Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18ST704 Pax River Goodwin Site 1
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Pax River Goodwin Site (18ST704), also known as “Charles’ Gift”, is comprised of a 17th to 20th century plantation and a Late Woodland period short-term camp. Site 18ST704 is situated on the south bank of the Patuxent River aboard the Naval Air Station Patuxent River (NASPAX) in St. Mary’s County. Soils in the site area belong to the Mattapeake-Mattapex-Sassafras association, primarily well-drained Mattapeake silt loam. The historic period site measures approximately 236.22 m east-west by 243.84 m north-south (775’x800’) and the prehistoric component measures approximately 38.10 m east-west by 45.72 m (125’x150).
In the Chesapeake Bay region, the first human exploitation and occupation (albeit on a limited scale) began some time before 10,000 BC. The proceeding Archaic period has generally been characterized by a significant increase in population and in a diversification of settlement and subsistence strategies. By the Late Archaic period, settlement in southern Maryland was characterized by scattered campsites on major rivers and estuaries. Late Archaic populations relied on intensive foraging within relatively limited areas. Oyster shell middens first appeared along the Patuxent River during this period. The subsequent Woodland period is defined by the introduction of pottery and is characterized by the onset of cultivation practices and an increase in permanent and semi-permanent settlements. Prehistoric sites within a 2 mile radius of 18ST704 indicate at least periodic short-term utilization of the area from the Early Archaic through the Late Woodland periods.
Archival research indicated historic period occupation within the site area at Cedar Point since the 17th century, starting with the establishment of the Jesuit mission known as Conception Hundred or Mattapanient Hundred in the late 1630s. The land was granted to the Jesuit’s by the King of the Patuxent tribe. In 1641, after Calvert claimed the sole right to grant manorial parcels, the Jesuits retroceded Mattapanient to the Calvert proprietary. By 1642, the hundred’s population had risen to between 30 and 40. In 1648, William Eltonhead patented 2,000 acres at Cedar Point known as Rich Neck. In 1664, Eltonhead’s stepson began to dispose of the Eltonhead lands including a 600 acre tract that was sold to Charles Calvert, the future third Lord Baltimore, in 1668. The fortunes of the Eltonhead property next became inextricably linked to those of Mattapany, which was granted in 1663 to Henry Sewall, and re-granted (1,200 acres) to his widow Jane in 1665. The Mattapany-Sewall Manor was located some 4 km west-southwest of Eltonhead. Jane remarried Charles Calvert after Sewall’s death and at that time Calvert appropriated the Mattapany property in the name of the proprietary. The Calvert’s lived at Mattapany until ca. 1684 when they returned to England. To compensate Jane for the loss of Mattapany, Calvert granted her a re-patent of 2,000 acres at Eltonhead Manor in 1668 that came to be called “Charles’ Gift”. Sewall’s son, Major Nicholas Sewall, took ownership of Eltonhead Manor/Charles’ Gift. A structure appears in the site area on a 1673 map. The Sewall heirs and their trustees continued to control Eltonhead Manor/Charles’ Gift until the early 1820s, at which point the property was being parceled. The trend of subdividing the former Manor lands continued after the Civil War until the Navy’s acquisition of the property in 1941. Maps dated 1903 and 1929 show that the site continued to be used as a farmstead. Aerial photographs from 1943 showed that a dwelling and a barn were still located on the site. The 1943 valuation of the property for the Navy placed an abandoned dwelling at the location of site 18ST704. It was described as a 2 ½ story, frame-sided structure measuring 10.36 x 15.85 x 8.53 m (34x52x28’) with a brick foundation, no basement, and a double-decked porch. In total, 34 other structures were listed on the property once known as Eltonhead Manor.
Phase I/II archeological work was undertaken during the fall of 1998 for the proposed Officer’s Club Parking Lot expansion and Golf Clubhouse modifications at NASPAX. The total project area encompassed about 10.16 acres (4.11 ha). Site specific research was employed to place resources in their local and regional context including determining the nature, age, and function of the archeological resource, determining the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the resource, and determining the integrity and information potential of the resource. The project area was divided into six discrete survey areas (Tennis West, Pond 1 and Pond 2, Clubhouse, Little Circle, and Big Circle). In the area of the proposed parking lot expansion, a total of 184 shovel tests were excavated along 32 transects spaced at 7.62 m (25’) and 15.24 m (50’) intervals, and in the area around the clubhouse 29 shovel tests were excavated along 10 transects spaced at 7.62 m and 15.24 m intervals. Seven 1.524 m² test units (TU 1-7) and eight 1.07 x 9.15 m strip trenches were also excavated in the project area. All artifacts except for those that were clearly modern were retained. Although the upper stratum of the site was heavily disturbed and modified by 20th century activities related in particular to the development of the Air Station, several early subsurface features were encountered.
In the Big Circle area, which was located directly in front of the Officer’s Club, the upper destruction and grading horizon ranged in thickness from 3.7 to 44.5 cm. Both the overwhelming majority of architectural artifacts and the late date (19th and 20th century) of the majority of the assemblage suggested that the destruction was associated with the demolition of a previously extant structure during the 1940s. This overlaid a midden deposit containing 17th century through early 20th century materials (and no modern objects) that likely reflected an agrading occupational yard midden that was present throughout the site’s occupational history. Thirteen discrete cultural features were identified in the Big Circle. Brick foundation walls (Features 3, 7, and 10) were found intact beneath the 20th century destruction layer in 3 shovel tests. It seemed likely that the foundations reflected more than one structure. A remnant builder’s trench (Feature 14) was found alongside the Feature 3 wall. The trench had been partially impacted by a modern pipe trench (Feature 4). Feature 7, further examined in TU 3, was part of a series of walls that included another parallel wall running at the same angle (Feature 15), 2 perpendicular cross walls that apparently joined Features 7 and 15, and two additional walls running at the same orientation to the north and south of Features 7 and 15.Variations in construction suggested that more than a single building period may have been represented in the location. A second builder’s trench (Feature 19) was identified along the Feature 7 wall. It was capped by a rubble cluster deposit dated to the first half of the 18th century indicating that Feature 19 is earlier. A brick rubble deposit and possible pit feature (Feature 6) was encountered in TU 4. It possibly represented a destruction deposit that partially filled a natural depression or a destruction deposit capping a separate pit feature. Artifacts above the rubble layer yielded a date from the early 18th to the early 20th centuries, with a mean date of 1742. The soils below the rubble (representing Feature 6) yielded artifacts dated to the first half of the 18th century. Features 1, 5 and 9 were identified as possible post holes underneath the midden horizon soils. An area of brick and mortar rubble (Feature 8) was also encountered in a shovel test at 65.63 cmbs (2.15 ftbs). TU 7 was placed over the location of a possible cellar (Feature 12). Three depositional horizons were identified within the fill matrix of the 1.524 m², straight-sided pit. Less than 5% of the fill was excavated and the total depth of the feature as sampled was 60.96 cm (2’).The artifact assemblage collected from the fill fit well within an early 18th century context. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from all the features in the Big Circle area indicated a date range in the early- to mid-18th century for the deposits.
In the Clubhouse area the stratigraphic profile was variable. A sod layer overlaid one or more fill horizons. Beneath the fill horizons generally was a buried remnant plowzone that appeared at depths of 15.2-43.3 cmbs, and in some places extending to 61 cmbs. The fill deposits contained an artifact assemblage that ranged in date from the 18th through the 20th centuries and with a significant proportion of architectural material (especially brick and mortar). Five features were encountered in the area. Two (Features A2 and A5) were determined to be modern utility trenches and were not excavated. Only a portion of a shallow pit feature (Feature A3) was excavated in a shovel test. It extended from 33.5 to 44.2 cmbs. Feature A1 was located in 2 consecutive shovel tests and was investigated more fully with TU 5. It was found to consist of a shallow trench containing approximately 60% brick rubble, mortar, and oyster shell fragments. The feature was located at 51.2 cmbs and was 30.5 cm in width, extending to a maximum depth of 64.9 cmbs into the subsoil. Linear soil stains on the east and west sides of the feature suggested removal of an original brick foundation by use of a backhoe. No temporally diagnostic features were recovered. Feature A4 was a poured concrete foundation located in a shovel test at 9.1 cmbs and extending down for 13.7 cm. It appeared to be of a relatively recent date and was not examined further. The nature of the fill deposits in the area was likely the result of disturbance and/or was an indication that at least some of the fill may not have been indigenous to the area (possibly refuse disposal).
The fill deposits in the Tennis West area produced an artifact assemblage that appeared to reflect the latest historic occupation at the site. In two portions of the area, historic plowing impacted the remains of a low level architectural scatter, perhaps related to mid- to late-18th and 19th century outbuildings. In a portion of the area where an isolated profile occurred, the midden deposit yielded artifacts that had a terminus ante quem in the 1790s. The horizon below the midden failed to yield any diagnostic materials. Unfortunately, the presence of a number of utility lines in the area limited the horizontal extent of the intact deposits. In a second portion of the area, another isolated profile was encountered. Functionally and temporally the midden material in the profile correlated well with that in the plowzone horizons in the Big Circle area, and probably represented and unplowed portion of the same horizon. Notably absent from the area were late 17th and early 18th century artifacts. Seven posthole or postmold features were encountered during mechanized excavation in the area to the west of the tennis courts. Three of the features (B1-01, B2-01, and B7-05) possessed a distinct posthole and postmold while the remaining features were technically postmolds and represented only the decayed post. Features B7-01 to B7-05 formed a linear alignment suggestive of a fence line.
The Pond 1 area, located southeast of the Officer’s Club, consisted of a series of plowed horizons that contained artifacts dating from the late 17th or early 18th century through the 20th century. The assemblage recovered from the multiple plowzone sequences did not indicate much functional or chronological distinction between them. In a few places, fill deposits capped plowzone horizon strata or subsoil. The artifacts recovered from the fill deposits typically dated to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. An isolated midden feature (Feature 11) was identified in the southeastern corner of the area. The top of the midden had been truncated by later historic land modification activities. Functionally, the midden represented a refuse deposit of architectural, domestic, and personal debris. The mean date for the midden assemblage was determined to be AD 1710 and it may reflect the earliest historic occupation at the site. Two postmold features were also encountered in the area (Features B3-01 and B3-02). The postmolds were probably related to the same fence line or structure but the lack of diagnostic artifacts from the features means that it was not possible to associate them with a particular period. Two amorphous stains were also identified (Features B5-01 and B5-02) but were of undetermined age and origin.
The Pond 2 area, located north and east of the tennis courts, consisted of a plowzone horizon assemblage that dated from the late 17th or early 18th century to the 20th century. Above that, materials were dated to the 19th and 20th centuries. Four cultural features were identified in the Pond 2 area. Feature 13 was a square postmold that measured 12.2x13.7 cm. It was encountered at 42.7 cmbs and extended to a depth of at least 51.8 cmbs when the shovel test was terminated. Feature 16 was a concrete pad encountered in a shovel test 39.6 cmbs and extended into the shovel test for 12.2-18.3 cm. Feature 17, also revealed in a shovel test, consisted of a straight walled trench that appeared 15.2 cmbs and cut into the subsoil to a depth of 61 cmbs when it stepped back and continued to extend into subsoil beyond the limits of the excavation. Only the edge of Feature 18 was encountered in a shovel test. The feature extended into the subsoil and terminated at a depth of 54.9 cmbs. Only Feature 17 yielded artifacts, which dated the trench to the 20th century. Presumably, the concrete pad below the fill deposits was also modern.
Historic activity in the Little Circle area appeared to have included historic cultivation and sheet refuse disposal. The variety of architectural materials suggested that a structure or structures may have stood in the general area at some point in time. No cultural features were identified in the area.
During the Phase I/II investigation, a total of 17,126 historic artifacts were recovered including floral and faunal material (artifact totals were taken from a table within the text of the original report, which is slightly different from the totals stated in the text). There were 49 activity-related objects including 1 pencil, 1 pair of scissors, 1 ceramic toy, 4 fragments of lamp glass, 2 flower pot fragments, 1 piece of barbed wire, 18 pieces of non-electrical wire, 1 hammer, 16 fragments of metal strap, 3 staples, and 1 miscellaneous hardware item. A total of 13,287 architectural items were retained including 8,208 brick fragments, 335 shards of window glass, 3 lead window cames, 1 L-head nail, 250 Rosehead nails, 15 T-head nails, 130 cut nails, 285 wire nails, 484 unidentified nails, 3,026 mortar fragments, 153 plaster fragments, 109 concrete fragments, 6 cement pieces, 9 pieces of ceramic tile, 6 asbestos shingles, 2 pieces of slate roofing, 204 fragments of tar paper, 1 building stone, 8 nuts, 1 rivet, 3 screws, 9 spikes, 1 washer, 12 bolts and/or brackets, 2 pieces of electrical hardware, 2 plumbing fixtures, 1 hinge, 3 pintles, 9 other hardware items. A total of 10 clothing items were recovered including 6 buttons (1 bone, 2 porcelain, 2 glass, 1 brass), 1 “other wood clothing” item, 1 glass bead, 1 belt buckle, and 1 unidentified buckle. There were 5 furniture items including 1 brass tack, 2 drawer/door pulls, and 2 other miscellaneous furniture hardware items. There were 3,090 kitchen-related items including 42 dip mold glass fragments, 1 glass crown cap, 1 blown in mold glass fragment, 3 applied lip glass pieces, 296 machine made bottle glass fragments (1 jar/container), 229 non-machine made bottle glass fragments, 220 unidentified manufacturing bottle glass fragments, 7 tableware glass pieces, 750 ceramic sherds (3 buff-bodied earthenware, 2 Buckley, 29 North Devon, 5 Staffordshire slipware, 36 creamware, 4 Albany slip, 16 domestic brown stoneware, 23 domestic grey stoneware, 21 Early porcelain, 30 Late porcelain, 1 Agateware, 8 Slip dipped stoneware, 63 white salt-glazed stoneware, 7 imported brown stoneware, 7 Nottingham, 14 Rhenish, 27 Westerwald, 1 imported grey stoneware, 29 ironstone, 2 other stoneware, 88 pearlware, 190 redware, 10 Manganese mottled, 18 tin enameled earthenware, 15 Delftware, 92 whiteware, 7 unidentified sherds, 3 Rockingham, 2 yellow ware), 8 metal container fragments, 1 tin can fragment, 2 milk glass lid liner fragments, 1 bone handle, 789 animal bone fragments, 58 animal tooth fragments, 5 nut/seed remains, 658 oyster shell fragments (78,376.74 g), 1 clam shell, 1 conch/welk, 8 turtle shell, and 9 unidentified shells. There were 597 miscellaneous items including 76 unidentified glass fragments, 139 unidentified metal objects, 1 modified wood object, 186 pieces of coal/coal slag, 3 pieces of slate, 4 unidentified stone fragments, 123 charcoal pieces, 20 pieces of asphalt, and 45 fragments of ceramic slag. A total of 5 personal items were retained including 1 bone tooth brush fragment, 1 glass and 1 metal jewelry parts, and 2 pennies. There were 78 tobacco-related items including 32 ball clay bowl fragments, 1 with molded decoration, and 46 stem fragments. There were 5 arms-related items (1 shotgun shell and 4 English gunflint flakes).
A collection of 92 prehistoric artifacts were retrieved from the site along with the historic materials. The assemblage consisted of 77 pieces of debitage and 1 core, 1 modified and utilized flake and 1 utilized flake, and 4 biface tools of indeterminate date. Seven pieces of fire-cracked rock were also retained. A single, shell-tempered ceramic sherd, tentatively typed as a Late Woodland period Townsend ceramic, was also identified. The dominant raw material was quartzite (61%) followed by quartz (24.7%) and chert (14.3%). A large percentage of the flakes were cortical which suggested that primary and secondary reduction were prominent activities at the site. The presence of biface tools also suggested at least some limited resource procurement and the fire-cracked suggested hearth related activities. Almost 71% of the prehistoric artifacts were collected from the northern corner of the project area (on the Patuxent River side of the site), in the Pond 2 area, suggesting that location was the main focus of prehistoric activity.
As a result of the Phase I/II investigations at site 18ST704, it was determined that the historic component may possess sufficient stratigraphic integrity and quantities of diagnostic materials to locate features, to distinguish discrete areas of activity, and to place them within a temporal framework. The proposed construction at the facility would impact buried cultural deposits at the site. Therefore, if impacts could not be avoided, data recovery was recommended. A Phase III data recovery program was undertaken from January to October 1999 at the site. The investigations focused on research questions related to refuse disposal patterns, landscape development, subsistence, and socio-economic status.
Data recovery focused on 5 of the 6 discrete study areas identified during the Phase I/II investigations; as the Big Circle area was not to be impacted by construction activities, a limited testing plan rather than total data recovery was conducted at that location. Exposed features were sampled and features determined to represent the period of significance were subjected to larger sampling. Soils and feature fill were removed in 6 cm levels when no clear stratigraphy was evident. All soils were screened through ¼” mesh hardware cloth. In TUs 20-28, 30-34, 45, 52, and 61 a 1/3 sample of the modern fill or disturbance horizons was screened. A 100% sample was taken for TU 68. Elsewhere, those strata were removed without screening. A minimum of 2-liters of feature fill, when feasible, were retained for flotation. Only the samples from features 12, 144, 58A, 59, 63, 65, 66, and 68 were floated and sorted. The remaining samples were water screened through 1/8” mesh.
Field methods varied within each of the 6 study areas at the site. In the Big Circle area, the previously identified brick foundation was examined through the placement of a block of 1.5 m² units. Phase I/II TU 3 was reopened and completed. Manual probing was employed to follow the trajectory of the walls. Nine additional 1.5 m² units were excavated along portions of the foundations in an attempt to identify other walls dating to the period of significance (late 17th/early 18th century through the early 19th century). The area of Phase I/II Feature 12 (cellar/pit) was exposed by the excavation of ten 1.524 m² units in the vicinity of TU 7, which was reopened and completed. After mechanical stripping, 7 additional units were dug to further expose Feature 12. The yard midden deposits surrounding the house were sampled by the excavation of 13 groups of 1.524 m² units. An area approximately 1,107.3 m² was mechanically stripped in the Big Circle area.
In the Clubhouse area, mechanical stripping of the topsoil and fill layers was done. In front ofthe Clubhouse, a 4.6x6.1 m block in Backhoe Trench 19 (BHT 19) was exposed. The additional planned stripping around the Clubhouse was not done since no impact was planned for those areas. For the Tennis West area, an additional 19 shovel tests were dug at 7.6 m intervals. Following that, two 1.524 m² test units were excavated in order to investigate an 18th century midden deposit. The remaining portion of the area was sampled by mechanical stripping. BHT 14 (4.6 m²) and BHT 15 (3.05x6.1 m) were placed where the line of post features were identified during the Phase I/II study, BHT 16 (7.6 m²) was placed around a previously identified post feature, and BHT 17 (3.05x6.1 m) and BHT 18 (3.05 m²) were excavated in the area where another post feature had been identified. For the Pond 1 area, Feature 11 was examined by hand excavation of a 4.6x6.1 m block that was subdivided into 1.524 m² units. Following that, mechanical stripping was done to expose a larger zone around the feature in order to identify the presence or absence of additional features. Three blocks were stripped: BHT 10 measured 231.64 m² (760 ft²), BHT 11 measured 121.92 m² (400 ft²) and BHT 12 measured 91.44 m² (300 ft²). In the Pond 2 area, mechanical stripping involved the exposure of a 10.7 m² block (BHT 13) around a posthole feature identified during the Phase I/II study. The Little Circle area was sampled by mechanical stripping of a 316.8 m² area (BHT 20) to expose potential sub-plowzone cultural features.
The chronology of Feature 12 and a complex of brick foundations located within the Big Circle area (described below) provided a framework for discussing the site in terms of 3 temporal phases. A pre-brick foundation phase dated ca. 1650-1695 was followed by an initial brick foundation structure phase dated ca. 1695-1814. That preceded a final brick foundation structure phase dated ca. 1814-1943.
A total of 4 features were found to date to the pre-brick foundation phase (ca. 1650-1695) and an additional 5 features were considered to likely date to the same phase. Of particular significance was Feature 12 (F12), the large pit/cellar filled during the late 17th century, which yielded 25,285 artifacts. F12 was a roughly rectangular pit with an extension on its southern side. Measurements along its longest axes reached 7.2x12.2 m, and the feature encompassed approximately 59.48 m². A 22% sample of the feature was excavated. A disturbed upper layer was reached at 37-46 cmbs, which was underlain by intact deposits that extended to depths of up to 1.5 meters below surface (mbs). The feature fill consisted of one stratum that appeared across the feature, as well as more localized filling episodes that were documented in isolated locations. In general, the stratigraphic sequence within the localized fill strata of TUs 7, 37, 39, and 80 consisted of a loam layer containing kitchen refuse (especially bone and shell) and architectural materials (especially window glass, nails, and window leads). This was underlain by a deposit of brick rubble which was in turn underlain by darker soils with more kitchen refuse. Below that, mottled soils bottomed out on subsoil. The soil profiles in the other units completely excavated into F12 were variable. The majority of artifacts collected from F12 fill were large numbers of window glass, window leads dated 1675 and 1682, handwrought nails, brick and mortar fragments, and other architectural debris, suggesting that the fill derived from a building. Other artifacts included a variety of 17th ceramics and glass, activity and personal items including a copper cast needle with the initials “SS” (probably Susanna Sewall, wife of Nicholas), tobacco pipe fragments which had a mean date of 1669, and over 4,000 faunal remains. While the dimensions of F12 were suggestive of a filled cellar, the units excavated into it failed to yield any supporting evidence. Instead, an alternative explanation was that the feature originated as a borrow pit to provide clay for construction of the nearby brick foundation. It was hypothesized that the filling of F12 was connected with the demolition of an earlier house, possibly the Sewall’s plantation house, once the new dwelling had been completed. Based on the artifact assemblage, the filling of F12 occurred after 1682 but before 1700. A small subsidiary feature was identified at the base of F12 fill in TU 36. It was an ovoid pit or posthole cut into the subsoil. It measured 20x30 cm and extended into the subsoil 17 cm. The feature fill was the same as the lowest stratum of F12 fill indicating that it was filled at the same time as F12.
Also in the Big Circle area, 5 posthole and postmold features were encountered. Feature 107 had a posthole that measured 0.61x1.04 m with a postmold measuring 0.21 m in diameter. The postmold was surrounded by brick fragments for a radius of 0.61 m. A second posthole stratum was noted in the eastern portion of the profile. The Feature 142 posthole measured 0.73x0.99 m. No postmold was located because a later wall feature (Feature 122) lay across much of the central portion of the feature. A cluster of brick fragments was identified towards the center of the hole in the first stratum, and probably reflected the edge of the postmold location. Features 47, 99A, and 134 were postholes that likely dated to the 17th century. The posthole and postmold Feature 47 was partially exposed in TU 28. It appeared to have been partially impacted by Feature 15, a wall feature identified during the Phase I/II study. Feature 99A was a large posthole and postmold feature. The posthole contained at least 6 distinct fill strata. The feature is part of a line of 4 post features, which were spaced at 3 m intervals and were of similar shape and size, 2 of which (Features 107 and 142) clearly dated to the 17th century. Also in the line of posts was Feature 134, a large oval posthole and postmold feature. All of the posthole and postmold feature fill contained small amounts of architectural and domestic debris.
Feature 53 was located 0.09 m south of Feature 12. It was a bowl shaped pit feature that measured 0.79x1.22 m in size and cut into the subsoil to a depth of 0.64 mbs. Artifacts recovered from the fill consisted of small amounts of architectural and domestic debris. Feature 53 appeared to be the earliest refuse pit during this occupational phase. Features 52, 54, and 99B were interpreted as possible posthole or pit features. Feature 52 was a semicircular feature located within the interior hearth complex of the brick foundation in TU 26. It was only partially exposed, the remainder appearing to lay under the adjacent brick foundation walls. The feature was exposed beneath the late 17th midden deposit and was overlapped by part of the brick foundation structure that appeared to have been constructed during the late 17th century. Feature 54 was a circular feature partially exposed in TU 27 and it too was exposed beneath the late 17th midden deposit within the brick foundation structure. Feature 99B was a pit or posthole feature that was cut into by Feature 99A posthole, suggesting that Feature 99B was earlier. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered from the fill and only oyster shell was recovered from the soil sample.
A total of 20 features were found to date to the brick foundation structure phase I (ca. 1695-1814) and 9 additional features likely dated to the same period. Brick structural foundations were uncovered in several test units and by mechanical stripping. In its complete arrangement, the complex measured 12.5 m east-west by 15.5 m north-south (41’x51’). What appeared to be exterior chimney footings extended south of the outer house wall by 0.91 m (included in the overall dimensions) and an addition foundation extended from those footings to the south to add an additional 1.7 m to the north-south length. The structure was interpreted to be the pre-Charles’ Gift dwelling described on the 1798 tax roll which was latter destroyed during the 1814 British raids. The southern structure end wall was represented by Feature 15 (0.46-0.5 m thick with 4 courses) and Feature 130 (0.32-0.34 m thick with 5 brick courses). The northern wall was represented by Feature 3 (0.34 m thick with 3 brick courses) and Feature 3A (0.34 m thick and slightly under the 3 course height). Feature 146 was a wall remnant on line with Features 3 and 3A. The eastern wall was represented by Feature 33 (0.55 m thick with 3 brick courses) and the western wall was represented by Feature 135 (0.34 m thick with 2 to 4 brick courses). All of the bricks were mortared with sand and lime based mortar. Feature 131 was another wall (0.47 m thick) that probably ran the entire north-south length of the structure. It was documented at 9.6 m from the outer edge of the easternmost wall and at 2.9 m from the outer edge of the westernmost wall. The feature was not exposed to its full depth. Based on a 1943 photograph of the house, it seemed likely that Feature 131 represented the actual house foundation and the thinner outer wall (?Feature 135) reflected the limit of the porch foundation.
The block of units placed along the southern end of the structure revealed a consistent stratigraphic profile. Strata above the level at which the foundation was preserved reflected episodes related to the destruction of the 19th century dwelling that was extant until the 1940s. Outside of wall Feature 15, fill layers capped what appeared to be a remnant yard midden deposit that ceased accumulation when the exterior chimney foundations and the addition further south were constructed sometime after 1740 (evidence suggested that the exterior chimney may have pre-dated the addition). Four walls projected south from wall Feature 15 that tied wall Feature 7, identified during the Phase I/II, to wall Feature 15. Wall Feature 7 actually represented 3 distinct walls of different widths. Feature 7 and the connecting walls generally were preserved to 0.3 m in height, with 4 brick courses. Several builder’s trenches associated with wall Feature 7 were identified (Features 19/29, 140, 48, and 51). Artifacts collected from excavations along the northern and western sides of the structures indicated that wall Features 33 and 3A were constructed sometime after 1815, thus possibly reflecting reconstruction of the dwelling after the British raids. A brick paved walkway (Feature 143) was exposed under the 20th century gravel fill layer during mechanical stripping. No excavation was undertaken below the paving, but artifacts recovered from the surface of the feature dated from the mid-18th century.
Several foundations were also exposed within the interior of the structure including a hearth complex, builder’s trenches, and walls that represented either an earlier construction phase or remnants of internal support walls. A rectangular cellar feature was identified near the center of the structure beneath the 1940s destruction layer that capped the interior of the structure. In the lower fill strata, a burn layer capped two occupational floor layers. The filling of the cellar was probably associated with the reconstruction of the house ca. 1817 (as suggested by archival data).
Several posthole and/or postmold features were identified in the Big Circle area. Features 28, 31, 86, 94, and 95 formed the footprint of a three-sided structure measuring 4.3x4.9x4.9 m. This was plausibly t
|
