foundations was the primary focus of occupation in all periods. However, there are artifact concentrations from the middle of the 18th century between the southern foundation and points to the southeast. This area also received artifacts during the 19th century.
The combined Phase I and II historic assemblages reveal that the site’s function was clearly domestic. The historic assemblage in the western portion of the site consisted of 3 activity items, 59 architectural artifacts, 3 clothing items, 256 kitchen-related artifacts, 1 arms object, and 2 tobacco-related artifacts. The historic assemblage in the eastern portion of the site (the main historic concentration) consisted of 62 activity items, 1,440 architectural artifacts, 22 clothing items, 2 furniture items, 2,059 kitchen-related artifacts, 5 personal items, 17 arms objects, and 86 tobacco-related artifacts.
The deposits at 18PR376 consist of the archeological remains of Lower Notley Hall. The site composed of the components, the main site with the buildings and yard, a western fringe that may or may not have been the location of a building, and a prehistoric component in the middle of the western fringe. Only the core area of the main portion of the site was recommended for mitigation through data recovery following the Phase II excavations. Unfortunately, due to changes in ownership, economic realities, changes to the project, and other factors, no data recovery was ever carried out at 18PR374. Today the site appears to be a gravel parking lot. It is not known to what extent installation of the parking lot impact the potentially significant archeological features and artifact deposits at 18PR376.
|
