PHASE I ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE 

VIRTS PROPERTY WETLANDS CREATION AREA,

ST. MARY'S COUNTY, MARYLAND

FINAL REPORT

_________________________________ 

CHRISTOPHER R. POLGLASE, M.A., ABD 

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

BY

MICHAEL B. HORNUM, PH.D., BRIAN A. STONE, M.A., AND BRIAN CLEVEN, M.S. 

R. CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

241 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100 

FREDERICK, MARYLAND 21701 

MAY 2002 

FOR

ENTRIX, INC. 

10 CORPORATE CIRCLE, SUITE 100 

NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE 19720 

ii 
iii 

ABSTRACT

 This report presents the results of Phase I archeological survey undertaken during March 2002 

at a 7-ac (2.8-ha) parcel on the Virts property, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The report was 

prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., under subcontract to ENTRIX, Inc., on 

behalf of the NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

 The archeological survey included intensive surface collection of the recently plowed and 

disked agricultural field. After the weekend rains of March 2 and 3, 2002, the field was collected at 

a 3 m (9.8 ft) lane interval. A total of 30 shovel tests were excavated at a 10 m (32.8 ft) interval in 

areas where artifacts were recovered. 

 A total of 34 artifacts were recovered from the surface collection, and two additional 

artifacts were recovered from shovel tests. The artifact assemblage included 27 prehistoric artifacts 

and 9 historic artifacts. Two prehistoric sites were identified. Virts Site 1 (18ST767) produced 11 

artifacts, and appears to represent an Early Woodland resource procurement and processing area, 

featuring hearth-related activities, lithic reduction, and perishable resource processing. Virts Site 2 

(18ST768) yielded 16 artifacts, and appears to reflect a diffuse scatter of prehistoric activity, 

featuring perishable resource processing, lithic reduction, and hearth-related activities. The historic 

materials were widely scattered, and appear to reflect nothing more than twentieth century casual 

discard. 

 Virts Site 1 (18ST767) produced no sub-surface artifacts, and the absence of definitive 

oyster shell concentrations on the surface suggests that no midden or pit features remain intact below 

the plowzone. The impact of historic plowing probably has eliminated the site’s integrity, thereby 

reducing its research potential significantly. As a result, no further archeological work is 

recommended. Virts Site 2 (18ST768) contains an extremely low density of artifacts and the 

absence of temporally diagnostic items. Therefore, the site retains little potential to identify discrete 

prehistoric activity areas or to place those activities within a distinct temporal framework. As a 

result, the site appears to lack significant research potential, and no further work is recommended. 

No further work appears warranted or is recommended for any other portions of the project area 

because the remaining artifacts represent causal discard. 

 
iv 
v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ iii 

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ vii 

LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... ix 

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 

 Project Location and Characteristics ........................................................................................1 

 Research Objectives and Design...............................................................................................1

 Organization of the Report........................................................................................................1 

 

II. NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING......................................................................................3 

 Natural Setting...........................................................................................................................3 

 Topography and Vegetation........................................................................................3 

 Geomorphology and Pedology....................................................................................3 

 Climate.........................................................................................................................4 

 Prehistoric Cultural Setting.......................................................................................................4 

 Previous Investigations................................................................................................4 

 Cultural Sequence........................................................................................................9 

 Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic Period................................................................9 

 The Archaic Period ......................................................................................11 

 The Woodland Period ..................................................................................12 

 Contact Period..............................................................................................13 

Historic Cultural Setting .........................................................................................................14 

 Previous Investigations..............................................................................................14 

 Cultural Sequence......................................................................................................14 

 Contact and Settlement Period (1570 - 1750).............................................14 

 Rural Agrarian Intensification and Agricultural - Industrial 

Transition (1680 - 1870)..........................................................................16 

 Industrial/Urban Dominance (1870 - 1930)................................................19 

 Modern Period (1930 - Present) ..................................................................20 

III. RESEARCH METHODS............................................................................................................23 

 Archival Investigations ...........................................................................................................23 

 Field Investigations .................................................................................................................23 

 General Laboratory Methods..................................................................................................23

 Historic Artifacts: Analytical Methods..................................................................................24 

 Prehistoric Artifacts: Analytical Methods .............................................................................25 

 Prehistoric Ceramic Analysis....................................................................................25 

 Prehistoric Lithic Analysis ........................................................................................26 

 Bifaces..........................................................................................................26 

 Cores.............................................................................................................26 

 Debitage .......................................................................................................27 
vi 

 Fire-Cracked Rock ...................................................................................... 28 

 Retouched Flakes ........................................................................................ 28 

 Raw Material Classes ............................................................................................... 28 

 Records and Curation............................................................................................................. 29 

 

IV. RESULTS OF PHASE I SURVEY ............................................................................................. 31 

 Archival Results................................................................................................................ 31 

 Results of Archeological Investigations ........................................................................... 31 

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 41 

 Summary........................................................................................................................... 41 

 Recommendations............................................................................................................. 41

REFERENCES CITED ..................................................................................................................... 43 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................... 51 

ARTIFACT INVENTORY................................................................................................... Appendix I 

RESUMES OF KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL.....................................................................Appendix II 
vii 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Maryland showing the general location of the project area in 

St. Mary’s County..................................................................................................5 

Figure 2. Portion of the 1987 USGS 7.5 Minute Mechanicsville, Maryland 

quadrangle showing the location of the project area..............................................7 

Figure 3. Portion of Augustine Herrman’s 1673 Virginia and Maryland

showing the general vicinity of the project area ..................................................13 

Figure 4. Portion of the 1901 Mechanicsville USGS quadrangle showing the 

vicinity of the project area ...................................................................................21 

Figure 5. Plan of Phase I testing..........................................................................................33 

Figure 6. Photograph of prehistoric projectile points/knives from Site 

18ST768 (FS #21) and Site 18ST767 (FS #22) ...................................................35 

Figure 7. Site 18ST767, photograph of four prehistoric ceramic sherds (FS 

#10) ......................................................................................................................37 

Figure 8. Photograph of selected historic artifacts: from left to right, amber 

machine-made bottle (FS #3), domestic stoneware (FS #26), and 

clear machine-made bottle base (FS #8) ..............................................................39 
viii 
ix 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Previously Identified Archeological Sites Located Within 3.2 km (2 

mi) of the Project Area ................................................................................................9 

Table 2. Previously Surveyed Architectural Sites Located Within 3.2 km (2 

mi) of the Project Area ..............................................................................................14 
x 
1 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION

 This report presents the results of Phase I archeological survey undertaken during March 2002 

at a 7-ac (2.8-ha) parcel on the Virts property, St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The report was 

prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., under subcontract to ENTRIX, Inc., on behalf 

of the NOAA Office of Habitat Conservation, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. All work was completed following standards promulgated in 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland (Shaffer and Cole 1994), and 

in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines (48FR 47716-42), and with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Handbook entitled Treatment of Archeological Properties, 

and with 36 CFR Part 800. 

Project Location and Characteristics

 The project area was located near Trent Hall, within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic 

province. The area measured approximately 7.0 ac (2.8 ha), and was located along Washington Creek. 

The proposed project will involve the creation of a wetland to assist in the mitigation of environmental 

impacts resulting from an oil spill at a nearby Potomac Electric (PEPCO) facility.

Research Objectives and Design

 The objective of the Phase I archeological survey was to identify and provide preliminary 

assessments of archeological resources located within the project corridor. This was achieved 

through a combination of archival background research; archeological field investigations, including 

pedestrian reconnaissance and systematic excavation of shovel tests; and laboratory analysis of 

recovered cultural remains. 

 The survey was completed during March 2002. Christopher R. Polglase, M.A., ABD, served 

as Principal Investigator and supervised all aspects of the study; Michael B. Hornum, Ph.D., served 

as Project Manager. Dr. Hornum, and Brian Stone, M.A. directed field investigations. They were 

assisted by Ashley Watson, B.A., and Nate Workman, B.A. Darlene Hassler, B.A., and K.D. Tyree, 

M.A., conducted the laboratory analyses. Brian Cleven, M.S., conducted the archival research. 

Organization of the Report

 Chapter I contains a description of the nature and objectives of the project. The natural and 

cultural settings of the project area are described in Chapter II, which also includes a review of 

previous archeological research conducted in the vicinity of the project area. Chapter III provides a 
2 

research design and describes the methods applied during this study. Chapter IV presents the results of 

the archeological investigations, and Chapter V summarizes the report and presents management 

recommendations. Appendix I presents an inventory of the artifacts recovered from the site; Appendix 

II contains resumes of key project personnel. 
3 

CHAPTER II 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL SETTING

Natural Setting

 The project area is situated in northern St. Mary's County, Maryland, within Maryland 

Archeological Unit No. 9 (Estuarine Patuxent Drainage) (Figure 1). The project area is a lowland flat 

along the eastern side of Washington Creek. The site is bordered by Washington Creek to the west 

and south, by an unnamed drainage to the east, and by the limits of recent plowing to the north. The 

project area lies approximately 0.5 mi (0.8 km) southwest of Trent Hall (Figure 2). 

 

 The proposed project area lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region. The 

Atlantic Coastal Plain is composed of marine deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel that often are 

present as thick and unconsolidated beds. The topography of St. Mary's County is characterized as a 

moderately to severely eroded or dissected upland plateau defined by the broad, low terraces of the 

Potomac River and the Patuxent River-Chesapeake Bay drainages (Gibson 1978). 

Topography and Vegetation 

 The topography of the project area is best characterized as a lowland flat. The project area 

elevation is approximately 5 ft (1.5 m). There was no vegetation in the project area because it 

consisted of a recently plowed and disked agricultural field. 

Geomorphology and Pedology 

 Soils in the project area are mapped as belonging to the Mattapeake-Mattapex-Sassafras 

association, which consists of well drained and moderately well drained, nearly level to strongly 

sloping, silty and loamy soils generally underlain by a sandy substratum (Gibson 1978). Two soil 

types are mapped in the project area vicinity, Evesboro loamy sand and Sassafras sandy loam. The 

representative profile from the Evesboro series consists of a 5 cm (2 in) thick A1 horizon of dark gray 

(10YR 4/1) loamy sand, underlain by 58 cm (23 in) of yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/4) loamy sand B2 

horizon soils, 36 cm (14 in) of pale yellow (2.5Y 7/4) loamy coarse sand B3 horizon soils, 35.6 cm (14 

in) of yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) sandy loam IIC1 horizon soils, and 53 cm (21 in) of pale yellow 

(2.5Y 7/4) loamy sand C horizon soils (Gibson 1978:23-24). The representative profile from the 

Sassafras series consists of a 23 cm (9 in) thick Ap horizon of brown (10YR 5/3) sandy loam, underlain 

by 30 cm (12 in) of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) loam B1 horizon soils, 28 cm (11 in) of brown 

(7.5YR 5/4) sandy clay loam B2t horizon soils, 20 cm (8 in) of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) sandy loam 

B3 horizon soils, 30 cm (12 in) of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) gravelly sandy loam C1 horizon soils, 

and 46 cm (18 in) of brownish yellow (10YR 6/8) loamy sand IIC2 horizon soils (Gibson 1978:38). 
4 

Climate 

 St. Mary's County experiences well-defined seasons that are slightly moderated by the region's 

proximity to the Chesapeake Bay, and Patuxent and Potomac River drainage systems. Annual 

precipitation in the county averages 104.27 cm (41.05 in), with June or July being the wettest months 

and January or October the driest. Thunderstorms are common from May through August and occur 

on an average of 32 days per year. Droughts are typically experienced in the summer, but may occur in 

any month or season. The latter half of July is typically the warmest season, with the average 

maximum temperature reaching 89o

 F. The maximum daily temperature exceeds 89o F on an average 

of 38 days per year and drops below 33o

 F an average of 100 days per year. The coldest daily 

temperatures typically occur from early December through late January when morning temperatures 

average 23o

 F. The growing season in St. Mary's County ranges between 180 and 200 days. A range 

of 169 to 200 days has been recorded for the growing season in the Leonardtown area (Gibson 1978). 

Prehistoric Cultural Setting 

Previous Investigations 

 Although many archeological projects have focused on colonial period sites in St. Mary's 

County, few extensive or systematic studies have documented the region's prehistoric resources (Wilke 

and Thompson 1979:110). Only sparse results have been obtained during investigations of interior 

areas, suggesting that the prehistoric occupants of the region utilized inland environments only 

sporadically, primarily during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods. 

 Two major studies have attempted to synthesize a baseline for prehistoric occupation in 

Southern Maryland. Steponaitis (1986) studied prehistoric site patterns on the eastern bank of the 

lower Patuxent drainage in Calvert County. In 1989, Reeve et al. established a framework for 

prehistoric occupation on the Patuxent River's western shore with their survey of the archeological 

resources of Myrtle Point, located approximately 20.2 km (12.5 mi) downriver from the current project 

area. Elements of these studies have been incorporated into the prehistoric cultural framework that 

follows. 

 One large-scale archeological study along the eastern shore of the Patuxent River documented 

two sites with prehistoric components within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the project area (Steponaitis 1983). A 

smaller survey identified one prehistoric site in the vicinity of the project area (Gibb 1992). This site 

was tested further (Greenhorne & O’Mara 1992) 

The 18 prehistoric sites officially recorded within the site files at the Maryland Historical Trust 

(MHT) (Table 1) generally represent two functional categories: shell middens and generalized lithic 

scatters. The temporal framework of 13 sites could not be determined. The remaining sites 

demonstrate that prehistoric occupation around the project area spanned the following periods and 

phases: Archaic; Early Woodland; Middle Woodland; and Late Woodland. Two sites (18ST72; 

18CV115) contained components representing more than one period. 
5 

Figure 1. Map of Maryland showing the general location of the project area in St. Mary’s County 
6 
7 

Figure 2. Portion of the 1987 USGS 7.5 Minute Mechanicsville, Maryland quadrangle showing the 

location of the project area 
8 
9 

Table 1: Previously Identified Archeological Sites Located Within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Project Area 

Site Number/ Name Chronology/Site Type Topography Size 

NR 

Eligibility 

18 CV 2 Lusby/Gibson Prehistoric/ shell midden N/A N/A 

18 CV 25 Duke's Place East Prehistoric/ shell midden N/A N/A 

18 CV 26 Duke's Place West Prehistoric/ shell midden N/A N/A 

18 CV 27 Sheridan Point Prehistoric/ shell midden N/A N/A 

18 CV 28 Marshall Creek Prehistoric/ shell midden several acres N/A 

18 CV 29 Buzzard's Island 

Creek Prehistoric/ shell midden N/A N/A 

18 CV 30 Hallowing Point 

South 

Prehistoric/ village/shell 

midden low terrace N/A N/A 

18 CV 114 Judge Bowen I 

Prob. Late Woodland/ lithic 

scatter 0.27 ha 

MR/NR 

eligible 

18 CV 115 Judge Bowen II 

Middle-Late Woodland/ shell 

midden 0.1 ha N/A 

18 CV 242 Sheridan Point Farm Early 18th C/ field scatter 50' dia. N/A 

18 CV 320 Waterside Farms 

Prehistoric/ Shell & lithic 

scatter 

terrace/low 

terrace 600'x200' 

insufficient 

data 

18 CV 401 Dukes Wharf 1820-1930/ steamboat landing river beach N/A N/A 

18 ST 7 Persimmon Creek 

North Colonial /field scatter N/A N/A 

18 ST 8 Persimmon Creek 

Northwest Prehistoric/ lithic scatter N/A N/A 

18 ST 9 Persimmon Creek Prehistoric/ shell midden shoreline N/A N/A 

19 ST 10 White Point N/A / shell midden slight rise N/A N/A 

18 ST 11 Billard Point N/A / shell midden relatively high N/A N/A 

18 ST 72 Cremona Farm 

Archaic-Early Woodland/ 

lithic scatter 2 acres N/A 

18 ST 80 Indian Creek Prehistoric/ shell midden N/A N/A 

18 ST 566 The Plains 18th-20th C/ domestic N/A N/A 

18 ST 567 Sothoron Cemetery 1729-1836/ cemetery level plain N/A N/A 

18 ST 568 Plains Slave 

Cemetery 18th-19th C/ cemetery N/A N/A 

18 ST 652 Cremona #1 (Toup 

site) 

Late Woodland/ lithic/shell 

midden upland flat 

157x89m & 

86x84m 

insufficient 

data 

18 ST 653 Cremona #2 (Spring 

Lake River House) 

Late Woodland/ lithic 

quarry/shell midden upland flat 97x40m 

insufficient 

data 

Cultural Sequence

 Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic Period. The Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic period is defined as the 

period between approximately 12,000 B.C. and 6,500 B.C. Investigations at the Flint Run Paleo-Indian 

Complex in the Shenandoah Valley have suggested continuity of adaptive patterns throughout this 

period (Gardner 1979, 1983). Diagnostics of the early phases of the period include Clovis, Mid-Paleo, 

and Dalton projectile points; Palmer, Kirk, Warren, and other side-notched and corner-notched 

projectile points traditionally assigned to the Early Archaic represent the later stages of the period 

(Custer 1984:43; Gardner 1980:3). Most of these point types have been found in Southern Maryland. 

 Treatment of the traditional Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic periods as a cultural continuum, 

rather than as a series of discrete cultural phases linked to specific lithic technologies, diverges from the 
10 

temporal approach established in the Southern Maryland Archaeological Resource Management Plan. 

However, the authors of that plan have pointed out that "these designated time periods associated with 

particular phases and projectile point styles are somewhat arbitrary in their beginning and ending 

dates," and that the above-cited plan was intended only to "suggest a general time frame within which 

change may be discussed" (Pogue and Smolek 1985:41). 

 The environmental setting for the Paleo-Indian/Early Archaic period was conditioned by the 

Late Pleistocene/Holocene transition. The climatic episodes defined by Carbone (1976) for the 

Shenandoah Valley are thought to be broadly applicable to the study area (Steponaitis 1983). Episodes 

pertinent to the Paleo-Indian period are the Late Glacial (ca. 15,000 - 8,500 B.C.) and the PreBoreal/Boreal (8,500 - 6,700 B.C.) (Custer 1984; Kavanagh 1982; Steponaitis 1983). 

 The Late Glacial represents the terminal Pleistocene and the "last effects of the glaciers upon 

climate in the Middle Atlantic area" (Custer 1984:44). Steponaitis (1983:39) has suggested that the 

Late Glacial vegetational assemblage along the upper Patuxent River drainage "may have included 

spruce and pine as the dominant woody taxa, with stands of deciduous trees occurring in the more 

protected areas." Although it is possible that the faunal assemblage included extinct megafauna, the 

extent to which humans relied upon such animals has been a topic of some debate (Custer 1984; 

Gardner 1980; Kavanagh 1982). 

 During the Pre-Boreal/Boreal climatic episode, the climate gradually moderated, with warmer 

summer temperatures and continued wet winters. Vegetation shifted in response to these climatic 

changes. Carbone (1976:186) suggested that "coniferous and deciduous elements" expanded, and 

"open habitats" grew smaller. A mixed coniferous-deciduous forest probably prevailed on the valley 

floors and foothills (Carbone 1976:186); the faunal assemblage may have included moose, bear, elk, 

deer, and smaller game animals (Kavanagh 1982; Johnson 1986). 

 Six site types generally are recognized for the Mid-Atlantic Paleo-Indian settlement system, 

and (Gardner 1979, 1983; Custer 1984): (1) quarry sites; (2) quarry reduction stations; (3) quarryrelated base camps; (4) base camp maintenance stations; (5) outlying hunting stations; and, (6) isolated 

point finds. Traditional views of prehistoric survival strategies suggest that high-quality lithics were 

the focal point for the settlement system, and that hunting formed a large component of the subsistence 

strategy (Custer 1984; Gardner 1979; Stewart 1980); however, generalized foraging also provided a 

substantial portion of the diet. 

 Although excavations at the Higgins Site (18AN489) have documented Paleo-Indian 

occupation in Anne Arundel County, where two quartz fluted point bases and three unifacial chert 

scrapers were recovered from undisturbed deposits (Ebright 1992), similar types of Paleo-Indian 

components are almost unknown within Southern Maryland. The largest concentrations of PaleoIndian bifaces have been identified in the upper riverine areas of the Patuxent watershed, "beyond the 

contemporary tidal front along the Patuxent, and from Zekiah Swamp in adjacent Charles County," a 

pattern that suggests that Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic sites may represent "an early focus on fluvial 

headwater environments" (Reeve et al. 1991:32). 

 Pogue and Smolek (1985:38) attribute the relative scarcity of Paleo-Indian sites in the region to 

sea level rise that inundated sites located along the lower reaches of rivers during the period. Based on 

current understanding of this phenomenon, it is estimated that 12,000 years ago, sea levels were 

approximately 33.53 m (110 ft) lower than today (Pogue 1983:9), and that, as recently as 5,000 B.P., 

sea levels within the Chesapeake estuaries were 9.14 m (30 ft) lower than they are today. Today's 

numerous rivers, including the Patuxent estuary, would not have existed in their present form at that 

time, and present day shoreline areas would have comprised interior uplands. Hence, it is not 
11 

surprising that no Paleo-Indian sites had been recorded within the three counties in the Southern 

Maryland region at the time of Pogue and Smolek’s study (1985:17-18, 21). 

 During the traditionally defined Early Archaic period, settlement and subsistence patterns seem 

not to have differed substantially from those of the Paleo-Indian period, and evidence for this 

continuity in lifeways has been recovered from a number of areas in the Middle Atlantic (Custer 1984; 

Gardner 1980; Stewart 1980). The regional settlement/subsistence regime seems to have begun to 

incorporate a more diversified resource base by the Kirk Phase, which perhaps can be viewed as 

transitional to the Archaic. In Southern Maryland, Reeve et al. (1991:32) observed an increase in the 

numbers of Early Archaic sites, and they suggested that prehistoric populations grew rapidly during 

this period. 

 The Archaic Period. The Archaic Period extended from 6,500 B.C. to 1,000 B.C., and 

included the traditionally defined Middle Archaic (6,500 - 3,000 B.C.) and Late Archaic (3,000 - 1,000 

B.C.). Middle Archaic diagnostics include bifurcated St. Albans, LeCroy, and Kanawha projectile 

points, as well as stemmed and lanceolate forms such as Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford, and 

Neville (Custer 1984; Stewart 1980). From the beginning of this period until about 5,000 B.P., the 

climate moderated and became more humid; it then cooled slightly (Custer 1984:62-63). As Gardner 

(1978:47) has observed: 

By 6,500 B.C., [the] Post-Pleistocene conditions had changed so dramatically that the 

adaptations of the long-lived Paleoindian-Early Archaic system could no longer 

function in a viable manner. The hunting emphasis was thus abandoned and general 

foraging rose to pre-eminence. This resulted in a major settlement shift away from 

primary focus on sources of cryptocrystalline stone and the distribution of generalized, 

but seasonally available set of resources. 

 Relatively few archeological sites containing Middle Archaic artifacts have been examined on 

the Western Shore or in Southern Maryland (Wesler et al. 1981). To some extent, the paucity of sites 

from this period probably is due, once again, to inundation of the lower river areas caused by sea level 

rise during the Middle Holocene. Wilke and Thompson (1979:40) have argued that Archaic 

populations probably were small, dispersed, and mobile; that their movements were dictated by 

seasonal access to resources; and that remains of Archaic period occupations would be widely 

scattered. Middle Archaic occupation in Southern Maryland appears to have focused on swamps at the 

headwaters of major stream drainages (Pogue and Smolek 1985:44). Several Archaic period sites have 

been identified in the Zekiah Swamp along the headwaters of the Wicomico River in nearby Charles 

County (Reeve et al. 1991:33; Polglase et al. 1990:7), although these have not been studied in detail. 

 The Late Archaic period (ca. 3,000 - 700 B.C.) "culminated in the xerothermic or 'climatic 

optimum' around 2,350 B.C., when it was drier and 2o

 C warmer than modern conditions" (Kavanagh 

1982:9). Open grasslands reappeared, and oak-hickory forests covered the valley floors and hillsides. 

Diagnostics of the Late Archaic identified on the Western Shore include Piscataway, Vernon, Holmes, 

Susquehanna Broadspear, Brewerton, and Dry Brook projectile point types, and steatite vessels (Pogue 

and Smolek 1985:44; Reeve et al. 1991:35). The true meaning of this regional cultural assemblage has 

been the subject of some debate. Steponaitis (1986) contended that these finds illustrate an 

amalgamation of three cultural traditions in Southern Maryland at this time: the Piedmont, the 

Laurentian, and the Southeast (Reeve et al. 1991:35). Custer (1984:79), however, does not accept the 

broadspear and fishtail styles as cultural markers, but interprets them as "a distinctive set of tools and 

knives that are in no way connected with special groups of people." He feels that such points are 

cutting tools, and he postulates that the Bare Island/Lackawaxen (locally, Holmes) point continued as 

the associated diagnostic projectile point type through the Late Archaic. 
12 

 The Late Archaic settlement pattern in Southern Maryland has been defined by scattered 

campsites focused on major rivers (Reeve et al. 1991:35; Wesler et al. 1981:181). A subsistence 

pattern of intensive foraging within somewhat constricted localized areas probably characterized the 

adaptive strategy of Late Archaic populations (Pogue 1983:12; Pogue and Smolek 1985:44). 

Steponaitis (1986) has suggested that Late Archaic settlements were distributed uniformly within all 

environmental zones in Southern Maryland, and that settlements of this time frame tended to be small 

(Steponaitis 1986:285). One site with Archaic diagnostic materials (18ST72) has been identified in the 

vicinity of the project area. 

 The Woodland Period. The Woodland Period extends roughly from 1,000 B.C. to A.D. 1600. 

While it has been customary to characterize the environment after at least 3,000 B.P. as approximating 

modern conditions, it is also apparent that climatic changes of varying intensities continued to take 

place during this period (Carbone 1976, 1982; Bryson and Wendland 1967:281). These short-term 

climatic variations may have generated periods of environmental stress during transitions between 

climatic episodes (Carbone 1976; Custer 1980). In the Mid-Atlantic region, correspondences between 

climatic/environmental patterns and cultural sequences during the Woodland period have been noted 

for the Middle Atlantic as a whole (Carbone 1982) and for the Shenandoah Valley (Fehr 1983). 

 The Early Woodland subperiod can be dated from about 1,000 to 500 B.C. (Gardner 1982). 

Regionally diagnostic ceramics of the period include steatite-tempered Marcey Creek and sandtempered Accokeek wares. Wesler et al. (1981) also include Popes Creek Net-Impressed ceramics in 

the Early Woodland, although some researchers have argued that Popes Creek ceramics are associated 

more closely with Middle Woodland occupations (Gardner 1982; Stewart 1981). Reeve et al. 

(1991:36), noting that Popes Creek ceramics rarely have been recovered from sites in the lower 

Patuxent region, have hypothesized that the presence or absence of this ceramic type may be indicative 

of a prehistoric cultural boundary. 

 Two settlement pattern models have been proposed for the Late Archaic - Early Woodland 

Periods on the Inner Coastal Plain (Gardner 1982:58-60). In areas near the interface of brackish tidal 

areas and freshwater zones along the Potomac and Patuxent River estuaries provided a wide variety of 

flora and fauna for exploitation. The "fusion-fission" model suggests that macro-social population 

units came together seasonally along both freshwater and salt water estuaries to exploit fish runs, and 

then dispersed seasonally to form micro-social unit camps to exploit other resources. The "seasonal 

shift" model suggests that the same population formed both macro- and micro-social unit camps in both 

fresh water and salt water zones, and moved laterally between these zones on a seasonal basis. 

 The relative abundance of shell midden sites located along the tidewater estuaries and creeks 

(Wilke and Thompson 1979) may represent a sedentary winter phase of this seasonally-based 

settlement pattern. Eighteen oyster shell middens have been identified in the vicinity of the project 

area. One site with Early Woodland diagnostic material (18ST72) has been documented in the vicinity 

of the project area. 

 Diagnostics of the Middle Woodland (ca. 500 B.C. - A.D.1000) in the Coastal Plain include 

Popes Creek Net-Impressed and Mockley ceramics and Fox Creek and Selby Bay projectile points. In 

Southern Maryland, non-local lithic materials also frequently are found in Middle Woodland artifact 

assemblages, and Steponaitis (1986:287) has argued that their presence may signify the development of 

inter-regional exchange networks. Based upon the occupations revealed at the Patterson and Otter II 

sites in Calvert County, Reeve et al. (1991:37-38) have postulated that extended families may have 

occupied residential sites along the brackish estuaries during the winter months. These family units 

joined others in upriver or Piedmont zones during milder seasons in order to exploit a variety of lithic 

and other resources (Reeve et al. 1991:37-38). 
13 

 Middle Woodland subsistence is thought to have depended heavily on riverine and estuarine 

resources, and no definite evidence for horticulture has been found in the region for this period. Preference in site location shifted dramatically toward the coastal zones during this period, and large 

special-purpose sites appeared for the first time. Populations appear to have become considerably less 

mobile (Steponaitis 1986:286-287). One site (18CV115) with a Middle Woodland period component 

have been identified in the vicinity of the project area. 

 On the outer Coastal Plain, shell tempered Townsend ceramics dominated during the Late 

Woodland period after A.D. 900 (Clark 1980:18); crushed-rock tempered Potomac Creek ware, often 

associated with the historically known Piscataway Indians, appeared somewhat later and was prevalent 

in the Inner Coastal Plain/Fall Line areas (Clark 1980:8; Egloff and Potter 1982:112). Both ceramic 

types have been identified on the Western Shore. Triangular projectile points also are diagnostic for 

the Woodland period, and they persisted until European contact. Wesler et al. (1981:109) have 

summarized the general Late Woodland settlement pattern on Maryland's Western Shore as one in 

which : 

[t]he basic subsistence pattern was one of staple agriculture supporting large 

agricultural villages, usually in floodplain settings. Hunting and gathering were not 

neglected, however, as upland campsites and estuarine shell middens are well known. 

 Wilke and Thompson (1979:43) have noted that Late Woodland midden sites are less 

numerous and have suggested that this relative scarcity may be due to a diminished reliance on 

seasonal resources and to the contamination of the estuarine environment by soil run-off produced by 

the adoption of full-blown horticulture. Alternatively, Steponaitis (1986:288) has hypothesized that the 

enlargement of prehistoric populations encouraged by intense agricultural production may have limited 

more traditional hunting and gathering activity. However, data from the Stearns site (18CV17) in 

Calvert County indicate that locally available floral and faunal resources, including oysters, white 

perch, blue crab, hickory, oak, and black walnut, were used to supplement the food resources obtained 

from intensified agricultural production (Reeve et al. 1991:44). In the vicinity of the present project 

area, in fact, Late Woodland occupation, documented by four sites (18CV114, 18CV115, 18ST652, 

and 18ST653), represents an apparent increase in prehistoric utilization of the area. 

 Contact Period. During the early seventeenth century, the Western Shore and much of the 

tidewater region of Maryland and Virginia were characterized by cultural dynamism and diversity. 

Two Algonquian groups, the Nanticoke and the Piscataway, had occupied the region for several 

centuries (Stephenson et al. 1963:1). However, prior to European contact, these tribes were pressured 

by the Susquehannocks, an Iroquoian group based in Pennsylvania, who settled along the shores of the 

Chesapeake Bay during the early seventeenth century. While these conflicts seem not to have 

disturbed the Piscataway in St. Mary's County proper, they reportedly constructed a fortification in 

Zekiah Swamp (Hobbs 1961:76-77). According to seventeenth century European accounts, 

Susquehannock incursions also played a role in persuading the Yeocomico tribe to accept an alliance 

with the English (Steponaitis 1986:25-26). 

 European contact produced numerous changes in the lifestyle of the Maryland's native 

population. Although it provided access to European trade goods (Ferguson and Stewart 1940), 

especially the firearms that gradually replaced traditional projectile systems, there also was a negative 

aspect to this new relationship. Europeans introduced diseases that decimated the native peoples; 

during the contact period, it is estimated that the native population of neighboring Calvert County 

dropped to 850 individuals (Steponaitis 1986:35). 
14 

Table 2. Previously Surveyed Architectural Sites Located Within 3.2 km (2 mi) of the Project Area 

Site Number Site Name 

Property 

Type Date Range 

NR 

Eligibility 

CT 37 Sheridan Point Farm, site site late 18th C N/A 

CT 545 Elizebeth C. O'Ferral House residence late 19th C N/A 

CT 554 Lynn E. Reichhardt Cross Gable residence late 19th C N/A 

CT 559 Maurice W. Hutchins Farmhouse residence N/A N/A 

CT 1114 Wesley Hall Tobacco Barn A tobacco barn early 18th C; c. 1860 N/A 

CT 1196 Dukes Wharf (Sheridan Point Wharf) site 1822-1928 N/A 

SM 90 The Plains, site (Orphan's Gift) site; cemetery 18th-19th C N/A 

SM 91 Trent Hall, site site; cemetery 1789 N/A 

SM 93 

Cremora (West Ashcombe, Marsh 

Neck, Hardship) residence 1658; 1819; 1930s N/A 

SM 93A Sam's Cabin at Cremona residence c. 1825-1850 N/A 

SM 95 Cellar Hill residence c. 1942 N/A 

SM 402 Morgan Brothers Tobacco Barn tobacco barn c. 1875-1890 N/A 

SM 516 

Bridge, Md Rt 6 over Persimmon 

Creek bridge N/A N/A 

 In Saint Mary's County, relationships between the first settlers and the native Piscataways, 

Patuxents, and Yeocomicos initially were cordial (Scharf 1879:95). By mutual agreement with the 

indigenous Native American population, the first European settlement at Saint Mary's City was 

established on the site of the Piscataway Indian village of Yeocomico (Smolek and Pogue 1985:47; 

Wesler et al. 1981:152). 

Historic Cultural Setting

Previous Investigations

 No archeological surveys in the vicinity of the project area have turned up evidence of historic 

period occupations. Temporally, the recorded archeological sites closest to the present project area 

(Table 1) include two field scatters, two cemeteries, and a steamboat landing. The historic 

architectural resources within two miles (3.2 km) of the project area (Table 2) include nearby Trent 

Hall (built in 1789), which has a cemetery going back to the seventeenth century. The remaining 

structures include nine residential complexes (including one more with a cemetery), two tobacco 

barns, and one bridge. 

Cultural Sequence

 Contact and Settlement Period (1570 - 1750). Permanent English colonization of North 

America began in 1607 with the establishment of the Jamestown colony in Virginia. The success of 

tobacco cultivation in the Virginia colony and Virginia's lucrative beaver trade along the Potomac and 

the upper Chesapeake Bay promised similar financial rewards for further colonization (Fausz 1984:8). 

The Maryland colony was established in 1634, when 150 English colonists settled at St. Mary's City 

along the lower Potomac River. Cecilius Calvert, second Lord Baltimore and proprietor of the colony, 

had inherited the charter for the region from his father, George Calvert, in 1632 (Wilstach 1932:35); 

the elder Calvert had secured the proprietary grant from Charles I. Calvert had both economic and 

religious motives for acquiring the Maryland grant; he wished to establish a secure haven for Catholics; 
15 

the resulting religious toleration available in the colony attracted large numbers of immigrants. To 

encourage further settlement, Calvert established a manorial system for distributing proprietary lands. 

Under this system, large grants for thousands of acres were made to those who transported settlers to 

the colony. The lord of a manor not only derived a financial profit from his grant; he also had special 

privileges and duties, particularly in judicial matters. By 1642, 16 manors, organized into five local 

administrative units called "hundreds," had been established in St. Mary's County (Wesler et al. 

1981:153). The area around the project area was included in Resurrection Hundred. 

 Calvert tried to transplant English social and cultural systems to Maryland, but he failed to 

achieve this goal. The profitability of tobacco, the amount of land available for settlement, and the 

slow growth of the population due to the male-dominated sexual ratio (Wesler et al. 1981:77; Pogue 

1983:25) combined to undermine plans for a rigid social structure. Deteriorating relationships with the 

Indians, the strange diseases that decimated European populations, and the intensive labor required to 

clear heavily forested land all placed pressures on the colony. Mortality rates were high (Pogue 

1983:27). Such conditions forced modifications in English traditions (Wesler 1982:78). A class of 

small planters replaced the baronial system envisioned by the colony's founder (Pogue 1990:4; Wesler 

et al. 1981:154). 

 St. Mary's County's characteristic social and economic patterns were established during the 

first ten years of the Maryland colony's existence. Settlement clustered along the shorelines of the 

many rivers, bays, and islands, and only rudimentary interior transportation systems developed. The 

county's population grew slowly. By 1645, there were only between 350 and 390 residents in all of St. 

Mary's County (Wesler et al 1981:153). 

 Most county residents occupied very modest accommodations; Stone (1982:204) has described 

their dwellings as "mean and little." Initially, the most common dwelling was a two-room post-inground house, approximately 25 – 30 ft (7.6 – 9.1 m) long, which accommodated a kitchen and a 

chamber room. Small sheds frequently augmented the main house, as at the King's Reach site in 

Calvert County (Pogue 1990:13); chimneys probably were of wood and mud (Stone 1982: 212, 221). 

Various dependencies also were required; at King's Reach, a slave or servants' quarter, measuring 20 x 

10 ft (6.1 x 3.05 m), was enclosed within the fenced homelot (Pogue 1990:13, 15). Neiman's (1977) 

investigations at the seventeenth century Clifts Plantation, in Westmoreland County, Virginia, recorded 

a more typical range of dependencies, including a kitchen, a dairy, a storage barn, a henhouse, servants' 

quarters, and tobacco barns (Chittenden et al. 1988:PIII-H2-3). 

 Early farm complexes generally were situated on small "necks" of land, close to sources of 

potable water, near navigable waterways, and in areas of good tobacco soil; the colonists avoided 

poorly drained areas (Smolek 1984; Lukezic 1990:2-3, 15; Polglase et al. 1990:11). Augustine 

Herrman’s 1673 map shows a farmstead in vicinity of the current Trent Hall, near the project area 

(Figure 3). Tobacco quickly became Maryland's principal crop, and St. Mary's farmers exported 

100,000 pounds of it in 1639. Corn and cattle were secondary agricultural items. A mill was the only 

manufacturing establishment (Wesler et al. 1981:154). 

 The ensuing 35-year period was one of great instability in Southern Maryland. The population 

climbed rapidly; an estimated 6,535 people lived on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake Bay by 

1667. Settlement was scattered along the riverbanks, despite the passage of a road law in 1666 and of a 

series of town acts intended to establish small urban hamlets (Wesler et al. 1981:80). The rapidly 

increasing population and the difficulty of internal communication undermined the development of 

unity within the community. The hierarchical society envisioned by the Calverts was eroded further by 

a wave of immigration composed of indentured servants, freemen, and families. A class of smaller 

planters and freed indentured servants developed. 
16 

 Three socially disruptive political upheavals occurred during the proprietary period. Ingles' 

Rebellion was an anti-Catholic, anti-Royalist uprising that profoundly affected the county. Ingles 

apparently plundered the homes of local residents and Jesuit missions; local Jesuit clergy and Catholic 

lay leaders were taken prisoner, and many fled to Virginia (Beitzell 1960:7). Ingles eventually was 

captured, accused of treason, and jailed. County historians view this episode as a continuation of the 

English Civil Wars, and Ingles himself has been characterized as a "follower of Cromwell" (Hammett 

1977:31-32; Wesler et al. 1981:155). The second major political upheaval included the 1655 Battle of 

the Severn. In 1648 the second Lord Baltimore (Cecil Calvert) named William Stone governor of 

Maryland. Stone allowed Virginia puritans to settle at the mouth of the Severn River in 1649. In the 

context of the establishment of Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth in England, the Puritans succeeded 

in gaining temporary control of Maryland. In 1655, they successfully defeated Stone at the Battle of 

the Severn. Lord Baltimore regained full control of the province in 1657 (Brugger 1988:20-22). The 

third political upheaval occurred in 1689, when a Protestant uprising under John Coode toppled the 

Proprietary government (Brugger 1988:39). 

 By 1680, an elite group of Maryland-born planters, rather than transplanted Englishmen, had 

emerged. A hierarchy based upon wealth soon developed (Wesler et al. 1981:83). Slaves began to constitute a small, but important segment of Maryland society; by 1712, about 12.5 per cent of the county's 

population was black (Wesler et al. 1981:156). Indentured servants, unable to find inexpensive land, 

frequently became tenant farmers. More sustained attempts to establish towns and roads led to the 

founding of Chaptico, Leonardtown, and St. Clements between 1680 and 1710. Despite these efforts, 

population remained clustered around estuaries, with expansion taking place up the stream valleys 

(Wesler et al. 1981:85-87). 

 After 1689, when the Calvert family lost control of the colony, St. Mary's former pre-eminence 

declined. In 1695, the colonial capital moved from St. Mary's City to Annapolis, and in 1708, 

Leonardtown became the St. Mary's county seat. Even the colonial post road established during this 

period by-passed much of the county (Wesler et al. 1981:156-157). By 1700, the influence of St. 

Mary's County had waned. 

 Rural Agrarian Intensification and Agricultural-Industrial Transition (1750 - 1870). From 

1720 until the middle of the nineteenth century, the economy of the region remained essentially static. 

Tobacco continued to underpin the local economy; however, by the end of the eighteenth century, corn 

and wheat also had become important crops (King 1990:289; Marks 1979:6; Reeve et al. 1991:81). 

Maritime and mercantile enterprises also became more significant elements in the county's economic 

base. The establishment of steamboat lines down the Potomac River and through the Chesapeake Bay 

linked St. Mary's to Baltimore, which served as the primary market for the county's agricultural 

products; Trent Hall Landing, just upriver from the present project area, served as a steamboat landing 

from the 1820s and into the first quarter of the twentieth century (Hammett 1994; Holly 1991). 

 Continued reliance on tobacco produced significant social changes. The slaves needed to 

produce the labor-intensive tobacco crop constituted an increasing percentage of the population. By 

1840, blacks made up almost 47 per cent of the county's population (Wesler et al. 1981:158). A planter 

oligarchy held the reins of local power, while small independent farmers, tenant farmers, and slaves 

farmed the remnants of the old proprietary manors. Large estates were broken into smaller parcels; the 

number of farms proliferated and land prices rose out of the reach of many county residents. The result 

was a major post-Revolutionary War exodus of county residents, to destinations as far away as 

Kentucky (Wesler et al. 1981:159) and Fayette County, Pennsylvania (Hammett 1977:83-84). 

 St. Mary's geographic position made the county particularly vulnerable to attack by sea. 

County residents suffered acutely during the two major Anglo-American conflicts. During the 
17 

Figure 3. Portion of Augustine Herrman’s 1673 Virginia and Maryland showing the general vicinity of the project area 
18 
19 

American Revolution, British marine units repeatedly plundered and harassed county citizens, many of 

whom saw service with the Maryland militia and in the Battalion of the Flying Camp. At the end of 

the Revolution, county residents filed for damages in the amount of £3,600 (Hammett 1977:70-78). 

 During the War of 1812, the British landed between 2,000 and 3,000 troops at Point Lookout, 

and they burned St. George's Island. They also stole boats, felled timber, burned tobacco warehouses, 

desecrated churches and cemeteries, and stole slaves (Hammett 1977:98). One major naval 

engagement, the Battle of Cedar Point, occurred on June 1, 1814. This confrontation pitted American 

Commodore Joshua Barney's Patuxent River fleet, composed of 16 lateen-rigged row galleys and 9 

sloops and schooners, against British Captain Robert Barrie's fleet that included the 74-gun HMS 

Dragon, the armed schooner St. Lawrence (13 guns), the schooner Calchup, and seven barges. Faced 

with superior British fire-power, Barney withdrew his out-gunned American fleet into the Patuxent 

River, leaving the British to plunder Patuxent River plantations (Shomette 1981:36-41). In his report to 

the Secretary of War, Barney later commented that "[T]obacco, slaves, farm stock of all kinds, and 

household furniture, became objects of their daily enterprises. . .what they could not conveniently carry 

away, they destroyed by burning" (quoted in Marine 1965:64). A second round of plundering in the 

area came in September, 1814, when the British fleet, in retreat after their unsuccessful assault on Fort 

McHenry, anchored in the mouth of the Patuxent River to take on water, livestock, and flour (Shomette 

1981:196). 

 The Civil War impoverished the county even further. Citizens of the region were staunchly 

pro-Southern; they voted unanimously for secession even before the Maryland General Assembly 

debated a secession ordinance (Hammett 1977:108). As early as 1859, county residents had organized 

military units to support the Southern cause (Hammett 1977:109). Able-bodied county residents 

crossed the Potomac to Virginia to join Confederate forces or to escape the Union occupation, while 

others supplied and transported materials to the Confederate forces in Virginia (Hammett 1977:110-

113). In contrast, 558 freed slaves from Saint Mary's joined the 9th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Colored 

Troops; 125 of them died during the conflict (Hammett 1977:120). 

 Because of its strategic location, St. Mary's County was occupied by Union forces throughout 

the war. Political arrests for treason were common, and citizens operated under Union-imposed 

curfews. There were four Federal installations in the county during the Civil War: the hospital and the 

notorious prison camp at Point Lookout, which housed as many as 10,000 Confederate prisoners; a 

large and comprehensive coaling station at St. Inigoes; and, a supply depot at Bushwood (formerly 

Plowden's) Wharf on the Wicomico River (Hammett 1977:110-121). 

 Industrial/Urban Dominance (1870 - 1930). After a period of readjustment at the end of the 

war, St. Mary's County returned to its former social and economic patterns. As the 1901 USGS 

Mechanicsville quadrangle (Figure 4) indicates, the region remained primarily agrarian, with few roads 

or major transportation links to urban areas. As in previous periods, the population was dispersed 

along interior roads and along water front properties (Pogue 1968:413-414). Communities were small 

and oriented toward providing services to surrounding farms. Tobacco regained its position of 

economic importance, while corn remained the major subsistence crop (Wesler et al. 1981:160). 

Tenant farming and sharecropping were established. Industrialization during the late nineteenth 

century was limited to the establishment of small seafood processing and vegetable canning plants 

(Hammett 1977:150, 232, 410). An incipient recreational/resort industry also developed in the county; 

Leonardtown Wharf boasted a floating theater, while Piney Point, which had featured a dance pavilion 

and a hotel in the mid-nineteenth century, developed as a full-blown resort by 1905 (Hammett 

1977:172, 231). 
20 

 Modern Period (1930 - present). Lack of adequate transportation systems hampered the 

county's development during much of the twentieth century. Repeated attempts by county citizens to 

bring a railroad into the county were only marginally successful. Until the 1940s, the citizen-owned 

Washington and Point Lookout (later called the Washington, Potomac, and Chesapeake) Railroad 

(Gibb 1990:15) extended only as far as Mechanicsville in the northeastern section of the county (Hammett 1977:238-239). The first macadamized road in the county was constructed in 1911; it brought 

both tourists and new business opportunities, but it extended only as far as Leonardtown. Many county 

roads remained unpaved until well into the 1940s (Hammett 1977:247-252). 

 The racial and ethnic character and social structure of the county also remained essentially 

static through this period; white landowners formed the upper class, while tenant farmers and black and 

white sharecroppers constituted the bulk of the population. Immigration altered the composition of the 

population only during the twentieth century. A few Jewish immigrants came to the area in the early 

twentieth century; and, between 1911 and 1914, the National Slavonic Society established the Slavic 

Farmer's Association near St. Mary's City, to engage in farming, commerce, and manufacturing. Its 

shareholders were ex-coal miners and industrial workers from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, who were 

viewed by local residents as communists and dangerous radicals. Although this cooperative failed 

within ten years, many of its members remained as county residents (Hammett 1977:297). During the 

1940s, Amish and Mennonites from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, also moved into the northern region of 

St. Mary's (Hammett 1977:400-403). 

 World War II had the greatest impact on the economic fortunes of St. Mary's County. The 

establishment of the Naval Air Station Patuxent River at Lexington Park displaced former residents and 

attracted 3,300 workers into the area (Hammett 1977:411). The Navy also took over the railroad, and 

extended it from Mechanicsville to the Naval Air Station (Gibb 1990:15; Hammett 1977:239). Today, 

although tourism and recreation have become important sources of revenue for county residents, "many 

of the attributes of rural life evident in the mid-nineteenth century [have] persisted," and are "embedded 

in the County's rural character" today (King 1990:299). 
21 

Figure 4. Portion of the 1901 Mechanicsville USGS quadrangle showing the vicinity of the project

area 
22 
23 

CHAPTER III 

RESEARCH METHODS

Archival Investigations 

 Archival research focused on identifying previously recorded prehistoric and historic sites 

within the vicinity of the project area. The Maryland Historical Trust was visited for archeological site 

files and standing structures listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties, and for 

archeological reports not available elsewhere. 

Field Investigations 

 The archeological survey included intensive surface collection of the recently plowed and 

disked agricultural field. After the weekend rains of March 2 and 3, 2002, the field was collected at 

a 3 m (9.8 ft) lane interval. A total of 30 shovel tests were excavated at a 10 m (32.8 ft) interval in 

areas where artifacts were recovered. The shovel tests measured 35 cm (13.8 in) in diameter, and 

were excavated at least 10 cm into culturally sterile subsoil. The soils from the shovel tests were 

screened through 1/4 in (0.64 cm) mesh. Each shovel test was recorded in the field, noting its position 

within the sampling pattern, the depths of soil horizons, and the presence or absence of cultural 

remains. All soil characteristics, including color and texture, were recorded according to the Munsell 

(1998 revised) Soil Color Chart and standard soil nomenclature. 

General Laboratory Methods 

 All artifacts recovered during this investigation were transferred to the laboratory of R. 

Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. in Frederick, Maryland, for cleaning, cataloguing and 

analysis. Laboratory procedures were performed in accordance with state and federal curation 

guidelines. The condition of individual artifacts was assessed for degree of stability prior to carrying 

out any of the processing procedures. Artifacts were sorted into those that could be wet washed or 

dry-brushed by hand, they were air dried, and sealed in clean, archival plastic bags. Provenience 

data were recorded on the outside of each bag as well as on acid-free paper tags placed inside each 

bag. 

 All artifact data and field records were inventoried utilizing a Microsoft Access computer 

program to permit more expedient manipulation of chronological, functional, and distributional data. 

Each entry included the material class, artifact type, distinguishing attribute(s), functional category, 

and site and provenience designations. 
24 

Historic Artifacts: Analytical Methods

 The coded catalogue system for historic artifacts incorporates artifact attribute data, artifact 

counts, comments, and manufacture date range information, in a manner that allows for more 

accurate and detailed analysis of parts or all of the artifact data. The hierarchically-arranged artifact 

classification system includes four major classification levels: the Category, the Group, the artifact 

Type, and the Subtype. The initial classification, the Group includes raw material types, and is 

composed of Biological, Ceramic, Glass, Metal, Stone, Synthetic and Manufactured. In the second 

category, the Class, material types are subdivided to refine further the classification. For example, 

ceramics are divided based on ware type (i.e. earthenwares and stonewares). In the next two classes, 

the Type and Sub-type classifications, the identification becomes more detailed and the artifacts are 

classified based on more detailed criteria, including glaze types, manufacture techniques, and 

decorative treatments. For example, vessel form for ceramics and glass is described in the Sub-type 

category. The criteria for classifying kitchen ceramics and glass in the Type and Subtype categories 

have been developed using a variety of current reference literature, including Miller (1980, 1991), 

Noël Hume (1976), Worthy (1982), and others. These main groupings are followed by more detailed 

classifications based on manufacture date ranges and functional classifications. When determining 

manufacture date ranges, standard references are used, and where possible, manufacturer’s marks are 

used in conjunction with ceramic type and manufacture techniques to refine temporal associations. 

 Where applicable, South’s (1977) functional classifications are used to supplement the 

analysis of historic period artifacts. For the purposes of analysis and interpretation, the Architectural 

group includes objects related to the construction or maintenance of buildings and structures, such as 

brick, mortar, window glass, nails, and construction hardware. Nails were categorized as hand 

wrought, cut, or wire, depending upon manufacturing method. The Kitchen functional group 

includes any objects related to the preparation, service, consumption, or storage of food, such as 

ceramic and glass. In addition, materials such as faunal remains, shell (oyster, clam, egg, etc.) also 

are represented in this category. The classification of kitchen glass is predicated on the identification 

of manufacturing techniques used to produce the vessel, after models established in Jones and 

Sullivan (1989) and others. 

 The Clothing group includes materials for clothing manufacture such as pins and needles, 

scissors, fabric, thread, as well as fasteners and decorations, such as snaps, hooks, buttons, and 

buckles. Material types for these sorts of artifacts include bone, shell, various types of metal, and 

plastic. The furniture-functional group consists of materials and objects related to household 

furnishings. Archeologically, this group is typically composed primarily of furniture hardware such 

as hinges, drawer pulls, locks, keyhole escutcheons, and tacks. 

 Objects classified as Personal include those products used for personal hygiene, as well as 

jewelry, coins, and other personal possessions. Items for hygiene include grooming products such as 

combs and brushes, curlers, toothbrushes, chamber pots, as well as pitchers, basins and other vessels 

used for personal hygiene. Objects related to the use of tobacco, such as pipes and associated 

equipage are also typically included in this category. 

 Transportation-related materials include items related to transportation, such as harness 

equipage and horseshoes, wagon and carriage parts. In addition, automobile parts are included in 

this category. The Arms group includes any objects related to arms or weapons. This includes parts 

of guns, ammunition, and tools for gun or weapon repair and maintenance. 

 The Activities group is comprised of artifacts related to non-domestic activities. These may 

include toys, tools, or products related to recreation, hobbies, non-architectural construction, repair 
25 

and maintenance. Activities items generally are broken down into metal, glass, stone, or other 

materials. Miscellaneous artifacts include non-cultural stone and various metals with unidentified 

function. 

Prehistoric Artifacts: Analytical Methods

 Cataloguing procedures included recording attributes, weights, and measurements of 

technological or functional groups. Weight measurements were made to 0.01g using an Acculab 

digital scale; dimensions were measured with calipers to 0.1 cm (0.04 in). Interpretations of utilization 

and raw material class used a Meiji Techno EMZ-Series zoom stereo microscope. 

 Procedures for measuring edge angles were based on the technique outlined by Keeley (1980). 

This technique uses a goniometer and defines the edges as follows: A = the distal end; C = the longest 

lateral margin on bifaces and the right lateral edge on flakes; and B = the shorter lateral margin on 

bifaces and the left lateral edge on flakes. In contrast to Keeley (1980), the proximal end was 

designated D only; E was reserved for dorsal ridge(s). Flakes were oriented with the proximal end 

nearest the analyst and with the ventral side down. 

 Accessioning included the compilation of artifact measurements and descriptions of artifacts in 

each category by provenience into a computerized database (Microsoft Access). Cultural materials 

were separated into historic, prehistoric lithic and prehistoric ceramic categories. Each category was 

separated into groups based on technological attributes and into classes based on material type. The 

artifact inventory contains data for all three categories under the following headings: Group, Class, 

Type, and Sub-Type. For prehistoric lithics, Group includes divisions of Core, Flake, Biface, Uniface, 

Groundstone, Use-modified Tool, Fire-Cracked Rock, and Other; these groups are based on 

technological interpretations. The Class category consists of raw material designations. Type contains 

reduction stage information. Sub-Type contains morphological designations. An attempt was made to 

document formal characteristics under morphology; functional interpretations could be added after 

usewear analysis. Prehistoric ceramics were grouped according to ware name (Group), fragment type 

(Class), temper (Type), and surface treatment (Sub-Type). Prehistoric organic materials are entered on 

the prehistoric lithic tables in order to minimize file size. Organics were grouped as organics (Group); 

according to material, which may include bone, nut/seed, shell, teeth, turtle shell, and wood (Class); as 

burnt or unburnt (Type); and as modified or unmodified (Sub-Type). Historic artifacts were grouped 

according to functional group (Group), material class (Class), technological or functional attributes 

(Type), and descriptive attribute (Sub-Type). 

 

Prehistoric Ceramic Analysis

 Ceramic artifacts were documented according to following regimen. For all sherds, the 

following attributes were documented: type, temper, size, condition, count, and weight. For sherd 

larger than very small and also of excellent or good condition, the following additional attributes were 

documented: temper size, vessel part, plastic technique, surface treatment, and paint technique. Size 

included the following increments: very small (less than 2 cm [0.8 in]), small (2 - 3 cm [0.8 - 1.2 in]), 

medium (3 - 6 cm [1.2 - 2.4 in]), large (6-10 cm [2.4 - 3.9 in]), and very large (10 - 15 cm [3.9 - 5.9 

in]). Condition included the following values: excellent, good, and poor. 

 Terms used during the ceramic analysis were defined as follows. Conoidal was defined as 

synonymous with "conical.” Inclusions are particulate matter, usually mineral in nature, present in a 

clay or fabric; these either occur naturally in the clay or are additives desired by the potter; often used 
26 

synonymously with temper; inclusions also may be voids, such as those remaining from the leaching 

of shell or limestone. Paste refers to the clay or mixture of clay used for construction; paste includes 

the materials added to the clay. Segment, in analysis of cordage, refers to one revolution of a strand in 

the final combination creating a cord; when the cord is held vertically and viewed from one side, a 

segment is one diagonal unit. Strand, in analysis of cordage, is a unit composing the cord, which 

consists of one or more sets of fibers twisted individually or together. Temper is the material that is 

added to a clay to improve its working, drying, or firing properties; temper may be mineral or organic, 

but is usually non-plastic. Twist, in analysis of cordage, is the description of the slant of segments or 

bars composing the cord; twist identifies whether the cord segments slope from upper right to lower 

left (Z) or from upper left to lower right (S). Type was defined as groups of ceramic artifacts that share 

the same surface treatment/decoration within the same ware. Ware was identified as a group of 

ceramic types that share attributes, especially with regard to temper and texture. 

Prehistoric Lithic Analysis

 Bifaces. The Biface group included all items exhibiting bifacial modification, with three 

exceptions. Exempted were flakes with bifacial platforms, flakes exhibiting a bifacial edge, and flakes 

exhibiting marginal (as opposed to invasive) bifacial retouch. Included are items representing early 

stage reduction as well as finished bifacial tools. Biface forms included finished forms such as 

projectile point/knife, knife, awl, and drill, as well as the following unfinished forms: flake blank, 

blank, and preform. Some bifaces exhibited ambiguous morphologic attributes; these items were 

catalogued as Amorphous if the biface was complete but could not be attributed to one of the other 

identified morphological types; as Indeterminate if morphology was obscured by material flaws or 

breaks; or as Other if an additional morphologic interpretation could be made. In addition, pieces 

esquillees also were included in the Biface group. Although these items may represent bipolar cores or 

use-modified tools, in order to avoid confusion they were catalogued as bifaces based on the presence 

of bifacial flake scars (Gramly 1982). 

 

 Each biface was analyzed by recording raw material class; presence of heat-treatment for each 

biface; weight of each item; and other relevant information when applicable. Length was measured 

along the longest axis parallel to the general edge orientation; width was measured from Edge B to 

Edge C. Edge angles for left and right lateral edges were taken for projectile point/knives; these 

measurements were taken following criteria established by Keeley (1980:19). Each biface was 

oriented "left-right" following the procedure outlined by Cook (1976), in which the longer edge, when 

rolled, is designated the "right edge." 

 Cores. Cores were defined as cobbles or pieces of raw material that exhibit one or more 

flake scars. Weathered surfaces, recent (shovel/plow) impacts, and fracture planes were excluded 

from the interpretation. If these types of damage accounted for all "modification" to the piece, the 

object was not included in the artifact assemblage and was discarded. 

 

 Also excluded from this group were items that exhibited a single platform/striking area with 

a bulb of percussion or Hertzian cone on the ventral surface (i.e. core rejuvenation/core trimming 

flake). The determination between core rejuvenation flake and flake core is an interpretation made 

by the analyst on the basis of clues to the sequence of flake removal. The flake scars on the flake 

core may show impact damage; the edges of the flake core may appear sinuous. In addition, many 

modified cobbles exhibit ambiguous evidence that could be interpreted either as a primary flake or a 

tested cobble. Attention to subtle differences in concavity was necessary to make the determination. 
27 

 Procedures utilized during core analysis included recording raw material class; identifying 

the type of core; weighing each core; measuring length, width, and thickness; identifying portion if 

applicable; recording percentage and type of cortex; and recording other pertinent information, such 

as thermal alteration. Length was determined along the longest axis; width was documented along 

the second longest axis; and thickness was recorded along the third axis. 

 Bipolar cores were documented in the Reduction Method category. These cores were 

characterized by paired crushed platforms exhibiting relatively flat sheared Hertzian cones. Bipolar 

technology is frequently associated with the production of flakes from small cobbles or pebbles and 

the rejuvenation of exhausted cores. 

 Debitage. Debitage analysis sheds light on activity areas, sources of raw materials, and stages 

of tool manufacture. The frequency of flakes and the amount of cortex retained on them help to 

determine raw material access, since local materials are expected to display more body cortex. The 

size of the flake and the percent of cortex displayed helps to determine the stage of tool manufacture. 

The Debitage group included unmodified flakes and shatter. 

Analytical procedures for debitage consisted of sorting by raw material class and presence of 

heat-treatment; classifying by reduction stage; classifying by technological attributes; and weighing. 

These procedures were used in an attempt to incorporate analyses of the technological attributes of 

individual flakes with traditional analyses by reduction stages (Bradbury and Carr 1995). 

 Reduction stages were defined as follows. Primary flakes were defined as flakes with 50 per 

cent and greater cortex remaining on the dorsal surface; secondary flakes were defined as those with 

less than 50 per cent cortex remaining on the dorsal surface; and non-cortex flakes were defined by the 

absence of cortex. 

 Technological attributes were ascertained and recorded under Sub-Type (Morphology); 

designations included biface thinning flake, biface margin flake, blade, burin spall, core rejuvenation 

flake, and pressure flake. A designation of biface thinning flake was assigned if the flake exhibited a 

bifacial, low-angled, lipped platform; high thickness to width ratio; and multiple dorsal flake scars. 

Biface margin flakes were identified by the wide, low-angled, bifacial platform; the platform is the 

widest portion of the flake. Blade flakes were defined as having a length twice its width; a prepared 

platform and parallel dorsal ridges may or may not be present. If these attributes also are present and 

the size corresponds to the limits set by Tixier (1974), the item was identified as a bladelet in 

Comments. Core rejuvenation flakes were identified by their large size and multiple flake scars on the 

dorsal surface. 

 Shatter is a type of debitage that does not exhibit any flake characteristics; they usually exhibit 

angular or shard-like forms. Shatter is a product of tool production, but only with regard to the force 

being applied and the raw material used. Shatter detaches from cores or worked items as flakes are 

intentionally detached and therefore are indirect results of decision-making processes associated with 

the reduction process. For this reason, reduction stage is not recorded for shatter. Shatter is identified 

as a distinct morphological type of debitage because it can illuminate reduction areas from which larger 

and/or more useful items had been retrieved. 

 

 Included in the Shatter group are heat-damaged fragments resulting from heat-treatment 

attempts. Evidence used for interpretations of heat-alteration included color change, luster change, 

potlids, and crazing. Excluded from the Shatter interpretation were lithic fragments with weathered 

surfaces and/or natural fracture planes and also artifacts that exhibit flake characteristics. Although 

these artifacts designated as flakes may not exhibit all flake characteristics (e.g., missing platforms), 
28 

they were included in the Flake group because they represent intentional flake production activity. 

Shatter was counted and weighed by provenience, raw material class, and presence of heat-alteration. 

 Fire-cracked Rock. Fire-cracked rock (FCR) was separated from other artifact classes. The 

FCR group included broken rock fragments that exhibited indications of heat damage, including 

jagged outlines and reddening. Included in this group were spalls, which might resemble primary 

flakes or cores. Some examples of spalls are similar to primary flakes, but they lack both impact 

areas that might have caused their detachment from cores and lack bulbs of percussion. The ventral 

surface of a spall sometimes may exhibit a slight negative bulb of percussion, but it does not show 

evidence of use as a core (House 1975:68). 

Excluded from the FCR group were examples that exhibited evidence of previous or 

subsequent modification. An exhausted core might have been discarded in a hearth and may show 

evidence of heat damage, but such an artifact was included in the Core group with comments 

regarding the subsequent use. Analysis of FCR was confined to weighing fire-cracked rock by 

provenience and raw material class. Those showing no other modification were grouped together by 

provenience and weighed. 

 Retouched Flakes. A retouched flake was defined as one that exhibits a regular pattern of three 

or more consecutive scalar flake scars. Retouch implies intentional modification of the flake edge in 

order to steepen the edge--presumably for a particular task, or possibly in anticipation of platform 

preparation. Designations of retouched flakes may include examples that exhibit marginal or invasive 

retouch and/or bifacially or unifacially retouched flakes. 

 Retouched flakes first were classified according to debitage attributes, then identified as 

retouched under Modification (displayed on the Artifact Inventory under Sub-Type). Additional 

information, such as the placement of the retouch on the flake edge (unifacial versus bifacial) and edge 

profile (concave, convex, straight, or projection/cusp) may have been included in Comments. 

Raw Material Classes

 Raw material determinations primarily were based on macroscopic observations with 

additional information provided by a hand lens (10x) or stereomicroscope (10-30x). Raw material 

definitions relied on Mottana et al. (1978) and Chesterman and Lowe (1992). In addition to raw 

material class, the presence of heat-alteration was recorded as absent, present, or possible. Evidence 

for heat-alteration included color change, luster change, and heat fracture scars, such as spalls, potlids, 

and crazing. 

Quartz designations were restricted to crystalline varieties of silica-rich rocks in which no 

individual grains were detectable under low magnification (10X). Quartzite is a siliceous arenaceous 

metamorphic rock primarily composed of quartz, mica, and feldspar minerals. Texture can be minute 

to granoblastic, but all particles in one sample are predominantly of one size. The arenaceous 

designation signifies particles ("clasts") of medium to fine grain (2 mm to 1/16 mm). Structure of 

quartzite is usually massive, but becomes shistose with an increase in mica (Chesterman and Lowe 

1992; Mottana et al. 1978). 

 

 The genetic material for quartzites is usually clastic sedimentary rocks including 

orthoquartzite, graywacke, and arkose. Other genetic materials can include quartz-rich chemical 

sedimentary rocks (including siltstones and cherts) as well as igneous rocks (Chesterman and Lowe 

1992; Mottana et al. 1978). In the lab, identification of quartzite was based on the predominance of 
29 

quartz and a fine-grained, homogenous, texture. The quartzite designation was restricted to 

metamorphosed sandstone, in which individual grains were detectable under low magnification but 

which lacked individual structural identity. 

 Rhyolite is an extrusive felsic igneous rock; since it is usually composed of quartz and 

feldspars, rhyolite is usually light in color. Darker examples contain biotite, magnetite, ilmenite, 

pyroxene, or amphibole. Identification in the lab was based on the presence of phenocrysts in a fine to 

very fine matrix, which may show banding or flow lines. The variation in types of rhyolites warranted 

separation; definition of groups was based on color, mottling, presence of veins/banding, and 

inclusions/phenocrysts. 

 Sandstone was defined as consolidated sand with individually distinguishable particles 

which maintain structural integrity. The designation excludes material with the silica cementation 

present in silicified sandstone examples. However, the designation may include materials of various 

textures and chemical compositions, such as graywacke or arkose. 

 Sandy chert was a material identified on the basis of its texture and inclusions; it was 

defined as a material containing rounded to sub-angular medium to coarse quartz sand grains in a 

cryptocrystalline matrix. The sandy chert description was adopted from LeeDecker et al. (1991:77). 

Consistency in nomenclature was maintained to aid further regional analysis. 

Records and Curation

 Following the analyses described above, artifacts were sealed in clean plastic bags; 

appropriate provenience data were recorded on the outside of each bag. Upon completion of the 

project, all artifacts, as well as the artifact inventory and technical documentation, will be turned 

over to the client with the recommendation that they be curated with the Maryland Historical Trust. 
30 
31 

CHAPTER IV 

RESULTS OF INVESTIGATIONS

Archival Results 

 The project area is historicially linked to Trent Hall. Trent Hall contained 600 acres when it 

was granted to Major Thomas Truman in 1658, a member of the Privy Council (Earle 1924:158). Major 

Thomas violated a treaty with the Native Americans in 1675 when he massacred their peace delegation 

and laid siege to their fort; he was subsequently dismissed from the council (Holly 1991:264). When the 

estate was resurveyed for his nephew, Thomas Truman Greenfield, in 1705, it had been enlarged to 

2,354 acres (Earle 1924:158). 

 Steamboats began stopping at Trent Hall with the inauguration of service by the George Weems 

in 1821. His steamboat Eagle was the first service on the Patuxent River. The steamboat assured a oneday trip to Baltimore, a boon for the planters (Holly 1991:31-33). Trent Hall continued to serve as a 

steamboat landing until the early twentieth century. The landing was important enough to earn a shortlived post office named Trent Hall from February 20, 1876 through February 8, 1877. J.J. Readmond 

was postmaster (Hammett 1977:162). It was established along with post offices at the following 

landings of Patuxent steamers: Forest’s Wharf, Jones’ Wharf, Bond’s Wharf, Aell’s Wharf, and 

Millstone Landing (Hammett 1977:153). 

 St. Mary’s farmers created a heavy demand for herring for their tenants and hired field laborers. 

During the spring run, small boat operators delivered fresh herring to Trent Hall in the months of March, 

April, and May (Shomette 1995:115). Trent Hall was the home of the Truman, Greenfield, Briscoe, 

and Thomas families for many generations. In the mid-twentieth century, Trent Hall was the home 

of Honorable Paul J. Bailey, State Senator from St. Mary’s County 1946-54 and 1966-74 (Hammett 

1977:162).

Results of Archeological Investigations 

Surface collection at 3 m (9.8 ft) intervals covered the entire project area, and selective 

shovel testing was used to study areas of surface artifact density or potentially diagnostic artifacts. A 

total of 30 shovel tests were excavated (Figure 5). Shovel tests revealed that the project area soils 

resembled the Sassafras series that is mapped for the area north of the project area, rather than the 

Evesboro series that is mapped in the project area (Gibson 1978:Sheet 4). A typical profile consisted 

of a dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) sand loam Ap horizon underlain at 30 cmbs (11.8 inbs) by olive 

yellow (2.5Y 6/6) sand loam BA horizon and at 55 cmbs (21.7 inbs) by strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) 

sandy clay Bt1 horizon. 

A total of 34 artifacts were recovered from the surface collection, and two additional 

artifacts were recovered from shovel tests. The artifact assemblage included 27 prehistoric artifacts 
32 

and nine historic artifacts. The prehistoric artifacts included 9 unmodified quartz flakes, 4 

unmodified quartzite flakes, 1 unmodified sandy chert flake, 1 modified rhyolite flake, 2 

undiagnostic quartz bifaces (projectile points/knives) (Figure 6), 1 bipolar quartz core fragment, 3 

quartzite heated cobble fragments, 1 sandstone heated cobble fragment, and 5 ceramic sherds (Figure 

7). Although not collected, an extremely diffuse scatter of oyster shell was noted across the project 

area. 

The prehistoric items comprised two archeological sites, one relatively compact site (Virts 

Site 1 [18ST767]) measuring approximately 35 by 65 m (115 x 213 ft) located near the southern tip 

of the project area, and a much more diffuse site (Virts Site 2 [18ST768]) measuring approximately 

90 x 135 m (295 x 443 ft) and located towards the northern end of the project area. Virts Site 1 

(18ST767) included both lithic and ceramic assemblages. The lithic component consisted of one 

quartz projectile point/knife (5.83 g) of indeterminate type, one primary quartzite flake (35.06 g), 

one primary sandy chert flake (41.94 g), one secondary quartz flake (7.41 g), one secondary quartzite 

flake (24.12 g), and one heated sandstone cobble fragment (38.02 g). The ceramic component 

included five sherds (8.28 g) with a temper consisting of hornblend, granite, quartz, and five per cent 

mica. Two sherds were fabric-impressed. The sherds appear to represent one of the experimental 

varieties that were produced during the Early Woodland period (Hornum et al. 2000). All of the 

artifacts were recovered from the surface. 

Virts Site 1 (18ST767) appears to represent a fairly well defined Early Woodland resource 

procurement and processing area. Although the artifact density is light, several activities can be 

identified, including hearth-related activities (heated cobble), lithic reduction (flakes, point/knife), 

and perishable resource processing (sherds). However, no artifacts were recovered below the 

surface, and the absence of clear oyster shell concentrations on the surface suggests that no midden 

or pit features remain intact below the plowzone. The impact of historic plowing probably has 

eliminated the site’s integrity, thereby reducing its research potential significantly. As a result, no 

further archeological work appears warranted. 

Virts Site 2 (18ST768) yielded a lithic artifact assemblage that included one quartz projectile 

point/knife (3.92 g) of indeterminate type, one quartz bipolar core (16.38 g), one retouched and 

utilized rhyolite flake (2.48 g), eight quartz flakes (one primary, four secondary, and three noncortical, totaling 47.01 g), two quartzite flakes (one secondary and one non-cortical, totaling 4.96 g), 

and three quartzite heated cobbles (103.46 g). One flake was recovered from the upper portion of the 

BA horizon, while the remaining artifacts were recovered from the surface. 

Virts Site 2 (18ST768) appears to reflect a diffuse scatter of prehistoric activity. No 

temporally diagnostic artifacts were recovered. The site activities appear to have included perishable 

resource processing (flake tool), lithic reduction (core, flakes, point/knife), and hearth-related 

activities (heated cobbles). The extremely low density of artifacts and the absence of temporally 

diagnostic items suggest that the site retains little potential to identify discrete prehistoric activity 

areas or to place those activities within a distinct temporal framework. As a result, the site appears 

to lack significant research potential, and no further work appears warranted. 

The historic artifacts included one sherd of domestic brown stoneware (1750 – 1900), three 

pieces of a machine-made amber bottle (1898 – present), one fragment of a post-bottom molded 

clear glass bottle (1850 – present), and four pieces of undiagnostic clear or amber bottle glass (Figure 

8). The historic materials were widely scattered, and appear to reflect nothing more than twentieth 

century casual discard. 
33 

FIGURE 5

THIS PAGE INITIALLY LEFT BLANK
34 
35 

Figure 6. Photograph of prehistoric projectile points/knives from Site 18ST768 (FS #21) and Site 

18ST767 (FS #22) 
36 
37 

Figure 7. Site 18ST767, photograph of four prehistoric ceramic sherds (FS #10) 
38 
39 

Figure 8. Photograph of selected historic artifacts: from left to right, amber machine-made bottle 

(FS #3), domestic stoneware (FS #26), and clear machine-made bottle base (FS #8) 
40 
41 

CHAPTER V 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary 

 This report presents the results of Phase I archeological survey undertaken during March 2002 

at a 7-ac (2.8-ha) parcel on the Virts property in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The report was 

prepared by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., for ENTRIX, Inc. Office of Habitat 

Conservation, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. was subcontracted to ENTRIX, Inc. 

 The objective of the Phase I archeological survey was to identify and provide preliminary 

assessments of archeological resources located within the project areas. This was achieved through a 

combination of archival background research, archeological field investigations, and laboratory 

analysis of recovered cultural remains. 

 The archeological survey included intensive surface collection of the recently plowed and 

disked agricultural field. After the weekend rains of March 2 and 3, 2002, the field was collected at 

a 3 m (9.8 ft) lane interval. A total of 30 shovel tests were excavated at a 10 m (32.8 ft) interval in 

areas where artifacts were recovered. 

 A total of 34 artifacts were recovered from the surface collection, and two additional 

artifacts were recovered from shovel tests. The artifact assemblage included 27 prehistoric artifacts 

and 9 historic artifacts. Two prehistoric sites were identified. Virts Site 1 (18ST767) produced 11 

artifacts, and appears to represent an Early Woodland resource procurement and processing area, 

featuring hearth-related activities, lithic reduction, and perishable resource processing. Virts Site 2 

(18ST768) yielded 16 artifacts, and appears to reflect a diffuse scatter of prehistoric activity, 

featuring perishable resource processing, lithic reduction, and hearth-related activities. The historic 

materials were widely scattered, and appear to reflect nothing more than twentieth century casual 

discard. 

Recommendations 

Virts Site 1 (18ST767) produced no sub-surface artifacts, and the absence of definitive 

oyster shell concentrations on the surface suggests that no midden or pit features remain intact below 

the plowzone. The impact of historic plowing probably has eliminated the site’s integrity, thereby 

reducing its research potential significantly. Therefore, the site does not appear to be National 

Register eligible, and no additional archeological investigation is recommended. Virts Site 2 

(18ST768) contains an extremely low density of artifacts and the absence of temporally diagnostic 

items. Thus, the site retains little potential to identify discrete prehistoric activity areas or to place 

those activities within a distinct temporal framework. As a result, the site appears to lack significant 
42 

research potential, and the site does not appear to be National Register eligible and no additional 

archeological investigation is recommended. No further work appears warranted or is recommended 

for any other portions of the project area because the remaining artifacts represent diffuse historic to 

modern causal discard. 
43 

REFERENCES CITED

Beitzell, Edwin W. 

 1960 The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County, Maryland. Privately printed. 

Bradbury, Andrew P. and Philip J. Carr 

 1995 Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment. Lithic 

Technology. 20(2):100-115. 

Brugger, Robert J. 

 1988 Maryland: A Middle Temperment, 1634-1980. The John Hopkins University Press, in 

association with the Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. 

Bryson, Reid A. W. M. Wendland 

 1967 Tentative Climatic Patterns for Some Late Glacial and Post-Glacial Episodes in 

Central North America. In Life, Land, and Water, edited by W.J. Mayer-Oakes, pp. 

271-298. University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg. 

Carbone, Victor A. 

 1976 Environment and Prehistory in the Shenandoah Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation, The Catholic University of America. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 

 1982 Environment and Society in Archaic and Woodland Times. In Practicing 

Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by R. W. Moeller, 

pp. 39-52. American Indian Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper Number 3. 

Chesterman, Charles W. and Kurt E. Lowe 

 1992 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals. Alfred A. 

Knopf. New York. 

Chittenden, Betsy, Elizabeth S. David, Susan L. Henry, Michael F. Johnson, and Martha R. Williams 

 1988 Fairfax County Heritage Resource Management Plan. Heritage Resources Branch, 

Office of Comprehensive Planning, 1988. 

Clark, Wayne E. 

 1980 The Origins of the Piscataway and Related Indian Cultures. Maryland Historical 

Magazine 75 (1):8-22. 

Clifford, Laura 

 1998 Phase I Cultural Resources Report for the Cedar Point Golf Course (Tees and Greens) 

Renovation at Patuxent River NAS, St. Mary's County, Maryland (Preliminary Draft 

Report). Prepared for General Physics, Columbia, Md. (Contract N62477-95-D-3086, 

Task 008). Environment and Archaeology LLC, Verona, KY. 
44 

Cook, Thomas G. 

 1976 Broadpoint: culture, phase, tradition, or knife? Journal of Anthropological Research

32:337-357. 

Custer, Jay F. 

 1980 Human Response to Holocene Climatic Episodes in the Northern Middle Atlantic. 

Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological 

Association, Washington, D.C. 

 1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Delaware Press, Newark. 

Earle, Swepson 

 1924 The Chesapeake Bay Country. Thomsen-Ellis Company, Baltimore. 

Ebright, Carol A. 

 1992 Early Native American Prehistory on the Maryland Western Shore: Archeological 

Investigations at the Higgins Site. Maryland State Highway Administration 

Archeological Report No. 1. Prepared for the Maryland State Railroad 

Administration. 

Egloff, Keith T. and Stephen R. Potter 

 1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America

10:95-117. 

Fausz J. Patrick 

 1984 Merging and Emerging Worlds: the Interplay of Anglo-Indian Interest Groups in the 

Early Chesapeake, 1620-1660. Paper presented at the Third Hall of records 

Conference on Maryland History, St. Mary's City, Maryland. 

Fehr, April M. 

 1983 Riverine Adaptive Phases and Environmental Stress during the Woodland Period in 

the Northern Shenandoah Valley. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Archeological 

Society of Virginia, Manassas, Virginia. 

Fenwick, Charles 

 1977 Mill Memories in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. Chronicles of St. Mary’s 18 

(11):483-491. 

Ferguson, Alice L. L. and T. Dale Stewart 

 1940 An Ossuary near Piscataway Creek. American Antiquity 6:4-18. 

Gardner, William M. 

 1978 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic 

Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Unpublished 

manuscript. 

 1979 Paleoindian Settlement Patterns and Site Distribution in the Middle Atlantic 

(Preliminary Version). Unpublished manuscript. 

 1980 The Archaic. Paper presented at the 10th Middle Atlantic Archaeology Conference, 

Dover, Delaware. 
45 

 1982 Early and Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: An Overview. In Practicing 

Environmental Archaeology: Methods and Interpretations, edited by Roger W. 

Moeller, pp. 53-86. American Indian Archaeological Institute Occasional Paper 

Number 3. 

 1983 Get Me to the Quarry on Time: The Flint Run Paleoindian Model Revisited (Again). 

Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Gibb, James G. 

 1990 A Phase I Archeological Survey and Phase II Site Examination (18ST619) for the 

Hickory Hills Development Project, California, Maryland. Prepared for Hickory Hills 

Limited Partnership, Lexington, Maryland. 

1992 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of Waterside Farms near Hallowing Point, Calvert 

County, Maryland. Prepared for Joseph A. and Darlene E. Kupke Richardson, Texas. 

Gibson, Joseph W. 

 1978 Soil Survey of St. Mary's County, Maryland. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service. 

Gramly, Richard Michael 

 1982 The Vail Site: A Paleo-Indian Encampment in Maine. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society 

of Natural Sciences Volume 30. Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences. Buffalo, NY. 

Greenhorne & Omara, Inc. 

 1992 Phase II Archeological Investigation of the Waterrside Farm Site, 18CV320. Prepared 

for Joseph A. and Darlene E. Kupke Richardson, Texas. 

Hammett, Regina C. 

 1977 History of St. Mary's County, Maryland. Privately Printed. Ridge, Maryland. 

Herrman, Augustine 

 1673 Virginia and Maryland. London (1670). 

Hobbs, Horace 

 1961 Pioneers of the Potomac. Privately printed. 

Holly, David C. 

 1991 Tidewater by Steamboat: A Saga of the Chesapeake. The John Hopkins Universite 

Press, Baltimore. 

House, John H. 

 1975 A Functional Typology for Cache Project Surface Collections, in The Cache River 

Archeological Project: An Experiment in Current Archeology, Michael B. Schiffer 

and John H. House, eds. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research Series No.8. 

Hume, Ivor Noël 

 1969 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 
46 

Johnson, Michael 

 1986 The Prehistory of Fairfax County: An Overview. Ms. on file. Heritage Resources 

Branch, Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax, Virginia. 

Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan 

 1989 Glass Glossary for the Description of Containers, Tableware, Flat Glass, and 

Closures. National Historic Parks and Sites, The Parks Canada. 

Kavanagh, Maureen 

 1982 Archeological Resources of the Monocacy River Region, Frederick and Carroll 

Counties, Maryland. Submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust, Frederick County 

Planning Commission, Carroll County Planning and Zoning Commission. 

Keeley, Lawrence H. 

 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. The 

University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

King, Julia A. 

 1990 Rural Life in Mid-19th Century St. Mary's County: The Susquehanna Farm at Cedar 

Point. Chronicles of St. Mary's (38)1:289-300. 

Klapthor, Margaret B . and Paul D. Brown 

 1958 The History of Charles County in Maryland. Charles County Tercentenary, Inc., La 

Plata, MD. 

LeeDecker, Charles H. and Brad Koldehoff 

 1991 Excavation of the Indian Creek V Site (18PR94) Prince George's County, Maryland. 

Prepared for Wallace Roberts & Todd, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington D.C. 

Lukezic, Craig 

 1990 Soils and settlement location in eighteenth century colonial Tidewater Virginia. 

Historical Archaeology 24:1-17. 

Marks, Bayly E. 

 1979 Economics and Society in a Staple Plantation System: St. Mary's County, Maryland 

1790-1840. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland, 

College Park. 

Miller, George L. 

 1980 Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. Historical 

Archaeology 14:1-40. 

 1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of 

English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25(1):1-25. 

Mottana, Annibale, Rodolfo Crespi, and Giuseppe Liborio 

 1978 Guide to Rocks and Minerals. Simon & Schuster Inc. New York. 
47 

Neiman, Fraser 

 1986 Domestic Architecture at the Clifts Plantation: The Social Context of Early Virginia 

Building. In Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture, edited 

by Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, pp. 292-314. University of Georgia Press, 

Athens. 

Pogue, Dennis J. 

 1983 Patuxent River Naval Air Station Cultural Resources Survey. Volume I: History and 

Archaeology. Public Works Department, Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md. 

 1990 King's Reach and seventeenth Century Plantation Life. Jefferson Patterson Park & 

Museum Studies in Archaeology:1. Maryland Historical Trust, Annapolis, Maryland. 

Pogue, Dennis J. and M.A. Smolek 

 1985 An Archeological Resource Management Plan for Southern Maryland. Maryland 

Historical Trust, Manuscript Series No. 30. 

Pogue, Robert E. T. 

 1968 Yesterday in Old St. Mary's County. Privately printed. Bushwood, Md. 

Polglase, Christopher R., Thomas W. Neumann, Michelle T. Moran, and Martha R. Williams 

 1990 Phase II Archeological Testing of Sites 18CH334, 18CH335, and 18CH336, Charles 

County Landfill No. 2, Waldorf, Maryland. Prepared for Interstate General Company, 

LP, St. Charles, Maryland. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, 

MD. 

Reeve, Stuart A., Jean B. Russo, Dennis J. Pogue, and Joseph M. Herbert 

 1991 Myrtle Point: The Changing Land and People of a Lower Patuxent River Community. 

Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Paper No. 3. Maryland Historical 

and Cultural Publiscations, Crownsville. 

Scharf, J. Thomas 

 1879 A History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day. Reprinted 1967. 

Tradition Press, Hatboro, Pennsylvania. 

Secretary of the Interior 

 1993 Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and 

Guidelines. 

Shaffer, G. and Cole, E. 

 1994 Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. 

Shomette, Donald 

 1981 Flotilla: The Battle for the Patuxent. Calvert Marine Museum Press, Solomons, Md. 

 1995 Tidewater Time Capsules: History Beneath the Patuxent. Tidewater Publishers, 

Centerville, Maryland. 
48 

Smolek, Michael 

 1984 "Soyle light, Well-Watered and On the River:" Settlement Patterning of Maryland's 

Frontier Plantations. Paper presented at the Third Hall of Records Conference on 

Maryland History, St. Mary's City, Maryland. 

South, Stanley 

 1977 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historcal Archaeology: A 

Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert Schuyler. 

Baywood Publishing Co., Farmingdale, N.Y. 

Stephenson, Robert L., Alice L. Ferguson, and Henry J. Ferguson 

 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. University 

of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Press No. 20 

Steponaitis, Laurie Cameron 

 1983 An Archeological Study of the Patuxent River Drainage, Volume I. Maryland 

Historical Trust Manuscript Series No. 24. Prepared by the Maryland Historic Trust 

and the Tidewater Adminstration, Annapolis, Maryland. 

 1986 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Lower Patuxent Drainage, Maryland. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, SUNY Binghamton. 

Stewart, R. Michael 

 1980 Environmental Settlement Pattern and Prehistoric Use of Rhyolite in the Great Valley 

of Maryland and Pennsylvania. Paper presented at the 10th Middle Atlantic 

Archaeology Conference, Dover, Delaware. 

 1981 Prehistoric Ceramics of the Great Valley of Maryland. Unpublished manuscript on 

file with author. 

Stone, Gary Wheeler 

 1982 Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland. Ph.D Dissertation. University 

of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

Tixier, J. 

 1974 Glossary for the Description of Stone Tools with Special Reference to the 

Epipalaeolithic of the Maghreb. Newsletter of Lithic Technology: Special Publication 

Number 1. Translation by M. H. Newcomer. 

United States Department of the Interior 

 1982 National Register Bulletin 15: Guidelines for Applying the National Register Criteria 

for Evaluation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Wesler, Kit W. 

 1982 Towards a Synthetic Approach to the Chesapeake Tidewater: Historic Site Patterning 

in Temporal Perspective. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill. University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 
49 

Wesler, Kit W., Gordon J. Fine, Dennis J. Pogue, Patricia A. Sternheimer, Aileen F. Button, E. Glyn 

Furgurson, and Alvin H. Luckenbach 

 1981 The Maryland Department of Transportation Archaeological Resources Survey, 

Volume II: Western Shore. Maryland Historical Trust Manuscript Series 6. 

Wilke, Steve, and Gail Thompson 

 1979 Prehistoric Archeological Resources in the Maryland Coastal Zone: a Management 

Overview. Report for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 

Wilstach, Paul 

 1932 Potomac Landings. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis. 

Worthy, Linda H. 

 1982 Classification and Interpretation of Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century 

Ceramics. In Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and Process. 

Edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., Academic Press, New York. 

Primary Documents

Maryland Historical Trust 

 Archaeological Site Files 

 Maryland Inventory of Historic Structures Inventory Forms 

 National Register of Historic Places Nomination Forms 
50 
51 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 This report was prepared with the assistance and support of many individuals, agencies and 

institutions. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. wishes to thank Dr. Gary D. Harmon of the 

ENTRIX, Inc., Mr. Kevin Smith of MDNR, and Mr. John Collins of NOAA for their assistance in 

coordinating this project. Ms. Mary Louise DeSarran, Librarian at the Maryland Historical Trust, 

facilitated access to site files and research reports on projects conducted within the region. 

 Christopher R. Polglase, M.A., ABD, served as Principal Investigator and supervised all 

aspects of the study; Michael B. Hornum, Ph.D., served as Project Manager. Dr. Hornum, and Brian 

Stone, M.A. directed field investigations. They were assisted by Ashley Watson, B.A and Nate 

Workman, B.A. Darlene Hassler, B.A. and K.D. Tyree, M.A. conducted the laboratory analyses. 

Brian Cleven, M.S. conducted the archival research. John Shuster, M.A., prepared the graphics for the 

report. Ms. Shanna Fuhrman produced the report. 

 
52 
APPENDIX I 

ARTIFACT INVENTORY

APPENDIX II 

RESUMES OF 

KEY PROJECT PERSONNEL