Piracy...or Pottery Barn?

Today we are happy to present an article from the almost ridiculously prolific and eminent George L. Miller concerning a boatload of dishes and linens.

What, that doesn't sound exciting? Would it help if I told you that during the War of 1812, pretty much the only way to obtain imported household items was to do this?:

Thomas Whitcombe, Battle Scene in the English Channel Between the American Ship "Wasp" and the English Brig "Reindeer,"  1812. Courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago.

In "Ceramics from the 1813 Prize Brig Ann, Auctioned in Salem, Massachussetts: An Analysis," (originally published in the 2012 issue of Ceramics in America, Robert Hunter, ed. (Chipstone Foundation), George Miller begins with a collection of relatively humble household items and draws a larger picture of economics (and the difficulty of obtaining a matching set of teacups) in a time of war. 

Undoubtedly, similar events were taking place in Maryland during this time, and it is interesting to consider how people might have obtained the everyday items they relied on during a time when trade was completely disrupted - as Miller points out, Napoleon passed the Berlin Decree in 1806, forbidden the importation of British goods; the U.S. passed the Non-Importation Act and the Embargo Act to try to get the British to stop impressing American sailors, but the British kept right on impressing them and terrestrial Americans ended up having a hard time obtaining English manufactured goods.

Evidently, the American passion for English tea services was such that privateers went out and took English dishes (and let's not forget those Irish linens) by force. Next time you see an archaeologist getting all excited about their feather-edged pearlware or mocha dipped mustard pots, and you wonder why everyone is so hot and bothered about ceramics, keep in mind that these poor broken bits of plates and teacups were probably involved in swashbuckling high seas adventures.

Without further ado, I give you:

Ceramics from the 1813 Prize Brig Ann, Auctioned in Salem, Massachussetts: An Analysis

On April 13, 1813, 250 crates of “Liverpool Ware” and 7 cases of “Irish Linens” were auctioned in Salem, Massachusetts. These were the cargo from the prize brig Ann that had been captured by Captain Nathan Lindsey of the privateer schooner Growler.  Following the sale of the cargo, the prize ship—described as “The Brigantine ANN, of the burden of 226 tons or thereabouts together with her tackle, apparel and furniture; also three pair of 9 pound Cannonades”—was auctioned as well.

 Prize auctions were common in the War of 1812; what makes this one of great interest is the survival of the auction catalog, in the Kress Collection of the Baker Library of the Harvard University Business School.

During the War of 1812, the United States government issued letters of marque to more than five hundred privateers who captured about thirteen hundred English commercial vessels. Letters of marque authorized private, armed vessels to capture vessels of the enemy. In some cases, the cargo was seized and the prize ship was burned. If the captured ship was worth taking back to port and the privateer had enough men to spare, it was declared a prize of war to be sold or auctioned. The proceeds were divided among the owners of the privateer vessel who financed the venture, the captain, and the crew, based on the contracted number of shares assigned to each.

The Growler was based in Salem, Massachusetts. In a discussion of the War of 1812 in his History and Traditions of Marblehead, Samuel Roads Jr. states:

As soon as the news of the declaration of war was received in Marblehead. . . four privateers, namely, the Lion, the Thorn, the Snowbird, and the Industry, were immediately fitted out, and began a series of remarkable successful Cruises against the ships of the British nation. This is not all. Forty private armed schooners were soon fitted out in Salem. . . . One Schooner, the Growler, was commanded by Capt. Nathaniel Lindsey, of Marblehead, and had an entire crew of Marblehead men.

Roads further reports that the Growler “captured the brig Ann, of ten guns bound from Liverpool to New Providence, richly laden with dry goods and crates worth $100,000.”

A newspaper from March 6, 1813, announced:

Yesterday arrived at Marblehead, the British brig Ann, (capt. Joseph L. Lee, prize master) from Liverpool bound to N. Providence, with a cargo of dry goods & crates, valued at 80 to 100,000 dollars—She was captured above [sic] 70 days since by the private armed scho. Growler, of this port.

Two pages from the auction catalog, courtesy of Kress Library of Business and Economics, Baker Library, Harvard Business School 

This notice suggests that the brig Ann was captured in late December 1812.

Just seven months later, on July 7, 1813, the Growler itself became a prize of war when it was captured near Newfoundland after a six-hour chase by His Majesty’s brig Electra, under Commander William Gregory. The Growler was described as pierced for 14 guns but carrying one long 24-pounder gun and four 18- pounder guns. She had a crew of 60 men. Growler, under Captain N. Lindsey, had had a relatively successful cruise having taken the ship Arabella, a brig, the schooner Prince of Wales, and the brig Ann. The prize money for Gregory was £64 5s, and for an ordinary seaman on Electra it was £1 4s 9d. 

The auction catalog for the brig Ann lists 250 crates of ceramics that fall into four basic assortments. 

Each type of crate is enumerated in great detail, followed by the number of crates that contain the same assortment of vessels. Crate 1, for example, is described as having “40 doz. C. Co. (cream-colored) Plates 1-3d Soups” followed by a note stating that each of crates 2 through 50 had the same contents as crate 1. The other three assortments are described similarly but in much more detail, since they include a greater variety of vessel shapes and decoration types (enumerated in Tables 3–5).

The description of the ceramics follows the format of invoices used for ceramics shipped from Staffordshire to the American market, which suggests that the catalog was transcribed from a potter’s invoice. Unfortunately, the name of the factory or factories that produced the wares and the designated recipient of the shipment were not recorded. The prices listed for each lot would also have been taken from the potter’s invoice. Prices for “Dishes” (a potter’s term for platters) are nearly identical to those in the 1796 and 1814 Staffordshire price-fixing lists, whereas the price of plates is slightly lower (see Table 1). Unfortunately, the prices realized for each lot are not recorded in the catalog.

Table 1

Descriptions of the Four Crate Assortments

The assortment for crate 1 was listed as “40 doz. C. Co. Plates 1/3d Soup 1/4 £ 2/13/4 [sic].” These were cream-colored (CC) plates, of which one quarter were soup plates. The total price of £ 2/13/4 is an error, as it was calculated by multiplying the 40 dozen by the 1-to-4 mix ratio, rather than by the 1/3d (1 shilling 3 pence), which was the price. The breakdown is given in Table 2. Crates 2 through 50 were of the same mix of CC plates as in crate 1, bringing the total to 18,000 plates and 6,000 soup plates—24,000 vessels in all. The average cost per vessel was 1.25 pence.

Table 2

Crate 51 contained an assortment of mostly creamware vessels (enumerated in Table 3). This would have been known as an “assorted crate,” meaning it was offered for sale to merchants as a unit only, rather than by the item. Crates 52–130 are listed as containing the same mix of 455 vessels enumerated in crate 51. In short, there were 80 crates containing the assemblage listed for crate 51, for a total of 36,400 vessels. The average cost of these vessels was 2.7 pence. The auction catalog lists crate 51 as being worth £5/4/4, but by my calculations in Table 3 it totals £5/3/10, suggesting a math error in the original tally.

Table 3

Crate 131 is another assorted crate, and lists a large number of blue-edged vessels, which are enumerated in Table 4. This crate contained 407 vessels and was valued at £5/8/4, for an average value of 3.2 pence. Crates 132 through 180 were listed as containing the same assemblage as that enumerated in crate 131, so there were 50 crates of blue shell-edged and other wares, for a total of 20,350 vessels.

Table 4

Crate 181 through 250 contained the same assortment of 407 vessels as enumerated for crate 131, but the wares were green shell-edged rather than blue shell-edged, bringing to 70 the total number of crates with green edged wares, or 28,490 vessels. A summary of all of the forms, decorative types, and quantities contained in the crates is presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Table 6 illustrates the percentages and ratios of wares by functional groupings by combining the number of vessels by their decorative types from all the crates. This is followed by figure 4, a pie chart of the distribution of the 109,240 vessels grouped by vessel type. The combined assemblage appears to have had very limited numbers of teawares and no toilet wares (chamber pots, ewers, basins). However, the fifty crates of CC plates have distorted the assemblage toward those vessels. 

Table 6

Table 7 provides a list of the vessel types in the crates that have assorted assemblages. Teawares still make up a smaller proportion of the assemblages than expected, and no toilet wares are listed. CC ware (plain creamware) is the dominant type of the 109,240 vessels from the brig Ann cargo. The second most common type of ware is painted, followed by green-edged, blue-edged, enameled (overglaze painted), and “fancy” (dipped). No printed wares are listed in any of the assorted crates.

Table 7

The decorated wares listed, with the exception of the enamel painted, are the cheapest available with color decoration. There are major differences among the types of decoration present on tea-, table-, and hollow wares. For example, all of the teaware is decorated.

All the cups and saucers are painted. Teapots, sugar boxes, and milk jugs are either painted or enameled. Tableware (dishes, plates, and serving vessels) are in CC ware, blue edged, or green edged. Bowls are in CC ware, fancy (dipped), painted, or enameled decoration. Mugs are in CC ware, fancy (dipped), or painted decoration. Jugs are CC ware or painted.

Observations on the 250 Crates of Assorted Ware

Table 8 is a summary of the total cost of the ceramics in the 1813 auction catalog. The summary of the value of the crates of earthenware in the 1813 auction catalog was listed as £1,300/13/4, which is close to the calculations in Table 8. Dividing the $5,567.77 by the 109,240 vessels yields an average value of five cents per vessel. The value of the pound sterling for these calculations was taken from value of the dollar from the exchange rates of 1816.

Table 8

The total value of the ceramics is far short of the estimated value of the prize, which in the newspaper announcement of March 6, 1813, was between $80,000 and $100,000. The value of the textiles came to £5,543/9/8.5, which in the 1816 exchange rate of the dollar was $25,333.73. Thus the value of the ceramics was only 18 percent of the cargo and the textiles was 82 percent of the cargo. Together they came to $30,901.50, which was well below the estimated value of the prize. Clearly, the estimate of the value of the prize included the value of the brig Ann. Unfortunately, we do not know the prices realized; a follow-up newspaper article on the auction is not known. One would assume that the English ceramics and textiles brought a premium price during the War of 1812, when the supply of them was limited to prizes taken for auction. In addition, the currency was inflated by the War of 1812, which makes the question of prices difficult to answer. All of the assorted crates of CC, blue-edged, and green-edged wares included other types of decorated vessels. Assorted crates have a long history in the pottery industry. By the late eighteenth century, merchants specializing in ceramics and glass took special orders made up of the vessels wanted by retail merchants.9 Assorted crates represent what the potter or wholesaler thought would be a marketable assemblage to retailers. The assorted crates described above are unusual in the relatively small percentage of teawares included. For example, the CC crates did not include any cups and saucers.

The Market for English Ceramics in 1813

Napoleon’s 1806 Berlin Decree cut off the European Continental market for British products, and this, followed by the American Embargo of 1807,the Non-Importation Act, and the War of 1812, eliminated the important American market for English manufactured goods. The many American privateers preying on English ships aggravated the economic situation. The South American market was opening because of the revolutions for independence that took place while French and English armies occupied Spain. The Caribbean market was open, but dangerous because of the privateers.

The brig Ann is listed as having sailed out of Liverpool for New Providence, the main island of Bermuda. It was probably headed for St. George, the main port town on the island. Following the American Revolution, it is estimated that eight thousand loyalists from the American South, including plantation owners and their slaves, immigrated to Bermuda. The population of the islands tripled, three-quarters being slaves.  During the Napoleonic Wars the British built a complex of military forts and a naval dockyard. Military operations provided a cash inflow to Bermuda and provided employment for many on the islands. Many prize ships captured by British privateers out of Bermuda and by the British Navy wound up being auctioned off in Bermuda during the Napoleonic Wars and the War of 1812. These activities and Bermuda’s history as a center for illicit trade help to explain why the prize brig Ann would be headed there when the European continent and the American markets were closed off to the British.

The presentation of the auction record of the brig Ann’s cargo offers a rare glimpse into the tremendous quantities of the standard tablewares produced by the English potters and imported into this country during its formative years. 

*The End*

As always, if you want to see some of the historic ceramics described here or found more generally at sites in Maryland, I refer you to the excellent "Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland" pages over at Jefferson-Patterson Park & Museum. 

Posted 1/23/2013 by Lisa Kraus

Fort Madison, Part I

This is a bit of a teaser, but archaeologist Mechelle Kerns promises more details as her schedule allows. Dr. Kerns is presently a professor of History at the United States Naval Academy (USNA) and also serves as an Assistant Curator at the USNA Museum. She has furnished the preliminary details of her recent discovery of an early 19th century fortification near Annapolis. Read on...

As has been mentioned in earlier posts, at the outset of the War of 1812, the British started cruising around in the Chesapeake attacking settlements, burning farms, and generally wreaking all kinds of havoc. This tension with Britain naturally led American citizens to take measures to protect their port towns, and Annapolis, Maryland's capital, was no exception. Even before the conflict with the British started, forts were constructed near strategically important cities along the eastern seaboard. Fort Severn was constructed around 1808, where the United States Naval Academy now stands, and Fort Madison, slightly larger, was built across the river at the same time. 

This 1819 map, provided by USNA professor Mechelle Kerns, shows the locations of Forts Severn and Madison.

In preparation to defend the capital of Maryland, Forts Severn and Madison were made ready for war in the late summer of 1813. Men, materials, and artillery were moved to the forts and both were garrisoned from 1813 until 1815. Fortunately, in the War of 1812, as in the Revolution, the British did not attack Annapolis.

An article in the Maryland Gazette in 1813 discusses the pleasing state of military preparedness at Fort Severn. 

In 1845 the Army transferred Fort Severn to the Navy for use as a training school for officers. The fate of Fort Madison was unknown, until very recently. 

Archaeologist and USNA professor Mechelle Kerns became interested in the fate of Fort Madison as the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 approached. One day, in a discussion with USNA Museum Senior Curator Jim Cheevers, the topic of Fort Madison came up and Kerns' curiosity was piqued. A search through the Navy's land records led her to the discovery of a plot of land called the "Fort Lot." Her research eventually led her to the Naval Academy rifle range on Greenberry Point, across the Severn River from Annapolis...

More to come!

In Search of the Elusive British Encampment at Benedict

By Julie M. Schablitsky

On August 19, 1814 General Robert Ross landed 4,370 men on the shore of Benedict. The troops camped on the hills and slopes above Benedict in the event of a western overland attack from the Americans and to have an unobstructed view of the port. During their first night on land, they rested and prepared for their march to Washington.  British Lt. George Robert Gleig (1821) reported:

            On the brow of the hill, and above the centre of the line, were placed the cannon, ready

            loaded, and having lighted fuses beside them; whilst the infantry bivouacked immediately

            under the ridge; that is, upon the slope of the hill which looked towards the shipping;

Benedict was only a temporary camp and in the morning the men pushed towards Washington. After defeating the Americans in the Battle of Bladensburg (See November 2, 2012 post) and burning the nation’s capital, the troops marched back to Benedict. On August 29^th, they camped here once again and boarded their ships in the morning.

The Search…

Since last spring, Charles County and Maryland State Highway Administration archaeologists have been searching for evidence of a War of 1812 British encampment along MD 231. Although the archaeological signature of a 200-year old campsite occupied for no more than two nights would be a challenge to find, we thought it was worth a try. Much like a swarm of locusts, we knew that 4,000 men could not pass through Benedict and not dropped something on the grassy hills. Military uniforms, especially ones from the 18^th and 19^th centuries, were adorned with dozens of buttons located on waistcoats, uniform coats, sleeves, and pant legs---they even had button fly.  Typical use on land or sea would cause the strings to wear---button loss was common. Perhaps the infantry needed to cast munitions in preparation for battle, so burned earth from a hearth and lead sprue may have survived the farmer’s plow and erosion.  Even dropped musket shot and coins could have fallen out of cartridge boxes and pockets only to be found by an archaeologist years later.

An example of a circa 1812 British Uniform

The first step in any historical archaeology project is to hit the archives and other scholarly repositories to seek out old maps and primary documents. These written accounts and images direct our research. Luckily for us, a nice colored map exists of the Benedict camp and it shows the exact locations of the British pickets on the landscape. As suggested by the map, as well as Gleig’s report, the men camped on top of the hills and the slopes above Benedict as they prepared for an intense overland march. The road depicted on this map travels west out of Benedict.  This eastern road trace out of Benedict is gone, but the current alignment of MD 231 is sitting right on top of the old colonial road just east of the hills.

Today, MD 231 is a paved, busy highway lined with utility poles.  The top of the hills, where the British had camped, is now crowned with homes and outbuildings.  In order to make a nice flat surface to build in the 20^th century, the hills were graded and steep driveways cut into their sides. Some of the residents even added a below ground swimming pool and underground garage. All of these modifications likely erased any evidence of a British encampment here; however, the slopes below the hills were only plowed and some areas may contain intact archaeological deposits. Metal detecting over the years by relic collectors may also have removed a significant number of artifacts associated with the encampment. But, there was only one way to find out if anything still survived into the 21^st century.

Admittedly, the archaeological signature of the War of 1812 camp occupied for less than 48 hours would be subtle at best and excavating small holes across the area to look for a sparse collection of military artifacts would be leaving too much to chance.  Since almost everything lost or discarded by the British would be metal, the best way to find where “X” marked the spot was through a systematic metal detector survey. We were well aware that relic collectors had been there before us, especially in the fields below the hills where the African American Civil War camp once stood.  But, there was a good chance that metal artifacts remained undetected and preserved in the soils.  So last spring, we placed metal detectors in the arms of archaeologists and we surveyed along the highway right of way and hills in search of brass and lead. 

After a few weeks of metal detecting and digging small holes that revealed mostly aluminum cans and random iron, we finally unearthed a small number of .69 caliber musket balls on the north side of MD 231.  This size of shot could have only belonged to a British musket. 

In addition to shot, we also discovered three plain, brass buttons that date to late 18^th to early 19^th century.  These undecorated buttons cannot be unequivocally connected with the War of 1812 encampment, however, their proximity to the shot and historic context of a 200 year old camp site, makes it probable that at least some of these buttons fell from a British uniform.  

Does this mean we found the camp? Well, not exactly.  We needed to find something more than a handful of buttons and bullets to say we located the British camp site—all we can really say is that the British passed through here.  So, what would be our smoking gun?  Of course, buried remnants of an old campfire sprinkled with lead and War of 1812 British buttons and other military artifacts---something with size and diversity.  With a landscape that has been eroding for 200 years, a few decades of active metal detecting, and a site occupied for less than 48 hours, we had our work cut out for us. And being scientists, we really needed something more to convince us.

  

October 2012

The paucity of War of 1812 artifacts we found last spring pushed us to look harder, try new methods, and dig deeper to understand what was happening with the soil and why this camp was so hard to find.  We felt that the north side of MD 231 was searched pretty thoroughly, so we concentrated our efforts on the south side of the highway----after all, the camp did straddle the road. The first thing we did was put away our metal detectors and instead, pulled out an even bigger (and much more expensive) piece of technology from our tool kit: the magnetometer.

The magnetometer was taken out to search the area for remnants of old fire hearths and pits. After a few days of survey, a map was produced that showed over a dozen anomalies, or curious buried features, that could be natural or cultural.  The archaeologists excavated small holes into each one of them---all came back negative for cultural material except for one. 

In a gently sloping area we found a very well preserved fire hearth that appeared to have repetitively used for quite some time.  The soil was heated to such a high temperature for such a long time that the ground became rock hard and turned red.  A large test unit was used to further investigate the fire hearth.  Could this be a British camp fire?  Or was this fire hearth associated with the nearby African American Civil War site, Camp Stanton? We found very few artifacts, but the ones we did uncover included cut nails, calcined bone, and a few broken ceramic sherds from tea wares that dated the fire to the mid-19^th century. 

Unfortunately, we never found the exact location of the British War of 1812 encampment in Benedict, but we did learn a few things.  First, the landscape above and just below the hills we searched is eroded and unlikely to contain any intact archaeological deposits dating before the Civil War. Although it is possible to find a few early artifacts, those items were likely re-deposited during rain storms and construction events during the later 19^th and 20^th centuries. Although much of the area just below the hills has also been eroded and somewhat impacted through plowing and heavy metal detecting, parts of Camp Stanton still survive---and those parts can tell future archaeologists the size of the camp and how the African American soldiers and their officers lived and trained during the winter of 1863-1864. Our search for the War of 1812 has concluded in Benedict, but our quest for how African American Civil War soldiers lived and trained in this part of Charles County has just begun! 

Caulk's Field

Today we'll find out about Caulk's Field, an Eastern Shore Battlefield that has miraculously survived the centuries more or less intact - meaning it can still provide information about the war as it was fought on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. SHA Chief Archaeologist Julie Schablitsky provides the details...

Caulk’s Field: Maryland’s Best Preserved War of 1812 Battlefield

To commemorate the War of 1812 bicentennial, the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED) secured a National Park Service, American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) grant to conduct an archaeology survey across Caulk’s Battlefield.  The battle was an American win and the site remains relatively unaltered. DBED chose the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) and University of Maryland (UM) to carry out the archaeology survey and mapping project to determine troop and artillery locations, areas of intense fighting, and battlefield boundaries. 

During the month of August 1814, the citizens of Kent County observed a British ship and associated barges in the Chesapeake Bay. Captain Peter Parker anchored his frigate, HMS Menelaus, just off of Poole’s Island in an attempt to keep the eastern shore militia from coming to the aid of the Americans in western Maryland. Parker and his men came ashore several times to take supplies from the local farms and to burn private property to keep it from being used by American troops. 

Drawing of HMS Menelaus and Eclair by Lt. William Innes Pocock.

On the night of August 30, 1814, the British burned and looted Richard Frisby’s farm and took four enslaved African American men as captives.  When Captain Parker interrogated the slaves that night, he learned the location of American Lieutenant Colonel Philip Reed’s camp. The British landed around 11:00 that evening to search out and destroy the American camp, take prisoners, and extract information from the troops regarding the protection of Baltimore.  

View of British taking livestock, supplies, and slaves (Courtesy the Patuxent River Naval Air Station)

At 11:30pm that same night, Reed received word from his picket that the British landed near Waltham’s farm. Believing their intent was to burn and pillage, Reed took his men and marched towards Waltham’s farm. Within minutes he learned the British were actually in pursuit of them! At this point, he countermarched, moved his camp into Caulk’s field and positioned the troops on “the rising ground about three hundred paces in the rear—the right towards Caulk’s house and the left retiring on the road, the artillery in the centre, supported by the infantry on the right and left.”  A fortified line took the center of the field, and an advance troop of Americans lay in wait for the British.

As soon as the British came into view, the Americans fired into them and then fell back to the fortified line with the artillery. The British attempted to take the American left flank, but were unsuccessful. They continued to push the front American line and forced Reed to fall back. After almost an hour of fighting, Reed’s men were running low on ammunition, but they held their position. Casualties escalated rapidly into the dozens, and Captain Peter Parker was killed in the action. Finally, the British quit the field and returned to the Menelaus.

Colored map of the battle at Caulk’s field drawn by Acting Commander Henry Crease while aboard the HMS Menelaus. Reed’s account places his left flank on the road, not the artillery as shown here.

The Archaeology

In the spring and fall of 2012, the SHA and UM archaeologists, along with volunteers from BRAVO, conducted a metal detector survey across 40 acres of the battlefield.  The archaeologists searched for lead and ferrous munitions (musket balls, buck shot, rifle shot, and canister shot), brass clothing buttons, and other battle-related artifacts. Where each artifact was found, an archaeologist mapped the location with a total station to record its exact position.

View towards northeast of battlefield and archaeologists setting up total station to record the exact location of artifacts. 

After the artifacts were mapped, they were collected and taken back to the SHA laboratory for processing and cataloging.  The musket balls were studied closely, measured, and weighed. Lead shot was separated into three main categories: buckshot (.25-.36 cal.), rifle/pistol shot (.37-.58 cal.) and musket shot (.59-.75 cal.). British and American lead musket shot can be distinguished from each other by measuring the diameter of the ball. The standard issued British gun during the War of 1812 was the Brown Bess musket. It had a 0.75-inch bore and was loaded with 0.69-0.70-caliber lead shot. The Americans held guns with smaller bores and therefore, their musket shot measures approximately 0.62 inches in diameter. 

Archaeologists recovered 35 pieces of shot from Caulk’s Field : 

• 8 British musket shot - 6 dropped and 2 fired

• 11 American musket shot - 7 dropped and 4 fired 

• 7 unidentified fired musket shot

• 3 rifle shot 

• 4 buck shot 

• 2 heavily impacted unidentified shot 

All of the shot pictured above was fired out of a musket aimed at a soldier. All of the above appear to have missed their mark. 

Most of the recovered musket shot was unfired, suggesting the lead balls were likely dropped during loading of a gun or perhaps spilled out of a cartridge box.

In addition to musket shot, archaeologists collected military buttons, canister shot, and other pieces of brass and iron. Based on the patterns of the artifacts, it is now possible to see where the different troops stood and fought on the landscape.  For example, a concentration of dropped American musket shot show where the Kent County men stood as they fired towards the oncoming British, while dropped British musket shot shows how far up field they pursued the Americans. This week archaeologists are surveying an additional 40 acres of agricultural field along MD 21 in an attempt to find how far back the Americans fell from their initial position. By the end of the project, we will have reconstructed the entire battle.

NOTICE: The battlefield is privately owned and trespassing is prohibited. Metal detecting was only performed under the guidance of professional archaeologists. 

Bladensburg Battlefield

In this post, we’ll find out about the archaeology of an episode that historian Daniel Walker Howe called "the greatest disgrace ever dealt to American arms” and "the most humiliating episode in American history": The Battle of Bladensburg. I know, I’ve really set it up to sound glorious, right? Actually, there really were Americans who comported themselves with an appropriate degree of military ardour that day (Commodore Joshua Barney, looking at you), but they were outranked by ineffective and pusillanimous officials who made a complete hash of things. 

On the morning of August 24th, 1814, General William H. Winder hastily positioned his American militia units in the fields above Bladensburg, Maryland. Until 1813, Winder had been a lawyer in Baltimore. Then he had a midlife crisis or something and became an Army officer. If you read about the Battle of Bladensburg in greater detail, you might get the sense that Winder was, perhaps, promoted beyond his capacity. Wikipedia tactfully suggests that he “failed to show effective command” in the Battle of Bladensburg, which is really putting it lightly. 

The British forces were led by Major General Robert Ross, a British Army officer who started his military career in 1789 and served with the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular War. You’re probably thinking that this is a significantly more impressive resume than that of poor General Winder. Yeah. You’re totally right.

Robert Ross!

British troops entered the town of Bladensburg around noon. Colonel William Thornton's 85th Regiment of Foot began an assault across the small bridge spanning the Eastern Branch – now known as the Anacostia River. The first units suffered some pretty gory casualties, but the British Empire wasn’t built by people who wilted just because of a little musket fire. The British managed to push across the bridge and establish strategic positions in the thickets along the riverbanks.

A sketch map of the battle

Commodore Joshua Barney (more on him in later posts) had scuttled his Chesapeake Flotilla  - including his flagship the USS Scorpion - in the Patuxent River two days earlier. He arrived at the battlefield with about 400 sailors and a contingent of 120 marines under Captain Samuel Miller. 

They rolled two large 18-pounder cannon into the middle of the Bladensburg Turnpike, along with three 12-pounders on the right flank right on the border of Maryland and DC. The sailors were armed only with cutlasses and boarding pikes, while the marines carried muskets. Just to be clear: these guys had been fighting the British in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Patuxent River for months, blew up their ships and barges, and then they marched to the Navy Yard in DC, grabbed some cannons, and dragged them all the way to Bladensburg where they kept right on fighting the British. So…major props to Barney and the flotilla guys.

The British paused briefly as this apparently unimpressive band of reinforcements assumed their defensive position, but soon resumed their attack. In turn, Barney's men fired their 18-pounders "with the most destructive effect, sweeping the road and staggering the column." The British mounted several assaults directly into the line of cannon until they were forced to seek cover along Dueling Creek. Despite being pummeled by cannon fire, the British maintained heavy musket fire into the artillery positions, eventually shooting Barney's horse out from under him.  

 The British followed the deep channel of Dueling Creek around to Barney's right, and from this position drove off the militia units defending the hilltop. By this time, General Winder had ordered a retreat, leaving the "flotilla men" to fend off the British – which, you guys, they totally did. Barney suffered a serious wound from a musket ball to his upper right thigh.

Outflanked and out of ammunition, Barney ordered his sailors and marines to spike their guns and retreat.  Some sailors remained at their stations, and it was reported that they were bayoneted at their guns with fuses smoldering in their hands.  Washington fell to the victorious British that night.

Other battlefields, especially those from the Civil War, have been lovingly preserved, studied, and interpreted for the public. Bladensburg Battlefield, however, has been largely forgotten. The area where this battle was fought now contains suburban residences, a cemetery, parkland, and commercial developments. If you were to drive down Bladensburg Road today, trying to replicate the path the British took on their way to Washington, you would probably conclude that nothing of the original landscape survives. But archaeologists have discovered that in several places around the town, little pockets of this intact battlefield still survive. 

Looking for the Battle of Bladensburg at Fort Lincoln Cemetery

Using metal detectors, archaeologists have found several artifacts from the time of the battle, and are working with the National Park Service to create a plan for the management and interpretation of the Battlefield.

Musket balls from the Battle of Bladensburg

The last time someone saw this piece of lead shot, it was flying toward someone's vital organs in 1814.

You can find out all about the archaeology at Bladensburg Battlefield, and other archaeological projects in Bladensburg, at SHA's interactive website. You can even watch this video about the battle! Have fun, and check back soon for more 1812 archaeology!

Welcome

Join us and explore War of 1812 Archaeology!

The Maryland State Highway Administration's archaeologists are joining in the state's commemoration of the bicentennial of the War of 1812, and we want to share our latest finds with you - so follow us here as we excavate War of 1812 battlefields, encampments, and even a shipwreck! In addition to sharing details of the sites we've found along Maryland's highways, we'll be featuring guest posts by archaeologists who are doing their own work on 1812-related sites, in Maryland and anywhere else such sites might be found. 

We hope you’ll stop by often to read about our efforts to uncover new and fascinating stories about this remarkable time in our nation’s history.

About the War of 1812

Look, it’s no secret that the War of 1812, sandwiched between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, is basically the neglected middle child of significant early American wars. But we have arrived at the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, and it is time to start paying a little more attention to this obscure, but nonetheless significant, conflict. Here’s a short synopsis for those of you who are not completely conversant with the history:

In the early 19th century, the British and the French were fighting the Napoleonic Wars, and the Americans were getting hassled all the time. The United States, fresh from the Revolution, was neutral during the Napoleonic conflicts, but American ships were caught in blockades, had their goods confiscated by the British or French, or had their crews impressed into the Royal Navy. Very exasperating. On top of all that, the British were encouraging Indian groups in the west to attack frontier settlements, and supplying the Indians with weapons. They were probably a little worried about American threats to invade and annex parts of Canada. There was a lot going on, is what I’m saying. 

Sick of getting pushed around by the British, President James Madison signed a declaration of war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812. America wasn't really ready for a war. We didn't have much of a navy. So President Madison issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private ship owners. We might have been unprepared for war, but DANG were Marylanders ready to privateer the heck out of the British Navy. If you've ever heard of a Baltimore Clipper, this is probably why. The clipper ships enjoyed tremendous glory and usefulness as privateers during the conflict. A clipper called the Chasseur, commanded by Captain Thomas Boyle, was especially brash, impertinent, and therefore awesome. Go read the Wikipedia page if you have time. 

In 1814, feeling pretty good about themselves after sorting out Napoleon, the British initiated a three-part strategy for a war with the United States. First, they sought control of the Hudson River.  American incursions into Canada had initiated conflict along the northern border in 1812, and the British counter in this area had the potential for catastrophic consequences to the United States.  Second, the British launched an attack on the Chesapeake region and the Nation’s Capital as a political statement.  In part, this campaign was retribution for the burning of Fort York (Toronto) by American forces in 1812.  The British were also getting seriously annoyed about all those privateers from the Chesapeake, so another major focus was "that nest of pirates" in Baltimore. Finally, a western attack directed at New Orleans sought to control the Mississippi River, halt America’s westward expansion, and isolate the young democracy. 

In the past, the War of 1812 was considered a sidelight of American history…some even say the “forgotten war.”  Happily, as a result of the bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812, the public is beginning to recognize the significance of the War in the evolution of the newly independent United States and its fledgling experiment in democratic rule.  Today many historians view the War of 1812 as a decisive crossroads that profoundly affected the nation’s development, a second war for independence. It wasn’t a blip, it wasn’t a hiccup, it was a seriously big deal and it is packed with fascinating stories. Like plucky underdogs? You’re going to LOVE the War of 1812. 

Here in Maryland, it is well-remembered - and for good reason. Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay were national centers of settlement, commerce, and government. The British Chesapeake Campaign was a reflection of the region’s strategic importance, and placed Maryland at the core of national events.  Maryland saw more military actions during the War of 1812 than any other state.  The War of 1812 tested the young democracy and its diverse population including slaves and freemen, forged a national identity, and created a new international political framework.  On a local level, Maryland’s contributions to the defense and heritage of the nation include the pivotal clash at Fort McHenry, which may have ensured the nation’s survival, and inspired our national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner. 

The United States’ successful, solitary stand against the British Empire greatly enhanced the country’s international prestige and forced Great Britain to acknowledge the full economic and political sovereignty of their former colony. The war consolidated the emerging democracy and forged the nation into a unified whole with a new national outlook.  For the first time, citizens began to perceive themselves as a distinct, American people.

Archaeology of the War of 1812

We’ll have details and highlights of excavations all over Maryland and anywhere else the War of 1812 left traces behind -- so follow along and make new discoveries with us. 

Working on a War of 1812-related site? We want to hear from you! Contact us at SHACulturalResources@gmail.com or in the comments section. 

10/22/2013 by Lisa Kraus