Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH352 Clagett
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Clagett Site (18CH352) is the archeological remains associated with a 19th century plantation on Swan Point in Charles County. In addition to the site’s historic component, a Late Woodland artifact scatter is present on-site. The site is situated on the floodplain that juts out between the Potomac River and Weir Creek. The topography of this site area is very flat. It is covered with a mature mixed forest composed of red oak, sycamore, cedar, American holly, sweet gum, and black cherry. Relic specimens of landscape plants, such as daffodil, yucca and wisteria, are also present. Poison ivy and other vines attach to the older trees. Some of the oak trees have an estimated age of 100 years or more. Soils at the site are Piccowaxen loams.
The history of ownership of the land containing the Clagett Site begins with a land grant of 2,000 acres to James Neale (or Neal). James Neale was born in England in 1615. He named the land “Wollaston Manor” after property in England. He and his wife had five children and Neale was a prominent individual in Maryland politics.
In 1643, Neale and four other individuals were charged with treason for aiding Richard Ingle, a ship’s captain. Richard Ingle was a key participant in the Protestant Rebellion in Maryland (known locally as the Ingle and Claiborne Rebellion), during which the city of St. Mary’s (then the capital of Maryland) was attacked and several wealthy Catholic prisoners were taken. Later, Ingle attacked ships, claiming to have a letter of marque: a document issued by the British government which permitted the looting of ships on behalf of the crown. Most in Maryland regarded Ingle as little better than a pirate. James Neale was accused of helping Ingle in an attempted escape, once order was restored by Governor Leonard Calvert. Ingle was later tried and executed for treason.
Neale later regained the trust of the crown and the colony and spent several years abroad, principally in Spain and Portugal, as an agent for his Majesty the King and the Duke of York. While Neale was absent, he left his plantation in the hands of his father-in-law, Benjamin Gill. During this time, he was declared in arrears of rent by eight years, as well as in-debt to various persons for 13,823 pounds of tobacco. Mr. Benjamin Gill paid the fine and the court fees, amounting to another 500 pounds tobacco.
On 7 March, 1659, Neale returned to Maryland with his wife and children and requested to return to his estate located there. This was granted by the Council of Maryland that same year and he was also given permission to enter into trade and to use the ports. His children (born in Spain) are often referred to in history books as having the distinction of being the first naturalized citizens of the United States.
In 1662, James Neale was in court with a case against the carpenter who built his house. The suit alleged that the carpenter was careless of the cost of materials and ignored, “(the) preciousness of nails (which) is shown in the accusation against the carpenter that he threw away the bent ones”.
The area of Charles County where Wollaston Manor was located is known variously as Cobbs Neck or Cobb’s Point. The district in which it was located is referred to as the Allen’s Fresh District, the Harris Lot District, or the Fifth District of Charles County. Wollaston Manor appears to be the name given to the entire land grant as well as the original dwelling of James Neale.
Captain James Neale’s initial grant was, “2,000 acres on the West side of the Wicomico River” in 1642. This land was divided many times among his descendants. "Captain” James Neale, Sr. married Ann Gill, daughter of Benjamin Gill. They had five children, including Anthony (1659-1723) and James, Jr. (1664-1727). When Captain James died in 1684, his son Anthony inherited Wollaston Manor. When Anthony died in 1723, a portion of Wollaston Manor passed to his brother James, Jr. He left Wollaston to his son James, the Third (1689-1730). The will of James Neale. Jr., in 1727 stated: left, “all my Manor of Wooleston to my eldest son James Neale Jr. [the Third]”. When James the Third died in 1730, he left “All Rights to Wollaston Manor and land reserving half the land for [his] wife Jane” to his son James (the Fourth). James the Fourth died in 1730 as well, without issue.
Raphael, son of Anthony Neale, received the majority of Wollaston upon his father’s death. Raphael (1683-1743) married Mary Brooke, and they had 5 daughters. When Raphael Neale died in the mid-18th century, it was decided by his heirs that the land would be surveyed and divided equally. A representative of each of Raphael’s children then drew lots to see which parcel they would receive. A plat map from 1755 reveals the approximate boundaries of the 6 parcels into which Wollaston Manor was divided. Site 18CH352 appears to fall within the 183 acre parcel listed as “Tract 5” in the 1755 plat, which was devised to Basil Brooke, the husband of Henrietta Neale (Raphael’s 2nd oldest daughter). Portions of the tract were later combined with parts of a tract that was inherited by John Lancaster and Elizabeth Neale. According to deed records, John Lancaster, in his later years, may have purchased or inherited property in addition to the original 183 acres he received in the division of property stipulated in Raphael Neale’s will (the tract to the north of the site area).
The livelihood of the area from the time it was settled was generally agriculture and those trades which supported it, such as mills, blacksmithing and shipping. Horse and mule breeding were understandably important endeavors to the residents, as these were the principal means of transportation and power for farm equipment. Local papers often listed when particular stallions would be available to stud and the results of horse races were frequently reported. Many residents served in the local and state government as required. Slavery was common, as in most states where tobacco was the principal crop.
The Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 had no physical impact on the Wollaston Manor area. In 1775, monies were collected “for the relief of the soldiers of the Town of Boston”. During the Civil War, Federal troops had a training camp near Allen’s Fresh and used the printing presses of the Port Tobacco Times to print a camp newspaper. On at least one occasion, this led citizens to start the rumor that the newspaper offices had been “captured” by federal troops, a rumor the editor of the paper was quick to dispel in the next issue. Maryland had many Southern sympathizers and the presence of Federal Troops may not have been welcome in the area. By all accounts, the troops behaved themselves with only a few incidents of drunkenness or disorderly conduct reported in the paper.
Tract 5 (Basil Brooke and Henrietta Neales’ inheritance) is referred to in subsequent records as “Swann Point”. The parcel was divided multiple times and portions were combined with other parcels over the 19th century. Reconstructing the chain of title becomes difficult due to errors made in the numbering of parcels in subsequent transactions. What is clearly documented, however, is that no structures are depicted in this portion of the Wollaston Manor on the original 1755 plat of its division. The site location would eventually come into the possession of John Lancaster, who would pass it on to Benjamin and Charles Lancaster in 1800 to hold in common.
In 1823, the property was purchased by a James Hollis. The 1850 census lists James Hollis, age 70, as a farmer in the Allen’s Fresh District of Charles County. Richard Clagett, living in Virginia in 1850, purchased the property from James Hollis in December of that year. Clagett was born in Maryland, but married and lived for a time in Virginia, as his sons Octavius and Richard both listed their birthplaces as being in Virginia in the 1900 Census. In 1853, an Ann E. Ramsey paid a debt to John Mitchell on behalf of Richard and Sarah Clagett and took possession of the property in name at that time (i.e. she held the mortgage). Ann Ramsey appears to have been of some relation to the Clagetts by marriage, as she is listed in both the 1850 and 1860s Censuses as a member of the Clagett household. In 1864, Sarah Clagett would purchase the property back from Ann Ramsey and the records refer to it as, “all that part of a tract or parcel of land called ‘Wollaston’s Manor’ described in the division of same among the several properties there as Number 5-five and part of number 4-four, and now commonly called and known as Swann Point, lying in Cobb Neck in the said country” and was then, “209 acres, 1 rood more or less of which ten acres are covered by the aforesaid Ware Creek”.
Richard Clagett is listed in the 1860 Census as a farmer with property valued at $7,000. Anne Ramsey is also listed as owning $7,000 in property as she would have still held the mortgage at this time. Apparently, Richard was deaf. His son, also Richard, then 22 years, lived at the Clagett home, as did a family by the name of Page, including a mother and six children. While the Agricultural Schedule of 1860 does not list Richard, it does list “A. E. Ramsay” as owning 160 improved and 30 unimproved acres with cash value of $7,000. The acreage produced 7,000 pounds of tobacco and 1,200 bushels of Indian corn. Minimal other produce was recorded along with livestock, although probably for personal use. An 1862 Coast Survey map depicts the name “Clagett” at the location of Site 18CH352. Sarah Claggett conveyed the farm to her sons Richard and Octavius in 1870, who held it until 1917, when they sold it to Robert Crain and Mary Clagett.
By the mid 20th century, much of the original Wollaston Manor property would be acquired by the Maryland Realty Investment Trust and subsequently sold to the US Steel Corporation in December of 1969. Site 18CH352 fell within the sixth parcel sold to US Steel, which consisted of 101 ½ acres of the former Clagett family farm. The US Steel parcels were eventually developed into a nine-hole golf course and in the 1980s the course was expanded and residential and commercial development of the area began in earnest.
Site 18CH352 was initially identified during a reconnaissance survey in the early 1990s. Discovered during the survey were landscape plants, a brick-lined well, a cellar hole, and at least 5 brick piles (possibly separate structures). Thirteen shovel test pits (STPs) were placed around the cellar hole and throughout the site at 15.24 m (50 ft) intervals. Recovered from the site were 1 creamware, 13 pearlware, and 19 whiteware sherds, a white clay pipe bowl fragment, and a brick bat inscribed with “1810” prior to firing. A fabric-impressed, shell-tempered sherd was also recovered. Based on these findings, the site was interpreted to be the remains of an ante-bellum and post-Civil War plantation site, likely abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century.
In 2007 Phase II testing was carried out at 8 sites on two properties slated for residential and commercial development in Charles County, one of which included the Swan Point property and 18CH352. The archeological evaluations were connected with the application for a wetland permit through the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Environment. Site evaluations were therefore required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended).
In order to relocate the site, a shovel test grid spaced at 30.5 m (100 ft) increments was superimposed and excavated. Based on the distribution of artifacts, this grid was narrowed to 15.24 m (50 ft), 7.62 m (25 ft), and 3.81 m (12.5 ft) increments. In total, 201 shovel tests were excavated within the grid and the data were used in the strategic positioning of test units. All STPs were excavated manually using spade shovels and trowels. The shovel tests were also excavated stratigraphically in order to maintain vertical control over the artifacts recovered. The soils removed from each excavated shovel test were dry-screened in the field using hardware cloth. A soil profile was prepared (on a standardized form) for each shovel test location excavated. The profile served to document soil characteristics, strata depths, and artifacts recovered per stratum. Soils were described by texture using standard techniques and nomenclature.
Following the shovel testing to identify artifact “hot spots” or potential features, nine formal test units of varying size were excavated. Two 91 X 91 cm (3 X 3 ft) test units were excavated, three 61 X 122 cm (2 X 4 ft) test units were excavated, and four 122 X 122 cm (4 X 4 ft) test units were excavated during the Phase II project.
Test units were excavated manually using flat shovels and trowels. These units were also excavated stratigraphically in order to maintain control over the vertical provenience of artifacts recovered. Selected strata in excess of 5-7.6 cm (2-3 in) were further excavated by arbitrary level. Unless specified, all excavated soils were dry-screened in the field using hardware cloth. In some test units exploratory windows were excavated within test units (following the same procedures) to obtain further information. A standard report form was completed for each excavated stratum or arbitrary level within a stratum per test unit. As with shovel testing, soil characteristics, stratum depths, and recovered cultural materials were documented on these forms. Included in the documentation of test unit soils was the preparation of a hand-drawn soil profile which presented a more accurate view of the stratigraphy encountered. Only one profile was prepared for each test unit excavated and generally involved the wall with the clearest stratigraphy. This wall was also documented through black and white photography.
Special excavation and documentation procedures were followed when possible cultural features were thought to have been identified within test units. Within reason, the overall goal was to expose the horizontal and vertical extent of a feature. Features were also cross-sectioned and documented with hand-drawn sketches followed by photographs. Based on field judgment, soil samples were retained for examination in the laboratory. These samples were water-screened through window screen with the goal of retrieving smaller cultural materials.
Upon completing Phase II excavations at 18CH352, it was concluded that 7 cultural features were identified. The features included a brick foundation and cellar hole with concrete pillars and associated architectural rubble (Feature 1), a brick-lined well (Feature 2), a domestic artifact deposit associated with architectural remains (Feature 3), a brick foundation wall (Feature 4), a possible 2nd brick foundation wall (Feature 5), a possible dry-laid stone foundation wall (Feature 7) and an artifact deposit associated with the stone wall (Feature 6). The cellar for Feature 1 had an estimated east-west dimension of 9.14 m (30 ft) and a north-south dimension of 7.3 m (24 ft). The Feature 4 brick foundation ran parallel to the eastern edge of Feature 1, and most likely represented another side or addition of the same dwelling. Feature 5 was situated a considerable way to the northeast and may represent an outbuilding or quarter. Features 6 and 7 are closely associated with the well (Feature 2) and likely represent the remains of a well house. Time diagnostic features of these features suggest a 19th century affiliation.
In total, 4,370 artifacts were recovered from the shovel tests and test units at the site. By broad temporal affiliation and quantity, the artifact collection included the following: 4,347 historic items, 18 prehistoric items, and 5 modern objects. The prehistoric assemblage included 3 bifaces, 13 flakes, and 1 piece of shatter. Few interpretive statements could be made about the prehistoric component at Site 18CH352 because of the limited artifact recovery. The artifact evidence, however, did suggest that a small short-term transient resource procurement camp of unknown temporal affiliation once occupied the site area.
The Phase II historic artifact assemblage consisted of 37 activity items (3 ceramic marbles, 33 miscellaneous hardware items, and a horseshoe), 1,904 architectural artifacts (632 brick fragments, 168 pieces of mortar or plaster, 2 slate fragments, 335 pieces of window glass, a ceramic utility pipe fragment, a hinge, 2 pieces of architectural hardware, 438 cut nails, 62 wire nails, 254 unidentified nails, 7 spikes, and 2 other items), 8 clothing items (2 brass buttons, 1 bone button, a porcelain button, and 4 milk glass buttons), 2,127 kitchen-related artifacts (411 ceramic sherds, 484 pieces of container glass, 3 glass mason jar lids, 2 iron knife blades, a pewter spoon, 151 animal bones, and 1,075 pieces of shell), 1 personal item (a copper alloy jewelry item), 2 ball clay tobacco pipe fragments, 3 arms objects (2 brass shotgun shell caps and a brass .22 casing), and 265 miscellaneous items (1 brass, 198 iron, 5 other metal, 4 slag, 1 graphite, 23 charcoal, 20 coal, and 13 unidentified). The ceramic sherds included 38 miscellaneous earthenware, 34 creamware, 71 pearlware, 25 ironstone, 147 whiteware, 10 redware, 1 Rockingham, 12 yelloware, 7 early porcelain, 16 other porcelain, and 50 miscellaneous stoneware specimens.
Upon examining the cultural remains, it was concluded that 18CH352 had a rural domestic function and an early 19th to early 20th century temporal affiliation. Those occupying the site were thought to have a middle-to-lower-middle socio-economic status based on research and artifact evidence. The site was probably occupied by members or associates of the Hollis and/or Clagett families. After examining the research and fieldwork results, it was concluded that Site 18CH352 had research value based on its antiquity and possible association with lower-middle income occupants. The value of the site was also enhanced by a relatively intact historic landscape composed of masonry features and artifact concentrations. Unfortunately, the artifact-bearing soils were compromised by a stratigraphy with questionable integrity. It was determined that proposed development in the vicinity of 18CH352 would not adversely impact any significant archeological resources.
|
