Page 139 - Maryland Historical Trust - Archaeology Colonial MD

along the Patuxent River Terrace indicates a well-designed and implemented survey. Archae- ologists Henry Miller and Mark Leone argued against historian John Reps conclusion that towns in the 17th-century Chesapeake were poorly designed by individuals with rudimentary survey skills.49 Leone and Miller argued that the capitals of St. Mary’s and Annapolis were laid out according to precisely ordered baroque plans. The careful alignment of the structures at Ter- race site A with the 20 by 40 foot structure at terrace B demonstrates the considerable survey- ing skills of James Stoddert who was also tasked with the resurvey of the plan of Annapolis in 1718. Charles Town was laid out with consid- erable precision, but the goal was not to create the lines of sight incorporated into the plans of St. Mary’s City and Annapolis. Rather, the goal at Charles Town was to recreate an efficient and organized way of linking the governmental and religious spaces at the church and courthouse with the commercial and social spaces at the storehouses, landing, and the ordinaries.
Seventh, not surprisingly, most structures were earthfast wooden buildings that were erect- ed using both fully framed walls and bent con- struction techniques. The archaeology at Charles Town illustrates the use of a variety of archi- tectural strategies common in the 17th-century Chesapeake. The main dwelling at Terrace Site A was constructed using bents, while the shed addition was situated on blocks. Excavation of several of the posts and associated holes showed that these bents were fully finished to the base of the post. The quarter at Terrace Site A was con- structed with fully framed walls. The posts in this case were rough-hewn at the bottom. The 20 by 40 foot structure at Terrace B was also built with fully framed walls with roughly hewn posts at the base. A wattle and daub chimney most likely served the needs of the main structure, prior to the construction of a brick-lined chimney added at the same time as the 8 by 16 foot shed. Brick was also used in the construction of the chimney at the Terrace Site B structure. The buildings at Charles Town were constructed using reliable earthfast techniques. Yet, variability and im- provements to the structures suggests the inten- tions and aspirations of the builders of Charles Town to make the site a lasting public place. Shifting political power and population increase ultimately doomed the future of the site, leaving behind the partially realized architectural vision
of Ninian Beall, James Stoddert, Josiah Wilson, and other lesser known builders.
Eighth, there is considerable similarity in the artifact types and percentages on each of the three domestic sites where block excavations allow comparison. At the same time, the percent- age of pipe stems was similar at all sites regard- less of function. Clay tobacco pipes were perhaps the most common artifact type carried from each site within the town, and their occurrence on any site is not necessarily exclusively attributable to the site occupant. Rather, these artifacts are the most sensitive indicators of places where any number of residents and visitors gathered to in- teract in the linear public space of Charles Town. This pattern is most archaeologically visible from Terrace Site B to the site of Charles Tracy’s ordi- nary. Future comparative analysis of the artifacts recovered from Charles Town with those from other locales throughout the region is needed. Perhaps this analysis might reveal sub-regional differences in the distribution of goods or other patterns for further study.
Finally, and I believe most importantly, there is very compelling and tangible evidence of enslaved African-Americans living in Charles Town. Like indentured servants, there is no rea- son to suspect that enslaved people were not living in Charles Town, or were somehow less responsible for the construction of the town than wealthy grandees like Stoddert. If we pos- it that there is no direct link between the pres- ence of cowrie shells, pierced objects, beads, and other objects and enslaved African-Americans in Charles Town, then we must also question broader assumptions such as the correlation be- tween ceramics, glass, and other goods and an emerging consumer revolution in the late sev- enteenth century. Recent excavations at the site of Calverton, Charles Town’s predecessor, offer a fresh opportunity to explore the role of the enslaved African-Americans in the lifeblood of the early modern Chesapeake town. An earli- er and more conservative line of archaeological inquiry may have failed to consider, or inten- tionally dismissed, the presence of enslaved pop- ulations at town sites like Calverton. Acknowl- edging the presence of African-Americans in towns, making this presence part of the research design, scrutinizing evidence more broadly, and crafting and expanding a new narrative of colo- nial Chesapeake towns is the most compelling direction for future research.
137