Final Report of the Phase III Archaeological Investigations at the Dr

Final Report of the Phase III Archaeological Investigations at the Dr

Final Report of the Phase III Archaeological Investigations at the Dr. Upton Scott House (18AP18), Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 1998-1999. By Amelia G. Chisholm, M.A.A.; Thomas W. Cuddy, Ph.D.; Samuel K. Seligman; with contributions from Kristofer M. Beadenkopf and Matthew Palus Mark P. Leone, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Report prepared for: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Christian Archaeology in Annapolis Department of Anthropology University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 November 2006 Edited January 2011 Abstract In the summers of 1998 and 1999, the Archaeology in Annapolis project carried out archaeological investigation at the eighteenth century Dr. Upton Scott House site (18AP18) located at 4 Shipwright Street in the historic district of Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The Upton Scott House is significant as one of only a few Georgian houses with remnants of its original plantation-inspired landscape still visible (Graham 1998:147). Investigation was completed in agreement with the owners of the historic property, Mr. and Mrs. Paul Christian, who were interested in determining the condition and arrangement of Dr. Upton Scott’s well-documented pleasure gardens. Betty Cosans’ 1972 Archaeological Feasibility Report, the first real archaeological study of the Upton Scott House site, guided the research design and recovery efforts. Cosans determined that testing and survey in the back and side yards of the Scott property would yield important information on the use and history of the property, including that of Scott’s famous gardens. Excavation units and trenches were placed within three separate areas of backyard activity on the site which included Area One: extant brick stables in the southwest of the property; Area Two: the brick foundations of a small outbuilding located in the northwest area of the site; and Area Three: the area of Scott’s formal gardens. The research design included an interest in recovering evidence of African-American spiritual practice and domestic life at the site. Also of significant importance was an analysis of Scott’s garden beds, concerning the order and layout. Also sought was an understanding of the change in perception and use of the backyard by the various owners of the property. i Acknowledgments The Upton Scott House is owned by Paul and Julie Christian who invited the members of Archaeology in Annapolis to design and carry out archaeological explorations on their property. Archaeology in Annapolis was founded in 1981 as a partnership between the University of Maryland and Historic Annapolis Foundation. The members of Archaeology in Annapolis are deeply grateful to the Christian family for the availability of their property, their hospitality, and the use of their facilities. We are particularly grateful to the family for their patience during the excavations, their willingness to accept our intrusion into their property, and for their patience in waiting for this report. The members of Archaeology in Annapolis express long-term gratitude to the Mayor and City Council of Annapolis for the long history of annual grants to Historic Annapolis Foundation and, more recently, to the University of Maryland for the analysis of archaeological materials and for their write-up in the form of reports like this one. The excavation of the outbuildings and garden areas of the Upton Scott House was carried on in 1998 by students in the annual University Maryland Archaeological Field School. Dr. Eric L. Larsen directed the field school during the work at the Upton Scott House during the first year. Brandon Grodnitzky directed the excavations during the 1999 field season. Dr. Jessica Neuwirth was director of the field school in 1999, and Matthew Palus, Matthew Cochran, and Brandon Grodnitzky were graduate student teaching assistants during the field season. The students in both sessions of the field school are responsible for the bulk of the work and we extend appreciation to each. 1998: Patricia M. Griffin, Emily J. Harbo, Michael C. Byrns, Arielle K. Fishman, Carol M. Bushar, Virginia E. Hutton, Barbara Ann Thompson, Lauren P. Best, Wu-Lung Chin, Rayanne E. Harris, Richard Kantrowitz, Kai E. Frick, Dae Cho, Jennifer J. Babiarz, Margaret E. Ortzman, Sara Ann Kalish, Stephanie D. Smith, Kimberly Ann Holmes, Daniel J. Schlueter, Kelly Ann Arford. 1999: Linda M. MacKey, Michelle L. Niedzwiadek, Sarah Beth Nachlas, Teresa R. Cabanilla, Meaghan P. Massella, Regina M. Shaw, Kareen K. Morrison, Jessica E. Paupeck, Robi M. Rawl, Jennifer L. Robles, Allison Weiss. During the 1999 session of the field school a program for high school students was run by Matthew Cochran and Richard Kantrowitz, and we would like to extend appreciation to them and the students they taught. Advice on archaeological features was provided by Dr. James Gibb, City Archaeologist for the City of Annapolis. Dr. Jean R. Russo, Consulting Historian with Historic Annapolis Foundation provided systematic access to material on Dr. Upton Scott and other subsequent owners of his house. These materials allowed a fuller appreciation for and understanding of the building and its archaeology. ii This site report, which uses State of Maryland Guidelines for production, was started by Kristofer Beadenkopf when he was an M.A.A. student in the Department of Anthropology. Mr. Beadenkopf wrote the first full draft of the report as well as undertook an extensive ceramic analysis of materials from across the site. The profiles which are so important in recording the remains of the garden beds maintained by Dr. Upton Scott were drawn by Matthew Palus, Matthew Cochran, Brandon Grodnitzky, and Jessica E. Paupeck. Dr. Thomas Cuddy added substantially to the draft and integrated the archaeology with the historical material on the house. Dr. Cuddy resuscitated the report and envisioned a process for its completion. He has initiated the first scholarly article on the property, which will focus on the discovery of Upton Scott’s garden beds. Amelia G. Chisholm, Laboratory Director for Archaeology in Annapolis, supervised the production of the report in its final form. She supervised the completion of the report, organized the catalog, wrote the geological and cultural context, and organized and made uniformly accessible all of the primary archaeological documentation. The final stage of the archaeological interpretation was written by Mr. Samuel K. Seligman, undergraduate major in the Department of Anthropology. Mr. Ryan O’Connor produced all of the digital profiles and maps used throughout the report according to a series of uniform, comprehensible standards. We are grateful to the Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park for administrative support during the production process. iii Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………...……………………..…..i Acknowledgements…………………………………..…………………………………..……ii Table of Contents……………………………..………………………………………..……..iv List of Figures…………...……...……………………………………………………….…...vii List of Tables………………...……………………………………………………….……..viii Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………..…………………………...…1 Organization of the Report…………………………………………………………………..2 Chapter Two: Project Location and Description……………………………………………...4 Environmental Setting………………………………………………………………………4 Physiography and Topography……………………………………………………………4 Climate…………………………………………………………………………………….6 Vegetation and Fauna……………………………………………………………………..7 Geology and Soils…………………………………………………………………………7 Cultural Context……………………………………………………………………………..7 Prehistoric Background……………………………………………………………………7 Paleoindian Period ca. 11,000-7,500 BCE………………………………………………8 Archaic Period ca. 7,500-1,000 BCE……………………………………………………9 Woodland Period ca. 1,000 BCE-1,600 CE……………………………………………12 Historic Background……………………………………………………………………..14 Euro-American Contact and Settlement Period 1570-1680 CE……………………….14 Rural Agrarian Intensification 1680-1820 CE…………………………………………15 Agricultural-Industrial Transition and Economic Adaptation 1820-1870 CE…………19 Industrial/Urban Dominance 1870-1940 CE……………………………………..……20 Modern 1940-Present…………………………………………………………………..20 Chapter Three: Upton Scott Site History….………………………….……………………...22 Property History……………………………………………………………………………23 Upton Scott: Personal History and Professional Training…………………………………25 Elizabeth Ross Scott……………………………………………………………………..26 The Upton Scott House in Annapolis……………………………………………………...27 Francis Scott Key………………………………………………………………………...31 The Gardens……………………………………………………………………………...31 Upton Scott House and Property…………………………………………………………...34 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………...36 Notes……………………………………………………………………………………….37 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………...37 Associated Objects…………………………………………………………………………38 iv Chapter Four: Past Archaeological Investigations………………………………….………..39 Chapter Five: Research Goals……...………………………………………………………...42 Chapter Six: Field and Laboratory Methods…….……………………………………..….…44 Field Procedures……………………………………………………………………………44 1998 Archaeological Investigations……………………………………………………...45 1999 Archaeological Investigations……………………………………………………...46 Laboratory Procedures……………………………………………………………………..46 Historic Artifact Analysis………………………………………………………………….47 Strata Assignments…………………………………………………………………………48 Chapter Seven: Archaeology at the Upton Scott House..........................................................50 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...50 Strata Assignments…………………………………………………………………………51 Area One: The Eighteenth-Century Stable and Related Features…………………………55 Stratum

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    375 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us