Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH353 Crabb Grass
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Crabb Grass Site (18CH353) is a mid-18th century artifact scatter and possible tenant house site north of Swan point in Charles County. The site is situated in a pine woods on level land along Cuckold Creek. The surrounding terrain is flat and covered with a dense forest of mature oak, holly, and Virginia pine. Soils at the site are Piccowaxen loams.
The history of ownership of the land containing the Crabb Grass 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 18CH353 appears to fall within the 183 acre parcel listed as “Tract 3” in the 1755 plat, which was devised to Thomas Taney (related to Neale by marriage) and was called “Shaws”.
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.
The 1755 survey plat map of Wollaston Manor depicts a structure in the approximate location of 18CH353. The building pictured has one door and one window, suggesting a small tenant house. Portions of “Shaws” (including the site area) were later combined with parts of a tract that was inherited from Neale by John Lancaster and another inherited by Richard Boarman. Lancaster, in his later years, purchased or inherited much more of Wollaston than the original 183 acres he received in the division of property stipulated in Raphael Neale’s will. In 1783, John Lancaster sold the combined parcel to Henry Hammersly and his wife, Mary, through a series of transactions. The land was described as, “all that tract or parcel of land lying on and about the River Potomac contained within what is called the narrow of the neck being part of Woolaston Manor together with all house Buildings”.
Henry Hammersly left the property to his daughter Eleanor. Joseph Wills purchased 400 acres from Eleanor (Hammersly) Matthews in 1857, which was described as, “all that farm willed to her by her father”. The Wills family held the property until 1886, when Aloysius Hayden purchased it from the estate of Joseph J. Wills. However, Hayden appears to have failed to make payment and in the same year lost the property to J. Walter Carpenter for nonpayment of a mortgage. In 1892, Carpenter still held the mortgage on the property, but for an Edward and Josephine Daniels. It appears that the Daniels, who were residents of Connecticut, may have defaulted on the mortgage, causing it to be put up for sale by Sydney Carpenter and a Walter J. Mitchell in 1908. William and Alexander Neale acquired the property at the public sale auction held by Carpenter and Mitchell in that year. The Neales would hold the property until 1917 when it would be sold to Robert Crain.
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. 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 18CH353 was initially identified during a reconnaissance survey in the early 1990s. Fifteen shovel test pits (STPs) were placed throughout the site, initially at 40 m (130 ft) intervals and then at intervals of 9-20 m (30-65 ft) from STPs containing artifacts. The STPs were situated in two transects spaced 45.7 m (150 ft) apart. Artifacts recovered from the 9 positive STPs included 13 brick fragments, 5 ceramic sherds (2 plain creamware sherds, 1 Buckley earthenware sherd, and 2 coarse earthenware sherds), and 1 dark green wine bottle glass fragment. Based on these findings, the site was interpreted to be the remains of a tenant or slave dwelling dating to the mid 18th 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 Swan Point and 18CH353. 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, 213 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, five formal 91 X 91 cm (3 X 3 ft) test units were excavated. Additionally, in order to delineate the horizontal dimensions of cultural features, two trenches and approximately 25 judgmentally-placed shovel tests were excavated. 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 18CH353, it was concluded that 2 cultural features were identified within the site area. The features included an architectural-domestic pit (Feature 2) and an historic oyster shell midden (Feature 1). The oyster shell midden was situated in the south-central portion of the site and consisted of an intact lens of solid oyster shell as thick as 16.5 cm (6.5 in) and roughly 2.1 m (7 ft) in diameter. Feature 2 was a shallow pit with a maximum thickness of 12.7 cm (5 in) thought to be associated with an 18th-19th century domestic occupation. Artifact distributions in the proximity of this feature suggested that a dwelling was present just to the south of this portion of the site. At the time of excavation, construction-related disturbances were observed overlying the area where a structure likely once stood. This area was covered with a push-pile of transported soils.
Over 114 shovel tests and all 5 test units produced positive artifact recoveries within 18CH353. Additionally, cultural materials were recovered from surface finds and manual trenching within the site area. In total, 1,530 artifacts were recovered including 1,528 historic items and 2 prehistoric artifacts. The prehistoric assemblage consisted of a quartzite scraper and flake. The prehistoric artifact assemblage was considered too small to provide interpretive statements about such an early occupation.
The Phase II historic artifact assemblage consisted of 1 activity item (a piece of hardware), 634 architectural artifacts (590 brick fragments, 5 pieces of mortar, 13 pieces of window glass, 1 spike, 13 wrought nails, 3 cut nails, and 9 unidentified nails), 1 clothing item (a white metal button), 854 kitchen-related artifacts (172 ceramic sherds, 28 pieces of container glass, 12 animal bones, and 642 pieces of shell), 2 white clay tobacco pipe fragments, and 36 miscellaneous objects (unidentified in the report). The ceramic sherds included 5 Buckley, 1 manganese-mottled, 11 tin-enameled, 18 miscellaneous earthenware, 55 creamware, 19 pearlware, 7 whiteware, 27 redware, 5 early porcelain, 1 other porcelain, 1 Nottingham, 17 white salt-glazed stoneware, and 5 miscellaneous stoneware sherds.
Upon examining the cultural remains from 18CH353, it was concluded that the site had a rural domestic function and an 18th through early 19th century temporal affiliation. According to the nature of the ceramic assemblage, the site occupants were thought to have an upper-middle socio-economic status. The site would appear (based on archival evidence) to be connected with members or associates of the Taney, Lancaster, and/or Hammersly families. The former had married into the Neale family.
Upon examining the research and field results, it was concluded that Site 18CH353 had research value based on its antiquity and association with the Neale family. Although the historic landscape was not well-preserved, the site appeared to be confined to soils with good stratigraphic integrity. This condition provided both old yard soils and buried artifact deposits. Artifact preservation was also considered to be fair-to-good. MHT disagreed with the original researchers’ recommendation of the site as eligible to the National Register. MHT found that the lack of additional features and activity areas, as well as a high degree of previous construction-related disturbance limited the research potential of the site. Thus, it was concluded that 18CH353 would not require additional work and proposed development of the area would have “no effect” on significant archeological resources.
|
