Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18ST676 AA-1
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site AA-1 (18ST676) is a multicomponent site with possible Late Archaic through Middle Woodland prehistoric base camp or small hamlet, and a small historic scatter. The site is located in Leonardtown in St. Mary’s County. It is situated on a relatively broad upland terrace along an unnamed tributary of McIntosh Creek. The western boundary of the site is formed by a second unnamed tributary and associated seasonal wetland. Soils at the site correspond to the Evesboro and Klej series. There islittle evidence of soil erosion or deflation on the terrace. The site measures approximately 270 m (885.83’) north-south by 290 m (951.44’) 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.
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 at least 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. The period of Rural Agrarian Intensification (1680-1815) provided the context for the evaluation of site 18ST670. 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%, were employed. 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 18ST676 was situated in the northwest central section of Area AA, a 27.3 acre (11.05 ha) area in the northeastern portion of a woodlot and includes the broad terrace, in the northwestern quadrant of the project area. A total of 276 shovel tests were originally excavated within Area AA with an additional 217 shovel tests dug in order to delineate artifact concentrations. Results of the Phase I testing identified 4 localized prehistoric artifact concentrations (Locus 1-Locus 4). The majority (over 62%) of the prehistoric material derived from undisturbed sub-plowzone contexts. The historic component was assessed as a scatter related to late 18th through 19th century historic activity in the general area. The historic materials were confined to the plowzone.
Three hearth features were located during the Phase I shovel testing. Feature AA1-I (ST N960/E960) was identified by a distinct layer of fire-cracked rock (FCR) within Locus 2. It was associated with an amorphous cluster of lithic material in the north central portion of the site. Feature AA1-II (ST N960/E1040) was found 50 cm below ground level within Locus 3 in the southeastern portion of the study area. It too consisted of a distinct level of FCR and was associated with a diffuse concentration of lithic material. The majority of the feature was left in situ to be examined later. Feature AA1-III (ST N1080/E1050) was characterized by a loose concentration of FCR and burned oyster shell fragments. It was located in Locus 1 in the northeastern portion of the site and was associated with a tight concentration of lithic material. Locus 4 was defined as a small cluster of lithic materials along the eastern central limit of the site area.
A total of 217 prehistoric artifacts were retained during the Phase I survey. There were 165 pieces of debitage and 4 cores. There were 5 bifacial tools (1 awl/drill, 2 preforms, 1 Piscataway point, and 1 unidentified point). There were 27 fire-cracked rocks. There were 3 other lithic items (2 hammerstones and 1 possible hammerstone). There were 2 Pope’s Creek ceramic sherds. Eleven oyster shells were also retained. The majority of the debitage was quartz followed by quartzite, with some small amounts of rhyolite, sandstone, and chert. The character of the assemblage indicated that all stages of lithic production occurred at the site.
A total of 9 historic artifacts were retained during the Phase I survey. There were 2 architectural items (1 brick fragment and 1 window glass fragment). There were 7 kitchen related items (3 whiteware, 2 pearlware, 1 domestic gray stoneware, and 1 unidentified ceramic sherd).
A Phase II commenced at 18ST676 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 123 shovel tests at 10 m intervals along the previously established grid orientation to supplement information obtained during the Phase I survey. A total of ten 1X1 m test units and two 1X1.5 m test units were also dug. One test unit (TU10) was placed beyond the Phase I site boundaries to investigate a possible lithic reduction area identified during Phase II shovel testing.
Feature AA1-I was investigated in TU4 and consisted of FCR, a core, and 9 pieces of debitage. The concentration was identified 5 cm below the base of the plowzone and averaged 40 cm in diameter. It contained no discernable soil staining to differentiate the internal feature matrix from the surrounding soil. Feature AA1-II was investigated in TU7 and TU8. The concentration measured 60 cm X 68 cm and was identified 10 cm below the base of the plowzone. The majority of the feature was contained in a shallow pit, the fill of which was retained for flotation analysis. There was ethnobotany work done (summarized here), please refer to the link. Flotation produced 0.58 g of charcoal, 18 fragments of hickory wood and 9 amorphous carbon remains. All varieties of debitage and tools were found associated with the feature. Feature AA1-III was investigated in TU3. It consisted of a diffuse scatter of 4 FCR and exhibited no associated soil staining or other differentiation. Only 1 piece of debitage and burnt oyster shell fragments were found with the feature.
A fourth feature was identified during the Phase II survey (Feature AA1-IV) within TU6 and TU11. The feature was situated along the northwest margin of the site and located at 6 cm below the base of the plowzone and extended down 11 cm. Feature AA1-IV consisted of a tight concentration of FCR, cores, utilized lithic artifacts, and hammerstones. There was no apparent soil staining associated with the concentration. The surrounding soil yielded numerous pieces of debitage, a hammerstone, and a biface perform and represented all stages of lithic reduction. The level overlying the feature also contained numerous pieces of lithic debitage. A scatter of FCR characterized as the outer remnants of a dispersed hearth feature was identified in TU12 but was not given a feature number.
Results of the Phase II investigation indicated the nature of various activities undertaken at the site. Locus 1 had low frequencies of most artifact classes thus reflecting limited utilization of that portion of the site area. The presence of FCR suggested the presence of a hearth feature in the general vicinity of the Locus 1 test units. In Locus 2, the relative density of FCR and the low frequency of reduction-related artifacts suggested that domestic-related, non-reduction activities occurred in the vicinity of TU4. The Locus 3 assemblage indicated that lithic reduction was the dominant activity in that area of the site, possibly representing a discrete, single occupational event. The same supposition correlates with Locus 4. Both Locus 3 and Locus 4 were located on interior portions of the terrace and evidenced similar distributions of artifacts. Non-locus TU10 exhibited an array of debitage suggesting that limited mid- to late-stage reduction was undertaken in that area.
No historic cultural features were identified during the Phase II investigations. Over 87% of the historic material was recovered from disturbed plowzone contexts. The range of historic occupation in the area was calculated as 1779-1836, or the late 18th to the mid-19th century. The horizontal distribution of artifacts showed no definitive concentration outside of the northern portion of the northwestern margin of the site. The quantity and type of artifacts that were recovered suggested either the presence of a structure in the general vicinity of the site or it represents the isolated and sporadic discard of materials associated with a structure beyond the immediate project area.
A total of 1,044 prehistoric artifacts were recovered during the Phase II investigation. There were 736 pieces of debitage and 27 cores. There were 9 tools including 2 preforms, 1 piece esquillée, 3 unidentified bifaces, 1 denticulate, 1 sidescraper, and 1 modified flake. There were 14 other lithic items including 13 hammerstones and 1 anvil/nutting stone. There were 4 unidentified tools. There were 172 fire-cracked rocks. There was 1 unidentified quartz-tempered ceramic sherd. There were 77 oyster shell fragments and 2 unmodified bones fragments. Quartz and quartzite made up a combined total of 93.05% of the lithic assemblage with chert and rhyolite as the next most common (1.91%) flowed by small amounts of jasper, schist, and sandstone.
A total of 93 historic artifacts were recovered during the Phase II investigation. There were 51 architectural items (37 brick fragments, 1 daub fragment, 8 window glass shards, 2 rosehead nails, 2 cut nails, and 1 unidentified nail). There was 1 clothing item (an unidentified buckle fragment). There were 36 kitchen-related items (1 non-machine made bottle glass fragment, 1 case bottle fragment, 1 table glass fragment, 1 Rickett’s type 3 piece mold bottle fragment, 10 pearlware, 9 whiteware, 9 creamware, 1 redware, 1 imported gray stoneware, 1 domestic gray stoneware, and 1 unidentified ceramic sherd). There were 5 miscellaneous items (1 piece of plastic and 3 unidentified melted glass fragments). There was 1 tobacco item (pipe bowl fragment).
Site AA-1 (18ST676) represents the Late Archaic to the Middle Woodland periods as identified by a Piscataway point and 2 possible Pope’s Creek ceramic sherds. This represents either a base camp or small hamlet. The absence of an extensive ceramic assemblage indicted that much of the activity that occurred at the site could be dated to the pre-Woodland period. The character of the lithic assemblage suggests that one likely function of the site was as a lithic raw material procurement location. The small historic assemblage suggests a late 18th to mid-19th century use of the site. While the historic component of the site lacks stratigraphic integrity, the prehistoric component does. Research questions related to general and regional settlement patterns, resource procurement considerations and preferences, and general and specific intra-site spatial patterning could be addressed at site 18ST676. Therefore, the prehistoric component appears to retain the qualities of significance for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and mitigative data recovery is recommended if impacts to the site cannot be avoided.
|
