Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CV279 Compton
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Compton site (18CV279), also known as the Patuxent Point II site), is the apparent remnants of a middle to late 17th century homelot just north of Solomons Island in Calvert County, Maryland. The site was the core of a frontier tobacco plantation, with traces of at least 5 earthfast structures present and post and rail fencing in the yard areas. A Woodland campsite is also present on site. When the site was first discovered, it was situated on the eastern bank of the Patuxent River on a slight rise in an agricultural field just south of the confluence of the river and Hungerford Creek. The Modern environment is much altered by housing development and the related infrastructure. Soils in the site area are Piccowaxen loams.
The site was first identified during a Phase I survey carried out during the summer of 1987. Beginning in late 1986, archeologists had begun conducting field research in the vicinity for the proposed Patuxent Point Subdivision, a housing development. These surveys were funded by the developer in anticipation of the passing of a Calvert county ordinance requiring such surveys prior to high density development in areas assessed to have a high potential for containing significant archeological resources. Work in late 1986 and early 1987 was successful in locating several archeological resources and the summer 1987 research was an attempt at more systematic survey and was combined with Phase II testing at one nearby site where significant materials had already been identified (18CV272).
In the vicinity of 18CV279, the summer 1987 work entailed the plowing of eight 6.1 m (20 ft) strips across the agricultural field from east to west. The strips were separated by unplowed areas 15.24-30.48 meters (50-100 ft). Site 18CV279 was located in the southern portion of the field, slightly north of the treeline at the edge of the field. Plowed strips were sub-divided into 6.1 m collection squares from which all visible cultural material was collected and bagged. Based on the dense concentration of artifacts and oyster shell plowed up, three shovel test pits were excavated. These STPs were roughly 30.5 cm (12 in) square and one impacted what appeared to be a buried shell-filled historic pit. Dark, midden-like soils were also noted in an unplowed but exposed portion of the site.
Artifacts recovered during the Phase I project included 32 architectural artifacts, 28 kitchen-related artifacts, and 21 tobacco-related artifacts. The architectural artifacts were 15 pieces of brick, 4 wrought nails, and 13 unidentified nails. Kitchen-related artifacts were 2 tin-enameled Delftware sherds, 4 salt-glazed stoneware sherds (not refined), 18 redware sherds, 3 blown bottle fragments and 1 other bottle shard. The tobacco-related objects were all pipe fragments (12 kaolin stems, 3 kaolin bowls, 1 kaolin bowl/stem juncture, a roulette rim kaolin pipe, an incised redware bowl, 2 buff earthenware bowls, and an unidentified stem). Diagnostic materials pointed to a late 17th century date for the site. Based on these findings the location was recommended for further subsurface testing.
A combined Phase II/III testing/data recovery project was carried out at 18CV279 during the summer of 1988. This investigation was designed to retrieve information concerning the changes in building organization, use of space, and subsistence practices that were predicted to have left physical evidence at Compton during its occupation in the last half of the 17th century as Maryland was transformed from a frontier to an established colony. Accordingly, archival research and field sampling of the plowzone middens (the shell and artifact concentrations) were initiated. These efforts soon indicated that the occupation of the site was relatively brief and thus could not be expected to exhibit significant changes in the lifestyles of the inhabitants. Research instead focused on thoroughly documenting this “snapshot” in time.
Archival research revealed that the site was originally situated on the 75 acre Compton Patent, which was surveyed in 1651. By 1684 the Compton Patent had been incorporated into larger holdings owned by John Ashcomb (the owner of the large Point Patience plantation to the south – see synopsis report for 18CV316 and 18CV362). Ishmael Wright, the patentee, assigned his rights to an Antoine LeCompte, who is believed to have returned them to Wright after 1658. The timing of the survey (1651) corresponds to surveys of adjacent patents, including that of John Ashcomb. The various patentees probably migrated at the same time, and all of them soon acquired additional lands elsewhere in the colony (typically in return for importing family members and servants). The earliest rent roll merely states that the freehold had been surveyed for Ishmael Wright and patented by LeCompte. LeCompte took up land in Dorchester County in the late 1650s where he later became a Justice of the Peace in 1669. It is therefore possible that LeCompte was resident at Compton in the 1650s and 1660s.
By 1684, John Ashcomb, who in addition to owning Point Patience had several other properties in St. Marys, Calvert, and Dorchester Counties, acquired the Compton Patent. He died, leaving one-half interest in Compton to his eldest son Charles and the other half to his youngest son Samuel. He left Point Patience to his second son Nathaniel. Samuel and Nathaniel died in 1686 and 1687 respectively, leaving their property to their eldest brother Charles, who appears to have owned all of his father’s land by the time he died in 1702. Charles did not live at the site, but appears to have managed the land from his home in St. Mary’s county.
Based on the archival research, it is clear that the site could not have been occupied prior to 1651. It would appear that either Wright or Lecompte could have occupied Site 18CV279. LeCompte, however, would have had to have been in residence prior to the late 1660s when he appears to have moved to Dorchester County. Assigning an end date to occupation of the site is more difficult. It is possible that the site was abandoned when it was incorporated into John Ashcomb’s holding prior to 1684. On the other hand, it is possible that neither LeCompte nor Wright occupied the patent, and Ashcomb may have seated the first tenant at the site (however, the dating of the artifacts and the complexity of the site would tend to argue against this interpretation – see below).
Fieldwork in 1988 began with examination of the plowzone. A planned systematic surface collection of the site was not executed. Even though the site soils had been overturned to a depth of about 10 cm (4 in), the powdery consistency of the soil brought on by extreme drought conditions made surface visibility extremely poor. Plowzone excavation was instead initiated with the establishment of a grid of 3.05 m (10 ft) squares which enclosed the site in a 45.72 m (150 ft) square area. The grid was tied to a baseline located south of the site along a treeline which was protected from construction activities. A total of 162 grid squares were chosen for investigation, each with a 76.2 X 76.2 cm (2.5 X 2.5 ft) test unit within the 3.05 m grid square. Each unit was excavated to subsoil and all soils were screened through hardware cloth. Those squares which formed intersecting east-west and north-south lines through the estimated center of the site (where the topography suggested the dwelling was located) were excavated first to define the edges of the occupation area where artifact counts diminished. The field quantification of artifacts, oyster shells, and bones from each unit was used to determine where to place additional 76.2 cm test units. These excavations clearly revealed the presence of 2 surface middens. Ultimately, around 6.25% of the entire site and 12.5% of the midden area was sampled in this way.
Following the excavation of the 162 units, soil samples were recovered from the walls of 57 excavated units in a systematic pattern designed to encompass the full site area. This was done to assist in the identification of activity areas based upon the presence of varying concentrations of soil chemicals across the site. The major overall finding of this sampling was that phosphate was a clear indicator of the “core” area of occupation. Cultural features revealed in the natural soil levels by test units, as well as the overall spread of artifacts served as a guide for the mechanical stripping of topsoil to reveal the plan of the site. A bulldozer removed the bulk of the soils, down to subsoil, with flat-shovels and trowels used to clean up the subsoil interface and expose features. The site was then mapped and the site grid re-established at the subsoil level. The shovel/trowel scraping and mapping had to actually be undertaken twice, due to inclement weather.
The eastern halves of exposed refuse pit features were then excavated by natural levels and profiled to document the sequence of their filling and to determine each feature’s original function. Once the stratigraphy had been recorded, the remaining portions of the deposits were screened by natural levels and a flotation sample was removed from every major layer. Concurrent with this excavation of features, the architectural and fence postholes/molds were also mapped. However, priority was given to the full excavation of deposits. A limited sample of the structural and fence postholes/postmolds was investigated since the site plan had already been recorded and there were no chronological questions that needed to be explored.
All cultural features were contained within an area 42.67 m (140 ft) north-south by 36.58 m (120 ft) east-west. The site plan consists of a central building concentration ringed by refuse deposits. The building encompassed a 10.67 m (35 ft) radius around a point near the center of the grid, indicating that the plowzone sample clearly covered the principal buildings as well as all of the surrounding yards. The plowzone data, which include artifact densities and the surface oyster shell scatter, when combined with the underlying site plan strongly suggest that the entire occupation area was examined. While one fence line was discovered to run at least 46.33 m (152 ft) east-west through the site, and probably post-dated the domestic occupation of the property, all major elements of the homelot were uncovered.
The architectural elements at the site consist of a house (Structure 1) and 4 outbuildings (Structures 2-5). The structures were interpreted to represent 2 probable barns, a meat house, and a granary based on their size, presence/absence of enclosures, and the soil chemical analysis (the absence of significant phosphate suggesting that Structure 5 served as a granary rather than an animal pen). A series of post impressions delineate an early animal pen (Fence 1), a later animal enclosure (Fence 2), and a fence line (Fence 3) which marks the perimeter of a later field but post-dates the domestic occupation. There are also two discrete cooking pits (Features 2 and 12), three pits related to the preparation of mortar near a former spring (Features 13, 14, and 18), and an isolated burned area (Feature 26). Twelve pits (Features 3, 5-9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, & 21) were apparently excavated for clay and later used for refuse disposal.
Historic Artifacts encountered included 2 activity items, 967 architectural artifacts, 62 clothing items, 3 furniture objects, 8,093 kitchen-related artifacts, 4 personal objects, 2,221 pipe fragments (European, local, and Indian made), 29 arms objects, and 472 miscellaneous items. The activity items were a gold-leaf covered/washed brass spur and a horse bone. Architectural artifacts included 3 Dutch-made yellow bricks, 3 pieces of straw-tempered daub, 2 pieces of shell-tempered mortar, at least 2 pieces of window glass, 7 lead window came fragments, 14 hand-wrought rose-head nails, 927 unidentified nails, 2 stock locks, a latch lock bar, a sliding bolt, and 5 pieces of miscellaneous hardware. Clothing remains consist of 6 hooks and eyes (5 iron, 1 copper alloy), a length of decorative metal mesh, 52 copper alloy straight pins, a copper alloy thimble, and 2 pairs of iron scissors. The furniture items were a brass upholstery tack and 2 pieces of lock hardware from a storage chest. The kitchen-related assemblage consisted of 25 Italian slipware sherds, 5 Iberian sherds, 7 buff-bodied slipware sherds, 51 Bergen Op Zoom sherds, 12 Dutch slip trailed sherds, 398 Dutch coarse earthenware sherds, 357 North Devon sherds (154 gravel-free, 187 gravelly, 16 slipped), 187 tin-glazed sherds (122 faience & 65 Majolica), 9 Morgan Jones ware, 842 redware, 155 other earthenware, 4 Bellarmine, 22 Rhenish stoneware, 36 German stoneware, 470 unidentified ceramic sherds, 26 glass fragments (3 tableware, 1 wine bottle, 22 case bottle fragments), 2 iron knife blade fragments, 2 bone knife handles, and at least 5,483 faunal remains (3 chicken bones, 265 unidentified bird bones, 214 cow bones, 117 pig bones, 23 sheep/goat bones, 22 deer bones, 4 opossum bones, 1 raccoon bone, 1,864 unidentified mammal bones, 33 turtle bones, 6 unidentified reptile bones, 3 drum bones, 123 sheepshead bones, 3 yellow perch bones, 1,991 unidentified fish bones, 583 animal bones, 28 crab shells, and a minimal estimate of 200 oyster shells). The personal items were a red glass bead, a blue and white Millefiori glass bead, a fine bone-toothed comb, and a cowrie shell. Arms objects were at least 10 gunflints and associated shatter, at least 2 pieces of lead sprue, an unfired musket ball, 15 pieces of lead shot, and a wheel-lock musket trigger guard. The miscellaneous objects were 107 pieces of un-analyzed glass, 339 pieces of “flint and chert”, 3 rodent bones, and 23 mole bones.
In addition to the artifacts described above, floral materials were recovered through excavation and also through flotation analysis. No quantitative analysis is provided in the full site report, so no ethnobotanical profile has been prepared for 18CV279. However, identified plants included peach, cherry, persimmon, raspberry, pin cherry, corn, and sorghum.
Four prehistoric cultural features were also discovered. They consist of three hearths (Features 4, 15, and 22) and a single human burial (Feature 1). While 2 of the hearths are within 3 meters of each other, the third hearth and grave are isolated in other portions of the site. The human burial consisted of a dark rectilinear stain containing the upper portion of a human skull. The only artifacts recovered in the feature fill were 2 small, non-diagnostic prehistoric sherds tempered with coarse crushed quartz (and possibly leached out shell in one case). This, coupled with the grave fill being impacted by a historic posthole/mold (part of Structure 4), suggests that the feature was prehistoric in origin.
The only diagnostic prehistoric materials encountered at the site were prehistoric ceramics. These were found predominantly in historic features or topsoil deposits. Thus, they are not in their original contexts. The assemblage consisted of 1 quartz biface, 25 quartz flakes, a modified quartz cobble, 65 other un-described lithics, 63 pieces of fire-cracked rock, 1 Mockley sherd, 1 Rappahannock sherd, 36 Potomac Creek sherds (5 rims) from a mending vessel, and 20 non-diagnostic sherds. The mending Potomac Creek sherds were recovered from historic refuse pit Feature 3, which was filled with wood ash and small fragments of daub from the chimney. It was posited by the field researchers that the Potomac Creek vessel could have actually been used in the fireplace by the inhabitants of the Compton plantation and after breaking, the sherds were swept up and disposed of in the refuse pit. This is an intriguing possibility to consider for a frontier dwelling during this period of early contact between European colonists and Native Americans.
A sample of wood charcoal from Feature 15, one of the prehistoric hearths, was submitted for radiocarbon analysis. It yielded an uncalibrated date of 850 ± 70 radiocarbon years before present. When calibrated, this corresponds to a calendrical date of AD 1036-1273 with the 2 sigma confidence interval. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered in this feature which would corroborate the dating. However, the radiocarbon date supports the general “Woodland” affiliation of the prehistoric component and fits in well with the diagnostic ceramic types recovered.
The Compton Site collection has the potential to yield important information about 17th century plantation life in the rural Chesapeake. Although the Compton Site resembles a typical tobacco plantation in many ways, the site’s architecture and artifact assemblage suggest the variability that is suspected to characterize early colonial culture. The Compton collection can still be used to address questions of adaptation, household organization and change through time (when compared to other sites), trade, standards of living, and other issues concerning colonial Chesapeake culture. The site itself, however, no longer has any potential for field research. It was largely destroyed during construction of the Patuxent Point subdivision. Consequently, 18CV279 should no longer be considered a significant resource.
|
