Page 134 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

132
description of the structure from the court records indicates it was a stoutly-constructed 10 by 20 foot structure. Nine inch square frame posts were used in the construction with the frame situated on cedar blocks. When the structure was finally completed it was Sheriff Josiah Wilson and not James Stoddert who was paid 12,000 lbs of tobac- co out of the November court levy for the work.
The final public building was an Anglican Church that stood at Mount Calvert from as early as 1695 to 1745.38 It is probable that an old- er church was replaced around the time that the court began meeting at Charles Town in 1696.39 There is a 1696 reference in the court record of the “old” church being used to house “shingles and lumber” and another that refers to “the new house Intended for a Church.”40 Therefore, it is possi- ble that a church was already present at Mount Calvert when the town was created in 1684. The parish records prior to 1733 have not survived but, fortunately, scattered bits of historical data located in the court record and other sources provide some details. We know the church and courthouse lots were adjacent to each other from a surviving 1697 plat.41 No physical description of either church has been found in the historical record.
Objects, Movement, and the Linear Flow
of Charles Town
Archaeologists often view cities, towns, villag- es, hamlets, and any smaller reduction of these units as complex pieces of material culture to be studied.42 If Charles Town is framed as a working system of interaction nodes or zones rather than isolated sites with individual histories, then a much clearer understanding of how the town functioned as an integrated unit is possible. It is useful to divorce the archaeological data somewhat from the two dimensional and legally sterilized land divisions that were invisible on the ground. The development of the five activity areas above pro- vides the fixed structure for understanding Charles Town as it was lived rather than platted.
Archaeological excavations have identified evidence of at least 11 structures associated with Charles Town. The orientation and/or the dimen- sions were documented for four of these struc- tures, isolated structural elements from three more buildings were identified, and artifact patterning and geophysical survey suggest the presence of three additional structures. Three elements are clear as to the town development. The location of
these buildings demonstrates the fact that the lay- out of the town had very little to do with the grid and much to do with the movement of people and goods through the landscape. At the same time, the layout shows that some precision was used in laying out the buildings. Finally, the natural topography was a primary factor in the choice of building locations.
Most of buildings at Charles Town were laid out in a linear row parallel to the Patuxent River terrace. Buildings were constructed along this road leading from the church and courthouse lots on one end, to the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Western Branch at the other. This construction resulted in the creation of a linear row town situated on the main road. This form was practical, expedient, and would have been similar in form to villages in rural areas of England. Linearity of form is a common theme among public landing sites in the colonial Chesapeake.
One striking feature of the buildings uncov- ered during archaeological excavations is their nearly perfect alignment in relation to each other (see figure 1). Artifact distribution data gathered from testing first illustrated this linearity.43 Block excavations confirmed the patterns observed in the distribution, but we were also able to map the precision used by those laying out the buildings at Charles Town. There were at least five individuals directly associated with Charles Town who had at least some skills in land survey. As previously mentioned, Thomas Greenfield was paid to create a plat of the town in 1706 and Edward Batson re-surveyed at least a portion of the town in 1703. Thomas Addison was employed to survey lots for the church and courthouse in 1697 and, most im- portantly, James Stoddert and Ninian Beall were trained surveyors who supervised the construction of some buildings at Charles Town.
Refuse disposal patterns were not analyzed in detail for most of the excavations at Charles Town with the exception of Terrace Site A. Land survey data suggest that the main road was situat- ed to the west of the buildings at Terrace A. Few artifacts were recovered from units placed on the west side of the buildings, while domestic refuse was plentiful on the Patuxent side. This distribu- tion suggests that not only was the backyard the primary location for refuse disposal, but that most of the social interaction at the site took place there as well.
Courthouse towns like Charles Town, and its predecessor at Calverton, were meaningful