Limited Phase III Investigations at 18AN339: the Java ... · PDF filei ABSTRACT Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project, in cooperation with the Anne Arundel County Trust for...

FY 2007 MHT NON-CAPITAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT

Limited Phase III Investigations at 18AN339: the Java Plantation, and 18AN1285: Camp Letts. Rhode River Region, Anne Arundel County, Maryland

VOLUME III

Written by Stephanie Taleff Sperling, Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project

Principal Investigators: C. Jane Cox, Assistant Director Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project and Dr. Al Luckenbach, Director, Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project.

Submitted to:

Maryland Department of Planning Maryland Historic Trust 100 Community Place Crownsville, MD 21032

DRAFT REPORT

Submitted June 2008

i

ABSTRACT

Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project, in cooperation with the Anne Arundel County Trust for Preservation, Inc., began a multi-year investigation of the Rhode River drainage in 2006. The goal for the multi-year project was to survey, assess, and investigate archaeological resources within a limited watershed. The Rhode River drainage, in Edgewater, Maryland was selected for its wealth and variety of recorded sites, its varied land ownership, and its location near rapidly growing urban centers. The research design for the project was comprehensive and broad, with the intent to develop a planning document that identified a full range of archaeological resources, identified the primary threats to the sites, and developed a cultural and historic context under which scholarly study of the region could be framed.

This report, the final in a three-volume series, is the culmination of the multi-year research program. The first year’s efforts of survey and limited assessment of resources in the Rhode River region resulted in the relocation, identification, and updated or new site forms on forty-six sites in the watershed. That first years’ research also produced a comprehensive cultural and historic framework for the Rhode River area and placed it in regional context. In year two, assessment and evaluation was undertaken on five sites to determine their National Register eligibility. Sampling these representative sites allowed for further refinement of the regions’ historic and cultural context, details of which can be found in Volume II of this series.

Finally, in year three, Phase III level investigations were undertaken at two of the most promising and representative sites in the watershed, 18AN1285 (a Middle Woodland period prehistoric site) and 18AN339 (an expansive multi-component historic plantation.) While the data recovery efforts produced a wealth of incredibly rich information, the results demonstrate how much more can be learned from these sites. The sampling strategy devised for each site covered only a fraction of the site boundaries yet was still exceptionally informative. This work will provide a valuable starting point for further scholarly investigations of these two complex archaeological sites in the Rhode River drainage and serves to place each site within a broader historic context. As will be expanded upon in the report below, while much has been learned, valuable research questions for both sites remain and their potential to yield valuable information is intact.

ii

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project, in cooperation with the Anne Arundel

County Trust for Preservation, Inc., began a multi-year investigation of the Rhode River drainage

in 2006. The goal for the multi-year project was to survey, assess, and investigate archaeological

resources within a limited watershed. The first year of survey and assessment resulted in a

comprehensive look at the region’s archaeological resources and developed a region-specific

historic context for the study and appreciation of these forty-six sites. The first phase of this

work (detailed in Volume I of this series) gathered important information, updated existing site

forms, and filed new site forms with the Maryland Historical Trust. The report also detailed

major threats to the region’s archaeological resources, and as important, identified several sites

that offered the best opportunity for more detailed studies. In the second year of work, the Lost

Towns Project identified five representative sites on which an assessment and evaluation strategy

was applied. Phase II investigations were conducted at five sites (three prehistoric and two

historic), the results of which can be found in Volume II of this series. From these Phase II

investigations, the final year’s research program grew as the team selected one representative

historic site and one prehistoric site to investigate in more detail.

Data recovery was conducted on these two sites to more fully explore at least two

millennia of cultural trends within the Rhode River region. The Phase III testing strategy

involved additional test unit excavations at each site. Five additional 5 ft. square units were

excavated at 18AN1285 (Camp Letts Middle Woodland site) and while original plans were for

the excavation of 10-15 additional 5 ft. square units at 18AN339 (Java Plantation, a multi-

component historic plantation), ultimately, 25 additional units were excavated this season.

Investigations at the Camp Letts site (18AN1285) revealed exciting and unexpected

information about the Mockley, or Selby Bay, phase of the Middle Woodland period of

prehistory (ca. A.D. 200 - A.D. 900). After careful analysis of the artifact assemblage and

consultation with the prehistoric pottery experts at Temple University, it was determined the site

shows evidence of attempted pottery manufacture on the Rhode River. Hundreds of partially

fired, crumbly, friable, shell-tempered, near-pottery sherds were recovered from one of the shell

iii

middens on site, clearly demonstrating a failed attempt at making coiled clay pots in the vicinity.

This, coupled with the relative dearth of rhyolite recovered from the site (a non-local lithic type

usually found in abundance on sites of this time period), demonstrates that Camp Letts offers a

new perspective on the presumably transient and temporary nature of a short-term resource

procurement camp from the Middle Woodland time period.

Site 18AN339, the historic Java Plantation (alternatively called Sparrows Rest, Squirrel

Neck, or Contee’s Farm throughout its hundreds of years of occupation), has proven to be a rich,

yet complicated and multi-facetted site; one that this limited Phase III study has only begun to

comprehend. Shovel-test pit data immediately around the 18th century mansion ruins suggested

an earlier 17th century loci in the western yard, thus the Project team began excavation of full 5-

ft. square units in that vicinity. The 28 excavation units, many removed in a block excavation,

revealed a plethora of intact features, including a substantial brick chimney base, associated

structural postholes and molds, possible root cellars or small pits, and a trash-laden oyster

midden. None have yet been sampled, but observation of exposed but imbedded artifacts and the

temporal range of the artifacts in overlying layers, suggests that many of these features are

associated with the 17th century occupation of the site by the Sparrow family. The data also

strongly indicates that while this area was originally a primary domestic dwelling for the owners

of Sparrows Rest plantation in the 17th century, the area was subsequently used both

domestically and industrially, potentially as servants quarters and/or as a outbuilding associated

with the later 18th century mansion. The site was actively in use for more than 300 years, making

interpretation and analysis challenging.

Throughout these investigations, the Lost Towns Project has emphasized public outreach

efforts, including volunteers, interns, and the public in our discoveries, through hands-on, in the

field archaeology, lab experiences, and site tours in cooperation with the neighboring

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC). Our on-going research, and efforts

toward public outreach, has resulted in an exciting new partnership with SERC. In late Spring

2008, SERC announced the acquisition of the Kirkpatrick-Howat Farm. Nearly 600 acres of the

farm has been incorporated into the SERC property holdings, including the 18AN339 site, along

with several others detailed in Volume I of this report series. The SERC management has

iv

expressed great interest and commitment toward incorporating the cultural and historic resources

on this newly acquired parcel into their long-standing program of land stewardship. With

SERC’s underlying mission of research and public education in efforts to show linkages between

land and water ecosystems, the historic role of people on the landscapes, as discovered through

scientific archaeological research at 18AN339, promises a unique and valuable new perspective

to the SERC programming. While no one could have envisioned this fortuitous acquisition,

fortunately, the multi-year Rhode River project reported upon in these three volumes will be of

practical and real use, as SERC looks forward to developing a strategy for the long-term

management of cultural resources on its lands.

From the very first efforts three years ago, to the new and exciting SERC partnership, this

project can be seen as a model for comprehensive research identification, assessment, and

limited, focused investigations, all conducted with an eye towards education and ultimately

stewardship. Today, we have a much better understanding of the resources, and potential

research potential within the region, an understanding that extends to adjacent watersheds and

the surrounding environment. While the Rhode River watershed was ultimately selected as the

core research area, as can be seen in the Phase III reports offered below, the scope of cultural

influence from the occupants of these sites reverberates throughout Anne Arundel County,

Maryland, and beyond. The comprehensive study of prehistoric and historic populations who

called the Rhode River area home, emphasizes how interrelated human populations have been,

and continue to be, whether socially, politically, or environmentally. Not only does this

demonstrate a broad pattern of human prehistory and history, it can perhaps teach us something

about our modern condition and how human populations interact today.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This final year of work on the Rhode River assessment and evaluation project was

successful only because of the dedication of countless people. First, we must thank the staff at

YMCA Camp Letts, including Stacie Vollentine, Associate Executive Director, for welcoming

us and being so accommodating. We are also grateful to Betsy Kirkpatrick-Howat for permitting

us three amazing years of excavating site 18AN339, located on her land. The recent acquisition

of her property by SERC will extend and further the partnership that the Lost Towns Project has

developed over the years with that organization. SERC Director Anson “Tuck” Hines and

Outreach Coordinator Karen McDonald have been steadfast supporters of preserving and

interpreting the rich cultural resources on their property, and we look forward to a successful

future collaboration with them.

The professional staff of the Lost Towns Project is owed a heartfelt thanks for their many

long hours of digging in extreme conditions, all the while educating and assisting the countless

volunteers and interns that make our work possible. The results here are the product of their

individual personal qualities. Director Al Luckenbach, Assistant Director C. Jane Cox,

Archaeologist Extraordinaire Shawn Sharpe, Archaeologist and Volunteer Coordinator Jessie

Grow, Archaeologist and Intern Coordinator Lauren Schiszik, Lab Director Erin Cullen, Lab

Specialist Carolyn Gryczkowski, and our newest Archaeological Assistants, Maria Valverde and

Steve Tourville, made excavating and interpreting both sites a pleasure.

We are deeply indebted to our field and lab volunteers who dedicate their free time to

joining us in the thrill of discovery, including Lois Nutwell, Dave Turner, Tracy Beer, Diana

Keener, Dave McKenna, Sarah Sandifer, David Stewart, and Cindy Olsen. We are also grateful

for the help of interns, whom we hope will take the archaeological methods and techniques

they’ve learned at the Project and start on their own career paths, including Stuart Biggs,

Matthew Foley, Sally Gordon, Elva (Liza) Krohn, Christine Kujath, Jessica Lester, Michael

McCleary, Emily Mineweaser, Christie Richardson, Vincent Shirbach, Victor Furtado de

Mendoça Torres.

vi

Special thanks goes to Dr. Michael Stewart and his students, Joe Blondino and George

Pevarnik, at Temple University in Philadelphia for enthusiastically helping us interpret the

complicated ceramic assemblage from the Camp Letts site.

Finally, January Ruck, a graduate student intern from the Historic Preservation Master’s

program at the University of Maryland, wrote a thought-provoking thesis entitled “Reintegrating

Public History & Environmental Education: Preservation and Interpretation of the Ruin at Java

Plantation, Edgewater, Maryland” (2008) where she provided an argument justifying the

expenditure of financial and human resources regarding stabilizing the remaining portions of the

old brick mansion at site 18AN339. We are grateful for her research and analysis as we partner

with SERC, who will attempt to preserve the graceful old ruins.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... i

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................xiii

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................1

FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................4

CHAPTER ONE: 18AN339 ............................................................................................................................5

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................5

Historic Summary ........................................................................................................................................6

18AN339 Previous Archaeology ...............................................................................................................21

2007 Excavations .......................................................................................................................................22

Features at 18AN339..................................................................................................................................31

Feature 1 .................................................................................................................................................33

Features 2, 4, & 5 ...................................................................................................................................33

Features 3 & 3a ......................................................................................................................................34

Features 6, 7, 8, & 9 ...............................................................................................................................35

Features 10 & 11 ....................................................................................................................................37

Features 12 & 13 ....................................................................................................................................38

Feature 14 ...............................................................................................................................................38

Features 15 and 16 .................................................................................................................................38

Features 17, 18, 19, & 20.......................................................................................................................39

Features 21 and 22 .................................................................................................................................40

Feature Summary ...................................................................................................................................41

Artifact Analysis.........................................................................................................................................43

Kitchen-Related Artifacts ......................................................................................................................45

Architectural Materials ..........................................................................................................................57

Arms-Related Materials .........................................................................................................................62

Horse Furniture ......................................................................................................................................64

Personal Materials ..................................................................................................................................65

Slag .........................................................................................................................................................75

Prehistoric Artifacts ...............................................................................................................................77

viii

Summary of Artifacts.............................................................................................................................79

Site 18AN339 Summary ............................................................................................................................82

CHAPTER TWO: 18AN1285 .......................................................................................................................89

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................89

18AN1285 Previous Archaeology.............................................................................................................91

2007 Excavations .......................................................................................................................................92

Units 4, 7, and 8 - Excavation Block .....................................................................................................95

Unit 5 ....................................................................................................................................................112

Unit 6 ....................................................................................................................................................120

Site 18AN1285 Discussion ......................................................................................................................121

Site 18AN1285 Summary ........................................................................................................................130

CHAPTER THREE: The Future of Cultural Resources on the Rhode River ............................................134

Management Plan for 18AN339..............................................................................................................134

Management Plan for 18AN1285............................................................................................................135

The Rhode River Region..........................................................................................................................136

REFERENCES CITED................................................................................................................................138

Appendix One: Artifact Catalogs for 18AN339 and 18AN1285...............................................................141

Appendix Two: Staff Qualifications............................................................................................................142

Appendix Three: Revised Site Forms for 18AN339 and 18AN1285.........................................................143

Appendix Four: Revised Determination of Eligibility Forms for 18AN339 and 18AN1285 ...................144

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Locations of 18AN339 and 18AN1285, shown on portion of the 1957 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle, South River, Maryland................................................................................3

Figure 2: Site plan, with excavation block, numbered units outside of block, and mansion location, at 18AN339................................................................................................................23

Figure 3: Results from the magnetometer survey from the west lawn at 18AN339......................24

Figure 4: Partial comparison of assemblages from Units 4 and 5 at 18AN339.............................27

Figure 5: Numbered excavation units within block at 18AN339...................................................30

Figure 6: Site plan showing numbered features in the excavation block at 18AN339..................32

Figure 7: Features 2 (the brick hearth), 4, and 5 (burned areas inside hearth) at 18AN339; Feature 3 (the shell midden) visible to west. ........................................................................................34

Figure 8: Feature 3 (the shell feature) shown in relative position to Feature 2 (the brick hearth, partially exposed in background) and the Squirrel Neck/Java mansion ruins at 18AN339...35

Figure 9: Feature 7 (to right) and Feature 8 (to left) at 18AN339, facing south; Feature 16 (brick rubble pile) partially visible to top of frame............................................................................36

Figure 10: Feature 9 (the post hole and mold) at 18AN339, visible in lower right......................37

Figure 11: Features 15 (the rock rubble pile, shown to top), 16 (the brick rubble pile, center), 7 and 8 (the two post holes and molds, shown to right) at 18AN339, facing southwest ..........39

Figure 12: Features 21 and 22 (shown left and center) in proximity to Feature 3 (the shell feature) at 18AN339.................................................................................................................41

Figure 13: Total artifacts recovered from 18AN339 ......................................................................44

Figure 14: Total artifacts without brick at 18AN339......................................................................45

Figure 15: Total ceramics (minus pipes) recovered from 18AN339..............................................46

Figure 16: Total earthenwares recovered from 18AN339..............................................................47

Figure 17: Example of tin-glazed earthenware sherds recovered from main excavation block at 18AN339...................................................................................................................................48

Figure 18: Total stoneware recovered from 18AN339...................................................................50

x

Figure 19: Selection of Rhenish stoneware, English brown stoneware, refined white earthenware, Rockingham, and North Italian slipware recovered from excavation block at 18AN339...................................................................................................................................51

Figure 20: Porcelain sherds with overglaze decal sunburst decoration recovered from Strata 2 and 3 at 18AN339.....................................................................................................................52

Figure 21: Nineteenth century soap dish from 18AN339...............................................................53

Figure 22: Total faunal remains recovered from 18AN339 ...........................................................54

Figure 23: Two mammal bone fragments with butcher marks recovered from the excavation block area at 18AN339.............................................................................................................55

Figure 24: Iron utensils recovered from excavation block area at 18AN339 (l-r: knife, three-tined fork, two-tined fork, spoon bowl) ............................................................................................56

Figure 25: Total nails recovered from 18AN339............................................................................58

Figure 26: Window leads recovered from Unit 23 at 18AN339 with makers marks “*WM*” (l) and “*1671*” (r).......................................................................................................................60

Figure 27: Copper alloy wrist escutcheon with knight motif from 18AN339 ...............................63

Figure 28: Conserved 18th century snaffle bit from 18AN339......................................................64

Figure 29: Sample of buttons, buckles, and beads recovered from in and around the main excavation block at 18AN339..................................................................................................67

Figure 30: Obverse (l) and reverse (r) of 1724 George I halfpenny from 18AN339.....................68

Figure 31: Two bone comb fragments recovered from site 18AN339...........................................69

Figure 32: Lead alloy cast toy fragment from 18AN339................................................................70

Figure 33: Scissors and whetstone fragment recovered from excavation block at 18AN339.......71

Figure 34: Pipe stem bore diameters from 18AN339 .....................................................................72

Figure 35: Marked tobacco pipes recovered from excavation block at 18AN339 ........................73

Figure 36: Lead cloth seals recovered from Unit 12 (l) and Unit 10 (r) at 18AN339 ...................74

Figure 37: Distribution of slag (by weight in oz.) around excavation block with portion of conjectural earthfast building footprint at 18AN339...............................................................76

xi

Figure 38: Distribution of wrought nails (by weight in oz.) around excavation block with portion of conjectural earthfast building footprint at 18AN339 ..........................................................76

Figure 39: Results of the magnetometer survey from 18AN1285..................................................93

Figure 40: Site plan, with numbered excavation unit locations, from 18AN1285 ........................94

Figure 41: Sample of ceramics recovered from Unit 4, Stratum 2 at 18AN1285; cord-marked Mockley (l) and shell-tempered sherds with varying stages of burning found in the northwest unit corner (r)...........................................................................................................96

Figure 42: Plan view of midden with nearby features in Units 4, 7, & 8 at 18AN1285 ...............98

Figure 43: Portion of ceramic assemblage recovered from the shell midden in Unit 8 at 18AN1285; (top) demonstrates diversity of color and size of shell-tempered sherds, including the sherd adhered to an oyster shell, three distinct coils are visible up-down in this sherd; (lower left) degraded sandstone pieces shown to left, very low-fired or unfired clay ball shown lower right; (lower right) friable, crumbly, shell-tempered sherds....................100

Figure 44: Portion of ceramic assemblage recovered from shell midden (Stratum 3) in Unit 7 at 18AN1285...............................................................................................................................101

Figure 45: Plan view of Feature 1 at 18AN1285 ..........................................................................104

Figure 46: Profile of bisected Feature 2 at 18AN1285 .................................................................104

Figure 47: Total ceramic assemblage from Feature 1 at 18AN1285, including (clockwise from upper left) very low fired clay fragments, cord-marked Mockley, and burned Mockley that exhibits fireclouding...............................................................................................................105

Figure 48: North wall profile of Unit 4, including profile of excavated Feature 1 at 18AN1285.................................................................................................................................................106

Figure 49: North wall profile of Unit 4 at 18AN1285 ..................................................................107

Figure 50: Fabric-impressed Mockley sherds from Feature 2 at 18AN1285 (top) and plan view of excavated feature (bottom).....................................................................................................108

Figure 51: South wall profile of Unit 4 (to left) and Unit 7 (to right) at 18AN1285...................109

Figure 52: South wall profile of Units 4 and 7 at 18AN1285 ......................................................110

Figure 53: East wall profile of Unit 8 at 18AN1285 ....................................................................110

Figure 54: East wall profile of Unit 8 at 18AN1285 ....................................................................111

xii

Figure 55: Unit 5, after excavation of shell midden (Strata 3 and 4), visible in north and west walls; facing north ..................................................................................................................116

Figure 56: Ceramic assemblage from Unit 5, Stratum 5 at 18AN1285; most were recovered from just to exterior (east) of midden .............................................................................................116

Figure 57: North (top) and west (bottom) wall profiles of Unit 5 at 18AN1285.........................118

Figure 58: Profiles from Unit 5 at 18AN1285 ..............................................................................119

Figure 59: Total historic artifacts recovered from 18AN1285.....................................................122

Figure 60: Total prehistoric ceramics recovered from 18AN1285 ..............................................123

Figure 61: Total lithics recovered from 18AN1285 .....................................................................125

Figure 62: Distribution maps from 18AN1285.............................................................................128

Figure 63: Comparison of prehistoric artifacts from three excavation areas at 18AN1285........129

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Features Identified at 18AN339........................................................................................31

Table 2: Total Vessel Glass Recovered from 18AN339.................................................................53

Table 3: Personal Items Recovered from 18AN339 .......................................................................66

Table 4: Total Pipes Recovered from 18AN339.............................................................................71

Table 5: Total Prehistoric Ceramics Recovered from 18AN339 ...................................................78

Table 6: Total Prehistoric Lithics Recovered from 18AN339 .......................................................79

Table 7: Total Assemblage from Unit 4 at 18AN1285...................................................................95

Table 8: Total Assemblage from Unit 7 at 18AN1285...................................................................97

Table 9: Total Assemblage from Unit 8 at 18AN1285.................................................................102

Table 10: Total Assemblage from Feature 1 at 18AN1285..........................................................106

Table 11: Total Assemblage from Unit 5 at 18AN1285...............................................................114

Table 12: Total Assemblage from Unit 6 at 18AN1285...............................................................120

Table 13: Total Prehistoric Artifacts Recovered from 18AN1285 ..............................................123

Table 14: Total Debitage and Tools from 18AN1285 ..................................................................126

Table 15: Comparison of Prehistoric Artifacts from Three Excavation Areas at 18AN1285.....129

1

INTRODUCTION

The following report details the results of the limited Phase III excavations conducted

during Year Three, the final year of the Investigation of Significant Archaeological Properties in

the Rhode River Drainage. After two years of broadly investigating the rich cultural resources of

the watershed, Lost Towns Project archaeologists chose one historic and one prehistoric site with

very high research potential to study more fully. Java Plantation (also known as Sparrows Rest,

Squirrel Neck, or Contee Farm during its long history) (18AN339), occupied continuously since

at least the third quarter of the 17th century, is an incredibly rich historic period site with a minor

prehistoric component. The Camp Letts site (18AN1285), a seasonally occupied Middle to Late

Woodland period camp site, offered the prospect to further the knowledge base about this little

understood cultural period. Excavations at both sites provided a unique and exciting opportunity

to investigate largely undisturbed and highly intact resources of the Rhode River drainage

(Figure 1).

This third year of the Rhode River survey also offered the Lost Towns Project the

opportunity to conduct significant public outreach, by means of engaging volunteers, interns, and

the community in our discoveries through hands-on field and lab work at both sites. This also

helped to foster the Project’s mission to strengthen the connection between past and present,

increase public awareness of the rich cultural past of Anne Arundel County, and promote historic

and environmental preservation and conservation. In doing so, a number of educated amateur

archaeologists have been created that will serve as stewards for the protection of cultural

resources in this region and beyond.

The first step in each investigation this year was a geophysical survey, which assisted in

the placement of initial excavation units. At Java Plantation, this led to exciting finds in the west

yard of the ruins of the circa 1750 brick Georgian mansion house. Located only about 100 ft.

from the two chimneys that mark the location of that once grand home, the remains of a 17th

century earthfast building was found, providing a rare glimpse into the first chapter of Anne

Arundel County history. Extensive documentary research into the history of the property

revealed that this was the location of one of the houses at Sparrows Rest, both mentioned by

Thomas Sparrow II in his 1675 will. Thousands of artifacts from the Sparrow family were

2

recovered from the excavation units, along with materials from the 18th and early-19th century

Maccubbin occupation and the later 19th century Contee family who lived in the brick mansion.

This intensive temporal mixing of material culture has proven to make site interpretation an

exciting challenge and has raised many questions for future research.

At Camp Letts, the results of the excavation raised a number of interesting questions

about the activities undertaken by the people of the later Middle Woodland time period, locally

referred to as the Selby Bay phase (ca A.D. 200 – A.D. 900). A number of units were excavated

that straddled two separate oyster shell middens, providing a good comparison between what was

thrown out with the trash into the midden and what was happening at midden’s edge. Two intact

features were found and excavated on the edge of one midden, and hundreds of partially fired

earthenware sherds were found within this midden, suggesting that native people who lived here

were engaged in pottery manufacture. This, along with an unusual collection of lithics, provides

a new perspective on the lifeways of the people that roamed the Rhode River hundreds of years

before contact with Europeans.

Overall, the archaeological investigations undertaken in the Rhode River watershed in

2007 have provided a bounty of fascinating data, integral to our understanding of the unique

patterns of cultural and historic development in Anne Arundel County. The following report will

begin by discussing the findings at site 18AN339 (Java), followed a discussion of the findings at

site 18AN1285 (Camp Letts). First, the findings of the extensive documentary research

conducted on the site history of the Java Plantation will be presented, followed by the results of

the archaeological excavations there. The archaeological finds from site 18AN1285, Camp

Letts, will then be presented, along with a general discussion of the prehistoric past of Anne

Arundel County. In both cases, a great effort has been made to discuss the findings in a

technical, yet approachable, and understandable way. This report concludes with a discussion of

the future of the cultural resources in the Rhode River drainage.

3

Figure 1: Locations of 18AN339 and 18AN1285, shown on portion of the 1957 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle, South River, Maryland

4

FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY

In 2005 and 2006, limited shovel testing was conducted at sites 18AN339 and

18AN1285. No additional shovel tests were excavated in this third year of the survey. The first

step in the 2007 season was to conduct a magnetometer survey on each of the sites. The data

gathered from both of these surveys assisted in the initial placement of the 5 ft. by 5 ft.

excavation units. Thereafter, the placement of the units was based on prior research goals or new

questions inspired by the data collected during the investigations.

All units were hand excavated using shovels, spades, or trowels. All soils were screened

through ¼ in. mesh hardwire screen. All artifacts were collected 100%, with the exception of

oyster shells (only those with “female” hinges were collected), and bricks at site 18AN339,

where only those with distinct edges or markings were taken to the lab for processing.

Plan views were hand drawn in the field of the base of excavations in all units, and plans

were drawn on separate graph paper of all significant features. Profiles of significant unit walls

were also drawn on graph paper. These images were later digitized using AutoCAD software.

Digital photographs were taken of all plan views and profiles and are stored on the Anne Arundel

County government servers.

All artifacts were washed, sorted, counted, weighed, rebagged, and labeled according to

Maryland State standards. The collections were cataloged using FileMaker Pro software. This

data was later entered into an Excel spreadsheet for ease of analysis and for producing the tables

and charts presented in this report. The artifact assemblages from both sites 18AN339 and

18AN1285 are permanently stored at the Anne Arundel County laboratory at Londontown,

Maryland.

5

CHAPTER ONE: 18AN339

Limited Phase III Excavations at Java Plantation, a.k.a. Sparrows Rest, Squirrel Neck, or Contee Farm

Introduction

The Georgian mansion originally called Squirrel Neck is a landmark for people traveling

the Rhode River, as it has been since its circa 1750 construction. Today, the graceful ruins,

consisting of little more than two chimneys, can still be seen for miles and is a highlight of the

Java History Trail, located on the SERC campus. It was this ruin that first drew The Lost Towns

Project to excavate in its shadow in 2005, and it has provided a lovely backdrop to our

excavations for the subsequent two field seasons. This third year of excavating at site 18AN339,

referred to in this report as “Java” after the well-known 19th century name of the plantation, has

revealed that the archaeological resources below the ground are equally as stunning as the

observable architectural resource.

Earlier excavations made it clear that there was an earlier phase of occupation on the

hilltop that pre-dated the mid-18th century construction of the mansion. A test unit dug in 2006

along the eastern front of the mansion made it clear that an earlier house had not simply been

absorbed into the later construction. The data acquired during the 2006 field season and a 2007

remote sensing survey helped determine the focus of this year’s excavations. Many units later,

the earlier, 17th century Thomas Sparrow family occupation was revealed to be situated only

about 100 ft. from the 18th century mansion. The remains of a brick hearth, a few post holes, and

thousands of 17th century domestic artifacts signaled the location of one of the earthfast

dwellings at Sparrows Rest.

It was also made clear this season that the excavated soil strata at Java are heavily mixed

with a collection of artifacts that span the entire period of site occupation, including a minimal

prehistoric component. None of the features exposed this year were excavated, and the

assumption must be that these too span the long period of site occupation. The strong

concentration of 17th century materials makes it clear, however, that an area of intense

occupation during the Sparrow occupation of the land has been pinpointed. It stands to reason

6

that the proximity to the mansion and increasing availability of goods through the centuries

would provide for a certain admixture of later artifacts.

The following chapter begins with a narration of the most comprehensive historic

summary written thus far for site 18AN339, produced after conducting additional documentary

research. Next, a brief summary of the 2006 excavations is presented, followed by a technically

detailed description of the results of the 2007 field season. An analysis of the exposed features

and artifact assemblage follows. The chapter ends with a summary of the knowledge

accumulated to date on site 18AN339 and questions to pose for future research.

Historic Summary

The land previously owned by the Kirkpatrick-Howat family, and recently acquired by

the Smithsonian Land Trust, a non-profit organization, has been known by many names during

its 350 year occupation, but was held by only four families for most of its history. In the 17th

century, the land was called “Sparrows Rest”, “Sparrows Addition”, and “Locust Neck”. The

Thomas Sparrow family owned the property for much of the 17th and early 18th centuries. By the

mid-18th century, it was called “Squirrel Neck” and it was possessed by Nicholas Maccubbin and

then his son, James (Maccubbin) Carroll. The 19th century brought the ownership of the Contee

family, who called it “Java.” The ancestors of the Kirkpatrick-Howat family purchased the

property in the early 20th century.

The first Englishman to lay claim to the land was Thomas Sparrow (I). Sparrow (I), born

circa 1620 in England, immigrated to Virginia by 1635. In 1640, he married Elizabeth Marsh in

Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, who herself had arrived in Virginia before 1637 (Russell ND).

In 1649, the young couple, along with their servant, John Dennis, and their two young children,

Thomas (II) and Elizabeth, came to Anne Arundel County with the Puritan Providence settlers

(Sparrow 1990). In Maryland, Elizabeth Sparrow would give birth to second son, Solomon,

around 1652. Sparrows Rest, containing 590 acres and the present location of site 18AN339,

was patented on September 22, 1652 on the “West side of Cheasapeak Bay and on the West side

of Road River” for Thomas Sparrow (I) (MSA, Anne Arundel County Patent Certificate, AB &

H, folio 282). Sparrow also patented land on the south side of the Patapsco River in 1652, which

would later be called Sparrows Point (this parcel of land, located at the mouth of the river and

7

presently occupied by the Bethlehem Steel Company, is still called by this name). Sparrow (I)

died by September 1659, when Sparrows Rest was granted to “Thomas Sparrow son and heir of

the first named Thomas Sparrow” (MSA, Anne Arundel County Patent Certificate, Liber 4, folio

97).

The Sparrow family had converted to Quakerism in the 1650s, and Thomas Sparrow (II)

was such a devout Friend, he was reportedly fined five hundred pounds of tobacco for refusing to

bear arms in the colonial militia in 1661 (Sparrow 1990). This Thomas Sparrow married

Elizabeth Kinsey in 1659 (who later married Richard Johns, noted Calvert County Quaker and

ancestor of the 19th century philanthropist Johns Hopkins) (Sparrow 1990). Their children

included Charity, Solomon, Thomas (III), and Elizabeth. Sparrow (II) sold a portion of Sparrows

Rest, called Locust Neck, to Major Thomas Francis on October 15, 1667 (Chancery Court

Proceedings, Archives of MD, Vol. 51, folio 227). Francis later patented 42 acres of land called

Francis His Addition (MSA, Anne Arundel County Patent Record 15, folio 22: 1674). Archival

research suggests that Locust Neck and Francis His Addition may occupy the same area as the

northeastern portions of the 140 acre Sparrows Addition, which was patented by the Sparrow

family in 1675 (MSA, Anne Arundel County Patent Records 19, folio 8). Sparrows Addition

encompassed present day Contee’s Wharf, Sheepshead Cove, and extended up Sellman Creek to

Nettlefolds Branch, today called the Cypress Bog.

Thomas Sparrow wrote his will on January 1, 1674/5, where he begins by stating “I

Thomas Sparrow of the County of Ann Arundell in the Province of Maryland Planter being Sick

and Weak in Body but of a Sound Disposing mind taking into Serious Consideration that all men

are Mortall and that mans life is but Transitory as the flower of the field…” (MSA, Anne

Arundel County Wills, Liber 2, folio 76:1675). He goes on to state “I do give and bequeath my

Son Thomas Sparrow all my plantation which I now Live on…” along with his parcels on the

Patapsco, and specifically states that the land should stay within the male line of Sparrows

forever. He wills his wife, Elizabeth, to have use of half of the plantation until Thomas (III)

reaches the age of 21 (he was born circa 1660, which would make him about 14 at the time), and

requests that “the building now begun upon my now dwelling plantation to be finished with all

Convenient Speed”. He goes on to will the “use of that parcel of Land which my sister Elizabeth

lives…with the timber house and what Else is necessary for her Occupation upon the Said Land

8

from the time of her first going on the Said Land until Eleven years being fully Completed and

Ended…”. This document suggests that there were at least two dwellings on Sparrows Rest by

1675, and perhaps more. It is possible that the remains of the impermanent structure newly

discovered on the hilltop at 18AN339 could be one of these 17th century houses.

The inventory of Thomas Sparrow (II), dated October 25, 1676, reveals the assemblage

of a wealthy 17th century planter. His estate, valued at 27,068 pounds of tobacco, included,

among other items, a large collection of farm animals (including “1 old horse”), three feather

beds, 12 red leather chairs, three small pewter dishes, one bible, a small silver spoon, and a

warrant for 250 acres of land (this valued at 500 pounds), to name a few items (MSA, Anne

Arundel County Inventories and Assessments, Liber 2, folio 359). It was neighbors Major

Thomas Francis and Richard Tydings (married to Chastity Sparrow) who conducted this

inventory.

Following Sparrow’s death, his sons, Thomas (III) and Solomon, and his wife, Elizabeth

(now married to Richard Johns), contest the land transaction of the 42 acre Locust Neck parcel

between Francis and their father (MSA, Chancery Court Proceedings, 1669-1679 Volume 51,

folio 227, 1678.) This valuable water access land is likely the eastern most portion of the

Sparrows Rest and Sparrows Addition land located along the shoreline of today’s Sellman Creek.

The Sparrow heirs claimed that Thomas (II) died before the deed could be finalized. The court

ruled in favor of Francis, and Locust Neck would remain in his family until 1699.

Major Thomas Francis (the elder) drowned in a boating accident on March 19, 1685. He

and his wife were reportedly returning from a trip across the river to Tulip Hill, the adjacent

plantation owned by the Galloway family. According to local legend, his wife survived because

her hoop skirt acted as a life preserver and buoyed her (Samuel Asher, personal communication,

1987). Mr. Asher also mentioned that Francis’ headstone was located in a “small wooded area

east of the big house [the Java mansion], about halfway between the house and Sheepshead

Cove.” This gravestone was transcribed in the 1950s, but even at that time was reported to be

vandalized and lying on the ground. The transcription was written as follows:

9

Possession of Locust Neck apparently passed from Major Thomas Francis to his son, also

called Thomas Francis. This Francis subsequently left Locust Neck (a part of Sparrows Rest)

and Francis His Addition to his wife, Mary Francis, in his will dated August 29, 1698 (MSA,

AACo Wills, Liber 6, folio 173). The following year, on September 12, 1699, Mary Francis

(now living in Cecil County) sells all of Locus Neck and Francis His Addition (totaling 188

acres) to Thomas Sparrow (III), and the original 590 acres of Sparrows Rest and 100 acres of

Sparrows Addition were back in the possession of the Sparrow family (MSA Chancery Court

Proceedings, Archives of Maryland, Liber 51, folio 20-26).

Thomas Sparrow (III) had three wives, a total of eight children, was a devout Quaker, an

Annapolis merchant, and owned property in both Maryland and in North Carolina (Sparrow

1990). He married Anne Burgess on June 8, 1697 and buried her just a month and a half later,

on July 25, 1697 (Russell ND). Later that same year, he married Sophia Richardson on

November 11, 1697. Sophia was the mother of Thomas (IV) and Solomon, and after she died in

1705, he contracted William Coale (possibly his uncle, married to his Aunt Elizabeth) and Daniel

Here Lies the body of major Thomas

Francies Who deceased March 19 anno 1685 adged 42 years

Tho now in silence I am lowly laid here tie that place few mortal made

Others fore doe no thou thyself morngre [mourn]

morngre ye no more but doe yourself redeme

And the fortuner I hope youll plainly see Such future comforts as are blessing thee For the grim death thought tell to pass us

Rejoice and thing that we shall summonld be None to be exempted in the eternity Cause then its so grieve ye no more I fear that God should thee at that

(anew anger wat sore) Even to death and all to let you see Such grieves to him offensive be

10

Richardson to care for his children for 15 years in exchange for use of Sparrows Rest and

Sparrows Addition for 21 years (MSA Liber WT#2, folio 310:1705). The land totaled 690 acres

“together with all houses Edifices gardens orchards pastures Emolumnets appendances &

appurtenances” and Coale and Richardson would owe Sparrow 100 pounds of “good

merchantable wool” yearly for the rent. They were also charged with providing Thomas (IV)

and Solomon “good and sufficient meate Drinke Cloathes lodging and washing and also shall

and will cause ye said Children to be Educated in such schoole learning as can conveniently be

procured in ye Province of Maryland.” This document suggests that this Thomas Sparrow (III)

did not reside at 18AN339 during this time.

Sparrow (III) remarried a woman named Ann West by the end of 1705, and they

eventually had five children together. During this time, it appears that he acquired at least two

more parcels of land in the Rhode River area, called Squirrell Neck and Thomas’s Quarter

Plantation, probably located to the south of site 18AN339. In 1712, he leases these two parcels

to William Coale for 21 years for the “summ of fifty pounds Current money” and states that rent

of “one Barrell of Indian Corn” should be paid to Sparrow yearly “at his Mansion house upon the

plantation whereon he now lives” (MSA Liber 1B2, folio 76:1712). What is not clear in this

document is where Sparrow and his family are living at the time. If the agreement with Coale

from 1705 (now seven years prior) still stands at this point, the Sparrow family are living

somewhere other than 18AN339 and Sparrows Rest. His wife, Ann West, was a wealthy woman

in her own right (she was the daughter of Col. John West), and it is possible they were living on

her family estate or on another landholding. Sparrow is, however, referred to as “Thomas

Sparrow of Road River”, so this suggests he might have been living on Sparrows Rest at the

time.

Also during this time, Thomas Sparrow (III) was apparently spending time on his

plantations near the Pamlico River in North Carolina. He held over 3,000 acres in that state and

in 1706 became one of the original landholders in the town of Bath, the oldest incorporated town

in North Carolina (Sparrow 1990). In 1711, he participated in Cary’s Rebellion, a religious

conflict lead by Thomas Cary (Paschal 1955). Cary, a South Carolinian and a supporter of the

Quaker party, served as North Carolina’s governor for a short time in the early 18th century,

during which time Bath was the impromptu seat of the colony’s government. His rebellion

11

centered on Quaker rights in North Carolina after Cary was removed from office by the English

crown and replaced by Edward Hyde, a member of the Church of England. During the summer

of 1711, Cary assembled a group of men, including Thomas Sparrow (III), and fought numerous

armed skirmishes for Quaker rights. Eventually, the royal marines from Virginia sided with

Hyde’s forces and overtook Cary and his followers. Cary was arrested and sent back to England

and his men were deemed traitors. By 1713, however, the English crown granted them full

pardon (Paschal 1955).

Sparrow (III) wrote his will on June 15, 1713. He would live for many years after he

wrote this document, and it was not endorsed until May 12, 1719. There is also evidence that he

wrote a second will in North Carolina in 1717 (Sparrow 1990:400). In the 1713 will, he states “I

Thomas Sparrow of Road River in Annar[undall] County being intended to take a Voyage & not

knowing how it may Please god to dispose of me & calling to mind ye uncertainties of this Life

doe therefore make Constitue ordaine & appoint this to be my Last will & testament” (MSA

Wills Liber 15, folio 101:1713). He begins the will by leaving his island called Crany Island

[today called Harkers Island, located near the southern tip of the Outer Banks] in North Carolina

to his sons Solomon and John, and follows by giving his son Kinsey “all that parcel of Land I

Purchased of Mary Frances being one hundred & forty six acres Part of Sparrows rest formerly

Sold by my father to Tho Francis lying on Road River.” This is the only mention of Sparrows

Rest in the document, and interestingly, his eldest son, Thomas (IV) is only specifically given

“one Cow & Calfe with Seven Years Priviledge of them & theire Increase on Crany Island.” His

father does, however, specify that his four sons should divide all of his lands, rights, titles, and

interests equally.

Sparrow’s failure to mention the remaining portions of Sparrows Rest and Sparrows

Addition in his will could stem from the fact that only seven days prior to the drafting of his will

(on June 8, 1713), he leased “by Estimation one hunds acres more or less” of Sparrows Rest to

John Gresham for 30 pounds current Maryland money (MSA, Liber 1B#2, folio 45:1713). This

document indicates that Gresham was the then-owner of the neighboring plantation called

Shaw’s Folly (located north of Sparrow’s Rest), and this lease document was enacted for 21

years. The document was revisited on June 10, 1723 when it appears the lease agreement was

further endorsed.

12

At some point after the death of Thomas Sparrow (III), his eldest son, Thomas Sparrow

(IV) acquired Sparrows Rest, Sparrows Addition, and Squirrel Neck, among other parcels of

land. This Thomas Sparrow had a “crippling disability” and was unable to farm (Sparrow

1990:400). He instead made his living as an inn holder in Annapolis, and became the crier of the

provincial and Anne Arundel county courts, and later acted as the doorkeeper of the General

Assembly. Apparently, he also invented a machine to catch and cure fish for export (Sparrow

1990:400). There is also court documentation from November 1747 that he fathered an

illegitimate child with a woman named Martha Freeman, and was fined 30 shillings for the act

(Russell ND).

Thomas Sparrow (IV) was convinced by his guardian, Thomas Gassaway, to convey

Sparrows Rest and Sparrows Addition to him in 1720 (MSA, AACo Deeds, Liber CW#1, folio

373). However, Sparrow later decided to take Gassaway to court to reacquire the parcels. On

February 4, 1724, the Chancery Court granted Sparrow ownership of the two parcels, totaling

490 acres (MSA, Chancery Court Proceedings, Liber SY#1, folio 88:1724).

It appears, however, that by 1746, Sparrow (IV) is finally ready to permanently part with

his ancestral lands. On September 9, 1746, he sells a portion of Sparrows Rest to Richard

Tydings (probably related by marriage) for 10,000 pounds of tobacco (MSA, AACo Deeds,

Liber RB 2, folio 252). This portion of Sparrows Rest seems to be further west and inland, west

of Muddy Branch. In May of the following year (on May 21, 1747, to be specific), he sells the

remainder of Sparrows Rest and Sparrows Addition to Nicholas Maccubbin for 1,000 pounds

current Maryland money (MSA, AACo Deeds, Liber RB 2, folio 485). A total of 690 acres were

sold to Maccubbin, including the easternmost, waterfront portions of the land along the Rhode

River; site 18AN339 is located in this eastern portion of Sparrows Rest. With the selling of this

parcel to two different men, the land use history of the area becomes divided, and here ends the

94 year Sparrow possession of the land.

As an interesting side note, after Sparrow (IV) died in 1753, his young son, Thomas

Sparrow (V), was left under the guardianship of Jonas and Catherine Green, publishers of the

Maryland Gazette (Sparrow 1990). The Greens were neighbors of the Sparrows in Annapolis,

and young Thomas became an apprentice at the Gazette. This Thomas Sparrow later became a

13

silversmith, and during the Revolution, forged the original seal of the State of Maryland, still on

display at the State House in Annapolis (Russell ND).

Nicolas Maccubbin was a wealthy merchant-planter from Annapolis, who married Mary

Clare Carroll, also of Annapolis, on July 21, 1747, just two months after his acquisition of the

Sparrow lands (Lee 2004). This was a marriage of great wealth. Mary’s dowry included 1500

acres of Prince George’s County lands and waterfront land in Annapolis. Upon her father’s

death, her brother, Charles Carroll (known as The Barrister), became one of six richest men in

Maryland due to his inheritance (Lee 2004).

While there is little documentary evidence to pinpoint exactly when the mansion at Java

was built, it is safe to assume that it was erected during the Maccubbin ownership of the land.

The mansion at Squirrel Neck (as it was called at the time) is very similar in design to Mount

Clare, the home built by The Barrister. Historians generally believe that they were constructed

by the same builder, most likely Patrick Creagh (Trostel 1981). Creagh was a well-established

Annapolis builder, and also had connections to both the Maccubbin and Carroll families.

Judging by the evolution of designs, Squirrel Neck was constructed first, being the simpler of the

two buildings. As an aside, the name “Mount Clare” was given to that house as a way to honor

the Barrister’s grandmother, Clare Dunn Carroll, and sister, Mary Clare Carroll Maccubbin.

Whoever designed both mansions had an eye toward classic Georgian architecture. The

Squirrel Neck house was constructed of brick and had five parts, the center section being two

and a half stories tall with a gambrel roof, the two hyphens being one story tall with a gable roof.

Two story brick pilasters flanked the central portion of the house, and glazed header bricks

running up the center of them were a design element used at both Mount Clare and Squirrel

Neck. The Squirrel Neck mansion lacked a water table or belt course, typical elements of a

Georgian-period house. The gambrel roof also set the Squirrel Neck mansion apart from many

others built in the mid-eighteenth century; houses of the period were more typically built with a

hipped or gabled roof, as was the case at Mount Clare. However, Padsworth Farm, a mansion

built between 1735 and 1745 on the Patuxent River just seven miles from Squirrel Neck, also

possessed a gambrel roof, as did a number of Georgian period houses in the northern colonies

(Trostle 1981).

14

While Maccubbin acquired Sparrows Rest and Sparrows Addition in his 1747 agreement

with Thomas Sparrow (IV), he did not file a patent certificate for the parcel of land called

Squirrel Neck until 1765 (MSA, Pat. Cert. Folder 1481). During this time, the Maccubbin family

was probably spending most of their time in Annapolis, at the ancestral home of Mary Clare

Carroll Maccubbin, purchased by her husband in 1746. The family grew in the mid-18th century

with the birth of Nicholas in 1751, Charles (in 1755?), James in 1761, and Samuel in 1763.

Additional children included John Henry, Mary, and Susanna. The 1776 census listed the slaves

possessed by Maccubbin at the time, including eleven black males, eleven black females, and 25

black children (all 22 adults were taxable).

Charles Carroll, the Barrister, died in 1783 and left his estate to his two nephews,

Nicholas and James Maccubbin, under the assumption that they would change their names to

Carroll (Lee 2004). James would eventually inherit Mount Claire upon his aunt’s death in 1817,

and also inherited the brick mansion at Squirrel Neck upon his father death in 1787. He

therefore became owner of the two grand houses created by the same builder in the mid-18th

century. The will of Nicholas Maccubbin, written on May 28, 1784 (and endorsed on March 15,

1787), states “I give and bequeath to my son James Carroll formerly called Maccubbin the

following Lands, Squirrel Neck containing fifty Acres more or less, Sparrows Addition

containing one hundred Acres more or less Sparrows Rest containing five hundred and ninety

acres more or less” (MSA, AACo Wills, Liber THH2, folio 9: 1787). James (Maccubbin)

Carroll was now the owner of what once was the entire Sparrow family landholdings, including

“all my Horses, Cattle, Hogs, Sheep, Plantation Utensils, Household furniture, and all other

things…” on the land when the elder Maccubbin died. Interestingly, his father specified that

James was not to receive all of the slaves on the 740 acres, as he had when distributing his other

plantations to his other sons. Instead, he specifies at least 12 slaves by name (along with their

children) for James to own, and gives the “Nigro woman named Jenny at Squirel Neck and all

her Children” to his daughter Mary (Maccubbin) Brice.

James (Maccubbin) Carroll was an absentee landowner and left Squirrel Neck under the

care of a superintendent named William Johnson. The 1798 Federal Tax Assessment lists a five

part mansion (two story brick house; one story Passage brick; one story brick Kitchen; one story

brick Passage; one story brick Washhouse) valued at $12,000, eight small dwellings, and 40

15

slaves on the property. This suggests a very large farming operation was being undertaken on

the plantation, but it is not clear if anyone was actually living in the Squirrel Neck mansion

during this time.

On February 1, 1819, James Carroll sold his entire 740 acres of Sparrow lands to Dennis

Boyd, who immediately endorsed the land to John Contee. This left Contee as the owner of the

three parcels, although he still owed $30,000 on the sale to James Carroll. The lands were

resurveyed on June 15, 1825, and a patent was issued to John Contee three years later on August

12, 1828. It was this patent document that first called the property “Java.” It would not be until

November 10, 1832 that Contee finished paying his debt in full (to the heirs of James Carroll,

who died January 27, 1832), at which point he finally received the deed (PGCo Wills, PC1-123,

Dec. 2, 1839) (Lee 2004).

John Contee was a wealthy landowner from Prince George’s County and served in the

U.S. Navy during the War of 1812. He was an officer on the U.S.S. Constitution (also known as

“Old Ironsides”) when it captured and destroyed the H.M.S. Guerriere on August 19, 1812 off

the coast of Nova Scotia and the H.M.S. Java on December 29, 1812 off the coast of Brazil.

Local legend asserts that he purchased the Squirrel Neck lands with prize money he was later

given for these captures. However, many historians believe that this prize money would have

been nominal to John Contee’s fortune, totaling only about $1000 for an officer of his rank. He

had amassed enough wealth by the time he purchased Java that this prize money would not have

been a significant factor (Lee 2004). It does seem clear, however, that he called the property

“Java” because the battle and his service aboard the Constitution left a lasting impression, and he

desired to name his new property after the conquered British ship.

John Contee probably did not reside at Java full time, as he maintained a life-long

residence in Prince George’s County. He apparently left the daily operations of the plantation in

the hands of an overseer, continuing the tradition started by James (Maccubbin) Carroll. He died

in 1839, and willed Java to his second wife, Ann Snowden Contee. The inventory of his

landholdings, made in February, 1840, shed some light on the immense size of the farming

operations that were taking place on Java at the time. There were 84 slaves listed as living on the

property, which would provide a labor force of approximately 40 people. These slaves produced

16

70,000 pounds of tobacco in 1839, a tremendous amount relative to the other farms in the region.

In the stores, there were listed 1,500 pounds of bacon, 1,000 pounds of pork, and four barrels of

herring, which would have probably been used to feed all of the slaves. There were few essential

items listed as being in the main house, suggesting it was not furnished for day to day living, and

the overseer was probably living in a different dwelling on the plantation (Greenburg and Hyatt

1990).

However, Ann Contee and her two young sons were listed on the 1840 census as

residents of the First District of Anne Arundel County (the Rhode River area), so she must have

moved her family to Java soon after her husband’s death. Evidently, she and her boys moved

back to Prince George’s County by 1850, as she is not listed in the Rhode River area census for

that year. She is, however, listed in the 1850 Slave Schedule as the owner of 76 slaves residing

in the First District, suggesting she was the absentee landlord of a thriving plantation. Contee’s

Wharf, located on her property on the Rhode River, must have been an integral part of this

plantation system, and it is shown for the first time on the detailed 1846 U.S. Coastal and

Geodetic Survey map.

Ann Contee conveyed her interests in Java to her two sons, Charles and Richard, on July

28, 1859. The Contee boys divided the land into a south section belonging to Charles (totaling

360 acres) and a north section belonging to Richard (totaling 380 acres) along the course of an

old road (Lee 2004). It is in the northern section where site 18AN339 and the Java mansion are

located. On the same day he obtained the land from his mother, Richard Contee mortgaged his

portion to his father in law for $23,500 to be repaid in 10 years (MSA, AACo Land Records,

NHG8, page 303). He and his brother also borrowed money from the Farmers Bank of Maryland

at about the same time (Lee 2004).

The Contee brothers married two sisters of the John Bowling family (Richard married

Ann in 1858 and Charles married Betty in 1860) and both couples settled on their respective

parcels of Java land. The 1860 Slave Schedule for the First District lists Richard as owner of 34

slaves and Charles as owner of 40 slaves, making them two of the largest slave owners in the

Rhode River watershed. The 1860 census lists Richard (age 24) as having $23,000 in real estate

and $19,770 in personal estate, while Charles (age 29) has $21,600 in real estate and $21,220 in

17

personal estate. There are also five white farmhands with the last name “Contee” listed under

Charles in this census. All of this suggests that both Contee brothers were still running

productive, successful farming operations largely based on slave labor at the start of the Civil

War.

However, by the close of the War, both Contee brothers encountered serious financial

troubles. The labor-intensive approach they both utilized had become a thing of the past with the

abolition of slavery. They defaulted on the loans they took out from the Farmers Bank of

Maryland, and the county sheriff was instructed to sell both parcels to the highest bidder. Their

father in law, John Bowling, purchased the notes on both farms, so while the Contees were no

longer owners of the parcels, they were still permitted to live there.

The 1870 census lists Richard Contee (age 34), his wife Ann (age 29), and two additional

Contee women (cousins?), Eloise (age 19) and Sylvia (age 17) on the First District census, but

there is no sign of Charles and Betty Contee. Richard’s real estate value is now listed as $20,000

(only $3,000 less than 1860), but his personal estate is listed as only $2,300 ($17,470 less than

1860). According to the 1870 Agricultural Census, he paid $1,000 in wages to farm labors that

year, giving him just about $1,300 in profits. Greenburg and Hyatt (1990) estimate that by this

time, only about 125 acres of Contee’s landholdings were in production (down from a high of

around 270 acres in 1860), meaning that marginal areas of Java, including Francis Field near the

river, have not been plowed since the 1860s.

Richard Contee was still living at Java in 1875 when his father-in-law, John Bowling,

died, but he had started to lease out portions of the property to tenants. Bowling forgave Contee

the debt he was owed for purchased the mortgage, and willed him back his original northern

portion of Java. By 1877, Contee and his wife Ann were living in Baltimore and the entire farm

had been turned over to tenants. Ann was apparently in poor health by this time, and they filed a

petition with the Anne Arundel County courts to have the land sold, rather than retain it under

the direction of Bowling’s will, asserting “under the system of tenancy the place [was] rapidly

declining in value…from want of proper cultivation and attention [and the buildings were]

falling to pieces and there were no means with which to repair them, the proceeds of the place

not being sufficient for that purpose even” (Greenburg and Hyatt 1990:I-10). Richard and Ann

18

reportedly later moved to the Snowden family mansion, Oakland, in Prince George’s County by

1887. This was the ancestral home of Richard’s mother’s family.

John Bowling also willed Charles Contee his original southern portion of Java in 1875.

In 1878, Charles conveyed the land to his brother-in-law, also called John Bowling, to be held in

estate for Charles’ wife Betty. Charles died in 1887, and after Betty died in 1894 their children

sold the land to Thomas Myers in 1896. This portion of Java would later become the successful

Java Dairy Farm in the mid-20th century under the ownership of Robert Lee Forrest, who

obtained the land in 1915. When Forrest died in 1962, he donated his 368 acres to the

Smithsonian Institute, who established the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC)

there in 1965. Since then, their landholdings have expanded to over 2,600 acres of pristine land

(Lee 2004:8).

The late 19th century land transactions for the northern portion of Java are not so clear. A

Chicago resident called John V. Lemoyne obtained the land sometime after 1882, and he

apparently left the farm in the hands of a manager or tenants (Greenburg and Hyatt 1990).

Lemoyne apparently used the Java mansion (about 150 years old by this time) as a summer

house, but was apparently not there around 1890 when the place was struck by lightning was

partially destroyed. The roof and interior framing of the house fell, and portions of the front and

rear walls collapsed (Lee 2004). The house was apparently rebuilt using the fire-damaged brick,

a fact that would heavily contribute its slow demise. A number of architectural changes were

also made to the house. Several bow windows were added to the sides of the house and the new

roof dormers were built as “eyebrow” dormers, rather than the more typical shed dormers. The

northern hyphen was rebuilt to attach to the old kitchen, but the southern hyphen was not rebuilt.

A series of brick-walled terraces were also built south of the house around this time.

Lemoyne sold the land to Jasperson Smith of New York City in 1897 and eventually

Mrs. Elizabeth Gordon bought the land in 1917. Mrs. Gordon later married a Mr. Kirkpatrick-

Howat, and their son and his wife are today still the owner of this portion of Java. Apparently,

soon after buying the land, Mrs. Gordon lived in the reconstructed Java mansion during

summers. But even at this time, in 1916, the house is described as “Dwelling Ruins” on a 1916

plat of the parcel. She was determined to rebuild the old mansion, even going to far as to have

19

bricks delivered. However, it was about this time that the adjoining property (the old Sellman

farm) containing a sturdy 19th century brick mansion came on the market. She purchased this

farm in 1923 (bringing her total landholdings in the area to about 700 acres) and abandoned the

old Contee house (Samuel Asher, personal communication, 1987).

An undated newspaper article (circa 1970?), reminiscing about a trip made to the Java

mansion in the mid-20th century, reveals the state of the house at that time. A man named James

C. Willfong wrote about a trip he took to the area in 1954 with his daughter, Sue, and Dr. Henry

Chandlee Forman, noted early historical archaeologist and architectural historian. They stopped

first at Mr. Kirkpatrick-Howat’s house (the old Sellman house), and then accompanied

Kirkpatrick-Howat to see the Java mansion. Willfong writes,

“Java was one of the strangest houses I had ever seen. Here was a two-story gambrel roof with a center entrance that would qualify it as Georgian. It was clearly old –really old – and many years earlier someone with very peculiar ideas had built bay windows on the second floor on the end which faced the river. To me they were awful, and I thought it was too bad… [they] were a later alteration…and they were a fair match of the original brick, but there was just enough contrast to make you wonder why somebody had bothered to do what had been done…[it seemed] what had probably been a 17th century mansion house had been reduced to a bit of early Victorian hodgepodge – an eyesore, too.”

Willfong went on in the article to say that all of the window frames and glass were gone

by this time, and the damage from the circa 1890 lightning strike was still visible in the one

gable end. He states, “There was no settlement on either side of the slice, but there was a gaping

hole, at least an inch wide, from the ground right up to the eaves.” Dr. Forman and Mr.

Kirkpatrick-Howat agreed that the house was beyond repair, but “if the entire building were

stuccoed if might be livable, but it would still be an eyesore.” Mr. Kirkpatrick-Howat stated that

he and his father felt the same way and they decided to leave it as it was “as a kind of monument

to some visionary 17th century styling and some 19th century misguided architectural taste – and

lightning.”

20

In this article, Willfong also commented on the gigantic black walnut tree that was

located just to the north of the ruins. This black walnut was, according to Mr. Kirkpatrick-

Howat and the Maryland Department of Forests, the largest walnut tree in America. Even in

1954, the tree was in poor shape, and it finally died sometime in the early 21st century. This tree

was such a local landmark, that then 86-year old Captain Harry Benning stated in a 1975

interview that this walnut tree could be seen “from way over on the Eastern bay, you could see

that round hump on the horizon…I’m told the old schooner captains used it for a mark. It sure

stood out on the horizon.”

Today, all that remains of the old Squirrel Neck mansion that Nicholas Maccubbin built

around 1750 are two chimneys and a portion of the northern hyphen. As Lost Towns Project

archaeologists have been working in their shadow for the past two years, bricks have fallen out

of the chimneys on a number of occasions. For the time being, nature continues to take its toll

on the old house. However, in early 2008, SERC, through the Smithsonian Land Trust (a non-

profit organization), purchased all of the land owned by the Kirkpatrick-Howat family, and part

of their preliminary cultural management plan for the property involves an effort to stabilize the

ruins. They will be assisted in this endeavor by the Master’s thesis written by Lost Towns

Project intern, January Ruck, who wrote “Reintegrating Public History & Environmental

Education: Preservation and Interpretation of the Ruin at Java Plantation, Edgewater, Maryland”

(2008). In this compelling document, Ms. Ruck provides an argument justifying the expenditure

of financial and human resources regarding stabilizing the old mansion ruins. Her analysis,

along with input from Project staff, will provide an initial framework for SERC as they plan for

the future of the incredibly rich cultural heritage of their newly acquired lands.

21

18AN339 Previous Archaeology

In the Fall of 2006, Lost Towns Project archaeologists began Phase I/II testing at the Java

site, and testing continued through January of 2007. A total of 31 shovel test pits (STPs) were

excavated at 50 foot intervals in the portion of the site studied during this phase of investigation;

an additional six STPs were excavated on the tenant house knoll to the east of the mansion ruins.

No strong evidence for a domestic occupation was identified in the eastern portion of the site, but

the light scatter of architectural materials may warrant further testing in the future in this area.

The STP grid across all of site 18AN339 was based on the orientation of the house, with grid

north lying 11 degrees west of true magnetic north (Cox et al. 2007b).

Artifacts spanning the entire historic occupation of the property were recovered from the

31 STPs excavated in the area surrounding the mansion ruins; however, distinct concentrations

of kitchen and architectural artifacts were identified in the west, rear yard of the mansion. These

concentrations not only revealed a backyard activity area related to the 17th, 18th and 19th century

occupation of the site, but also suggested the potential for an activity area that predated the

construction of the circa-1747 Maccubbin house (Cox et al. 2007b).

The locations of three excavations units were then selected (Figure 2). Unit 1 was placed

at the base of the eastern façade of the mansion ruins, between the main block and the hyphen or

passage leading to the northern wing. The dimensions of the unit measured approximately three

and a half feet by five feet, as the interior one and a half feet of the unit was located under the

standing brick foundation. Unit 1 revealed four episodes of construction and destruction

spanning the occupation of site 18AN339. “Episode 1” represented the 20th century deposits that

followed the 1890s rebuilding of the structure after it burned. “Episode 2” represented the 1890s

reconstruction. “Episode 3” represented the original mid-18th century construction of the house.

Finally, “Episode 4” represented the original ground surface that existed before the construction

of the mansion. The strata in this episode may also be associated with the Sparrow occupation of

the site in the late 17th and early 18th centuries (Cox et al. 2007b).

Unit 2 was placed to the south of the mansion ruins, on approximately the same line as

the eastern façade to test for subsurface features related to a formerly extant southern passage

(see Figure 2). Only the northern half of the five by five foot unit was excavated due to the

22

presence of dense brick rubble located immediately below the sod. A robbed foundation trench,

called Feature 1, was identified subsurface in the western portion of the unit related to the

southern hyphen that was most likely destroyed during the fire that burned most of the structure

in the 1890s. The hyphen was most likely constructed of brick and did not have a basement, as

does the corresponding hyphen on the northern end of the building (Cox et al. 2007b).

Unit 3 was placed to the rear and northwest of the Maccubbin house ruins, based on a

concentration of artifacts recovered in the vicinity during the STP survey (see Figure 2). The

unit measured five by five feet and produced several 17th and 18th century diagnostic artifacts.

This included a significant assemblage of faunal remains and large quantity of kitchen and

architectural-related objects. This suggested a highly trafficked area, perhaps a kitchen, initially

utilized before the mid-18th century construction of the mansion. Excavation of Unit 3 was

halted at a dense lens of fire-cracked ironstone, possibly indicating an intact structural feature

associated with an earlier structure (Cox et al. 2007b).

2007 Excavations

A total of 25 units would eventually be excavated during the 2007 field season. The

majority of these (23) were ultimately clustered in an excavation block located about 100 ft.

west, or inland, of the mansion ruins (see Figure 2). While the testing planned for the 2007

season was limited to excavation of 10 to 15 units, the edge of an articulated brick feature was

found in the corner of Unit 16 on one of the last field days of the season. Excavation continued

beyond the planned field session so that the team could better understanding the nature of this

feature, which ended up being a 12 ft. long brick hearth that once belonged to a 17th century

impermanent structure. Only a small portion of this building has been uncovered as of June

2008, and none of the 22 identified features have been tested, thus all of the artifacts discussed

below have been recovered from the plow zone. The following discussion of methods and

findings will conclude with our preliminary conclusions and research questions for further study.

23

Figure 2: Site plan, with excavation block, numbered units outside of block, and mansion location, at 18AN339

24

The first step in this phase of excavations at the Java site was to conduct a magnetometer survey in the west, inland yard of the mansion ruins (Figure 3). A number of anomalies were initially detected about 100 ft. away from the mansion ruins. A second mag survey was later conducted in the east lawn of the site, and while a number of hits were detected, time constraints prohibited conducted additional excavations in this area in the 2007 season.

-1080 -1060 -1040 -1020 -1000 -980 -960

1000

1020

1040

1060

1080

1100

1120

1140

N1000,W1000

main block

hyphen

passage

52450

52460

52470

52480

52490

52500

52510

52520

52530

52540

52550

52560

52570

52580

52590

0 20 40 60 80

Scale in Feet

Figure 3: Results from the magnetometer survey from the west lawn at 18AN339

25

While the archaeologists waited for final processing of the west lawn survey data, two

excavation units were laid out. Unit 4 was placed between the northern hyphen of the 18th

century ruin, to the east and Unit 3 to the west, while Unit 5 was placed south of this, roughly in

line with the location of the southern hyphen foundation (see Figure 2). It was hoped that

placing these two units in similar orientation to the mansion ruins would provide insight to use

variations between hyphens through a comparison of the artifact assemblages.

The two units had very different stratigraphy. Unit 4 consisted of three strata that overlay

dense rock, while Unit 5 consisted of two strata that overlay a small artifact-bearing soil lens and

subsoil. In Unit 4, Stratum 1 (10YR 4/3 brown sandy loam) represented the upper sod level and

artifacts recovered (n=211) included a few wrought (n=3) and cut nails (n=3), two whiteware rim

sherds, some utilitarian wares (undiagnostic salt glazed stoneware and coarse red earthenware),

and a few burned glass and burned whiteware sherds. Stratum 2 (10YR 5/3 brown sandy loam

with brick flecking) produced over 1,000 artifacts. Notable artifacts included one tin-glazed

earthenware cup base, two creamware sherds, 17 whiteware sherds (including six that were

burned), three ironstone sherds, a number of coarse earthenware and stoneware sherds, 45

wrought nails, 52 cut nails, and a number of glass vessel fragments. Stratum 3 (90% 10YR 5/3

brown silt with 10% 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow silty clay with frequent brick specks, moderate

oyster, and moderate rocks) produced only 124 artifacts, including one lead-backed tin glazed

earthenware sherd, one Rhenish stoneware sherd, one white salt-glazed stoneware sherd, and one

90 pearlware sherd. No whiteware or ironstone was recovered from Stratum 3. In addition, four

wrought and four cut nails were recovered. In general, the artifacts recovered from Strat 3 had

an earlier manufacture date than those recovered from the upper strata; however, the presence of

cut nails suggests 19th century admixture. At the base of excavation, a dense collection of rocks

were noted, comprising about 70% of the unit after the removal of Strat 3. No discernable

pattern was identified, but the rock was primarily located in the northwestern and central

portions of the unit. These rocks were similar to those noted in the base of Unit 3 to the

northwest.

Unit 5 was the only unit excavated to the southwest of the mansion ruins (see Figure 2).

Its stratigraphy consisted of two strata that overlay a third soil lens that was located in the

southeast corner of the unit. Stratum 1 (10YR 5/3 brown sandy loam with occasional brick and

26

coal) produced a total of 152 artifacts, including five partial square nails, two pearlware sherds,

two burned tin glazed earthenware sherds, and four coarse earthenware sherds. Stratum 2 (10YR

5/6 yellowish brown sandy clay with coal, brick, and occasional oyster shell) produced 222

artifacts, including one creamware and one pearlware sherd, one English brown salt-glazed

stoneware sherd, ten coarse earthenware sherds, one pipe stem fragment, three hand wrought

nails and four square nails, and a handful of vessel glass fragments. Stratum 3 (10YR 5/3 brown

clay loam) was noted during excavation of Strata 1 and 2. It was concluded that Stratum 3 was

an area of slightly higher artifact concentration at the base of the plow zone and was not a

cultural feature. It was, however, excavated separately and only 69 artifacts were recovered,

including a number of coal fragments, two cut nails, six flat glass fragments, one coarse

earthenware sherd and one salt-glazed stoneware sherd. This stratum overlay sterile subsoil and

excavation was halted.

Unit 4 produced 1,394 artifacts from its three strata, while Unit 5 only produced 443.

This is consistent with the general trend noted during shovel testing in the western yard of the

mansion; fewer artifacts were recovered from the southern portion than the northern portion.

Figure 4 provides a general graphic overview of the assemblages. Note that brick has been

excluded from this figure; it comprised a near identical percentage (approximately 50%) of

artifacts recovered from each unit (Unit 4, n=718; Unit 5, n=214).

27

Figure 4: Partial comparison of assemblages from Units 4 and 5 at 18AN339

A higher percentage of architectural materials, including brick, mortar, and nails were

recovered from Unit 4 (65.9% of the Unit 4 assemblage vs. 44.5% in Unit 5), but a near equal

number of wrought (n=52) and cut nails (n=59) were collected from this unit. The ceramic

assemblage of Unit 4 further suggests 19th century admixture of artifacts. Several sherds of a

19th century green-tinted hard-paste porcelain vessel with drain holes in the base (probably a

colander), along with 19 whiteware and three ironstone sherds are most likely were used during

the Contee occupation of Java Farm. However, tin-glazed earthenware sherds (n=11), including

one lead-backed sherd, one Rhenish stoneware sherd, two English Brown stoneware sherds, and

two white saltglaze stoneware sherd are possibly representative of the earlier Sparrow

occupation. The archaeologists noted that the stones at the base of the unit were laying in an

artifact-producing Stratum 4, but excavation was halted at the base of Stratum 3. Additional

work should be undertaken in the vicinity of Unit 4 in the future to explore Stratum 4 and

possibly clarify the usage of this portion of the site.

In general, the number, percentage, and functional variety of artifacts recovered from the

southern portion of the site were less than that recovered to the north. Only coal was recovered

in greater quantities in the southern yard. This suggests an absence of a domestic area that pre-

28

dates the 1747 construction of the mansion in this portion of the site. One anomaly was detected

during the magnetometer survey to the west of Unit 5 that could warrant further analysis, but in

general it appears the research potential of this portion of the site is limited.

Unit 8 was the final unit excavated that was not eventually part of a larger block of units

(see Figure 2). This unit was placed in the western portion of site 18AN339 based on an

anomaly noted in the vicinity during the magnetometry survey. Two strata were identified in this

unit. Stratum 1 (10YR 5/3 brown sandy loam) produced few artifacts (n=140), and brick

constituted about 87% (n=122) of the stratum assemblage. Three hand wrought nails, one small

tin-glazed earthenware sherd, and one whiteware sherd were the only diagnostic artifacts. One

thin iron wire, measuring nearly a foot in length, and a threaded iron pipe were also recovered

from Stratum 1. These were possibly the cause of the magnetometer hit in this area. Stratum 2

(10YR 5/3 brown compact sandy clay loam with brick flecking) produced 285 artifacts, and 55%

of this was brick (n=157). Notable artifacts recovered from this stratum included 24 hand

wrought nails, two Rhenish stoneware sherds, one English stoneware sherd, three pearlware

sherds, three whiteware sherds, a few red-bodied coarse earthenware sherds with black lead

glaze, one honey-colored gun flint, and 12 olive bottle glass fragments. In addition to these, one

possible obsidian flake was recovered from this strat. Stratum 3 (10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silt

loam) was exposed at the base of excavations. A light scattering of brick and stone rubble was

exposed, but no artifacts were noted during trowling. Due to the temporal mix of artifacts and

the apparently sterile soil encountered at the base of the unit, excavation was halted and the unit

was backfilled.

The remaining test units were ultimately clustered in two large blocks to the south of Unit

3. A total of 22 units were fully excavated in the block in 2007, and a number of interesting

features were uncovered (Figure 5). All of the features were clustered in the northern block.

Four units (Units 6, 10, 12, and 15) were clustered to the southeast and while no features were

noted, ironstone rubble, similar to that seen at the base of Unit 4, was noted in varying degrees of

density at the base of all of them. This ironstone was sporadically noted in limited densities

throughout the remainder of the northern block. However, a relatively higher percentage of

artifacts were noted in the southern block than the northern block.

29

In general, the northern portion of the block was excavated in two layers, while the

southern block was excavated in three layers. This was done because nearly every unit in the

northern block hit a feature at the base of stratum 2. Stratum 3 in the southern units produced

few artifacts and included the ironstone rubble. These units were also slightly deeper than those

to the north, terminating about 1.25 ft. below ground surface.

Soil colors and textures were generally quite similar throughout the blocks, containing

varying densities of brick, shell, and rock rubble. Strat 1 was typically a 10YR 4/4 dark

yellowish brown silty loam, while Strat 2 was typically a 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown silty clay

loam. In the four units in the southern block, Strat 3 was mottled with more sand and contained

60% 10YR 7/4 very pale brown and 40% 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown sandy loam.

30

19

18

20

17

24

25

26

23

21

28

22

1327

9 11

14

16

10

6

12 15

7

100

Scale (in ft.)

North

GridTrue

Key:RockBrickShell

Figure 5: Numbered excavation units within block at 18AN339

31

Features at 18AN339

A total of 22 features were uncovered in the excavation block located to the west of the

mansion ruins; only Feature 1 was located outside of this block and was identified during the

2006 investigation (Figure 6). As stated above, none of the features have been excavated and

few have been fully uncovered, so it is difficult to determine what is contemporaneous with

what. A description and initial impressions of each feature follows (Table 1):

Table 1: Features Identified at 18AN339

Feature Number

Associated features

Feature Description

1 Robbed foundation trench in Unit 2; only feature identified in 2006 2 4, 5 The brick hearth 3 3a, 6 Large shell feature to west of hearth 3a Mortar-rich area at southern end of shell feature 4 2 Burned area inside of hearth; varying degrees of charring 5 2 Heavily burnt area inside of hearth, located at exterior end of firebox 6 3 Possible post hole located within large shell feature, to west of hearth 7 Post hole and mold, probably original post, located to northeast of hearth 8 Post hole and mold, probably repair post, located to northeast of hearth 9 Post hole and mold located to southeast of hearth 10 Small circular stain located just west of hearth, possible post mold, related to chimney

construction? 11 Small circular stain located just west of hearth, possible post mold, related to chimney

construction? 12 13 Circular stain located near southwest corner of hearth; oyster, brick fleck, and charcoal

inclusions; surrounds feature 13 13 12 Circular stain located near southwest corner of hearth; infrequent brick and oyster

shell, very infrequent charcoal inclusions; surrounded by feature 12 14 Dense brick layer, circular in shape, located off of northwest corner of hearth 15 Destruction rubble pile of predominately ironstone and sandstone; generally in line

with hearth 16 Destruction rubble pile of predominately brick and daub rubble; partially overlays two

post holes (Features 7 & 8) 17 18, 19, 20 Part of feature complex partially exposed in northern portion of excavation block;

semi-circular, located furthest east in complex 18 17, 19, 20 Part of feature complex partially exposed in northern portion of excavation block;

semi-circular, surrounds Feature 19 19 17, 18, 20 Part of feature complex partially exposed in northern portion of excavation block;

semi-circular, surrounded by Feature 18 20 17, 18, 19 Part of feature complex partially exposed in northern portion of excavation block;

located furthest west in complex 21 22 Moderately mortar-rich feature located at northern end of large shell feature; truncated

by Feature 22 22 21 Heavily mortar-rich feature located at northern end of large shell feature; appears to

have partially truncated Feature 21

32

15

92

10

11

13

12

45

16

3

3a

14

6

21 22

19 1718

20

8

7

3

3

100

Scale (in ft.)

North

GridTrue

Key:RockBrickShell

Figure 6: Site plan showing numbered features in the excavation block at 18AN339

33

Feature 1

Feature 1 was identified at the base of Stratum 2 in Unit 2, excavated in 2006 (Cox et al.

2007b). It represents the western portion of the unit and was defined as a robbed foundation

trench associated with the no longer standing southern hyphen of the mansion. This was a rubble

filled trench, measuring 2.3 ft. wide and filled with large architectural rubble of mortar, stone,

and brick, along with copious window glass, nails, and occasional ceramics and vessel glass.

This rubble is likely associated with the destruction of this wing of the building during the 1890s

fire.

Features 2, 4, & 5

Features 2, 4, and 5 represent a brick hearth and the burned area inside the firebox (see

Figure 6). Feature 2 is the brick hearth itself, which measures 12 ft. long on the exterior and 8 ft.

long on the interior. The width of the hearth is by 5 ft. long on the exterior by 3 ft. long on the

interior. The hearth is better preserved and the bricks are more fully articulated in the southern

portion; the northern bricks are loose and crumbly, and it is difficult to determine the precise

outline of the feature. Features 4 and 5 represent portions of the burned area inside the hearth

(Figure 7). Feature 4 is a 10YR 3/4 dark yellowish brown silty clay loam with brick and

charcoal flecking and occasional mortar, rocks and oyster shell. Feature 5 is a heavily burnt area

further to the exterior of the firebox. It consists of a 10YR 4/3 brown silty clay loam with larger

bricks and brick flecking, heavy charcoal, and occasional mortar and shells.

34

Figure 7: Features 2 (the brick hearth), 4, and 5 (burned areas inside hearth) at 18AN339; Feature 3 (the shell midden) visible to west.

This single-sided hearth and burned area was at one time most likely located on the gable

end of an earthfast building. No distinctive foundation was identified in the surrounding area,

and a number of post holes with molds were noted to the east of the hearth (Features 7-9). This

hearth is most likely related to these posts.

Features 3 & 3a

Feature 3 represents a large shell-rich feature located to the west of the brick hearth

(Figure 8). The majority of the soil within the feature is comprised of a 10YR 5/3 brown silty

loam with frequent whole oysters and oyster fragments, and frequent daub and brick fragments.

The exposed portion of this feature measures approximately 12 ft. long by 8 ft. wide, but much

of it has yet to be uncovered. A number of artifacts, including faunal remains and an iron spoon

handle, were noted in the top layer of the feature; the spoon handle was taken back to the lab for

curation. Feature 3a seems to be a portion of the greater Feature 3 with a similar concentration

of oyster shell, but more mortar was noted in this section of the feature, along with higher

concentrations of brick and charcoal.

35

Figure 8: Feature 3 (the shell feature) shown in relative position to Feature 2 (the brick hearth, partially exposed in background) and the Squirrel Neck/Java mansion ruins at

18AN339

Features 6, 7, 8, & 9

Features 6, 7, 8, and 9 represent post holes and their associated molds situated to the east

and west of the brick hearth (see Figure 6). Feature 6 is actually located within Feature 3, the

shell midden, and represents a slightly darker stain filled with a higher percentage of brick

36

rubble. Because the stain is located within the larger shell midden, its shape is difficult to

discern. It is the only post hole noted to the west of, or behind, the brick hearth.

Features 7, 8, and 9 are all located to the east of the hearth. Features 7 and 8 represent a

post and repair post and their associated molds situated to the northeast of the hearth. It appears

Feature 7 was the original post and Feature 8 was the later repair post. This was surmised

because the post mold in Feature 7 contains few artifacts, while the mold of Feature 8 is chock

full of rocks and brick rubble, suggesting more artifacts were in the area when the post was

removed. The hole of Feature 7 contains a 10YR 4/3 brown loam mottled with 25% 10YR 5/6

yellowish brown clay, while the mold of Feature 7 contains a 10YR 3/3 dark brown clay loam.

The post hole contains a 10YR 4/3 brown silty loam mottled with 50% 10YR 6/6 brownish

yellow clay, while the post mold of Feature 8 contains a 10YR 3/3 dark brown silty loam with

large rocks and brick bats (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Feature 7 (to right) and Feature 8 (to left) at 18AN339, facing south; Feature 16 (brick rubble pile) partially visible to top of frame

37

Feature 9 is located to the southeast of the hearth and represents another post hole and

associated post mold (Figure 10). It appears that the post hole is not fully uncovered and extends

south and west into unexcavated areas. No artifacts were noted in the hole or mold, suggesting it

is probably first generation. The post mold contains a 10YR 3/3 dark brown clay, while the hole

contains a 10YR 3/6 dark yellowish brown clay mottled with a 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown

clay. The post mold here in Feature 9 seems very small compared to the large size of the hole.

Figure 10: Feature 9 (the post hole and mold) at 18AN339, visible in lower right

It should be noted here that Features 7 and 9 are 16 ft. apart, while Features 6 and 7 are

also 16 ft. apart. This measurement was a typical size for the width of an earthfast building in

the 17th century.

Features 10 & 11

Features 10 and 11 appear to be small post molds without associated holes situated just

behind (to the west) of the southern edge of the brick hearth (see Figure 6). These small stains

consist primarily of a 10YR 3/3 dark brown sandy loam with infrequent brick flecking, mottled

38

with 10% 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy clay. Their proximity to the hearth suggests

some sort of relation with the chimney. It is possible that these could have been small support

posts used during construction of the hearth or posts to support a leaning wattle and daub

chimney.

Features 12 & 13

Features 12 and 13 represent partially-exposed stains located behind (west of) the

southwest exterior corner of the hearth (see Figure 6). These stains appear to be circular in shape

and Feature 13 is located within Feature 12. Judging by the exposed curvature of the features,

they would probably be quite large, possibly measuring 5 ft. or greater in diameter. Feature 12,

the exterior feature, contains a 10YR 3/3 dark brown sandy clay with inclusions of oyster shell,

brick flecks, and charcoal mottled with 35% 10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy clay.

Feature 13, the interior circular feature, consists of a 10YR 3/3 dark brown sandy loam with 20%

10YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy loam with inclusions of infrequent brick and oyster shell

and very infrequent charcoal. There is a possibility that these features could be structural and

related to the earthfast building, but too little of it is exposed to be certain.

Feature 14

Feature 14 represents a dense brick layer containing several brick bats and crumbled brick

(see Figure 6). The soil between the bricks contains a 10YR 5/3 brown sandy loam with a few

larger ironstone rocks. This feature seems to extend in a circular shape off of the northwest

corner of the hearth. This portion of the hearth is very loosely articulated and poorly defined,

and the feature seems to be a continuation of the crumbed bricks. There is a possibility that

Feature 14 could be structural in some way considering its proximity to the hearth, or could be a

layer related to the destruction of the building.

Features 15 and 16

Features 15 and 16 represent destruction rubble piles located to the east and northeast of

the hearth (see Figure 6). Feature 15 is located just east of the northern wing of the hearth and

39

contains over 90% ironstone and sandstone rubble. Some brick flecks and bits of oyster shell

were noted in a matrix of a 10YR 3/3 dark brown silty loam (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Features 15 (the rock rubble pile, shown to top), 16 (the brick rubble pile, center), 7 and 8 (the two post holes and molds, shown to right) at 18AN339, facing southwest

Feature 16 is located to the north of Feature 15 and consists of more brick bats, brick

rubble, and daub with a minimal amount of stone rubble. This feature overlays the two side-by-

side post holes and molds, called Features 7 and 8. The soil in between the bricks is a 10YR 5/3

brown silty loam. Most of the brick here is fragmented and soft, similar to what was noted in the

northern edge of the hearth itself.

Features 17, 18, 19, & 20

Features 17, 18, 19, and 20 are a series of what appear to be related stains in the very

northern portion of the exposed excavation block (see Figure 6). The features are generally

circular in shape, and none of them are fully exposed. Moving from west to east, Feature 17

consists of a 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty clay mottled with 50% 10YR 6/6 brownish

40

yellow silt and a number of ironstone rocks. This feature appears to have been cut at a later date

by Feature 18, located just to the west. This semi-circular feature measures approximately 6 ft.

in diameter and consists of 10YR 5/3 brown silty loam with 50% 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish

brown with inclusions of infrequent brick bits, mortar, and bone.

Lying in the center in of Feature 18 are Features 19 and 20. Feature 19 appears to have

roughly the same shape as Feature 18, and its exposed diameter measures approximately 3 ft.

This feature consists of a 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt mottled with 40% 10YR 5/3 brown

silt and frequent shell, mortar, and brick flecks. Feature 19 may have been excavated at a later

time than Feature 20, as it appears to have truncated it. Feature 20 is located just to the west of

Feature 19 and consists of a 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown silt with inclusions of occasional brick,

mortar, and shell.

The nature, date, or meaning of this feature complex is unclear. Some have speculated

that this could represent a large structural post hole for the earthfast building, as it is situated just

to the north of the brick hearth. A large building would require a large post hole and mold, and

the complex is in a location expected of an end post. It could also represent a portion of a

second, later structure built in the area. Further excavations may reveal the nature of this

complex.

Features 21 and 22

Features 21 and 22 represent stains filled with mortar that are located just to the north of

Feature 3, the large oyster-rich feature (see Figure 6). Feature 21 is located to the west of

Feature 22 and consists of a 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silty loam with inclusions of mortar

chunks and brick bits. It appears Feature 22 was partially excavated into Feature 21, and it

consists of a 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown silt loam with heavy mortar and brick inclusions.

The use or function of these features is unclear, but their proximity to the edge of the shell

feature, Feature 3, suggests some sort of relationship (Figure 12).

41

Figure 12: Features 21 and 22 (shown left and center) in proximity to Feature 3 (the shell

feature) at 18AN339

Feature Summary

To summarize, a total of 21 features were fully or partially exposed at 18AN339 during

the 2007 field season; only Feature 1 was identified in 2006 to the south of the mansion ruins.

The two largest features identified this season were a single-sided brick hearth (Feature 2) that

once provided heat and light for an earthfast building, and an oyster shell-rich feature (Feature 3)

situated to the west of the hearth. Assuming these features are contemporaneous, the shell

feature would probably be situated just outside the gable end of the building.

The hearth is of a decent size for a 17th century earthfast building, measuring 12 ft. long

on the outside by 5 ft. wide. Varying stages of burning were noted inside the hearth, as would be

expected in a large hearth of this size; it is highly doubtful that the full firebox would be filled

with burning timber throughout the year. The hearth is in varying stages of degradation. The

bricks are more articulated and intact to the south and more crumbled and friable to the north.

42

Oddly enough, the northern end was more deeply buried, while the southern end was closer to

the existing ground surface. It is possible that at some point since the destruction of the building,

the plow clipped the northern end of the hearth causing it to become partially destroyed.

Alternatively, later use of the building or its very destruction could have negatively impacted the

hearth.

At least three post holes with molds were also identified this field season (Features 7, 8,

and 9). These posts almost certainly mark two walls of the same earthfast building that

possessed the chimney base. The posts are situated 16 ft. apart, which is a typical measurement

for post-in-ground buildings of the 17th century. A fourth feature, located behind the hearth and

contained within the large shell-rich feature, may represent another post hole (Feature 6). This

feature is marked by slightly darker soil than the surrounding shell-rich matrix and contains more

brick bats. Coincidentally, this feature is located 16 ft. from one of the other northern post holes.

Having said that, it is difficult to imagine what the building might have looked like if it

continued 5 ft. behind a single-sided chimney.

Two small stains located just behind the chimney base on its southern side may represent

the locations of small posts utilized during construction of the chimney, or possibly to support a

leaning wattle and daub chimney (Features 10 and 11). It seems most likely that the chimney

itself was constructed of wattle and daub rather than brick, judging by the relative paucity of

brick in the vicinity. There is, however, a brick and daub-rich feature situated east of the hearth,

probably representing destruction rubble (Feature 16). A second rubble layer, consisting

primarily of ironstone and sandstone with limited brick and daub, is located just to the east of the

hearth (Feature 15).

A number of other features and feature complexes may also represent structural posts in

the vicinity. A mid-sized semi-circular feature is located adjacent to the northwestern corner of

the hearth, consisting mainly of friable brick rubble (Feature 14). A feature complex is located

directly to the north of the hearth, and this might represent an incredibly large post hole and mold

(Features 17-20). Finally, a semi-circular feature complex located off the southwestern corner of

the hearth might also be a partially exposed large post hole and mold (Features 12 and 13).

43

It should also be mentioned that just because areas between these described features

appear to be blank on the site map (see Figures 5 and 6) does not mean these are areas of

culturally sterile subsoil. It simply means that there are no obvious features in that area, and as is

suggested on the site map, bits of brick, mortar, oyster shell, and charcoal occur in varying

amounts throughout the base of excavation. Only further digging will reveal what is

contemporaneous with what and where some of these features actually begin and end.

Artifact Analysis

For ease of discussion, the following artifact analysis places the collection into

generalized artifact categories, including kitchen-related artifacts, architectural-related artifacts,

arms-related materials, horse furniture, and personal materials. This technique loosely follows

the functional groups outlined by South (1977). Each group was distributed spatially using

Surfer software, and a few of these are presented in the following discussion.

The artifact assemblage from Java was recovered solely from the plow zone, and no

intact features have yet been excavated. Therefore, statistical analyses like mean ceramic dates,

Binford pipe stem examination, minimum ceramic vessel count, or a highly detailed faunal

analysis were not conducted because the artifacts came from mixed contexts. The entire

assemblage will be curated at the Anne Arundel County archaeology laboratory in Londontown,

Maryland, and conservation is ongoing.

A total of 34,141 artifacts have been recovered from 18AN339 over the course of two

field seasons; the 2007 field season alone produced 30,153. This material culture demonstrates a

wide cross-section of the rich cultural heritage of the site. Prehistoric materials were recovered

alongside 20th century artifacts, telling of the long occupation of the area. All of the artifacts

recovered during this field season came from the plow zone, which due to erosion, is of varying

depths throughout the site. It is difficult to make assumptions about the lifeways of one family

over another with such a mixed assemblage. However, with careful examination, we can draw

some conclusions.

A very basic breakdown of the assemblage into generalized categories reveals that the

highest percentage (32%) of artifacts were in the masonry group, which includes brick, mortar,

44

plaster, daub, and tiles (Figure 13). However, brick will be excluded from the remainder of this

analysis due to inconsistencies in field collection methods. Over 10,000 bricks were recovered

from Java, but it is not clear how many more were discarded in the field, particularly when we

screened the brick rubble-heavy soils that overlay the brick hearth. Therefore, when the brick is

excluded from this basic breakdown, the masonry category now only represents 4% of the

assemblage (n=944). This difference is displayed visually in Figures 13 and 14.

Figure 13: Total artifacts recovered from 18AN339

45

Figure 14: Total artifacts without brick at 18AN339

As Figure 14 shows, a nearly even percentage of faunal remains (including bones, teeth,

shells, and scales; n=6,929) and metal materials (n=6,702) were recovered from across the entire

site. Ceramics, including tobacco pipes, make up 17% of the assemblage (n=4,043). Lithics

(including debitage, fire cracked rock, gun flints, and slag), glass (including window glass, table

glass, and beads), and floral materials (charcoal, seeds, and nuts) round out the remaining 22% of

the assemblage.

The highest concentration of artifacts were recovered from the excavated areas located to

the south and east of the hearth, probably once situated inside the earthfast building.

Kitchen-Related Artifacts

The kitchen-related artifacts recovered from Java include ceramics, table and bottle glass,

faunal remains, and cutlery. A great deal was found inside or just to the south of the footprint of

the 17th century earthfast building; this is also where the highest concentration of all artifacts

were found. Many of these artifacts date to the Sparrow period of occupation (circa 1650-1748),

but all were recovered from mixed contexts. However, with careful analysis we can make a few

conclusions about the lifeways of the various occupants of the site.

46

Ceramics

Removing the pipes from the ceramic assemblage leaves a total of 2,086 fragments of

pottery recovered from Java. These ceramics span hundreds of years of occupation of the site,

from the 28 pieces of low-fired prehistoric pottery to the 247 pieces of 19th and 20th century

whiteware and much more in between. A total of 79% of the ceramics are earthenware

(n=1657), 15% are stonewares (n=311), and 6% are porcelains (n=118). Figure 15 presents this

generalized breakdown of the entire ceramic assemblage.

Figure 15: Total ceramics (minus pipes) recovered from 18AN339

The earthenware assemblage is highly varied, but tin-glazed earthenwares represent over

50% of these ceramics. Refined white earthenwares (creamware, pearlware, whiteware,

ironstone, and unidentified white earthenware) comprise about 33% of the assemblage. Figure

16 presents the total earthenwares from the site below.

47

Figure 16: Total earthenwares recovered from 18AN339

Consistent with the total artifact distribution, the majority of the tin-gazed earthenwares

were recovered from south and east of the hearth. Considering the proximity and location of

these 17th and 18th century artifacts in relation to the contemporaneous building, it seems highly

likely that these cups, saucers, and dishes were utilized by the Sparrow family when they

occupied this building. This also suggests that there has been little horizontal shifting of the

artifacts over the centuries.

Many of these ceramics were hand painted with blue decoration, but some were more

colorful, containing orange, black, or purple geometric designs (Figure 17). Most of the sherds,

having been recovered from the plow zone, are too small and broken to decipher what image the

artist was attempting to portray.

48

Figure 17: Example of tin-glazed earthenware sherds recovered from main excavation block at 18AN339

A total of six polychrome lead-backed tin-glazed earthenware sherds were also recovered

from the vicinity. The lead-backing on these ceramics suggests they may have been used for

wall hangings or decorative purposes, rather than for dining.

Other ceramics recovered that date to the Sparrow occupation of the earthfast building

include one sherd of North Italian Slipware that was manufactured from roughly 1610-1675,

seven sherds of North Devon coarse earthenware (circa 1680-1720), one Buckley-like

earthenware sherd (circa 1720-1775), and 13 manganese mottled earthenware sherds (circa 1680-

1750). All of these ceramics were recovered from the immediate vicinity of the earthfast

building and none were recovered from any of the shovel test pits or the three units excavated

closer to the mansion. This strongly suggests that we are excavating in the locus of the thus-

identified 17th century Sparrow-period occupation.

49

The refined white earthenwares recovered (creamware, pearlware, whiteware, ironstone)

largely post-date the Sparrow period of occupation at the site. English creamware is not seen on

American sites until the 1760s, almost 15 years after the Maccubbin acquisition of the property.

However, these artifacts do speak to the long Maccubbin and subsequent Contee occupation of

the property. A number of creamware dishes, blue shell-edged pearlware tablewares, and

transfer-printed whiteware sherds were recovered during the excavations. The presence of these

later 18th and 19th century artifacts is telling of the ways in which this portion of the site was

utilized after the construction of the brick Georgian mansion in the 1750s. It is possible that after

the old earthfast building was torn down, this part of the site was used only for refuse disposal.

Another possibility is that the old building was reused for storage, industry, or housing of tenants

or slaves who had little material wealth. Future excavations are necessary to determine if any of

the exposed features date to the 18th or 19th century and to determine the spatial layout of the site

determined by these later owners of the land.

The stoneware assemblage, presented in Figure 18, shows Rhenish as the highest single

percentage recovered (30%). Many of the Rhenish stonewares from Java are beautifully

decorated, some with cobalt and manganese ornamentation that dates to the last quarter of the

17th century. A number of the sherds are also incised and sprig molded. Only eight of the sherds

were identified as Rhenish Brown, which often served more utilitarian purposes than its highly

decorated cousins.

50

Figure 18: Total stoneware recovered from 18AN339

Many of the earlier English brown stoneware fragments appear to be mugs or tankards

either slip dipped or with a band of iron oxide at the rim. One of these fragments contains the

mark “AR”, indicating it was manufactured during the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714). A few

mid-18th century white-bodied stoneware dish fragments were also recovered from the

excavation block, although these post-date the Sparrow occupation of the site (Figure 19).

Additionally, 18 sherds of domestically-produced gray-bodied stonewares were

recovered, accounting for only about 6% of the total stoneware assemblage. These blue-

decorated wares were not produced in this country until about 1725, but were very popular and

widely available during the later 18th century and through the 19th century. It is not clear if these

vessels were used during the Sparrow occupation of the land.

51

Figure 19: Selection of Rhenish stoneware, English brown stoneware, refined white earthenware, Rockingham, and North Italian slipware recovered from excavation block at

18AN339

Only 118 sherds of porcelain were recovered from both seasons of fieldwork at

18AN339. This accounts for 6% of the entire ceramic assemblage. All of the sherds are hard

pasted, and a few have hand painted blue decoration. A number of porcelain sherds are

decorated with an orange sunburst decal pattern (1890-present). These sherds were recovered

from a number of units in the northwest corner of the excavation block, and speak to the late 19th

and early 20th century occupation of the site (Figure 20). It should be noted that these sherds

were recovered from strata 2 and 3. This makes it clear that these soil layers are not intact, but

have the same level of temporal admixture of artifacts seen in stratum 1.

52

Figure 20: Porcelain sherds with overglaze decal sunburst decoration recovered from Strata 2 and 3 at 18AN339

A number of fragments of a greenish colored porcelain vessel were recovered from Unit

4, located to the west of the main excavation block (Figure 21). A red, hand-painted overglazed

floral decoration is located on the interior rim of the vessel. Most of these fragments mended to

form what appeared to be a small, oval-shaped bowl with drain holes in the bottom, much like

colander. A number of ceramics experts looked at this vessel and concluded that it is most likely

a late-19th century English porcelain soap dish, but they were unable to assign a specific maker

or date. This unit did produce proportionately more 18th and 19th century materials than did the

excavation block, which is not surprising, considering its proximity to the mansion ruins.

53

Figure 21: Nineteenth century soap dish from 18AN339

Vessel Glass

A total of 1,433 vessel glass fragments were recovered from Java. Table 2 below

presents a breakdown of this portion of the assemblage.

Table 2: Total Vessel Glass Recovered from 18AN339

Type Number Percentage Vial 45 3% Table 49 4% Unidentified 477 33% Bottle 862 60% TOTAL 1433 100%

Of those fragments that could be identified, over 60% were bottles. And of these 862

sherds, over 81% were olive green wine bottle sherds (n=701). The table glass assemblage

consists of over 78% clear drinking glasses (n=38), along with a few cobalt and yellow

unidentified forms.

54

Faunal Remains

Nearly 7,000 bones, teeth, scales, and shells were recovered from 18AN339. Figure 22

presents the breakdown of this assemblage graphically.

Figure 22: Total faunal remains recovered from 18AN339

This assemblage reflects the long occupation of the hilltop, although the overwhelming

majority was recovered from the excavation block. Relatively few faunal remains were noted in

the units and shovel tests excavated closer to the mansion, possibly suggesting we have not

found the kitchen trash area utilized during the main period of occupation of the mansion house.

Within the main excavation block itself, the southern portion produced the most faunal remains,

consistent with the distribution of total artifacts. There was probably a lot of butchering taking

place next to the firebox, not to mention the casual discarding of bones once the meat had been

consumed. Appropriately, many of the bones from this area had butcher or saw marks on them

(Figure 23).

55

Figure 23: Two mammal bone fragments with butcher marks recovered from the excavation block area at 18AN339

Of the bones that could be identified, the overwhelming majority were mammals (93%).

About 4% of the bones were avian and less than 1% were piscine. All of the 665 teeth and tooth

fragments recovered were from mammals, many from pigs or cows.

Oyster shells make up the overwhelming majority (99%, or n=1417) of the shells

recovered at the site, but it should be noted that in general, only those with “female” hinges, or

those that were relatively whole, were taken back to the lab for processing. Fragments of shells

were often discarded in the field. The remaining shells recovered from the site included four

clam shells, one snail shell, and two egg shells.

56

Cutlery

A total of seven knife fragments, two table fork fragments, one iron spoon bowl

fragment, one possible pewter spoon handle, and one iron spoon bowl represent the entire cutlery

assemblage recovered from Java. All of these were recovered from the main excavation block or

the immediately surrounding areas (Figure 24).

Figure 24: Iron utensils recovered from excavation block area at 18AN339 (l-r: knife, three-tined fork, two-tined fork, spoon bowl)

Nearly all the cutlery was made of iron or an iron alloy. This is most likely more

reflective of what has been preserved in the ground, rather than the actual preferences of the

Sparrow family. The presence of the two forks around the remains of a circa-1670 house is

striking, as forks are rarely seen on archaeological sites in the Chesapeake until the very end of

the 17th century. However, it should be stated that the forks were not recovered from intact

contexts and could have been disposed of in the 18th century, when they were more widely

available and accepted. One of these forks was two-tined, while the other was three-tined;

57

generally speaking, two-tined forks were manufactured as early as the early 17th century, while

three-tined forks are more of an 18th century invention.

Three knife fragments recovered mend to form a whole knife from Unit 15, located south

of the building footprint. These fragments, along with a second whole knife blade recovered

from Unit 10, further the suggestion that this portion of the site was used as a refuse disposal

area.

The two spoon fragments were also recovered from outside of the building footprint.

One simple, undecorated iron spoon handle was recovered from within the large shell feature,

Feature 3, located behind the brick hearth. And one narrow, drawn out spoon bowl was

recovered from Unit 28, located along the southern edge of the building. The shape and material

of this bowl suggest it dates to the early 18th century, still within the Sparrow period of

occupation.

Architectural Materials

Thousands of architectural artifacts were recovered from Java, including nails, brick,

mortar, daub, window leads, and flat glass. Like all of the objects to which a date can be

assigned, these artifacts span the entire historic period occupation. Again, no features have been

excavated at the site, and all of the artifacts were recovered from mixed contexts.

Nails

A total of 5,318 nails were recovered from the site. Figure 25 shows the breakdown of

the nail assemblage graphically.

58

Figure 25: Total nails recovered from 18AN339

The wide date ranges of these artifacts suggest they were left here during the Sparrow,

Maccubbin, Contee, and later 20th century occupations of the site. While this past season of

excavations proved there was a 17th century presence on the hilltop, we have yet to determine

how long this earthfast building stood, or how this part of the plantation was utilized after the

construction of the circa-1750 mansion. There are no drawings of the mansion until the 1880s,

when an outbuilding is depicted to the northeast of the main house (see Cox et al. 2007b). The

presence of cut and wire nails recovered from the excavation block this past season could be a

result of this, or another outbuilding in the vicinity.

Over 61% of the nails recovered at the site were hand wrought (n=3248). Relatively

few wrought nails were recovered from outside of the excavation block. Within the block, the

highest percentage of these nails was recovered from the units to the east of the hearth, or within

the footprint of the earthfast, wooden building (see Figure 38). The presence of thousands of

hand wrought nails from the vicinity strongly suggests that the building was repaired multiple

times during its lifetime. The repair post (Feature 8) identified to the northeast of the hearth

further endorses this theory (see Figure 6).

A total of 423 machine-cut nails were recovered from Java, representing about 8% of the

nail assemblage. The majority of the cut nails were recovered from the units situated to the east

59

of the brick hearth, on the mansion-side of the hill. A simple distribution shows that this would

put many of the nails around the footprint of the building, but this begs the question, how long

was this building utilized? Assuming this is one of the same buildings that Thomas Sparrow

referred to in his 1675 will, the earthfast building would be nearly 150 years old by the time cut

nails were becoming widely available (circa 1820). It is not out of the question that the structure

could have been adaptively reused for over a century, but it does seem somewhat unlikely. With

luck, future excavations into some of the features in the area will answer this question.

One test unit, Unit 27, did produce a strikingly high number of cut nails (n=41) relative to

the units around it. Unit 27 (see Figure 5) is situated to the northwest of the hearth. Many of

these nails are identical to one another, suggesting that this may represent a single episode of

deposition. Could this be the spot where a box or container of nails was accidentally dropped

sometime during the 19th century Contee occupation? It seems very possible.

About 27% of the nails from the site were cataloged as “square.” In other words, the

laboratory professionals were unable to determine if the nails were hand wrought or machine cut.

This descriptor does state that they were able to tell with certainty that these nails were not wire.

The 197 nails called “unidentified” were degraded to the point that they were not able to be put

into any definitive category.

Only 1% of the nail assemblage (n=39) was wire, or modern, nails that became widely

available after about 1890. It should be noted that about half of these nails came from Strat 1,

while the other half came from Strat 2. As an example, Unit 17, located just inside the 17th

century brick hearth, produced two wire nails from strat 2. This strat also produced 117 hand

wrought nails, Rhenish stoneware, blue decorated tin-glazed earthenware, and a window lead.

This unit demonstrates that no intact stratigraphy has been encountered in the large block

excavated at 18AN339.

Window Leads

A total of 34 window leads were recovered from Java. All of these were recovered from

the excavation block area; none came from the shovel tests or the units near the mansion ruins.

But as with all of the dateable materials, the leads were recovered from mixed contexts in Strats

60

1, 2, and 3. However, most of the leads were recovered from units to the east of the brick hearth,

many along the edges of the footprint of the building, demonstrating that much of this early

material has not shifted significantly along the horizontal plane.

The presence of these leads demonstrate that the 17th century building that stood here

contained glazed casement windows, which is not surprising considering the wealth of the

Sparrow family. Even if this building is not one of the two houses Thomas Sparrow II referred

to in his 1675 will, it would be surprising if a house of the time period did not contain at least a

few casement windows.

Two of the leads recovered from Unit 23 were marked with initials and a date. Unit 23

was also the location of a post hole and mold (Feature 9), situated just off the southeast edge of

the brick hearth (see Figures 5 and 6). When unfolded, one lead was marked with the initials

“WM” surrounded by stars, while the second was marked with the date, “1671”, also surrounded

by stars (Figure 26). The similar star design on the leads suggests that these leads may have

come from the same casement window and that they were certainly made by the same maker.

Figure 26: Window leads recovered from Unit 23 at 18AN339 with makers marks “*WM*” (l)

and “*1671*” (r)

61

The “*WM*1671*” mark is fairly ubiquitous in terms of marked window leads recovered

from temporally similar sites. Two identical leads were recovered from the St. John’s site and

the van Sweringen site in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. In fact, the initials “WM” have been seen

on leads recovered from sites ranging from Jamestown, Gloucester County, Virginia, New

Jersey, Ontario, Canada, and London, England with corresponding dates ranging from 1671 to

1687 (Hanna et al. 1992). This strongly suggests these leads were manufactured in England and

speak to the vast trading patterns entrenched by the late-17th century.

Flat Glass

A total of 582 pieces of flat glass were recovered from the excavations at Java, but of

these, only about 25% (n=145) was definitively called window glass. Most of this window glass

was aqua or clear in color, which could have been found in an earthfast building of the 17th

century.

Much of the flat glass was recovered from inside the footprint of the post-in-ground

building, but the highest counts were recovered from Unit 1 (n=84) and Unit 2 (n=47), both

excavated in the 2006 field season. These units were in the immediate vicinity on the brick

mansion house which was occupied from circa 1750 through the 1920s. Considering the

increasing availably of window glass through the 18th and 19th centuries and the numerous

recorded alterations that took place on the mansion, it is of little surprise that proportionately

more glass would be located in this area.

Brick, Mortar, Daub

Considering the long period of occupation at the site and the construction of at least two

houses on top of the hill, it is little surprise that we recovered thousands of fragments of brick,

mortar, plaster, and daub from our excavations. As mentioned above, brick was collected

inconsistently, particularly when the soils that overlay the hearth were screened. These soils

were rich with brick rubble, and the decision was made to only collect large fragments.

Regardless, 10,014 red brick fragments were recovered from the site. Very few of these were

complete bricks, but a number of them exhibited partial glazing. Glazed bricks were used as

decorative elements in the pilasters of the circa-1750 brick mansion.

62

A full quarter of the mortar recovered from the site came from Unit 1, excavated along

the west wall of the mansion ruins (n=175; 20.023 oz.). Most of the remainder of the mortar

came from the units excavated behind, or to the east of, the brick hearth. Not surprisingly, the

highest percentages in this area were noted in the units that overlay the northern and southern

mortar-rich areas of the shell feature (Feature 3; Units 7, 14, and 27).

Daub, due to its resemblance to brick in the field, was probably also collected

inconsistently. However, 182 daub fragments were recovered from the site, the majority coming

from the units that surround the brick hearth. The presence of this daub in the area strongly

suggests that the chimney was constructed of wattle and daub at some point during the life of the

earthfast building.

Arms-Related Materials

Typical of 17th and 18th century sites in the Chesapeake, a number of firearm parts and

firearm-related items were recovered from Java. This included gun flints used in flintlock rifles,

lead shot, and various gun parts including an escutcheon, a frizzen, and a trigger guard. It is

difficult to say if more iron gun parts are part of the Java collection, considering much of the

unidentified metal is quite rusted. Conservation is ongoing, and many of these objects will be re-

analyzed to attempt to determine what purpose they once served.

A total of 133 pieces of flint or chert were recovered from the site, but of these only 25

were definitively called gun flints. It is certainly possible that some of these unidentified lithics

were brought to the New World as ship ballast and knapped by members of the Sparrow family.

It is also possible that they were purchased in their pre-manufactured state and were later broken

and discarded. Some could also certainly be domestic chert, utilized by Native Americans. The

recovered flints varied in color, but 40 were honey-colored, traditionally thought of as French

flint, and 75 were called black, gray, or smoky, suggesting they could have originated in

England.

Only seven whole, unfired lead shots were recovered from the site. These ranged in size

from one small .14 caliber birdshot, to three .38 caliber balls, to one .63 caliber ball. A number

of possibly fired shots (spherical lead objects that resembled shot) were also recovered from

63

excavation block and the immediately surrounding areas. While these objects would have been

available in stores in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was quite typical that a family would have

made their own shot at home.

Three gun parts were definitively identified by Lost Towns Project laboratory staff. A

beautifully decorated coppery alloy wrist escutcheon was recovered from Unit 12, situated just to

the south of the footprint of the earthfast building (Figure 27). This decorative musket element

would have been prominently located on the top of the weapon, and features the profile of a

knight or conquistador. Three holes pierce the object for attachment to the gun. The motif

suggests this escutcheon most likely dates to the late 17th century.

Figure 27: Copper alloy wrist escutcheon with knight motif from 18AN339

In addition to this escutcheon, an iron frizzen was recovered from Unit 15, just next to

Unit 12. This frizzen was the part of the weapon utilized to strike the gun flint and cause a spark.

Additionally, an iron trigger guard was recovered from Unit 25, located along the northern wall

of the earthfast building .

64

Horse Furniture

A few pieces of horse furniture were recovered from the site. Two snaffle bits were

recovered from the exterior of the earthfast house footprint, one in Unit 7 and the other in Unit

15. Snaffle bits are generally the most common type of horse bit, and the more intact one

recovered from Java consists of a portion of a bit mouthpiece with an attached rind. The bit was

designed so the reigns could have direct contact with the horse’s mouth, thereby giving the rider

more control in steering the animal. This particular snaffle bit resembles one depicted in A

Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America, discarded circa 1730 (Noel Hume 1969:241) (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Conserved 18th century snaffle bit from 18AN339

Additionally, one horseshoe fragment was recovered from the artifact-rich Unit 28,

located just outside the footprint of the earthfast building.

65

Personal Materials

The category of personal materials is very general and somewhat misleading, as it could

probably be argued that many of the artifacts discussed in this narrative are personal in nature.

However, for the purposes of this report, items such as tobacco pipes and pipe-related materials,

clothing-related artifacts, such as buttons and beads, and items like scissors and combs will be

discussed in the following section. Lead cloth seals, also referred to as “bale seals”, have also

been placed in this loosely defined artifact category, and will be discussed further at the end of

this section.

Table 3 provides a list of all the artifacts that have been placed in this category, not

including pipes or lead seals; many of these artifacts will be discussed at greater length below.

In terms of the clothing-related artifacts recovered from Java, three glass beads, 18 buttons, 13

buckles, and one hook and aigh were found (Figure 29). The vast majority of these were found

in the excavation block immediately surrounding the footprint of the earthfast house.

66

Table 3: Personal Items Recovered from 18AN339

Object Material Count Weight Notes Unit Strat Bead Glass 1 0.023 Colorless 11 2 Bead Glass 1 0.02 Milky white 18 2 Bead Glass 1 0.014 Red 22 1

Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.123 Piece of buckle 1 4 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.182 “S. COOK”; shoe buckle; 1660s-1720s 9 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.155 12 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.175 Rounded on top 12 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.043 Trapezion shape double loop; 1600-1700 13 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.185 Figure-of-eight double loop; 1600-1700 16 1 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.11 16 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.053 Partial; small 19 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.159 “L”; plain shoe buckle; 1720s-1790s 21 2 Buckle Copper/Alloy 1 0.069 26 1 Buckle Iron 1 0.396 Possible shoe buckle; 1720s-1790s 23 1 Buckle Iron 1 0.208 Trapezion shape double loop; 1600-1700 23 2 Buckle Iron 1 0.213 Figure-of-eight double loop; 1600-1700 28 1

Button Bone 1 0.026 1 4 Button Bone 1 0.043 5 holes 2 2 Button Copper/Alloy 1 0.241 1 1 Button Copper/Alloy 1 0.154 9 2 Button Copper/Alloy 1 0.097 23 2 Button Glass 2 0.028 White, 4 holes 6 3 Button Glass 1 0.011 White, 2 holes 6 3 Button Glass 1 0.013 White, 4 holes, fragmented 27 2 Button Iron 1 0.05 14 2 Button Pewter 1 0.168 Iron shank; 3 circular cuts 23 1 Button Pewter 1 0.16 23 2 Button Porcelain 1 0.017 Half of a button STP 26 Button White Metal Alloy 1 0.119 Nipple button 10 2 Button White Metal Alloy 1 0.116 Nipple button 12 2 Button White Metal Alloy 1 0.035 12 2 Button White Metal Alloy 1 0.183 Nipple button 15 2 Button White Metal Alloy 1 0.12 26 3

Coin Copper Alloy 1 0.32 George I halfpenny, 1724 26 2

Chape Copper/Alloy 1 0.049 “TW” stamped into front; 1660-1720 12 1

Comb Bone 1 0.016 Fragment 15 2 Comb Bone 1 0.101 Fragment 17 1

Hook and Aigh Copper/Alloy 1 0.001 No hook, just aigh 22 2

Scissors Iron 1 1.474 Fragment 2 1 Scissors Iron 1 0.379 Fragment 7 2

Toy White Metal Alloy 1 0.089 Boy figurine with hands and feet missing 27 2

Whetstone Sandstone 1 0.814 Partial 19 2

67

Figure 29: Sample of buttons, buckles, and beads recovered from in and around the main excavation block at 18AN339

Of the buckles that could be identified, most date from the mid-17th through the mid-18th

century. A single copper alloy chape, or buckle attachment, was recovered from strat 1 of Unit

12, located just outside the footprint of the earthfast building. The initials “TW” are stamped

into this the front of this artifact and it resembles a stud chape, although the very tip has been

broken off.

A George I halfpenny dating to 1724 was recovered from Unit 26, in the area of highest

artifact concentration. This was the only coin recovered during the two seasons of excavation at

Java (Figure 30). This coin was made the final year of the George I halfpences. On the obverse

is a right-facing bust of the king with the inscription “GEORGIVS REX”, while the reverse has a

depiction of the regal female, Britannia, with the fitting inscription “BRITANNIA” and the date

of 1724.

68

Figure 30: Obverse (l) and reverse (r) of 1724 George I halfpenny from 18AN339

Two bone comb fragments were recovered from the excavation block. These combs are

rectangular in shape and appear to be single-sided.

69

Figure 31: Two bone comb fragments recovered from site 18AN339

Only one toy fragment was recovered from the site. A small, cast lead alloy figurine

shaped like a boy was recovered from Unit 27, located just to the west of Unit 13. This boy is

missing his hands and feet, suggesting he was originally attached to something (Figure 32).

There is incredible detail in this cast figurine, and his little eyes, nose, mouth, and hair is still

quite visible.

70

Figure 32: Lead alloy cast toy fragment from 18AN339

A whetstone made of sandstone and two iron scissor fragments were recovered from the

site. One of the scissor fragments was recovered from Unit 2, located to the south of the

mansion ruins; the other was recovered from Unit 7, located in the northwestern corner of the

excavation block. The whetstone was found in Unit 19, close to Unit 7. This object, while

broken, is flat and rectangular with squared sides and a worn groove in the middle. This

whetstone would have been highly useful for re-sharpening iron tools like scissors and knives, as

these tools were prone to dent easily and the stone could make them useful again (Figure 33). It

is, however, not out of the question that this whetstone dates to the prehistoric time period; a

number of prehistoric artifacts were recovered from the area. Sandstone whetstones have been

recorded on a number of prehistoric sites in Western states, where the native peoples would have

used them for sharpening other stone tools or metal they obtained from trade.

71

Figure 33: Scissors and whetstone fragment recovered from excavation block at 18AN339

Tobacco Pipes

The total number of tobacco pipe fragments recovered at Java totals 1,957. It should be

noted that all of the pipes recovered were made of white clay and none were made of red clay or

terra cotta. Table 4 presents a breakdown of the recovered fragments:

Table 4: Total Pipes Recovered from 18AN339

Pipe Portion Number Percentage

Bowls 1169 60%

Stems 743 38%

Joints (bowls and stems) 40 2%

Heels 5 0.3%

TOTAL 1957 100.3%

72

A diverse assemblage of bore diameters was noted from the pipe stems recovered at the

site. These pipe stems reflect the long period of occupation at Java, although a few conclusions

can be drawn (Figure 34):

Figure 34: Pipe stem bore diameters from 18AN339

As Figure 34 depicts, the highest percentage of recorded pipe stem bore diameters is

between 5/64” and 6/64”. In general, pipes with bore diameters in this range were manufactured

between about 1680 through about 1750, which spans the Sparrow period of occupation. This

date range is also suggests that although the hilltop was occupied after the circa-1750 Maccubbin

construction of the mansion house, this family was not living here year-round, as were their

predecessors. At the minimum, the Maccubbins were not utilizing this portion of the site in the

same manner as it was used by the Sparrows. Further excavations on the water side of the house

may reveal similar Maccubbin period use-areas.

A number of pipes bowls and stems were decorated with rouletting, molded geometric

designs, or makers marks. The marks on some of these pipes further suggest they were used

during the Sparrow period of occupation (Figure 35).

73

Figure 35: Marked tobacco pipes recovered from excavation block at 18AN339

Smoker’s Companions and Strike-a-lights

A few tobacco pipe-related artifacts were found in the vicinity of the brick hearth. Two

smoker’s companions and three strike-a-lights were recovered from the main excavation block.

Smoker’s companions have been referred to as the “Swiss Army Knife” of tobacco

smoking in the Colonial Chesapeake. These handy little iron tools were used to pack, fill, clean,

and light tobacco pipes by means of rounded ends, flat ends, and tongs. The two recovered from

Java were found on what would have been the exterior of the 17th century earthfast building, one

in Unit 10 to the south and one in Unit 14 to the west.

Three pieces of flint were identified as strike-a-lights by Lost Towns Project laboratory

specialists. All three were recovered from units that would have been inside the earthfast

building (Units 23 and 25). A strike-a-light was another pocket tool that was used to strike either

another piece of flint or a piece of iron to cause a spark to set fire to dry tinder or tobacco. The

flat end of a smoker’s companion was designed to make a spark with a flint strike-a-light. These

74

flints are often curvilinear with a concave surface on one side, and the technology used for

making fire with these objects was used by native peoples all over the world. The three objects

recovered from Java could have been used as gun flints first before being adaptively reused by

the Sparrow family as strike-a-lights.

Lead Cloth Seals

Bale seals, better called lead cloth inspection seals, were utilized in the 17th and early 18th

centuries to indicate that bolts of cloth had been subjected to various types of inspection during

its trip across the Atlantic. Two marked seals were recovered from the southern excavation

block at Java (one from Unit 10, the other from Unit 12) (Figure 36). The markings and designs

on both of them suggest they were English royal alnage seals, dating to pre-1724 (Luckenbach

and Cox 2003).

Figure 36: Lead cloth seals recovered from Unit 12 (l) and Unit 10 (r) at 18AN339

75

The first seal, recovered from Unit 10, was an alnage, or searchers seal. The marks on

this seal (a crown with the initials “TX” on the reverse; “31” on the obverse) suggest that the

cloth met certain quality standards and taxes had been paid on the bolt. This single, circular seal

measures 24mm across, making it one of the largest seals recorded in Anne Arundel County (see

Luckenbach and Cox 2003).

The second seal, recovered from Unit 12, was also an alnage seal that measures about

15mm across; it is heavily twisted so an exact measurement is hard to ascertain. This double,

circular seal does have all of its parts intact (four disks connected by a lead strip), however

mangled they may have become over the last 300 years. One side of the seal has a rouletted

edge, while the other side has a crown over a rose next to the letter “I” over the number “2”.

There might indeed be more markings on the seal that are not discernable due to the twisted

nature of the artifact, but because it is so delicate, laboratory professionals were unable to see

more.

Slag

While certainly not the most desired or exciting artifacts, the hundreds of pieces of slag

recovered from the site merit some discussion. Slag is a waste material that is left as residue

from metal smelting. No evidence was found at Java this season to suggest that there was a

furnace capable of iron smelting in or near the excavation block (i.e., vitreous clay or heavy

amounts of charcoal), but the 931 fragments recovered that weigh over 18 pounds strongly

suggest that there was some sort of smithing taking place in the immediate vicinity of the

earthfast building at some point during the occupation of 18AN339.

This slag clusters heavily in the southeast portion of the excavation block (Units 6, 10,

12, and 15), further suggesting that this was some sort of refuse disposal area (Figure 37). If at

some point during the life of the earthfast building smelting was taking place within it, it would

stand to reason that much of the waste material was simply thrown out of a door or window. As

countless archaeological excavations have proven, it was very common to dispose of waste near

the source. And as is the case with nearly every material type thus far discussed, this

southeastern corner of the block produced the highest concentrations of artifacts.

76

Ounces of Slag

-1090 -1080 -1070 -1060 -1050 -1040 -1030 -1020

1070

1080

1090

1100

0 10 20 30FT.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Figure 37: Distribution of slag (by weight in oz.) around excavation block with portion of conjectural earthfast building footprint at 18AN339

1070

1080

1090

1100

-1090 -1080 -1070 -1060 -1050 -1040 -1030 -1020

FT.0 10 20 30

Ounces of Wrought Nails

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

Figure 38: Distribution of wrought nails (by weight in oz.) around excavation block with portion of conjectural earthfast building footprint at 18AN339

77

Comparing the distribution of slag to the distributions of nails raises the question, could

the earthfast building have been used at some point during its life as a place of nail manufacture?

The highest concentration of wrought nails and unidentified iron fragments was recovered from

the same portion of the site as the slag, suggesting that the building could have been used for

metal manufacture (Figure 38).

Future excavations into features in the area may reveal just how long this building was

utilized. This portion of the yard could have been used as a work area during the Maccubbin and

Contee occupations, regardless whether or not the old earthfast building still stood at the time.

This postulation gains credence when it is considered that Java was not actually occupied full-

time by the owners between about 1700 and 1830; therefore, industry taking place in the

immediate vicinity of the earthfast house, and later the brick mansion, would not be an eyesore

or so noisy as to disturb the landowners. The daily operations of the plantation were run by

overseers and tenants for much of these decades, and as a successful and lucrative farming

operation, countless nails and sheet metal would be called into service to construct outbuildings

and repair equipment; hundreds of pieces of sheet metal and unidentified iron were also

recovered from the excavation block. It stands to reason that some sort of blacksmithing

operation would be required at the site. This earthfast building, once no longer used for a

domestic capacity, could very well have used for this more industrial use.

Prehistoric Artifacts

Relatively few prehistoric artifacts were recovered from site 18AN339, but enough were

recovered to be able to clearly state that Euro-Americans were not the first to utilize this hilltop.

Prehistoric ceramics, a projectile point, and stone debitage were found spread across the site.

Few diagnostic artifacts were recovered, and the assemblage seems to suggest light, ephemeral

use of the hilltop by the native peoples of Anne Arundel County. Larger, more substantial

prehistoric sites have been recorded all along the Rhode River (see Cox et al. 2007a; Cox et al.

2007b), but the hilltop was probably desirable to the Indians for the same reason it was to the

Europeans who came here: it is the highest point in the area, providing a fantastic view of the

Rhode River watershed, the soil is well-drained, and there is a small spring in the vicinity.

78

A total of 28 prehistoric ceramics were recovered from the site. These are listed by

temper below in Table 5. Ten gravel tempered sherds, three sand tempered sherds, and 14 shell

tempered sherds were found in the units in and around the main excavation block; one additional

sherd was too small to determine temper. None of the fragments appeared to be decorated in any

way, and most were too small to definitively determine what type they were and thereby when in

the Woodland time period (circa 1,600 B.C.-circa 1,600 A.D.) they were manufactured. These

artifacts are probably so small due to plowing and trampling by the Euro-Americans who

subsequently occupied this hill for the last 350 years.

Table 5: Total Prehistoric Ceramics Recovered from 18AN339

Temper Count Weight Unit Strat Gravel Tempered 9 0.298 21 2 Gravel Tempered 1 0.075 26 3 No Temper 1 0.001 15 2 Sand Tempered 1 0.044 4 2 Sand Tempered 1 0.099 11 2 Sand Tempered 1 0.009 19 2 Shell Tempered 1 0.026 24 2 Shell Tempered 7 0.141 25 2 Shell Tempered 1 0.004 26 2 Shell Tempered 4 0.104 26 3 Shell Tempered 1 0.419 28 1 TOTAL 28 1.22oz

Lithic types recovered from the site include quartz, quartzite, chert, jasper, ironstone, and

rhyolite. While it is not certain that all of these lithics are prehistoric, particularly the chert as it

is easily confused for European gun flint fragments, Lost Towns Project laboratory staff

determined these listed in Table 6 to be most likely utilized during prehistory. Quartz, quartzite,

and ironstone are locally available materials, but the chert, jasper, and rhyolite would have made

their way to site 18AN339 by long-distance trade.

A total of 130 pieces of debitage were recovered from the site, including cores, flakes,

and shatter, here defined as angular chunks of debitage that can be produced at any stage of tool

manufacture (see Table 6). Fourteen fire-cracked rocks were also recovered from the site, but

these could have been utilized during the historic or prehistoric time periods. The single

diagnostic artifact in the prehistoric assemblage is a quartzite Bare Island stemmed point. This

79

point has an average date of 1,500 B.C., and a range of 2,500 B.C. to 500 A.D., during the Late

Archaic-Early Woodland transition (Hranicky and Painter 1989).

Table 6: Total Prehistoric Lithics Recovered from 18AN339

Material Type Count Weight (in ounces) Quartz Core 1 5.118 Flake 23 0.028 Shatter 16 3.007 TOTAL 40 5.118 Quartzite Projectile Point – Bare Island 1 0.457 FCR 2 39.0 Flake 5 0.652 Shatter 21 2.609 TOTAL 29 42.718 Chert Core 6 3.541 Flake 50 2.624 Shatter 4 0.386 TOTAL 60 6.551 Jasper Core 1 0.874 Flake 1 0.021 TOTAL 2 0.895 Ironstone FCR – TOTAL 12 26.538 Rhyolite Flake – TOTAL 2 0.023 TOTAL Projectile Point 1 0.457 FCR 14 65.538 Core 8 12.2 Flake 81 3.348 Shatter 41 6.002

Summary of Artifacts

The 34,141 artifacts recovered from two years of excavation at 18AN339 provide a broad

snapshot of life in Anne Arundel County over thousands of years. Obviously, the assemblage

strongly skews to the historic period occupation of the site; only 173 prehistoric artifacts were

recovered. But the only diagnostic prehistoric stone tool recovered dates to as early as 4,000

80

years ago, demonstrating that people were utilizing the hilltop for thousands of years before

Thomas Sparrow patented Sparrows Rest on September 22, 1652. The prehistoric assemblage

suggests that local native peoples were using this site for minor campsites and some tool

manufacture, but most evidence of their occupation has probably been obliterated by the heavy

footprint left by people since 1652.

Although no intact strata have been excavated at the site and all of the artifacts have been

recovered from mixed contexts, the majority of diagnostic historic-period artifacts date to the

Sparrow period of ownership (1652-1747). The majority of the ceramic assemblage is tin-glazed

earthenwares, the majority of the nail assemblage is hand wrought, and most of the diagnostic

personal items, including the tobacco pipes, date to the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It

seems likely that a large part of the reason why this assemblage skews to the Sparrows because

of where we have concentrated our excavations (apparently within the 17th century occupation

locus). It seems likely that we have not yet identified the areas of Maccubbin or Contee refuse

disposal, where were would expect to see evidence of the higher quantity and variety of goods

that were becoming more readily available.

The Sparrow-period artifacts speak to the life of a wealthy landowning family during the

early colonial period in the Chesapeake. Lovely clothing adornments, such as decorative

buckles, beads, and buttons were recovered, in addition to lead cloth seals that certified the raw

textiles purchased by the family had been taxed by the English crown. Other objects such as

musket adornments, decorated tobacco pipes, forks, knives, and spoons, highly decorated

ceramic plates and glass drinking vessels, and casement window leads begin to paint a picture of

the life lived by the family when they occupied the post-in-ground building.

The presence of later 18th and 19th century artifacts in the vicinity raises the question of

how long this earthfast building stood and what purpose it served after it was no longer used

domestically. Over 4,600 hand-wrought and square nails were recovered from the site seems

like an excessive amount, even considering the amount needed to construct and repair an

earthfast building. When comparing the similar distribution of slag and hand wrought nails, we

have considered the possibility that some type of metal production took place in the house after it

was abandoned by the family that lived here. Squirrel Neck plantation, and later Java, was an

81

incredibly successful farming operation and would have required a great deal of nails and sheet

metal to sustain itself.

Hundreds of cut nails were also recovered from the vicinity of the footprint of the

earthfast building. It is possible that these represent some later repair to the old, well-used

building during the Contee occupation of the land. The presence of 19th century ceramics

suggests that if this building was indeed standing when the Contee family owned the land and

lived in the brick mansion house, this smaller building could have been used for storage of

household goods or housing of tenants or plantation workers.

82

Site 18AN339 Summary

A major research goal at the outset of excavations in 2006 was to identify the earlier, 17th

century occupation of the site that pre-dated the construction of the circa 1750 brick Georgian

mansion house. A test unit excavated in 2006 along one of the few remaining standing walls of

the mansion revealed that this building had not simply “absorbed” an earlier structure. So where

was the earlier dwelling?

A shovel test pit survey was undertaken in 2006, followed by a 2007 magnetometer

survey that covered much of the hilltop. When data from these surveys was compared, the

potential 17th century portions of the site were narrowed to an area located about 100 ft. west, or

on the inland side, of the mansion. As the end of the 2007 field season neared, the edge of an

articulated brick feature was discovered in the corner of Unit 16. Once fully exposed, the 12 ft.

long brick hearth surrounded by post holes clearly marked where an earthfast structure once

stood. Analysis of the extensive artifact assemblage recovered from the plow zone overlying the

features revealed the remains of a 17th century domestic building that was probably standing well

into the 18th century, if not longer.

Extensive historic research and the recent archaeological investigations have clarified

much about the inhabitants of site 18AN339. Thomas Sparrow, Englishman and Quaker,

patented this land as Sparrows Rest in 1652, though the number of prehistoric artifacts recovered

makes it clear the he was not the first person to make use of this hilltop. The prehistoric

ceramics recovered from the site suggest Woodland period occupation, but a Bare Island

projectile point suggests that native peoples could have utilized the area as early as 4,000 years

ago.

While Thomas Sparrow (I) was the first European to lay claim to the land, it is not clear

if he ever actually lived on Sparrows Rest. The documents only tell us that he died by 1659,

when he willed the land to his son, Thomas Sparrow (II). This Thomas Sparrow wrote his will

1675, when he mentions two dwellings on Sparrows Rest. The first house he references is when

he requests that “the building now begun upon my now dwelling plantation to be finished with

all Convenient Speed” (MSA, Anne Arundel County Wills, Liber 2, folio 76:1675). The second

83

reference comes when he mentions that his sister, Elizabeth, should be allowed to continue to

live on the parcel of land where she now resides that contains “the timber house.”

It seems highly likely that the brick hearth uncovered this field season was part of one of

these two buildings. The hilltop is one of the most prominent spots in the area, providing a

spectacular view of the Rhode River drainage. More than that, the artifact assemblage recovered

from the area around the hearth skews heavily toward a domestic occupation that began in the

17th century. Delft ceramics fragments, Rhenish stoneware mugs, hundreds of pipe stems with

bore diameters that date to the time period, and temporally significant buckles and lead cloth

seals all speak to the life of a wealthy landowner in the early colonial time period. Two marked

window leads were recovered from the edge of the building footprint (overlying a post hole), one

with the date “1671” and the other with the initials “WM.” Similar markings on the two artifacts

suggest they came from a single window lead, and an identical, whole lead was recovered from

the contemporaneous van Sweringen site in St. Mary’s City (Hanna et al. 1992).

There are two possible scenarios for the 17th century occupation. This site could

represent the incomplete house Sparrow intended his wife and children to live in. Alternatively,

it may be the “the timber house” where his sister, Elizabeth, lived. Assuming the window lead

was installed in the casement window of the house soon after its 1671 production, this is most

likely “the timber house” that already stood by the time of Sparrow’s 1675 death. It is not out of

the question, however, that the lead could have more than a four-year lag time between

manufacture in England and use in a house in the colonial frontier of 17th century Maryland.

Major construction was undertaken in 1676 at the van Sweringen site in St. Mary’s City, so it is

possible the 1671 window lead could have been installed around that time.

While many questions remain about the 17th century building uncovered during the 2007

field season, several revelations are clear and well illustrated. First, the building did not have a

stone or brick foundation, but was post-in-ground. The presence of a repair post suggests later

alterations, restoration, or re-purposing of the building. Second, the building had a single-sided

brick hearth, suggesting it was located at the gable end of the house. The presence of daub on

site reveals that the chimney was constructed of wattle and daub at some point in the life of the

house. The hearth measures 12 ft. on the outside and 8 ft. on the inside, which is a typical, if

84

slightly large size for a 17th century building. The postholes are situated almost exactly 16 ft.

apart from one another. Earthfast buildings in the early colonial Chesapeake were often 16 ft.

wide, represented the common colonial measurement of a “perch.” The postmolds, postholes,

and hearth orientation suggest the building was built on an east-west axis. The highest

concentration of temporally-related artifacts was recovered from just south of the building

footprint, suggesting there was a window or a door in this area where refuse was disposed into

the yard. The building had several casement windows, as a number of window leads were

recovered from both sides of the house.

Thomas Sparrow (II) passed Sparrows Rest and all of his subsequent Rhode River

acquisitions (Sparrows Addition and Locust Neck) on to his son, Thomas Sparrow (III). It is

questionable how long Sparrow (III) actually lived on Sparrows Rest. In 1705, after the death of

his second wife, he contracted relative William Coale and Daniel Richardson to care for his sons,

Thomas (IV) and Solomon, in exchange for Coale and Richardson’s sole use of Sparrows Rest.

Sparrow (III) had purchased about 3,000 acres near Bath, North Carolina at about the same time,

and it appears he spent a great deal of time there and in the Outer Banks. Records indicate he

participated in Cary’s Rebellion in 1711, an armed skirmish between the North Carolina Quakers

and the English crown (Paschal 1955).

However, a lease agreement between Sparrow and William Coale in 1712 makes

reference to a “mansion house” where Sparrow is living. The agreement states that Coale will

lease two Rhode River parcels (Squirrel Neck and Thomas’s Quarter) in exchange for rent of one

barrel of Indian corn paid yearly to Sparrow “at his Mansion house upon the plantation whereon

he now lives” (MSA Liber 1B2, folio 76:1712). It is not clear where Sparrow is living, but he is

referred to as “Thomas Sparrow of Road River,” strongly suggesting it is somewhere on

Sparrows Rest.

Research questions raised by this recent investigation include whether it is possible that

the “mansion house” of Sparrow (III) is one of the same buildings referenced by his father 37

years earlier. The artifact assemblage certainly suggests that this newly discovered earthfast

building was occupied in some capacity through the early 18th century. English brown stoneware

85

manufactured during the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714) and a 1724 George I halfpenny are

well-dated examples that show some sort of occupation during the early 18th century.

Sparrow (III) passed all of his Rhode River landholdings to his son, Thomas Sparrow

(IV). This Sparrow most likely did not live on the Rhode River, as documents suggest he had a

“crippling disability” and was unable to farm (Sparrow 1990:400). Rather, he made his living as

an inn holder in Annapolis and was involved in the provincial government (Sparrow 1990). In

1747, he sold all of his ancestral lands to Nicholas Maccubbin, a wealthy Annapolis merchant,

who became the owner of site 18AN339.

It was Maccubbin who built the grand brick Georgian mansion house, and he and his

heirs owned the land until 1819. He called the house and his plantation Squirrel Neck, and it

seems likely that he did not live here year-round. Rather, he and his family probably split their

time between his house in Annapolis and this country getaway. While Maccubbin and this site

represent the upper echelon of colonial society, the ‘Merchant-Planter,’ much can be learned

about those who actually worked on and ran the plantation, including Maccubbin’s slaves, from

further archaeological excavations.

In the meantime, the artifact assemblage suggests that the small earthfast building may

have still been standing along side the mansion in the mid to late 18th century, perhaps having

been re-purposed as an auxiliary plantation outbuilding. It is somewhat difficult to imagine a

hundred year old timber-framed building standing for long next to a grand mansion, but the

recovery of hundreds of creamware and pearlware fragments from the area suggests that the

building could have been used to house tenants, plantation workers, or enslaved laborers. If this

is the case, further investigations can possibly reveal the adaptive reuse of an earthfast building

long after it fell out of fashion as a home for landowners and came to be viewed in a utilitarian

way.

A large amount of slag, or waste from metal smelting, was found in the southern side of

the house and just to the exterior of the south side of the building. This is also the location of the

highest percentage of wrought nails recovered. Hundreds of pieces of sheet metal and iron waste

were also found in the area. This possibly suggests that some type of blacksmithing operation

86

was taking place in the old building. The 1798 Federal Tax Assessment lists the brick mansion,

eight small dwellings, and 40 slaves on the property at the time. A plantation as large as this,

with a slave labor force of nearly 80, would not only require countless nails and metal to repair

and maintain the machinery needed to run the farm, but would have the labor to make these

items on-site. The presence of a blacksmith on property would not be unexpected.

John Contee, a wealthy Prince George’s County landowner, acquired the property in

1819 and by 1828 it was known officially as the Java Plantation (Lee 2004). He named it after a

British ship that he helped capture and destroy during his naval service during the War of 1812.

But it seems clear that Contee did not live at Java full-time, and instead followed in his

predecessor’s footsteps as an absentee landowner. The distribution of the 423 cut nails

recovered scattered around the footprint of the earthfast building suggests an outside chance that

the old building may have still been standing and was being repaired with newly available

machine cut nails as late as the 1820s or 1830s. A number of whiteware fragments in the

vicinity further suggests that some type of domestic occupation could have been taking place.

Regardless of whether or not the old post-in-ground building stood during the Contee

occupation, the proximity of the current excavations to the mansion suggests a certain degree of

19th century artifact admixture is not unexpected.

It was not until John Contee died and passed the land on to his wife, Ann, that the

Squirrel Neck mansion was occupied year round. Census records show Ann and her two sons,

Richard and Charles, were living there in 1840. Documentation from this time period indicates

that Java plantation was an incredibly successful operation. In 1839, 84 slaves produced over

70,000 lbs of tobacco, far exceeding every other farm in the Rhode River watershed (Greenburg

and Hyatt 1990). Ann passed the land containing the mansion on to her younger son, Richard,

and he and his wife also appear to have been full-time residents of the brick mansion.

Considering nearly 100 years passed between the construction of the brick mansion and

when a family actually lived there year-round, it does not seem out of the question that the post-

in-ground building could stand in the back yard serving some sort of utilitarian purpose. But the

relatively few number of cut nails and later 19th century ceramics and bottle glass suggest the

house was probably finally torn down by this time and the Contees were clearly not using this

87

area of the plantation as the dumping ground for their household trash. There is no evidence that

the wooden building burned down; little charcoal was found in the area and few of the nails were

annealed. If it did not simply collapse from old age, it was most likely torn down sometime in

the 18th or early 19th century.

Some later 19th and 20th century materials were found in the excavation block, including

39 wire nails and a few porcelain dish fragments decorated with orange starburst decals. This is

not entirely surprising, as the brick mansion house was sporadically occupied after the end of the

Contee occupation in the 1870s. The mansion was struck by lightning around 1890, but the

owners attempted to rebuild it and continued to live there sporadically until the 1920s. The later

artifacts recovered probably represent this periodic occupation of the main house. It does appear

as if some plowing may have been taking place around the remains of the old earthfast house, as

a number of later artifacts were recovered from all levels of the soil strata. Wire nails were

recovered from the same layers as 17th century delftware, for example.

Nearly a century has passed since anyone could live in the brick mansion that was

occupied off and on for about 175 years. The archaeological data suggests that there’s a

possibility that the earthfast building might have stood for almost as long. This question will

shape future research questions as research and public programming efforts continue in the

shadow of the mansion ruins at 18AN339 under the new ownership of SERC. Future research

efforts on the hilltop include sampling some of the features to determine their respective dates,

which will help clarify how the building was used, repaired, and re-purposed over the centuries.

Future work should record the full dimensions of the earthfast building, and determine if it was

built in stages, thereby providing a better sense of the spatial layout of the hillside, both before

and after construction of the brick mansion. Finally, more testing is warranted on the opposite

side of the brick mansion to determine if parts of the water side of the hilltop were utilized by the

Sparrow family and how the Maccubbins and Contees viewed this portion of their space.

The research potential of site 18AN339 is almost limitless. With over 350 years of

continuous historic occupation and perhaps thousands of years of prehistoric occupation before

that, there is a great deal that can be learned here about the rich history of Anne Arundel County.

As the three year MHT grant comes to an end, we intend to continue to share with County

88

residents the excitement of discovering this small piece of our shared heritage. Recently, the

Lost Towns Project was informed that the property upon which 18AN339 (and several other

historic and prehistoric sites) has been acquired by the Smithsonian Land Trust, and the land, its

management, and its opportunity for public programming, will be consolidated within the

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. While details of partnership and the ongoing

research and educational programming are under discussion, the past three years of historic

context development, archaeological testing and public programming supported by the MHT has

laid a strong foundation for the continued research opportunities on 18AN339.

89

CHAPTER TWO: 18AN1285

Limited Phase III Investigation at 18AN1285: Camp Letts, a Middle to Late Woodland Campsite

Introduction

The Middle Woodland time period, by all accounts, was a time of great change in the

prehistory of the Eastern United States. Most scholars believe that Eastern Algonquian-speakers

from the Great Lakes region migrated into the Middle Atlantic region sometime during this

phase, broadly dating from about 300 B.C. to A.D. 900 (Dent 1995:9). This long-distance

movement of populations probably occurred sporadically during the later Middle Woodland,

dating from about A.D. 1 to A.D. 900 (Potter 1993:3), and many scholars (see Schindler 2006)

use this narrow time period as the defining marker of the Middle Woodland. This portion of the

Middle Woodland in Anne Arundel County is referred to as the Selby Bay phase.

It was these migrating native peoples who were the direct ancestors of the Algonquian

Indians met by Europeans when they arrived in the Chesapeake Bay in the early seventeenth

century. Therefore, the cultural trends initially developed in the Middle Woodland period had

weighty consequences on the eventual Indian-European interactions that marked the beginning

of the end of Chesapeake Indian society. A greater understanding of the culture of the Middle

Woodland can provide context and perspective for understanding the complex Late Woodland

societies that the Europeans encountered and recorded.

The Middle Woodland is marked in the archaeological record by a “technological

homogenization” (Dent 1995:235) of ceramic and projectile point types and lithic preference.

Native peoples in the region had been manufacturing pottery since the beginning of the Early

Woodland time period (ca 1,000 B.C. to 300 B.C.), but by about A.D. 200, a type known as

Mockley ware came to dominate the Middle Atlantic region. Mockley ceramics are oyster shell-

tempered, thick-bodied, and often cord-marked or net-impressed (MAC Lab 2008). Projectile

point types became more standardized, with a preference seen for Jacks Reef and the side-

notched Selby Bay type. Preference for lithic type changed from earlier time periods when

Indians utilized locally available materials to a desire for non-native materials. Rhyolite, a type

90

of igneous rock, became the exotic material of choice. This lithic type would have to be

procured from above the fall line, signaling the development of long-distance trading networks.

All of this “homogenization” strongly suggests increasing interaction between groups in the

Middle Atlantic region.

In Anne Arundel County and along most of the Chesapeake Bay, many Middle

Woodland sites are marked by shell middens, or large piles of shell (usually oyster in this region)

representing an area of waste disposal. Archaeologists have discovered discarded ceramics,

lithics, bone, and other plant residue in these middens, enabling them to state that the Middle

Woodland was a time of large-scale exploitation of the available resources in the Bay and its

tributaries (Dent 1995). These middens were formed during seasonal occupation of the low-

lying areas along the water where the Indians would hunt and gather for subsistence. Semi-

permanent base camps were established further inland, where the predicable anadromous fish

were harvested and where some evidence of the first plant cultivation is seen by the end of the

Middle Woodland (Potter 1993:109). This has led some scholars (see Gilsen 1978) to call this

period one of a transition between hunting and foraging to the sedentary lifestyle that typified the

Late Woodland.

Nearly 200 Middle Woodland period sites have been recorded by laypeople and

archaeologists working in Anne Arundel County over the years, and their locations are on file

with the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT). Sites identified and excavated in the Rhode River

watershed over the years have contributed to the knowledge base about the Selby Bay phase of

the Middle Woodland, including the Smithsonian Pier site (18AN284). This site, excavated in

advance of the construction of the Education Center on the SERC campus, demonstrated that

native populations tended to visit this coastal area during the autumn and spring to access the

abundant local oyster population (Gibb and Hines 1997). Additionally, the majority of the

prehistoric sites identified during Year One of this Rhode River survey dated to the Middle to

Late Woodland time periods, strongly suggesting that this watershed was intensively used during

the Selby Bay phase.

This season at Camp Letts (18AN1285) was focused on gaining further knowledge of the

transition phase between the Middle and Late Woodland time periods. Earlier investigations at

91

the site had produced cultural materials from both periods, possibly suggesting the site could

have been occupied near the end of the Selby Bay phase. It was also hoped that the two distinct

middens previously identified on two separate portions of the peninsula could lend insights into

spatial use of a procurement site.

18AN1285 Previous Archaeology

Site 18AN1285, a prehistoric campsite with oyster middens, was identified on the Camp

Letts property in 2005, during the first year of the Rhode River survey (Cox et al. 2007a). The

site is located on a small peninsula on the southwest shore of Bear Neck Creek, opposite Holly

Hill Harbor and the mouth of Whitemarsh Creek (see Figure 1). The vegetative setting consists

of a mixed deciduous and coniferous forest with relatively little undergrowth. Twelve STPs

yielded prehistoric ceramics, debitage, and burnt animal bone in 2005.

Further archaeological work was conducted in May and June of 2006 during the second

year of the Rhode River survey. During this Phase II testing, the Lost Towns Project identified

this prehistoric site as eligible for the National Register and results suggested that the site offered

a high level of research potential when compared to other prehistoric sites identified in the area.

Two 5-ft. by 5-ft. units and a 5-ft. by 2.5-ft. unit were excavated (see Figure 40). Units 1 and 2

were placed in the northern portion of the site and were the larger of the three. Three strata were

identified in both units, and artifacts recovered from Unit 1 included an undiagnostic rhyolite

projectile point, thermally-altered quartzite and chert, and shell-tempered and Potomac Creek

ceramics dating to the Late Woodland (A.D. 900 – contact) time period. Unit 2 was located to

the south and west of Unit 1 and produced one quartz Selby Bay knife, shell-tempered and

Potomac Creek ceramics, and one quartz flake (Cox et al. 2007b).

Unit 3 was located near the southern tip of the peninsula and measured 5-ft. by 2.5-ft. It

was placed here to further investigate the shell midden noted during the earlier phases of work.

Three sherds of Mockley ware, a thick shell-tempered ceramic dating to the later Middle

Woodland time period (ca. A.D. 200 – A.D. 900), were recovered from Stratum 1. No artifacts

were recovered from the shell midden itself, which was represented by Stratum 2 (Cox et al.

2007b).

92

The artifact assemblage suggests that this site dates to the late Middle Woodland through

Late Woodland time periods of prehistory. This peninsula was most likely used as a temporary

campsite that was returned to seasonally, primarily for oyster procurement. Based on the wealth

of data recovered, and the potential for better understanding these sites that are so typical along

the shorelines of the Rhode River and throughout Anne Arundel County’s riverine-rich

environment, further testing was recommended.

2007 Excavations

The first step undertaken during the 2007 field season was to reestablish the 2006 grid

and to perform a magnetometer survey (Figure 39). Considering the relatively pristine and

unpolluted condition of the site, and the fact that previous investigations revealed little historic

activity on the point, the magnetometer data held the potential for pinpointing possible

prehistoric features, such as a hearth or fire-cracked rock concentration. While the overgrowth

and density of tree cover did present a surveying challenge, the magnetometry data suggested a

few areas of higher potential for such features; however, only the northern half of the site was

tested in this manner. The promising anomalies were ground-truthed as discussed below.

93

220 240

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

51750

51800

51850

51900

51950

52000

52050

52100

52150

52200

52250

52300

52350

52400

52450

52500

52550

52600

Magnetic Signaturenano-Tesla's

Figure 39: Results of the magnetometer survey from 18AN1285

A total of five units were excavated at the site in 2007, all measuring 5-ft. square. Three

of these, Units 4, 7, and 8, were clustered in a block roughly in the center of the site, which had

produced a high number of ceramics and lithics in 2006. One unit, Unit 5, was placed near the

southern point to further investigate the oyster midden noted in that area in 2006. The final unit,

Unit 6, was placed on the northern end of the site to correspond to the location of magnetic

anomaly noted during the magnetometer survey (Figure 40).

94

Figure 40: Site plan, with numbered excavation unit locations, from 18AN1285

95

Units 4, 7, and 8 - Excavation Block

Unit 4, the first unit opened in 2007, was placed generally between Units 1 and 2 in the

center of the peninsula to further investigate the high concentration of ceramics and debitage

found in 2006. Two cultural levels were initially excavated that contained quartz, quartzite, and

chert debitage, charcoal, oyster shells, and a great deal of shell-tempered, thick-bodied Mockley

ware prehistoric ceramics (n=30). This was a strikingly high number of ceramic sherds relative

to the units excavated in 2006, and many of these sherds were quite large.

At the base of Strat 2, four more large Mockley ceramics were recovered from a dark

stain in the southwest corner. Additionally, eight heavily burned prehistoric ceramics were

coming from over another stain in the northwest corner, which also seemed to be full of oyster

shell. In sum, 42 Mockley sherds (nine cord-marked) were recovered from Strats 1 and 2 (Table

7; Figure 41). Rather than excavate these partially exposed features, another unit adjacent and to

the west was opened.

Table 7: Total Assemblage from Unit 4 at 18AN1285

Stratum Material Type Count Weight (in ounces)

1 Earthenware Unidentified, high sand content 1 0.021 Lithic Chert flakes (secondary) 2 0.093 Shell Oyster 16 10.00 Brick 2 0.039 TOTAL STRATUM 1 21 10.153 2 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 9 1.905 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 20 0.538 Earthenware Mockley, interior burning 4 0.23 Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, heavily burned 4 0.145 Earthenware Unidentified exterior spall 1 0.016 Earthenware Unidentified, high sand content 4 0.25 Lithic Quartz flake (secondary) 1 0.044 Lithic Quartzite, fire-cracked rock 1 1.696 Lithic Unidentified ironstones 3 0.62 Charcoal 2 0.004 Shell Oyster 37 32.0 TOTAL STRATUM 2 86 37.448 3 Earthenware Unidentified shell-tempered 4 0.029

Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, heavily burned 1 0.03 Earthenware Unidentified sand-tempered 1 0.1 Shell Oyster 1 0.532 TOTAL STRATUM 3 7 0.691

96

Figure 41: Sample of ceramics recovered from Unit 4, Stratum 2 at 18AN1285; cord-marked Mockley (l) and shell-tempered sherds with varying stages of burning found in the northwest unit corner (r)

Unit 7, adjacent to Unit 4, contained two cultural levels that came down on a dense oyster

shell midden. The two strata above the midden produced 20 Mockley sherds (nine of which

were cord-marked), four thermally-alerted sandstone rocks, and one possible brick or low-fired

clay fragment. Also, a number of oyster shells were recovered, some that were covered with an

orange, crystalline encrustation. Under a microscope, this orange crust was revealed to be soil

that had turned into hard sediment after years exposed to the elements in the midden.

The dense oyster midden, called Stratum 3 in Unit 7, was excavated separately. Thirty

Mockley ware ceramic sherds (nine large enough to be noted as cord-marked or fabric-

impressed), fire-cracked rocks, charcoal, small pieces of bone, and hinged oyster shells came

from this midden alone. Coincidentally, it seemed the Unit 4/Unit 7 wall marked the edge of the

midden, which also meant the two dark, Mockley-producing stains in Unit 4 were located at the

exterior edge of the midden (Figure 42; Table 8).

97

Table 8: Total Assemblage from Unit 7 at 18AN1285

Stratum Material Type Count Weight (in ounces)

1 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 5 0.163 Shell Oyster, orange encrusted 1 0.4 Shell Oyster 5 3.053 TOTAL STRATUM 1 11 3.616 2 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 4 0.125 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 9 0.214 Earthenware Mockley, with ochre inclusions 2 0.018 Masonry Brick fragment 1 0.033 Lithic Sandstone, thermally altered 1 1.695 Lithic Sandstone, unidentified use 3 0.069 Shell Snail 1 0.018 Shell Oyster, orange encrusted 2 0.073 Shell Oyster 20 12.0 TOTAL STRATUM 2 43 14.425

3 (Midden) Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 7 0.779 Earthenware Mockley, fabric-impressed 1 0.082 Earthenware Mockley, with ochre inclusions 1 0.044 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 21 0.444 Lithic Quartzite, fire-cracked rock 1 0.102 Lithic Chert, fire-cracked rock 1 1.637 Bone Unidentified 1 0.006 Charcoal 19 0.322 Shell Oyster 85 61.0 TOTAL STRATUM 3 (MIDDEN) 137 64.416

4 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 7 0.819 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 13 0.308 Lithic Quartz shatter 1 0.062 Charcoal 1 0.005 Shell Oyster 6 3.199

TOTAL STRATUM 4 28 4.393

98

EU7

EU8

EU4

Feature 1

Feature 2 Scale (in ft.)

Grid

North0 5

True

Midden

Figure 42: Plan view of midden with nearby features in Units 4, 7, & 8 at 18AN1285

The midden appeared to extend on a north-south axis, so in an attempt to find another

edge, Unit 8 was opened, adjacent and to the north of Unit 7. Excavation revealed two cultural

layers above the midden, which tapered out to the western side of the unit, consistent with what

was seen in Unit 7 (see Figure 42). Also consistent with Unit 7, a high number of Mockley

ceramics came from Strata 1 and 2 (n=39; 12 were cord-marked) (Table 9). In addition to these

sherds, three pieces of fire-cracked rock, more orange sediment-encrusted oyster shells, and a

few historic period artifacts (one cut nail, one possible brick fragment) were recovered.

An unusual collection of artifacts came from the shell midden in Unit 8 (see Table 9). A

total of 264 fragments of shell-tempered ceramics were recovered, and many of them were very

friable (Figure 43). No surface treatment was able to be determined from any of the sherds, but

there was a great variety in color, texture, and width; however, the overwhelming majority was

shell-tempered. Only five sherds were recovered that appeared to have been tempered with sand,

although the paste of many of the shell-tempered sherds was very sandy, suggesting these sherds

99

may have come from the same clay source. Many of the sherds showed evidence of burning and

a few of them had red ochre inclusions, possibly from the clay source.

As mentioned, many of the sherds were very friable, or very crumbly and brittle. One of

these ceramic sherds was actually still attached to an oyster shell. It was brought back to the lab

and cleaned with great care (see Figure 43). This vessel was coil-constructed, and three distinct

coils and two brakes are still clearly visible in this particular sherd. Additionally, one piece of

unfired or very low-fired clay was recovered from the midden that was the same color and

consistency as the majority of the sherds from the midden. This was found along with two small,

possibly degraded sandstones pieces (see Figure 43). Other artifacts found in the midden

included a charred nut or seed, a quartz shatter fragment, and two rocks that may or may not

have been cultural. One rounded quartz stone had only a single deep pock mark in the side that

broke through the cortex, possibly suggesting wear. The second stone was an oval, flat

sandstone rock with no apparent use marks. No other rocks or stones were recovered from this

shell midden.

100

Figure 43: Portion of ceramic assemblage recovered from the shell midden in Unit 8 at 18AN1285; (top) demonstrates diversity of color and size of shell-tempered sherds, including

the sherd adhered to an oyster shell, three distinct coils are visible up-down in this sherd; (lower left) degraded sandstone pieces shown to left, very low-fired or unfired clay ball shown

lower right; (lower right) friable, crumbly, shell-tempered sherds

101

After the midden portion of Unit 8 had been completely excavated, the corresponding

area on the western side of the unit that would have been located just outside the midden was

removed (called Stratum 4). Interestingly, only a single charcoal bit and a few oyster shells were

recovered from this area (see Table 9). This stands in contrast to the culturally rich soils found

on the other side of the midden in Unit 4 (in Stratum 2 – see Table 7).

The shell midden was then removed from Unit 7 to compare this portion to that seen

further north in Unit 8. A total of 30 Mockley sherds were recovered, and of those with

recognizable surface decoration, seven were cord marked and one was fabric-impressed (Figure

44; see Table 8). However, none of the sherds were friable and crumbly like the large collection

recovered from Unit 8. Two fire-cracked rocks were recovered from this portion of the midden,

along with more charcoal and one small indeterminate bone fragment.

Figure 44: Portion of ceramic assemblage recovered from shell midden (Stratum 3) in Unit 7 at 18AN1285

102

Table 9: Total Assemblage from Unit 8 at 18AN1285

Stratum Material Type Count Weight 1 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 4 0.413 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 8 0.412 Lithic Chert, fire-cracked rock 1 1.462 Shell Oyster, orange encrusted 13 2.763 Shell Oyster 3 1.051 TOTAL STRATUM 1 29 6.101

2 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 7 0.8 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 20 0.44 Masonry Cut nail fragment 1 0.097 Masonry Possible brick fragment 3 0.087 Lithic Quartzite, shatter 1 0.2 Lithic Quartzite, fire-cracked rock 1 2.13 Shell Oyster, orange encrusted 4 0.175 Shell Oyster 15 9.8 TOTAL STRATUM 2 52 13.729

3 (Midden) Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, black, small, pebble-shaped frags. 186 1.568 Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, black, flat on both sides 5 0.449 Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, black, adhered to oyster shell 1 0.578 Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, reddish, thin-bodied 6 0.359 Earthenware Unidentified, possible surface treatment, tannish-exterior, burned

interior 64 1.915

Earthenware Unidentified, shell-tempered, tannish-exterior, burned interior, ochre inclusions

1 0.024

Earthenware Unidentified, high sand content 5 0.079 Earthenware Very low-fired black clay ball, no temper 1 0.026 Earthenware Low-fired red clay balls 2 0.036 Lithic Friable sandstone, one black, one red 2 0.027 Lithic Quartz shatter 1 0.028 Lithic Quartz, rounded rock with deep pock in side 1 2.245 Lithic Quartzite, unidentified use, flat stone 1 6.348 Seed Possible charred nut 1 0.004 Shell Snail 1 0.01 Shell Oyster 80 86.0 Shell Oyster temper bits 7 0.043 TOTAL STRATUM 3 (MIDDEN) 365 99.739

4 Charcoal 1 0.002 Shell Oyster 11 13.5

TOTAL STRATUM 4 12 13.502 5 Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 3 0.217 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 3 0.042 Earthenware Very low-fired reddish clay ball, no temper 2 0.009 Lithic Quartz, possibly thermally altered 2 1.717 Lithic Chert, possibly thermally altered 1 1.487 Charcoal 2 0.004 Shell Oyster 1 1.239 TOTAL STRATUM 5 14 4.715

6 Earthenware Mockley, fabric-impressed 1 0.129 TOTAL STRATUM 6 1 0.129

103

The layers underneath the midden were then removed in Units 7 and 8; this stratum

(called Strat 4 in Unit 7; Strat 5 in Unit 8) was terminated at what appeared to be subsoil in each

unit. A total of 20 sherds of Mockley ware were recovered from beneath the midden in Unit 7

(see Table 8). Of these, seven were cord-marked and 13 were too small or degraded to

determine if a surface treatment existed. One charcoal fragment and one piece of quartz shatter

were also recovered. The assemblage from the layer underlying the midden in Unit 8 consisted

of only six Mockley sherds (three cord-marked), one very low-fired or unfired clay ball, two

small charcoal flecks, and two possibly thermally altered stones (one chert, one quartz) (see

Table 9).

Though the soil appeared to be subsoil, an additional cautionary 0.3 ft. thick arbitrary

level (Stratum 6) was removed from Unit 8 and completely screened. Only one small Mockley

sherd was recovered from this otherwise sterile layer, likely due to bioturbation, as it was

recovered near a root. Excavation was halted in Unit 8.

As a comparison to the strats seen under the midden, the corresponding level (called

Stratum 3) in Unit 4, located outside and to the east of the midden, was removed. Only one

small, unidentified sand tempered ceramic sherd was seen here, but a number of Mockley sherds

(n=5) were noted coming from the northwest corner (see Table 7). An oval, dark stain, full of

oyster shell was partially exposed in this portion of the unit and labeled as Feature 1 (Figure 45).

There was a second feature also noted at this level in Unit 7, called Feature 2 (Figure 46; see

Figure 42).

104

Figure 45: Plan view of Feature 1 at 18AN1285

Figure 46: Profile of bisected Feature 2 at 18AN1285

105

Due to time and budget constraints, Feature 1 was not fully exposed; doing so would

have required opening another test unit to the north of Unit 4. Instead, the portion of the feature

exposed within the unit was removed. It was first bisected on a north-south axis, and the west

half was removed; the east half was subsequently removed. The excavator noted that it was

much deeper than she expected, plunging nearly half a foot into subsoil. It was also full of oyster

shells that “pointed down”, as if they had fallen into the pit. This stands to reason, considering

the proximity to the shell midden.

There were two layers within Feature 1. Layer A (10YR 5/3 brown sandy loam)

contained the shells, along with seven sherds of Mockley ware (four cord-marked and three

burned sherds that exhibited fireclouding, or burning on the broken, interior edges), eleven

unidentified burned bone fragments, one quartz fire-cracked rock, and two very low-fired,

delicate clay fragments (Figure 47; Table 10). Layer B was slightly redder than Layer A (10YR

5/6 yellowish brown coarse sand with no inclusions), and it appeared burned in comparison;

however, no charcoal was noted (Figures 48 and 49).

Figure 47: Total ceramic assemblage from Feature 1 at 18AN1285, including (clockwise from upper left) very low fired clay fragments, cord-marked Mockley, and burned Mockley that

exhibits fireclouding

106

Table 10: Total Assemblage from Feature 1 at 18AN1285

Stratum Material Type Count Weight (in ounces)

A Earthenware Mockley, cord-marked 4 0.205 Earthenware Mockley, burned 3 0.159 Earthenware Very low-fired or unfired clay 2 0.046 Lithic Quartz, fire-cracked rock 1 0.478 Faunal Bone, burned 11 0.203 Shell Oyster 9 3.772 TOTAL FEATURE 1 30 4.863

Figure 48: North wall profile of Unit 4, including profile of excavated Feature 1 at 18AN1285

107

Figure 49: North wall profile of Unit 4 at 18AN1285

Feature 1 appears to be a pit of some sort where burning occurred, although the exact use

of the pit is unclear. The presence of burned bone suggests the Indians may have been using this

pit for cooking, and the three sherds of Mockley that are burned on the broken edge strongly

suggests that a vessel broke and continued to be exposed to heat after breakage. The outer edge

of the pit was reddened and compact, like it had been exposed to heat. Considering its proximity

to the midden, the activity could have been related to the processing of oysters in some way.

Feature 2, located on the western edge of the midden in Unit 7, turned out to be a very

shallow, small, circular hole that contained five sherds of fabric-impressed Mockley ware and

one oyster shell (Figure 50). This feature was also bisected and later fully excavated, and could

have been part of a post or another small pit used for an unknown purpose.

108

Figure 50: Fabric-impressed Mockley sherds from Feature 2 at 18AN1285 (top) and plan view of excavated feature (bottom)

The Munsell colors and textures of the upper strata were nearly identical in all three of

these units. Stratum 1 contained a 10YR5/2 grayish brown fine sandy loam and basically

consisted of the upper humic layer (the O horizon). Stratum 2 (the A horizon, apparently

unplowed) consisted of a 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown sand with occasional oyster shell.

109

This sandy layer was noted to overlay a slightly darker 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown sand in some

portions of the profile (Figures 51 and 52). Where it was noted, the soil from within the midden

consisted of a 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown sandy loam with dense whole and fragmented shells.

Subsoil (the B horizon) was generally a 2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown compact sandy clay, but a

second, lighter strata that transitioned to subsoil was noted in the north wall of Unit 4, which

consisted of a 10YR 7/3 very pale brown compact coarse sand (a possible E horizon) (Figures 53

and 54).

Figure 51: South wall profile of Unit 4 (to left) and Unit 7 (to right) at 18AN1285

110

Figure 52: South wall profile of Units 4 and 7 at 18AN1285

Figure 53: East wall profile of Unit 8 at 18AN1285

111

Figure 54: East wall profile of Unit 8 at 18AN1285

Excavation Block (Units 4, 7, & 8) Summary

A dense but shallow oyster shell midden was identified in the Unit 4/7/8 excavation

block, and the artifacts recovered within and immediately surrounding it suggest it was created

and used during the later part of the Middle Woodland time period of prehistory (ca A.D. 200 –

A.D. 900). The midden was not fully exposed, but at minimum, the feature measures 10 ft. long

by 5 ft. wide. This midden is situated on nearly the highest point of the peninsula on very well-

drained soils.

Two pit features were identified on either side of the midden, to the east and west. The

eastern feature, Feature 1, was the larger of the two, diving nearly 10 inches into subsoil.

Burned, slightly reddened soil along the exterior of the pit and burned bone within it indicate

something was certainly being cooked or fired here, despite the total lack of charcoal. Given its

proximity to the midden (less than one foot from the edge), it stands to reason that the utility of

this pit was related to the processing of oysters. The second feature, Feature 2, located to the

west, was very shallow, small, and circular, and possibly represented the base of a post hole,

although this is not certain. In contrast to Feature 1, which contained a few small burned and

non-burned ceramic sherds and burned bone, Feature 2 contained five relatively large, unburned,

fabric-impressed sherds of Mockley ceramics, two of which mend. There was no evidence of

burning in Feature 2.

112

Nearly all of the ceramics recovered from the excavation block were shell-tempered, and

of those that could be identified, all were Mockley. All of the sherds had a high sand content,

although none appear to be sand-tempered per se. Rather, this is probably a result of the sandy

clay that was being used to construct the vessels. Of those that could be identified, most sherds

appear to be fragments of coil-constructed vessels.

Many of the Mockley sherds were cord-marked, which is a typical surface treatment for

the ware type. However, a number of fabric-impressed sherds were also recovered, which is

somewhat more unusual. While some variety in types were recovered from other units in the

area, the overwhelming presence of Mockley from the midden area strongly suggests it was

deposited during the later Middle Woodland, often referred to as the Selby Bay period (ca. A.D.

200 – A.D. 900). The Selby Bay knife found in the vicinity during the Phase II enforces this

conclusion.

Perhaps the most interesting find from the excavation block was the over 260 partially-

fired, friable clay sherds recovered from the shell midden in Unit 8 that indicate there was

pottery manufacture taking place somewhere on site. These sherds seem to fall somewhere

between clay and fully-fired pottery. When exposed to water, these fragments do not revert back

to a clay-like state, nor are they impervious, like a fully-fired vessel. Rather, they begin to

crumble and dissolve as if they were only partially fired. The sherd still adhered to an oyster

shell demonstrates an effort at constructing a vessel by coiling the clay; three partial coils are still

visible adhered to this shell. The presence of these friable sherds in the midden strongly suggests

a failed attempt at pottery manufacture somewhere on site (Michael Stewart, personal

communication, 2008). And their spatial location entirely within the midden of Unit 8 indicates

they were deposited during a single event.

Unit 5

Unit 5 was placed near the southern tip of the peninsula to further investigation this

portion of site 18AN1285 (see Figure 40). During the Phase II, Unit 3 was excavated in the

vicinity and a portion of a dense, thick shell midden was excavated. A few Mockley sherds were

113

the only artifacts recovered from the midden, but the unit was smaller than most due to time

constraints (2.5 ft. by 5 ft.).

To get a sense for the use of the southern portion of the midden, Unit 5 was placed just to

the south and east of Unit 3. It measured 5 ft. square and ultimately ended up on the eastern edge

of the larger midden. This provided for an interesting comparison about what was going on at

midden’s edge versus inside the midden itself, as was seen in the Unit 4, 7, and 8 excavation

block to the north.

The midden was located in the western half of the unit and it was first encountered once

Strat 1, representing the upper organic layer (10YR 6/3 pale brown sand), was removed. Two

undiagnostic sand-tempered wares were recovered from this layer, in addition to a number of

whole oyster shells, three periwinkle shells, and a few charcoal bits (Table 11). Strat 2 was an

interface layer excavated in the eastern half of the unit (2.5Y 4/3 olive brown fine sand with

frequent oyster shells). This fully exposed the portion of the midden located within Unit 5, and

produced only oyster shells and charcoal bits.

114

Table 11: Total Assemblage from Unit 5 at 18AN1285

Stratum Material Type Count Weight (in ounces)

1 Earthenware Unidentified Sand-tempered 2 0.045 Charcoal 3 0.008 Shell Periwinkle 3 0.087 Shell Oyster 23 15.0 TOTAL STRATUM 1 31 15.14

2 Lithic Possibly slag? 1 0.02 Charcoal 22 0.134 Shell Oyster 14 13.75 TOTAL STRATUM 2 38 13.904

3 (midden) Lithic Quartzite fire-cracked rock 1 6.411 Lithic Unidentified, probably cultural 1 3.146 Shell Oyster 54 65.0 TOTAL STRATUM 3 56 74.557 4 (midden) Lithic Quartz flakes (primary) 2 0.047

Lithic Quartzite flake 1 0.159 Lithic Rhyolite flake (tertiary) 1 0.11 Lithic Quartz shatter 1 0.39 Lithic Quartzite shatter 1 0.25 Shell Oyster 28 2.5 TOTAL STRATUM 4 34 3.456

5 Earthenware Mockley, net-impressed 2 0.379 Earthenware Mockley, smoothed 2 0.075 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 4 0.039 Lithic Quartz flake (secondary) 1 0.011 Lithic Quartzite flakes (primary) 5 0.58 Lithic Rhyolite flakes (tertiary) 3 0.04 Lithic Quartzite fire-cracked rock 2 0.313 Lithic Quartzite core 1 2.234 Charcoal 9 0.063 Shell Oyster 1 0.493 TOTAL STRATUM 5 30 4.227

6 Earthenware Mockley, unidentified surface treatment 1 0.375 Lithic Quartzite, thermally altered 4 0.066 Lithic Quartzite, fire-cracked rock 11 12.56 Charcoal 3 0.005 Glass Clear, flat 1 0.004 TOTAL STRATUM 6 20 13.01

115

The remainder of the midden was excavated as Strata 3 and 4. These layers within the

midden were separated based on density of shell; strat 3 was far denser than strat 4. In sum, 82

whole oyster shells were recovered from the midden, in addition to a number of pieces of quartz,

quartzite, and rhyolite debitage. Two pieces of FCR were recovered from Strat 3, while two

quartz flakes, one rhyolite flake, one quartzite flake, one quartzite shatter, and one quartz shatter

came from Strat 4. In contrast to the northern midden, no ceramic sherds were recovered from

this midden. The soils in Strat 3 consisted of a 10YR 5/1 very dark grayish brown sandy loam

while the soils in Strat 4 were mottled with a 10YR 5/1 very dark grayish brown sandy loam and

a 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown coarse sand.

Strat 4 was stopped at the base of the midden on the western side of the unit (Figure 55).

The archaeologists were unsure if they had reached subsoil, so they began to excavate this as an

arbitrary level. In the end, this turned out to be another cultural horizon, plunging nearly a foot

and a half below the base of the midden. While no ceramic sherds were recovered from the

midden itself, a number were recovered from below and just to the exterior (east) of it. A total of

nine shell-tempered Mockley sherds were recovered, all with the oyster shell temper leached out

(Figure 56). This was in addition to charcoal and oyster shell, 17 quartzite fire-cracked rocks, a

quartzite core fragment, five quartzite flakes, one quartz flake, and three rhyolite flakes (see

Table 11). Oddly enough, one clear glass fragment was recovered from near the base of

excavation. The excavator noted this probably came from wall scrapings. While there was some

variety in the soil color and density at deeper levels, it was generally a 10YR 6/4 light yellowish

brown sand at the top and a 10YR 5/6 yellowish brown sand at the bottom.

116

Figure 55: Unit 5, after excavation of shell midden (Strata 3 and 4), visible in north and west walls; facing north

Figure 56: Ceramic assemblage from Unit 5, Stratum 5 at 18AN1285; most were recovered from just to exterior (east) of midden

117

The excavators noted that most of the artifacts were recovered from the eastern portion of

the unit, which would have fallen just to the outer edge of the shell midden. Similarly, a number

of ceramics were also found on the exterior of the midden in the northern excavation block. This

spatial comparison seems to suggest some sort of domestic activity taking place at the edge of

both middens.

An arbitrary level was excavated at the base of the unit, and after about 0.2 ft. with no

additional artifacts and increasing clay content (a 10YR 5/4 yellowish brown sandy clay),

excavation was halted (Figures 57 and 58).

118

Figure 57: North (top) and west (bottom) wall profiles of Unit 5 at 18AN1285

119

Figure 58: Profiles from Unit 5 at 18AN1285

Unit 5 Summary

A shell midden was partially excavated near the southern tip of the peninsula on which

site 18AN1285 is located. Unit 5 was strategically placed on the eastern edge of this midden,

(the same one encountered in Unit 3 during the 2006 excavations) to more fully explore the

interface between midden and inland deposits.

No ceramic sherds were recovered from within the midden, in contrast to the hundreds of

sherds recovered from within the northern midden. Rather, all of the ceramics came from either

above the midden in the upper organic layer, or just to the eastern edge of the midden. The

ceramics from above the midden were sand-tempered, possibly suggesting a later ware type

deposited during a Late Woodland visitation of the site, while all of those that came from

midden’s edge were shell-tempered, most likely Mockley ware. A number of quartz, quartzite,

and rhyolite flakes also came from this area, suggesting tool manufacture was taking place in this

120

area. And the 17 quartzite fire-cracked rocks strongly suggest a fire pit located near the edge of

the midden, although no particularly burned areas were noted during excavation.

The high number of artifacts located at midden’s edge is a trend that was also seen in the

excavation block to the north. A number of ceramic sherds were recovered from the eastern

edge of the shell midden in that area, as well. The southern midden was far thicker than its

northern equivalent, measuring nearly a foot deep in some places. This suggests more shell

harvesting and processing was probably taking place near the tip of the peninsula, which stands

to reason, as it is closer to the shoreline on three sides.

Unit 6

Unit 6 was placed in the far northern extent of site 18AN1285 because of a magnetic

anomaly detected during the magnetometer survey (see Figure 39). Very few artifacts were

recovered from this unit, and no features were identified (Table 12).

Table 12: Total Assemblage from Unit 6 at 18AN1285

Stratum Material Type Count Weight (in ounces)

1 Earthenware Whiteware 1 0.525 Lithic Quartz flake (tertiary) 1 0.012 Bone Avian 1 0.021 Charcoal 47 0.132 Shell Oyster 1 0.016 TOTAL STRATUM 1 51 0.706

2 Porcelain Hard-paste 1 0.007 Charcoal 14 0.02 Shell Oyster 10 3.0 TOTAL STRATUM 2 25 3.027

3 Lithic Quartz flakes (tertiary) 2 0.935 Charcoal 5 0.022 TOTAL STRATUM 3 7 0.957

4 Lithic Quartz flake (tertiary) 1 0.013 TOTAL STRATUM 4 1 0.013

The unit was excavated by natural layers into strata 1, 2, 3, and 4. Stratum 1, the upper

humus, consisted of a 2.5Y 5/3 light olive brown sandy loam and produced one quartz flake, one

bird bone, one oyster shell, one whiteware sherd, and 47 charcoal fragments (weight = 0.132oz).

121

Stratum 2, the A horizon, consisted of a 2.5Y 6/6 olive yellow loose sand and produced ten

oyster shells, one porcelain sherd, and some charcoal. Stratum 3 was a transition layer between

A and B (a possible E horizon?), and consisted of a 2.5Y 5/4 light olive brown loose sand and

produced a few charcoal flecks and two nice quartz flakes from near the bottom. Stratum 4

seemed to be the B horizon, and only one quartz flake was recovered from near the top of the

horizon. The B consisted of a dense 10YR 4/4 dark yellowish brown slightly sandy dense clay,

and excavations were halted.

Unit 6 Summary

Considering no features or particularly notable artifacts came from Unit 6, the strong

magnetioc anomaly is unexplained. Metal or other magnetically active trash could have been

under the leaf mat in the vicinity, taking into account the few historic artifacts that were

recovered from the unit. Judging by the profile of this unit and the presence of a possible E

horizon, is seems likely that this portion of site 18AN1285 is unplowed.

No prehistoric ceramics were recovered from the unit, but four tertiary quartz flakes were

found. This suggests the Native inhabitants of the site were utilizing this portion of the site at

least in some limited capacity for tool manufacture. The historic artifacts found here are likely

related to the occupation at nearby Wrighton Farm, site 18AN424, but considering the low

density, they probably represent little more than casual discard.

Site 18AN1285 Discussion

The Camp Letts site (18AN1285) is interpreted as a seasonal camp site with the

occupation ranging from the Selby Bay phase of the Middle Woodland time period (ca. A.D. 200

– A.D. 900) to the Potomac Creek phase of the Late Woodland period (ca. A.D. 1300 – A.D.

1700). Judging by the high percentage of Mockley sherds and the presence of a

contemporaneous Selby Bay knife, it appears that the heaviest period of site use occurred in the

Middle Woodland period. With only three small sherds definitively identified as Potomac

Creek, it would seem the later occupation of the peninsula was slight and periodic.

122

A total of 1,699 artifacts were recovered from three years of excavations at the site. Of

these, only 37 were historic artifacts. This included refined white earthenwares, porcelain, vessel

glass, nails, slag, brick, and daub (Figure 59). It should be noted that of the 21 brick and daub

fragments recovered, Lost Towns Project laboratory specialists could not be certain that many

were actually bricks or simply a poorly fired prehistoric ceramic.

Figure 59: Total historic artifacts recovered from 18AN1285

These historic period artifacts are very sparse across the site and no historic features were

identified. As such, it is highly unlikely that there was occupation on this peninsula after

European contact. These few artifacts represent causal discard from nearby Wrighton Farm

(18AN424) and from sporadic use of the land by people utilizing nearby Bear Neck Creek and

the Rhode River.

The remaining 1,662 prehistoric artifacts can be generally classified into four broad

categories: ceramics, lithics, faunal remains (shell and bone), and floral remains (charcoal).

Table 13 provides a breakdown of these four categories.

123

Table 13: Total Prehistoric Artifacts Recovered from 18AN1285

Type Number Weight (in ounces) Bone 16 0.477 Lithic 98 84.9986 Charcoal 301 1.8875 Ceramic 495 19.936 Shell 751 531.456 TOTAL 1661 638.7551

By far the highest percentage of ceramics recovered from the site was shell-tempered,

and for those that could be identified, nearly all were Mockley. Figure 60 presents the

breakdown of the ceramic assemblage graphically.

Figure 60: Total prehistoric ceramics recovered from 18AN1285

In sum, a total of 94% (n=464) of the prehistoric ceramics recovered from the site were

shell-tempered or Mockley. Adding those categorized as Townsend/Rappahannock ware to that

total, classified as a Late Woodland shell-tempered ceramic that was a general progression of

Mockley ware, the total shell-tempered percentage rises to 97%. The sand-tempered and

Potomac Creek wares only account for about 3% of the total ceramic assemblage. The color of

the sherds from the assemblage varied between gray, black, red, and orange.

124

Only about 8% of the sherds had visible surface treatment. Of these, the majority (n=53)

were cord-marked, including one Potomac Creek sherd. However, seven sherds of Mockley

ware were identified as fabric-impressed and six had net-impressions.

The curved fracture lines on many of the Mockley ceramics strongly suggests the vessels

represented by these sherds were coil-constructed. The most obvious example of attempted coil-

construction is seen on the partially fired ceramic sherd still adhered to an oyster shell, recovered

from the shell midden in Unit 8.

The high percentage of shell-tempered wares, coupled with the 264 sherds of friable,

crumbly, apparently failed shell-tempered sherds recovered from the midden in Unit 8, could

suggest that some of the other Mockley sherds seen here could represent successful pottery

manufacture that occurred on site. Regardless, the overwhelming percentage of Mockley sherds

demonstrates the highest period of occupation during the later portion of the Middle Woodland

time period of prehistory. The three Potomac Creek sherds (one cord-marked) illustrates that

this peninsula was at least a moderately desirable location for later Woodland period Native

Americans, as well.

A wide variety of lithics were recovered from Camp Letts, with the highest percentage

being locally available materials (Figure 61). When based on artifact count, quartzite, quartz,

ironstone, and sandstone combined account for 84% (n=75) of the total number of lithics

recovered, while non-native chert and rhyolite only account for 16% (n=14) of the assemblage.

When based on artifact weight, the percentage of native materials recovered from the site jumps

to 90% (n=72.879 oz), while the non-native materials account for only 10% (n=8.367 oz) of the

total assemblage.

125

Figure 61: Total lithics recovered from 18AN1285

It appears some tool manufacture was also taking place on the site. The percentages of

lithic types seen in the assemblage of debitage (here defined as cores, flakes, chunks, and shatter)

are consistent with the overall lithic assemblage, with quartz and quartzite making up the largest

percentage (Table 14). A quartz Selby Bay knife and an undiagnostic rhyolite projectile point

were the only two completed tools found on site. Of the flakes that could be identified, seven

were primary (more than 50% cortex remains), four were secondary (less than 50% cortex

remains), and 12 were tertiary (no cortex remains), indicating that lithic reduction was taking

place at all stages of the process.

126

Table 14: Total Debitage and Tools from 18AN1285

Material Object Notes Count Weight Unit Stratum Quartz Knife Selby Bay 1 0.947 2 2 Quartz Chunk 4 0.946 2 2 Quartz Core 1 3.43 STP 70 Quartz Flake Unidentified 1 0.116 2 1 Quartz Flake Unidentified 4 0.138 2 3 Quartz Flake Primary 2 0.047 5 4 Quartz Flake Secondary 1 0.044 4 2 Quartz Flake Secondary 1 0.011 5 5 Quartz Flake Tertiary 1 0.012 6 1 Quartz Flake Tertiary 2 0.935 6 3 Quartz Flake Tertiary 1 0.013 6 4 Quartz Shatter 1 0.39 5 4 Quartz Shatter Primary 1 0.062 7 4 Quartz Shatter 1 0.028 8 3 TOTAL QUARTZ 22 7.119 Quartzite Chunk 1 0.036 STP 66 Quartzite Chunk 1 0.203 1 3 Quartzite Core 1 5.44 1 3 Quartzite Core 1 2.234 5 5 Quartzite Flake Primary 5 0.58 5 5 Quartzite Flake Tertiary – Thermally altered 4 0.066 5 6 Quartzite Flake Unidentified – possible scraper 1 0.159 5 4 Quartzite Shatter 1 0.25 5 4 Quartzite Shatter 1 0.2 8 2 TOTAL QUARTZITE 16 9.168 Rhyolite Point Fragment – base missing 1 0.17 1 1 Rhyolite Flake Unidentified 2 0.052 STP 66 Rhyolite Flake Tertiary 1 0.11 5 4 Rhyolite Flake Tertiary 3 0.04 5 5 TOTAL RHYOLITE 7 0.372 Chert Chunk Thermally altered 1 0.676 STP 71 Chert Flake Secondary 1 0.008 4 1 Chert Flake Secondary 1 0.085 4 1 TOTAL CHERT 3 0.769

127

Spatially, the highest number of flakes (n=20) from a single unit was recovered from the

strat excavated just outside of the midden in Unit 5, located in the far southern end of the site

near the point of the peninsula. Six pieces of debitage came from the Unit 4/7/8 block, but only

one of these, a quartz chunk, was actually recovered from the midden itself. This seems to

suggest lithic reduction was one of the activities that were taking place at midden’s edge.

The total count of 751 shells in the inventory is somewhat misleading. Considering the

thousands of oyster shells encountered while excavating the two middens, in general, only whole

oyster shells with “female” hinges were collected and taken back to the lab for processing;

however, all shells that exhibited an encrustation of orange sediment were saved from the

northern midden. And all shells other than oyster (including 30 snail shells and three freshwater

periwinkle shells) were kept.

Only 16 bones were found at Camp Letts. This includes one bird bone from Unit 6

(possibly modern), three fragments of a charred mammal long bone from STP 66, located near

Unit 1, one very small unidentified bone from the northern shell midden in Unit 7, and 11 burned

mammal bones from Feature 1. The paucity of bones recovered from the site suggests one of

two things: either excavations did not intersect with an area where the Native populations were

discarding bones from their hunts, or the intervening centuries have caused all evidence of this

type of trash to disintegrate.

When analyzing the artifact assemblage spatially, it is clear that more activity was taking

place near the center of the peninsula (Figure 62). Granted, more excavation took place in this

area (Units 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8) than closer to the point (Units 3 and 5), but a far greater number and

variety of artifacts were seen closer to the interior. When shell is disregarded, 705 artifacts

(weight = 64.459 oz) came from the units in the center of the landform, while only 90 (28.7 oz)

were recovered closer to the point. Seventy-five prehistoric artifacts (weighing 1.727 oz) were

recovered from the far northern Unit 6, but 66 of these were charcoal bits (Table 15; Figure 63).

128

220 240

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

Ounces of Ceramic

220 240

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

0123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627

Ounces of Lithics

Figure 62: Distribution maps from 18AN1285

129

Table 15: Comparison of Prehistoric Artifacts from Three Excavation Areas at 18AN1285

Central Units (1, 2, 4, 7, 8)

Southern Units (3, 5)

Northern Unit (6)

Count Weight (in oz) Count Weight (in oz) Count Weight (in oz) Bone 12 0.209 0 0 1 0.021 Shell 389 276.698 210 164.967 11 3.016

Charcoal 179 1.472 38 0.21 66 0.174 Ceramic 462 16.066 14 1.908 0 0

Lithic 47 48.889 36 26.338 8 1.532 TOTAL 1089 343.334 298 193.423 86 4.743

Figure 63: Comparison of prehistoric artifacts from three excavation areas at 18AN1285

The majority of the artifacts from the central units were ceramic sherds (n=462; 16.066

oz), while only 14 sherds were recovered from the southern units (1.908 oz). This highly skewed

number is due in part to the high number of ceramic wasters found in the midden of Unit 8 from

the failed attempt at pottery manufacture.

130

Lithics (including debitage and fire-cracked rock) seem to be more evenly distributed

between the two areas (n=47, 48.889 oz in the center; n=36, 26.338 in the south), even though

the only tools recovered from the site came from the center. However, more debitage came from

the southern units (n=20) than the central units (n=17). Four quartz flakes were also recovered

from the far northern Unit 6. This suggests that lithic reduction was taking place all across the

peninsula, even though most of the activity was concentrated in the center.

Site 18AN1285 Summary

The Camp Letts site appears to have been occupied periodically and seasonally, probably

by semi-nomadic bands of people. The heaviest period of site occupation seems to have

occurred during the Selby Bay, or Mockley, phase of the Middle Woodland time period (ca A.D.

200-A.D. 800). The people who inhabited this area thousands of years ago were mostly

interested in exploiting the rich natural resources of the Rhode River. The most overt remains of

their time on this small peninsula that juts into Bear Neck Creek are the thousands of discarded

oyster shells resulting in two middens. Oysters were an abundant resource in the area, and the

meat could be smoked and preserved for transportation back to the larger base camp.

The native peoples were also engaged in rudimentary attempts at pottery manufacture

during their stay at site 18AN1285. Over 260 sherds of crumbly, friable, shell-tempered bits of a

material apparently mid-way between clay and pottery were recovered from the central shell

midden. When exposed to water, these sherds do not revert back to clay, as they would if they

were never fired, nor are they impervious to water, as they would if they had been fully and

successfully fired. Rather, they absorb the water and continue to crumble apart. This, coupled

with intentional shell-tempering in the sherds, strongly suggests there was an effort at producing

ceramic vessels here on the peninsula (Michael Stewart, personal communication, 2008). A

single sherd of this material that is still adhered to an oyster shell from the midden shows three,

and perhaps four, coils, clearly demonstrating an attempt at coil-constructing a vessel. All of

these sherds were recovered from the portion of the midden excavated in a single unit, possibly

suggesting they were deposited during a single event. It is easy to imagine a person confronted

with an unsuccessful pot tossing soft coils into the trash heap.

131

Two small pit-like features were excavated that were located at either edge of this central

midden. Feature 1 was the deeper of the two, diving nearly a foot into subsoil. This small pit

was lined with sterile, fire-reddened soil, and contained burned bone, fire-cracked rock, and both

burned and unburned shell-tempered ceramics. The burned ceramics showed signs of charring

on the interior and exterior, as well as the broken edges, suggesting a vessel broke and continued

to char in the pit (see Figure 47). The pit later filled with oyster shells, possibly a result of the

nearby midden slumping and settling. The second feature, called Feature 2, was located on the

opposite side of the shell midden. It was very shallow (less than two inches deep), circular, and

small (only about six inches in diameter). The only artifacts recovered from this feature were

five sherds of net-impressed Mockley ceramics. The use or function of either of these pits is

unconfirmed, but given their proximity to the midden, it stands to reason their purpose was

directly related to the processing of oysters.

A second shell midden was tested during the 2006 and 2007 field season. This midden

was located in the far southern end of the site, close to the point of the peninsula. Few artifacts

were recovered from within this midden, and no evidence of the soft, friable ceramics were

found anywhere in this area. However, a number of fire-cracked rocks and Mockley ceramics

recovered from just outside the midden speak to activities taking place at midden’s edge. The

highest number of debitage fragments recovered anywhere on site, including quartz, quartzite,

and rhyolite cores and flakes were recovered from this area. This, coupled with the thicker and

denser shell midden, seems to suggest a greater degree of oyster processing and tool manufacture

on this side of the site, although no features were noted in the vicinity.

A single unit was excavated in the far northern portion of the site, and very few

prehistoric artifacts were recovered from this area. While no prehistoric ceramics were found,

four tertiary quartz flakes were recovered, which clearly indicates tool manufacturing across all

of site 18AN1285. This unit did possess very dense, clay-rich subsoil only about one foot below

the ground surface. Such clay could provide a source for the raw materials needed for the

attempted pottery manufacture seen on the site.

The high percentage of locally available lithics found on the Camp Letts site and

relatively sparse rhyolite is notable for a site of this time period. Stewart (1984) demonstrated

132

that rhyolite increases proportionately in assemblages located 80 to more than 100 miles from the

sources in Western Maryland, demonstrating that this material was important in structuring

intergroup relations during the Selby Bay phase of the Middle Woodland time period. Sites

excavated in the area have long corroborated this theory. Jim Gibb (1997) reported a lithic

assemblage that consisted of nearly 50% rhyolite at the contemporaneous Smithsonian Pier site

(18AN284), located just south of Camp Letts on the Rhode River. Hettie Ballwebber (1994)

reported almost 93% rhyolite in the assemblage of the nearby Luce Creek site (18AN143), a

single component Selby Bay period shell midden. Here at site 18AN1285, rhyolite only

accounts for 8% of the total lithic assemblage. One of only two completed tools recovered from

the site was a heavily curated rhyolite point, with the other being a quartz Selby Bay knife. This

profound scarcity of rhyolite on the site can possibly be explained by greater care and

conservation taken with the material, given its difficulty in acquiring. Alternatively, the

residents of this site could have simply been here on such a temporary basis that they were

bringing little with them and mainly using the resources available locally.

Whatever the case, the Camp Letts site provides an interesting glimpse into the rich and

diverse prehistoric past of Anne Arundel County. Evidence of pottery manufacture (even failed

attempts) is rarely seen in the archaeological record, and the relative dearth of rhyolite found on

site demonstrates that there is much still to learn about the people of the Selby Bay phase and the

variations between sites representing this time period. Further exploration of the presence of

rhyolite on Middle Woodland sites may offer new perspectives on how Native populations

viewed, used, and lived at different site types, resulting in a refinement of site types for the

period. Such analysis might also further refine temporal controls within the Middle Woodland

period.

A notable lesson regarding excavation strategies at discrete seasonal oyster midden sites

was learned from 18AN1285. Valuable data was recovered from the margins of the more highly

visible oyster middens. Deposits at the periphery of the oyster midden features yielded

significant information about the seasonal activities beyond the obvious procurement of oysters.

While this was their primary activity while on the site, a full range of daily activities no doubt

took place, yet such activities left only an ephemeral signature on the landscape. Excavation

133

strategies for similar small, temporary or seasonal camps should search out the ‘quieter’ cultural

signatures, which may mean excavation at the margins of the obvious core of the site. As the

knowledge base of the time period continues to grow, it seems clear that the findings from site

18AN1285 provide yet another important, and somewhat unexpected, voice to the continued

discussion.

134

CHAPTER THREE: The Future of Cultural Resources on the Rhode River

This three-year effort has attempted to address broad questions and provide guidance for

the effective stewardship of dozens of resources in the area. From the initial evaluation stage, to

more in-depth study of select sites, much has been learned, both academically, and in a planning

and management context. We have verified that the two most significant threats to sites in the

area are development, and natural forces. Development can be managed through regulatory

review, and enhanced through education programs and promoting citizen and landowner

stewardship. Natural forces must be closely monitored, and when threatening the integrity of site,

emergency salvage and study is warranted. While these are useful general strategies for

managing the broad range of cultural resources in the entire Rhode River region, below are

specific strategies for future protection, scholarly investigation, and long-term maintenance of

the two sites discussed within this report.

Management Plan for 18AN339

This site is clearly a very significant resource and while there has been a Determination

of Eligibility form completed, and the SHPO has concurred with the determination, the long-

term study and stewardship of the site would benefit from the completion and submittal of a

formal National Register nomination.

The site boundaries for 18AN339 encompass a broad continuum of resources, and were

initially defined based upon archaeological investigations, archival documentation, and extant

landscape features. One of the most significant aspects of this multi-component site is its intact

historic landscape, which is very visually stimulating. Landscape features, such as topography,

view shed, roads ad pathways, vegetation, are subtle, yet impart the sites significance to the

public with minimal interpretation. Future cooperative efforts between the Lost Towns Project

and SERC should include developing strategies for the preservation and interpretation of the

sites visible archaeological features within a context of public access and interpretation.

Continued investigations of the 17th century loci, and continued discovery and evaluation

of the 18th and 19th century features across the site are warranted, particularly as SERC looks

toward making the site a centerpiece of their interpretive program in the coming years. Clearly,

135

the mansion ruins, which are deteriorating rapidly, deserve further study and stabilization. SERC

has begun planning for active stabilization efforts, and hopefully, a systematic documentation

project of the ruins will be included in those efforts.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about the 18AN339 site is the surrounding landscape,

much of which has not been systematically surveyed. Initial evaluation has identified other sites

on the 600+- acre parcel, and undoubtedly, there are copious significant resources that survive

elsewhere on the parcel. Features and related sites outside the surveyed area should be sought,

and further survey efforts should be mounted to identify resources “off the hilltop,” particularly

undiscovered domestic and agricultural sites associated with the enslaved population that

dominated the site throughout its colonial, Federal, ante- and post-bellum history.

The research potential at this site is enormous and its value heightened even more as it

provides a public venue for the study and interpretation of a rich multi-component site. Such

public access provides opportunities for education and for promoting stewardship of sites

throughout the region. Most significantly, the sites’ recent incorporation into the SERC-owned

land reunites a portion of Thomas Sparrow’s 17th-century parcel to its former bounds, where it

has been disassociated since 1859. The site should continue to be studied and considered

holistically, as part of a larger historic context of the region, as a part of a large inter-related

tobacco plantation, and as a element of the current landscape and natural environment.

Management Plan for 18AN1285

As the YMCA has owned the camp property since 1902, and the land is under no

immediate or known threat for sale or development, site 18AN1285 is well-protected. Based

upon or findings, the site is of interest to the study of the Middle Woodland period, and should

be preserved until such time that future investigation is warranted. The site is in a sensitive

environment, along the highly erodible shoreline, thus we would recommend regular monitoring

of the site and nearby shore for environmental degradation.

As a component of this project, we have been in close contact with the Camp Lett’s

property managers, and hopefully have instilled an appreciation for the resources of which they

136

are stewards. Should circumstances allow, we would welcome the opportunity to offer additional

educational programming in coordination with their ongoing camp archaeology program.

From an academic perspective, further consideration of the pottery-making component

may be of great interest. Acquiring clay samples from the region, and conducting clay-sourcing

studies would allow archaeologists to further explore the pottery making revelation. This site

should be incorporated as a key representative site type within a multi-property National Register

nomination on the Middle Woodland Phase in Anne Arundel County, MD. This site is ideally

suited for preservation in situ and under Camp Letts stewardship should be well protected for

future generations.

The Rhode River Region

As has been discussed in detail throughout Volume I and II of this series, the Rhode

River drainage provides a unique microcosm of cultural resources that are representative of both

prehistoric and historic resources throughout Anne Arundel County. There are varied threats and

pressures on the sites throughout the watershed, such as development and natural forces. With

the recent acquisition of the Kirkpatrick-Howat farm by SERC in the spring of 2008, more than

one-third of the sites within the original study area are now owned, and under the thoughtful

stewardship of a conservation-minded organization. SERC has expressed a clear commitment to

partnering with cultural resources professionals to ensure a management strategy is employed

that will both preserve, study, and educate the public on the unique synergy between historic

land use patterns and modern day environmental stewardship.

The northern shores of the Rhode River has seen intensifying development and shoreline

impact, yet on the whole, with open space uses, such as the Camp Letts acreage, and the Anne

Arundel County-owned Beverly-Triton Park, the Rhode River area retains much of its historic

and archaeological integrity as a region.

It is inevitable that some resources will be impacted or lost as time progresses, yet with a

comprehensive system of regulatory review, monitoring, voluntary stewardship, and in some

cases data recovery, the information these sites can yield will not be lost. Environmental

degradation is a more difficult threat to manage, as sea level rises, and erosional actions continue

137

to impact the shorelines, where many of the Rhode River sites are found. There are only limited

management strategies one can employ to mitigate these effects, though one useful strategy is to

regularly monitor the condition of sites, and conduct emergency investigations should

environmental conditions threaten the loss of site integrity. This innovative and comprehensive

approach to developing a cultural resources management plan has been most successful, and has

provided opportunity for studying a region from multiple perspectives. This three-year effort has

already paid off as SERC has the tools at hand to effectively manage many of the Rhodes most

significant sites. This planning and research effort will ensure that a majority of the

archaeological resources in the region will continue to contribute to our broader understanding of

the prehistory ad history of the Rhode River.

138

REFERENCES CITED

Ballweber, Hettie L. 1990 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Java History Trail, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Report to The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland from Hettie Ballweber, Archaeological Consultant. 1994 Return to The Luce Site (18AN143). Maryland Archaeology 30(1): 1-16. Cox, C. Jane, Lauren Franz, Erin Cullen, and Shawn Sharpe 2007a Survey and Limited Assessment of Archaeological Resources in the Rhode River Region, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Report to the Maryland Historical Trust from The Lost Towns Project of Anne Arundel County. Cox, C. Jane, Erin Cullen, Lauren Schiszik, Kelly Cooper, and Shawn Sharpe 2007b Assessment and Evaluation of Select Archaeological Resources in the Rhode River Region: Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Report to the Maryland Historical Trust from The Lost Towns Project of Anne Arundel County. Dent, Richard J., Jr. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York. Gibb, James G. and Anson H. Hines 1997 Phase III Data Recovery at the Smithsonian Pier Site (18AN284/285), Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Report to The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, Maryland from James G. Gibb, Archaeological Consultant. Gilsen, Leland 1978 Population Adaptation to the Chesapeake Bay: Estuarine Efficiency. Maryland Archaeology. 14(1-2):11-16. Greenburg, Laurie and Amy Hyatt 1990 “Appendix I: History of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.” In Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Java History Trail, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Anne Arundel County, Maryland by Hettie L. Ballweber. Hanna, Susan D., Barry Knight, and Geoff Egan 1992 Marked Window Leads from North America and Europe. Historic St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Hranicky, Wm Jack and Floyd Painter 1989 A Guide to the Identification of Virginia Projectile Points. Special Publication Number 17, Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond.

139

Lee, Byron A. 2004 John Contee and Java Plantation, Part II. Anne Arundel County History Notes 35(4):1-2, 7-9. Luckenbach, Al and C. Jane Cox 2003 17th Century Lead Cloth Seals from Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Maryland Archaeology 39(1&2):17-26. Noel Hume, Ivor 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia. Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab (MAC Lab) 2008 Mockley Ceramics Details, Electronic Document, http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Prehistoric_Ceramic_Web_Page/Prehistoric%20Ware%20Descriptions/Mockley.htm, Accessed April 13, 2008. Paschal, Herbert R. Jr. 1955 A History of Colonial Bath. Edwards & Broughton, Raleigh, North Carolina. Potter, Stephen R. 1993 Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Ruck, January M. 2008 Reintegrating Public History & Environmental Education: Preservation and Interpretation of the Ruin at Java Plantation, Edgewater, Maryland. Master’s thesis, School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, University of Maryland, College Park. Russell, Donna Valley ND First Families of Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 1649-1658: Volume 2, The Headrights. Catoctin Press, New Market, Maryland. Schindler, William, III 2006 Middle Woodland Exploitation of Migratory Fish in the Delaware Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Temple University. South, Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Sparrow, Margaret W. 1990 The Sparrows of Sparrow’s Point. Maryland Historical Magazine 85:395-404. Stewart, R. Michael

140

1984 Archaeologically Significant Characteristics of Maryland and Pennsylvania Metarhyolites. Prehistoric Lithic Exchange System in the Middle Atlantic. Jay F. Custer, editor, pp 1-13. University of Delaware Center for Archaeological Research Monograph Number 3. Trostle, Michael F. 1981 Mount Clare: Being an Account of the Seat built by Charles Carroll, Barrister, upon his Lands at Patapsco. The National Society of Colonial Dames of America in the State of Maryland, Baltimore.

141

Appendix One: Artifact Catalogs for 18AN339 and 18AN1285

142

Appendix Two: Staff Qualifications

143

Appendix Three: Revised Site Forms for 18AN339 and 18AN1285

144

Appendix Four: Revised Determination of Eligibility Forms for 18AN339 and 18AN1285