Today is the first in a two part series relating to early 20th Century excavations along the Port Tobacco River authored by one of our volunteers, Carol Cowherd.
In addition to volunteering with the Port Tobacco Project, I also volunteer at the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum Support Center (MSC). At lunch one day I was told that there was a small collection from the Port Tobacco River at the MSC and that there was a paper associated with it. The paper was “The Indians of Port Tobacco River, Maryland, and Their Burial Places” by William J. Graham. The paper had been privately printed in 1935, and I found a copy of a copy. The paper is definitely worth reading. (This is the same paper referenced in the Jan 26, 2008 blog, “Native Americans at Warehouse Landing”.) Here is a brief overview of the Graham’s excavation sites on the Port Tobacco River. Graham designated them as the village sites.
Site 1 – mouth of river on east side (part of Causeen’s Manor) – decaying oyster shells, quartz and quartzite spalls, projectile points, grooved stone axes, considerable number of pottery sherds. Oyster shell deposits extend from water’s edge for 200-300 feet.
Site 2 – further north on west side of river from Deep Point to Fourth Point –oyster shells, broken and chipped quartzite rocks, considerable number of lithics including projectile points and hammer stones.
At Chapel Point --- heavy deposit of shells up to several feet deep. Artifacts and camp refuse was found intermingled with the shells
Site 3 –north of Fourth Point on an area of about twenty acres-–projectile points, broken pottery, lithics including perfect, broken and rejected stone artifacts. Remains of a disturbed burial site were found.
Site 4 – north of Site 3 on 3 to 4 acres that are part of Mulberry Grove farm--many artifacts including stone hoes, broken pottery, and spalls.
Site 5 – near Warehouse Point –large number of lithics including perfect examples, rejects, spalls, stoned grooved axes, and scrapers. Four burial sites were found.
Site 6 – west side of River across from Warehouse Point –projectile points, stone hammers and axes, pottery sherds.
Site 7 – south of Site 6 at Sims’ Point -- many artifacts including pottery sherds.
Site 8 – across the river from Chapel Point – oyster shell deposit that is a few inches to two feet deep and contains quartz and quartzite pieces and pottery sherds.
The paper contains pictures of the some of the artifacts. Excluding any artifacts found in the burials, Graham described some of the artifacts found. Smaller projectile points were mainly made of white quartz. Larger projectile points were mainly made of tan-colored, pink, or gray quartzite. There were sandstone rubbing stones, felsite pestles, sandstone or quartzite mortars, and quartzite hoes, fish line sinkers, and hammers. Pottery was quartz-tempered and usually was of the “outside basket or bark marked type”. He mentioned that there were a few fragments of English trade clay pipes. But he indicated there were no beads, shells, or copper relics found on the surface.
We sure would love to have a map of these sites to relate them to the town itself and also get a look at the artifacts that Graham found. Hopefully Carol's research at the MSC will produce some more interesting finds for us.
An overview of the burials Graham found will be in Part II.
- Peter blogging for Carol
- Thanks Carol!
Showing posts with label Port Tobacco River. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Port Tobacco River. Show all posts
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Odd Jobs
Wharfinger (wharf·in·ger) - an owner of a wharf
As I posted the other day, there are always a few things in the census data that I don't know the meaning of, as in today's post. I assumed from the name that the occupation was that of someone in the fishing or shipping business. It turns out that it is the owner of a wharf.
There isn't much out there (at least that I was able to find today) about the business of owning a wharf. From what I can gather, the owner of the wharf usually had a house/office on the premise of the wharf. A job description is pretty basic, he is the one who has custody of and is responsible for all goods delivered to the wharf as well as it's upkeep.
In the 1860 census of Port Tobacco, we have a wharfinger named Alfred Nalley (30 years old). There is mention of him being part of the 1870 census as well but I find no reference to him. Again, this is one of those times where the census data does not always match and also how inaccurate it can be for doing research.
As Port Tobacco was indeed a port town and many goods came in and out of the town, it would make sense to me that there would be more than one wharf owner, or a succession of owners over time. However, I haven't found any other references to them. That doesn't mean they're not out there!
I would be curious to know if there were more than one wharfingers in Port Tobacco? How many wharves were in Port Tobacco? Were they all commercial wharfs? Did the owners sell them before the river silted in? Were they aware of the silting problem before the town knew how bad it was getting? Lots of questions, very few answers. Just something to mull over and possibly research on another day.
- Peter
As I posted the other day, there are always a few things in the census data that I don't know the meaning of, as in today's post. I assumed from the name that the occupation was that of someone in the fishing or shipping business. It turns out that it is the owner of a wharf.
There isn't much out there (at least that I was able to find today) about the business of owning a wharf. From what I can gather, the owner of the wharf usually had a house/office on the premise of the wharf. A job description is pretty basic, he is the one who has custody of and is responsible for all goods delivered to the wharf as well as it's upkeep.
In the 1860 census of Port Tobacco, we have a wharfinger named Alfred Nalley (30 years old). There is mention of him being part of the 1870 census as well but I find no reference to him. Again, this is one of those times where the census data does not always match and also how inaccurate it can be for doing research.
As Port Tobacco was indeed a port town and many goods came in and out of the town, it would make sense to me that there would be more than one wharf owner, or a succession of owners over time. However, I haven't found any other references to them. That doesn't mean they're not out there!
I would be curious to know if there were more than one wharfingers in Port Tobacco? How many wharves were in Port Tobacco? Were they all commercial wharfs? Did the owners sell them before the river silted in? Were they aware of the silting problem before the town knew how bad it was getting? Lots of questions, very few answers. Just something to mull over and possibly research on another day.
- Peter
Friday, March 28, 2008
Port Tobacco Times and Sedimentation
The Abstracts from the Port Tobacco Times and Charles County Advertiser compiled by Roberta J. Wearmouth, provide some insights into the sedimentation of the Port Tobacco River. Obviously an abstract can not include all the information contained in the original but the abstracts of the Times are a very useful source until the team completes it own review of local newspapers.
One abstract entry of interest relates to a time period long before the Times started publishing. An 1873 letter to the editor states that about 130 years previously there were plans to move the county seat to Chapel Point. The new town, to be called New Edinburg, was laid out with “ample ground for wharves, for the accommodation of trade and commerce, on water then deep enough for any vessel that could go to Alexandria”. The writer attributed this planned move to the rapid filling up of the creek and the fast growing destruction of the navigation at Port Tobacco. The writer said he had seen the plan for the town about 50 years earlier “when the Clerk’s office near the center of the public square was pulled down”. I sure would like to know how he learned that river sedimentation was the reason for the proposed move!
An 1854 report by a committee of the Charles County Agriculture Society seems to indicate the river at Port Tobacco’s traditional landing at Warehouse Point was already too shallow for navigation by large boats. This report recommended two locations on the Port Tobacco River for development as public landings for shipment of produce by steamboat. The first, Deep Point, on the East side of the river is approximately 2 ½ miles below the village of Port Tobacco and 1 ½ miles below Warehouse Point. It was described as being “as high up the creek as a steamboat could successfully ply”. From there smaller vessels would be used to transfer freight to the warehouses. The other recommended site was Brent’s Landing on the West side of the river slightly downriver from Deep Point. The abstracts give no indication that the Deep Point location was developed as a steamboat landing. However they do state that by the Fall of 1857 steamboats were stopping at Chapel Point (at the mouth of the river) where wharfs and a warehouse had been erected. Apparently Chapel Point served as the Port Tobacco stop for the duration of the steamboat era.
The Brent’s landing location was developed in 1881 but it too seemed to suffer sedimentation problems, for within a year the owner asked Congress to improve navigation by dredging the mouth of the Port Tobacco Creek. The abstracts state that funds were appropriated for a preliminary study of the feasibility of dredging both the Port Tobacco Creek and another creek in Charles County. However, they do not indicate if the dredging actually occurred. The silting problem apparently was not solved because in 1883 the Times praised the skills of a Captain who was able to dock a 300 ton schooner at Brent’s Landing. The article states that not only was the schooner probably the “largest sailing vessel” ever on the river but that much smaller vessels usually had great difficulty getting into the creek safely.
The abstracts also provide a few hints about how soil erosion that caused the sedimentation of the river affected the land around Port Tobacco, but that’s a story for another day.
- Elsie
One abstract entry of interest relates to a time period long before the Times started publishing. An 1873 letter to the editor states that about 130 years previously there were plans to move the county seat to Chapel Point. The new town, to be called New Edinburg, was laid out with “ample ground for wharves, for the accommodation of trade and commerce, on water then deep enough for any vessel that could go to Alexandria”. The writer attributed this planned move to the rapid filling up of the creek and the fast growing destruction of the navigation at Port Tobacco. The writer said he had seen the plan for the town about 50 years earlier “when the Clerk’s office near the center of the public square was pulled down”. I sure would like to know how he learned that river sedimentation was the reason for the proposed move!
An 1854 report by a committee of the Charles County Agriculture Society seems to indicate the river at Port Tobacco’s traditional landing at Warehouse Point was already too shallow for navigation by large boats. This report recommended two locations on the Port Tobacco River for development as public landings for shipment of produce by steamboat. The first, Deep Point, on the East side of the river is approximately 2 ½ miles below the village of Port Tobacco and 1 ½ miles below Warehouse Point. It was described as being “as high up the creek as a steamboat could successfully ply”. From there smaller vessels would be used to transfer freight to the warehouses. The other recommended site was Brent’s Landing on the West side of the river slightly downriver from Deep Point. The abstracts give no indication that the Deep Point location was developed as a steamboat landing. However they do state that by the Fall of 1857 steamboats were stopping at Chapel Point (at the mouth of the river) where wharfs and a warehouse had been erected. Apparently Chapel Point served as the Port Tobacco stop for the duration of the steamboat era.
The Brent’s landing location was developed in 1881 but it too seemed to suffer sedimentation problems, for within a year the owner asked Congress to improve navigation by dredging the mouth of the Port Tobacco Creek. The abstracts state that funds were appropriated for a preliminary study of the feasibility of dredging both the Port Tobacco Creek and another creek in Charles County. However, they do not indicate if the dredging actually occurred. The silting problem apparently was not solved because in 1883 the Times praised the skills of a Captain who was able to dock a 300 ton schooner at Brent’s Landing. The article states that not only was the schooner probably the “largest sailing vessel” ever on the river but that much smaller vessels usually had great difficulty getting into the creek safely.
The abstracts also provide a few hints about how soil erosion that caused the sedimentation of the river affected the land around Port Tobacco, but that’s a story for another day.
- Elsie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
