The Great Baltimore Fire


This month’s item—a stack of charred paper—might not look like much, but it represents what was perhaps the worst disaster in Baltimore’s long history.  

Most people have heard of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and the San Francisco Fire of 1906, but the lesser-known 1904 Baltimore Fire ranks as the third worst conflagration in United States history. Raging over the course of two days—February 7th and 8th—the blaze destroyed over 1,500 buildings in central Baltimore. The fire began at a dry goods warehouse on what is now Redwood Street, just blocks northwest of the Inner Harbor.  Despite attempts to halt the fire’s spread by dynamiting buildings in the path of the blaze, damage extended south to the harbor, east to Jones Falls, north to Fayette Street and west to Liberty Street.  Overall, some 140 acres were destroyed, although only one life was lost.  Some firefighters later died of pneumonia brought about as a result of fighting the fire (Heilner 2004). While reports in the Baltimore Sun estimated that property loss would range between $50 to $80 million dollars, the damage actually came in between $100 and 150 million.

Figure 1. A stack of burned paper from Reiter & Company store, recovered during archaeological excavations at the Shot Tower Metro site (18BC66). 

The severity of the situation was realized quickly and within thirty minutes of the blaze being detected, every piece of firefighting equipment in the city had been deployed.  Two engines arrived by train from Washington DC after the hasty dispatch of a telegram requesting assistance (Baltimore Sun 1904a).  Other units from surrounding locales also rushed to help battle the blaze and the Maryland National Guard and law enforcement officers from Philadelphia and New York helped maintain order and security. After 30 hours, the fire was finally brought under control by 5 pm on February 8th.

Figure 2. Front page of the Baltimore Sun on February 8, 1904, printed when the fire was not yet under control.

Within days of the fire, the pages of the Baltimore Sun were filled with large advertisements from insurance companies and building contractors, seeking to help businesses and citizens with the work of rebuilding the city. City services, like streetcars, telephones and telegraphs, were restored quickly, and the excitement generated by the disaster settled into the hard work of creating a safer and more fireproof Baltimore.

The portions of the city impacted by the fire became known as the “burnt district” (Baltimore Sun 1904b) and in March of 1904, the Maryland General Assembly established a Burnt District Commission (Digital Maryland). The commission was given broad powers to improve and rebuild the city through the removal of burned buildings, the widening and straightening streets, and the establishment of market spaces and public squares (Maryland State Archives 2015). The commission was in operation until 1907. As a result of the fire, new building codes that called for fireproof materials were established. The General Assembly also established the Citizens’ Relief Committee, which was given a fund of $250,000 for disbursement to citizens who had lost property in the fire.   

Figure 3. Graphic showing extent of Baltimore fire, screen capture taken from YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCxUG65HGsc

Any archaeological excavations occurring in portions of the city affected by the fire uncover evidence of the disaster. Work at the harbor revealed that demolition debris from destroyed buildings was used as fill in early twentieth-century wharf construction and repair. Archaeologists working at the Baltimore Metro Shot Tower Subway Station Project (18BC66) uncovered the brick foundation and cellar of a building that had been a dry and wet goods store from the late eighteenth century until the fire. The lowest levels of the cellar contained melted medicine bottles and charred foodstuffs from Reiter & Co., the grocery in operation there at the time of the 1904 fire. Charred plant remains included what appeared to have been bags of rye grain, peas, rice and coffee. The burned paper was also discovered at the store.

Figure 4. Aftermath of the 1904 fire.

A large number of burned items recovered from the Reiter & Co. store are on display in the Metro Shot Tower Subway station.  For further reading about the fire, see Harold A. Williams, Baltimore Afire (Baltimore: Schneidereth and Sons, 1954); and James B. Crooks, “The Baltimore Fire and Baltimore Reform”, Maryland Historical Magazine 65 (Spring 1970): 1- 17.

References

Baltimore Sun.  1904a  Twenty-four Blocks Burned in the Heart of Baltimore.  Baltimore Sun. February 8, 1904.

Baltimore Sun.  1904b  City’s Recovery from Great Blow is Rapid.  Baltimore Sun. February 14, 1904, p. 16.

Digital Maryland. Burnt District Commission Report, September 11, 1904. Enoch Pratt Free Library. https://collections.digitalmaryland.org/digital/collection/mdbf/id/1086

Heilner, Alexander.  2004. The Great Baltimore Fire. https://heilner.net/projects/the-great-baltimore-fire/

Maryland State Archives.  2015 Baltimore City Archives; Burnt District Commission. Maryland State Archives. http://guide.msa.maryland.gov/pages/series.aspx?id=BRG17

Camp Stanton and the U. S. Colored Troops


In October of 1863, two young men enslaved on the Southern Maryland farm of George Peterson made a bold move towards fighting for their own freedom and that of four million individuals enslaved in the United States. William H. Coates, aged 18, and William B. Jones, aged 19, enlisted at Camp Stanton in Charles County for a three year term with the United States Colored Troops (USCT).  Located along the Patuxent River at Benedict, Camp Stanton was established in 1863 as a recruiting station and training camp for the U. S. Colored Infantry.    


Figure 1.  Lead Minié balls recovered during the 2012 archaeological work at Camp Stanton (18CH305). Photo courtesy of the Maryland State Highway Administration.

The enlistment of Black men into the Union Army came to be viewed as critical to the success of the war.  Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (for whom Camp Stanton was named) wrote to Abraham Lincoln on October 1, 1863: “There is…in my judgment, a military necessity, in the State of Maryland… for enlisting into the forces all persons capable of bearing arms on the union side without regard to color, and whether they be free or not” (Berlin 1982:212).   Although President Lincoln had initially resisted enlisting men of color, the Bureau of Colored Troops was formed in May of 1863 to facilitate the recruitment of African-American soldiers into the Union Army (Cornish 1965). By the end of the Civil War, there were almost 180,000 men in 175 USCT regiments; about one-tenth of the manpower of the Union Army. U. S. Colored Troops fought in every major battle during the last two years of the war and their efforts contributed to the success of the Union.

Continue reading

Civil War Medicine—Not Just About Treating Battle Injuries


This post, which features a brass syringe found in a privy in Baltimore, anticipates April 2021’s Maryland Archeology Month, with its theme of medical care in archaeology. The syringe was found in a mid-nineteenth century context, corresponding nicely with similarly dated examples in museum collections.


Figure 1.  Clyster syringe from the Metro Shot Tower site (18BC66) in Baltimore.  One of the mid-19th century residents at this site was a physician. 

Known as a clyster, this syringe was not used with a needle. Instead, the cylinder would be filled with medicinal powders, which could be injected into wounds (Dammann 1983).  A standard component in Civil War era physicians’ kits, clysters were also used to treat venereal diseases (NPS n.d.). The term clyster comes from an archaic word meaning “enema” and larger versions of these syringes were used to administer enemas.

As the site of numerous battles during the Civil War, including its deadliest one day battle at Antietam, Maryland was the site of a number of Civil War hospitals. These hospitals ranged from large complexes constructed specifically to serve as medical facilities (Figure 2), to barns, homes and other buildings repurposed as needed. When most readers think of Civil War hospitals, they probably envision treating gunshot wounds and performing amputations as being the most common tasks for these medical professionals. Physicians and nursing staff at these facilities, however, had a wider range of challenges facing them.


Figure 2. Hicks U.S. Genl. Hospital, Baltimore, Md.  Library of Congress.

Deaths from diseases far outnumbered fatalities caused by battle-related injuries. Recent statistical revisions have increased the overall number of war fatalities from 618,000 to 752,000 (Hacker 2011) and some scholars place deaths from diseases as accounting for as many as two thirds of the fatalities (Foote 1958:1040; Dammann 1983). Typhoid, malaria, chronic diarrhea and dysentery (Figure 3), all caused by unsanitary conditions and exposure to disease-carrying insects, were major killers, felling almost 102,000 men (Burns 2021). One of the medical advances made during the Civil War was the use of quinine in treating malaria (Reilly 2016). Many soldiers, particularly from isolated rural areas, encountered childhood diseases like measles and mumps for the first time in the crowded conditions of the camps and trenches (Burns 2021).


Figure 3. Chronic Dysentery, Aaron Parker, Co D 1st Maine Cavalry.  Stanley B. Burns, MD & The Burns Archive. 

Infections from delayed or improperly cleaned wounds were also a big concern – and development of antimicrobial drugs was still many decades in the future.  Some commonly employed medicines actually caused more harm than good (Reilly 2016).   

In our current public health crisis, many of us have had to practice quarantining as we were either diagnosed with Covid, or were symptomatic.  We can credit Civil War physicians with figuring out the value of isolating patients with communicable diseases; during the war they were able to effectively control yellow fever through the practice of quarantining (Reilly 2016).

The National Museum of Civil War Medicine, located in Frederick, Maryland, is a great place to visit to learn more about medicine and medical practices during this conflict. 

References

Burns, Stanley. 2021.  Diseases.  Behind the Lens:  A History in Pictures.  Mercy Street. Public Broadcasting Service. Website accessed on January 28, 2021 at http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/uncover-history/behind-lens/disease/#:~:text=Before%20war%20in%20the%20twentieth,was%20probably%20closer%20to%20750%2C000.

Dammann, Gordon.  1983.  Pictorial Encyclopedia of Civil War Medical Instruments and Equipment.  Volume I. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Foote, Shelby. 1958. The Civil War: A Narrative. Vol. 3. New York: Random House,     

Gugliotta, Guy.  2012.  New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll.  New York Times, April 2, 2012. Website accessed on January 28, 2021 at https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html#:~:text=For%20110%20years%2C%20the%20numbers,any%20war%20in%20American%20history.

Hacker JD. 2011. A census-based count of the Civil War dead. Civil War History. 57:307–348.  

National Park Service. Syringes.  Vicksburg National Military Park. Museum Management Program. Website accessed on January 28, 2021 at https://www.nps.gov/museum/exhibits/vick/LifeAboard/medicalEquipment/VICK1147_1146_1148_450_451_1145_syringe.html

Reilly, Robert F. 2016.  Medical and surgical care during the American Civil War, 1861–1865. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2016 Apr; 29(2): 138–142. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4790547/#B2

E. Sasche & Co. 1864. Hicks U.S. Genl. Hospital, Baltimore, Md. / Wm. Q. Caldwell, Jun. architect.  E. Sachse & Co., Baltimore.

Baltimore and Voter Registration


Archaeologists working in advance of the construction of the Intercounty Connector project encountered an unusual situation at the Jackson Homestead site (18MO609) in Montgomery County. The site was the location of a 19th-century home that was completely destroyed by fire around 1910, while still occupied (Furgerson et al. 2011). The Jackson family apparently had very little time to remove their possessions, so archaeologists working inside the house foundation discovered essentially a time capsule frozen in place by the fire.  One of more interesting artifacts they recovered was a campaign button from the 1860 election between Republican Abraham Lincoln and three other Democratic presidential candidates—John Bell, John C. Breckinridge,[i] and Stephen A. Douglas.  Lincoln, and his running mate Hannibal Hamlin, emerged victorious in this contest.

Figure 1. Lincoln Hamlin medal recovered from the Jackson Homestead site (18MO609).

You heard this familiar refrain over and over again in the months leading up to our national election: “Register to vote”; “Make your voice heard by registering to vote”.  We all know that the ability to exercise our constitutional right to vote in any United States election rests in registering your name with the local election board. In fact, it—and getting a library card—are two of the first things I do when I move to a new area.  But what sounds like a simple, straightforward process is not always the case.  Over the history of the United States, voter suppression has bedeviled our country, a challenge that continues to this day.  So it should probably not surprise you that voter registration issues have also had a long and contentious history in Baltimore.

Faced with the challenges of a growing population in Baltimore and the increased likelihood of voter fraud, the Maryland legislature authorized the city in 1821 to pass a voter registration system. Voting rights, property ownership and public education became tied in the following years and it was not until 1829 that the city extended voting rights to free white males without requisite property ownership (Crenson 2017:127, 132).

Voter registration systems, although appearing to be a way to insure more citizens get a voice, has often been a tool of voter suppression. After the 1829 Baltimore decision, voter registration was limited to only three days in October—a move that led to long lines, discouraging many men in the laboring class from taking time away from work to register. Voter registration systems in many American cities were also designed to disenfranchise immigrants and people of color (Keysarr 2000).  Beginning in the early nineteenth century, Baltimore had the largest concentration of free blacks in the United States (Rockman 2009:166).  Before the Civil War, Maryland had more free blacks than any other state in the nation and 92% of African Americans in Baltimore were free in 1862 (Hayward 2008:3; Rockman 2009:166).

Figure 2. Medal from the 1860 campaign of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin.

After the Civil War, corruption in Baltimore’s voting system was particularly egregious in its dealings with African American voters.  Great efforts were made to suppress black voting, including paying voters to stay at away from the polls and arranging outings on election day to lure voters out of the city (Crenson 2017:295).  Literacy tests and poll taxes were other means used to reduce African American voting rates in the late nineteenth century (Daniels 2020).  In the early twentieth century, two defeated amendments—the Straus and the Digges amendments—tried to create legislation that would disqualify many African American would-be voters by setting stringent voter registration requirements (Crenson 2017:339).

Voter suppression, unfortunately, is still with us today. In 2013, the U. S. Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act, which mandated that states and localities with histories of voting discrimination receive federal approval before changing election laws.  As a result of this decision, numerous states changed regulations in ways that unfairly targeted people of color, removing them from voter rolls or making it more difficult for them to meet the requirements of voter registration.  Despite these obstacles, African American voters turned out in record numbers for the 2020 election.

The medal from the Jackson Homestead was found in the parlor and when the house was burned, it dated back fifty years.  Its antiquity and its placement in the most formal room of the house suggest that it was a family heirloom—perhaps serving as a reminder of the administration responsible for emancipation and the beginnings of a long, still extant road towards equal voting rights.

References

Crenson, Matthew. Baltimore; A Political History.  Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2017.

Daniels, Gilda. Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America.  New York University Press, New York, 2020.

Furgerson, Kathleen, Varna Boyd, Carey O’Reilly, Justin Bedard, Tracy Formica, and Anthony Randolph, Jr.   Phase II and III Archaeological Investigations of the Fairland Branch Site and the Jackson Homestead (Site 18MO609), Intercounty Connector Project, Montgomery County, Maryland. Prepared by the URS Corporation for the Maryland State Highways Administration. SHA Archaeological Report No. 426., 2011.

Hayward, Mary Ellen. Baltimore’s Alley Houses; Homes for Working People Since the 1780s.  The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2008.

Keysarr, Alex. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. Basic Books, 2000.

Rockman, Seth.  Scraping By; Wage Labor, Slavery and Survival in Early Baltimore.  The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2009.


[i] As an interesting aside, John C. Breckinridge was the great-grandfather of Mary Marvin Breckinridge Patterson, who donated Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum to the State of Maryland in 1983.

MS. in a Bottle – Edgar Allan Poe and Baltimore


October seems the perfect month to feature a blog post on Gothic horror writer Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849) and his storied history in Maryland. This circa 1830s wine bottle, recovered from a mid-19th century privy in Baltimore, inspired this post.

Figure 1. Wine bottle recovered from a mid-19th-century privy at the Federal Reserve Site (18BC27) in Baltimore.

Although born in Boston on January 19, 1809, Edgar Allan Poe’s Baltimore roots extend back before his birth. Poe’s father, professional actor David Poe, Jr., was from originally from Baltimore and Poe’s paternal grandfather moved there with his parents from Ireland in the mid-18th century.  As a result of his father’s abandonment and the subsequent death of his mother, Edgar Poe became an orphan at the age of three.  He and his siblings were split up, with Edgar Poe sent to Richmond, Virginia, to be raised by the family of John and Frances Allan. It was Poe’s relationship with this family that prompted him to take the middle name Allan.

Figure 2. Daguerreotype of Edgar Allan Poe, late 1840s.

Edgar Allan Poe’s own relationship with Baltimore began in 1827, when he was in the city for a short time before enlisting in the Army. Later that same year, his poem “Extract—Dreams” was published in the Baltimore newspaper The North American, under the initials W. H. P. [William Henry Poe].  Some of his other early poems were published in Baltimore in 1829 in a volume entitled Al Araaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems (Quinn 1998). Limited numbers of the volume were printed and it received very little notice at the time.

On October 19, 1833, the Baltimore Saturday Visiter published Poe’s short story, “MS. Found in a Bottle”.  The story was Poe’s response to a short story contest announced in the June 15th edition of the paper. Poe submitted six stories to the contest, and “MS. Found in a Bottle” was the unanimous choice of the judges, earning Poe a $50 prize. Poe scholars agree that this short story launched the author’s career (Peeples 1998). Perhaps Poe’s story was inspired by a wine bottle like the one illustrated here, since Poe was no stranger to drinking.

Figure 3. Banner of the Baltimore Saturday Visiter edition that published Poe’s story “MS. Found in a Bottle” on October 18, 1833.

One of Poe’s greatest connections with the city was with his cousin, Virginia Eliza Clemm.  Poe married 13-year old Virginia in 1835; they remained married until her death from tuberculosis in 1847. Poe began to drink heavily after his wife’s death.

October is also the month of Poe’s rather sudden and premature death at the age of 40, during a visit to Baltimore. Scholars still disagree about the cause of Poe’s death on October 7, 1849, with at least nine hypotheses in play, including carbon monoxide poisoning, rabies, the flu and murder. Complications from his long struggle with alcohol addiction seem a likely candidate, although swelling of the brain was listed as the official reason on his death certificate (Geiling 2014). Poe was originally laid to rest in an unmarked grave in Baltimore, but in 1875 was exhumed and buried with his wife Virginia and her mother—in the city where he first gained recognition for his writing talents.

Figure 4. Poe’s gravesite in Baltimore.

Fascination with Poe and his mysterious stories and complicated life is still strong today, particularly in the cities where he made his home.  Baltimore even named their football team – the Baltimore Ravens—in homage to Poe. Today, fans of Edgar Allan Poe have a variety of Poe’s former homes where they can pay homage to the horror writer:  the Poe Museum in Richmond, The Edgar Allan Poe House & Museum in Baltimore, or even the Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site in Philadelphia.

References

Geiling, Natasha. 2014. The (Still) Mysterious Death of Edgar Allan Poe. Smithsonianmag.com. October 7, 2014. Website accessed on October 13, 2020 at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/still-mysterious-death-edgar-allan-poe-180952936/.

Peeples, Scott.  1998.  Edgar Allan Poe Revisited. Twayne Publishers, New York.

Quinn, Arthur Hobson. 1998. Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biography. Johns Hopkins University Press.

A Humiliating American Defeat at Bladensburg


This 18 pound cannonball was donated to the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab several years ago by a nearby resident who found it on his property. Doubtless, this cannonball was fired during the Battle of St. Leonard’s Creek, where the British engaged with American Commodore Joshua Barney’s fleet in June of 1814 (Eshelman 2012). This month’s blog uses this artifact to commemorate the Battle of Bladensburg, which occurred on August 24, 1814.

Figure 1. Eighteen pound cannonball discovered near the site of the Battle of St. Leonard Creek, June 1814. Both the British and American forces used 18 pound balls, so it is not possible to assign this cannonball to a specific side.

After British troops left Southern Maryland following the Battle of St. Leonard Creek, they advanced on Washington, D. C., with the goal of capturing the nation’s capital. American troops, anticipating this move, were waiting for them ten miles outside of the city, at Bladensburg. All signs pointed to an American victory: the American troops occupied the high ground leading into town, they controlled the bridge leading over the Anacostia River and they outnumbered the British forces 6,500 to 4,500 (Battlefields.org 2020). Three battle lines were drawn up along the high ground, with one of the lines consisting of sailors and marines under the command of Joshua Barney, who had recently engaged the British at St. Leonard Creek (Whitlow 2020).

Figure 2. Drawing of the Battle of Bladensburg from a British perspective. Courtesy of the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

But the British forces had the advantage of more training and a strong, experienced leader in Major General Robert Ross (NPS 2016). Ross determined that the placement of the American troops left them vulnerable. Once the British troops had forded the river above the bridge, as well as forcing their way across the bridge, they advanced and gained control of the west bank of the river. American forces, under the command of General William Winder, quickly retreated. There were an estimated 450 casualties of the Battle of Bladensburg – 200 on the American side and 250 for the British troops. Commodore Barney was shot in the thigh, but managed to command his men to retreat before passing out from blood loss (Whitlow 2020).

The British victory at Bladensburg allowed them to easily march into Washington, where they set fire to a number of public buildings, including the presidential mansion, occupied at that time by James and Dolley Madison. A dinner for forty people had been in the works when the mansion was abandoned and the soldiers partook of the food and wine before setting fire to the house (Gleig 1826). The capture of Washington on August 24th and 25th of 1814 was the only time a foreign power has captured our nation’s capital.

Figure 3. Damage to the White House after the British burned the building. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The Maryland State Highway Administration, in partnership with the Center for Heritage Resource Studies of the University of Maryland, conducted archaeological investigations at the Market Master’s House and the Indian Queen Tavern in Bladensburg as part of the outreach for the bicentennial celebrations of the War of 1812 (Crowl et al. 2012).

References

Battlefields.org. 2020. Bladensburg. American Battlefield Trust. Website accessed on August 21, 2020 at https://www.battlefields.org/learn/war-1812/battles/bladensburg.

Crowl, Heather, Benjamin Stewart, Carey O’Reilly, and Kathleen Furgerson. Bladensburg Archeological Investigations: Magruder House (18PR982), Market Master House (18PR983), and Indian Queen Tavern Site (18PR96), Prince George’s County, Maryland. 3 vols. SHA Archeological Report No. 432, SHA, Baltimore, 2012.

Eshelman, Ralph. In Full Glory Reflected: Discovering the War of 1812 in the Chesapeake. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, 2012.

Gleig, George Robert, A History of the Campaigns of the British at Washington and New Orleans (1826), reprinted in The Heritage of America by Henry Steele Commager and Allan Nevins (1939).

National Park Service (NPS). Summer 1814: American troops flee in humiliation, leaving Washington exposed. National Park Service. Website accessed August 18, 2020 at https://www.nps.gov/articles/bladensburg-races.htm.

Whitlow, Zachary. 2020. Bladensburg: Before the British Could Torch the Capital of the United States……They had one more stop to make. American Battlefield Trust Bladensburg. Website accessed August 21, 2020 at https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/bladensburg-british-could-torch-capital-united-states.

“The Manner of Their Fishing”: Trapping Fish in Maryland’s Past


Curators at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab have the distinctly enviable pleasure of going through the lab’s archaeological collections as part of their daily jobs. And more often than not, the collections will yield interesting new discoveries—like the curious object in Figure 1. It was found in a bag containing many similar pieces of iron wire and had not been identified by archaeologists at the time of its excavation at the Oxon Hill/Addison Plantation site (18PR175) on the Potomac River in Prince George’s County. But leave it to MAC Lab Federal Curator Sara Rivers Cofield to come up with its identification as part of an eel trap (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Photo montage of a complete eel trap (created by Sara Rivers Cofield).

The only freshwater eel in North America, the American eel (Anguilla rostrata), spends most of its time in fresh or brackish water, migrating to the ocean to spawn (Wilding 2018).  While eel (Figure 3) has virtually disappeared from North American cuisine, it was very popular with colonial Americans, who brought a taste for it from England (Schweid 2002). Wrapped in a pastry crust, eel pie was a common and inexpensive London street food. The English settlers were not the only ones to enjoy eel’s reportedly robust flavor; Algonquin tribes smoked them (Booth 1971:108).  In the late 18th century, eels were a staple of George Washington’s army’s diet.  

 

Figure 3. Common Eel from The Fresh-water Fishes of Great Britain, drawn and described by Mrs. T. Edward Bowdich. R. Ackermann: London, 1828.

Riverine resources have always been an important aspect of Maryland’s past. In addition to spearing and netting fish, Maryland’s native populations used fish traps and weirs of varying types. Both traps and weirs worked by routing fish, including eel, into places of no escape, where they could be more easily speared or netted. Traps could be constructed of basketry, wire like the Oxon Hill example, or wood, similar to an example depicted by John White in late 16th-century eastern North Carolina (Figure 4). Fish weirs were more often made of stone arranged in a V-shape that channeled the fish downriver through a narrow chute and possibly into a smaller holding pen constructed of wood or brush for easy capture. A 1965 aerial photographic survey of a portion of the Potomac River near Washington D.C. discovered 36 prehistoric and colonial stone fish traps and weirs (Strandberg and Tomlinson 1969).  A total of 54 V-shaped stone weirs have been documented in the Potomac between Leesburg and Harper’s Ferry (Scheel 2000).

Figure 4. The Manner of Their Fishing. Artist John White, British Museum Collections.

The use of fish traps extends back thousands of years in Southern Maryland; archaeologist Horace P. Hobbs reported finding a six to seven thousand year old projectile point in one of the traps along the Potomac (Hobbs 1965, 1966). There has been some debate about who first constructed the weirs; engineer Dan Guzy (1999) argues that they were actually constructed during the colonial period by white and black settlers moving into this portion of Virginia and Maryland.   

Regardless of who originally built them, the Potomac fish weirs were used during the colonial period and nineteenth century.  Some weirs, blocking river navigation, were removed in the 18th and 19th centuries, much to the dismay of people living along the river (Scheel 2000).  

Today, eels are largely extinct in the Potomac, due to the construction of the hydroelectric dam near Shepherdstown, West Virginia.  The dam disrupts the eel’s life cycle, making it difficult for them to reproduce.

References

Booth, Sally Smith. 1971. Hung, Strung and Potted: A History of Eating in Colonial America. Clarkson N. Potter, New York.

Bowdich, Mrs. T. Edward. 1828.  The Fresh-water Fishes of Great Britain. Ackermann, London.

Guzy, Dan.  1999.  Fish Weirs in the Upper Potomac River.  Maryland Archeology.

Hobbs, Horace P. 1965.  Rock Dams in the Upper Potomac. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 96-98. 

Hobbs, Horace P. 1966.  Rock Dams in the Upper Potomac (Conclusion?). Archaeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 21-23.  

Scheel, Eugene.  2000. Fishing Out Evidence of Indian Heritage.  Washington Post. July 16, 2000. Website accessed July 24, 2020 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2000/07/16/fishing-out-evidence-of-indian-heritage/44edc5ee-ff1c-4923-a5de-8a3374a89518/.

Schweid, Richard.  2002. Consider the Eel. Gastronomica , Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring 2002), pp. 14-19.

Strandberg, Carl H. and Ray Tomlinson. 1969. Photoarchaeological Analysis of Potomac River Fish Traps. American Antiquity. Vol. 34, No. 3: 312-319.

Wilding, Sam.  2018. American Eel.  Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch.  United States of America, North Carolina/Northwest Atlantic. Pots, Fyke nets, barriers, fences, weirs, corrals, etc. Website accessed June 11, 2020 at https://www.seafoodwatch.org/-/m/2e1924111fca41dfa385df05a239de04.pdf

“Heading” for Trouble in the Maryland Colony?


One of the more intriguing 17th-century artifacts found in Maryland is this ceramic figurine of a king (Figure 1). The broken artifact measures around 6 inches tall; originally the figurine would have stood about 10 inches in height (Grulich 2008).  The headless monarch is clad in armor, holds a sword in his right hand and an orb topped with a cross in his left. The figurine, broken into two pieces, was found in 1998 at the Charles’ Gift Site (18ST704), on Naval Air Station Patuxent River. It had been deposited in a large trash midden containing ceramics dating its filling between 1682 and 1700 (Polglase 2001:179). The Charles Gift property was home at this time to Nicholas Sewall, stepson of Charles Calvert, governor of the Maryland colony. Cecil Calvert (1605-1675), the 2nd Lord Baltimore, established the Maryland colony, ruling it as its First Proprietor. His son Charles (1637-1715) was the 3rd Lord Baltimore and, unlike his father, lived in the colony that he governed.

Figure 1. Headless king figurine from the Charles’ Gift site (18ST704). Courtesy Naval District Washington, Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

Why would this figurine have found its way to the Maryland colony? There is some evidence that these figurines were produced as souvenirs of coronations and sold at fairs in England (Grulich 2008). It is possible that the Sewall family either purchased the figurine themselves, or had it shipped from England for display in their home. It may have been displayed in a room used for formal entertaining and signaled to visitors Sewall’s allegiance to the British throne.

Maryland prides itself on having been an early pioneer in the principles of religious toleration, welcoming Catholics, Puritans, Anglicans and Quakers.  The colony’s proprietary government was often led by Roman Catholic governors closely tied to the Calvert family from 1634 to 1689.  This religious tolerance marked the colony for the first five decades of settlement. But as the 17th century drew to a close, political events in England led to turbulent times in the Maryland colony. The 1689 Protestant Uprising sparked by the 1688 Glorious Revolution in England, which replaced the Catholic king with Protestant monarchs King William III and Queen Mary II, ended Catholic governance in Maryland. For the next two and a half decades, the Maryland colony was governed directly by the British crown.

Nicholas Sewall retained his loyalty to the Calvert family during the rebellion and fled from his home at Charles’ Gift to refuge in Virginia. He returned to his plantation only sporadically in the ensuing years. It is tempting to hypothesize that the headless king figurine may have been a victim of the political and religious turmoil.  Is it possible that Sewall, after Catholic King James was deposed and replaced by Protestant monarchs, destroyed and discarded this depiction of the new royal authority?  Or, was it damage and discard just the result of an unintended household accident?  We will never know, but it is interesting to consider this object in light of the tumultuous early history of the colony.

There are several other 17th-century sites in southern Maryland where artifacts containing depictions of kingly figures have been recovered.  Another broken white clay kingly figurine was found at the Middle Plantation site in Ann Arundel County (Grulich 2008).  A fragment of a tin-glazed earthenware charger with a painted depiction of an unidentified royal figure was found at the Angelica Knoll site (18CV60) in Calvert County (Figure 2) and a complete German Hohrware jug with a portrait of England’s King William III was found at Westwood Manor in Charles County (Figure 3).  Archaeologists who studied this site speculated that property resident John Bayne used this object, as well as stoneware tankards bearing the king’s initials and a set of framed likenesses of William and Mary listed in his estate inventory, to demonstrate his loyalty to the Protestant monarch and the Church of England at a time when the King had just supported the overthrow of the colony’s Catholic-run government (King, Arnold-Lourie, and Shaffer 2008; Alexander et al. 2010).  

Figure 2. Fragments of a tin-glazed charger with a royal figure similar to the one depicted on the complete example shown to the right. These fragments were recovered from a cellar at the Angelica Knoll Site (18CV60), whose artifacts date from c. 1650 to 1770. Photographs courtesy of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory.
Figure 3. Hohrware jug from the Westwood Manor site (18CH621), depicting King William III. Photograph courtesy of Dr. Julia A. King, St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

These kingly artifacts may be emblematic of the power struggles between Protestant and Catholic political factions in early Maryland. After the Protestant uprisings of 1689, religious toleration would not be regained in Maryland until the end of the 18th century. Regardless of their political and religious meanings, they hold a fascination for us today as enigmatic objects.  In fact, the headless king figurine was the subject of Maryland’s 2005 Archeology Month poster – an entry which won a prize in the 2006 poster contest of the Society for American Archaeology.

Figure 4. The headless monarch figurine featured on the 2005 Maryland Archeology Month poster. Poster image courtesy of the Archeological Society of Maryland.

References

Alexander, Allison, Skylar A. Bauer, Patricia H. Byers, Seth Farber, Alex J. Flick, Juliana Franck, Ben Garbart, Grace Gutowski, Julianna Jackson, Mark R. Koppel, Amy Publicover, Maria Tolbert, Verioska Torres, Alexandra Unger, Jerry S. Warner, Justin Warrenfeltz, Julia A. King, editor and Scott M. Strickland, researcher.

2010. The Westwood Manor Archaeological Collection: Preliminary Interpretations. Report prepared by the Archaeology Practicum Class, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, St. Mary’s City, Maryland.

Anne Dowling Grulich. 

2008. An Enigmatic Monarch:  The Biography of a Headless, Mold-made, White Pipe Clay King Recovered in 17th-Century Maryland.  Website accessed May 12, 2020 at https://jefpat.maryland.gov/Documents/mac-lab/grulich-anne-dowling-enigmatic-monarch-biography-headless-mold-made-white-pipe-clay-king-recovered-in-17th-century-md.pdf.

King, Julia, Christine Arnold-Lourie, and Susan Shaffer

2008. Pathways to History; Charles County Maryland, 1658-2008. Smallwood Foundation, Inc., Mt. Victoria, Md.

Christopher Polglase. 

2001. Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 18ST704 Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, MD.  Final report by R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD.  On file at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Lab.

John Stuart Skinner and The American Farmer


It’s April and the season when I enjoy watching friends post about readying their gardens for summer crops-amending the soil and planting starter pots of tomatoes, basil and squash. This year in particular, as we all practice social distancing and struggle with finding safe and home-based activities, I suspect that summer gardens are bound to provide plentiful harvests.

Figure 1. Agricultural hoe from a well at Oxon Hill Plantation in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The well was filled between 1710 and 1750.

Having the correct tools is certainly a boon to home gardeners, as well as more serious farmers. This was no less true in early America. The iron hoe shown in Figure 1 was recovered from a well filled prior to 1750 at the Oxon Hill Plantation (18PR175) along the Potomac River. At that time, the primary cash crop on the plantation would have been tobacco and this particular type of broad hoe was known as a “Virginia” or “weeding” hoe (Evans 2012). Agriculture has always been an important economic driver in Virginia and Maryland and knowledge about farming has always been an important consideration.

Just over a century ago, in April of 1819, Calvert County native John Stuart Skinner began publishing the first agricultural journal in the United States. Entitled The American Farmer (Figure 2), this publication aimed to provide accurate knowledge about new agricultural technologies, animal husbandry, and farm commodity prices, in order to re-invigorate agriculture after its nadir during the War of 1812 (American Farmer 1819). The publication, whose first issue appeared on April 2, 1819, was a weekly periodical with a booklet format of eight pages (Pinkett 1950). The American Farmer’s subtitle was “Rural Economy, Internal Improvements, News, Prices Current” and a subscription could be had for four dollars a year.  

Figure 2. The American Farmer masthead for April 2, 1819.

Skinner’s publication was very popular and he retained agents in Philadelphia, Raleigh, Richmond, New York, Boston and Charleston within four years of beginning publication (Berryman 1982). The American Farmer was also endorsed by a number of noteworthy men, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Andrew Jackson. Skinner’s publication was part of a larger movement within the United States to improve agriculture through the application of scientific principles.

John Stuart Skinner Lithograh by F. D’Avignon (From the Farm Book), 1851

Having been raised on “The Reserve”, a plantation in rural Calvert County, to a family of farmers, Skinner was knowledgeable about agriculture (Berryman 1982). But farming was not his only interest; Skinner was an interesting man with a variety of careers (Figure 3). Born in 1788, he began practicing as an attorney at the age of twenty-one. He served in the Navy during the War of 1812, was a mail inspector and a federal agent for prisoner exchange, held the position of postmaster of Baltimore from 1816 to 1837 and later was the Assistant Postmaster General of the United States (Pinkett 1950).

Although Skinner ended his involvement in The American Farmer in 1830 in order to pursue publication of a sporting magazine (Berryman 1982:47), the periodical continued to be published until 1897. Often considered “the father of American farm journalism”, Skinner remained involved in publications on agriculture and sporting topics until his untimely accidental death in 1851. 

References

American Farmer. 1819. The American Farmer. August 13, and 20, 1819.

Jack W. Berryman. 1982. Sport, Health, and the Rural-Urban Conflict; Baltimore and John Stuart Skinner’s American Farmer, 1819-1829. Conspectus of History, Volume 1, No. 8. Website accessed April 14, 2020 at https://dmr.bsu.edu/digital/collection/ConspectusH/id/624.

Chris Evans. 2012. The Plantation Hoe: The Rise and Fall of an Atlantic Commodity, 1650–1850. The William and Mary Quarterly. Vol. 69, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 71-100.

Harold T. Pinkett. 1950. The “American Farmer,” a Pioneer Agricultural Journal, 1819-1834. Agricultural History, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July, 1950), pp. 146-151. Website accessed April 10, 2020 at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741028.

The Phillips Bros Champion Bottling Works: A Baltimore-Based Bottling Company’s Knock-Out Advertising


Some of the best advertisements are ones of memorable imagery or catchy slogans, a method still utilized in today’s marketing. With a boxing scene and a tagline of “A Knockout for Thirst” the Phillips Brothers Champion Bottling Works certainly developed these marketing methods while in production from 1893 through the mid-1930s (The Re-ly-On Bottler). Based in Baltimore, Maryland the Phillips’ Brothers Company bottled “non-alcoholic maltless beverages” and were best known for their ginger-ale (The Official Gazette 1945: 539).

Figure A: An example of a typical aqua glass bottle from the Phillips Brothers Bottling Works. The bottle and corresponding illustration (Figure B) display the Baltimore-based company’s trade-mark design of a boxing match with the victor standing over the defeated competition.
Figure B: This image supported their company’s tag line of being “A Knockout for Thirst”
(Illustration credit: Alex Glass).

The Phillips Brothers consisted of the Henry Lake, John D., Levin W. and Howard S. Phillips. The company was first started by Levin and Howards Phillips, being later joined by Henry Lake, who over time became the senior member of the brothers’ enterprise. The company was a central member of the Maryland bottling business community and an active member of the American Bottler’s Protective associations (American Bottler 1920).

The center of the Phillips Brothers company was a state-of-the-art factory, operated by top-of-the-line machinery for the time. One of the main innovative machines on their line was the Shields six-head rotary filling machine (Fig. C). With two of the Shields filling machines operating on the production line, the company went from turning out a few dozen bottles daily to 6,000 dozen bottles of soda each day.

Figure C: The Shields six-head rotary filing machine developed the brothers’ bottling company from a few dozen bottle producing company into a highly functioning, high yielding production line of thousands of bottles every day (The Re-ly-on Bottler).

The glass bottles would only interact with machinery through the entire process. First starting with a three-compartment soaking machine, bottles were soaked in three different baths of a caustic soda solution to sanitize the bottles. After being submerged in the super-heated baths at 110, 120 and 130 degrees, they were rinsed out via automatic washing machines that cycled between brushing and rinsing (The Re-ly-on Bottler). Freshly cleaned out, the bottles were then filled with the various carbonated beverages of the Phillips’ Brothers line of products. Most known for their ginger ale, the company also produced sarsaparilla and lemon, orange, and chocolate soda, as well as cola. 

Figure D: Examples of bottle paper labels for the company’s ginger ale and sarsaparilla soda brands from a private collection.
Figure E: A wooden bottle crate from the bottling company from a private collection.

The bottles were then sealed using the innovative lightning closure first patented by Charles De Quillfeldt on January 5th, 1875 before Karl Hutter took over the patent and popularized the design in 1877. This stopper design revolutionized the bottling industry as the seal created by leveraging a rubber disk into the lip of the bottle proved a reliable sealing system (von Mechow 2018).   

Figure F: The trade-mark logo of the Phillips Brothers Bottling Company stamped on a porcelain Hutter lightning bottle closure seal.
Figure G: The bottom of the same porcelain seal bears the K. Hutter name and patent date of “Feb 3 1893”.

References

American Bottler. 1920. Volume 30. Web accessed March 24, 2020.

Champion Beverages Well Named; Efficient Baltimore Company Has Catchy Slogan. The Re-ly-on Bottler: A Magazine of Idea and Ideals for the Bottling Trade. 1922. The International Cork Co. Volumes 3-6. Web accessed March 5, 2020.

The Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office. 1945. Volume 581.

Von Mechow, Tod. 2018. Bottle Attributes – Beer Bottle Closures. Soda & Beer Bottles of North America. Website accessed March 23, 2020.