Archaeological Testing at the John Brice 11 (Jenning s-Brice) House 18 AP 53 195 Prince George Street Annapolis, Maryland by Julie H. Ernstein Barbara J. Little, Ph.D. Principal Investigator ARCHAEOLOGY IN ANNAPOLIS A Cooperative Venture between the Historic Annapolis Foundation and the University of Maryland, College Park. 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . List of Figures.. .................................................. .n ... Acknowledgments. .............................................. .m Abstract.. ........................................................... .1 Introduction.. ...................................................... .2 Project Description and Sensitivity. ........................... .4 ........................................ Prehistoric Background.. .5 Historical Background.. ........................................ .ll Research Goals.. ................................................ -16 Methodology.. ................................................... .19 Field Investigation and Observations.. ...................... .20 Interpretations and Conclusions. ............................. .25 Summary and Recommendations. ............................ .27 References Cited.. .............................................. .27 Appendix I: Site Registration Form.. ....................... .a-i . . Appendix 11: Unit Summary Forms.. ....................... .a-n Appendix IIX: Artifact Inventory. ........................... a-iii Appendix IV: Staff Vitae.. .................................. .a-iv Appendix V: Project Correspondence. ..................... .a-v FIGURES Figure 1. Map locating John Brice I1 House on U. S. G. S. Quad map of Annapolis, Maryland (scale = 1 : 24,000). Figure 2. Map of the Council for Maryland Archaeology archaeological research zones. Figure 3. Reproduction of the 171 8 Stoddert Map of Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 4. Site map of the front yard area of the John Brice I1 House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 5. South wall profile, balk removed, Unit 1, John Brice I1 House, 1 8AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 6. North wall profile, Unit 1, John Brice I1 House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 7. East wall profile, Unit 1, John Brice 11 House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 8. West wall profile, Unit 1, John Brice I1 House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 9. South wall profile, Unit 1, John Brice I1 House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project extends thanks foremost to Mrs. Katherine Halligan Adair, owner of the property treated in this study and her daughter, Ms. Trina Mazurek, for their support of archaeology and foresight in including systematic excavation prior to repair work in the yard area of their early 18th-century house. I am also grateful to members of the excavation crew: Benjamin Edwards, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Dana Holland, Kristen Hunter, Frederick Kleyle, Simon Lewthwaite, Carey O'Reilly, and Mark Warner. Dr. Barbara J. Little, Principal Investigator, oversaw the excavation and provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. Dr. Jean Russo, of the Historic Annapolis Foundation, completed primary documentary research into the history of the lot. The washing, labelling, and cataloguing of artifacts were performed by volunteers at the Annapolis archaeology laboratory, under the direction of Julie Ernstein. Computer entry of the catalog data was accomplished by volunteers at the College Park archaeology laboratory, under the supervision of Paul R. Mullins. And last, many thanks go to Tony Lindauer, the contractor doing repair and renovation work at the John Brice I1 House, for his assistance in daily logistics as well as his unflagging interest in the property, its history, and in archaeology. ABSTRACT In the fall of 1989, emergency excavation was undertaken in conjunction with restoration work at the John Brice I1 (Jennings-Brice) House, 18AP53. The exact date of construction for this brick home is problematic, and it was hoped that archaeological investigation could provide conclusive evidence to firmly establish the structure's date of construction. Excavation of one 5 X 5 ft. unit revealed the presence of 10 separate soil layers and four features of note, described in detail below. Unfortunately, no ibugder9s trench or similar feature by which we might date the house's construction was recovered. Future plans and possibilities for excavation at the property are outlined with the hopes of performing subsequent work at this rich site. We anticipate a focus on the arrangement and changes in use of the houselot, amassing evidence to support the presence of a vernacular garden on the property during the 18th century, as well as researching refuse disposal patterns, and clues to changing lifeways through the 18th century. INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1989, Ms. Trina Mazurik, a daughter of Mrs. Katherine Halligan Adair, owner of the John Brice I1 House (also known as the Jennings-Brice House), contacted staff archaeologists at the Historic Annapolis Foundation. Water damage in the basement of the house located at 195 Prince George Street, Annapolis, Maryland, would necessitate excavation in the front yard, up against the early 18th-century house's foundation. The owner suggested that perhaps professional archaeologists, in consultation with the contractor undertaking the repair work, would like to excavate a unit or units in the area to be impacted. The area under examination was of great archaeological promise as there was no evidence of utility lines, pipes, or other significant below-ground disturbance. In consultation with Tony Lindauer, the contractor undertaking the repair work, a unit was placed flush with the house's foundation--with the goal of recovering a builder's trench containing diagnostic artifacts to assist in more tightly dating the house's construction. The site was registered with the State Archaeologists's office, and subsequently designated 18 AP 53. (See Appendix I for documentation of site registration.) The John Brice 11 House lies in immediate proximity to features of local and national importance, among them the Governor William Paca House and Garden (18AP01), the Hammond-Harwood House (1 8AP02), and the Brice House (18AP38)--each listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the subject of archaeological (Dent 1985; Little 1967, 1968; Orr and Orr 1975; Powell 1966; South 1967; Williams 1988; Yentsch 1982) and other scholarly attention (e.g . , Leone 1984; Paca-Steele and Wright 1987). More important, however, the John Brice 11 House predates the majority of the extant large brick structures of Annapolis, most of which date to the second half of the 18th century. Like its contemporaries, the core of the Carroll House on Duke of Gloucester Street (built by Charles Carroll of Annapolis, ca. 172 I), the core of the Bordley-Randall House (ca. 171 8), and the Patrick Creagh (built ca. 1735) houses, the John Brice 11 House is one of a few surviving brick structures known to date from at least the first decades of the 18th century. The property, originally containing 31,880 sq. ft., is situated within the historic district of Maryland's capital city at Annapolis, designated an official historic district by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1966. (See Figure 1 for a map locating the John Brice 11 House on a U. S . G. S . Quad map of Annapolis, Maryland.) The low degree of disruption expected by the repair work necessitated opening only a single unit. Excavation was performed by one supervisor and, on average, one crew member working over the course of 16 days between 07 November and 28 November 1989. Archaeological remains recovered within the study area were located, identified, and evaluated for potential significance. Funding for this project was provided by the Historic Annapolis Foundation. Figure 1 Map locating John Brice I1 House on U.S.G.S. Quad map Annapolis, Maryland (scale= 1 :24,000). PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SENSITIVITY The John Brice 11 House is located on the coastal plain of the Middle Chesapeake Bay region. Situated on the western shore of Chesapeake Bay, the surrounding lands are characterized by rolling uplands and a wide variety of deciduous trees and vegetation (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1979). The project area is located in Unit 7 (see Figure 2) on the Maryland Archaeological Resource Unit Map--in the Gunpowder-Middle-Back-Patapsco- Magothy-Severn-South-Rhode-West Drainages. Between 250,000 B. C.-15,000 B. C., the Chesapeake area forests were composed of spruce, pine, fir, and birch trees. By 10,000 B.C., the forests had become dominated by the oak-hickory--representing a more variedlmore readily exploited environment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1979). The substrata soils in the Chesapeake area consist of unconsolidated sedimentary deposits of sand, silt, clay, and gravel overlying a crystalline bedrock. While the topography of the area is not diverse, the sediments vary greatly in depth, texture, and the degree of permeability (Brush et al. 1977: 3). The soil in the project area is a Monmouth, fine sandy loam with a O- 2 % gradient. It is formed from unconsolidated beds of fine textured sediments. It is otherwise characterized by being deep, well drained, olive colored, strongly acidic, and containing glauconite (green sand) as 40-70 % of its soil profile. Prehistoric use of the land on which the John Brice I1 House sits is unknown. Since at least the early 18th century, the John Brice II property has been an Anglo-American domestic site. Numbers Designate Maryland Archeological Research Unite (Council for Maryland Archeology) 0 dd M+IW MPALAW I AJ-PRO- lhlt Ib - Crlactln Crrrll Drrlnaqe Unl t 19 - Int letam Crreb-Canaeacherpur CrreL Oralnrqcl Unlt 20 - Llcttnp Cwrk-laneloury CmC- Fl ftrenmllc Cnct Drrlnrpcr Wlt 21 - Tan Crerk Orrfnrpc Unlt 12 - Nfchalri Creek-Gearper Cwrk Orrlnrpo Unlt 23 0 Potomc-Srvape Orrtnapes Unlt 24 0 fauphlaqheny-Crslelmrn Orolncget corstri qrtrr ra~ -.-. lrlt 1 - ltlnntlc Orslnrpe Un(l Z Fnconabr Dralnapc lmft 3 - krnt Icnbr-Ylcamlce-Mnnotln- llp &nnrwicrr Drrfnoyl lhgt 4 - Choptank Orrlnrqe lmlt 3 - Chrstrr Orrlnrw ylft I - ~rttnfrai-tlb-narthwt-bughe Itrrqvrhrnnr Orrfnoys Wft - Cunpav~r.~lddle-Drek-?1t1plca~ ' Mapathy-Sever-South-Aha&-Yest Or1 InrpCS Unit 0 ; Rlrtrlnr Peturent Orrlnrpc lhlt 9 C$turrlnr Prlurrnt Orrlnrqe MI1 10 trtuerlae Patate Orafnrqe mtt Il . lllvrrfnr! Patennc Or@fnrpc pLt-WT IrWt~Ci Urlt I? Patnm#c Orrlnrgc wft 13 p#turrnl Drclnr unft 14 . ~rtrprre.@rel-lfPddlr Or8lsrprl tw+t 19 Cmpaubr.@u~h Orrt*@prs ulrt 16 Swourhmar-[ll.rrorlherrt nretnapl Wlt I? Renetre). Ilr8488W Several aboriginal sites and components of aboriginal sites have been recorded within the city of Annapolis (18AP04, 18AP05, 18AP46, and 18AP47). Only one of these, the Sands House (18AP47), is located within the current bounds of the historic district. Because of the John Brice XI House's proximity to natural water resources, there exists the probability that prehistoric remains might well be recovered from the project area. In addition, Mr. Lindauer brought to the archaeologists9 attention the fact that Mrs. Adair remembers discovering prehistoric artifacts in the yard as a child (Lindauer: personal communication). This oral historical dimension certainly bears pursuit. The archaeological integrity of the city of Annapolis, as attested to by the discovery and excavation of significant archaeological remains over the course of the last three decades, indicated that this early site would be no exception. PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND Paleoindian Period The Paleoindian phase (13,000-7,000 IS. C .) is not well documented in the northeastern United States, though evidence from the region suggests that humans have lived here for 10,000- 20,000 years. In the west, the most widespread complex is the Llano or Clovis, typified by fluted points, scrapers, and blades. These artifacts are often found in association with extinct megafauna of the Pleistocene, suggesting a way of life centering on big game hunting (Humphrey and Chambers 1977: 7-9). In the east, however, finds showing evidence of Paleoindians are usually isolated fluted points (Steponaitis 1980: 63). There are, however, several sites in the east that reveal evidence supporting Paleoindian occupation of the region. Two important surface sites are the Williamson site in Dinwiddie County, Virginia and the Shoop site in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The artifacts uncovered include fluted points, blades, scrapers, and wedges, which are similar between the two sites and similar to the Clovis complex in the west. Two deeply-stratified eastern sites include the Shawnee Minisink site in the Delaware Water Gap and the Thunderbird site in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia . Both these sites yielded radiocarbon dates that were contemporaneous with the Clovis complex in the west (Humphrey and Chambers 1977: 8-9). Steponaitis notes that while the eastern Paleo complex is similar to the western Clovis complexes, eastern artifacts have never been found in direct association with Pleistocene megafauna (1980: 63-64). Humphrey and Chambers state that the eastern evidence is " . . . complicated by significant variation among artifacts both in minor detail and major form" (1977: 9). Thus, the lifeways of the big game hunters of the west cannot be transferred to the east. Instead, evidence suggests that the Paleoindians of the east had a much more diversified subsistence strategy. This is because of several factors, identified by both Steponaitis (1980) and Humphrey and Chambers (1977). As evidence in support of this, one notes that: While big game hunters in the Great Plains and Southwest were ranging over thousands of square miles of essentially open grassland, their Eastern cousins were faced with the great variety of ecological niches in the first coniferous, then deciduous forests which covered the land . . . and human groups living in the forest must have depended increasingly on locally available plants, small game, reptiles, and shell fish . . . . This regional and seasonal variation in food and resources would understandably result in considerable variation in cultural adaptive strategies and their material manifestations (Humphrey and Chambers 1977: 9). Steponaitis notes that Paleoindian base camps identified by diverse artifact assemblages, non-random distribution of lithic debris, activity areas, and post holes and molds, are found in riverine areas. Further, she observes that quarry sites were identified by a lack of tools and the presence of large amounts of debitage and a cryptocrystalline rock source (Steponaitis 1980: 66). This indicates that eastern Paleoindians were not following migrating animals but were occupying sites on a seasonal basis. Investigations of Paleoindian sites have been hindered, as many sites were inundated as a result of the rise in sea level known to have occurred at the end of the Pleistocene. Archaic Period The end of the Pleistocene saw many environmental changes, including the inundation of some riverine environments, a change from mixed coniferous forests to northern hardwoods, and the transition to a more temporate climate. The Archaic period is one of cultural adaptation to these changes and is further divided into subphases, known generally as the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Archaic. The Early Archaic (7,500-6,000 B.C.) is characterized by the appearance of two artifact traditions, the corner notched tradition (7,500-6,800 B.C.) and the bifurcate tradition (6,8000- 600 B.C.). The corner notched tradition is based on the change from fluted points to corner notched points, reflecting a different hafting technique and utilization. The general artifact assemblages of Paleo and Archaic peoples are very similar, thus prompting some to infer that the difference between the two peoples was based upon which game they hunted (Steponaitis 1980: 69-70). The bifurcate tradition involved the scheduled use of a number of seasonally-available resources. The bifurcates were made from rhyolite or quartz in the Appalachian Mountains. Around 6,000 B. C. the climate changed from cool and dry to warm and wet. This marked the beginning of the Middle Archaic. This period is represented by several traditions, with the bifurcate tradition possibly extending into this period. Marrow Mountain points were part of a tradition extending from 5,000-4,200 B. C . These points were made of rhyolite and black chert, with associated assemblages of scrapers, large bifaces, choppers, hammers, atlatl weights, and axes. These peoples occupied inland swamps with transient camps on second- and third-order streams (Steponaitis 1980: 76-77). Another tradition was characterized by Guilford lanceolate points made of quartzite. The Guilford assemblages were generally the same as the Marrow Mountain assemblages, with the exception of the absence of scrapers in the former. The increase in the number of points indicates either an intensification of use in the area, or an increase in population (Steponaitis 1986). The Late Archaic saw a change to a warm and dry climate and the beginning of an oak- hickory forest. During this time period (4,000-1,000 B.C.), there were several traditions in existence. Two distinctive traditions were the Piedmont tradition with long-stemmed points, and the Laurentian tradition, rare in this area. Also appearing for the first time is the broad spear which indicated utilization of new resources, possibly estuary resources (Steponaitis 1980: 80- 81). Steatite or soapstone vessels for storage originated during this era. As Humphrey and Chambers (1977: 11) note, the native Americans were then relying heavily on fishing and mollusk collecting. These are all indications of an increasingly-sedentary way of life. Woodland Period Transition from the Archaic to the Woodland period is marked by the appearance of woodworking tools, such as axes and celts, and cordage-impressed pottery. Both types of artifacts reflect a more sedentary lifeway. The Woodland period (1,000 B. C. -European contact [A.D. 15001) is also divided into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late. During the Early Woodland phase, the introduction of cultigens into the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys from Mexico resulted in changes in both of those areas. However, in parts of the northeast the Archaic way of life continued until European contact (Humphrey and Chambers 1977: 17). As for changes occurring during the Woodland period, we are reminded that: Pottery is the clearest indicator of change in this early Woodland period. Changes in the frequency and distribution of Accokeek, Pope7 s Creek, and Mockley wares . . . indicate that shifts in food procurement strategies were taking place although all . . . predate the use of agricultural products (Handsman and McNett 1973 in Humphrey and Chambers 1977: 17-18). No other major changes in cultural patterns, however, were noted for that time period. Around A. D. 1,000- 1,2000, cultivated legumes were introduced into the area. This coincided with the development of improved strains of maize. These developments produced significant changes in the population structure of the area (Humphrey and Chambers 1977: 17- 19). Thus, when European explorers and colonists arrived in the Chesapeake they found sedentary populations relying on an intensified and integrated utlilization of natural and cultivated resources. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Growth of Colonial Annapolis The state of Maryland was established as a proprietary colony in 1629, upon the granting of land by Charles I to George Calvert, the First Lord Baltimore. The colony's original capital, founded at St. Mary's City, was first settled in 1634. Early in its history, the colony developed an economy based largely on the export of tobacco. Early urban development was somewhat slow as a result of a dispersed settlement pattern necessitated by the tobacco economy. Most Marylanders were engaged in raising tobacco on either large, self-sufficient plantations complete with their own blacksmiths, coopers, cobblers, and other craft specialists, or on smaller farms. The large plantations maintained their own dock facilities for the sale and transport of the harvested weed and the smaller, less self-reliant farms would likely have found it necessary to rely on their larger counterparts for the processing and shipping of the crop (Middleton 1984: 105-147). After England' s " Glorious Revolution" of 1689, Maryland became a royal colony under the sovereignty of William and Mary. Not long afterward, Sir Francis Nicholson was appointed Governor, replacing Sir Lionel Copley, and the state's capital was removed to Annapolis from St. Mary's. In his laying out of the city plan, Nicholson overlaid a Baroque design on the earlier core previously designed and surveyed by Charles Beard. It is believed that Nicholson deliberately made use of a Baroque design for his city plan with the express purpose of establishing in the city's landscape a constant reminder of the populace's subservience to the hierarchies of church and state (Leone and Shackel 1986; Leone, Ernstein, Kryder-Reid, and Shackel 1989; Reps 1972: 117-140). A recent article by Henry Miller reaches similar interpretations for the Baroque town plan at Maryland's first capital at St. Mary's (Miller 1988). The economy of colonial Annapolis may be explatned as having passed through the following three phases of growth (cf. Papenfuse 1975). The first period, 1694-1715, is characterized by the seasonal wax and wane of the town's population, dependant upon whether the General Assembly was in session or recess. The second phase of the town's growth occurred during the period 1715-1763. At this point in time, the city exhibited an increase in its number of permanent residents as a result of bureaucratic growth and the expansion of small industries. And finally, the 1763-1784 era is known as the town's "Golden Age." It is during this phase that many of the fine Georgian mansions and formal gardens for which the town is known today were builtllaid out. At the same point that one notes an increase in the conspicuous consumption among the more prominent members of society, alluded to above, there is also a concomitant decline in small industries such as shipbuilding and tannery (Papenfuse 1975: 6). With the onset of the 19th century, Annapolis' age of grandeur was drawn to a close. At this later date, Annapolis' role as social and economic hub of the Chesapeake was discontinued and the town's former glory was overshadowed by the port of Baltimore in its ascendancy to prominence on the Chesapeake. Through the course of the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, Annapolis functioned as a small port town, relying on local trade (unlike its earlier days of participation in a global economy). Starting in the late 1950s, Annapolis underwent a revitalization as the result of a major infusion of historic preservation effort and a return of businesses to the town. Currently, much of the town's economic base rests on the rewards reaped from tourism. History of the John Brice I1 House Propertv The focus of this study, the front yard of 195 Prince George Street, lies within lot number 85 on the 1718 Stoddert Survey of Annapolis (see Figure 3 for a reproduction of the 1718 Stoddert survey of Annapolis). Lot 85, surveyed in 1718 for Amos Garrett, the first mayor of Annapolis, contained approximately 31,880 sq. ft. In a 1737 conveyance of the lot, from Garrett's heirs to John Brice 11, a house is mentioned and valued at L55. This 1737 document, unfortunately, is the earliest surviving mention of a house on the property. It is worth noting that many documents dealing with late 17th-century life in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland were destroyed in the fire of 1704. In addition to the loss of documentation, what has also been lost is the linking logic or translation/transposition of numbers between the three Beard surveys and the Nicholson plan of Annapolis. For this reason, the exact date of construction of the John Brice II House (and other historic properties in Annapolis, to be sure) has been problematic, and the subject of considerable debate. Also of note is the fact that in 1740, just three years after acquiring the Prince George Street property, John Brice 11 began his career of public service. He held several offices within the county, among them: Chief Justice of the Provincial Court, Alderman of Annapolis, and Judge of the Western Shore Circuit. He was also Clerk of the Court, an office he resigned shortly before his death in favor of his son, John Brice III. In addition to his administrative and Figure 3 Reproduction of the 1718 Stoddert map Annapolis, Maryland. judicial duties, John Brice I1 ran a smaP31 store. No longer standing, it is known to have been located close to the extant house, and later served as John Brice III's law office. A room-by-room inventory of the house and storehouse, completed in 1765, values the household goods at L452.7.3 and the store's goods at L373.15.4. John Brice II's will, recorded in 1766, devised the house and lot to his wife Sarah, for life. At this same time, John a's store was left to his son, John III. Upon Sarah's death in 1782, the house and lot descended to John Brice III. The first real clue concerning the house's configuration comes in the form of the Federal Direct Tax of 1798. At that time an assessment was entered in the amount of $1,200 for a 40 X 34 ft. two-story brick dwelling, a brick outhouse, a stable, and a one-story outhouse. John III's will, dated 1820, devised ownership of his lots and buildings in Annapolis to his daughter, Margaret C. Smith. A transfer of ownership from Margaret C. Smith to John T. Barber notes: "For $3,000 current money . . . he is granted all land in the city of Annapolis beginning on Prince George Street . . . running with said street" (Anne Arundel County Deeds, WSG 26/65, 24 November 1841). In 1853, Barber enlarged his Prince George Street property by purchasing an adjoining lot from Catherine Chaney, but in the following year he conveyed the two houses and lots along Prince George Street (those acquired in 1841 from Margaret Smith) to his wife, Mary. Mary Barber died, intestate, in 1863, and after an ensuing Equity case and John Barber's death, her lands along Prince George Street were to be sold. In 1866, Frank H. Stockett and James Revell were appointed Trustees to Mary E., George, and John T. Barber to sell their late mother's real estate. By court order John T. Barber's Prince George Street property, with buildings and improvements, was granted with equal interest to each of the aforementioned surviving children. Six years later, in 1872, Mary E. Barber (Carter) and her brother George sold their lands to their brother, John T. Barber. The Prince George Street properties remained in Barber's hands for only a few more years, and in 1875 he sold them to Catherine Spottswood Berkely Iglehart for $2,000. Catherine S .B. Iglehart died intestate in 1912, and a deed dated 1917 recorded the lot's sale by her heirs to Katrina Loomis Halligan for $5,500. In 1955, Katrina Loomis Halligan, then widowed, conveyed the properties at 191 and 195 Prince George Street, as well as the ca. 4 X 120 fi. strig of land in between, to her daughter Katherine Halligan Adair and grandchildren Katherine Halligan Adair (Mazurek), John Halligan Adair, and Charles Halligan Adair. These four remained under joint tenancy and jointly own the property at the time of the current investigations. RESEARCH GOALS Since 1981, members of the "Archaeology in Annapolis" project, a joint venture between the Historic Annapolis Foundation (a private, non-profit, historic preservation organization established in 1952) and the University of Maryland, College Park, have participated in the testing and/or large-scale excavation of some two dozen archaeological sites within the historic district of Annapolis. The work at many of our sites is completed with a public program dimension, varying in its particulars from site to site, but incorporating archaeologists, trained as interpreters, engaging visitors and passersby in dialogue about archaeology, Annapolis, and the past. The major goal of the archaeological work undertaken in this town has been to examine the social and economic history of 18th-century Annapolis. Closely interwoven with this is an interest in landscape use (e. g. Kryder-Reid 1988, 1989; Leone and Shackel 1990) and to the city plan as designed by Governor Francis Nicholson in 1695 (Leone, Ernstein, Kryder-Reid, and Shackel 1989; Leone and Shackel 1986; Read 1989, 1990). In integrating these two themes, the analysis of largely-intact, relatively undisturbed lots, such as that of the John Brice II House, is essential. For this reason, project members were very anxious to take advantage of this opportunity to open a window onto one of the town's few remaining early 18th-century lots and gain insight into life among the 18th-century merchant class. Also of note here, is the comparative value of the study of such a houselot, with its likelihood of accompanying outbuildings, privies, wells, gardens, and other sealed contexts for the properties studied elsewhere in Annapolis. It is of no little note that Mr. Lindauer, the contractor performing work at the John Brice 11 House, has done a considerable amount of research into the lot and its history, and it is his belief that the house dates to the last decade of the 17th century. Whereas most historians' efforts have commenced with the present and worked backward in time to earlier documentary references, Mr. Lindauer began his search with the early documents--making use of the Beard survey numbers. The historical grounds for Lindauer's hypothesis regarding what he feels is the 17th-century origin of the John Brice 11 House is the fact that he takes the lot history back into the 17th century on the strength of his own reconstruction of the Beard survey of Annapolis. Therefore, when Lindauer finds documents from the late 17th century mentioning transfer of the lot and building(s) thereon, a correlation between the Beard and Nicholson surveys which he convincingly demonstrated at a symposium in May, 1990 at the Maryland Hall of Records treating upon the early town plan of Annapolis, he is convinced that the structure mentioned in these documents is the John Brice 11 House. What remains to be demonstrated more conslusively, however, is not Lindauer's reconstruction of the earlier Annapolis surveys. Instead, what seems lacking is concrete evidence to support the contention that a structure mentioned in the documents he references is, in fact, the brick house that stands on the property today. It should be obvious that the very research goals of this archaeological project tie in not only with a general interest in the 1700- 1725 period, but also with specific historical questions raised by other researchers stemming from disciplines other than anthropology. This ongoing dialogue may well be the result of the public focus of our work in Annapolis. Again, it was anticipated that systematic archaeological investigation would provide the link between research questions (tied very closely to an appreciation of the complicated lot history) and, in the absence of definitive solutions, and greater understanding of past lifeways and the nature of historical inquiry. METHODOLOGY As this was only a brief project of a few week's duration, it was not deemed necessary to lay out a grid over the entire yard area of the houselot. Instead, unit placement was dictated by the contractor's needs, and the unit, measuring 5 X 5 ft., was designated Unit 1 and located on a map with reference to a site datum (see Figure 4) and tied into Annapolis city survey marker #18458. Any future excavation will entail extending a grid of 5 X 5 ft. squares with a cardinal number reference scheme across the entire lot. At that time it will be necessary to convert the current Unit 1 designation to this other scheme. The single unit was excavated according to natural stratigraphic layers, and if any layer was thicker than 0.5 ft . , it was arbitrarily terminated and a sequential level letter was assigned. All layers were designated alphabetically with upper case letters (i.e. A, B, C, etc.) and all layers within features were designated by lower case letters (i.e. a, b, c, etc.). Each feature was designated by an upper case letter F, followed by a number (i.e. F. 1, F.2, F.3, etc.). Excavation was conducted by shovel skimming and trowelling, and all soil was screened through standard quarter-inch hardware cloth. All artifacts were saved, washed, labelled, and catalogued at the Historic Annapolis Foundation archaeology laboratory in Annapolis. The artifacts are at present being stored in the Annapolis laboratory where they are available for study by interested parties. No exhibit of the materials is currently underway, although materials may be placed on display at one of the Historic Annapolis Foundation's museums at a future date. Soil and flotation samples were collected for each layer and for each feature excavated. The analysis of these samples will be reported as a supplement to this report. It is likely that seed remains from even so limited an area will be of assistance in reconstructing diet and in assessing what plants, ornamental and horticultural, were grown on this houselot. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS The following is a general description of results of limited archaeological testing in the front yard of the John Brice I1 House, located at 195 Prince George Street. One 5 X 5 ft. unit (designated Unit 1) was excavated (see Figure 4, site map, for specific placement of the unit in the front yard). All strata of similar origin found in the unit are discussed here in a general manner, layer by layer, and consideration of their relationship to other strata will be made. Soil layers and features are discussed chronologically. Detailed layer descriptions are provided in Appendix 11, and profiles of each wall of the unit are presented below (see Figures 5-9). 20th-Century Unit 1 Levels A and B; Features 1 and 2 Megastratum I, a 10 YR 212 very dark brown sandy loam, donotes the present 20th- century groundlyard surface. It graded through a 10 YR 314 dark yellow brown sand and extended 0.55 ft. in depth. Layer A consisted of a 10 YR 212 very dark brown sandy loam, and was the modem ground surface of topsoil, overlying leaves, and root mat. Immediately associated with Layer A was Feature 1, a 20th-century planting stain of an identical munsell, containing white plant fertilizer flakes, brick fragments, paints chips from the house's shutters and matching flashing from the tin roof. Feature 1 was found at the base of Layer A and at the top of Layer B. Immediately underlying and to the southwest of these remains were Feature 2 and Layer B. Feature 2 was located in the southwest quadrant of the unit, where it overlied Layer B. This feature was a 20th-century dripline with a munsell of 10 YR 514 yellow brown sand, running east-west out from the western wall of the southwest quadrant, roughly 3.3 ft. across the unit. This dripline was noted 1.1-1.3 ft. out from the house foundations and appears to correspond to the modern roof line. The feature contained more of the red paint chips from the house's exterior, plaster, and slag. Feature 2 was very shallow, less than 0.1 ft. in depth, and was cut through on its eastern end by a downspout and hose for rainwater runoff. Also immediately associated with Feature 2 was Layer B which surrounded and underlay the dripline. Layer B was a 10 YR 314 dark yellow brown loam with a 10 YR 413 dark brown sand in the southeast and northwest corners. This 20th-century layer was found to contain a 1978 penny in addition to cellophane, polychrome whiteware, milk glass, green glazed earthenware, and brown saltglazed stoneware. The artifacts recovered from Megastratum I all date to the late 20th century and indicate recent planting and water-concern activities (e.g., the carryoff spout from the corner yard area at the base of the house's northwest downspout that ran across Unit 1). (See Appendix 111 for complete artifact inventory by layerllevel and feature.) Late 19th Century (1850-1900) Unit 1 Level C: Feature 3 The late 19th-century stratum consisted of a 7.5 YR 414 dark brown loam mottled with a 7.5 YR 314 dark brown loam overlying a trench-like feature and its underlying sandy loam matrix. This stratum continued to a depth of 0.81 ft. Layer C, a mottled loam layer, is interpreted as a yard surface dating from the late 19th-century (based on the presence of red earthenware flowerpot and charcoal remains) extending across the entire base of the unit. Artifacts recovered from the Layer include gray saltglazed stoneware, red earthenware flowerpot, flat window glass, coal and charcoal, pipestem fragments, oyster shell, and handpainted tin-glazed earthenware fragments. Feature 3, underlying Layer C, was a trench-like stain running along the south wall of the unit. This stain was a shallow, 10 YR 313 dark brown sandy loam feature that has been interpreted as being associated with the repointing of bricks at the window well. Artifacts recovered from this Feature include: oyster mortar, a piece of very thin clear glass, flat window glass, corroded unidentifiable nails, and brick fragments. Early-to-mid 19th Century Unit 1 Level D Immediately underlying and horizontally surrounding Feature 3 was an early 19th-century layer containing a mixed bag of diagnostic ceramics including white saltglazed stoneware and tin-glazed earthenware, Rockingham, and green edge-decorated whiteware--the latter yielding a T.P.Q. of 1830. The soil munsell and matrix was a 10 YR 416 dark yellow brown sandy loam. Early-to-mid 18th Century Unit 1 Levels El F. G. H, I, and J; Feature 4 A stratum dating to the early-to-mid 18th century accompanied the transition toward increasingly sandy soils. This stratum was 0.9 ft. thick. Layer E was an early 18th century layer grading from a sandy loam to a sandy soil. Its munsell was a 7.5 YR 414 dark brown mottled with a 7.5 YR 416 strong brown sandy loam. Diagnostics recovered include several pipestems, various fragments of tin-glazed earthenware (ranging from bluelwhite handpainted, through glazeless, to polychrome handpainted [brown, green, and blue]), nottingham, rhenish blue and gray and, also of note, two flakes--one chert and one quartz. The T.P.Q. assigned to this layer is ca. 1700 (starting dates of production of both rhenish blue and gray and nottingham stonewares). Layer F, a 7.5 YR 416 strong brown sand mottled with a 7.5 YR 314 dark brown sand, graded to a slightly clayier soil. This layer is interpreted as an early 18th-century layer due to diagnostic artifacts recovered: rhenish blue and gray stoneware, one piece possible white saltglazed stoneware, and one piece slipware with remnant wash. Immediately underlying Layer F was Layer G, an early 18th century transitional sand layer with clay mottling--grading to clay subsoil. Layer G was a 7.5 YR 416 strong brown mottled with a 10 YR 416 dark yellow brown clayey sand. Diagnostics include pipebowl and pipestem fragments, glazeless tin glazed earthenware, and bluelwhite handpainted tin glazed earthenware. Associated with Layer G, in the unit's northeast corner, was a rubble feature that was designated Feature 4. This feature, a 10 YR 416 dark yellow brown loamy sand, was interpreted as being the edge of an early 18th century rubble feature containing oyster shell, animal bone, brick and mortar fragments, and dark olive green wine bottle body and lip (hand tooled) fragments. Unfortunately, much of the feature lies outside the bounds of Unit 1, and it was beyond the scope of the present budget and project goals to further define the feature at this time. Pursuing this rubble feature in future excavation, would seem sure to prove a fruitful venture. Upon completion of Feature 4 and Layer G, excavation continued for an additional 1.02 ft., and uncovered three sterile layers. These layers, designated Layers H, I, and J, were continued with the hopes of perhaps indicating that they were only a sterile fill episode overlying further cultural layers. Time and weather constraints dictated that the unit be discontinued and the contractor be permitted to proceed with his rep& work. This additional foot was of great utility, however, in gaining access to a better view of the house's architectural profile below the watermark and window wells visible from the modern ground surface (See Figure 5). . . ~. .~. ...... .-; ........ -,...- 8.. .-..-...-- -- ......... ... .-.... -:.. ... :.:.. *.- ..,.: *--:. : :.. . . - .- . ........ ............ ...... . . . Z ....... ..... ... . *. . . . . . ........ ........... ...-.... r" ".:. ......... . .. - .............. _. .:.. - ..:.. ..: . .-.. :, :* . - :. :'... .... ... ..... ... ... .... . . ... ... ..* ;- .. :. *. --.. ...... - .": . . . ... ::" ....... . ... ... . . ..: ... ........ - ....... . . . ..-I + *...... - .. a. .... - . . b. ... -.... . -..-'..'. '. ...... ..... . . : .' .' *.,' ' ...... . .. I .I ....... . . . .I . . i. >- : . .... ......... . . . . ,* ....... .....: t., ... ......... ...................... p.. modem mortar brick bog iron oyster shell mortar over tiny pieces bog iron Figure 5 South wall profile, ball. removed, Unit 1 John Brice II House, 18AP53, Annaplis, Maryland. @ ,Is bog iron o&' Figure 6 North wall profile, Unit 1 John Brice II House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. Figure 7 East wall profile, Unit 1 John Brice II House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. @ mot, Figure 8 West wall profile, Unit 1 John Brice II House, 18AP53, Annapolis, Maryland. oyster Figure 9 South wall profile, Unit 1 John Brice I1 House, 18AP53, kiunapolis, Maryland. INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS During the course of excavation at the John Brice I1 House, four archaeological features were uncovered. As a recap, the features were: (1) a 20th-century planting stain, (2) a 20th- century dripline, (3) a late 19th century soil stain, possibly associated with the repointing of bricks at the window well, and (4) the edge of an early 18th-century rubblelmidden feature of undetermined extent. The archaeological remains and features brought to light in the course of this study indicate that the site is intact and promises to provide specifics about landscape alteration and changes in land use. While excavation did not uncover evidence of the builder's trench with which we had hoped to more firmly establish the house's date of construction, it did provide tangible evidence of landscaping changes to the front yard in the mid-to-late 18th century (i.e., those periods missing from the stratigraphic record). To account for the absence of a builder's trench, the following hypotheses are offered: (1) perhaps the builder's trench is on the inside of the house, under the brick floor in the basement (the structure's 18th-century kitchen), (2) recalling that in the midst of Layers D and E a substantial taproot ran east-west along the south wall of the unit, perhaps this root obliterated any remains of a builder's trench, and (3) there may have been no external builder's trench--perhaps the builders worked right up against the house's foundation. In any event, the testing described above has permitted us to establish the fact that the stratigraphy of the front yard area of the John Brice I1 House is relatively simple with little evidence of subsequent disturbance. Further, the layers were rich in cultural materials from the early 18th century through the present. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the promise and potential of this site, it is suggested that any further repairs to be made to the home in its front or rear yard areas be conducted in cooperation with archaeological investigation andlor monitoring. The site's potential is such that the long-term, large-scale archaeological investigation of the property would be well worth the investment. In the absence of, or perhaps as a precursor to, the preparation of such a plan, however, it is hoped that the rapport established between archaeological crew, owner, and contractor will continue through the course of the numerous smaller, repair jobs to be done throughout the property. The archaeological investigation of the John Brice I1 property is an ideal case study in which to integrate studies at the houselot and city-wide scales. The limited excavations described above have permitted the opening of a window onto one of Annapolis' few remaining early 18th-century lots and the gaining of insight into life among the 18th-century merchant class. Of particular note is the analytic value of the study of such a houselot, with its likelihood of below-ground traces of privies, wells, gardens, and other sealed deposits for comparison with remains from the 60-plus properties studied elsewhere in Annapolis. REFERENCES CITED Anne Arundel County Deeds 1841 WSG 26/65 November 24 Brush, Grace S . , Celia Lenke, and Joanne Smith 1977 The Natural forests of Marvland: An Explanation of the Vegetation Map of Maryland. Prepared for the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Dent, Richard J. 1985 Archaeological Excavations at the Hammond-Harwood House, Annapolis, Maryland. Report on file, Historic Annapolis Foundation, Annapolis, Maryland. Handsman, Russell G. and Charles W. McNett 1973 "The Middle Woodland in the Middle Atlantic: Chronology, Adaptation, and Contact, " paper presented at the annual meetings of the Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. Humphrey, Robert L. and Mary Elizabeth Chambers 1977 Ancient Washington: American Indian Cultures of the Potomac Valley. George Washing.ton University Studies No. 6. Washington, D . C . : George Washington University. Kryder-Reid, Elizabeth 1989 "Landscape Archaeology and the Interpretation of Myth, " paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Baltimore, MD. 1988 "Three Centuries of an Annapolis Landscape: An Archaeological Approach to Form, Function, and Meaning," paper presented at the annual meetings of the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Quebec City, Quebec. Leone, Mark P. 1984 "Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology Using Rules of Perspective in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland," in David Miller and Christopher Tilley, eds. Ideologv. Power. and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25- 35. Leone, Mark P., Julie H. Ernstein, Elizabeth Kryder-Reid, and Paul A. Shackel 1989 "Power Gardens of Annapolis, " Archaeology MarchIApril: 35-39, 74, 75. Leone, Mark P. and Paul A. S hackel 1990 "Plane and Solid Geometry in Colonial Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland, " in William M. Kelso and Rachel Most, ed. Earth Patterns: Essavs in Landscape Archaeology. Charlottesville: the University Press of Virginia, pp . 153-167. 1986 Final Report to the National Geographic Society on Archaeology of Town Planning in Annapolis, Marvland. N. G. S . Grant Number 31 16-85. Annapolis, MD: Historic Annapolis, Inc . Little, J. Glenn 11 19671 "Re: Archaeological Research on Paca Garden," November 8, 1967 and May 24, 1968, 1968 letters on file, William Paca Garden Visitors7 Center, Annapolis, Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tidewater Administration 1979 "Prehistoric Peoples of Maryland's Coastal Plain, " on file at Maryland Historical Trust, Annapolis, Maryland. Middleton, Arthur Pierce 1984 Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era. Report of the 1953 edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Miller, Henry M. 1988 "Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake, " Historical Archaeolo~v 2212: 57-73. Orr, Kenneth G. and Ronald G. Orr 1975 "The Archaeological Situation of the William Paca Garden, Annapolis, Maryland: The Spring House and Presumed Pavilion House Site," manuscript on file, William Paca Garden Visitors' Center, Annapolis, Maryland. Paca-Steele, Barbara and St. Clair Wright 1987 "The Mathematics of an Eighteenth-Century Wilderness Garden," Journal of Garden History 614: 299-320. Papenfuse, Edward 1975 In Pursuit of Profit: The Annapolis Merchant in the Era of the American Revolution, 1763-1805. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Powell, B. Bruce 1966 "Archaeological Investigation of the Paca House Garden, Annapolis, Maryland, " manuscript on file, William Paca Garden Visitors' Center, Annapolis, Maryland. Read, Esther Doyle 1990 "Landscape as Artifact: The Annapolis Town Plan," paper presented at the annual ' meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson, AZ. 1989 "Depth of Time: Another Look at the 19th Century," paper presented at the annual meetings of the Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Morristown, NJ. Reps, John W. 1972 Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland. Williamsburg , VA: the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. South, Stanley 1967 "The Paca House, Annapolis, Maryland," manuscript on file, Historic Annapolis Foundation, Annapolis, Maryland. Steponaitis, Laurie 1986 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Lower Patuxent River Drainage. Maryland. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. 1980 A Survey of Artifact Collections from the Patuxent River Drainage, Maryland. Prepared for the Maryland Historical Trust by the Coastal Resource Division of the Tidewater Administration. Williams, Eileen 1988 Excavations at 178 Prince George Street: The Back Area of the Brice House, 18AP38, Annapolis, Maryland. Report prepared for Historic Annapolis, Inc . Yentsch, Anne E. 1982 "Spring House Excavations, William Paca Garden," March 15, 1982, letter on file, William Paca Garden Visitors' Center, Annapolis, Maryland. APPENDIX I: Site Registration Form MARYLAND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY: BASIC DATA FORM Maryland Department of Natuml Resources Maryland Geological Survey C 2300 St. Paul Street Site Number 18 AP !I 3 Baltimore, Maryland 21 218 (Shaded areas are for Division of Archeology use only) A. Designation 1. County: Anne Arudel 2. Site Number: 6&53 3. Site Name: John Brice I1 House 4. Site Type (check all applicable): - Prehistoric X Historic - Unknown 5. Maryland Archeological Research Unit Number: 7 B. Location 6. USGS 7.5' Quad- rangle(~) : ~nnapolis, Maryland (Photocopy section of quad(s) on page 4 and mark site location) ... . . .. - .... . - . - ...... .... . ~, .. .... - . . - .., .. . . . . -. . .i . - .-r -. . ; . -- 2 ;.. ? _, .lirr -. ,- - A- 5. . ... 9. Northing: - :. ' , ..- -- - -- , .-. -. .- . . - - .: _ - ..-> -,zi,: .,..- :, ... _ . .- . . d- ' ' 10. Physiographic Province (check one): Allegheny Plateau - LancastedFrederick Lowland . Ridge and Valley - Eastern Piedmont Great Valley L Western Shore Coastal Plain . Blue Ridge - Eastern Shore Coastal Plain ti - . - ,--- - F 11. Nearest Water .W Source: Actonsm-7er _ -2 , wg= *. a- & Order 92: . - : '% - - 12. 2nd Nearest Water \ - =i .L-. ti jr $<.; 3<;*,.- . 4- Source: " Order -* . a- -- - L. - %: - :- 13. 3rd Nearest Water ,- - Source: 5 -._ -- - Order . % < 14. 4th Nearest Water c?: :41.- Source: Order Page 2 BASIC DATA FORM C. Environmental Data 15. Closest Surface Water Type (check all applicable): - Ocean - Freshwater StreamIR iver X Estuarine BayITidal River Freshwater Swamp - Tidal or Marsh - Lake or Pond - Spring 16. Distance from closest surface water: - meters (or- feet) & .-,,.v-,,-T!.. :. . . , . - - . .....x,,.m, -.-.--..*- .---,- :--. -7:. .-.*.. -- .- - -. . . . -.,I .1 , _ , __ . . .,..". . . . . - . - - -- . .. .. '-.<.,;:.. ..- . . Typology: . . . . . .-=:. ,= . . :.: !.-. :.,: . - r.: . . .. -L . .: .... . . . , ,. - >, , - .,: & -.%. dL,:~<--- 2.:- 18. Topographic Settings (check all applicable): X Floodplain - HiIItopIBluff - I nterior Flat Upland Flat - Terrace - Ridgetop - Low Terrace - RocksheIterICave High Terrace - Unknown - Hillslope - Other: 20. Elevation: - meters (or feet) above sea level 21. Land use at site when last' field 'checked: (check all applicable) - PlowedITilled - No-Till - WoodedIForested - Logging1 Logged - Underbrush/Overgrown - Pasture - Cemetery - Commercial - Educational Date . Extractive - Military - Recreational X Residential - Ruin - Standing Structure Transportation -. - Unknown - Other: -. 22. Condition of Site (check all applicable): -. :. --. -- Date . UNDISTURBED DESTROYED UNKNOWN - minor (0-10%) DISTURBED - moderate ( 10-60%) - Plowed - major (60-99%) - Eroded - total (100%) X G radedlcontoured & % unknown - Collected - Vandalized - Dredged X Other: rnn+ 23. Additional Comments on Environment: Disturbance on property seems to be quite limited; there is a great potential for much that is undisturbed or disturbed only in the first half of the 18th century. Residence is in the city of Annapolis. Page 3 BASIC DATA FORM D. Description 24. Site Type A (check all applicable): PREHISTORIC HISTORIC - Lithics - Cemetery - Ceramics Domestic: - Shell Midden X - urban - Unknown - rural - Other: - Educational Industrial: urban - rural - Military - Religious - Water Transportation - Unknown - Other: UNKNOWN 25. Site Type B (check one): 2 Terrestrial - Underwater 26. Cultural Affiliation (check all applicable) : PREHISTORIC - Unknown - Paleoindian - Archaic -. Early Archaic - Middle Archaic ., Late Archaic - Woodland - Early Woodland - Middle Woodland Late Woodland - CONTACT HISTORIC - Unknown 17th century - 1630-1675 3 - 1675-1720 18th century x 1720-1780 X 1780-1820 19th century 1820-1860 x 1860-1900 20th century X 19OU1930 x post 1930 Both UNKNOWN - .-. .. ... , , -. . -: . .,\.- >-.'.*:.-- II--U .-&- -- -- - .. . , \.+. .:;,, ,. 2. : y =-= .-"c:- - - - 27.'~tate Plan - .. .. i:.. - . . , 7 .,.. - . . , - - -. - T Themes: .. . . -- -. - . . . . - . ..-- .. .- -..-.&, >>..- 7- Lz.t$. s i.Gz?--- ... 2 .& . - -2. - - 28. Site length: - meters (orlM feet) 29. Site width: - meters (or 411 feet) 30. Is site confined to plowzone? - Yes .u No - Unknown 31. Does site have subsurface integrity? X - Yes - No Unknown Page 4 BASIC DATA FORM Photocopy section of quadrangle map(s) and mark site location with heavy dot or circle and arrow. MARYLAND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY: HISTORIC DATA FORM Site Number 18 #53 (Shaded areas are for Division of Archeology use only) 1. Site Class (check all applicable, check at least one from each group): x domestic a. - industrial transportation military sepulchre unknown c. standing structure: x yes no unknown 2. Site Type (check all applicable): X artifact concentration possible structure post-in-ground structure frame structure X masonry structure farmstead plantation x townsite mill (specify: ) raceway quarry furnace/forge b. x urhan rural unknown d. above-grade/visible ruin: Yes X no unknown other industrial (specify): road/railroad whatf/landing bridge ford battlefield military fortification military encampment cemetery unknown other: 3. Ethnic Association: :, Native American A Hispanic ? Afroamerican Asian-American x Angioamerican unknown other Euroamerican other: {specify): 4. Categories of material remains present (check all applicable): x ceramics x bottle/table glass x other kitchen artifacts x architecture furniture arms clothing personal items x tobacco pipes activity items human skeletal remains -faunal remains floral remains organic remains unknown other: 5. Diagnostics (choose from manual and aive number recorded or observed): (not yet catalagud Page 5 E. Support Data (Use additional sheets if needed) 32. Accompanying Data Form(s): - Prehistoric 2. Historic - Submerged - Shipwreck 33. Ownership: u Private - Public - Unknown 34. Owner: c/o Mrs. Trina Mazurek Address: 119 Archwood Ave. Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: 301-268-8435 Date: 35. Tenant: unoccupied Address: site address: 195 Prince Georqe St. Annapolis, MD Phone: Date: 36. Known There are a~~~i-~~ I nvestiga- nrl .. nr +n +he PIT- tions: 37. Reports .x (Author 38, Other Records? x Yes - No - Unknown 39. If YES, nn --A -----&aI vn? -+; Y type and location: U 3 ALL ;- .3L -> reports for the Annapolis historic district. 40. Collections? - Yes - No Unknown 41. If YES, ctinn 3 s e-eii tn ha =~f +-zit. give owner and location: 42. Artifact Conservation? - Yes . Partial - No X Unknown Page 6 BASIC DATA FORM 43. Maryland Register Status: - Listed on register - Nomination pending - Determined eligible (formal) - Considered eligible (consensus) - Not eligible - Insufficient data 44. National Register Status: - Listed on register - Nomination pending Determined eligible (formal) Considered eligible (consensus) - Not eligible Insufficient data -- . - :. . .. . .. . .- 45. I nformant: Address: Phone: . . Date: 46. Site visited by: Barbara J. Little Address: c/o ~istoric Annapolis Foundation, 194 Prince George St. Phone: 301-263-5553 Date: l9 Oct. 1'8'j 47. Form filled out by: as above Address: Phone: Date: 48. Additional Comments: Test excavation at the John Brice I1 house was carried out due to immanent subsurface disturbance to correct a drainage problem in the front of the structure. Since much of the area adjacent to the structure was reportedly disburbed by utility lines, the possibility to examine an undistrubed area promised intact comparative data to compare to other Annapolis structures dating to the same time period. The John Brice I1 house was most likely built in the first quarter of the 18th century and has been continually occupied with little alteration since. F. For Division of Archeology Use Only 49. Form transcribed by: 50. Date: 51. Form checked by: 52. Entered on computer by: 53. Date: 54. Form updated by: 55. Date: Maryland Geological Survey, July 1986. Page 2 HISTORIC DATA FORM 6. Features present: X yes no unknown 7. Types of features present: construction feature X foundation cellar hde/storage cellar hearthlchimney base posthde/postmold paling ditchlfence well/cistern trash pitldump sheet midden planting feature road /d rive/wal kwa y depression/mound burial railroad bed earthworks raceway wheel pit unknown other: 8. Method of sampling (check all applicable): non-systematic surface search systematic surface cdiection non-systematic shovel test pits X excavation units mechanical excavation extentlnature of excavation: limited excavation prior to limited subsurface disturbance to correct drainase problem 9. Flotation samples collected: x yes no unknown 10. Soil samples cdlected: x Yes no unknown analyzed: yes, by X no unknown analyzed: yes1 by X no unknown 1 1. Other analyses (specify): 12. Additional Comments: 13. Formfilledoutby: Barbara J. Little Address/Affiliation: c/o Historic Annauolis Foundation, 19 4 Prince Georqe St Date: Annapolis, MD 21401 21 November, 1989 For Division of Arc 17. Entered on computer by: MaMnd Geological Survey, January 1989 APPENDIX II: Unit Summary Forms fiIiCllAEOLOGY IN AlUIiHPbLIS EXCAVATION UNIT MMARY FORM 18 AP !?f 1 of 3 Page - - b I'i'b : unit: 1 Date Opened: O7 89 Date Closed: 28 Nov 89 J. Ernstein Completed by: Objective of Unit Excavation: Unit was placed flush with the house foundation with the goaTElFPFC-bVT a builder's trench containing diagnostics to assist in dating the house's construction. The place- ment of the unit was dictated by the contractor's requirements for repairing water damage to the house's basement. Level or Comments on Level and Level TPQ and Elevations Munsell and Feature Relationship to Surrounding Units above below Bag #Is opening closing Soil Description A Modern qround surface of topsoil, over- 1 -B .lo--1.99 BD 10 YR 2/2 v dk bn sa I I I I I I ltaining red paint chips (from shutters and Feat.1 Featb2 I I I I I lroof of house). I lyinq leaves and root mat. Twentieth-century planting stain contain- ing plant fertilizer flakes, brick frag- ments, paint chips (from house's shutters -- ----- - and roof), 1 seed, and 1 corroded nail. Feat. 1 was found at base layer A, and is associated with top layer B and Feat. 2 Twentieth-century dripline running E-W -- - --- out from west wall of unit in SW quad, con- I I I /stem fragment, cellophane, and 1978 penny1 I 1 1 quads B ' A- .----- A-B - -- red earthenware flowerpot, flat window glass, I ~wentieth century layer contaiing -1.gg--1.55B~ whiteware, milk glass, brown saltglazed 1&2-C ~-- stoneware, green glazed earthenware, pipe- C coal and charcoal, pipestem fragments,~oyster L.20/2 L.20/4 10 YR 3/4 dk yw bn lo with 10 YR 4/3 dk bn sa in SE&NW shell and handpainted tin glazed earthenware tics include gray salt glazed stoneware, I: Late 19th century yard surface overlying trench-like stain along S wallof unit f: (Feat. 3) and root ball to east. Diagnos- -1.96--1.89pD -1.96--1.90BD lo 10 YR 2/2 lo contain ing white flecks plant fertilizer 10 YR 5/4 yw bn sa B-Feat. 3&D L.19/6 - -1.55--1.29BD 7.5 YR 4/4 dk bn lo mottled with 7.5 YR 3/4 dk bn lo Unit: Ob jec ilder ' s of the Date Opened: O7 89 - 'nit Excavation : Unit was pl trench containing diagno unit was dictated by the tll, 1. 6). ri ~3 Spec 3. Fied iis@ ji~-~g csF 3G.e-ih-4 "F;:I@CE P. I APE53 Sot-- r;e& by = EfpdkJpi+I-FE:ir"! Sgze F=JHB;~~-= K+pJUM I::-== " 2 A IE a- qg-p;i?E;F = i ...................................... - r .Jl , 1 a 1 416061 1 A 2 qi~g~j 1 A 3 q "",, j.15 i ir 4 "C .C" , ,(,!l!$(i ,">,., 1 A 5 9?55$4 1 A 6 ~70002 1 A 7 765'255 1 I? 8 820051 1 A S e $ finfir., A ., ., w ., 1 I A 1'2 Ei'2~04 1 A 11 ydOg'2:; 1 " " " ,r. " ,.. ir 12 rill 111t1 , U.,.,..." 1 1 R 13 5'B""" i)!J!)!j j 1 4 14 8?5054 ! 1 A 15 Rq$i;lfifi j " , .' .. .> ., k 15 ,-. ,-. .-. 1 , r .' .ll.ili ., ., ., i R l? Bq":.."" : !>j!j\J 1 i ii 1 B 610QQQ 1 5 17 ~nfifi,r.~fi ... ... ., ., ... 2'2 1 .,-"'A A , -.-.l,,il! . "" .> ... .. 1 R L. ? 1 : r.: : m- I ,iiG.J< .- c 3 l'i r: .-. " " " ... H CC C\j ij ij t-j (J ........................................................................ -~re j:d UIDE STRAP W!HAIL HOLE 1Ri-j;; IDEWTIFI4BLE L 1" bIDE STEL" , ,.nr F'c. IRE! IDMTIFIABLE 1 2.5Y?#E; WG~L/#DD~R~~~IRE] "r STuf{E/R~TQ~~i 1 MOLfiIKE FR& WORKiD,FOF# IfiENT!;IEfi ! SEEDS,/RUTS [SPECIF'f) 3 FF;AG SICK c SHELL ifi'G'TER >U,", i BOhC ..:t z'rtlpgi- r~o,~24T i BO#EilEET'ri 18 Piii CHIPS SfNTHETiC #ATERIAL 2 L kiORTAR 40 C&JL#I{~ FRA~ SYMTiiETIC EATEEIAL CLIN#ER!COAL C ; pr.5~1: rr,:::! T 5 ELL PLANT RE#AI?i!gEM'gRAt 6 SEED PODS PLAWT RE#gIfi:EENEgAL i SEED ORANGE PLAbJT RESAIM f GENES51 E FLAT KiAS,WIRDDU 0 I;R!;D 'L' " "0 (F"' kiiisa: Z~AERAL .-. ... q q ,a<;-.- r.dui i DEE F-&RE/EERERRL n! -.. 5~2 ! LT ED::, 5;; '5 7 OLL rr:r iPf".L!-li..T.- Lp- ""'""U" %d, u, Lc%~-~st ..., Giij!j!jij 2; ,.I I ii 2 a, FLAT GigSS,UIHDOP i MF' 4 &$f~$$$ 2 f'R2'. '.I L.T.T. i"Li'"'l "L., ,,:;5 FE'AS ntk32i~c~~~d~ 1 ki 7 5 fbizta ' bi+[-!CCiJ "' "7 finTf,jF?u7; ci 455 =,\A .,, L,... "..% 1 WP 6 u~$\;!;!j + WILjE gzITLE{DK OL E?;) L, -. . ..; .-, .-. 1 #F' '7 t!!.!..$.. ;;;;;i-J NP 10 tin STOREjsiTgRAL 4 12"' L'" 1 4' g'i$.'i$+ P, jttCTF iPrr3.l rit' 1 I " LL.T*:;L.li LUYL 1 HF 12 5'2i:i~gj 6217 f ER;,"" 'iCCi -35 kY" BFfiSS rfipk >'k;TTFT$?i F ,i-i".' * ul,!: IL....~. %..LL WF i 3 E:.$ :-., " ' 1 ~:i;!.!!,i 5 FgIRT cVFTpFT1" "='EEIAL -1 3, ,&ILL E3! 1 MP 14 GYQ~G~J EL[ ~ALHUT SHELL , ,Hti: Ki.dir;i~~~~~~~ Pi "'"a -" #P 15 " , :.. .: -. " . 1 , ;-,.,11;3 u .- .: <- i- FRAG BRICK - i. 1 " -7 " .. " .. 'J!j(i~G N ? 1 6 4 WDF:TAR 1 NF 17 Zip$$ 3 Ln g.gKE!FRggbEgT ZF' 1s 8":.".> 1 c:! J!j" 1 1 IC q,!r, i ;rg;;*-51- " , >%, ,. ZtI:! i NF 17 aL:UUUV 1 FOR;~~LICTI~EGIS~E; r," ... " ... ... kj'a"E5 fRA6 BTL CAF LEVEL B B B B 5 B B B E B E B B FEATURE ITEM 42 LII ?J 44 45 46 47 in r3 49 50 5: 52 53 54 FQfiH PUANT !TY COsHEHT 1 i 1 DK BE, LT BL, Li BR 4 .-. ... 7. r. L'!jJi i i 1 5035 1 2 1 Pi: g/WLD 0032 i NDTT~:;=~IL. -,-- =bkt8H i i'ft i 1 i FE OXIDE 19 .. .-. ill -w .7, : I -.I CC 23 -t ; C'! 25 26 2? ?R ," 29 -, ... J?.' 31 ?r; "L 33 F, :a r, 35 36 37 39 7 9 ,, FEATURE ITEE 40 4i 42 43 44 45 46 47 43 49 50 5 1 52 53 54 C c JJ 50 57 58 KASTER- CODE &g.g$ 6300g.3 650$0$ 71$$f)0 -. 7 .. .-. .. ?j!j!.H.!U 75000$ 870002 87$$$4 72000O " - - ,. ... /jo!j!j$ 7 ,..[,.., , bl"ub r di!jV!,iQ --.- 810004 820$0! F'""" d:!;!j!;! pl,-;.?;... - ,,,,,ltii ,L.>".,., nrfip..n; 7 J., +;:) $g$fj$0 B+,,-. G::""" ,;- #I-*+< = 7 ............................................................................................................... - ,, d I agb 'I 7 1 -. .-. - .-. :b(j!,tc'~' I ! i! d,;r~E pET':: < a, 2 7- n 3 Q e2"":.. :-. C :,u:>?lJ 13 #ORTAR U.LW ahb 3 ""A,-.- . :,-utJc;j m "3 ""?r.-: 1 3 < fitiiir?, m I ahb 3 !! ~7gg04 i CLI&:ER!COAL 1 agb 3 5 ? j600$ 4 FRg6 WAIL,!GENEEil.L ." s -* I 25~ 2 h &2$$00 I SHELL/FR$,EHENT 1 a&b 3 ? 6!$r$$ 13 FLAT &: :;..,, g< ,k!I%Ok 1 ;nfifi~,fi d " ... ., ., 4 ri CF'tif, UL,, 1." E! j&Fgcpn; aeti 3 L,,"", L,?L,..,- LEVEL FEATURE !TEE D 24 D 25 D 'I! CO D 27 D . 'In C u D 29 L, i! gi;. YJ D 31 n t' 32 D 33 D 1 I. 3': D 35 D 30 D 37 Z 38 D 37 5 -3, 3. r\ & ., i! 41 fi f.? ?[I 2 h'i ," . . D -h 8, i 45 D . . $6 5 47 D 48 D i;? -7 8 > I4 55 u .> D C ? 21 3 52 D F 23 L' 54 5 55 D = "U f. D T? u. D rn u L. ij qp ,, ij 50 D i? e: 2 2 .? hf D 63 5 54 D &5 g . . . . bb D 57 f; $3 D 5 " ... 'i u. D 7 2 A 1 5 ? 1 : C D " - ,i j I " .. ? 't D 75 . " D T? .o D 77 , ' K""ER- ..ny1 ! CEDE j +rtfi<- .rC.,ll 112017 112011 112017 ' { '. " , ' flf$jl" . *r ... ... lii!j!!Q 132fififi *dL.<".2 221956 * .. e - % i~{j!j['i{j "'I"""" f c!jg!j!,i .-:" ... .-. " ' ~C!j!jQi.i m .-. ,. . . . re!j!;lQ!) 2'ifi{;f;$ L" 2 .. ' n ,-. ..,A . tr!j~.vb =-.... fttjeglj 2350ij0 235100 13330 'IF:.*>"" .'Ii""lV " ., ., ..- %. 'iIfi&$? " ,,.La ... .. ... .. 3 l!j!.!!!!.! ~'I"'"... J~!!GQ!~ =, """P 'i iiii+i!i u.*.,>, ='I"":'.T .','!'!,J "L, , , -7 - . - ;. 3t{'iij$j': (I '; P ;-. :.. ? JCJ?j!jQ C :.. + ... I .-; ~,'.lillIi, - ., ., ... ., ., * . .-. .-. .-. .. 3 i!!u.!j!) 520005 f.?fififih u J .. ., ., * ?.--,-< cJG;.j:c'l AICfififi %, ....,., &io0g0 r :-. ,. :7,p ,':?j;Jv~ A!. i ngr .. : .:.. 8 " , . ... ..U i'.?'" +iQZ!j : ,. .-. .-. .- huV&!!j 6 1 0$$0 " a ... .? .-. ... ; iG!!&l!J " :-. :.. ... " f 8 *lGy!J , A .= ?.?:';fiSfi , u ., ., -.- ... " .- ... :. ,. jjVij("' " = "A ... " 4!jqs:j!j q; A""" ,~!,l!l,l, , " .. -< .. ., """G ,,, vv?:!: R$ ""i;;' 2,:. ILL LA...." 3 r > { .-.I... .. J ' ,""Ii . "%.V g2+i1 a.>$finl " L ,. ... %. ,, " & :-> : L!i!;!: R'z'":- ' ,l,..,i& : .. .# ,. , g:@$aq $' """" 3 .- ..... .. ., ..; ;.. , :.:.- 1 C'CKE FLT FFt& .,<- DRILLEC EYE -.- -.,..-,..-,., :+, ,r* -.,.- cc-c.r-r-.c ..-,-. .- ...,, ..... c...-cr^c-cr-c.--cr-t-.-.-.--~-----:C ----cr--- m I m CXI C U3 6i3 :cv ID I:, C.il 7:7 $I (3 IT, I Tr-1 1 -.". ,,..- :a: L-3 rl" "7 I:: !-- 31: 3: ri. %- C1L1 -. IT. rn -. r'n :n I13 7 $ W' (. .. I1 I1 rt a -4 w .- . -. (f, C' -i i .: i,: T1,,,,,71, I rn~~rnmrnmrnrnrnrn~l~i~r~~~m~~~m~v~rqr~~m~r~~~~r~~r~r~~~rn~mrr~ I amoson r rn rf E' +2 - I I .:= I rn I I r- 0 .( I d l I I IIn n. I I -rl I rn I a m 4.: 1-1 I 4 I C 77 mu? 3 I m E;9gi"': *"rn I I I I m 03 CYJ -..I ..., Z C 1 -41 -2, , , - C. j : -2 1 n i* - I w ru -. cn -J> "3 .-< ; , . < - I c " c I" 1 r 2 rl 1 - - - - - - - - I -1 1 -"I 0: ' - a: blma . , 3 . :: , n, 7. I ..... 1 ..I:' ... 1 r!;! n.:, -... ....- I-1.1 m !:I? .-- <:, + /z::, <=:, <::, (-(, .-a. .,:, I .::::. <=:, <-,. <:::. .:=:* <=:, .::::, .,,,,,, <=:, (_:. ,:=> 1;;; :;: zi :is := :$ :f< M [;;: 2; g!i ![Y 2 ;;; K; ;;; 5 K:; I k< :1 X S: ?i" 2 n F'; <, , , > , , ;, , ;::, ;::, <:> <:::, <=:, <:;, <=:, .:z, <> ,:, a ;:, .,:. <=:, .:,, <=, ,:;:* <. ,:. <, ,. <:, x:. ,, x:. 4, c, ., c, ,:, : I .=, ., G, :, ,:- .:a 4 - -4 %' <:., <,-, C:) (I) <> L,, (.> I ,.-.:, <:::. <;;, <:> <=:, <=:a <;:, <;>. <;:, <=:. <:, <=:* <;:, 5::::. <> cx:. <=:* <-.> <::, 1 <-.. r,, ,.L, .-a. ,-? -c- <;::, <:> <:;, <:=:a <::> c:. <=:. <=:* <=:. .:x> <,,., 42. <::> ,::> <;:, r,,I I :z; :g: ;$ :% 5 % ;;; I 11 11 14 I I I I I -$ [7 I a 0 I .A I (3:- c3 1 I i*> 03 1 7 I WJ r13 I r:l I I m n in I ZG rt. I I ! H rc :I= rsl z- .-- CJ-J rii rtl c::2 :==a-nm-nocr, / ~~"U~<*CJ>~~~C~C.V~~~T-ZCT~~-V~-~JTWT~~~~*T~~-~~ 22% rnmnnnm :: : a r- r I r-.- TT rn zc =: TJ $2 -4 -I 5- :n r- g 2 r-- c2 r- ,-.. --e .-, u - :; $ :a XI m iii 6i iil 4 -4 r- -m 4 n - r-Y .-4 ,-.. -4 x:, TJ C1 L73 x:" 4 z!. 73 -73 -m 73 7, 0' 'KT " -n 72 2 2 ? c:l Z: TJ 3L s; g$ 32 5% -73 v1 I z-: 3; f: F 72 xi ;: $; ;% 5 z:: :z: '- --i -4 WY rn rn rm m rn m -... --.- --... -.- - ci '-.. rtl 1~7 -4 cr3 F- r- --I 4 CZI --.. .... 7- 2 5; I -., r? [:;, -..,, r- .-,* [I: -4 2; --.- .-.. -... --I ; 5: ;; &:, <;a ch [j., ,& 52 !:: 55 z? ;? 5 2 Fz % g g ! c:! rr- ;I- z: :V crv-4 I-'? IT1 tj 3 - I -4 I 2C x:v 33 C-J iT 71 ZC!!: t <=I XI .Ln 7" :R -":: 2; I x:, :c:- :2: c3 I=:, rn .r:w rTi ~2:: rvi rvl vi ~3, :IL: tx, tm -9 cx3 F5 :n ;:; ;;? cn ;:; ;;; ; :;J r .- 2 ;;rj i;!; !; 2~; k: % $i , +" '" '-- '.. "' rT1 -" -"' -' c' CT) 0.1 1 5:" r-1 c3 r.l.l : - , : , Tl 1 r- r- TI 1 -4 : 3. -4 7.1 :a,> 18.: 113 IJ~ r7.l rvi I :'.. <.r, -4 -.-I :x: :=I: c::: F! 5; s!!i <,r, :;-? r''1 :a:> - ..... .-., .. .... -<:n I:* r-.J r.j '"' Er', =: 31: ;p c.; .- ;" 2;: g I '-4 r'n (.,-I :a:- :,:I .iE, sj zz F: ;?? 7 -77 -7, .T 39 ;#:I I . : . 2; ;;c p: ~2 ac r- r-- 2 2; sj I I:" r-- rn - rr'l I <,-, --I .-., ~3 r- z 22: zr ;c z r-.I 1 r- : m c- ;g -.l i5 " "!: I 0." -v ;EL rr"i r'i x:. CY - rsl I r-'- I r~i rri el 'TI -.I CP. S-II -G* Z ;Z!Z T- G? I Cn X .z --4 .TI ~3 a I 0 c3 :D .-.,. ..,. ..., --.. :C :tz r-- .xz 2:- a- 0-. n a- zn m r4 I q r-- -' 2, ,,::: r- I ~71 -- .-4 I m '..I. I ,a::, 7-1 cj., &. J> 4:" -g:. 74 :"' rr'i 71 ! J 1 L-w I &st/ C';""T.C PI?' CT;"FtLH 5!64Il 6 C, ,.. ., p ,, 1 3 ,,, L!~~lj!: 2 FRA3 PiPE-5n.i ~,.,,f ill4 1 6 4 tlGc$fi 2 FLdT ELASS:WI&D&/ 1 r: 5 -!jgg.j 1 HEa:jY FATiMG , .~sioEntnGL .-. .-. 5 $"" '" "'" 6 ?1gc$$ i pn~jff7"r~fi' 1 b .nl , 2thrhnL 1 E 7 13pfifii:~ . , .. ., , 1 PDSS PEGRLUaRE REF 1%~; E&RTHE~+~W&RE 1 "o 8 1e4~.:-: ;r?,.;!;c c PLbSTEfi 1 6 rr F,=:-.<:.- > : JCJV!):! = F nc!:;\';;. 1: aT,n,, iGTURAL 1 2 u I!:! ,!j!~i.!v!.i 5 BRIC/i .- , ,. ... .-. 1 E : 1 !;.g!j!,~G ic YDG !gOz STgMEfEftTlJRAL "7 ... .-. .-. . 1 6 2 * " = ... " " .-. i .llllll!t *.,.'.:.,- "'2 T'L?:'-l !C , " v ... .2 ., I 'it'Nt,igHibhn~ 1 6 13 dinLL EOHE~FRA~;%EWT 8; nnc;fi A ., %. ., ., !. CYb 1 6 .,,J$ 1 BgkEiTEETH *, I q g< i;clc r 1 6 ! 5 8.Z@! = 8 LLL;~;J::?~ SqcI! ?""?"' 1 r; It g70,: h"' p !L!! Z b ~t~~a:RJ~S [SFECI:'f] APPENDIX IV: Staff Vitae )_' ., ,-: - - .. yiir ,- ,: APPENDIX V: Project Correspondence UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK 20742 DIVISION OF BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY TEL (301 ) 454-4 154 454-4 1 55 November 9, 1989 Mrs Trina Mazurek 119 Archwood Ave. Annapolis, MD 21401 Dear Trina, It was a pleasure to meet you and to see your family's extra- ordinary house. I an grateful for the opportunity to perform some archaeological testing there. The front yard almost certainly has never been disturbed and therefore archaeological deposits will be intact. The house and its surroundings are excellent candidates for comparison with other early structures, which also have had some archaeological and architectural analysis done, e.g. Sands House, Carroll House, Bordley-Randall House, Calvert House. We are in the process of excavating one 5 foot by 5 foot unit against the front wall. We hope to find evidence of a builders' trench, created when the house was built, which should contain material to help us date the construction. With your permission we would also like to dig one or two half-size units (2% x 5ft) in the front yard itself. uch testing will increase the size of our artifact sample, making our conclusions more reliable, and should help us understand possible changing uses of the Prince George Street side of the property. In addition we would like to do a thorough map of the property to add to our archives. As you may know, the "Archaeology in Annapolis" project is a cooperative agreement between the University of Maryland and the Historic Annapolis Foundation. Since its beginning in 1981, Archaeology in Annapolis has excavated nearly 2 dozen sites in the city. Several of these have been major excavations lasting several summers; many have been relatively small, such as that at the Sands House. We are currently involved in testing areas of State Circle in preparation for the undergrounding of utility lines. Please come visit that dig and see our public program if you have the time. Generally we are there Monday- Saturday 8:30-3:30, weather permitting. Our work has often appeared in the local newspapers. The Capital, the Anne Arundel section of the Sun, the Publick Enterprise, and the Washington Post have all featured excavations in Annapolis. You may or may not be interested in publicizing the investigations on your property. As with all of Archaeology in Annapolis' projects, all field work, laboratory work, and analysis is done in accordance with high professional standards. Standard archaeological reports, meeting state and federal guidelines, are produced. Your family will receive a copy of the report written about the Excavations on your property. In addition to the completion of analysis and the writing of a report, members of the project infom other archaeologists of work done in Annapolis. This information is provided in two main formats: formal presentations at national and regional archaeology meetings and written articles appearing in professional journals and books. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to do some archaeological testing on your property. I believe that even this small amount of work will help us learn more about the history of that property and about early Annapolis as well. Sincerely, _,-. .'7 .'>.,' 9dd- /; Barbara J. Little Faculty Research Associate University of Maryland, Dept. of Anthropology Administrator for Archaeology Archaeology in Annapolis c/o Historic Annapolis Foundation P.S. I enclose the Annapolitan article which I mentioned. I hope that you enjoy it. I look forward to seeing you. I hope to be able to do the photography in the cellar sometime soon, but I am in no particular rush. TO: Judy Sweeney /? b- From: Barbara Little bi Re: John Brice i l House, 195 Prince George Street: Archaeological excavation on October 19 Sarah Filkins and L visited Trina Mazurek, whose mother owns the John Brice I I House, to alert her to the value of archaeology and to ask her to keep 3s informed of future work that could impact archaeological deposits. During that visit Mrs Mazurek discovered a leak in her basement which will necess i tate some work. There are plans now for digging to the base of the foundation in order to correct a drainage problem. The impact will occur in the front yard to the I I left of the front entrance (facing the house). The John Brice House is one of a handful of brick structures built during the first quarter of the 18th century, during the first building *boom in the city. The front yard almost certainly has never been disturbed and therefore archaeological deposits will be intact. The house and its surroundings are excellent candidates for comparison with other early extent structures, which have also had some archaeological and architectural analysis: Sands House, Carroll Hcuse, Bordely-Randall Ha-use, Calvert House. There are also possible comparisons with the James Brice House. I believe it is essential to take advantage of the opportunity to excavate a small sample of the Brice House front yard. If we do not then the information will be gone forever. In addttion to the excavation, it would be quite useful to make a contour map of the John Brice property. This piece of property is one of the very few houselots that has apparently been unaltered by later rebuilding (compare the above mentioned houses). It should be carefully and completely documented. I propose that we do two things. Firstwe should do a site map of the property. Second we should excavate one 5x5' unit adjacent to the house and two 2.5'x5' units behind this larger unit.. This coverage is small but it allows us to document stratigraphy and col lect depos i ts in the area of immediate impact. xt t It is not actually critical that the property be completely mapped before the t- excavation. Given our labor shortage and simultaneous work on State Circle, *Q li I think we may need to wait until the Spring to do the map. The excavation must be done immediately, however, since the drainage work must be done as soon as possible. i? t The excaflation of the equivalent of two units will take approximately -9 twenty person days, or two people two weeks. hees estimate is based on relatively J shal low deposits and reasonably good digging condi tions. Time needed for 3 - processing and analysis will depend on the amount of material recovered. The -LL c lab work can be done at the Col lege Park lab without additional cost. We will need to hire an excavator to assis? Julie Ernstein and me in the excavation. d 5 1 need to get in touch with the contractor who will be working on the A - drainage problem and give him a schedule. Thanks. c; - % - - 04 April 1990 Ms. Trina Mazurek 119 Archwood Ave. Annapolis, MD 21401 Dear Ms. Mazurek: The enclosed prospectus comes to apprise you and your family of the archaeological potential of your family's property at 195 Prince George St., the John Brice I1 House (a.k.a. the Jennings-Brice House). In addition, this prospectus will summarize the findings of our investigation there last fall, a brief report of which exists in draft form. We would also like to take this opportunity to familiarize you with the goals of our larger project, "Archaeology in Annapolis, " of which the study of your property would be a component. We to enc cannot overstate conduct archaeo losed prospectus our thanks to your family for the opportunity logical testing on your property. As the will attest, even the small amount of work conducted there to date has helped us to learn more of the lot's history. We have formulated a number of research questions worth addressing, and the investigation of your family's property will complement our growing understanding of early Annapolis. We look forward to answering any questions you might have and working with you in any way that best jibes with your repair/restoration efforts. Please feel free to contact me (268- 7770) or our project's Administrator for Archaeology, Dr. Barbara Little (454-4701) with any feedback or guidance on how we might best proceed in the cooperative exploration of your family's extraordinary house and property. I Thank you for your continued interest and support. Sincerely, Julie H. Ernstein Staff Archaeologist cc: Anthony Lindauer Judith P. Sweeney (Vice President, HAF) Barbara J. Little (Administrator for Archaeology, HAF)