Page 130 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

figure 11
AutoCAD drawing showing features and layout of Buildings
E, F, and G at Terrace Site B.
the area. Magnetic susceptibility, MAG, and GPR data also suggest an area of human activity corre- sponding to the artifact concentration. This con- centration of material was located approximately 140 feet south of the 18 by 20 foot dwelling house and about 80 feet from the cellar hole. If this re- fuse does represent another structure it would likely be located on a separate town lot from the dwelling at Terrace A. The general lack of domes- tic refuse and predominance of pipe stems sug- gests this building was not a dwelling.
The sequence of buildings near the town landing identified through archaeological survey and excavation suggests a sustained activity area near the town landing. This area can be separat- ed into three possible town lots progressing from north to south: one containing the 20 by 40 foot structure, one containing the dwelling, quarter, and possible cellar, and a third containing an un- identified structure. Historical documentation does not provide a clear indication of who took up these lots and improved them, but they may very well represent the first lots taken up by Nin- ian Beall, James Stoddert, and Thomas Hollyday. If these three individuals were the original lot owners, then Ninian Beall would have built the 20
by 40 foot structure at Terrace B, James Stoddert constructed the dwelling and quarter complex at Terrace A, and Hollyday’s store would have been where the pipe stem concentration was uncov- ered to the south. The 20 by 40 foot structure may have served Beall’s purposes as an office and was possibly used while Beall was commander of the county militia.33 This might explain the volume of lead shot. But Beall was an absentee owner and his structure was most likely rented by others.
If the building was used as a store, then it was a very active concern given the volume of pipe stems. The most active merchants who are known to have operated out of Charles Town before 1700 were Thomas Hollyday and David Small. In fact, these are the only two merchants who have been confirmed as operating a store in Charles Town before 1700. David Small was operating a store for Joseph Jackson in partnership with Thomas Emmes as early as November of 1696. This was a little less than a year before they began leasing the 163-acre parcel of Mount Calvert contain- ing those town lots not already secured. Perhaps Small made use of Beall’s structure as a store prior to 1700 when he dissolved his partnership with Emms. The building could have also served as an ordinary, although if this was the case it was probably for a short period of time considering the general lack of domestic material recovered.
James Stoddert purchased Ninian Beall’s two town lots in 1705 for £30. The amount paid for these lots indicates they were improved and they were likely contiguous. One of these lots would have contained the 20 by 40 foot struc- ture located through archaeological survey and excavation. Stoddert still retained these lots at the time of his death in 1726. Precisely who used this structure throughout Stoddert’s ownership remains a mystery.
If the 20 by 40 foot structure represents Beall’s improvement, then the dwelling and quar- ter sites were constructed by James Stoddert af- ter purchasing the lot from Small and Emms in 1697. Stoddert likely improved this property with the dwelling and later quarter sometime between 1697 and 1700 when the county weights and mea- sures were issued to him to be kept in his house at Charles Town.34 Located at the landing and along the main road, this dwelling was perfectly situated for an ordinary operation and James Stoddert may have chosen to live at the nearby, yet more seclud- ed, Beall’s Gift dwelling and lease the buildings at the landing. The dwelling at the landing would
128