Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR754 Rose Mount
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Rose Mount (18PR754) is the remains of a late 18th century plantation and 19th to mid 20th century farmstead located in Prince George’s County. The site is situated on the crest of an upland ridge east of the small city of Glenarden. The surrounding topography is comprised of nearly level to moderately sloping uplands. Unnamed tributaries of Southwestern Branch and Western Branch, both tributaries of the Patuxent River, drain the area. Seasonally-flooded low-lying and wetland areas are present adjacent to these tributaries. Soils at the site are primarily Collington fine sandy loams.
The site was first encountered during the course of a Phase I reconnaissance survey in 2004 for the Balk Hill Village housing and commercial development. Development of the project area was to entail construction of houses and roads, and the installation of utilities. Other portions of the project area would later be leased for commercial development. Grading and construction would have an adverse impact upon the integrity of any cultural resources within the area. The investigations were conducted at the behest of the Prince George’s County Planning Board and the Maryland National Capital Parks and Planning Commission, which had begun requiring archeological mitigation as a prerequisite to subdivision approval. The Balk Hill Village project area encompassed an approximately 125 acre tract that included the domestic and agricultural core areas of the former Rose Mount plantation, ruins of which were identified (but not investigated) during the survey. A copy of this reconnaissance report is not available at MHT, but according to later reports, the researchers surveyed and mapped a total of 6 structural features on a heavily overgrown knoll at the northern edge of the development area. The foundations mapped included the foundation of the main house at Rose Mount and the partially collapsed remains of 5 apparent 20th century dependencies. Steep garden terraces defining the “core” of the plantation were also mapped and helped to define Site 18PR754.
Based on these initial findings, a Phase IB survey was carried out in 2005 and 2006. The investigation sought to identify surface and subsurface cultural resources associated with the formal Rose Mount plantation, and to offer recommendations for managing those resources. Particular emphasis was placed on identifying those resources that could be related to slave occupation, particularly slave quarters or slave cemeteries. The features associated with the main domestic complex at the Rose Mount plantation were mapped following mechanical clearing of severe overgrowth and supplemental pedestrian reconnaissance. These features included the remains of eight 19th and 20th century domestic and agricultural structures, one isolated deep archeological deposit, and other landscape elements. The site was then subjected to close-interval (10 m) shovel testing. Standard shovel test pits (STPs) measured at least 35 cm in diameter and extended to a minimum depth of 40 cm below ground surface, or 10 cm into sterile subsoil. Soils were removed in natural stratigraphic horizons and were screened through hardware mesh.
Cultural materials were recovered from 45 of the 347 excavated shovel tests; 27 STPs yielded historic artifacts that were retained, while 18 STPs produced historic artifacts that were noted and discarded in the field. The 27 positive STPs were delineated further with 39 additional STPs excavated at 5 m intervals (9 of which were positive). In addition, the principal shovel testing regime was augmented by excavation of ten 50 X 50 cm square shovel tests in proximity to the known features (both structural and archeological) to further delineate them and to provide data bearing on their age, nature, and function. An architectural historian was also consulted on-site to help in interpreting the features at 18PR754.
Nine features were identified at 18PR754 by the close of Phase IB operations. The presumed dwelling house of the plantation was not assigned a feature number, but was simply referred to by researchers as the “Main Dwelling”. The principal block of the main dwelling was supported by a stretcher bond brick foundation that was in turn appended to an older, smaller, mortared, coursed rubble stone foundation on the east end of the house. The principal foundation block enclosed four brick piles that probably represent the remains of four interior chimneys. Remnants of dressed stones identified as gneiss are ranged along the north and south elevations of the principal block; these stone blocks may have supported porches. The older stone foundation appears to have supported a two-cell (room) structure with a cellar under the west half. This portion of the building may have been raised when the principal dwelling was (re)constructed in the mid-19th century; two courses of brick were placed upon the stone foundation and a 6-over-1 common bond brick fireplace was added along the east wall of the building. The charred remains of the wood sill suggest that the building skeleton utilized a mortise-and-tenon, wood-frame system. A modern wood-frame porch was appended to the eastern end of the building component.
Feature 1 represented portions of a 20th century wood-frame structure, with no associated foundation materials. Feature 2 was also a remnant 20th century structure; a possible animal shelter. Feature 3 was a small, coursed rubble stone foundation, probably dating from the 19th century. The size of this building and its location relative to the principle dwelling suggest that it may have been a meat house. Feature 4 was a wall remnant from a 20th century wood-frame building. The wall consisted of circular-sawn wood and was clad with vertical wood boards. Feature 5 consisted of an odd rectangular arrangement of cut stone piles in a grid. Each pile consisted of a cut stone column that was topped by a cut stone cap of gneiss. Charred wood in the area suggests that the structure was a 19th century mortise-and-tenon, wood-frame building. Although this structure could have served as a granary, it more likely represents the remains of an early air-cured tobacco barn. Feature 6 was a collapsed 19th century, mortise-and-tenon, wood-frame building of unknown function. Feature 7 was a small 19th century coursed rubble stone foundation similar to Feature 3. Feature 8 was a roughly circular debris-filled pit that was banked into the ridge north of the main dwelling. Extremely overgrown, this pit feature likely represents the partially in-filled remains of an icehouse.
A total of 248 artifacts were recovered from the site, the majority of them (126) coming from a single shovel test which exhibited a very deep and anomalous soil profile. When compared with the STP profiles of tests surrounding this anomalous STP, it appeared to be highly localized and was, thus, thought to represent some kind of trash pit for domestic debris. The artifacts recovered during Phase IB work include 1 activity item (unidentified hardware), 54 architectural objects (1 brick fragment and 53 nails), 180 kitchen-related artifacts, and 13 miscellaneous objects (11 pieces of iron and 2 fragments of coal). The kitchen assemblage consisted of 64 ceramic sherds (11 creamware, 10 pearlware, 2 porcelain, 24 whiteware, 7 redware, 3 domestic gray stoneware, and 7 unidentified ceramics), 76 piece of kitchen glass (10 molded bottle glass, 1 machine-made, and 65 other bottle/container glass), and 40 faunal remains (38 pieces of bone and 2 pieces of shell). No clear evidence of burials or slave quarters was noted within the limits of 18PR754. Over 40% of the chronologically mixed, domestic archeological assemblage form the site was recovered from moderately to severely disturbed generalized A horizon that was present across the site. Except for the single isolated deep (120cmbs) shovel test that exhibited stratigraphy, the horizontal artifact distributions exhibited no temporally or functionally differentiated activity loci.
Following Phase IB work, Site 18PR754 was officially registered with MHT and interpreted as the domestic and agricultural core of the historic Rose Mount plantation. Preliminary archival work revealed that from the late-18th through the mid-19th century, Rose Mount was a large tobacco plantation that eventually encompassed over 900 acres. Its most noted owner was Joseph Kent, a governor and Congressional representative from Maryland. Kent owned Rose Mount between 1806 and 1837, and he reportedly was buried on the property. Rebuilt at mid-century, the main house was occupied continuously until the 1970s, when it was finally destroyed by fire. The abandoned site was moderately to severely overgrown, and has been used as a convenient dumping ground for modern trash for the past three decades.
Armed with this archival evidence, and based on the Phase IB findings of disturbed soils at the site, the decision was made to undertake a very limited Phase II examination. Research would be restricted solely to examination of Features 3, 7, and the small east wing of the main house, all of which were stone foundations thought to possibly represent earlier constructions than the brick foundation of the main dwelling. Such Phase II work was considered sufficient to delineate the structural details of these buildings and to ascertain the chronology and function of the features. In addition, limited remote sensing within the landscaped terrace south and east of the main house foundation were also recommended to be part of the Phase II work, to ensure that no burials (that of Joseph Kent, slave burial, or otherwise) were located in the area. Researchers returned to the site to conduct this work in August of 2005 and 2006.
The Phase II work at 18PR754 consisted of supplemental archival research, the excavation of 16 formal test units (of varying size) in the vicinity of the 3 features under examination, and an earth conductivity and magnetic susceptibility survey. The archival research revealed that the first owner of the property that would become Rose Mount was a Dr. Thomas Gannt (1710-1785), a physician, successful planter and notable political figure in Maryland. When Gannt died in 1785, each of his four children (Edward, Elizabeth, Erasmus, and Levi) inherited parts of his extensive properties known as Brooke Grove and Park Hall. Erasmus’ portion of this bequest , which included 94¼ acres of Brook Grove and 308 acres of Park Hall, included Site 18PR754. There is some evidence to suggest that Erasmus Gannt may have been operating a full-scale plantation at Park Hall and Brooke Grove even before his father died. A practicing attorney and gentleman farmer, he received in 1780 as a gift from his father several “mulattos and negroes”, suggesting that he was actively farming some tracts of land. By 1795, however, Erasmus Gannt had sold these parcels to James Clerklee.
In October 1795, James Clerklee wrote his sister that he was livingly comfortably on property that he had acquired from Erasmus Gannt. Clerklee called his new home “the Rose Mount on Park Hall”. Federal Direct Tax returns for 1798 indicated that Clerklee was a relatively wealthy individual. Listed in the returns as “James Clarke”, Clerklee owned portions of Park Hall, the neighboring parcel of Grove Hurst, and two other tracts of land. The large Park Hall operation, which encompassed the site, included numerous structures: a new house with a large kitchen, a meat house, a spinning house, and a new single-storey brick structure of unknown function (and unfinished inside). Park Hall’s agricultural support complex also included 3 “Negro houses”, two tobacco houses, a wine mill, a corn house, a stable, and 2 tenant houses. Clerklee’s labor force of 45 slaves likely was distributed among his four properties. In 1806, Clerklee began selling portions of his various land tracts to Dr. Joseph Kent, eventually culminating in the sale of a total of 402½ acres embracing all of the lands that Erasmus Gannt had inherited from his father.
A practicing physician, Joseph Kent served as a Congressman from 1811-1815, as a Maryland Senator from 1815-1816, as a Democratic Congressman between 1819 and 1826, as Governor of Maryland from 1826 to 1829, and as a United States Senator from 1833 to 1837. Kent’s purchase of “the Rose Mount” established him as a major landowner in Prince George’s County. His landholdings eventually expanded to include a total of 840 acres. In 1832, Kent expanded his properties even further by purchasing an additional 62 acre tract. At Rose Mount, Kent reportedly constructed a stone house and “developed terraced gardens” , where, according to some local historians he was buried. Despite Kent’s political clout and apparent wealth, he had accumulated a substantial debt load by the late 1830s. On January 18th, 1839, merchants Frederick and Everhard Deluis of Bremen, Germany, filed suit against the Joseph Kent estate, and asked for the sale of Rose Mount to satisfy Kent’s debt. In 1840, Kent’s creditors placed all of the Governor’s real estate up for public sale, as well as his personal possessions, farm equipment, livestock, and all but 16 of the family’s 76 slaves. Kent’s wife received a life estate in 300 acres of her husband’s property as a widow’s dower, but she did not remain on this land. According to Bowie, she and her dependent children (probably from Kent’s first marriage) moved first to Alexandria and then to Baltimore. Although Alice Kent apparently tried to retain her interest in the dower property by leasing it in 1850 to the governor’s son James, she eventually released her dower rights to a nephew, Joseph Kent Roberts, in 1857.
Joseph Kent Roberts acquired the majority of his deceased uncle’s Rose Mount property in March of 1840. Robert constructed and occupied a frame house on top of the hill at Rose Mount Plantation, possibly on the foundation of the earlier stone house constructed by Joseph Kent ca. 1805-1810. The frame structure is thought to have been a 2½ storey frame dwelling with an attached 2 storey wing. Destroyed by fire in 1974, the house had a basement and was surrounded by terraced gardens believed to have been laid out by Joseph Kent. Kent’s grave reportedly lay southeast of the main house foundations. In 1850, Roberts was primarily farming tobacco using slave labor in a true plantation-style operation, whereas by 1870 the farming operations had changed substantially. Roberts was producing no tobacco and of course had no slaves. Instead he raised and marketed livestock (primarily sheep and cattle) and fresh meat. He also likely leased property to tenants who worked his land. Joseph Kent Roberts divided his extensive real estate among his brother, Robert Roberts, and his 6 children. But it was his son, William W. Roberts who inherited the principal dwelling at Rose Mount along with 260 acres out of the estate. This is the property that encompasses 18PR754.
When William W. Roberts died in 1933, he left the house and the 260 acre property to his two then-unmarried daughters, Elesa Weams Roberts and Alice Roberts. Alice apparently did not marry or have children, so at her death the full 260 acres went to her sister Elesa. Elesa bore two children and the property was ultimately inherited by her daughter Mercedes R. Berry. Berry in turn bequeathed the property to her children or grandchildren as joint tenants in common. In 1974 the house was destroyed in a fire, and the surviving family members formed a consortium, adopting the name Balk Hill Inc., in 1984.
Again, field testing focused on investigating three previously identified structural features associated with the former Rose Mount Plantation: the un-mortared stone foundations of two dependencies or outbuildings and the mortared stone foundation of an addition to the main plantation house. The principal research goals were to determine, to the extent possible, the chronology and function of each feature, and to assess the integrity of these features. A total of 16 test units were placed beside or within these features. Test units were set up as either 1 X 1 m, 1 X 0.5 m, or 0.5 X 2 m blocks. All units were excavated manually, using 10 cm arbitrary levels within natural soil strata to maintain vertical control. Test unit excavations were concluded upon encountering sterile subsoil horizons, as signified by the absence of cultural materials within an entire 10 cm level. Archeological data regarding each excavation level, including soil composition and depth, presence or absence of cultural materials, and associated features, were recorded on standardized forms. The stratigraphic profile of completed test units was documented through scaled drawings and photography, as were all significant cultural features identified during excavations.
During the first season of Phase II study in August of 2005, one liter soil samples from selected cultural features were retained for micro-botanical analysis. During the second season of Phase II work in August of 2006, one and two liter soil samples were retained from archeologically sealed cultural contexts within each 1 X 1 m test unit (minimum of 4 liters obtained per test unit). A sample of all of these was then subjected to ethnobotanical analysis.
The earth conductivity and magnetic susceptibility survey was undertaken using a Geonics Limited EM-38B Ground Conductivity Meter. The survey area was confined to a 20 X 50 m block covering an artificial terrace located southeast of the dwelling house. Based upon the presence of formal plantings and non-native species, this area was believed to have been a historic formal garden at one time. The survey was conducted in lanes traversing a north-south, east-west grid, spaced at 1.0 m intervals. Along these lanes, conductivity and susceptibility were taken every 0.5 m. The EM-38B was operated in vertical mode to allow maximum depth penetration. With the instrument carried 20 cm above ground surface, the vertical mode of operation examined the conductivity of soils between 20 and 130 cm below ground surface. The magnetic susceptibility of the site was examined in the upper 55 cm soil package. This depth range allowed detailed examination of soils containing the possible historic grave features. The EM-38B measured earth conductivity and magnetic susceptibility in the same pass, allowing overlay of both data sets.
Three test units were placed along the outside of the smaller stone foundation section of the main dwelling house. Two units were placed on the rear-facing side of the house, measuring 1 X 1 m and 1 X 0.5 m respectively. The third unit (1 X 1 m) was located in the front near the adjacent brick foundation. No units were placed along the eastern foundation wall because of the large amount of brick rubble in the area, probably associated with a large gable-end “kitchen” chimney that had collapsed during or after the destruction of the house by fire in the 1970s. Similarly, the overwhelming amount of debris and rubble that filled the basement of the brick foundation and the apparent lack of basement space associated with the stone portion of the foundation precluded the placement of units in the interior of the structure.
Artifacts recovered from these three test units include 7 activity items (a nozzle, a valve, 3 wire fragments, an electrical cord, and a metal tube), 727 architectural artifacts (18 brick/stone/mortar fragments, 237 pieces of window glass, and 472 nails and architectural hardware objects), 11 clothing remains (4 buttons, 5 textile fragments, 1 buckle, and a sewed leather object), 1 furniture item (a carpet fragment), 85 kitchen-related artifacts (8 unidentified ceramic sherds, 33 pieces of container/table glass, 3 utensils, a metal tableware item, and 40 bone and oyster shell fragments), 1 tobacco-related item (a pipe fragment), and 115 miscellaneous objects (102 unidentified objects, 7 other glass objects, a piece of plastic, a piece of paper, and 4 other items).
The 3 test units excavated along the stone foundation of the main house suggested that this portion of the structure had undergone a series of modifications and repairs. These appear to have occurred contemporaneously with and/or after construction of the brick foundation of the main block of the dwelling. Excavation in one unit demonstrated that exterior portions of the stone foundation along the front façade of the house had been faced with brick. Test unit excavations along the rear façade of the house encountered a cement “buttress” and concrete patio blocks that underlay and abutted the stone foundation. The cement buttress may have been installed to reinforce a structurally deteriorating section of the stone foundation. The cement patio blocks, which appeared in and near two units at the rear of the house, represent 20th century patio pavers. Although the diagnostic artifacts recovered from these three test units suggested occupation extending from the late 18th through the 20th century, the earliest artifacts were few and fragmentary, and most were intermixed with strata that contained much more modern material. Hence, the vertical integrity of the deposits in the vicinity of this stone foundation was suspect.
Feature 3 was the foundation of a small (4 m east-west X 4.5 m north-south), square outbuilding located approximately 20 m north of the main dwelling house. Like the main house, this dependency was situated on the same high artificially terraced hill-top, but its location placed it behind the viewshed of the front side of the plantation. Six test units were excavated in the vicinity of Feature 3. Two of the test units were 1 m X 0.5 m in size and excavated on the interior of the structure. One of the units measured 1 m X 0.5 m in size and was placed adjacent to the eastern wall of the structure near its northeast corner. Two units were slightly larger than 1 X 1 m in size, but were placed straddling the foundation on the north and south walls such that a roughly 1 X 0.5 m area was excavated on each side of the wall. The sixth test unit was 0.5 m X 2 m in size and stretched diagonally across the center of the structure.
One feature was encountered within the interior of the structure, a shallow basin-shaped pit near the center of the building. It was initially interpreted as a sub-floor trench, however, given its reddened subsoil matrix containing fragments of carbonized wood (and in particular hickory and maple) charcoal, this feature actually appears to be a shallow fire pit. Artifacts encountered in the units in and surrounding the Feature 3 foundation include 9 activity items (8 pieces of lamp glass and a light bulb part), 409 architectural artifacts, 185 kitchen-related artifacts, 1 tobacco-related artifact (a pipe stem), 95 miscellaneous historic items, and 19 prehistoric items (all pieces of fire-cracked rock). Additional materials were recovered via flotation (mostly micro-lithics, small pieces of brick or mortar, and organics). The architectural artifacts include 222 pieces of brick, 11 pieces of mortar, 9 fragments of electrical wire, 31 fragments of window glass, 135 nails (1 handwrought, 85 cut, 15 wire, 34 unidentified), and a spike. The kitchen-related assemblage included 30 ceramic sherds (5 creamware, 1 pearlware, 1 transitional pearl/whiteware, 14 whiteware, 5 porcelain, 1 Rockingham, 1 domestic brown stoneware, 1 domestic gray stoneware, and 1 miscellaneous stoneware), 120 pieces of glass (5 table glass, and 115 bottle glass fragments), a crown cap, and 34 faunal remains (2 cut/butchered animal bones, 18 animal bones, 13 pieces of oyster shell, and 1 other shell). The miscellaneous historic objects were 28 unidentified iron pieces, 11 other glass fragments, 2 pieces of plastic, 53 pieces of coal, and a fragment of slag.
The excavations in the vicinity of Feature/Structure 3 seem to indicate that it is not a domestic dwelling and must have served as one of the many outbuildings that would have dotted the backyard of Rose Mount’s manor house during the 19th century. Excavations revealed four salient aspects regarding the feature which bear on interpreting its true function: 1) the structure was essentially square, 2) Almost no window glass was encountered in either the interior or exterior test units and most of the faunal remains were hog bones/teeth (some of which were butchered), 3) Feature 3 shares a close spatial relationship to the main dwelling, and is located directly behind the kitchen wing of the manor house, 4) a shallow fire pit was encountered near the center of the structure. Collectively, these attributes suggest that the feature represents the remains of a 19th century era smokehouse. Such a structure is referred to as a “meat house” in the archival record associated with Governor Joseph Kent’s tenure at Rose Mount.
Feature 7 was an outbuilding foundation located approximately 110 m northeast of the main house. It occupied a small, pronounced dome-shaped hill landform between two larger (and likely later) foundations that were situated to the north and south on the same landform. The foundation footprint measured approximately 5 m east-west by 7 m north-south. Seven test units were excavated in the vicinity of Feature 7. Two of the units were 1 X 0.5 m in size and situated in the interior of the structure (one diagonally in the northwest corner and one abutting the east wall). Other interior units were 1 X 1 m in size (one along the south wall and one near the center of the structure) and a 0.5 m X 2 m trench excavated diagonally across the northern portion of the interior. A 1 X 0.5 m trench was excavated along the exterior of the eastern wall and a single unit slightly larger than 1 m2 was placed straddling the foundation of the western wall such that a roughly 1 X 0.5 m area was excavated on each side of the wall.
Artifacts encountered from the excavations units in the vicinity of Feature/Structure 7 include 24 activity items, 1,536 architectural artifacts, 2 clothing items (a plastic button and a metal buckle), 3 furniture items (a woodstove handle and 2 metal drawer/cabinet pulls), 79 kitchen-related artifacts, 94 miscellaneous objects, and 4 prehistoric artifacts (a jasper flake, a chert flake, a quartz flake, and a quartzite flake). Additional materials were recovered via flotation (mostly micro-lithics, small pieces of brick or mortar, and organics). The activity items were 8 non-electrical wire fragments, 10 metal washers, 1 metal strap, 3 leather straps, 1 metal handle, and a horseshoe. The architectural artifacts were a piece of brick, 51 mortar fragments, 100 tar paper fragments, 638 asbestos shingles, 28 pieces of window glass, 685 nails (346 cut, 206 wire, 7 handwrought, 5 brad nails, 121 unidentified), 1 spike, 9 staples, 18 bolt fragments, 2 nuts, and 3 sewer pipe fragments. The kitchen-related artifacts were 14 ceramic sherds (2 whiteware, 11 redware, 1 domestic gray stoneware), 54 pieces of glass (1 jar fragment, 3 pieces of table ware, and 50 bottle fragments), 1 crown cap, 1 bird bone, and 9 oyster shell fragments. The miscellaneous objects were 69 unidentified pieces of iron, 6 unidentified cuprous objects, 1 unidentified piece of glass, 16 pieces of plastic, a rodent bone, and 1 unidentified object.
As with Feature 3, Feature 7 does not appear to have served any kind of domestic function. Very little debris of a domestic function was recovered from the seven test units excavated within the structures interior and adjacent to the exterior walls. No hearth signature or subfloor pits were identified within the structure at any stage of examination. Structure 7 was spatially associated with two sizeable agricultural features (see above), and its cultural assemblage, when shorn of architectural debris, was comprised primarily of materials that could be fragments from farm tools and machinery. Thus, the site was tentatively identified as a shed or tool house.
The remote sensing survey southeast of the former plantation house identified a number of anomalies, two of which were subsequently subjected to ground-truthing activities. The parameters of the remote sensing work are detailed above. Other anomalies were determined to likely be caused by former fences, previous shovel tests, a possible garden area, and former gravel roads. Two anomalies detected both by magnetic susceptibility and ground conductivity methods were investigated further via the manual excavation of a single trench measuring 3.5 m north south by 0.5 m east-west. Although the soils removed from the trench were not screened, several large iron artifacts were noted within the soil matrix during excavation (steel wire mesh and other random iron hardware objects). This appeared to be modern debris, which accounted for the aforementioned anomalies. Three other anomalies were more interesting because of their size and east/west direction (traditional orientation for Judeo-Christian burial), but were not investigated and deemed unlikely to be the burials of Kent and his family due to their dispersed nature.
Finally, a sample of the floated materials from the Phase II investigations at 18PR754 as well as hand-excavated charcoal and non-carbonized wood fragments were subjected to archeobotanical analysis. 1) There were two general findings from this study. There was some spatial differentiation in the use of certain wood species throughout the site. Wood samples recovered from the vicinity of Feature 3 were different from those recovered elsewhere. Feature 3 contained maple and hickory charcoal, species commonly used in smoking meats. 2) Only scant remains of comestible plants were documented within the flotation assemblage. While some of the non-carbonized seeds represent edible fruits (grape, raspberry/blackberry), they were recovered in association with other seeds not directly consumed by historic peoples but readily eaten (and hoarded) by rodents. Cultivated plant remains were absent from the samples, as were the remains of orchard fruits or garden products. This paucity is more likely a result of archeological sampling than of the probable importance of a greater variety of plant foods to the site’s 19th century inhabitants. Details of the archeobotanical assemblage can be found in the linked ethnobotany profile document.
In the final analysis, extensive close-interval Phase I shovel testing within the current 125 acre development project area and Phase II testing of selected foundations failed to yield any substantial archeological evidence of domestic structures that might have housed the slave populations at Rose Mount. No evidence of burials was encountered at the site. Likewise, little was encountered that aids in interpreting the site beyond what was encountered in the archival record. Archeological deposits capable of addressing significant questions related to Maryland history do not appear to be present at 18PR754. The site should not be considered a significant archeological resource.
|
