Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18HO266 Haslup/Burns House
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
The Haslup/Burns House Site (18HO266) was thought to be the archeological remains of a mid 19th to mid 20th century farmstead east of Savage in Howard County. A minor prehistoric component is also present. The site is situated on a sloping ridgetop west of an unnamed tributary of the Little Patuxent River. The surrounding landscape is heavily altered due to highway-related construction. Soils at the site are primarily Sassafras gravelly loams.
The site is associated historically with the Haslup family. The Haslups acquired a significant amount of property in Anne Arundel and Howard Counties in the 19th century. The earliest record of the family acquiring land in the vicinity of 18HO266 dates to 1796, when William Haslup purchased a portion of a large colonial tract called “Food Plenty”, located along what is today US Route 1 in the town of Savage. Over the next quarter-century, the Haslups established a strong foothold in the Savage area, acquiring additional properties from a number of large tracts, including “White’s Fortune”, “Worthington’s Plains”, “Additions to Mirey Swamp”, “Rich Neck”, and “Nelson’s Walk”. Some of this valuable real estate was sold off to commercial developers as the town of Savage began to emerge as a major manufacturing center. In 1827, for example, William Haslup sold a portion of “White’s Contrivance” to the Savage Manufacturing Company, and in 1834, William’s son, John, sold a portion of “Nelson’s Walk” to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. Although the Haslups were relatively active real estate participants in the Savage area during this time period, they managed to maintain a strong presence along US Route 1 throughout the 19th century.
Though the Haslup family owned the tract encompassing 18HO266 much earlier, the site itself was not occupied until the mid 19th century by Charles G. Haslup. Charles Haslup was the son of John Haslup and the grandson of William Haslup (see above). In 1839, John Haslup died intestate, in possession of 716 acres of land with a total value of $8,400. In 1843, this land was divided equally among his 7 heirs by court order. As one of these heirs, Charles G. Haslup and his wife inherited 120 acres of land, which included the site, and this tract was passed down through the Haslup family for several generations. It was subdivided among family members in the late 19th century and remained in the Haslup family until the site locale was purchased by the Maryland State Highway Administration in 1978.
Charles likely constructed a house on his property within several years of his inheritance, if not before. The Haslup Cemetery (18HO118), located approximately 130 meters southeast of the Haslup House Site, is suggestive of the potential time of occupation by the family. According to the extant grave markers on the site, Charles G. Haslup and his wife, Mary B. Haslup, were the eldest individuals who were buried within the cemetery. The birthdates etched on the remaining grave markers indicate that all other individuals who were buried in the cemetery were descendants, blood relatives, or affinal relations of Charles Haslup and his wife. The oldest grave marker within the cemetery is that of Charles’ daughter, Mary. It dates to 1851, suggesting that his residence was constructed and occupied before her death. The placement of the cemetery would suggest that this residence was nearby, and placement on the same or an adjacent knoll would be consistent with common practice.
The 1850 Federal Census indicates that Charles G. Haslup lived in the Howard District of Anne Arundel County, where he was Sherriff at the time. Also in the household were his wife (Mary), their daughters (Mary C., Susanna, Sarah G., Anne L., and Esther), and sons (Charles, John, and James), as well as Wesley and David Dayley, noted as male mulattos. The household also includes a single 16-year-old female slave. An 1860 map identifies two structures owned by “C.G. Haslup” in the vicinity of 18HO266 and two other structures belonging to the Haslup Heirs flanking Route 1 in Savage to the west.
The 1860 Federal Census lists the Charles G. Haslup household in the First District of Howard County. The death of his wife Mary resulted in a changed household. The listing of Eliza McGee and her two young daughters and infant son probably represent the addition of a housekeeper or older female relative to the household. In addition to the McGee family, the Charles G. Haslup household included Mary C. (28), Rebecca B. (26), Charles (24), John (22), Susannah (21), Sarah E. (20), Ann L (19), Henrietta H (17), James P. (15), Hester M. (listed in other sources as Esther, 12), and Martha H. (6). Charles Sr. is listed as a farmer of some considerable wealth, while his son, Charles, is listed as a coach smith, and John is listed as a merchant. At this time, Charles Haslup also owned five slaves (all but one young children). Given the ages involved, this may represent the unnamed 16-year-old girl noted in the 1850 Slave Schedule and her young children.
By 1870, most of the Haslup children had reached adulthood and moved on to start their own households. The 1870 Census indicates that the Charles G. Haslup household was reduced to six members: Charles Sr., Sarah and Ann (his adult daughters), James (his adult son), Samuel McGee (12), and Ruth Snell, noted as a 14-year-old mulatto domestic servant. Both Charles and James are listed as farmers, while Sarah is listed as “Keeping House”. An 1878 atlas, printed 2 years after Charles’ death, depicts two structures on opposite sides of what would become Annapolis Junction Road as being owned by “C. Haslup Hrs”. These appear to be the same as those indicated on the 1860 map.
After Charles’ death in 1876, it is assumed that James remained in residence on the property. The 1880 Census suggests that James Haslup may have delegated management of the farm. The household was reduced to three residents: James, his older sister Sarah, and his cousin John McDade (a surname seen on earlier maps as holding a farm to the southeast of the site). James is listed as a grocer, Sarah as keeping house, and John McDade as a farmer. In 1887, all 162.25 acres of the former Charles G. Haslup farm were transferred to James via purchase of the estate by his cousin John McDade and immediate resale to James. James apparently married that same year. A year later, James sold not quite 13 acres out of the family farm to his sister, Ann Louise Burns. In 1900, he sold an additional four acres to Ann, including a very thin strip to the west of the first parcel and a larger three acre parcel to the east of the 1888 parcel. These three parcels encompass the general vicinity surrounding 18HO266.
In 1896, the county tax assessment listing for Charles S. Burns, husband of Anne Louise (Haslup) Burns, indicates that the family had two properties in the district: a 2.5 acre property closer to Savage and the 13 acre property that includes 18HO266. James Haslup is listed as holding one property, 137 acres along US Route 1. Census data indicates that both families were well-established by 1900. James and his wife, Annie, had 3 children, ranging in age from 10 to 2 years, and continued to share their home with his older sister, Sarah. James Haslup is listed as a farmer, and his sister Sarah as a clerk. The Burns household included Charles S. and Ann Louise Burns, and their two children, Charles H. Burns and Bessie L. Burns. Charles Burns is also listed as a clerk, his son Charles H. Burns is a farmer, and his daughter Bessie as a school teacher.
Based on mid 19th century maps, when James acquired his father’s real estate, he acquired two houses. It is likely that he remained in one and sold the second to his sister, Ann Louise Burns, in 1888. Based on tax assessments, James appears to have retained the western structure (just outside Savage) and sold the eastern structure to his sister. In 1896, the Burns property included 13 acres valued at $325 (despite a 1900 date on the deed to the final 4 acres), and improvements valued at $650. James Haslup, in comparison, held 137 acres valued at $2,740, with improvements valued at $710. Tax assessments also indicate that Burns’ property improvements included a stable, which was subsequently improved in 1898, and suggest an older residence was present. The Burns assessment record also notes the construction of a “New Dwelling House” in May of 1908 valued at $1,600, an enormous sum relative to the previous assessment value. Given both the earlier assessment and the census data, it seems clear that there was a previous structure within the 13 acre Burns/Beall tract. It is not clear whether it was constructed on the same foundation as the subsequent 1908 structure.
No 1910 Census listing has been located for the Charles Burns family. Tax assessment records for the period between 1910 and 1917 indicate that Charles Burns continued to own both a small parcel outside Savage (now also improved) and the 13 acre parcel on the Savage and Annapolis Junction Road. The latter was valued at $520 for the land and $2,370 for improvements, reflecting the 1908 construction of the new house. Given the large financial investment the Burns family had made in the parcel in 1908, it seems possible that the census managed to miss the household, but it is also possible that during this period, the house was rented to tenants. Ann Louise Burns died in 1919, and by 1920 her husband Charles is found in census listings as part of the William E. Beall household of his daughter Bessie (Burns) Beall. It is not clear if both Charles and Ann Burns had moved into the Bealls’ Laurel residence prior to her death.
The next available tax assessment is the 1922-1927 tax assessment. In this assessment, the small parcel near Savage is listed under Charles Burns, but the 18HO266 parcel has been assessed under the estate of [A.] L.H. Burns. The assessment notes that the 13 acre parcel includes 8 tillable acres and 5 wooded acres, and that the house is assessed at $2,200 (a moderate depreciation from the ca. 1910 assessment), and the barn is assessed at $200. All other buildings together represent a further value of $175, but are not individually listed. It is very likely that during this period, the house was either in occasional use as a weekend or summer home or leased to a tenant, as the Bealls continued to live in Laurel, where William Beall was the owner of a general store. By 1930, Charles S. Burns had moved out of the Beall home, possibly to Baltimore. The Bealls had two children: Margaret (born ca. 1914) and John (born ca. 1917). Strangely, John does not appear in the 1920 Census, although he is listed on the 1930 Census as 13 years old.
In 1937, Charles S. Burns died. Later property deeds indicate that the parcel passed in full or in part to Charles Haslup Burns. Archival research found no formal deed of transfer from either Charles S. Burns or the Estate of Ann Louise Burns to their son, so it is assumed the property passed via will, possibly as a joint estate with his sister. No evidence was found during census research that would indicate that Charles Haslup Burns ever lived in the area or even in Howard County. In 1952, he was residing in Prince George’s County. As those tax records found suggest that at least part of the property was under crop (or had been under crop recently) it is assumed that the farmable property was rented out to a tenant farmer after Ann Louis Haslup’s death.
The 1940-1946 county tax assessments indicate that the 18HO266 property was still listed under the Estate as late as 1939, when it was described as on the Route 1 and Annapolis Junction Road near Savage, c/o Mrs. Bessie Burns Beall, or Laurel, MD with 13 acres (8 tilled, 5 wooded), a dwelling worth $3,000, a tenant house worth $75, a chicken house worth $75, a garage and store room worth $200, and a stable worth $200. The tenant house was likely a simple structure as its value is equivalent to that of a chicken house. Bessie Burns Beall and her brother, Charles, also held other properties in common in the area. In 1952, Charles Haslup Burns transferred the 18HO266 property to his sister Bessie.
During the 1940s and 1950s, the only evidence that the Beall family utilized the 18HO266 property comes from oral history of the property supplied by the Haslup family. Mr. Lee Haslup, son of the last Haslup owner (Mr. Allen Haslup), recalled that in the early 1950s his “Aunt Bessie” was living in the main house on the property, and that a second resident, an elderly African-American named Charlie, was living in another house on the property. This other house may be the tenant structure noted in the 1940-1946 county tax assessment. Charlie appears to have lived or worked on the property for at least 20 years, as Lee Haslup recalled him reminiscing that he has “hoed corn here with your father when he was about your age”. A second Haslup family story from Aunt Bessie, about Charlie’s brief dalliance with a young woman in his elder years, indicated that Charlie was born sometime in the late 1870s.
Lee Haslup also remembered a small, one-storey barn on the property during the 1950s, and that very little of the property (only about 3 acres) was in tillage, suggesting that during the last period of the Burns/Beall ownership, the property was no longer serving as an active farm. Bessie Beall died in 1959, and left the property to Allen Lee Haslup (the grandson of her brother, James P. Haslup). There is no information as to why she did not leave the property to her son or her daughter.
A structure in the same location as the Haslup/Burns House appears in the USGS 15-minute Laurel quadrangles of 1907, 1926, and 1949. The location of the Haslup/Burns House on these quadrangles is complemented by a series of aerial photographs taken in 1937, 1938, 1943, and 1952. Although the structure is difficult to locate in the 1930s aerials, it is clearly visible in both the 1943 and 1952 photographs. The structure is also evident in the 1957 USGS 7.5-minute Savage quadrangle.
Allen Haslup held the property between 1959 and 1978, but never himself resided on the property. During this period, he rented the property to a series of tenants, but remembers no specific information about the occupants. The main house on the property remained in use until sometime in the 1960s or early 1970s, when the house burned. The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) subsequently purchased the property in 1978, as part of the upgrade of MD Route 32. The property appraisal report prepared by the SHA indicates the presence of a two-storey dwelling that had “burned down years ago” in the same location as the Haslup House. Plans prepared in 1985 for the construction of Corridor Road indicate that the main house foundation and two block foundation outbuildings were still visible at that time, as well as traces of a driveway.
The site was first recorded as an archeological resource when a Maryland Archeological Site Survey (MASS) form was filled out in 2005 by MHT personnel. The MASS form stated that the site consisted of a stone foundation (measuring approximately 10 by 10 m in extent) and three smaller foundations located immediately to the northeast. However, no formal investigation of the site was carried out until 2010, when a combined Phase I and II evaluation was carried out on a 1.58 acre property (that included the site) being carved out of the SHA holdings. The property would be impacted by the (then) planned construction of a new fire station for the Savage (Howard County) Volunteer Fire Department. Project plans included the construction of a new two-storey firehouse with a large adjacent parking area to allow maneuvering of emergency equipment, installation of new utilities to serve the station, relocation of some existing utilities, extensive grading, construction of two storm water retention basins, relocation of an existing surface stream, and construction of a large, pervious concrete visitor’s parking area. Due to the land transfer that would be required from SHA to Howard County, Phase I and II work was required. The construction of the visitor’s parking area would impact portions of 18HO266, necessitating the need for archeological investigation.
Phase I work at the site entailed Pedestrian survey and shovel test pit (STP) excavation of the entire 1.58 acre property. The pedestrian survey methods are not described in the full site report, so it is assumed that pedestrian survey was unsystematic. This surface examination revealed the presence of one large stone foundation (Feature 1), and are of architectural debris and concrete piers (Feature 2), two smaller foundations (Features 3 and 4), and a wire fence at the site.
Phase I subsurface survey consisted of the excavation of 70 STPs generally set at 10 m intervals across the property (65 STPs on grid with 4 judgmentally and 1 erroneously placed). The grid for the STPs was established using the western wall of an extant structural foundation remnant as a north-south baseline. STPs were 35-40 cm in diameter and were excavated at least 10 cm into sterile subsoil. All excavated soil was screened through hardware cloth, and all artifacts found were retained for identification (though only representative samples of brick and mortar were retained from STPs with high densities of such materials. Measured descriptions were made of the profiles of all STPs. Soils were described using standard terminology for colors and textures.
The STP survey helped to better define the boundaries of 18HO266 and both a prehistoric and historic occupation were encountered. A prehistoric occupation of unknown period is represented by a light scatter of five lithic artifacts within the site boundaries. The prehistoric artifacts from 18HO266 included 4 quartz flakes and one complete quartz projectile point. The contracting stem is similar to the Poplar Island type, but its small size places it in the generalized contracting stemmed category, dating anywhere from the Middle Archaic to the Middle Woodland.
Historic occupation from both the 19th and 20th centuries is represented by 641 historic artifacts. Ten modern plastic bag fragments were also collected. The assemblage consisted of 15 activity items (13 pieces of lamp glass, 26 pieces of brick, 25 shingle fragments, 76 pieces of mortar, 41 wood fragments, 1 horseshoe, and 1 railroad spike), 424 architectural artifacts (102 pieces of window glass, 131 nails, 18 pieces of wire, 5 metal objects), 2 clothing items (a button and a possible grommet), 104 kitchen-related artifacts (23 ceramic sherds, 70 pieces of container glass, and 11 domestic metal objects), 106 miscellaneous objects (24 pieces of unidentified glass, 59 pieces of iron, 10 plastic bags, 11 pieces of coal, and 2 other objects).
Overall, the 641 historic artifacts recovered from 18HO266 included the variety of functional groups expected from a domestic residential site. Evidence collected from both pedestrian reconnaissance and subsurface testing correlate with historical documentation that the site served as a residence from the mid 19th to the mid 20th century. The foundations encountered, the vegetation present, and the information collected from STP soil profiles during subsurface testing all suggest that the subsurface integrity within the site area is relatively intact. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was carried out at 18HO266.
The Phase II study included additional STP testing at 5 m intervals, additional mapping of surface features exposed as summer vegetation died down, controlled excavation of one meter square test units, and controlled surface collection within one large-scale artifact scatter. Close-interval STP testing was restricted by the available budget, and therefore was restricted to the area between the main foundation and the easternmost outbuilding foundation and the area around an artifact-density peak in the northwest of the site. These areas represent an additional 43 Shovel tests excavated using the same standards as the Phase I study.
Subsequent to excavation of all planned Phase II STPs and distribution analysis based on rough artifact counts, a total of 12 one-meter excavation units were placed across the site. All test units were excavated according to natural stratigraphy, utilizing 10 cm arbitrary excavation levels within natural strata as required. Features were defined at the first visible surface expression and generally bisected and excavated as a separate context. Structural elements were pedestaled and left in situ. All STPs and units were excavated at least 10 cm into sterile subsoil (20 cm where schedule and conditions permitted). All excavated soils were screened through hardware cloth mesh, and all artifacts retained for subsequent lab processing.
Finally, Feature 5 (an artifact scatter) was defined, mapped, and divided into 80 one meter square collection units during Phase II work. Eight of these collection squares (1 10% sample) were then subjected to a 100% surface collection. A single 1 X 1 meter unit was then excavated within the feature for comparison.
Phase II investigations identified four structural features, two discrete artifact concentrations, 18 smaller features and well over 7,000 artifacts. Most features consisted of pipe alignments passing under and behind the house, or interior structural features (such as a chimney base, an interior wall, and a chimney stack). All features appear to date to the early 20th century or later. Based on archival research the largest structural remains within 18HO266 represent neither the Charles Haslup nor the James Haslup residence, but rather a 1908 replacement structure built by Charles and Ann Louise Burns on property obtained from her older brother James. Although there is archival evidence for an older residential structure on the parcel, archeological evidence of this structure was limited to a handful of pearlware and two possible creamware sherds found in mixed context.
The 20th century tenant house discussed previously was tentatively identified as Feature 2, a surface scatter of architectural debris with a single subsurface feature, a stove chimney and chimney base. Furthermore, Feature 5 was also tentatively associated with use of this tenant house, as it reflected a much lower economic status than the main house. The remaining two outbuildings (Features 3 and 4), were not identified further and their use is still unknown.
Phase II investigations failed to identify any 19th century features or unmixed concentrations of 19th century materials. They also documented that almost all prehistoric materials recovered came from contexts mixed with historic materials, and no undisturbed prehistoric resources were identified.
The Phase II artifact assemblage consisted of 3 activity items (transportation related), 3,526 architectural artifacts (including 751 glass window fragments), 27 clothing items, 64 furniture items, 2,303 kitchen-related artifacts (345 ceramic sherds, 1,246 pieces of container glass, 1 piece of shell, 675 pieces of bone/teeth, and 36 other kitchen items), 23 personal items, 5 arms objects, and 1,204 miscellaneous objects (1 mineral sample, 40 pieces of wood, 47 modern objects, 305 utility-related objects, 340 unidentified glass objects, and 942 other unclassified objects), as well as 94 prehistoric lithics (83 quartz and 11 quartzite debitage fragments). The ceramic assemblage consisted of 2 creamware sherds, 14 pearlware sherds, 4 porcelain sherds, 89 whiteware sherds, 24 ironstone sherds, 20 other earthenware sherds, 1 Rockingham sherd, 2 yelloware sherds, 45 redware sherds, and 27 miscellaneous stoneware sherds.
Analysis of the recovered materials suggest that the primary components of the site consists of 20th century material carried primarily in the upper A Horizon, with areas of penetration into the subsoil which may represent post demolition disturbances. Based on these findings, it was determined that the 19th century component at18HO266 was largely disturbed by later alteration of the site. Original archeological deposits were not intact and the site was determined to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP.
|
