Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18CV482 CCNPP Site 9
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18CV482, also known as CCNPP Site 9 or GAI Site 9, is a late 19th century domestic site located on the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Facility in Calvert County, Maryland. The site occupies a wooded ridge above a tributary of Goldstein Branch and is bounded by modern roads and an artificial wetland created during the construction of the power plant. The site measures roughly 45 X 55 meters and is bisected by an old (NW-S trending) logging road. Soils at the site are Downer loamy sands and Woodstown sandy loams.
The site was first investigated archeologically in late 2006 during a Phase Ib investigation of the property. The Phase Ib study was conducted because of the proposed expansion of the nuclear facilities at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The project impact area included approximately 683 acres of former BG&E property south and west of the existing nuclear facilities. A new nuclear power generating facility would be constructed, along with ancillary facilities, temporary construction laydowns, and wetland and stream mitigation. As a result, Phase I survey was carried out throughout the 683 acre parcel, with many areas progressing to Phase Ib or Phase II levels of investigation.
Phase Ib investigations at 18CV482 consisted of systematic 15 m interval shovel testing (STPs), followed by radial STPs around positive finds and close-interval shovel testing within an apparent cluster of historic artifacts. Both radial and close-interval STPs were spaced 5 m apart. STPs measured 50 cm in diameter and were hand-excavated in natural strata to at least 10 cm into the subsoil and 10 cm below the deepest point of artifact recovery. Excavated soils were screened through hardware mesh and field notes were recorded on standardized forms. A total of 56 STPs were excavated within the site, with 14 positive STPs producing 64 historic artifacts.
Shovel tests revealed an A-B or Ao-A-B soil horizon sequence, with artifacts recovered from the A horizon. No cultural features were identified. Phase Ib survey defined site dimensions of 45 X 30 meters.
The artifacts assemblage is discussed in combination with the Phase II artifacts below, but generally, diagnostics pointed to a mid 19th to early 20th century date for the site. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was recommended, which was subsequently carried out in 2007.
As part of the Phase II study, archival background research was conducted. Sites 18CV480 and 18CV482 (see associated synopsis report) are located within the same parcel of land in the nuclear plant expansions project area. Their ownership histories are identical from the early 20th century on. But prior to that, the parcel was two separate tracts: Locust Grove (also known as The Home Place) and the Wilson Farm. The boundaries between these two farms have disappeared from the landscape over time and are not illustrated in court records. Furthermore, the family that purchased and combined the two parcels in the early 20th century (the Goldsteins) also purchased other parcels which they subsumed into a single farm. Assigning each site singularly to either farm would be a dubious assertion at best. The two parcels are described jointly below.
Both tracts are believed to have originally been part of a large plantation/estate owned by the Somervell family. The Locust Grove tract was certainly part of the Somervell property, but the Wilson Farm is less certain. Joseph A Wilson acquired his farm by a deed that has been lost due to a fire in the Calvert County courthouse that destroyed many early records. However, Wilson was involved in the settlement of the Somervell estate and there is other historical evidence that suggests some familial connection between some of the Wilsons and the Somervells.
The Somervells had been in the area since the early 18th century and held a substantial estate. The 1850 Census identifies Alexander Somervell as a 44 year-old white male farmer, holding $20,000 worth of real estate, with a wife and 5 children. Furthermore, the Slave Schedule identified Alexander Somervell as the owner of 56 slaves. Historic mapping from 1862 identifies structures in the general vicinity of the site during the Somervell’s period of ownership, but no map shows a house in the precise location of Site 18CV482. The 1862 map could just as easily represent 18CV480. The Locust Grove tract was passed from Alexander Somervell to his son Charles, and then to his wife Margaret. Again, the disposition of the tract that became known as the “Wilson Farm” is less certain.
At the death of Margaret E. Somervell, Locust Grove was transferred at private sale to a Willis G. Dowell by Joseph A. Wilson (an attorney in Prince George’s County), his son Joseph S. Wilson (the adjoining landowner), and the other executors of Margaret Somervell’s estate. The ownership of Locust Grove is in question between 1883 (when Dowell acquired it) and 1891, when Joseph S. Wilson, acting as a trustee for the sale, oversaw the sale of the parcel to a Morris C. Menghis. The property would then be sold to Joseph S. Wilson in February of 1892, who then sold it to James Locks and his wife July 28th, 1892. Joseph S. Wilson died in 1904.
The Locks would eventually sell most of the property (less two small lots) to a John W. Breeden on March 8, 1915. Breeden would, in turn, sell the property to Frederick C.H. Wessel in 1920. Wessel sold the tract to Goodman Goldstein in October of 1925, reuniting the tract with the Wilson Farm and other properties (much of which came out of the old Somervell estate).
Again, the Wilson Farm tract was acquired by a deed that was lost in the Calvert County courthouse fire. Records in a later equity case, however, record the transfer. Joseph A. Wilson (Joseph S.’ father) acquired the property from other members of the Wilson family and from individuals with the surname Dare; a name that provides a tenuous link between Wilson and the Somervells. Joseph A. Wilson died in 1888 and willed the property to his wife, Sarah. The date of her death is not recorded, but trustees for the sale of the farm took out advertisements in the Calvert Gazette and Calvert Journal. According to these advertisements, the farm featured “about ½ mile of waterfront, with a natural oyster bar opposite the dwellings, where most delicious oysters grow. The farm is improved by a large dwelling, two tobacco barns, and other buildings. The land is rolling, with some very productive bottom land. The location of the dwelling is ideal and would make a most delightful summer home”. Nonetheless, it appears that Joseph S. Wilson eventually acquired the property and may have lived there for a period. He is clearly a resident of Prince George’s County at other times as well. The “summer house” reference in the advertisement above may be telling.
Joseph S. Wilson died in 1904 and the property apparently passed to his brother Augustus S. Wilson. Augustus was apparently in the midst of financial difficulties at the time. In 1904, he defaulted on a mortgage and, thus, his creditors became party to a suit over the estate of Joseph A. Wilson. The ultimate outcome appears to have been the sale of the Wilson Farm tract in 1916 by a Thomas Van Claggett, John B. Gray, and Arthur Dowell, who had been appointed as trustees of the sale. The tract was sold to Goodman Goldstein who, again, reunited it with Locust Grove. The Goldstein Family would eventually sell the property to BG&E in 1967.
Phase II field investigations began with the excavation of 131 STPs at 4.6 meter (15 ft) intervals. STP excavation methods were the same as those utilized during the Phase Ib study. Based on Phase II STP results, site dimensions were expanded to 45 X 55 meters. Fifty-nine positive STPs produced a total of 229 artifacts, all but 5 STPs yielding a low density of artifacts (<10 per STP). The distribution of the artifacts revealed two low-density artifact clusters. Cluster 1 was situated on the southwest side of the old logging road, and Cluster 2 was northeast from the road to the edge of the ridgetop.
The STP work was followed by the excavation of 11 judgmentally placed test units. The STP artifact distributions were used to determine test unit locations. The test units varied in size (30 X 90 cm up to 1.5 X 1.5 m), but a total of 14 square meters (151 square feet) was opened up. Test units were typically hand-excavated by arbitrary 10 cm levels within natural strata to a minimum depth of 9.1 cm (.3 ft) into the B horizon and 9.1 cm below the last recovered artifact. Excavated soils were screened through hardware cloth and recovered artifacts were placed in bags labeled with the appropriate provenience information. Select diagnostic artifacts were point provenienced and bagged separately. Relevant data was recorded on standardized forms and measured profiles and photographs of one wall were used to document completed units in profile. Potential cultural features exposed during test unit excavations were troweled clean to clearly determine boundaries. Plan views and photographs were then taken before cross-sectioning of the feature for profiling. A portion (generally at least 3 liters) of the fill was collected as a flotation sample. The remainder of the feature fill was screened through hardware cloth. A measured drawing of the feature profile was then drawn before excavating and screening the remaining features fill. For large or linear features, only a portion of the feature was exposed and sampled during Phase II testing.
Excavations identified 4 cultural features: two plow scars, a sheet midden near the edge of the ridgetop, and the corner of a dry-laid stone foundation. But the site soils were largely disturbed (primarily by erosion brought on by plowing). Soil profiles consisted of an organic layer (Ao horizon) over subsoil (BE or Bt horizon). The road bed within the site appears to have been constructed with heavy machinery, removing most of the historic-era A horizon. A rut parallel to the road also disturbed the site. One of the only exceptions to the general disturbance was in the area of the sheet midden at the north end of the site. The sheet midden was organically rich with shell and 19th century artifacts covered by duff.
Phase Ib and Phase II investigations produced a combined assemblage of 6,225 artifacts including 149 activity items, 2,874 architectural artifacts, 2 arms objects (ammunition), 23 clothing items (20 clothing fasteners, 2 shoe parts, and 1 other clothing-related item), 3,119 kitchen-related artifacts, 13 personal artifacts (1 comb object and 12 copper jewelry pieces), 3 tobacco-related items (a white ball clay pipe fragment, a stoneware pipe fragment, and 1 other smoking-related item), and 42 unidentified/indeterminate objects. The activity items were 55 pieces of lighting glass, 68 cans/storage container fragments, 23 machine parts, and 3 pieces of miscellaneous hardware. The architectural objects included 1,545 pieces of brick and block, 420 fragments of mortar/cement, 640 pieces of window glass, 2 pieces of wood, 2 roofing material fragments, 3 door parts, and 262 nails/spikes (193 cut, 17 wire). Kitchen-related artifacts were 530 ceramic sherds, 31 decorative table glass fragments, 1 tumbler/stemware fragment, 1 glass lid liner, 905 bottle/jar glass fragments, 2 bones, and 1,649 shell fragments. Identifiable ceramic sherds include 1 pearlware sherd, 428 whiteware sherds, and 1 ironstone sherd. These combined with other diagnostic materials suggest a mean date for the site of 1880.
Site 18CV482 is a late 19th century domestic habitation site located on a wooded ridge above a tributary of Goldstein Branch. The site measures 46 X 55 meters. Two relevant cultural features, a sheet midden and a dry-laid stone foundation, were encountered along with numerous late 19th century artifacts artifacts. No builder’s trench was identified for the stone foundation. Much of the site was disturbed by plowing. Some time afterward, mechanical earth-moving activities further disturbed portions of the site, including the area around the former structure with the stone foundation. The site lacks integrity and does not possess potential to address important questions related to the history of this region. The site should not be considered a significant archeological resource.
|
