Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18PR705 Pleasant Prospect Site 1
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Pleasant Prospect Site 1, or 18PR705, represents the original location of a plantation manor house and associated residential and farm outbuildings that was occupied between the ca. 1720s and 1780/90s by Richard Duckett, his family, and possibly his employees and enslaved labor force. Site 18PR705 is located in northeast Prince George’s County, near the community of Woodmore. The site is located in an agricultural field on a gentle rise north and east of an intermittent tributary stream to the Northeast Branch of the Patuxent River. The surrounding area is primarily farmland that is gradually being replaced by residential development. These agricultural uses have reduced forested areas to limited tree lines following drainages and separating fields, composed mainly of cedar, oak, and maple, with a moderate amount of secondary undergrowth including greenbrier and poison ivy. The fields were used primarily for tobacco during the 18th through early 20th centuries. In more recent times the fields have been planted with corn and soybeans on a rotating cycle. Soils at the site are Collington and Monmouth fine sandy loams.
Site 18PR705 was initially identified during a Phase I archeological survey of a proposed housing development conducted during April of 2004. The research was undertaken in order to assist the development firm in meeting their regulatory obligations under Section 106 of the National Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The site was identified as a scatter of historic artifacts that was north of the extant late 18th century Pleasant Prospect plantation house (MIHP# PG:74A-6). It was found on a gentle west-facing slope during shovel-test survey of the field. In total, 162 STPs were excavated during Phase I in the vicinity of 18PR705.
Initially, 103 STPs were excavated at 20 meter intervals and were approximately 40 cm in diameter. An additional 58 STPs were then excavated at 10 meter intervals around the positive STPs. The shovel tests were excavated in stratigraphic layers to a depth of 10 cm into subsoil. All soil from STPs was screened through hardware cloth for uniform artifact recovery and other standard archeological procedures were followed. A total of 184 artifacts was recovered during the Phase I investigations of 18PR705 within a 123 X 183 m area (approximately 5.5 acres). Two anomalous soil profiles were found, and suspected to represent historic features. Based on these findings, Phase II testing was recommended and undertaken later in the summer.
The Phase I assemblage from the vicinity of 18PR705 included 133 architectural artifacts (108 brick fragments, 2 pieces of window glass, 2 cut nails, 1 wire nail, and 20 unidentified nails), 35 kitchen-related artifacts (1 white salt-glazed stoneware sherd, 2 creamware sherds, 2 pearlware sherds, 2 English Brown stoneware sherds, 3 redware sherds, 2 gray salt-glazed stoneware sherds, 18 pieces of bottle glass, 2 mammal bones, and 3 pieces of oyster shell), 2 tobacco-related artifacts (clay pipe stems), and 14 miscellaneous objects (2 clinkers, 10 pieces of coal, 1 pieces of slag, and 1 iron fragment).
The Phase II testing conducted at 18PR705 included a controlled surface collection, the excavation of 20 1 X 1 m test units, and the compilation of a detailed site map. The excavations located six features, including a brick foundation wall and associated cellar. The other features consisted of three pits and two features that could not be further identified, including one with a dense concentration of brick rubble.
The purpose of the Phase II controlled surface collection was to identify artifact concentrations within the site boundaries and to refine those boundaries. Prior to the surface survey, the field was plowed and disked in order to expose the ground surface. A grid was established with baselines extending west along the tree line on the north end of the site and south across the plowed field from the tree line. Archeologists then walked over the entire plowed area, noting the exact south and west coordinates of any artifacts found.
As a result of the surface collection, four prehistoric artifacts and 367 historic artifacts were recovered. The prehistoric artifacts consist of a piece of quartz debitage and 3 quartz projectile points. These are unassociated isolated finds. Mapping of the historic artifact distributions revealed three distinct artifact concentrations (or Loci). Locus 1 measured approximately 80 meters east-west and 100 meters north-south. This large locus consisted mainly of architectural and kitchen artifacts, although other functional categories were encountered as well. Locus 2 contained a wider variety of historic artifacts and measured 50 meters east-west and 35 meters north-south. Locus 3 primarily included small brick fragments with a limited number of kitchen materials. Ceramic sherds found in Loci 1 and 3 span the period from the mid 18th through the early 19th century. Although one sherd of Rhenish gray stoneware was found in Locus 2, the artifacts in this area date primarily to the late 18th century to early 19th century. These results suggest that occupation of Loci 1 and 3 was earlier than that of Locus 2.
Following the controlled surface collection, twenty 1 X 1 meter test units were excavated in areas determined to have high artifact concentrations based on the surface collection. Test units were also excavated where possible features were identified during the Phase I STP survey. Fifteen test units were excavated within Locus 1 and 5 test units were placed within Locus 2. No test units were placed in Locus 3 because the results of the STP and surface collection surveys suggested the locus consisted primarily of a limited number of artifacts, primarily brick, that had been broken into small fragments through plowing. The results were not indicative of the presence of an historic structure or potentially significant deposits in Locus 3. In general, the stratigraphy of the test units was consistent, including plowzone overlaying subsoil.
Six cultural features were identified during the archeological investigation, four in Locus 1 (Features 1, 2, 4, and 5) and two in Locus 2 (Features 6 and 7). Locus 1 appears to have included the main house and a possible detached kitchen/dwelling. Features 1 and 2 may be part of the same feature, possibly a shallow cellar or structure base. Feature 4 is a brick wall and Feature 5 is an associated cellar. The features identified within Locus 2 appear to be pits, although the large amount of architectural materials found in the area (including brick) suggests that a building was present.
In total, 1,856 historic artifacts were recovered during the Phase II investigation of 18PR705. The assemblage included 19 activity items, 729 architectural artifacts, 4 pieces of clothing, 1,024 kitchen-related artifacts, 5 personal artifacts, 12 tobacco-related artifacts, 2 arms objects, and 61 miscellaneous objects. The activity items were a redware flowerpot fragment, a piece of lamp chimney, an axe head, a hoe blade, a rubber gasket, a chain link, 1 copper alloy ring, 1 iron ring, an iron bar, a copper alloy disk, 1 iron tube, and 8 iron straps. The architectural assemblage consisted of 302 handmade brick fragments, 11 pieces of mortar, 76 window glass fragments, 18 ceramic drain tile pieces, 3 pieces of plaster, 2 pieces of daub, 315 nails, 1 piece of roofing slate, and a porcelain electrical insulator. The 4 clothing remains are a copper alloy buckle, 2 copper alloy buttons, and a porcelain button. The kitchen assemblage consisted of 214 ceramic sherds (12 tin-glazed earthenware sherds, 3 Nottingham sherds, 2 Whieldonware sherds, 34 other creamware sherds, 22 pearlware sherds, 2 Chinese export porcelain sherds, 5 whiteware sherds, 6 refined earthenware sherds, 12 porcelain sherds, 1 Buckley sherd, 1 Staffordshire slipware sherd, 8 buff-paste dark-glazed earthenware sherds, 25 redware sherds, 1 yelloware sherd, 2 American gray stoneware sherds, 10 English brown stoneware sherds, 8 Rhenish gray stoneware sherds, 45 white salt-glazed stoneware sherds, and 15 other ceramics), 1 table glass fragment, 261 dark green bottle glass shards, 56 other pieces of bottle glass, 319 animal bones, 2 fish scales, 129 oyster shells, 6 egg shells, 1 piece of antler, 5 fruit pits, and 30 seeds. The five personal remains encountered were a bone comb, a modern rubber toothpick, a jewelry part, and 2 white salt-glazed chamber pot fragments. The tobacco-related artifacts were kaolin pipe fragments (7 bowls and 5 stem pieces). The 2 arms items were gun flints. Finally, miscellaneous finds include a barnacle, 8 charcoal fragments, and 52 other items (coal, plastic, and unidentified iron).
The artifacts encountered during both Phase I and Phase II studies at 18PR705 represent a wide range of material, including 1) brick, window glass, nails, mortar and plaster, associated with architectural features; 2) wine bottle fragments and various late 18th century to early 19th century ceramics, predominantly of British manufacture, related to the domestic lives of the occupants; 3) significant quantities of food remains including animal bone, oyster shell, and carbonized plant remains; and 4) personal and tobacco-related items representative of domestic life. These artifacts potentially ranged in date of manufacture from the early 18th century to the mid 19th century, although the majority of diagnostic artifacts date from the mid to late 18th century. Based on these findings, Phase III data recovery was recommended if the site could not be avoided during the housing development project.
A Phase III data recovery project was undertaken in March of 2006 as part of the same housing development project. The data recovery work entailed archival research, controlled surface collection, machine excavation of 34 trenches or blocks, and hand excavation of 42 cultural features that were encountered.
Archival research reveals that the site is likely a plantation complex built by a Richard Duckett shortly after his marriage in 1729. While a Thomas Sprigg, Sr. and John and Eleanor Nuthall may have farmed the land or used it as property prior to 1729, there is no archival evidence that any residence, quarter, or outbuilding was built on the property during their ownership. Instead, the site represents an occupation by one family, that of Richard Duckett and his wife Mary Nuthall, from the 1730s to 1788, and then for a few years by their son Isaac Duckett until he completed his new house known as “Pleasant Prospect”.
Richard Duckett was the son of Richard Duckett and his wife, Charity Jacob. He was born in Anne Arundel County in 1704 and in 1729 married Mary Nuthall, a daughter of John Nuthall and Eleanor Sprigg (the daughter of Thomas Sprigg, Sr.). Richard Duckett served as a lieutenant in Captain Waring’s Company of Prince George’s County militiamen, as a member of the colony’s Committee of Safety, and as a Justice of the Quorum. Richard received a life interest in 100 acres (including the site area) out of the tract owned by his wife’s family (Sprigg’s Request) at the time of their marriage, and then spent the next few decades acquiring additional land from the Spriggs until he had obtained most, if not all, of the Sprigg family’s former property. In 1777, Richard Duckett, Jr., sold his father 100 acres of Sprigg’s Request that he had inherited from his mother, Mary Nuthall. These were the same 100 acres that Mary and Richard Sr. had received and presumably lived on shortly after their marriage.
The will of Richard Duckett, Sr. was dated 6 September 1785 and was recorded for probate on 29 September 1788. In that will, he devised to his son Isaac, “all my land and Plantation whereon I now live called Sprigges Request and Duckett Adition.” Two slaves also were devised to his children. One girl called “Rachel” was given to Isaac, and a girl called “Bell” went to Jacob. Each of these sons also received two pewter basins, two dishes, and one dozen plates. Previously, in the 1750s, Richard Duckett had purchased a portion of “Darnell’s Grove” and conveyed it to his son, Richard.
Richard Duckett’s estate inventory includes a sizeable number of livestock, farming equipment, personal goods, and slaves, all valued at 1,863 pounds, 9 pence, and 8 shillings. Seventeen slaves (10 men and 7 women and girls) were listed in the estate inventory, which was taken on 31 December 1788. Richard Duckett’s livestock consisted of 16 horses, 82 cattle, 41 sheep, and 44 pigs. His farm equipment included such items as hoes, scythes, and seed plows, and other tools such as wedges, axes, hand mills, a cider mill, saws, and hatchets. Duckett also owned two wagons, two carts, and a carriage. Crops and other products that were on hand included 37 hogsheads of cider, 30 bushels of wheat, 12 bushels of beans, an additional two hogsheads of wheat, 5 hogsheads of tobacco, 4,000 lbs of pork, 700 lbs of beef, 21 barrels of corn, and 40,000 lbs of hay. The listing of 11 wine glasses, 23 plates, and 12 ivory-handled knives in Richard Duckett’s inventory suggests that this was a household with aspirations of upward social mobility.
As noted above, Richard Duckett died in about 1788 and devised Sprigg’s Request to his son Isaac. Isaac Duckett married Margaret Bowie in 1792, and his family likely lived on the property for several years until they built their new house (MIHP# PG:74A-6) by 1798 and repantented Sprigg’s Request and their additional lands as Pleasant Prospect in 1809. The 1798 Direct Tax for Prince George’s County indicates that Isaac Duckett lived in “a new two story frame brick dwelling, very elegantly furnished.” Isaac and his family would have lived on Sprigg’s Request for no more than 10 years, since the 1798 Direct Tax describes his house as “new”. The house actually could have been a few years old at that time, and Isaac Duckett may have started its construction as soon as his father’s estate had been settled or at the time of his marriage in 1792. Also described in his holdings was an old frame dwelling house, a kitchen, a wash house, a meat house, a pottery house, a corn house and sheds, a carriage house, a wagon house, four tobacco houses, and one “negro house”. The frame house was valued at 80 dollars. The structures are all likely associated with the old family house and outbuildings represented by 18PR705.
Data recovery fieldwork began with the plowing of an area approximately 200 m northwest-southeast by 90 m northeast-southwest. The plowing resulted in surface visibility across this area of approximately 90% and rainfall between the time of plowing and collecting only improved visibility. A close-interval pedestrian reconnaissance of the area was conducted with field technicians spaced at 2 meter intervals. This allowed each technician to visually scan 1 m to the left and right of a given transect centerline, ensuring that nearly 100% of the plowed surface area was visually inspected for artifacts. The entire area was slowly traversed twice by field crews and all observed artifacts were flagged. Upon completion of the pedestrian reconnaissance survey, all of the flagged locations/artifacts were mapped with a total station and artifacts were collected and bagged. In general, brick fragments were mapped and identified in the field but not collected. The mapped scatter of surface collected material was then used to identify potential locations for machine trench excavation.
Machine-excavated blocks and trenches were placed in areas where artifacts or brick fragments had been found during the controlled surface collection, at the locations of features identified during Phase II investigations, and in areas to provide representative coverage of the site. The plowzone was removed by a backhoe with a smooth bucket to determine if intact features or other cultural deposits were present. A total of 34 trenches and blocks was excavated during data recovery investigations, having a total area of slightly more than 905 m2. This total is slightly more than 4% of the total site area as defined during the Phase I investigations conducted at 18PR705. Cultural and natural strata were identified, drawn, and described for each trench or block excavated.
Features were identified as soil discolorations against the generally yellowish subsoil found in the 18PR705 site area and by concentrations of artifacts within soil discolorations. Upon the completion of plowzone removal, all loose soil in the vicinity of a suspected feature was removed in an attempt to verify the presence/absence of a cultural feature. If the discoloration was deemed to be a cultural feature, it was assigned a feature number. The feature then was plotted and mapped within the appropriate machine trench or block. A plan map of the feature was made, and photographs of the feature in plan view were taken. For small features, one-half of each feature was hand excavated with all soils screened through hardware cloth. For large features, a number of discrete 1 X 1 meter test units equivalent in area to a 25% sample of the entire feature area were hand-excavated with all soils screened through hardware cloth. Excavations continued until the base of the feature was encountered. When encountered, the wall profile of the feature was drawn and photographed. A feature form, detailing the methods used and results of excavation, was filled out for each feature excavated at 18PR705.
Excavations in Locus 1 (as identified during Phase II work) consisted of 16 mechanically-excavated trenches or blocks, exposing an area of just over 557 m2. Many of the trenches/blocks were placed in areas that had a dense surface concentration of artifacts, although others were placed in areas of lower surface density to ensure that all of the areas of Locus 1 were investigated. These excavations resulted in the identification of 19 features, 18 of which were numbered (one postmold was not given a feature number). Subsequent hand excavation of these features yielded a wealth of information on feature function and a large assemblage of associated artifacts, faunal remains, and charred plant material.
Upon review, it would appear that Locus 1 contains two concentrations of features. Based on feature characteristics, at least four feature types can be identified within Locus 1. These include postmolds, small pits, large pits, and structures. Based on feature shape, size, and wall characteristics, it would appear that Features 10, 11, 19, and 46 in the southern feature cluster represent structures. Feature 11 is a masonry cellar and may represent the actual house of plantation owner Richard Duckett. Feature 17, and possibly Feature 18, both located in the northern concentration of Locus 1, appear to be structures as well. The 1798 Direct Tax indicates that several substantial structures, other than the Richard Duckett house, should be present. These include a kitchen, a wash house, a meat house, slave’s quarters, and possibly other residential-type structures. Locus 1 likely represents the domestic “core” of Richard Duckett’s Sprigg’s Request plantation.
It is possible that fewer than 6 structures were standing at any point in time during the occupation of this portion of 18PR705. Many of the features in Locus 1 appear to have been subjected to rapid infilling using homogenous fill. Such infilling could have occurred after abandonment of the area or through time as new structures were constructed and the old ones were abandoned. Structure depressions and cellars were often used as trash receptacles during the 18th century. Two features (11 and 46) appear to have complex stratigraphy that likely represents multiple episodes of deposition.
The function of other feature types in Locus 1 is less well understood. Several postmolds may indicate the presence of fences surrounding the domestic core, or may be locations of paddocks. Those located near suspected structures may be part of the building superstructures or may indicate the presence of an attached shed or porch. Too few postmolds were found to identify any fence or structure patterns in Locus 1. Some small pit features are anomalous, and may ultimately have been short-term trash receptacles. Their original functions could have included impromptu root cellars or privies. Large pit features, such as Features 13 and 47, appear to have been trash disposal areas.
The excavations in Locus 2 (as defined during Phase II) consisted of 11 trenches, a number of which were expanded into larger blocks, exposing an area of just under 228 m2. Most of the trenches were placed in an area that had a relatively dense surface concentration of artifacts, although a few others were placed in areas of lower surface artifact density to ensure that many of the areas within Locus 2 were investigated. These excavations resulted in the identification of 15 features. Subsequent hand excavations of these features yielded information on feature function and a small assemblage of associated artifacts, faunal remains, and charred plant material.
Two feature types were identified in Locus 2: postmolds and associated postholes and pit features. All features were found in the east half of Locus 2. The postmolds and postholes indicate that this area was the location of an earthfast structure, and the presence of the pit features suggests that this structure was used for work-related activities.
Possible work-related structures are mentioned in the 1798 Direct Tax, and include a pottery house, wash house, and meat house. The pit features yielded relatively little charcoal, suggesting that activities associated with fire were not dominant at this location. All three work houses mentioned in the tax record would appear to be associated with fire – for heating water to wash clothes, for curing meats, or for firing pottery. Feature characteristics and artifacts do provide some details on the possible function of this work area. The Locus 2 features yielded relatively large quantities of clothing-related items, such as straight pins, a thimble, buttons, and half a pair of shears. Clothing-related activities may have occurred in this location, and its identification as the wash house cannot be ruled out. In contrast, Feature 41 contained no artifacts, but did consist of dense sandy red clay. Such clay could have been used for pottery manufacture, perhaps with the firing of the ceramics taking place elsewhere on the property. The identification of the Locus 2 structure as the pottery house can therefore not be ruled out either.
Regardless of the identification of the Locus 2 structure with a particular function or identity based on the 1798 Direct Tax, its spatial relationship with regards to Locus 1 is instructive. Locus 1, the domestic core of Sprigg’s request plantation, is physically separated from Locus 2, a work area. It was apparently important for Richard Duckett to separate these two areas, and perhaps for any number of reasons. Potential reasons could include cultural norms dividing dwellings from work areas, safety issues, or personal preference.
The excavation in Locus 3 (as defined during Phase II) consisted of 7 trenches, 2 of which were expanded into larger blocks, in all exposing an area of just over 137 m2. These trenches were placed so as to cover as much of Locus 3 area as possible, as no spatial information based on the surface collection of artifacts was available to identify concentrations of artifacts. These excavations resulted in the identification of 6 cultural features. No artifacts were found from the excavation of these features.
Two types of features were found in Locus 3: postmolds and small pits. The presence of the postmolds (and the low density of artifacts in this area) suggests that these features constituted a part of a fence, perhaps separating fields, paddocks, pastures, or work areas. The two small pits are curious, in that they are nearly square in shape but yielded no artifacts. While their actual function is unknown, similar features have been identified by archeologists as cleaned privies. In any case, the low density of artifacts and the nature of the features found in Locus 3 suggest that this area was peripheral to the domestic core of Sprigg’s Request located in Locus 1. These factors would also suggest that Locus 3 was not an intensive work area as appears to be the case for Locus 2.
In all, 15,417 artifacts were recovered from the site surface collection, machine trenches/blocks, and 42 features excavated during the Phase III data recovery investigations at 18PR705. By far, most of the artifacts were found in feature contexts, and 94% of the artifacts (excluding those that were surface collected) came from Locus 1; the apparent domestic core of the plantation. The Phase III artifact assemblage throughout the site consisted of 33 activity items, 2,227 architectural objects, 57 clothing items, 30 furniture items, 10,838 kitchen-related artifacts, 4 personal items, 161 tobacco-related artifacts, 15 arms objects, 2,046 miscellaneous items, and 8 prehistoric artifacts. The activity items were 16 stable items (7 horseshoes, 4 harness buckles, 3bridle/harness parts, 1 snaffle bit, and 1 spur), 3 hoe blade pieces, 3 fragments of pencil lead, 2 wing nuts, 2 whetstones, 1 unglazed ceramic square, 1 large knife blade (but not kitchen-related), a scythe blade, an axe head, 1 copper stopper, part of a pair of shears, and an undescribed artifact. The architectural assemblage included a piece of curved brick (all other brick was mapped, but not collected from the field), 16 pieces of mortar and plaster, 775 fragments of window glass, 4 charred pieces of lumber, 1,429 hand-wrought nails, and 2 hand-wrought spikes. Clothing-related artifacts consist of 32 straight pins, 14 metal buttons, 5 buckles, 3 decorative metal clothing elements, 2 decorative glass clothing elements, and 1 thimble. Furniture is represented by 21 tacks, 5 metal handles, 1 decorative metal furniture item, 2 knob, and 2 hinges. Kitchen-related artifacts are 854 ceramic sherds (110 tin-glazed earthenware, 15 Buckley, 9 Jackfield, 8 Staffordshire Slipware, 7 manganese-mottled earthenware, 1 Astbury, 159 creamware, 16 pearlware, 48 porcelain, 215 white salt-glazed stoneware, 149 English Brown stoneware, 41 Rhenish stoneware, 20 Nottingham stoneware, and 56 unidentified ceramics), 1,457 pieces of glass (1 decanter stopper, 1,421 bottle fragments – mostly dark green, 32 table glass, and 3 other kitchen glass fragments), 32 kettle fragments, 1 sterling silver teaspoon, 1 pewter ladle, 3 bone utensil handles, 6,529 animal bones, 1,917 oyster shells pieces, 13 egg shell pieces, 6 fish scales, 4 nut shells, 3 corn cobs, and 18 seeds. The four personal artifacts were 2 keys, a bracelet or necklace link, and a 1736 George II Penny. Tobacco-related artifacts were 161 bowl and stem fragments. Arms items include 13 gunflints and 2 musket balls. Miscellaneous objects encountered at the site were 1,950 unidentified metal objects, 80 unidentified glass objects, 8 pieces of charred wood, 2 fragments of slate, 4 pieces of worked bone, 1 piece of worked ivory, and 1 cinder. In addition to the historic artifacts described above, 8 prehistoric remains were also encountered. These include a quartz Lamoka point, 2 chert biface fragments, 2 chert flakes, 1 groundstone celt/axe, a hammerstone, and 1 unidentified prehistoric item.
The data recovery efforts at 18PR705 included the study of historic plant remains recovered through soil flotation and hand collection. A total of 6 soil samples from 5 features and 18 hand-collected carbon samples from 10 features were submitted for processing and macrobotanical analysis. The analyzed samples were secured from a site total of 12 cultural features consigned to a variety of feature types relating to domestic and agricultural loci. For a detailed description of the botanical remains see the linked ethnobotanical profile for 18PR705. These remains included wood charcoal of various species, nutshell, cultivated plant remains, carbonized seeds, a plant bud, and fragments of amorphous carbon. The assemblage contained a variety of plant material classes and economically useful vegetal remains which provided an adequate sample upon which to begin an interpretation of people-and-plant relationships at the site. The artifact tallies herein and in the tables above do not include the flotation-recovered materials.
The archeological wood assemblage is composed of taxa characteristic of the Atlantic Slope Section of the Oak-Pine and Oak-Hickory-Pine forest associations. The site assemblage is also rich in comestible plant remains, with the presence of corn, bean, wheat, and peach remains documenting a reliance on field agriculture and the cultivation of orchard fruits. While wild plant foods are not well-represented, the presence of a persimmon seed provides evidence that native wild fruits were harvested. The single fragment of unidentifiable nutshell suggests that native mast may have contributed to the diet as well.
Archival research indicates that occupation at 18PR705 probably began soon after Richard Duckett married Mary Nuthall in 1729. The land on which the site is located was deeded to Mary Nuthall by her mother and stepfather shortly before the wedding in 1729 and likely was a wedding gift to the couple. As Richard Duckett established himself financially, he began acquiring additional land, including all or most of the original Sprigg’s Request patent from his wife’s relatives during the period from the 1740s through the 1760s. Richard Duckett and his family lived on the property throughout his lifetime. When he died, the Sprigg’s Request property passed to his son Isaac, who moved to his new house (MIHP# PG:74A-6) by 1798 and repatented Sprigg’s Request and other properties as Pleasant Prospect in 1809.
The date ranges of the various temporally diagnostic ceramics and other artifacts recovered from the site show a period of maximum overlap from the period between ca. 1730 and 1790. This suggests that occupation of the site took place mainly during this period. It appears that the site was abandoned mainly during the early 19th century, probably when Isaac Duckett finished building the Pleasant Prospect manor house and its associated outbuildings. During the 19th and 20th centuries, there is no evidence that the land was used for anything other than agriculture or pasture. The archeological remains of the house and related buildings on Sprigg’s Request thus present a picture of life in the middle 18th century for a Mid-Atlantic planter and his family.
The artifact assemblage provided a wide variety of artifacts, the analysis of which was important for answering a series of research questions established prior to the onset of Phase III work. Detailed discussion of these research topics is found in the full site report. In short, this research revealed that Richard Duckett was engaged in a market economy, apparently growing tobacco for sale. He used the proceeds to participate to some extent in the new market-oriented lifestyle with its emphasis on consumer consumption, most notably in terms of dishes, furniture, books, wine, and partaking in the tea ceremony, with all of its associated paraphernalia. However, Duckett engaged in the market-oriented mindset to only a limited extent. He did not build a grand Georgian-style manor house with associated formal gardens. That task he left to his son, Isaac.
Instead, Richard Duckett appears to have engaged in a rather old-fashioned or traditional means of displaying wealth; he bought land and people to work that land. Duckett’s emphasis on land purchases (land consumption in one sense) allowed his son to more fully engage in the Georgian mindset by the late 1790s or early 1800s. It is not known whether Richard Duckett’s behavior represents part of a broader pattern of aspiring elite in Maryland, although it is likely. Such aspiring elite may be more likely to reinvest their profits and excess cash into the means of production, in this instance, land and an enslaved labor force, that could eventually enable the aspirants to transform themselves into the elite.
The site today has been largely impacted by grading and construction related to the aforementioned housing development. Because of these impacts to the site, it retains no additional research potential. The site was very well documented during Phase III data recovery operations. Researchers wishing to pursue laboratory-based proje
|
