Page 123 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

the ordinary business. Charles Town would re- main an attractive locale for an ordinary while the court remained in the town. Once it became clear that the court was moving to Marlborough, the prospects for sustaining an ordinary at Charles Town were diminished.
Keeping an ordinary in Charles Town or elsewhere in the Chesapeake during the early eighteenth century was an economically precari- ous venture. On paper, ordinary keepers could sell rum, cider, and other drinks for a substantial prof- it.18 The problem was that it was often difficult to actually gather payments from patrons. Almost all economic transactions in the early Chesapeake were implemented on paper via credit. Notes of credit were exchanged as currency to settle debts, and in this complex economic fabric, many ordi- nary keepers were rarely able to reap substantial profits. Rather, ordinary keeping was most often a way of maintaining a living by becoming entan- gled in this economic web.
Building, Dwelling, and the
Structure of Charles Town
How many town lots were taken up? How many of those lots were improved? What kinds of buildings were constructed at Charles Town? Who were the individuals who took up lots or speculated on land around the town? After many years of research, we are finally able to address most of these questions with confidence. Roughly two dozen structures located at or near Charles Town comprise the built environment of the town between 1684 and 1721 (see table 1). Eleven of the structures were identified through archaeological survey and excavation. An additional nine build- ings appear in the historical record but have not been identified archaeologically.
A Legal Blueprint for Charles Town
Much has been written about the legislative efforts to create towns in Maryland and Virginia. In a nutshell, towns were to be laid out in 100 one-acre lots with “convenient streets, Laines & allies, with Open Space places to be left On which may be Erected Church or Chappell, & Marckett hovse, or other public buildings.”19 Archaeologists and historians have long debated the application and success of the so-called “town acts.” Much of the pioneering efforts to understand town plan- ning in Maryland through archaeological research
was in reaction to historian John Reps’ assertion that most towns were simplistic grid designs and suffered from the lack of skilled surveyors.20 The Baroque town planning designs in the colonial capitals of Annapolis and St. Mary’s City have at- tracted the most attention from archaeologists in Maryland. Historical geographer Joseph Thomas’s dissertation on town development on Maryland’s Eastern Shore is a seminal contribution to under- standing of how lots were taken up and improved within a common grid system.21 Thomas notes that this system proved to be a judicious mecha- nism for the legal division of town spaces.
At least one plat of Charles Town was creat- ed as early as 1696, but a copy has not been locat- ed.22 The town was resurveyed in 1703 by Edward Batson, and perhaps again in 1706 by Thomas Greenfield.23 None of these plats have been locat- ed to date. After 1706, lots appear with number designations. This may suggest that the lots were not clearly delineated on a plat before this date and hence the need for Batson’s 1703 re-survey of the town. Greenfield may have standardized the lot system with numbers and clear delineations during his 1706 survey. William Groome grant- ed much of the remaining 500 acres of land to various individuals through 99 year leases.
As many as 14 different town lots are men- tioned in the historical record. Of these, only 5 are reliably situated on the physical landscape based on metes-and-bounds reconstruction. Four of these five are located along the western edge of the town on private land. One two-acre lot was owned by attorneys William Stone and John Meriton and an adjacent two-acre lot was owned by town clerk, Joshua Cecil. These two lots were near the Anglican Church and courthouse lots. The other known lot location is Charles Tracy’s 21⁄2-acre lot located on the east side of the main road into the town. At least a portion of this lot lies within the bounds of Mount Calvert Histori- cal and Archaeological Park. Archaeological data, as Miller showed in St. Mary’s City,24 can provide an alternate and, at times, radically different view of town formation than land records or a rigid plat would suggest.
Building Charles Town:
Archaeological Evidence
It is clear from the historical record that numer- ous public and private structures were erected in and around Charles Town. Archaeological data
121