Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CH728 Horse Farm No. 10
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Horse Farm No. 10, or Site 18CH728, is the archeological remains associated with a razed 19th (and possibly early 20th) century cabin. The site is situated on a narrow ridge between Shaws Branch and the poorly-drained marshlands at the head of Cuckold Creek, on Swan Point Neck. Vegetation at the site is a mixed mature forest. Soils at the site are Lenni and Quindocqua loams, as well as Dodon fine sandy loams.
The history of ownership of the land containing 18CH728 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 18CH728 appears to fall within the 183 acre parcel listed as “Tract 2” in the 1755 plat, which was devised to Mary Hoskins Boarman and Richard Boarman and referred to as “Bateman’s”. Within short order, the land was acquired by John Lancaster, the husband of Elizabeth Neale (Raphael’s eldest daughter). According to deed records, John Lancaster, in his later years, purchased or inherited other Wollaston Manor properties in addition to the original 183 acres (1755 Tract 6) he received in the division of property stipulated in Raphael Neale’s will.
The 1755 partition map shows structures on some of the individual parcels, including one on Tract 2. The drawing depicted on Tract 2 may be either a house under construction or a house in disrepair because it is drawn without a roof. The main manor house depicted in the 1755 plat appears to be located on Tract 6, the parcel devised to John and Elizabeth Lancaster.
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”.
Henry Hammersly, along with his wife Mary, made a series of transactions with John Lancaster in 1783 that resulted in the acquisition of 400 acres, including the site area. 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”. This land would have contained the “Bateman’s” tract as well as portions of Tract 1 (also owned by Lancaster) and Tract 3 owned by Thomas Taney and called “Shaws”.
Henry Hammersly left the property to his daughter Eleanor. Joseph Wills purchased 400 acres from Eleanor Matthews in 1857, which was described as, “all that farm willed to her by her father Henry Hammersly”. Joseph Wills was noted in the 1860 census as owning property valued at $5,000. His household consisted of himself, his wife, and five children. He was a farmer by occupation. The agricultural record indicated that he had 120 improved and 80 unimproved acres on which he produced 8,000 pounds of tobacco and 1,295 bushels of wheat and other small produce. He, along with most other residents of the area, who engaged in farming at that time, was a slave holder. He had about 17 slaves and 2 slave houses in 1860.
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.
Joseph and Elizabeth Wills held the portion of the land containing 18CH728 until 1874 when it was transferred to James, Rose, and John Wills. Joseph Wills died in 1880 in “Cobb Neck at Potomac View” of pneumonia at the age of 63. John Wills died on November 16th, 1884 “at his Residence Potomac View in Cobb Neck at the age of 23”. What befell Rose Wills is unknown. A 1908 map by the Maryland Shell Fish Commission shows several structures at the possible location of the Wills’ Farm, thought to be associated with the late archeological component identified at 18CH724 (see synopsis report), as well as a structure along the earlier route of a driveway at the probable location of Site 18CH728. In 1916, James A. Wills and his wife (Nannie Wills) sold 153 acres, then known as Woodland Point, to Robert Crain (who was in the process of purchasing most of the original Wollaston Manor property.
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 18CH728 was initially identified during a reconnaissance survey carried out in April of 2004. The investigation was conducted in anticipation of a request made by the Maryland Historical Trust, in connection with the application for a wetland permit through the US Army Corp of Engineers and the Maryland Department of the Environment. That permit would be required prior to subdivision and the construction of new housing stock on the property.
The Phase I fieldwork was initiated with a pedestrian survey or walk-over followed by shovel testing and controlled surface collection. Upon completing the walk-over, the study area was dissected into ten testable segments (labeled A-J). The shovel testing interval varied between 7.62 m (25 ft), 15.24 m (50 ft), and 61 m (200 ft) increments based on archeological potential and whether surface collection procedures were employed in a particular segment. The grid system overlying the study area was composed of 832 shovel test locations. Surface collection was conducted on three large fields plowed just prior to the beginning of the fieldwork. Upon completing the work, 10 standing structures and 6 possible buried cultural features were identified, and over 1,800 artifacts were recovered. Based on the distribution of these cultural resources, ten archeological sites were defined within the study area. None of the ten standing structures were thought to be significant architectural resources. After giving consideration to National Register Criteria, it was determined that only Sites 18CH724 (see synopsis report) and 18CH728 were potential significant resources.
During the Phase I survey, 18CH728 was defined by a possible cellar feature, 19 shovel test pits with artifact recoveries, and two surface artifact-collection areas. Based on this distribution of cultural materials, Site 18CH728 was estimated to have a horizontal dimension of 61 X 122 meters (200 X 400 ft). In total, 92 artifacts were collected from this site area. The recovery consisted of the following material types: lamp glass, miscellaneous hardware, 2 wrought nails, porcelain, 2 mulberry transfer-print whiteware sherds, hand-painted whiteware sherds, 3 hand-painted ironstone sherds, 1 black-glazed reware sherd, unglazed redware, 1 white salt-glazed stoneware sherd, other miscellaneous stoneware, olive container glass, manganese-tinted bottle glass, oyster shell, 1 shotgun shell cap, and miscellaneous metal. With the exception of the enumerated materials listed here, all other artifacts from the Phase I were cataloged as “miscellaneous objects” in the table above. The overlying stratigraphy was composed of one or two organic strata overlying subsoil. With the exception of those soils around the possible cellar hole, the upper strata were thought to be old plowzone soils. The artifact recovery was confined to the upper organic strata partially classified as plowzone soils.
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 18CH728. 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, 126 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, 6 test units of varying size were excavated. Three of the units were 91 X 91 cm (3 X 3 ft) in extent, one was 61 X 122 cm (2 X 4 ft), one was 61 X 152 cm (2 X 5 ft), and one was 61 X 61 cm (2 X 2 ft). Additionally, for the purpose of judgmental exploration or delineation of features, three trenches 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 18CH728 it was concluded that 2 cultural features had been identified. These consisted of a 20th century well pump hole with piping (Feature 1) and a brick pile interpreted to be a chimney fall (Feature 2). Besides the chimney fall, no other structural evidence of a house was identified within 18CH728. Feature 2 was located on a slightly raised area in the center of the site. Shovel testing indicated that soils in this area were shallow and that no cellar hole or foundation remnants were present.
Sixty-seven shovel tests and all 6 test units produced positive artifact recoveries with 18CH728. Additionally, cultural materials were also recovered from surface collection and manual trenching at the site. A resulting artifact assemblage of 1,375 items was obtained by the various retrieval means. Only one prehistoric object was encountered (counted as an unidentified lithic object).
The remainder of the Phase II assemblage included 43 activity items (a ceramic marble, 7 pieces of lamp glass, 29 miscellaneous hardware objects, 1 horseshoe, 4 brass harmonic parts, and a graphite pencil), 377 architectural artifacts (73 pieces of brick, 27 pieces of mortar, 6 slate fragments, 43 pieces of window glass, 2 concrete pipe fragments, a ceramic tile, 4 screws, 131 cut nails, 34 wire nails, 55 unidentified nails, and 1 other item), 24 clothing objects (19 buttons, an iron wire buckle, a metal eyelet, and 3 snaps), 809 kitchen-related artifacts (161 ceramic sherds, 494 container glass fragments, 11 table glass fragments, 23 animal bones, and 120 pieces of shell), 15 personal items (a brass bead, a glass bead, 8 porcelain figurine fragments, 4 mirror fragments, and a leather watchband), 1 stoneware tobacco pipe, 5 arms object (all brass shotgun shell caps), and 100 miscellaneous objects (27 unidentified glass, 26 iron, 2 lead, 1 unidentified metal, 1 piece of slate, 1 rubber object, 5 pieces of charcoal, 4 pieces of coal, 4 pieces of historic fire-cracked rock, and 29 unidentified objects). The ceramic assemblage from the site included 7 miscellaneous earthenware, 26 ironstone, 82 whiteware, 1 redware, 4 yelloware, 19 porcelain, and 22 miscellaneous stoneware sherds.
Only the two cultural features were discovered during excavations at 18CH728: a 20th century well pump hole with associated pipe and an disarticulated chimney fall. After examining the material recovery, it was concluded that the site had a rural domestic function and a mid to late 19th through early 20th century temporal affiliation. The site occupants were thought to have a low socio-economic status based on an examination of the faunal remains recovered. The site appeared to have been occupied by field hands associated with the adjacent Lancaster Farm. The material record at the site unfortunately was not thought likely to provide any additional research value. The overlying stratigraphy had questionable integrity. As such, the old shallow yard soils were impacted by an overgrown setting and bioturbation, and the site area was absent of buried artifact deposits. The historic landscape was in poor condition and absent of intact architectural features. The site is not a significant cultural resource.
|
