Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH355 Beach
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Beach Site (18CH355) consists of a Late Archaic/Early Woodland shell midden as well as an 18th century domestic artifact scatter on the south side of Swan Pont Neck in Charles County. The site is situated on the beach area and floodplain of the Potomac, adjacent to where a small stream feeds into the river. Poorly drained swampland borders the site. The terrain containing the site is covered with a mature forest composed of sweet gum and cedar. Soils at the site are Liverpool and Annemessex silt loams.
The history of ownership of the land containing the Beach 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 18CH355 appears to fall within the 185 acre parcel listed as “Tract 1” in the 1755 plat, which was devised to Edward Digges and was called “Poplar Point”. Edward Digges was a grandson of Raphael Neale, and was the son of his third Daughter, Monica. Edward would expand his holdings in subsequent years with additional purchases and inheritances.
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”.
In November of 1811, Edward Digges’ land, then totaling 366 acres, was transferred to Charles Neale. This information was found in a later deed, but cannot be confirmed because of a missing volume of deeds covering the time period. Charles Neale died intestate and the land passed in equal thirds to his daughter Elizabeth G. (Neale) Matthews and her husband Dr. Francis Matthews, his son James Neale, and his daughter Mary Neale. Francis Matthews was a doctor in Charles County in the mid 19th century. In the 1850 Census he is shown living in the Allen’s Fresh district with his wife and six children. In 1860, he still resided in the Allen’s Fresh District and was the Guardian of his nephews, the children of his wife’s late brother, James Neale. James Neale died in 1847. Doctor Matthews purchased James’ portion of the original Charles Neale estate in December of 1860.
Dr. Matthews had a plantation in addition to being a medical practitioner. He owned slaves, as is shown in both the census of 1850 and 1860. In addition, in 1860 he was administering the estate of his nephews, who held slaves on their plantations as well. In 1860, F. Matthews owned 200 improved acres and 184 unimproved acres. The main crop was tobacco, with the plantation producing 8,000 pounds that year. The plantation also grew Indian corn and wheat, which probably served as livestock feed. The core of the Matthews plantation is thought to be at nearby site 18CH350 (see synopsis report).
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 remaining third of Charles Neale’s property was owned by Mary Neale until her death and then, under the terms of her will, passed to her sister, Elizabeth G. Mathews, during her lifetime and then to Elizabeth’s daughters, Eleanor and Elizabeth Matthews, and any other daughters born to Elizabeth G. Some portion of the land passed to James F. Mathews, son of Dr. Francis and Elizabeth Matthews. He died intestate in June of 1905. The land was inherited by his son, F. Brooke Matthews. However, there were some disputes over ownership of the land. These disputes were ultimately settled when F. Brooke Matthews acquired most of the remaining land from a group of descendants/relatives. Two other small parcels (14 acres or less) were included in the final transaction.
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 18CH355 was initially identified during a reconnaissance survey in the early 1990s. Archeological materials were found eroding out of the beach along a roughly 61 m (200 ft) stretch of shoreline. The inland dimension of the site was not determined, as no STPs were excavated within 30.5 m pf the Potomac shoreline during the Phase I project. A waterworn stemmed chert projectile point (Late Archaic/Early Woodland) and a few eroded quartz flakes were recovered. Historic artifacts included two 18th century ceramic sherds (1 Buckley, & 1 Rhenish stoneware), 1 white clay pipestem, and 1 European flint fragment. No features were observed. The site was classified as a prehistoric lithic and historic domestic scatter.
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 18CH355. 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 15.24 m (50 ft) increments was superimposed and excavated. Based on the distribution of artifacts, this grid was narrowed to 7.62 m (25 ft) and 3.81 m (12.5 ft) increments. In total, 62 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, four test units of varying size were excavated. Three of the units were 91 X 91 cm (3 X 3 ft) in extent and the fourth unit was 61 X 61 cm (2 X 2 ft) in size. Additionally, in order to delineate the horizontal limits of features, two trenches and approximately 15 judgmental 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 18CH355 it was concluded that three features were identified. The features included a historic brick road or similar landscape feature in the southern portion of the site (Feature 1), a tightly packed layer of gravel above the brick road that appears to have been deposited as a modern repair (Feature 2), and a prehistoric shell midden in the northwest portion of the site (Feature 3). The midden feature consisted of two distinct strata containing oyster shell mixed with lithic debitage and pottery. At its thickest, the shell midden was 20.32 cm (8 in) and thinned out to under 7.62 cm (3 in) along its terminus. The horizontal dimensions of Feature 3 were estimated to be 24.4 m (80 ft) not-south and 21.3 m (70 ft) east-west.
Thirty-four of the shovel tests and all four test units produced artifacts. Additionally, cultural material was recovered through surface collection from the narrow beach fronting the Potomac River. In total, 1,614 artifacts were recovered from the site area, including 1,089 prehistoric artifacts and 551 historic or modern objects.
The historic assemblage consisted of 52 architectural objects (41 brick fragments, 5 cut nails, 1 wire nail, and 5 unidentified nails), 466 kitchen items (32 ceramic sherds, 15 pieces of container glass, a spoon/ladle part, an iron butcher’s knife, a tin can fragment, 3 bone/teeth fragments, and 413 pieces of oyster shell), 1 arms object (unidentified in the report), and 32 miscellaneous objects (18 pieces of iron, 1 piece of slag, 2 pieces of charcoal, and 11 modern objects). The historic ceramics included 1 miscellaneous earthenware sherd, 1 pearlware sherd, 4 whiteware, 1 redware, 1 English Brown stoneware, and 24 other stoneware sherds. Based on the nature of the artifacts recovered, the historic component of Site 18CH355 was thought to contain a domestic occupation. According to the ceramic recovery and other materials, this historic residence was occupied between the late 18th and 19th centuries. Both the gravel and underlying brick roadways associated with the historic occupation were heavily disturbed, most likely by shoreline erosion.
The prehistoric assemblage from the 2007 excavations at 18CH355 included 1 scraper, 1 core, 18 flakes, 8 pieces of shatter, 8 unidentified lithics, 24 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 4 Accokeek sherds, 6 Moyaone sherds, 1 Mockley sherd, 13 other sherds, and 1,005 oyster shells/shell fragments. The prehistoric results clearly indicated that the site was the location of a prehistoric oyster shell midden. Unfortunately, the Feature 3 soils were either heavily impacted by bioturbation, over-bank flooding, and/or non-modern plow action. Corroborating this disturbance was the mixing of Early, Middle, and Late prehistoric artifacts with historic materials. A buried organic layer underlying the shell midden feature (a possible residual feature layer) exhibited a similar mixing of artifacts, thereby indicating disturbance at this depth as well.
Upon examining the cultural remains, it was concluded that Site 18CH355 had a prehistoric seasonal base camp and historic rural domestic function. Alternatively, the historic component was potentially linked to adjacent nearby Site 18CH350 (see synopsis report), thus giving it a domestic artifact scatter function. This multi-component site was thought to have a Late Archaic/Woodland and early-through terminal 19th century temporal affiliation. The socio-economic status of the historic occupants was considered unknown because of the limited artifact recovery. The site was more than likely associated with the Charles Neale and later Dr. Francis and Elizabeth Neale Matthews property ownerships.
Upon examining the 2007 research and fieldwork results, it was concluded that Site 18CH355 was thought to have research value because of its prehistoric and 19th century historic antiquity. A base camp and rural domestic function added to this research value. However, the site’s overlying stratigraphy lacked good integrity. Artifact deposits and intact cultural features were also lacking and artifact preservation was poor. It was no considered eligible for listing on the NRHP and the proposed development of the site was approved with no further requirements for archeological work.
|
