Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR241 Potter Site O
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Potter’s Site O, 18PR241, is the archeological remains of a Susquehannock Fort besieged by Maryland and Virginia militia in 1675. The site bears the imprint of a square stockaded fort with bastions and an ossuary in the fort’s interior, which contained 42 individuals. This fort played a prominent role in the early colonial history of Maryland and events that transpired there touched off the famous Bacon’s rebellion in the Colony of Virginia. The site (also known as Gardner’s Site 46) is located at Piscataway Park owned by the National Park Service and managed by the Accokeek Foundation in south-western Prince George’s County, Maryland. It is located on the eastern shore of Mockley Point and is situated between the Potomac River on the west, Piscataway Bay on the east, and the swampy landscape of southern Mockley Point to the south. Three soil types intersect at the site location including soils of the Hoghole-Grosstown complex, Sassafras sandy loams, and Woodstown sandy loams.
The Piscataway Creek region has long been known to local collectors and residents as an excellent spot to search for American Indian artifacts. The first documented archeological find occurred in 1859 when a local farmer found a small burial site on his property. Over the latter part of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, artifact collection occurred in the area in a disorganized, and largely destructive manner until the purchase of what was then known as the “Hard Bargain” farm in 1923 by Henry and Alice Ferguson. The actions of several local collectors on Mrs. Ferguson’s property (sometimes without her permission) prompted her to contact members of the professional archeological community in an effort to protect what she was certain was a significant archeological site. Alice Ferguson’s efforts met with little success, so she took it upon herself to undertake controlled excavation of the archeological deposits at “Hard Bargain” to the best of her ability.
A site as important as 18PR241 must be placed in its proper historical context. That context is described in detail in the synopsis report for 18PR8 as Potter’s Site O was once considered to be part of 18PR8. This report will only provide a brief synopsis of the events surrounding the Susquehannock Fort at 18PR241 (see below). Synopsis reports have been prepared for all sites at Piscataway Park where test units were excavated during Ferguson’s tenure and in subsequent salvage operations. These sites were re-inventoried during the course of several compliance surveys throughout the park and in this respect are appropriate material for the archeological synthesis project. Poorly documented sites, such as those documented in the late 19th century and prior to Ferguson’s work, are not considered. Nor are sites where test units have not been excavated (i.e. only surface survey or STPs have been excavated).
In 1674, the Susquehannocks suffered a major defeat at the hands of their traditional enemies the Senecas. This forced them to move south into Piscataway territory in early 1675. Originally told by the colonials to settle at the Falls of the Potomac, the Susquehannocks ignored Maryland’s order and took up residence along the south shore of Piscataway Creek. They built a bastioned, stockaded fort about two miles west of the Piscataway Indian fort and village (though to be represented at 18PR40). In the summer of 1675, the Susquehannocks were wrongfully blamed for Indian depredations along the Maryland and Virginia frontiers, which were most likely perpetrated by the Seneca and/or Doegs. Primarily at the insistence of prominent Virginia settlers, the Virginia and Maryland militias were called up in retaliation and besieged the Susquehannock Fort on Piscataway Creek for about 6 weeks.
During the siege, there were multiple instances of Indians being killed after leaving the fort to engage the militiamen in negotiations and to attempt to prove the innocence of the Susquehannocks. Maryland and Virginia militia leaders would eventually stand trial for some of these offenses, but the murder of some of the principal Susquehannock warriors and chiefs ended all possibility for a peaceful surrender by the Indians. The Susquehannocks made a number of attacks from the fort which allowed them to replenish their supplies and kill numerous colonial militiamen. The Susquehannock eventually managed to escape in the dead of night and cross the Potomac to the Virginia side. There, they took out their revenge on Virginia’s northern settlements, touching off what would come to be known as Bacon’s Rebellion. The Susquehannock survivors eventually made their way north to the Seneca (their traditional enemies) and were adopted into the tribe. According to Seneca tradition, the Susquehannock refugees were remembered as ruthless warriors against the English and Piscataway, who never forgave the murder of their principal men.
In 1939, after several years spent excavating the Accokeek Creek site to the west of 18PR241, Alice Ferguson turned her attention toward locating the Susquehannock Fort of 1675. The fort was rumored to have been located on the north bank of Piscataway Creek near Fort Washington. The Fergusons had noticed a dark soil stain in aerial photographs, which was of interest, but was not considered a likely candidate for the fort since it was on the south side of Piscataway Creek. However, a professor from Princeton University had recently located a detailed map of the Piscatway Creek area from 1677 in the British Public Records Office. This map depicted the Susquehannock Fort as a square fort with bastions at each corner located on the south shore of Piscataway Creek. By 1940, the Fergusons, using hired farm labor and local schoolboys, had located the postmolds of a stockade extending from their property onto that of their (fortunately cooperative) neighbor Henry Clagett. These would later be determined to be the remnants of the fort.
The site was surveyed into 15.24 meter (50 ft) grid squares across the darkened area. No detailed description of Mrs. Ferguson’s field methods at 18PR241 has been written, but a full site report on the Accokeek Creek site excavations written in the early 1960s states that similar methods were employed at 18PR8 and 18PR241. Excavation of 18PR8 entailed the stripping of the disturbed topsoil to reveal areas where cultural concentrations extended to a greater depth. When areas of interest were located, the 15.24 meter square would be sub-divided into 1.524 meter (5 ft) test units and examined in detail. Excavation at 18PR241 was likely done in a similar fashion, although it appears that trenching may have been used initially to remove a sample of the thin topsoil, rather than clearing each 15.24 meter square completely from the outset.
Ultimately, Mrs. Ferguson exposed most of the western half of the fort, the eastern 21.34 meters (70 ft) of the fort having eroded into Piscataway Creek. Assuming the fort was roughly symmetrical, it appears to have been 53.34 meters (175 feet) north-south by 56.39 meters (185 feet) east-west with bastions 1.77 square meters (19 square feet) in size at each corner. The size of the posts in the stockade suggests very strong fortifications. A charcoal layer overlay the lines of postmolds, suggesting that the stockade was burned by the colonial militias after the escape of the Susquehannocks. Small patches of charcoal within the stockade suggest the presence of burned structures as well.
Also discovered within the stockade line was a small ossuary containing the remains of at least 42 individuals as well as trade goods and artifacts definitively linking the site to the Susquehannocks. Some of the individuals in the ossuary were juveniles. The burials in the upper portions of the ossuary were flexed burials. No details are provided regarding the types of burials encountered near the bottom, but several grave goods were in the bottom of the pit. All told, the features encountered during the excavation of the site included 679 postmolds (excluding those in the stockade line), 1 stockade line, 12 refuse pits, 1 storage pit, 4 fire hearths, 1 stone pile, 1 ossuary, 5 individual burial pits, and 4 miscellaneous pits.
The grave goods encountered at 18PR241 include a kaolin pipe (considered a tobacco-related item), a Susquehannock “tulip bowl” pipe (counted as a prehistoric “other” fired clay object), a glass inlaid copper ring (personal item), 3 jaw harps (personal items), 8 iron bracelets (personal items), 7 copper hawk bells (personal items), an iron hoe (an activity item), a snuff box (tobacco-related), scissors parts (clothing-related), and a flattened lead musket ball (arms). A photograph of artifacts from the collection also shows a metal object, which appears to be a smoker’s companion (tobacco-related). Thirty-one centimeters west of the ossuary, a small pit was encountered containing a hoard of goods presumably buried by one of the fort’s inhabitants as they prepared to escape from the besieged structure. This pit contained a disintegrated organic mass (probably textiles), 2 iron pots (miscellaneous kitchen items), 2 iron hoes (activity items), and a Dutch gin bottle (kitchen glass). The bottle was in an upright position, as if buried full in the hope of eventual retrieval.
It is clear from the evidence uncovered by Ferguson, that 18PR241 represented the remains of a fort which played a quite significant role in Maryland’s early colonial history. Despite this, no substantive additional work has ever been conducted at the site and its current research potential is not well known. General archeological surveys of Piscataway Park conducted in the 1980s make mention of the site, but provide few details and no description of any fieldwork which would give an indication as to whether intact deposits are still extant. It is perhaps most likely that the site was fully excavated in the 1940s. Mrs. Ferguson made mention in her descriptions of other sites (such as Mockley Point) when she felt features were likely to be present in an area, but were left unexcavated. She made no such comments in her description of the Susquehannock Fort excavations.
|
