Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH664 Homeland Brick Clamp
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Homeland Brick Clamp (18CH664) is the former location of a temporary brick kiln (brick clamp) near Hughesville in Charles County, Maryland. The site’s topographic setting is an inter-riverine upland flat. An unnamed stream runs approximately 50 to 75 m east and southeast of the site. The site is forested with a mix of hardwood and coniferous trees. The site’s underlying soils are Beltsville silt loams.
In 1998 the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) sponsored a Phase I archeological survey of 2 proposed alternatives for expansion of Maryland Route 5 through Hughesville. The purpose of the survey was to determine the presence or absence of archeological sites, define their approximate boundaries, assess the potential integrity of the sites, and provide a preliminary evaluation of their potential eligibility for the NRHP. Site 18CH664 was identified during the Phase I investigations. Phase I work in the vicinity of the site consisted of 17 shovel test pits (STPs) and a 1 X 2 meter test unit. Phase I work identified a site approximately 28 X 27 m in size, with archeological features including the remains of a brick clamp and 6 clay borrow pits. The only artifacts collected during Phase I survey were 203 bricks and brick fragments, 1 piece of charcoal, 1 piece of machine-made bottle glass, and a piece of metal hardware. Although the site function was clear, the age of the clamp, and the intended use of the bricks (usually a nearby historic home) was not. Thus, SHA and the Maryland Historical Trust (MHT) recommended Phase II testing at the Homeland Brick Clamp.
Phase II evaluation was conducted during October of 1999, and was designed to assess the eligibility of the 0.40 acre site for the NRHP. In addition to excavations at 18CH664, the field investigations included archeological survey of an approximately 4.25 acre cultivated field west of the site. Historic artifacts, including bricks, were observed in the field. A portion of the field had been previously surveyed and a prehistoric site (18CH665 – see synopsis report) was identified. The 1998 Phase I investigations also recovered historic artifacts from the site but, presumably, these were considered field scatter and not potentially associated with 18CH664.
A 5 meter grid of shovel test pits (STPs) was placed on the upland flat and the lower area surrounding the site to determine the site boundaries and identify artifact concentrations within 18CH664. A total of 81 shovel tests were excavated. Shovel testing revealed the distribution of materials across the site and identified soil conditions on the site as well as its margins. Shovel tests measured 50 cm in diameter and extended 10 cm into natural subsoil. All excavated soils were passed through hardware cloth.
Based on STP results and Phase I data, eleven 1 X 1 m test units, four 0.5 X 1 m test units and one judgmental test unit were excavated within 18CH664. Five of these 1 X 1 m test units were placed in areas north of the previously identified brick clamp, and 11 were placed on or adjacent to the brick clamp. All of the test unit soils were passed through hardware cloth, with the exception of soils from 3 of the units adjacent to the clamp (Units 14-16). These units served to expediently expose the dimensions of the brick clamp. Generally, all brick fragments were weighed in the field, but only brick pieces measuring over 2 inches square and a 20% sample of smaller fragments were saved. The purpose of this method of data collection was to provide a comparative body of data based on the volume of brick with which to posit site function. The brick was not weighed or sampled in Units 14-16, and brick was not weighed in 2 other units to expedite excavation (though excavations and collection were otherwise unaltered).
To facilitate the surface collection in the field next to 18CH664, a 10 m grid was laid across the field and each quadrant was individually collected. Since much of the field was overgrown at the time of the survey, it was deemed necessary to substitute shovel testing for surface reconnaissance in the central portion of the field. Following the same procedures outlined above, 56 shovel tests were excavated on the grid points originally laid out for the surface collection in this area. Based upon the surface reconnaissance and on the results of shovel testing, three 1 X 1 m units were excavated in the southwestern and northwestern portions of the field. In addition to the above STPs and 1 X 1 m units, two judgmentally placed STPs were excavated on an adjacent hilltop, and the northern wall of an existing borrow-pit was troweled and recorded to a depth of 1.5 m. These tests were conducted to gain a better understanding of the soil conditions in areas adjacent to the site.
The artifact scatters in the field adjacent to the Homeland Brick Clamp, were determined to be unrelated to 18CH664 and instead were thought to relate to nearby 18CH665. This resulted in an expansion of the site boundaries for 18CH665. As these artifacts are not related to the brick clamp, they are not discussed further here but in the synopsis report for 18CH665.
Shovel testing in the vicinity of 18CH664 (not the adjacent field) revealed relatively uniform soil conditions across the site. Below a thin O horizon, soils were typically characterized by light yellow-brown to yellow-brown clays. Soils in the immediate vicinity of the brick clamp typically displayed a concentrated layer of brick fragments mixed with subsoil directly below the organic layer. Some STPs and test units contained a layer comprised almost exclusively of brick fragments. STPs that were farther removed from the brick clamp feature area generally revealed a thinner concentration of brick fragments mixed with subsoil immediately below the organic layer, giving way to undisturbed subsoil below. Aside from 1 shard of window glass, 2 nail fragments, 3 container glass fragments, an iron buckle, 1 bone, and 4 oyster shell fragments, no non-brick cultural material was recovered from subsurface testing.
A total of 504 brick fragments were collected and are catalogued in the table above as “activity items” rather than architectural objects because of their special use in this context in the production of masonry materials. The majority of these brick wasters were rectangular in form, but some were shaped. One fragment displays a profile indicating shaped-molded bricks of the cyma recta (Roman) form. This particular brick has a distinguishable circular arch and, therefore, is an 18th century form known as an “ogee”. This form would have been used on a garden wall, building water-table, portico, or sill.
The exact dimensions of the brick clamp are difficult to discern because the western and southern portions of the feature were only partially excavated. Combining the results of this partial excavation with known brick clamp construction parameters, the clamp appears to be rectangular in shape and measures roughly 4.2 m in length by 3 m in width. Researchers surmised that the clamp, in operation, contained 4 columns of brick that were most likely joined into a single mass of brick, by gradually “corbelling” or arching, from one column to the next. Three chambers or “tunnels”, evidenced by bands of black ash on the feature floor, appear to have fueled the clamp. At the end of one of these tunnels, a brick shinlog has survived.
The outer columns of the clamp appear to have been made up of a single course of unfired bricks, while the inner courses were two courses wide. The extent of preservation of these courses varies. In the northernmost course, only a single impression of the brick, burnt into the subsoil, remains. Of the two interior columns, only a single vertical course of bricks remains in the south. The northern interior column is evidenced by as many as three vertical courses of intact brick in the west, and a single course in the eastern portion of the clamp. Evidence of the southern wall, presumably a single course like the northern one, was not revealed.
Based on the excavations on the adjacent hilltop, the northern wall of the borrow-pit (see above), and apparently, by the excavations in the nearby field, the occurrence of clay rich soils in this locale is unique. Because of this uniqueness, the site was ideally suited to brickmaking. Not only was the necessary clay raw material present, but the surrounding supply of sandy soils (necessary to temper and to mold bricks) was also at hand. The two large borrow pits to the south of the site appear too large and recent to be associated with the clamp. However, it is possible that a smaller borrow pit to the southeast was a quarry site for sand used in the brickmaking process. Such clamps are usually located very near the site of the house or structure for which the bricks were intended. No evidence of such a site was encountered during Phase II testing either at 18CH664 or in the adjacent field (18CH665).
Based on the excellent state of preservation of the brick clamp, its potential to answer questions related to 18th century brick-making technologies in Maryland, and the remaining questions related to the intended use of the bricks from the clamp, Phase III work was recommended. Researchers returned to the site in 2003 to conduct these data recovery operations. Extensive archival research was conducted as part of the Phase III project in an effort to document the presumed 18th century structure with which the clamp is associated and to place the site in its proper historic context.
Archival research reveals that 18CH664 is located on land originally owned by a Gabriel Moran. Sometime around 1720, Gabriel purchased approximately 900 acres including the project area. In this primarily agricultural region, growing tobacco was the principal occupation of large landowners. Records indicate that Gabriel signed a lease for 118 acres in Lot #5 of Calverton Manor in 1714. Gabriel used this land as his dwelling plantation through the remainder of his life. Upon his death (1734), Gabriel willed the property he owned, including the project site, to his wife Elizabeth (Villett) Moran, and to their four sons. The brothers, several of whom were minors when their father passed away, chose to operate their inheritance, known as “Four Brothers Plantation”, as a single estate until March 19, 1747. John, the eldest, oversaw the operation of Four Brothers until all of the brothers reached legal age. When Gabriel Moran’s youngest son (William) reached age 25, the property was divided upon mutual agreement between the four brothers. The property was partitioned into 4 tracts, the 3 eldest sons receiving 236 acres each and the youngest receiving 150 acres.
Records indicate that Four Brothers continued to be a tobacco-producing plantation, with the eldest brother (John Moran) overseeing the harvesting process for the plantation. Evidence suggests that the Moran family continued to prosper. In addition to the increasing acreage the family seems to have owned, census records show that several members of the family owned enslaved laborers. Additionally, the family’s social standing is indicated by the listing of John Moran as the Tobacco Inspector for both All Faith Parish and Benedict Hundred.
Andrew, Gabriel’s third son, is the brother who inherited the land which includes 18CH664. Born in 1722, he was only 11 years old when his father passed away. After the land was officially divided, Andrew lived on his portion of the plantation until his death, February 7th, 1791. According to the 1790 Census for Charles County, several members of the Moran family owned enslaved people at the time the census was taken, including Andrew Moran who had 11 slaves. The Moran slaves could have provided the necessary labor for growing tobacco and manufacturing bricks. No wills, deeds of sale, or any estate or legal documents were found depicting the transfer of the property encompassing the site between 1791 (Andrew Moran’s will) and 1876 when a William E. Moran sold the property to Isaiah and Mary Canter. Thus, the portion of Four Brothers plantation that was inherited by Andrew, and that included the site area, passed from generation to generation of the Moran family for over one hundred and fifty years without the incident being formalized in a legal document. In 1879, the Canters (who may have been related to the Morans by marriage) sold the property to Mary B. (Moran) Cochrane and Arthur F. Lawrence. She appears to have operated both a farm and a general store on the property for the next 30 years, into the early 20th century.
No historical evidence of a structure with which the brick clamp could be definitively identified was uncovered during archival research. Also, there is no evidence of commercial brickmaking activity in the area and no indication of a practicing professional brickmaker in Charles County until 1789. Thus, the brick clamp was probably constructed by an itinerant brickmaker for a specific purpose and not a commercial venture. Archeological investigations have found most 18th century and rural brick clamps to be features associated with a nearby structure. The clamp could be associated with one of the dwellings of Gabriel Moran or his sons, but none of the extant tax records or descriptions support a house or other structure of the higher value expected for a structure including the sophisticated shape-molded bricks at 18CH664. There are descriptions of some more substantial dwellings on properties bordering the Moran plantations, but these are thought to be situated too far from the clamp.
Historic Old Fields Chapel is located in close proximity to 18CH664. There is a historical connection between the Morans and this structure, as many of the Moran family members were associated with the chapel. The date of completion for the chapel, 1769, is later than the dates suggested by archeomagnetic testing (see below), and no molded brick such as the ogees produced at 18CH664 has been located in the extant architecture at the chapel. However, the existing chapel has been altered since its initial construction and certain embellishments, like the molded brick, may have been removed or incorporated into the structure in a way that makes the molded brick less obvious.
Phase III field investigations were designed to investigate the site for subtle features associated with brickmaking and to record information obtained by exposing the clamps. The Phase II grid was first re-established using a total station. The site area was cleared of brush and raked. A close examination of the ground surface was then made with the aim of identifying any subtle indistinct surface features that may have been present. Researchers excavated trenches across the site to test for activity areas, such as brick drying areas, post-in-ground structures, and clay preparation loci, associated with the clamp trenches. Because a mechanical excavator could not be used at the site due to the forest cover, researchers hand dug six 1 X 20 m trenches, one 1 X 15 m trench, and one 1 X 25 m trench. The trenches were spaced at 5 m intervals and extended along the Phase II grid. Trenches were staggered to maximize exposure of the site area; half the trenches extending beyond the east site boundary and the other beyond the west boundary. Unscreened excavation of soils proceeded by natural stratigraphy to the subsoil interface, at which point the exposed interface was examined for evidence of features. Previous excavation work showed that few non-brick artifacts could be expected in these layers. Trench excavation resulted in the exposure of a 160 m2 sample from the approximately 1600 m2 site, or 10% of the site area. Most important among the findings during trenching, was the discovery of a second brick clamp at 18CH664 (hereafter Clamp 2) to the north of the original clamp (hereafter Clamp 1) in the area where clay processing pits were earlier identified.
The Phase II grid over the clamps was altered in order to facilitate their excavation. The grid was made parallel to the axes of Clamp 2 to efficiently layout a grid of test units over the feature. The excavation of the clamps was by 91 X 91 cm (3 X 3 ft) test units. This was done to allow excavation to proceed more quickly and to simplify mapping. The soil matrices overlying the clamp were removed without screening, and then excavation proceeded by individual test unit. As Clamp 1 was excavated, all brick was at least weighed and recorded in the field, but upon discover of a second clamp, methods had to be altered due to time constraints. At Clamp 2, not all brick was weighed, but all brick and brick fragments were examined. Bricks that provide non-redundant evidence of brick size or shape were retained and all non-brick artifacts were saved. After fully exposing both clamps in plan, the Phase III researchers took field measurements, drew detailed site plan maps, and photographed each feature in black & white, color slide, and digital medium. Planimetric photographs were also taken with a camera suspended over each clamp.
After each clamp was recorded and photographed, the field team selectively dismantled the clamp to fully examine its structure. Clamp 1 was bisected to obtain a cross-section of the whole feature. On Clamp 2, only a partial bisection was undertaken, because the work on Clamp 1 indicated that this would only result in redundant information. The purpose of bisections was not only to document the structure of the clamps in profile, but to also record the heat signature in the subsoil. This was done so that the information could be used to identify brick clamps in plow zone sites in the future.
Non-brick clamp features were also investigated, drawn, and photographed. These were situated northeast of Clamp 2. This was an area where 6 small oval depressions were noted in the field during previous studies. These depressions were approximately 1.5 meters long and 76-90 cm wide. Phase II investigations had tested one of these depressions already, and interpreted it to be a small clay borrow pit. Clearing and examination, and in once case extension of a trench through one of the pits verified these findings. However, the processing pits were deemed to be too small to process all of the clay needed for both clamps. The likeliest explanation for the pits is that they produced a limited amount of high quality clay, and that this was used for the making of specially shaped bricks like some produced in Clamp 1.
An expedient, non-systematic metal detector survey was also undertaken at the site with the goal of finding metal concentrations that may denote any remaining unidentified feature locations, and to recover artifacts that may carry time-sensitive attributes. The entire rise was swept at least once with two different metal detectors. The metal detector artifacts clustered on the center top of the rise, and to the southwest and southeast of Clamp 1. Strong anomalies were investigated with shovels and trowels until the signal source was identified. Although 29 objects were recovered from 24 locations, no additional features were encountered.
A total of 18 brick (counted as activity items) and 123 non-brick artifacts were retained from all stages of the the Phase III excavation units. Again, the extensive brick collection obtained during Phase II was sufficient to document the variety at the site and by the time Phase III work was conducted, only unique or representative samples of brick were being retained. Non-brick artifacts from the ground surface examination, borrow pit examinations, trenching, and clamp investigations include 11 probable activity items, 9 architectural objects, 55 kitchen-related objects, and 19 miscellaneous objects. The probable activity items were 2 horseshoes, a terra cotta flower pot fragment, and 8 pieces of slag that may be a result of the brick firing (7 glass and 1 metal slag). Architectural objects were 8 cut nails and 1 fastener. Kitchen-related artifacts include a domestic gray stoneware sherd, 38 machine-made and 10 unidentified container glass fragments, 5 pieces of oyster shell, and 1 piece of bone. Miscellaneous items were 4 pieces of charcoal, 1 fragment of coal ash, and 14 pieces of unidentified metal. Metal artifacts encountered during the metal detector survey include 7 activity items (2 possible wedges, a possible tang tool, 2 possible cultivator parts, 1 chain link, a possible draw knife fragment), 3 architectural objects (2 cut nails & a hand wrought spike), a single kitchen item (a possible spider pan part), and 18 miscellaneous metal fragments (mostly flat iron pieces).
Brick clamps are difficult to date unless they are located in the vicinity of the structure built from the clamp’s brick. The activities associated with brickmaking did not include much use of datable artifacts. The Homeland Brick Clamp is no different. The only artifacts in association with the clamp that may have datable attributes are several melted bottle glass fragments from the same vessel and the aforementioned brick ogee. One of the glass fragments contained a hand-tooled applied string ring bottle finish. This hand-tooled finish is likely an 18th century form. Archeomagnetic dating was undertaken at the clamp in an effort to determine the age of the site. Brick clamps are excellent candidates for archeomagnetic dating because the bricks and immediately adjacent soil matrix are subjected to intense heat which fixes the magnetic field in these materials. The fixed magnetic field is then compared to the natural variation in the earth’s magnetic field to arrive at a date range. Eight samples were collected from Clamp 1 using standard archeometric procedures and prepared for analysis. The archeomagnetic date determined for the firing at the site ranges from 1665-1745 at the 5% probability level. The possible date range extends from 1745 to 1800 but at a less than 5% probability.
In addition to the archeomagnetic dating, detailed analysis was made of the bricks encountered at 18CH664. Among the most important findings was the discovery that the 18CH664 bricks and those from the Old Fields Chapel are compositionally different and could not have come from the same clamp. Thus, the date of the clamp, and the structure with which it was associated remains elusive. The archeomagnetic date and glass bottle fragments suggest that the clamps date to Gabriel Moran’s or, his son, Andrew’s tenure on the property. But lacking historic descriptions of houses or other structures that would have provided sufficient “demand” for the clamps, it is unknown why the clamps were built. Possibly the clamps were used merely for supplying bricks for the construction of various chimneys at “Four Brothers”. The ogee-shaped brick may have simply been a sample made as a selling point by an itinerant brickmaker or maybe they were made for a specialized function such as a burial vault.
Although the historic context of the clamp is not known and the age of the site is tenuous, the technological attributes recorded on the two clamps provide significant information on brick clamps, and the investigations recorded important attributes that will further any future brick clamp investigations. Both clamps were in an excellent state of preservation and provided insight into the brick-making process. However, the site today has been severely impacted by construction of MD Route 5 and, consequently, the site has no additional research value.
|
