Phase II and Phase III Archaeological Database and Inventory
18ST386 Fort Point
Diagnostic Artifact Data
Features
Summary
Site 18ST386, also known as the Fort Point or Antenna Field Site, is a multi-component site located at Webster Field on the Naval Air State Patuxent River with an early Colonial-era historic component and a smaller prehistoric component. The site is near Villa Road. Soils in the area are Mattapex fine sandy loam (0-2% slope); it has been moderately disturbed.
Site 18ST386 is located far south of the Old Chapel Field Site (18ST330), on the same 2,000-acre tract purchased by the Society of Jesus in 1637. The Jesuits’ home farm, or manor house, was located on the north side of the estate at Priest’s Point and the Old Chapel Field. Site 18ST386 was located far south of the Jesuit home farm and likely served as residence for one several tenant farmers who first came to work for the Jesuit mission in 1639.
Little documentary evidence so far has been found concerning the property or occupants of Site 18ST386. One source, a pre-1750 map of St. Inigoes Manor, located at Georgetown University’s Lauinger Library, shows the manor divided into eight sections with designations A through H. The reproduction of the map originally appeared in the Galke and Loney report for the Phase I investigation at Site 18ST386. The key to the map has been long since lost, but perhaps the sections indicate those areas under major cultivation by the Jesuits or areas rented out to tenant farmers. If that were the case, the area designated by the letter “B” is located close to where Site 18ST386 is located.
With the exception of the map, no other historical documentation survives indicating who occupied or cultivated the land in the vicinity of Site 18ST386 during the Colonial period. Although there are no records of tenants at St. Inigoes until the middle of the eighteenth century, it is believed that the Jesuits rented out land from an early date, principally to indentured servants who worked off the terms of their servitude (Galke and Loney 2000). It is known that slaves were held by Jesuits at St. Inigoes; however, the earliest documentary evidence of Jesuits keeping slaves in the Chesapeake dates to 1717.
The only other seventeenth-century records concerning St. Inigoes Manor near Site 18ST386 come from accounts associated with the activities of the nearby St. Inigoes Fort at Fort Point. Although the exact whereabouts of the seventeenth-century fortification is somewhat uncertain, local tradition suggests that the fort was located 250 meters west of Site 18ST386, on a prominence known as Fort Point. The recovery of cannon in the St. Mary’s River off Fort Point in 1824 was considered proof of this tradition; however, archaeological investigations have not uncovered any seventeenth-century remains at Fort Point. Although it is possible that centuries of coastal erosion have erased any traces of the fort, it is also possible that the recovered cannon ended up in that area through some other means, such as a shipwreck.
St. Inigoes Fort was constructed as early as 1637. No records have been found that provide a description or dimensions of the fort or the area surrounding the fortification. It was likely as large as a contemporary fort located at St. Mary’s City, which would mean that the St. Inigoes Fort was 120 yards square with four bastions. By 1642 the Fort at St. Inigoes was likely fully operational. An order by Leonard Calvert, dated August 28, 1642, instructed the area populace to evacuate their farms for shelter at the St. Inigoes Fort in the case of Indian attack. The order further stated that in the case of an Indian attack, the fort would sound an alarm by discharging three guns. The order also authorized the sheriff to appoint six men to guard the fort during both night and day. Although the records are not clear, the fort at St. Inigoes was likely captured by Richard Ingle sometime in February 1645 during Ingle’s Rebellion. Ingle and his men arrived on the St. Mary’s River on February 24, 1645, and the group subsequently raided the outlying area, including the Jesuit mission at St. Inigoes. Ingle’s campaign would have required the capture of the St. Inigoes Fort before the group made any other forays into the surrounding countryside.
Following Ingle’s raids on St. Mary’s in 1645, St. Inigoes Fort grew in importance as the business of the colonial government shifted temporarily from St. Mary’s City to the better defended fortification. Records from the Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly show that several pieces of legislation were enacted at St. Inigoes Fort from December 1746 to January 1747. Even after the Assembly returned to St. Mary’s City, St. Inigoes continued to appear regularly in the colonial record through the rest of the 1640s. By 1650 the fort was beginning to fall into disrepair and Lord Baltimore could no longer afford to pay for its upkeep. In April 1650 an Order of Re-edification was passed calling on the citizens of the colony to help in the cost of repairing and maintaining the fort. The St. Inigoes Fort only appeared in the colonial record one other time, during a civil case dated September 1650 between Thomas Maidwell of the fort shop and John Dandy. It seems likely that as the threat of Indian and other attacks decreased, the St. Inigoes Fort fell into disuse and finally decay in the decades that followed. The fort was certainly gone by 1678 when Lord Baltimore wrote in the Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, “as to the castles and forts, there are none…”. No other records associated with the seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century occupation and use of the area around St. Inigoes Fort, including Site 18ST386, appear to have survived to the present day. There are several historical accounts, including maps, that shed light on the nineteenth- and twentieth-century use of the area; however, none of those would be relevant to the current discussion since Site 18ST386 was clearly associated with a colonial occupation.
Site 18ST386 was first recorded in 1982 by Michael Smolek of SMRC. At the time SMRC was investigating the Fort Point area of Webster Field. During the Fort Point investigation a local collector brought to Michael Smolek’s attention an artifact collection from the antenna fields located east of Fort Point. After seeing the collection, a preliminary survey of the site was conducted. Diagnostic artifacts recovered during that preliminary survey included sherds of North Devon, Buckley, Manganese Mottled, and Morgan Jones Coarse ceramics. Other artifacts from the preliminary survey included several pieces of white clay tobacco pipe, wrought nail fragments, and wine bottle glass. The deposits were recorded as Site 18ST386, and the site was interpreted as a late seventeenth- to early eighteenth-century tenant site.
In 1985 Julia King and Dennis Pogue returned to Site 18ST386 to conduct a Phase I study ahead of the proposed construction of a series of new utility lines across the Antenna Field. The Antenna Field received its name in 1982 when three large radio antennas were constructed at the site. King and Pogue’s field methods consisted of a controlled surface collection of plowed areas with limited subsurface testing in areas that could not be surface collected. Their survey area was restricted to a relatively small area and included only the southeastern margin of Site 18ST386.
During the Antenna Field survey, King and Pogue recovered 32 colonial ceramics from Site 18ST386; including two rimsherds of a North Devon Sgraffito dish, two seventeenth-century Staffordshire slipware plate fragments, one Rhenish brown stoneware fragment, and one Manganese Mottled earthenware fragment. Other artifacts from the 1985 survey included 90 white clay tobacco pipe fragments, four sherds of case and wine bottle fragments, 70 pieces of brick, some window glass, wrought nails, and animal bone. The pipe stem assemblage included three stems with a 5/64-inch bore; one of these was inscribed with “John Lewis” and “1666,” and another had the initials “D.R.”.
As a result of the 1985 study, King and Pogue agreed with Smolek’s preliminary analysis that Site 18ST386 represents a small tenant farmer occupation; they placed the occupation dates between about 1600 and 1690. The poor drainage and soil quality of the site would not have been preferred for settlement, and the artifact assemblage, though small in size, contained no artifacts to suggest a wealthy household (King and Pogue 1985). Architectural artifacts recovered from the site indicated that the structure was most likely a post-supported frame building with at least one chimney partly constructed of brick.
A third survey of Site 18ST386 was conducted by Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum in 1996. Unlike the previous two surveys, the 1996 Phase I survey included subsurface testing. One hundred sixty-four shovel tests were excavated across the site at 25- and 50-foot intervals. Of those shovel tests, 69 produced prehistoric and historic material. In all, 17 prehistoric and 120 historic artifacts were recovered. Based on the artifact distribution, the site boundaries were thought to actually encompass an area approximately 525x275 feet, rather than the smaller 200-square-foot area suggested by King and Pogue in 1985. No cultural features were identified during the 1996 Phase I survey.
Galke and Loney documented a fairly substantial prehistoric occupation of the site area. The prehistoric component consisted almost entirely of non-diagnostic quartz or quartzite debitage.
One quartz biface was also recovered. In addition to the lithic material, one unidentifiable shelltempered ceramic was also found, suggesting Woodland period activity at the site. Several pieces of other non-diagnostic lithic material was also recovered during the previous 1982 and 1985 projects, suggesting that this area was likely used as a short-term resource procurement camp during the Archaic and Woodland periods.
The historic artifacts recovered during Galke and Loney’s 1996 survey of Site 18ST386 were similar to those found in 1985. The majority (68 percent) of the material recovered during shovel testing was architectural, followed by only 28 percent that was domestic. The architectural material recovered during the 1996 survey included brick, wrought nails, numerous unidentifiable nail fragments, and window glass. The domestic material consisted of six pieces of bottle or table glass as well as several sherds of ceramics, including white salt-glazed stoneware, English Brown, North Devon, Staffordshire, and Buckley. As a result of the 1996 study, Galke and Loney supported the seventeenth-century date for Site 18ST386.
Ahead of the Phase II excavation, the artifacts recovered during the 1996 shovel testing of the site were analyzed for spatial distribution. The shovel test data and artifact information were digitized and brought into GIS. The analyses showed a cluster of historic artifacts in the central part of landform, extending from the antenna tower site (now a fenced copse of trees) to the west-southwest. Architectural artifacts clustered more tightly around the antenna tower area. Prehistoric artifacts were distributed in small clusters across the entire landform, with the highest density observed north of the antenna tower.
The spatial analysis from the 1996 Phase I study was used to guide the 2013 Phase II testing, which included 11 0.9x0.9-meter test units (Nos. 1-10, and 18) within the plotted Phase I artifact concentrations. Subsequent test units (Nos. 11-17) were used to explore artifact-rich areas within the site and to identify potential archaeological features.
Soil profiles at the site typically consisted of a plowzone above subsoil. In some instances an E-horizon (sub-plowzone eluviated layer) was present below the plowzone. In one instance (Test Unit 7) a trace of an older plowzone was evident at the base of the upper (more modern) plowzone. Although the old antenna array no longer stands in the center of the site, abandoned grounding wires and related soil disturbance were found in some test units. The plowzone at the site was typically described as dark grayish brown silt loam extending to approximately 15 centimeters (6 inches) bgs. The plowzone thickness was uneven across the site, with broad and deep furrows observed on the crest of the landform and a uniformly thin plowzone observed farther to the north. The lower plowzone, as seen only in Test Unit 7, was brown sandy clay loam and extended from 15 to 24 centimeters (6 to 9 inches) bgs. Where present, the E-horizon was pale brown to light yellowish brown sandy loam. Subsoil was typically yellowish brown silt loam with brownish yellow sandy loam mottling.
Three historic features (Features 10a, 12a, and 13a), and one prehistoric feature (Feature 4a) were identified over the course of the excavation. A number of other soil stains were investigated as possible features and found to be either natural disturbances, plow scars, or utility trenches. The historic features were all related to refuse disposal and were all located in the western portion of the site near a spring head and small stream. The historic features date to the mid- to late seventeenth century and are detailed below in the discussions of Test Units 10, 12, and 13. The prehistoric feature (Feature 4a) is enigmatic and is detailed below in the discussion of Test Unit 4. Feature 4a yielded 95 prehistoric artifacts (n=95), principally prehistoric pottery (n=90).
Although most of the potsherds were eroded and not able to be typed, the typed ceramics from the feature are Popes Creek ware, an early Middle Woodland type. In all, 165 prehistoric artifacts were recovered from Site 18ST386. The assemblage includes 106 pieces of prehistoric pottery; all of the typed specimens are Popes Creek net-impressed. Popes Creek pottery is the only temporally diagnostic material in the assemblage, indicating use of the site in the early Middle Woodland period (ca. 500 BC to AD 300). The second largest component of the prehistoric assemblage is debitage, with 48 pieces recovered, principally quartz and quartzite. Three tools were recovered from the site, consisting of a mano (grinding stone), an endscraper, and a retouched flake. A small amount of fire-cracked rock (n=8) was also recovered. The prehistoric assemblage indicates that some food preparation or processing occurred on-site, as well as stone tool manufacturing.
Lithic materials at the site are principally quartz (47 percent), followed by quartzite (34 percent), chert (17 percent), and chalcedony (2 percent). The recovered endscraper is made of quartz, and the retouched flake is chert. Early stage debitage (decortication flakes and early reduction flakes) include quartz, quartzite, and chert, suggesting that all three materials were reduced from beginning to end on-site.
The prehistoric artifacts from the site include 44 specimens from the plowzone, eight specimens from the E-horizon, and 113 artifacts from feature contexts. The artifacts from the E-horizon are small pieces of prehistoric ceramic (n=3) and small pieces of debitage (n=5); these artifacts likely migrated downward in the soil column through bioturbation. The feature finds include 90 pieces of prehistoric pottery that were recovered from Feature 4a. As discussed below, Feature 4a may be an open-fire kiln, and pottery manufacturing may have taken place on-site.
The prehistoric assemblage includes 12 pieces of prehistoric pottery, including Popes Creek net-impressed (n=5). One retouched flake was recovered from the plowzone in addition to five pieces of firecracked rock. The historic artifact assemblage from the Phase II investigation includes more than 800 artifacts, of which 30 percent were recovered from feature contexts and the remainder (n=578) from nonfeature contexts.
Five hundred twenty-two historic artifacts were recovered from plowzone contexts. Among these, 29 percent (n=154) were architectural and 30 percent (n=159) consisted of tobacco pipe fragments. Domestic artifacts such as historic ceramics and bottle glass composed 33 percent (n=176) with most of the material consisting of case bottle glass. The remaining 8 percent of the plowzone assemblage consisted of faunal material (n=6), a ceramic drain pipe, and unidentifiable metal and glass (n=26).
Eighteen test units were excavated during the Phase II survey. No cultural features were identified during the excavation of Test Units 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18. Cultural features were identified in Test Units 4 (4a, prehistoric open fire kiln), 10 and 12 (10a and 12a, two historic trash deposits), 13 (13a, historic sheet midden).
Phase II investigation of Site 18ST386 yielded rich information on both the historic and prehistoric occupations of the site. The prehistoric occupation of the site dates principally to the early Middle Woodland period (ca. 500 BC to AD 300), as evidenced by the presence of Popes Creek net-impressed pottery. The site area may have been utilized during other periods of prehistory, but there is no direct evidence of use beyond the early Middle Woodland. Prehistoric site activities may have included pottery manufacturing; a possible open-fire kiln was identified in Test Unit 4. The artifact data also indicate that tool manufacturing occurred on-site, with quartz, quartzite, and chert cobbles reduced from early stages into intermediate or final stages of reduction. The presence of fire-cracked rock and a mano indicates that some food preparation or processing occurred on-site. In addition, a utilized flake and a scraper recovered from the site suggest that game may have been processed on-site. All told, the prehistoric assemblage suggests that the site functioned as short-term encampment, perhaps seasonally occupied.
The historic occupation of Site 18ST386 likely dates from the last half of the seventeenth century to ca. 1720, and the site appears to have been occupied by one or more tenant farmers. Based on the architectural remains recovered, it is likely that a house stood on the site and that it was lightly constructed, with a wood frame and either a brick chimney or a brick hearth and a wood chimney. No structural features were identified during the Phase II investigation, but the house location was likely south-southwest of the antenna pad. A total of 52 handwrought nails were recovered, with the highest numbers recovered from Test Units 4 (n=15) and 12 (n=13), and smaller frequencies at nearby Test Units 13 (n=6) and 15 (n=7). The nail concentration likely marks the seventeenth-century house location. Brick was also concentrated in the same portion of the site, with frequencies peaking in Test Units 10, 11, and 12. Window glass (crown glass) had a more spotty distribution south and southwest of the antenna base, with peak counts in Test Units 1 and 15.
The historic use of the site likely ended in the second quarter of the eighteenth century. The ceramic assemblage includes a variety of early and later Colonial period wares. The assemblage includes Buckley ware, which dates from ca. 1720 to 1775; the 15 pieces were all recovered from non-feature contexts. This ware, along with white salt-glazed stoneware (ca. 1720 to 1775; two pieces recovered) provides a TPQ for the site of circa 1720. Buckley ware was commonly used for utilitarian vessels such as milk pans, and white salt-glazed stoneware was used for dinnerware. Other wares recovered from the site span parts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and include North Devon gravel tempered ware (ca. 1650 to 1775), which was also a utilitarian ware used commonly for milk pans.
Interestingly, the pipe assemblage suggests that the main occupation of the site was in the last half of the seventeenth century, from approximately 1660 through the 1680s. The overall pipe stem assemblage was analyzed for age using the Binford (1962) approach and was found to have a mean date of 1656. Of the 95 measurable tobacco pipe fragments recovered from across the site, the majority (n=38) consisted of 8/64-inch bore diameters, most popular between 1620 and 1650. The second most common bore diameter (n=34) was 7/64 inch, which was most popular from 1650 to 1680. All of the recovered ceramics may have been in use in Maryland during that time span with the exception of Buckley ware.
One interpretation would be that the site had a fairly continuous occupation from the last half of the seventeenth century to ca. 1720. Another possibility is that the site was occupied as a tenant farmstead between approximately 1660 and the 1680s, and that it was used subsequently into the eighteenth century for dairying or other ancillary agricultural use.
The Phase II investigation of Site 18ST386 documented rich archaeological features below the plowzone. Two of the features (Features 10a and 13a) were identified as mid- to late seventeenth-century trash middens. The other subplowzone feature (Feature 12a) was discovered underneath Feature 10a and was identified as a historic pit feature that was repurposed as a trash pit during the mid- to late seventeenth century. All three features appear to be kitchen trash deposits associated with an unknown tenant farmer who leased the property from the Society of Jesus during the mid- to late seventeenth century. The features contained household artifacts and large quantities of oyster shell and faunal remains. Micro-botanical remains in the features indicate that both wild and domesticated comestibles were used by the residents of the site. Most of the ceramics recovered were utilitarian lead-glazed wares often associated with food processing. Several were non-diagnostic, but others were identified as Manganese Mottled, North Devon, and Surry ware. In addition, two of the redwares recovered from Feature 10a were identified as potential Morgan Jones pottery, a ware type produced locally in the Chesapeake region during the 1660s and 1670s. Only three pieces of fine tableware, Delftware, were recovered from either Feature 10a or 13a. The prevalence of cheaper utilitarian ceramics in the kitchen assemblage and the paucity of more expensive fashionable tableware are reflective of the low social standing of the tenant farmer who resided at Site 18ST386. Most of the diagnostic ceramics recovered from the trash pit and midden were imported; however, two of the artifacts were locally produced Morgan Jones wares, which suggest that the farmer also purchased at least a portion of his goods from local manufacturers.
Tobacco pipes were also among the assemblage from the three trash deposits. Only 15 measureable pipe stems were recovered from the features, which is not a large enough sample size to determine a date using the Binford, Harrington, or Hanson dating methods. One of the pipe bowls recovered from Feature 10a had a maker’s mark. Although it was too eroded to identify with a certainty, it was likely either Phillip Edwards or Lluellin Evans, both of which were Bristol pipemakers who were in business beginning in the 1660s (Oswald 1975). Using the mean date of the measurable pipe stems along with the dates of manufacture of the diagnostic ceramics recovered during the Phase II survey, Site 18ST386 was likely occupied by one or more tenant farmers from approximately 1660 through the 1680s.
The presence of Manganese Mottled ceramics in Features 10a and 12a suggests that these kitchen deposits were likely created after 1680, the first year this ceramic type was available in the colonies. On the other hand, the absence of Manganese Mottled wares in the other kitchen deposit (Feature 13a) suggests that this feature likely ceased serving as a refuse midden sometime during the 1670s. It is unclear whether the difference in artifacts recovered from the deposits represents two separate occupations at the site or simply the reorganization of activity space by a single occupation. It is recommended that Site 18ST386 be determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. The site has demonstrable potential to answer research questions about Maryland’s colonial period, particularly the lives of mid- to late seventeenth-century tenants or indentured servants, as well as the operation of Jesuit landholdings during a volatile period in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Archaeological sites with components dating to the seventeenth century are also important because of their scarcity and because the documentary record that does exist for this period is limited, particularly in respect to early tenant farmers and servants.
The presence of well-preserved archaeological deposits, and the association of these sites with broad historical events such as the colonization of Maryland and the development of the plantation economy, highlight the information potential of Site 18ST386. The presence of middens and a trash pit associated with the mid- to late seventeenth-century tenant farm itself a significant discovery. The middens contained household artifacts, architectural material, and large quantities of botanical and faunal remains that were associated with one or more tenant occupations in the seventeenth century. The presence of these features suggests the likelihood of other features also being present, such as postholes, cellar holes, and/or storage pits.
Furthermore, the presence of sub-plowzone features is testament to the integrity of site deposits. The site has already produced a diverse array of seventeenth-century artifacts, including refined and coarse ceramics, glass bottles, and tobacco pipes. Future excavation of Site 18ST386 could provide valuable information on the diet and consumer habits of its seventeenth-century residents, their connection to regional trade networks, and possibly architecture and site layout. The relationship of this site to the Jesuit community and other early settlements in this part of St. Mary’s County could therefore shed light on the early development and economic history of Maryland and the Chesapeake region.
The site also had substantial information potential related to the early Middle Woodland period (ca. 500 BC to AD 200). During this era the site functioned as a short-term encampment, perhaps a seasonal encampment, where site activities included tool manufacturing and food preparation or processing. Prehistoric site activities may have included pottery manufacturing, as a possible open-fire kiln was identified below the plowzone. The Middle Woodland period is a poorly understood period of local prehistory during which many cultural changes were taking place and regional/extra-regional exchange networks were established. Additional study of Site 18ST386 may provide valuable information on diet, ceramic technology, and possibly site organization. The prehistoric component of the site is considered significant, and the component contributes to the NRHP eligibility of the resource.
|
