Page 135 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

to residents in their linearity. Charles Town was a walking landscape where people moved, and stumbled, from courthouse to ordinary to court- house to church to landing to ordinary and so on. The town consisted of a main street with interac- tion nodes along a straight path. The Terrace C cellar, the house and quarter complex at Terrace A, and Tracy’s Ordinary were living spaces and also served as gathering points for sharing food, alco- hol, and conversation. The Terrace B storehouse and Thomas Hollyday site were also interaction points for drinking, smoking, and conversation, though probably not for food consumption and lodging. Beall’s Gift was suitable for dwelling but not advantageous for interaction because it was not located along this processional avenue. Ordinaries and stores thrived on the familiar regularity of back-and-forth foot traffic enabled by the linearity of courthouse towns in the early Chesapeake.
Beyond the Grandees: The Anonymous
Archaeological Record of Material Objects
Thousands of artifacts dating from the 1680s through the 1720s were recovered from archae- ological survey and testing between 1996 and 2012. These artifacts can be used to characterize individual sites, but attributing assemblages to the actions and aspirations of individuals is dif- ficult at best and obscures the study of the daily interactions within Charles Town. Artifacts are a record of this fluid interaction that cannot be pinned to singular actors. Every courthouse town had its grandees like James Stoddert and Josiah Wilson who controlled these spaces as private enterprises and syphoned what profits they could from patrons. But the histories of these wealthy individuals, or those of the many ordinary keep- ers who set up shop in the town, are disconnected from the mobile, and breakable, material objects that are the traces of everyday life at the town. Ev- eryday material things are somewhat anonymous in town contexts with shifting tenancy, multi-use structures, and poorly documented land transfers. Plats are very helpful if they survive, but there is still considerable uncertainty in attributing site occupancy through time.
A broad comparison of the archaeological assemblages from Charles Town period sites re- veals some similarities and some stark differences between the four interaction nodes within Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park. The
artifacts summarized in table 2, represent those artifacts temporally associated with the Charles Town period. These artifacts represent the most common household objects that are accounted for in each assemblage. Artifact classes were not in- cluded in the table if they could not be reliably as- sociated with the pre-1720 occupation of Charles Town, or if they were not used in social interac- tion. Bottle and vessel glass were the only primary categories excluded from the table because these types could not be temporally assigned for the plowzone assemblage at Beall’s Gift and so were excluded for comparative purposes. These artifact classes are compared for Terrace Sites A and B elsewhere.44 Also, the small numbers of artifacts recovered from the probable locations of Hol- lyday’s store and Tracy’s ordinary are due to the fact that only Phase I surveys have been complet- ed at these sites. It is also clear that one bead is not equivalent to one piece of lead shot or one sherd of tin-glazed earthenware. Even with these comparative limitations, there are some important trends that are evident.
Tobacco pipes are by far the most prominent artifact type in each assemblage when tallied by sheer numbers and percentages. The range of ce- ramic types is similar for all of the sites, with the two probable Stoddert dwellings exhibiting the most similar assemblages in terms of types repre- sented. When the Phase I sites are excluded, there are again some noticeable similarities among the assemblages. A closer look at the assemblages can also suggest how the particular objects may have been used as expressions of personal identi- ty within a public context. More importantly the alteration of material objects and presence of par- ticular classes suggests the re-interpretation and adaptation of material culture by African-Ameri- cans at Charles Town.
As stated above, Beall’s Gift was probably the least public site, and the only node located beyond the main road. The Beall’s Gift assemblage is very similar to the other domestic assemblages with the notable exception of several of the tobacco pipes at Beall’s Gift carved to taper on one end. One example was carved to taper at the bowl. These pipes were most likely whittled down on the end to attach a wooden stem extension, which would have certainly been necessary to use the example that tapered at the bowl. This is the only Charles Town site where this practice has been document- ed. So why are these pipes present at Beall’s Gift? Pipes were one of the least expensive items that
133