Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18ST668 G-1
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site G-1 (18ST668) is a 19th century dwelling. The site is located in Leonardtown, St. Mary’s County. It is in an area of wooded land and plowed fields, and is situated on a middle terrace at the head of an intermittent drainage of Breton Bay. The site sits in the middle of a parcel defined by McIntosh Creek, a marsh, a field road, and the intermittent drainage. Soils at the site are of the Mattapex series, which are fine sandy loam. The site measures approximately 60 m (196.85’) north-south by 70 m (229.65’) east-west.
Phase I archival and archeological investigations were conducted during the winter of 1996 ahead of proposed construction of the Tudor Hall Village development on Breton Bay in Leonardtown. The investigations were a condition of approval in response to a request for a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. Goals of the investigation were to locate, identify, and delineate all prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the project area, to make preliminary assessments of the potential significance of those resources applying the National Register criteria, to assess the impact of the proposed development activities on the cultural resources situated within the project boundaries, and to formulate management recommendations concerning those resources. Of the 480-acres (194.33 ha) that were part of the proposed development, a total of 271.13-acres (109.77 ha) were subject to Phase I study. Site 18ST668 was located on the western edge of the central portion of the study area.
Archival research indicated that there has been human activity in the project area for thousands of years. Prehistoric activity and occupation in the general vicinity of the site can be dated from archeology back to the Early Archaic period (7,500 BC). Middle Archaic materials were found at a nearby site and Late Archaic diagnostics were found in the vicinity, for example on a broad flat terrace overlooking Breton Bay. Although not many in number, a few sites in the general project area contain materials definitively dating to the Early, Middle, and Late Woodland periods.
Documentary research revealed that in 1708, Leonardtown became the new county seat of St. Mary’s. Throughout the late 17th and early18th centuries Philip Lynes, a wealthy businessman, owned the property encompassing the proposed development area. As a member of the St. Mary’s Council, he was an active proponent of moving St. Mary’s County Court from St. Mary’s City to the head of Breton Bay. An act was passed that provided for the purchase of 50-acres of land belonging to Lynes called “Shepherd’s Old Field”. A county court house was erected on an acre of land and the remaining property was to be divided into 100 lots for the establishment of a town called ‘Seymour Towne’. Seymour Towne failed to develop and in 1728 a new commission was appointed to erect a new town at the location, a town that came to be called Leonard Town after then Maryland Governor Benedict Leonard Calvert. The original 50 acres of the former town were divided into 80 equal lots. In about 1741, Abraham Barnes purchased a parcel of land on Breton Bay, including Shepherd’s Old Field. By 1742, he had acquired all the land that encompassed the current boundaries of Leonardtown and the Tudor Hall development property. Barnes began construction of Tudor Hall in the 1740’s. The current project area, at that time, served as agricultural fields for Barnes’ Tudor Hall Plantation. There were no known structures. Philip Key purchased the property in 1813 and it remained with his family throughout the 19th century. A survey conducted in 1830 depicts a building called the ‘Over Seers House” within the project area. No other structures are indicated until the 20th century. Residential and agricultural complexes are located on the farm encompassed by the project area.
Phase I archeological investigations included pedestrian survey in areas where the slope was more than 15%, surface collection in fields where visibility was greater than 75%, and systematic sub-surface testing in all portions of the woodlot and areas where the slope was less than 15%. The project area was divided into 42 survey areas based on current land use patterns. Current and former agricultural fields and pasture areas were designated by a single alphabetic prefix (Areas A-U). Woodlot areas were designated by use of a double alphabetic prefix (Areas AA-AU). A temporary datum (N1000/E1000) was established for each survey area. Pedestrian survey and surface collection were done on established at 10 m intervals. Shovel tests were excavated at 20 m intervals along transects set at 20 m apart. All soils were screened through ¼” hardware cloth. All artifacts except for clearly modern debris were retained.
Site 18ST668 was located in Area G, within easy access to McIntosh Creek. Approximately 41 shovel tests were excavated within the site area. The tight clustering of materials as identified during the Phase I testing indicated a dwelling may have been located there. The ceramic assemblage suggested an occupation of a moderate duration in the early part of the 19th century. All of the artifacts were recovered from a plow-disturbed context.
A total of 36 historic artifacts were retained during the Phase I survey. There were 8 activity items (lamp glass fragments). There were 7 architectural items (3 window glass fragments, 3 unidentified nails, and 1 spike). There were 2 clothing items (2 porcelain buttons). There were 18 kitchen-related items (5 non-machine made bottle glass fragments, 2 machine made bottle glass fragments, 1 table glass fragment, 4 whiteware, 2 pearlware, 1 creamware, 2 ironstone, 1 Rockingham/Bennington). There was 1 miscellaneous item (an unidentified melted glass fragment).
A Phase II study commenced at 18ST668 in the summer of 1997. The objectives of the Phase II were to identify the vertical and horizontal boundaries of the site, to identify the cultural affiliation and functional ranges represented by the site, to determine the level of integrity present, to provide an assessment of the potential significance of the site’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, and to make management recommendations for the resource.
Phase II testing consisted of the excavation of 9 shovel tests at 10 m intervals along the previously established grid orientation to supplement information obtained during the Phase I survey. A total of six 1X1 m test units were also dug. The units were places across the site adjacent to shovel tests that produced historic artifacts. No surface or sub-surface cultural features were identified.
A total of 99 historic artifacts were recovered during the Phase II investigation. There were 3 activity items (2 lamp glass fragments and 1 copper plate or strap with three holes). There were 23 architectural items (15 brick fragments, 3 window glass shards, 1 cut nail, and 4 unidentified nails). There was 1 clothing item (a rubber button embossed with “Goodyear 1851”). There were 70 kitchen-related items (17 bottle glass shards, 5 table glass fragments, 3 Rockingham/Bennington yellow ware, 1 Albany slip grey stoneware, 5 pearlware, 16 whiteware, 5 gray ironstone, 1 domestic gray stoneware, 2 imported gray stoneware, 6 unidentified ceramic sherds, 1 milk glass lid liner fragment, and 8 oyster shell fragments). There was 1 miscellaneous item (an unidentified copper fragment). The single personal item was a Bakelite comb fragment.
One prehistoric item was collected, a quartz flake.
Site G-1 (18ST668) represents a 19th century domestic structure associated with a low intensity occupation. While the presence of brick indicates the presence of a former structure at the location, there is no direct archival evidence for such a structure in the immediate site area. The range of occupation suggested by the artifact assemblage was 1805-1888; however, only the pearlware sherds provide a pre-1930 date and may have been heirloom pieces. The site lacks the stratigraphic integrity necessary to address questions regarding landscape analysis and intra-site spatial patterning. No further work is recommended for the site.
|
