ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: NEGOTIATING PUBLIC LANDSCAPES: HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF COLONIAL CHESAPEAKE TOWNS, 1680 TO 1720 Michael Thomas Lucas Doctor of Philosophy, 2008 Dissertation Directed By: Professor Mary Corbin Sies Department of American Studies Many studies over the past several decades have contributed to our understanding of colonial Chesapeake town development, but several key elements including material culture, multiple agencies, and the role of towns in the construction of race relations and chattel slavery are underrepresented or entirely missing. An understanding of how these elements relate to the construction and use of the many small towns that lined the shores of the Chesapeake Bay is especially lacking. This problem is addressed by focusing on the social, political, and economic histories of a small courthouse hamlet called Charles Town in Prince George?s County, Maryland from 1684 to 1721. The dissertation argues that the meaning of early towns like Charles Town were generated through material culture and human agency enacted on the local level. The actions of those who used and sustained the town are examined to create a model for understanding the precise ways that small hamlets served local communities. Court cases, land deeds, archaeological data and other records are used to show the central role material culture played in the interaction between people at Charles Town during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. The primary forms of material culture used in this exchange were alcohol, food, and lodging purchased at the ordinaries, land patented, purchased, and sold in and around the town, and a variety of manufactured goods purchased from merchant stores. This investigation makes four contributions to the study of colonial Chesapeake towns. First, the interplay between human agency and material culture is examined as a mechanism for understanding how towns served local populations and why some succeeded while others failed. The second contribution is a detailed study of the myriad relationships between people of all social strata from landless ordinary keepers and enslaved persons to merchant politicians and planters. Third, the study demonstrates the central role of material culture in the physical and social construction and use of colonial Chesapeake towns. Finally, this study contributes to our understanding of colonial Chesapeake towns by stressing the importance of triangulating between a variety of primary historical and archaeological data. NEGOTIATING PUBLIC LANDSCAPES: HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF COLONIAL CHESAPEAKE TOWNS, 1680 TO 1720 By Michael Thomas Lucas Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 Advisory Committee: Professor Mary Corbin Sies, Chair Professor Julia A. King Professor Donald W. Linebaugh Professor Paul A. Shackel Professor Nancy L. Struna ? Copyright by Michael Thomas Lucas 2008 ii Dedication For Lynne iii Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many people and institutions. First among these is the chair of this dissertation, Dr. Mary Corbin Sies (Department of American Studies, University of Maryland). Mary has stood by me and provided support through every stage of my graduate training from course work, to comprehensive exams, and the completion of this dissertation. She always pushed me to think carefully about the relationships between data and interpretation. Her thoughtful reading of my arguments and suggestions of how to strengthen them or think about my data in a different way were invaluable to the completion of this study. I am also indebted to my committee members Dr. Paul A. Shackel (Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland), Dr. Nancy L. Struna (Department of American Studies, University of Maryland), Dr. Julia A. King (Department of Anthropology, St. Mary?s College of Maryland), and Dr. Donald W. Linebaugh (Graduate Program in Historic Preservation, University of Maryland). Each of these individuals offered their expertise and suggestions on particular aspects of the draft and their support is greatly appreciated. I began thinking about studying early Chesapeake towns in June of 1995, when the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Archaeology Program Manager Don Creveling drove me to some of the properties owned and operated by the organization. One of these sites was a newly acquired property called Mount Calvert. Don and I talked about the opportunity for an archaeological survey of the property and the next day I accepted a part-time position iv in the Archaeology Program and began working with Don to secure funding to complete an archaeological study of the property. That was the beginning of what would eventually lead to the excavation of several archaeological sites on the property and the processing and cataloging of thousands of artifacts. I thank Don for allowing me to direct over a decade of fieldwork at Mount Calvert that resulted in the archaeological data contained in this dissertation, for supporting my work, and for allowing me to take annual leave from my job to complete my research and writing. Like all archaeological projects the excavation and artifact processing would not have been accomplished without the assistance of many individuals within the M- NCPPC and other organizations. Many M-NCPPC archaeologists worked countless hours excavating and processing artifacts. I thank Matt Cochran, Jennifer Falkinburg, Bruce Falkinburg, Les Graves, Michelle Hammer, Paula Miller, David Piper, and Sara Rivers-Cofield for their hard work over the past ten years. Many people volunteered their time to the project including hundreds who came out for the Archeological Society of Maryland?s Annual Field Sessions at Mount Calvert in 1997, 1998, and 1999. I thank the many other volunteers who have worked on the project over the years, but I am particularly grateful to Paul Newman, Carolyn Hoffman, and Katie Cavallo for contributing countless hours to the project. Carolyn provided helpful advice on both style and substance of an early draft of the document. Paul Newman took the artifact photos included in the dissertation and provided humor along the way. Many thanks go out to archaeologists with the Maryland Historical Trust?s Office of Archeology for their assistance in the excavations at Mount Calvert including Tyler Bastian, Maureen Kavanaugh, Dennis Curry, Richard v Hughes, Steve Bilicki, and Beth Cole. The excavations at Mount Calvert and artifact processing were funded by the M-NCPPC with assistance from three non-capital grants from the Maryland Historical Trust. I thank the many folks I have worked with over the years at the National Park Service and Archaeology in Annapolis who shared their wisdom and humor and made me a better archaeologist including Bill Hunt, Bob Sonderman, Paul Shackel, Deb Walski, John Ravenhorst, Brett Burke, Ben Ford, Marian Creveling, and Chris Matthews. I also thank Larry Zimmerman for his honesty and for encouraging me to consider a career in archaeology, Paul Shackel for providing inspiration and pushing me toward graduate school, and Mark Leone for convincing me to pursue the doctorate. Each has been a great mentor, colleague, and friend to me. My most sincere thanks go out to Eric Larsen and Matt Cochran. Eric and Matt have offered constructive feedback and challenged me to think about archaeology, history, and material culture in new and interesting ways. Their suggestions and friendship provided constant inspiration for completing the dissertation. The many hours spent completing research was made bearable by the helpful staff at various institutions. Particularly helpful were the staff at the Maryland State Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Maryland Room in Hornbake Library at the University of Maryland. I would not have been able to complete the dissertation without their assistance and professionalism. Finally, my greatest thanks goes out to my many friends and family members who have stood by me with encouragement through the best and worst of times. I could not have finished the dissertation without the unwavering support of my loving vi wife Lynne. She endured the countless days and nights I was locked in my study completing the draft while she put the kids to bed, organized bills, and did all of the other million and one things necessary to keep the household running. This dissertation is the product of her efforts as much as mine. I also thank my kids who put up with daddy?s absence while he worked on his ?paper?. The ?paper? has my name on it but truly belongs to my family and I can?t thank them enough for being there with me through the long and difficult journey. vii Table of Contents Dedication..................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................iii Table of Contents........................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................ x List of Figures............................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1: ?These Ancient Vanished Towns?: Introduction and Overview................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 Overview and Justification ....................................................................................... 6 Project Boundaries and Scope ................................................................................ 10 Method, Theory, and Approach.............................................................................. 15 Agency Theories ............................................................................................. 16 Methods........................................................................................................... 23 Organization............................................................................................................ 30 Chapter 2: Scholarly Context of Colonial Chesapeake Towns: History, Archaeology, and Geography............................................................................................................ 35 Introduction............................................................................................................. 35 Literature on Colonial Chesapeake Towns............................................................. 41 Natural ?Advantages? of the Chesapeake and European Settlement.............. 44 Social, Political, and Economic Contexts of Towns in the Chesapeake, 1680- 1720................................................................................................................. 53 Power and Town Planning in the Chesapeake Region ................................... 73 Summary................................................................................................................. 80 Chapter 3: A Locale for Action: Three Moments in the Political Life of Mount Calvert......................................................................................................................... 82 Introduction............................................................................................................. 82 ?By a Great Sunking Marsh?: The Politics of Location Part I ............................... 84 ?A Great Advantage and General Good to this Province?: The Town Acts .. 86 Mount Calvert Town....................................................................................... 91 ?Mount Calvert Doe For the Future goe by the Name of Charles Town?: The Politics of Location Part II...................................................................................... 97 viii Choosing and Naming a Courthouse Locale .................................................. 99 Planning a Courthouse Town........................................................................ 105 ?Inconvenient to two thirds or more of the County?: The Politics of Location III .............................................................................................................................. 111 ?An Act for the Removing the Court house from Charles Town? ............... 113 Exploitation and Power................................................................................. 114 Quarters......................................................................................................... 121 Land Speculation and Power ........................................................................ 125 The Political Demise of Charles Town......................................................... 140 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 148 Chapter 4: ?An ordinary in this town under ye favour of this court?: Agency and Ordinary Keeping...................................................................................................... 150 Introduction........................................................................................................... 150 Ordinary Keepers in Prince George?s County, Maryland..................................... 155 The Material Culture of Ordinaries: The Prosaic and Active World of Goods.... 172 Ordinary Spaces............................................................................................ 173 Serving and Preparing Food and Drink ........................................................ 181 Alcohol and Food.......................................................................................... 183 Social Encounters at the Ordinaries...................................................................... 190 Economic Opportunity and Entanglement............................................................ 213 Keeping ?Good Rule?: Ordinary Keeping and the Court..................................... 223 Ordinary Keeping and the Development of Charles Town .................................. 229 Opportunity and the Court: 1696-1698......................................................... 230 Growth and Expansion of Opportunity at Charles Town: 1699-1710.......... 234 The Decline of Opportunity at Charles Town: 1711-1721 ........................... 247 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 250 Chapter 5: ?sell barter & Trafficke away all goods?: Stores, Wealth, and the Development of Towns............................................................................................. 254 Introduction........................................................................................................... 254 Merchants and Stores in Early Prince George?s County ...................................... 258 Charles Town Stores..................................................................................... 262 Offering a World of Goods................................................................................... 268 Purchasing Patterns at Stores................................................................................ 277 ix Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 306 Chapter 6: Making the Material World of Public Spaces: Objects, Landscapes, and the Social Construction of Charles Town ................................................................. 309 Introduction........................................................................................................... 309 The Construction of Church and State at Charles Town ...................................... 312 Riverfront Commerce and Dwelling..................................................................... 331 Charles Tracy?s Ordinary.............................................................................. 335 Terrace Site A ............................................................................................... 339 Terrace Site B ............................................................................................... 356 ?Standing Upon a Poynt by the River Side?: Terrace Site C........................ 360 Beall?s Gift............................................................................................................ 367 Discussion............................................................................................................. 378 The King?s Highway and the Walking Landscape ....................................... 380 Possessing Material Culture.......................................................................... 385 A Product of Time and Place........................................................................ 390 Chapter 7: Conclusion............................................................................................... 392 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 392 Appendix A............................................................................................................... 405 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 410 x List of Tables Table 3.1 Unfree Labor in Prince George?s County, 1696-1729...............................118 Table 3.2 Estates in Prince George?s County with 15 or more Slaves, 1696-1729...120 Table 3.3 Lot Ownership in Charles Town................................................................126 Table 3.4 Land Ownership Around Charles Town?????????????127 Table 4.1 Ordinary Operators in Prince George?s County by Location, 1696-1720.............................................................................................159 Table 4.2 Number of Ordinary Keepers in Prince George?s County by Year and Location, 1696-1720.???????????????????????? 161 Table 4.3 Duration of Ordinary Businesses in Prince George?s County, 1696- 1720......?????????????????????????????..162 Table 4.4 Prince George?s County Ordinary Keepers With Land, 1696-1720.??.165 Table 4.5 Prince George?s County Ordinary Keepers Without Land, 1696-1720.?166 Table 4.6 Ordinary Keepers with Probated Estates, 1696-1720...???????.171 Table 4.7 Charles Tracy?s Inventory, May 30, 1698 .????????????175 Table 4.8 Jonathan Willson?s Inventory, October 7, 1698??????????177 Table 4.9 Variety and Quantity of Drinks Served at Charles Tracy?s Ordinary, 1695- 1696...??????????????????????????????.186 Table 4.10 Variety and Quantity of Drinks Served at Jonathan Willson?s Ordinary. ...........??????????????????????????.187 Table 4.11 Variety and Quantity of Drinks Served at Nicholas Sporne?s Ordinary ?????????????????????????????.188 Table 4.12 Summary of Moore Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1701-1704 ...191 Table 4.13 Summary of Joseph Addison Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1701- 1704............................................................................................................................193 Table 4.14 Summary of Tracy Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1695-1696 ....194 xi Table 4.15 Summary of Wilson Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1689-1698. .195 Table 4.16 Summary of Sporne Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1696-1708. .202 Table 4.17 Average Ordinary Expenditure per Visit.................................................214 Table 5.1 Value of Goods in Prince George?s County Merchant Store Inventories..273 Table 5.2 Edward and Dudley Carleton Accounts, 1690-1703. ................................279 Table 5.3 Edward and Dudley Carleton Patrons, 1690-1703. ...................................282 Table 5.4 Timing of Goods Purchased from Merchants Edward and Dudley Carleton, and Joseph Jackson and Company, 1692 to 1699......................................................288 Table 5.5 Manufactured Goods Purchased from Edward and Dudley Carleton Through Robert Bradley. ...........................................................................................295 Table 5.6 Goods Purchased from Merchants Edward and Dudley Carleton, and Joseph Jackson and Company, 1692 to 1699.............................................................297 Table 6.1 Pipe Stems by Bore Diameter Recovered from Charles Town Sites.........336 Table 6.2 Colonial Ceramics Recovered from Charles Town Sites. .........................343 Table 6.3 Colonial Ceramic Vessels Present at Terrace Site A.................................346 Table 6.4 Personal Items Recovered from Borrow Pit, Terrace Site A.....................347 Table 6.5 Colonial Ceramic Vessels Present at Beall?s Gift. ....................................374 xii List of Figures Figure 1.1 1861 Simon J. Martenet Map of Prince George?s County, Maryland with the Former Location of Charles Town.........................................................................12 Figure 1.2 1938 Ariel Photograph of Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park Showing Colonial Site Locations. .......................................................................13 Figure 1.3 Aerial Photograph Showing the Patuxent River Terrace at Mount Calvert ..........................................................................................................14 Figure 3.1 1697 Plat of Church and Courthouse Lots at Charles Town....................109 Figure 3.2 Land Ownership and Division of Mount Calvert, 1677-1726..................132 Figure 3.3 Towns in Prince George?s County, 1684-1720. .......................................142 Figure 4.1 Debt Owed to Ordinary Keepers Mary Biddle and Charles Holloway....217 Figure 5.1 Debt Owed to Edward and Dudley Carleton of London Settled in Prince George?s County Court, 1690-1703...........................................................................286 Figure 5.2 Number of Purchases by Month from Peter Paggen and Company, 1695 to 1702............................................................................................................................286 Figure 5.3 Percentage of Goods Purchased from Peter Paggen and Company, 1695 to 1702............................................................................................................................294 Figure 5.4 Purchases from Edward and Dudley Carleton through Robert Bradley's Store. ..........................................................................................................................294 Figure 6.1 Location of all Colonial Archaeological Sites at Mount Calvert. ............315 Figure 6.2 Courthouse at Moore?s Lodge in Charles County, Maryland, 1697. .......329 Figure 6.3 Distribution of Tobacco Pipe Stems All Archaeological Sites. ...............334 Figure 6.4 Distribution of Pipe Stems at Tracy's Ordinary........................................338 Figure 6.5 Distribution of Tobacco Pipe Stems, Terrace Sites A and B. ..................340 Figure 6.6 Distribution of Wrought Nails, Terrace Sites A and B. ...........................340 Figure 6.7 Archaeological Features at Terrace Site A...............................................341 xiii Figure 6.8 Embroidery Scissors from Terrace Site A................................................348 Figure 6.9 Pierced Silver English Three Pence, 1559-1602. .....................................352 Figure 6.10 Rouletted Tobacco Pipe Stems from Terrace Site B..............................359 Figure 6.11 Archaeological Features, Patuxent Terrace Site C.................................361 Figure 6.12 Archaeological Features at Terrace Site C. ............................................363 Figure 6.13 Structure at Terrace Site C. ....................................................................364 Figure 6.14 Posts Located at the Entrance to the Cellar of the Domestic Structure at Terrace Site C. ...........................................................................................................365 Figure 6.15 Profile of Cellar of Domestic Structure at Terrace Site C Showing Fill Layers.........................................................................................................................366 Figure 6.16 Distribution of Colonial Ceramics at Beall's Gift. .................................370 Figure 6.17 Distribution of Tobacco Pipe Stems from Beall?s Gift with Bore Diameters of 6/64 Inch or Greater. ............................................................................371 Figure 6.18 Sample of Ceramic Vessels from Beall's Gift. .......................................375 Figure 6.19 Archaeological Features at Beall?s Gift. ................................................377 Figure 6.20 Percentage of Tobacco Pipe, Bottle Glass, and Ceramic Fragments at Terrace Site A, Terrace Site B, and Beall?s Gift........................................................388 1 Chapter 1: ?These Ancient Vanished Towns?: Introduction and Overview Introduction Historian J. Thomas Scharf was perhaps one of the first to consider the history of early towns in colonial Maryland. Writing a mere fourteen years after the end of America?s Civil War, Scharf?s comments convey the essence of what still drives historical and archaeological research on colonial towns today. Scharf wrote: Some of these towns grew and flourished, in their simple fashion for a while, then, as if stricken by a blight, they perished away?in some cases so utterly that their very existence is only revealed to us by ancient records. . . That uncertainty exists as to the sites of some of these ancient vanished towns, is less surprising when we consider the imperfection of the topographical knowledge of the province, and the way in which they were described, which was usually ?on such a river,? or ?creek,? ?on Mr. A?s land,? or ?near Mr. B?s plantation.? Since then the land has passed to other owners, the stream has changed its name, perhaps its course, or has disappeared altogether; the harbor has been choked up, and we cannot even conjecture the spot on which once such hopes were built. 1 One hundred twenty years later Washington Post journalist Raymond McCaffrey remarked on the public fascination, not merely in towns, but with ancient and lost things in general. Writing about the search for the seventeenth century town of Warrington in Calvert County, Maryland, McCaffrey claimed that, ?Perhaps . . . in the end, its not quite so important if the long lost town was to the south?or anywhere, really. What matters is that Warrington firmly exists in many people?s minds.? 2 Hundreds of towns were created by the Maryland and Virginia legislatures 1 J. Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day. Vol. 1, (Hatboro, PA: Tradition Press, 1967), 411. 2 Raymond McCaffrey, ?Intrigue Builds Over ?Lost? City; Md.?s Land Deal Revives a Mystery,? The Washington Post, August 5, 2000. 2 between 1660 and 1710, but many of these legislated towns were either never built or simply vanished after becoming economically, politically, or socially inconsequential. The fact that some of these early towns have ?vanished,? the uncertainty of their former locations, their rarity, and the potential for rediscovering them are all contributing factors driving the search for their stories. Even with the extensive catalog of historical and archaeological research on places like Williamsburg and Jamestown in Virginia, and Annapolis and St. Mary?s City in Maryland, there is still much we can learn about the histories and material culture of the smaller and more ephemeral places noted by Scharf nearly 130 years ago. It was the allure of ?finding? these ?ancient vanished towns? that led me to the following historical and archaeological study of colonial Chesapeake towns. The study of towns in the early Chesapeake is complicated by confusion over definitions. The Acts for Advancement of Trade passed by the Maryland General Assembly in the 1680s attempted to create ?Townes Ports & places? indicating the somewhat ambiguous form of these locales. 3 Some may indeed fall under the town heading depending on the definition, even as the usefulness of ?town? as a meaningful unit of inquiry is debated. 4 The two definitions of towns that best 3 Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page 609. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/am7-- 609.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 4 For discussion of community and kinship networks in the Chesapeake as a framework for analysis see Allan Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves: The development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800 (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 205-260; Lorena S. Walsh, ?Community Networks in the Early Chesapeake.? in Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North 3 describe the Chesapeake situation are: 1) ?A (small) group or cluster of dwellings or buildings; a village or hamlet with little or no local organization?; and 2) ??small inhabited places below the rank of an ?urban district? or its equivalent, which are not distinguishable from villages otherwise, perhaps, than by having a periodical market or fair (?market town?), or by being historically ?towns?.? 5 Historians and geographers have offered other definitions of a town in the early Chesapeake. Historian Allan Kulikoff describes the threshold for a Chesapeake town as ?a place with a resident population that has three or more activities or five or more businesses within its town limits.? 6 Geographer Ronald Grim defined a town as ?a nucleation of houses representing two or more households or extended families and in which a livelihood is gained from service activities as well as from agriculture.? 7 Grim?s less rigid definition more accurately describes most early Chesapeake towns. Geographer Joseph Thomas pointed out a central contradiction in the scholarship on colonial town research. Well over a century of scholarship tells us that towns failed to develop in the Chesapeake region before the mid-eighteenth century. Yet, we also know that many of the towns created in Maryland and Virginia did develop. Thomas confronted this contradiction in his dissertation on town Carolina Press, 1988), 200-241. Joseph S. Wood, ?Village and Community in Early Colonial New England? Journal of Historical Geography 8, no. 4 (1982):333-346, argues that the concept of community provides a more forceful framework for analysis than the often used nucleated settlement model. 5 Oxford University Press. Oxford English Dictionary Online http://www.oed.com (Accessed, January 9, 2008). 6 Allan Lee Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves: Population, Economy and Society in Eighteenth-Century Prince George?s County, Maryland? (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 1976), 341, n.26. 7 Ronald E. Grim, ?The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia: The Emergence of Service Centers in York County? (PhD diss. University of Maryland, 1977), 12. 4 development on Maryland?s lower eastern shore. 8 He views the problem as poorly conceived notions of urbanization when applied to the Chesapeake and the colonial South in general. Colonial Chesapeake towns are difficult to define and contextualize because they had different meanings to those who used them. At the core these towns were public meeting places. When used to describe colonial Chesapeake towns ?public? is even more polysemus than ?town.? But it is within the framework of public space that towns are best understood as meaningful places. Public places like towns, churches, courthouses, ordinaries, and stores were constructed to serve the needs of English colonists. Official proclamations by the colonial and county government in Maryland were regularly posted in these ?Publick places of meeteing.? 9 These proclamations were posted for consumption by white citizens and particularly landed and literate members who served on the court, but they were guidelines for all citizens including bound labor. Towns and other public places were spaces for white citizens to carry out their English customs and laws and in the process reaffirm their privileged whiteness. Enslaved Africans who became the economic labor base in the Chesapeake at the end of the seventeenth century were present in early colonial towns but carried out their own rituals and created counter public spaces beyond the boundaries of towns, churches, and courthouses through their combined knowledge of the landscape. Ironically, they gained this knowledge in part because the wealthy slaveholding grandees who dominated Chesapeake 8 Joseph B. Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy: The development of Towns on Maryland?s Lower Eastern Shore, 1660-1775. (PhD diss. University of Maryland, 1995). 9 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 521. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--521.html (Accessed, January 15, 2008). 5 society would ?send the Negro men and Boys about the Country, when they have Business; and they commonly wait on them to all publick places: So that by these means they know not only the publick, but private Rodes of the Country, & Circumstances thereof.? 10 The public landscape of slave gatherings contradicted the one created by white society and, as a result, large slave assemblies were severely restricted by the late seventeenth century. Many studies over the past several decades have contributed to our understanding of colonial Chesapeake town development, but several key elements are underrepresented or entirely missing including material culture, multiple agencies, and the role of towns in the construction of race relations and chattel slavery. Town studies have grossly underestimated, ignored, or dismissed the active role of material culture in the process of town building and the relationship between individual actions evident in the historical record and material culture recovered from archaeological excavations. Thus, the central goal of this dissertation is to illustrate the relationship between material culture and human action in creating and sustaining towns. Town planning and design, commodity exchange, and object use all represent social relationships and should be interpreted as such in order to fully understand the function of towns in the colonial Chesapeake. Historical archaeologists working on the problem of these early towns have asserted that, ?cities are among the most complex human creations.? 11 This complexity extends well beyond the static form of 10 Archives of Maryland, Volume 23, Page 499. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000023/html/a m23--499.html (Accessed, January 14, 2008). 11 Mark P. Leone and Silas D. Hurry, ?Seeing: The Power of Town Planning in the Chesapeake? Historical Archaeology 32, no. 4 (1998):59. 6 town design and layout. Towns were the result of a series of constantly changing social relations played out at a particular locale not only through the use of architectural form but also through the exchange, use, and discard of material objects. This study defines the place of towns within the Chesapeake by examining the emerging social, political, and economic relationships, as they existed in a single town in early Prince George?s County, Maryland. Historical and archaeological data from the seventeenth-century port of Mount Calvert Town (1684-1696), later named Charles Town (1696-1721), are used to demonstrate how individuals took advantage of the locale for political, economic, and social gain or simply as public spaces where the mundane events of everyday life unfolded. This process is interpreted through the use and exchange of material culture. Overview and Justification The Maryland General Assembly established Mount Calvert Town in 1684 through a supplemental bill to the 1683 Act for Advancement of Trade. Mount Calvert was laid out on land occupied by Native Americans for at least 7,000 years and later established as a 1,000-acre manor granted to Philip Calvert in 1658. Prince George?s County was formed in 1696 and Mount Calvert was renamed Charles Town. 12 Charles Town was the first county seat of Prince George?s County and remained so until it was moved to Marlborough (now Upper Marlboro) in 1721. 12 Historical records refer to the town both as Mount Calvert and Charles Town. The name Charles Town is used in this dissertation to describe the town between 1696 and 1721, Mount Calvert Towne between 1684 and 1696, and Mount Calvert as a general term for the property. 7 Between 1684 and 1721 a courthouse, jail, Anglican church, ferry, and numerous stores and ordinaries (taverns) were constructed in the town. It is difficult to accurately determine the resident population of the town but it was probably no more than a few ordinary keepers, their family members, servants, boarders, and perhaps slaves. A few lawyers, sheriffs, carpenters, and merchant politicians kept offices or dwellings in or very near the town. The greatest traffic occurred on court days and Sundays. The importance of court days throughout the Chesapeake is well- established 13 and Charles Town was no exception. Citizens came to town to attend court and religious services and while they were in town they ate, drank, and slept at the ordinaries and purchased goods at stores in the town. Its location along the deep-channeled Patuxent River at the mouth of the Western Branch enabled Charles Town to serve as a primary entry point for consumer goods distributed throughout the interior of the county. Goods continued to enter the colony at the landing and people still retained lots at Charles Town well into the 1740s but its function as a central public meeting place ended with the removal of the court in 1721. The only physical traces of Charles Town today are the archaeological remains located along the Patuxent River in eastern Prince George?s County. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission purchased the site of Charles Town, commonly known as Mount Calvert, in 1995 and the property was 13 A. G. Roeber, ?Authority, Law, and Custom: The Rituals of Court Day in Tidewater Virginia, 1720 to 1750? William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 37, no.1 (1980): 29-52; E. Lee Shepard, ??This Being the Court Day?: Courthouses and Community Life in Rural Virginia,? Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 103, no. 4 (1995): 459-470; Rhys Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790 (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 88-94. 8 officially dedicated as Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park in May 2005. The Natural and Historical Resources Division, Archaeology Program currently manages the park as a center for archaeological research, education, and public outreach. Historian Louise Joyner Hienton completed the first and only detailed analysis of Charles Town in the late 1960s. 14 In her well-researched article on the town, she asked the simple question, ?Who were the people one might meet on the streets of Charles Town?? 15 The author succeeded in identifying many of the individuals directly involved with Charles Town, but provides very little about the subtleties of interaction between these individuals or the material conditions of their existence. This dissertation expands on the question that Hienton asked nearly forty years ago by exploring the use and exchange of material culture in the regulation of relationships between those who lived in and used the town. What were the relationships between those who actively supported and used towns and the local and regional power structures? How did individuals and groups benefit or suffer by the presence of towns? How did these individuals help sustain a particular town through the active construction of place? What role did material culture play in social, political, and economic exchange at the town? I argue that the fate of Charles Town and other colonial Chesapeake towns rested largely in the hands of ordinary (tavern) keepers, ordinary and store patrons, carpenters and other tradesmen, a small group of powerful merchant politicians, and a 14 Louise Joyner Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage: Sidelights on the Early History of Prince George?s County, Maryland from 1696 to 1800. (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1972), 11-25. 15 Ibid., 17. 9 shifting bound-labor force used to provide the labor muscle and wealth base necessary for sustaining towns. The specific strategies of material culture use and exchange at the town are analyzed as a method for determining the meanings associated with the locale. This dissertation provides a detailed analysis of the actions of individuals that both enabled and were enabled by the ideological and material creation of Charles Town. The biography of the town created through this analysis makes four contributions to the historical and archaeological scholarship on colonial Chesapeake towns. First, the study explores the role of human agency on the local scale as an explanation of why towns developed and why some survived while others faded or were abandoned. This approach differs from purely macro-level views that only consider systemic mechanisms, such as regional economy, or political upheaval as the primary agents of change. The premise here is that the fate of towns may have ultimately hinged on colony-wide conditions but the way they played out was ultimately focused through the prism of local actions. For example, towns were established throughout the region but the particulars of why or when they failed or survived was a matter of local politics and economy. The second contribution made by this dissertation is the study of the relationships between ordinary keepers, carpenters, merchant politicians, the free citizens who supported their businesses, and the bound-labor that supported the system of commodity exchange. The relationships between these groups were a vital component of colonial Chesapeake towns, but the details of these relationships are poorly understood. Ordinary keepers, for example, seldom emerged from the economic margins, especially during the late seventeenth 10 and early eighteenth centuries. Nevertheless, towns represented an economic, social, or political opportunity for each of these groups not available at private plantations. This study will help clarify the relationship between individuals including the wealthiest merchants, poor ordinary keepers, indentured servants, enslaved persons, small planters, and tradesmen and their relationships to the construction and use of towns. The third and fourth contributions are largely methodological. This study will demonstrate the central role played by material culture in the construction and use of colonial Chesapeake town space. Material culture, including buildings, objects, and spaces were constructed, used, re-used, and discarded or abandoned on a continual basis. This circulation of material goods defies empirical quantification and classification at times, but exists nonetheless in the physical traces left in the archaeological record and written about in historical documents. This investigation asserts that the ways towns were used is represented materially through discarded artifacts left behind, not just how they were architecturally configured. Finally, this dissertation contributes to the study of early colonial Chesapeake towns by stressing the importance of comparing and contrasting a variety of historical and archaeological data. A multidisciplinary approach is essential for studying small Chesapeake towns that left little trace in either the historical or archaeological record. Project Boundaries and Scope This study consists of two bounded contexts: One is temporal and the other spatial. Temporally, this dissertation considers the context of town development 11 between 1680 and 1720. The few steps taken to develop towns in the Chesapeake before 1680 were generally unsuccessful as regional phenomena. Unprecedented steps to develop towns in the region were taken by the Virginia and Maryland legislatures between 1680 and 1710. The ?mass? town legislation passed during these years resulted in hundreds of named towns. Some of these towns were titular, others realized limited development, and some still exist. After about 1730 and especially by the mid-eighteenth century, towns throughout the region began to develop more rapidly. Town development in the Chesapeake, or the perceived lack thereof, has been a necessary component of scholarship since historians, geographers, and archaeologists began studying the region. The period between 1680 and 1730 is especially sensitive to the development of towns because most Chesapeake towns were created during this time. Also, this was the proving stage where towns either failed or survived past the American Revolution. This threshold of survival played out on the local scale according to political, economic, and social circumstances and the actions of individuals. The second project boundary is spatial. The primary physical boundary of the site is the one hundred-acre Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission property known as Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park. The site is situated at the convergence of the upper tidal Patuxent River and the Western Branch on the eastern edge of Prince George?s County, Maryland (Figure 1.1). The physical terrain of Mount Calvert includes approximately thirty acres of tidal marsh and seventy-six acres of upland situated between about twenty and forty 12 Figure 1.1 1861 Simon J. Martenet Map of Prince George's County, Maryland Showing the Former Location of Charles Town. Source: Courtesy of the Library of Congress. Charles Town 13 feet above sea level. The soils at Mount Calvert are mostly well-drained sandy loams ideal for growing tobacco. The upland is mostly level with the exception of a slight rise cresting at the north central property boundary 900 feet from the point at the junction of the Patuxent and Western Branch terraces and another more abrupt rise located along the western edge of the property beginning 1,700 feet from the point (Figure 1.2). This hill has been bisected by a deep sixty-foot wide cut made in the 1890s for the Chesapeake Beach Railway bed. Both natural hills are fifteen to twenty feet above the level of the Patuxent River terrace. The terrace along the Patuxent naturally drops abruptly toward the river in most areas except for a gradual slope located approximately 600 feet from the point (Figure 1.3). There is also an ancestral drainage channel meandering through the center of the property. Church and Courthouse Tracey?s Ordinary Terrace Site B Terrace Site A Beall?s Gift Terrace Site C Patuxent Terrace 18th Century Plantation House Western Branch Terrace Point N Springhead Springhead Springhead Figure 1.2 1995 Aerial Photograph of Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park Showing Colonial Site Locations. Photograph Courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 14 Another important natural feature of the property is the springhead locations. There are at least three springheads located on the property. Two are found along the Patuxent terrace and the other on the Western Branch side. The Western Branch springhead is about one hundred feet north of the north-central hill previously described. The Patuxent River springheads are located at the edge of the terrace approximately 700 and 1200 feet from the point. The remnants of human occupation are visible on the landscape today. The most obvious changes to the physical appearance were made between the late eighteenth and early twentieth century. A 1780s brick plantation house still stands at the point; the only other standing structure on the property is a twentieth-century barn located 1,250 feet west of the house. The ruins of a nineteenth-century tobacco barn Figure 1.3 1995 Aerial Photograph Showing the Patuxent River Terrace at Mount Calvert. Eighteenth Century House and Western Branch in the Background. Photograph Courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 15 located just east of the twentieth-century barn were dismantled in 2005. Approximately forty-five acres of the property have been cleared for agriculture and subjected to modern plowing. A one and a half-acre yard area extending 250 feet west of the eighteenth-century house has not been cleared. The remaining portion of the site is wooded. The only trees remaining on the interior of the property were planted and include a large linden tree near the SW corner of the main block of the eighteenth-century dwelling, two large holly trees, a magnolia tree, a row of walnut trees west of the house, and numerous cedar trees placed throughout the property. Terrace falls were constructed on the southern side of the eighteenth century brick dwelling to accentuate the appearance of the structure from the Patuxent River. The existing farm roads were constructed and graveled during the early twentieth century. Two former road cuts are also evident. One of these cuts leads down the Western Branch terrace to the springhead mentioned earlier. This access road was probably created during the early twentieth century. Another road cut is located 1,700 feet southwest of the house and represents the nineteenth-century lane leading to the house. Evidence of human occupation before the late eighteenth century is not readily apparent in the aboveground landscape. The archaeological record contains the only remaining physical traces of Charles Town. Method, Theory, and Approach Several assumptions guided this study. The first assumption is that micro- level analyses of social, political, and economic phenomena and individual actions are viable starting points for studying colonial Chesapeake culture. Second, these 16 actions are undertaken at the local level but may in fact be meaningful on larger scales. Third, that action is never entirely free from social context and involves the exercise of power. Fourth, actions are not always strategic and even deliberate acts may result in unintended consequences. Fifth, material culture enables, produces, and reflects action. And finally, colonial Chesapeake towns are a form of material culture intentionally and unintentionally created through the interaction of people, built environments, and objects. These six interrelated assumptions are addressed via a rich history of agency theory coming primarily from the social sciences. Agency Theories Agency has been commonly applied as both a practical and theoretical term in the social sciences and humanities. Agency is a deceptively simplistic term at first glance. Usually agency is associated with the ability of individual actors to express their free will in the world. When analyzed critically, agency is usually compared, contrasted or reconciled with the term structure. Questions of human agency versus social structure have been central components of the social sciences from the beginning. Structure and agency were long theorized as binary opposites. Theorists began working to bridge the divide between agency and structure in the 1970s. Pierre Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens are the chief protagonists in this theoretical pursuit. Bourdieu devised a theory of practice to explain everyday actions that involved the concept of habitus. Habitus is comprised of the unconscious dispositions learned in early childhood that guide but do not strictly determine everyday behavior. Bourdieu situates these dispositions within class boundaries. He notes that: 17 ?Because different conditions of existence produce different habitus?the practices engendered by the different habitus appear as systematic configurations of properties expressing the differences objectively inscribed in conditions of existence in the form of systems of differential deviations which, when perceived by agents endowed with the schemes of perception and appreciation necessary in order to identify, interpret and evaluate their pertinent features, function as lifestyles.? 16 Structuralism is at the heart of Bourdieu?s theory. He affords some freedom for individual choice but this freedom is limited by class boundaries. Giddens tried to bridge the structure-agency dualism by offering his structuration theory of social formation. In Giddens? structuration theory ?the structural properties of social systems are both the medium and the outcome of the practices that constitute those systems.? 17 Giddens sees agency as a ?continuous flow of conduct? rather than a disparate set of acts. 18 Human agents are simultaneously enabled and constrained by social structures, and in Giddens? view, social structures are continuously being created and reproduced through agency. The concept of habitus within Bourdieu?s general theory of practice and Giddens structuration theory laid the ground work for much of the scholarship on agency theory beginning in the 1980s. American material culture studies have also grappled with the concept of agency, though less heavily influenced by Bourdieu and Giddens. Agency has become a common expression within the fields of material culture studies and archaeology and classifying the term is difficult because of the 16 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Translated by Richard Nice, (London: Rutledge, 1984), 170. 17 Anthony Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979), 69. 18 Ibid., 55. 18 many definitions currently in use. My usage of the term is influenced by scholars, particularly archaeologists, who have attempted to use abstract theories of agency and practice to explain material culture of the past. The past two decades have produced a wealth of scholarship on the topic of agency in archaeology. 19 Most of this scholarship draws heavily on the work of Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu. Yet, there remain a wide range of perspectives on agency. Some historical archaeologists in the United States embraced ?agency? during the 1990s as a reaction to what they saw as an over-determined structuralist view of the past, attacking the critique of capitalism mounted from the left as not allowing for agency and multiple interpretations. 20 Many historical archaeologists continue to empower individuals as knowledgeable and capable of 19 For a review see Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, eds., Agency in Archaeology (London: Routledge, 2000); John Moreland, ?Restoring the Dialectic: Settlement Patterns and Documents in Medieval Central Italy?, in Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory ed. A. Bernard Knapp (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992): 112-129; Andrew Gardner, ?Agency?, in Handbook of Archaeological Theories, eds. R. Alexander Bentley, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippendale (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2008): 95-108; Andrew Gardner, editor, Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human, (London: UCL Press, 2004); Jennifer L. Dornan, ?Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9, no. 4 (December 2002): 303-329. 20 c.f., Mary C. Beaudry, Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski, ?Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse?, in The Archaeology of Inequality, eds. Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991): 150-191; Laurie A. Wilkie and Kevin M. Bartoy, ?A Critical Archaeology Revisited,? Current Anthropology 41, no. 5 (December 2000): 747-777; Matthew H. Johnson, ?Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation? in Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader, ed. Julian Thomas (London: Leicester University Press, 2000): 211-227; Ian Hodder, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 66-72. For a discussion of interest in agency see Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, ?Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude?? In Agency in Archaeology, eds. Marcia- Anne Dobres and John E. Robb (London: Routledge, 2000): 3-17. 19 making their own social worlds beyond confining state level structures. There are few, Marxist or otherwise, who would argue with this assumption. The constitution of society is and was made of individual actions, but actions carried out under social, political, and economic constraints. Several themes in the archaeological use of agency theory apply to material culture studies in general. Most studies consider (or should consider) problems of group versus individual, intentionality, power, action, and artifacts as agents. 21 Jennifer Dornan suggests that the three central issues faced by practitioners of agency theory are determining the proper unit of analysis, questions of rationality and resistance, and framing intentionality versus unintended consequences. 22 Andrew Gardner frames the specific problem of the ?structurationist? approach forwarded by Giddens and Bourdieu around three central themes of the role of the individual, how agency relates to power, and the implications of agency for definitions of humanity. 23 The interrelated problems surrounding the use of agency framed by Dornan, Gardner, and others are applicable to the study of colonial Chesapeake towns. There are many ways that agency theory can, and should, be applied to colonial town research. My thoughts in this dissertation are most closely aligned with those who realize agency as historically situated and embodied. 24 That is, actions that involve 21 Dobres and Robb, ?Agency in Archaeology,? 10-13; Andrew Gardner, ?Introduction: Social Agency, Power, and Being Human?, In Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human, ed. Andrew Gardner, (London: UCL Press, 2004): 1-15; see also Gardner, ?Agency?; Dornan, ?Agency and Archaeology?. 22 Dornan, ?Agency and Archaeology?, 314-324. 23 Gardner, ?Introduction: Social Agency, Power, and Being Human?, 3. 24 John C. Barrett, ?A Thesis on Agency? In Agency in Archaeology, eds. Marcia- Anne Dobres and John E. Robb (London: Routledge, 2000), 62; Mustafa Emirbayer 20 material culture should always be interpreted in relationship to the historical conditions and access to resources that both allow and limit the power people have to shape their physical and social worlds. Sociologists Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische provide a useful definition of agency for this study. The authors define human agency as, ?the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments?the temporal-relational contexts of action?which, through the interplay of habit, imagination, and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations.? 25 Drawing on the scholarship above I have framed the theoretical contours of this dissertation around three guiding principles. First, the central units of analysis are individuals and artifacts, but this dissertation is not a study of individuals and artifacts. Individuals and artifacts are the base level where action occurs, but artifacts and individuals are significant as agents only in that they are socially and historically constituted. In other words, individual actions and material culture cannot be disarticulated from their social context. Countless individual actions created, sustained, and gave meaning to colonial Chesapeake towns, but these actions were the result of context-bound relationships. In Andrew Gardner?s view, ?what allows humans to fulfill their capacity for agency is their relationships (involvement) with other people and objects.? 26 In this sense, the use, construction, and demise of towns like Charles Town were complex expressions of agency through the use and exchange and Ann Mische, ?What is Agency?, The American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 4 (January 1998): 962-1023. 25 Emirbayer and Mische, ?What is Agency,? 970. 26 Gardner, ?Agency,? 96. 21 of material culture. This dissertation considers agency the primary apparatus of social change. The second guiding theoretical principle relates to the role of power. Power can be expressed as the capacity individuals and institutions have to do something (make a decision, build a shed, or carry out a plan of action). Power can also be seen as a relationship between people and institutions. These two expressions of power are often referenced as ?power to? and ?power over.? 27 Any individual has the power to act, but the capacity to carry out that act is restricted by access to resources. To paraphrase the often-used expression from Marx, people are free to make decisions but those (socially meaningful) decisions are constrained by conditions that are not of the agent?s choosing. Individuals may act willfully but the ?capacity of some with more power to sanction others limits the agent?s freedom of action.? 28 Actions are also carried out by rote, but even routine acts are situated within a social context of power. These actions are always ?situated,? and are carried out according to the agent?s relationship with and capacity to control resources. 29 In the case of individuals at Charles Town, this is their relationship to legal and trade language, their economic capacity to purchase and sell goods, and their ability to construct 27 Robert Paynter and Randall H. McGuire, ?The Archaeology of Inequality: Material Culture, Domination, and Resistance?, In The Archaeology of Inequality, eds. Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991), 6; Gardner, ?Introduction: Social Agency, Power, and Being Human,? 5. 28 Kenneth H. Tucker, Jr., Anthony Giddens and Modern Social Theory (London: Thousand Oaks, 1998), 85. 29 John Barrett makes the distinction between structural conditions and structuring principles. Structural conditions are the historically constituted conditions in which an agent exists, while structuring principles are the agent?s abilities to work on these conditions to transform their own identities and conditions of existence, ?A Thesis on Agency,? 65. 22 social relationships through material exchange. My emphasis on power here is not to accentuate the winners and losers of history per se, but rather to demonstrate how the course of town building was shaped through the social context of power relations. Primary structural components of these power relations include chattel slavery, the Anglican Church, and the Court. Each of these institutions is discussed in this study. Finally agency theory considers questions of intentionality and the outcome of action. This debate centers on whether agency is the intentional action of goal- oriented and knowledgeable agents or if the term should be applied to the unintended consequences of action. 30 I believe a meaningful study of past action must analyze both the intentional actions of socially and historically constituted individuals as they attempt to negotiate their positions in society and the intended and unintended consequences of those actions. Action in this sense ?expresses the social context, the identity and the capabilities of the agent, and the consequences of action range from consequences which were intended to those which were unintended.? 31 Intentionality is often impossible to demonstrate through the historical or archaeological record, but the consequences of human action is more demonstrable. Therefore, a more fruitful interpretation is possible by considering the full compliment of intentions, or simply reflecting on consequences in composite form (the spatial arrangement of buildings or the discard of objects) as productive place-making. Colonial Chesapeake towns are marginalized when viewed only from the study of trade systems. By contrast, I argue that towns were extremely important 30 Dobres and Robb, ?Agency in Archaeology,? 10; Dornan, ?Agency and Archaeology,? 319-320. 31 Barrett, ?A Thesis on Agency,? 66. 23 elements of society as material settings for negotiating the conditions of everyday life. I agree with Matthew Johnson?s assessment that more theorizing on the subject of agency is not necessary, but rather what is needed are more concrete case studies that ask how agency can help us gain a fuller appreciation and understanding of the past. 32 This study attempts to articulate a more complete understanding of the role of towns in the Chesapeake by focusing on the interrelated actions of individuals and the real social, political, and economic limitations and possibilities they encountered within a single town. Methods The primary data gathered for this investigation is drawn from a variety of historical sources and the archaeological record. Primary historical sources were selected based on the anticipation of what those sources might contribute toward understanding the material culture and actions of individuals at Charles Town. This scrutiny drew on a wealth of primary research completed on the region. Much has been written on colonial Chesapeake society since the ?new? social history began to reconsider the region in the 1970s. These foundational studies, and many that followed, used staggering amounts of data from a variety of abundant primary documents to form composite macro analyses of the region. In so doing these studies contributed to our knowledge in many previously understudied areas including enslaved Africans, indentured servitude, and the role of women in Chesapeake 32 Matthew Johnson, ?Agency, Structure, and Archaeological Practice,? in Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human, ed. by Andrew Gardner, (London: UCL Press, 2004), 246. 24 society. 33 Recently Douglas Bradburn and John Coombs suggested that long-held conclusions about the Chesapeake economy based on composite data need to be scrutinized with sub-regional data. 34 The authors also point to the need for a better understanding of trade between the Chesapeake colonies and the Caribbean when making conclusions about the region-wide economy. Of particular interest to this dissertation were two foundational studies that used sub-regional data from Prince George?s County, Maryland, as their primary source of data. Lois Green Carr?s dissertation on county government in Maryland and Allan Kulikoff?s dissertation on Chesapeake society were invaluable reference sources for the present study. 35 Both of these dissertations are recognized as seminal works in colonial Chesapeake history. My work departs from this form of inquiry in that I begin with a micro-analysis of Chesapeake society that focuses on a single locale rather than the region or county in particular. My analysis of early Prince George?s County would not be possible without the thorough pioneering work completed by Carr, Kulikoff, Russell Menard, Gloria Main, and many others. Also, Louise Hienton?s excellent article on Charles 33 For a review of the literature on colonial Chesapeake history see Thad W. Tate, ?The Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake and its Historians,? in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, eds. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 3-50; ?Introduction,? in eds. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean RB. Russo Colonial Chesapeake Society, (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 1-46; also Debra Meyers and Melanie Perreault, ?Introduction,? Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives, eds. Debra Meyers and Melanie Perreault (Lanham, 2006), xi-xxiii. 34 Douglas M. Bradburn and John C. Coombs, ?Smoke and Mirrors: Reinterpreting the Society and Economy of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake,? Atlantic Studies 3, no. 2 (October 2006): 131-157. 35 Lois Green Carr, County Government, in Maryland, 1689-1709, (New York: Garland Publishing, 1987); Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves?. 25 Town written for the Maryland Historical Magazine in 1967 and later reproduced and expanded in her 1972 book entitled Prince George?s Heritage was an important starting point for compiling the names of individuals and businesses associated with Charles Town. 36 As outlined in the theory section above, the micro-level actions analyzed in this dissertation are situated within society-wide structural conditions that act to temper individual decisions and choice. The methods used here analyze Charles Town through the actions of those who built and used the town. This method draws from historians who use an action-oriented approach to research that borrows from the ethnographic methods of anthropology. In this approach social and historical phenomena are best understood by analyzing the details of what happened on the ground. This approach is sometimes called ?performance theory.? Two examples have influenced my methodological approach. In her analysis of planned suburban spaces, Mary Corbin Sies interprets the suburban world created by upper-middle- class Americans during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a series of discourses leading to a consensus about the ideal planned suburban environment. 37 Sies uses a tri-part methodological approach to analyze the development of suburban environments, namely individual lot histories, community level factors, and finally the buildings and lot layouts as they were conceived and constructed (the artifacts). 36 Louise Joyner Hienton, ?Sidelights: Charles Town, Prince George?s First County Seat?, Maryland Historical Magazine 63, no. 4, (December 1968): 401-411; Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 11-25. 37 Mary Corbin Sies, ?Toward a Performance Theory of the Suburban Ideal, 1877- 1917?, In Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, IV , ed. Thomas Carter and Bernard L. Herman, (Columbia, MO: University Press for the Vernacular Architecture Forum, 1991), 197-207. 26 By triangulating between these three levels of information, Sies is able to reconstruct the contours of debate about what the suburban ideal should look like. Each of these focal points of fieldwork could be interpreted as interrelated expressions of agency (individuals constrain and enable artifacts, artifacts constrain and enable communities and so on). One of the most detailed examples of ethnographic history is The Transformation of Virginia by Rhys Isaac. 38 Isaac?s method weaves the mundane historical events of everyday encounters into an interpretation of early Virginia by using a dramaturgical model. In Isaac?s analysis, the actions of individuals are meaningful in terms of their social and historical context. He argues that the historical record can be interrogated to unfold the rich tapestry of meaning that involved all members of society from slaves, to large planters, to landless tenants. These individuals were situated in relationship to one another by their position in society and the resultant patterning of their interactions can be viewed as constituting that society. In this way, the methods employed by Isaac and Sies act as a guide not only for understanding social patterns but agency as well. In the case of Charles Town, I have deliberately chosen to look at historical sources that would elucidate the role of the individuals who had the greatest impact on the daily operation and survival of the town. The courthouse and church at Charles Town were at the center of Prince George?s County society, but I have chosen not to write a history of the inner workings of either. Rather, the court proceedings and scant records of the church are important and were read with an eye 38 Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia. 27 to what they could tell about the lives of those who took an interest in the town rather than the importance of these institutions to early Chesapeake society. Others have adequately taken on this task especially in Virginia. 39 I am primarily interested in how these institutions enabled or constrained individual actions outside the court. The same is true of my analysis of the ordinaries and stores, I am most interested in the agency produced through the interaction between individuals (keepers, customers, and merchant politicians), objects (artifacts and buildings), and the enabling and constraining conditions of the institutions themselves, rather than a disembodied approach to either institution alone. To this end, the most useful primary historical sources available for my investigation were court records, inventories, wills, administrative accounts, and land records. Prince George?s County is an excellent setting for micro analyses because the majority of official county records have survived, unlike many more jurisdictions where primary records have perished. The court record provides hundreds of cases involving individuals directly associated with the events and daily operations at the town. Land records, rent rolls, and wills establish ownership, kinship relations, and land conveyance in and around Charles Town. Inventories provide valuable information about material culture ownership, use, and exchange. Administrative accounts provide information on local economic exchange networks. Archaeological data is the second set of primary source material used in this dissertation. Three shovel test pit surveys, two controlled surface collection surveys, 39 See, Carl R. Lounsbury, The Courthouses of Early Virginia: An Architectural History, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005); Carr, County Government; Roeber, ?Authority, Law, and Custom?. 28 and excavations at four colonial sites have been completed since 1996. Data from these surveys and excavations are combined with the primary historical sources to present a material biography of Charles Town. Artifacts and subsurface features are presented here as the accumulated detritus of agency. The techniques used to gather and analyze the data, including shovel test and plow zone sampling, stratigraphic excavation, and artifact distribution analyses, are standard procedures in the field of historical archaeology. This study relies heavily on the analysis of artifacts and their distribution rather than features and their spatial organization. What objects remain? What objects are absent in the archaeological record? Questions like these are so basic to archaeological inquiry that they are rarely considered. The archaeological record is pieced together and accepted as fragmentary evidence. Archaeologists are generally comfortable dealing with archaeological data as intentional episodes. For example foundation walls are good data for showing architectural process or the construction of space, while ceramics discarded in a builders? trench or post hole can help us date the structure, but what about the original use of those ceramics? Their archaeological provenience is secure but their social or economic provenance is entirely ambiguous. Rearticulating this context requires detailed analysis of both archaeological and historical data. In this dissertation, I speculate that it is the discarded everyday objects, prosaic and ambiguous as they may be, and their associated spatiality that offer the best potential for demonstrating individual and group action when compared, contrasted, and combined with the historical record. 29 Archaeological data provided three key pieces of information to this study. First, the artifacts recovered provide a composite image of the types of material culture used and ultimately discarded intentionally or unintentionally at Charles Town. Objects like tobacco pipes and ceramic mugs were used and reused innumerable times before being broken and entering the archaeological record. And artifacts recovered from the field are interpreted within these contexts of use. Second, artifact distributions show where the core activity areas were located in the town. These artifact distributions do not necessarily represent the exact location of buildings but they do represent individual and collective action on the landscape. Finally, artifacts provide the means for dating individual sites from Charles Town. Archaeological and historical data are inherently fragmentary but together they offer a promising, if still incomplete, composite picture of the past. There are several excellent sources of material culture data available. Probate inventories for one have proven invaluable to scholars studying the material culture and society of the seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Chesapeake. 40 Inventories are most commonly used in aggregate form to either explain broad social patterns or as support data for the presence of individual things. Garry Wheeler Stone has argued that archaeologists need to incorporate a variety of historical data on a wide range of 40 For excellent examples from historians and archaeologists see Gloria L. Main, Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982); Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake?, In Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, eds., Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century (Charlottesville, 1994), 59-166; Paul A. Shackel, Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis, Maryland, 1695- 1870, (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993); Garry Wheeler Stone, ?Artifacts are not Enough,? in ed. Mary C. Beaudry, Documentary Archaeology in the New World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 68-77. 30 material culture in order to better interpret the past. 41 Archaeological and historical data are combined in this dissertation as complementary rather than independent sources. Historians and archaeologists are hard pressed to find direct empirical links between the archaeological and historical record. Weaving these sources together through a careful interpretation of context, rather than simply stacking them on top of one another as supplementary data, provides a solution to this problem of disconnect. 42 The result of this triangulation of sources is an interpretation of how actions were materially represented. Organization This dissertation is organized in seven chapters including this introduction and the conclusion (Chapter 7). Chapter 2 provides a review of the most salient literature in history, archaeology, and geography on the topic of town development in the Chesapeake during the last quarter of the seventeenth and first quarter of the eighteenth century. This chapter reviews the state of town research including sections on environment, economy, politics, society, and town planning, outlining the contours of the research and providing the scholarly context for the data chapters that follow. Chapters 3 through 6 synthesize the primary archaeological and historical data on Charles Town. Each of these chapters analyzes the collective actions of individuals and explores the construction and use of material culture in the formation of Charles Town. 41 Stone, ?Artifacts are not Enough,? 77. 42 See, Mary C. Beaudry, Findings: The Material Culture of Sewing, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 7. 31 Chapter 3 summarizes the actions of local merchant politicians to control the actual and symbolic landscape of Charles Town. Many wealthy individuals benefited from land speculation in the Chesapeake region during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century. This land speculation included purchasing land near developing towns or landings and taking up and improving town lots. A small group of powerful Protestant elites controlled much of the land in and around Charles Town. Most of these grandees were also merchants and held positions in the colonial government after the Protestant rebellion of 1689 and in Prince George?s County government after 1696. Enslaved Africans and European indentured servants provided the necessary labor to sustain the economic fortunes of these merchant politicians. Historical data presented in this chapter illustrate that the vast majority of enslaved Africans were owned by a small group of elites in Prince George?s County before 1730. Merchant politicians were at the top of most of these large slave holding estates. This enslaved labor force was largely situated on plantation holdings outside of towns but filled a crucial role in sustaining merchant wealth and their stores at towns like Charles Town and Marlborough by the first decades of the eighteenth century. The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate how this group of merchant politicians acted as agents to control where Charles Town was located and examine why it failed to survive as the seat of government. Chapter 4 provides an interpretation of ordinary keeping in Prince George?s County and Charles Town. Ordinaries were the single most important business in early colonial towns. Towns simply did not function without ordinaries. Data presented in this chapter show that most ordinary keepers were issued licenses for 32 businesses located in towns. These businesses were a necessary component of social and economic interaction in towns. Ordinaries were social arenas but they were not open to all people in Prince George?s County. Indentured servants were restricted from entering without their master?s permission and enslaved Africans were forbidden from entering. This chapter explores the lives of individual ordinary keepers at Charles Town and nature of their business including patronage, activities at the ordinaries, and the exchange of goods and services. The chapter also examines the tension between the actions of keepers and their patrons, and merchant politicians on the county court who attempted to restrict gaming, drinking, fighting, and ordinary accommodations by enacting and enforcing statutes regulating these activities. The end result of this chapter is a demonstration of how ordinary keepers and their patrons were active agents in the construction and maintenance of Charles Town and how this patronage served as a proving ground for solidifying class and racial boundaries. Chapter 5 examines the supply and exchange of goods through the stores at Charles Town and Marlborough. The viability of towns rested largely on the success or failure of stores. These stores were often the physical point at which people acquired goods. This chapter looks at the merchant owners and their clientele through debt cases and inventories to construct a profile of the type of economic exchange that took place between merchants and patrons at the point of purchase. The system of stores also helped define the boundaries of race and class in early Prince George?s County. Free citizens with available capital were active participants in this economic web. Class boundaries were created and sustained through material culture and exchange to be sure, but the sliding scale of status was embedded within a 33 social and legal system of codified whiteness. The system of distribution and acquisition is explored as well as the types of goods that were exchanged within this context. Chapter 6 presents an interpretation of how the town was constructed by the cumulative actions of individuals from all classes of society. Historical sources are used to build a case for the location and physical construction of the courthouse, Anglican church, and associated buildings in Charles Town. Archaeological data is used to show where much of the social and economic exchange took place, rather than how the town was abstractly conceived and laid out on paper. This composite view also suggests how people moved through the landscape rather than simply where they constructed buildings. Artifacts recovered from archaeological excavation are also compared with historical data to suggest the activities that took place at each of the Charles Town sites. Many common activities at Charles Town were enacted through material culture including sleeping, eating, drinking, smoking, self-presentation, and the performance of cultural beliefs. These activities occurred within towns, on plantations, and many other settings. I argue that the public context of actions at towns is an important factor to consider when interpreting the meaning of an otherwise ambiguous archaeological record. For example, bottles and tankards functioned as vehicles for exchanging alcohol at the ordinaries. These vessels were also used by the ordinary keepers who lived at the ordinaries. Ordinary keepers and their patrons were the primary inhabitants and users of Charles Town and the artifacts recovered are interpreted within this context of object use. Most, if not all, dwellings 34 at Charles Town also doubled as ordinaries. It is possible that the artifacts recovered from domestic sites simply represent household refuse, but it is more likely that artifact assemblages from these sites represent combined household and ordinary refuse. It is equally important to understand that participation in public action and spectacle through the use of material culture at towns was regulated within the boundaries of race, class, and gender. Enslaved Africans and indentured servants worked and stood before the court at Charles Town but their presence is muted in the historical record and often unclear in the archaeological record. These individuals helped create Charles Town by transporting goods and hogsheads of tobacco to and from the town and by working in the local stores and ordinaries. In the case of enslaved Africans, they were forced to live within a system of proscribed legal identities but in the process created their own configuration of public space. Part of this configuration of space was the creation of meeting places at large plantations and in remote locations that at times required traversing a landscape of roads and paths that were created for white dominance but were well known by enslaved Africans. This peripatetic landscape provides a counterpoint to the formal and informal spaces at Charles Town. 35 Chapter 2: Scholarly Context of Colonial Chesapeake Towns: History, Archaeology, and Geography Introduction English and Chesapeake elites often complained about the scarcity or outright absence of towns in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century tidewater Maryland and Virginia. This group had the most to gain economically and politically from the construction of a network of stable market towns in the region and they knew and controlled the apparatus of both transatlantic trade and the legal system. It was the frustration of a few powerful elites that fueled the many legislative efforts to create towns and ports in the Chesapeake between about 1660 and 1710. And, it is the paper trail left in the wake of this frustration that has guided much of the scholarship on the subject for at least the past 125 years. The ?absence? of towns has become a standard character defining element of colonial Chesapeake scholarship. The following arguments by one early proponent of towns illustrate this all-too-familiar terrain. In 1705 an outspoken proponent of towns named Francis Makemie published A Plain and Friendly Perswasive to the Inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland, for Promoting Towns and Cohabitation. 43 This document was one of the most detailed arguments about the benefits of towns in the Chesapeake and articulates many of the related social and economic concerns circulating in the colonies and in England at the turn of the seventeenth century. 43 Francis Makemie, A Plain and Friendly Perswasive to the Inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland for Promoting Towns & Cohabitation. (London, 1705) reprinted in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 4 no. 8 (1897): 255-271. 36 Francis Makemie, was a well known Presbyterian minister and merchant in Virginia and Maryland during the late seventeenth century. Makemie established the first Presbyterian church in the colony Shortly after his arrival in Somerset County, Maryland, in 1684. He later moved to Virginia where he had some impact on the deliberations by colonial officials concerning the Act of Toleration passed in 1699. 44 Makemie addressed what he saw as the chief concerns regarding towns expressed by colonial officials in Maryland and Virginia. Driving his pleas to establish towns was a conviction that the Chesapeake colonies would only advance socially and economically through cohabitation in towns. No fewer than eight advantages of towns are listed in Makemie?s ?Perswasive.? The author claimed that towns would reduce the costs of shipping by centralizing trade thus reducing the number of stops ships had to make on their way along major waterways. Prices for goods would correspondingly decrease making items less expensive in towns than they were on plantations. 45 Makemie also argued that centralized ports would reduce fraud by providing better regulation of the quality of tobacco within towns. 46 Some argued that part of the problem in the seventeenth century was the fact that large numbers of unskilled recently freed servants were entering the Chesapeake economy as small planters. With few outlets for applying or gaining other skills, they often turned to planting tobacco in hopes of reaping what little profit they could. 47 44 Barton H. Wise, ?A Perswasive to Towns and Cohabitation,? The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 4, no. 8 (1897): 252-254. 45 Makemie, A Plain and Friendly Perswasive: 261, 263. 46 Ibid.: 263-264. 47 Carville Earle and Ronald Hoffman, ?The Urban South: The First Two Centuries,? in The City in Southern History: The Growth of Urban Civilization in the South eds. 37 Makemie and others were convinced that the construction of towns in the region would alleviate the problem of overproduction by offering a framework whereby freedmen could find work as blacksmiths, carpenters, or other occupations besides tobacco cultivation. 48 Makemie further argued that jobs would be provided for the poor in fishing and other industries centered in towns. 49 In essence Makemie argued that towns remove poorer small planters from the trade who were flooding the market with poor quality tobacco. 50 To this issue is added the notion that towns would aide in the organization of home and foreign trade. 51 Finally the author insisted that without towns and cohabitation a needed supply of ?Artists and good Tradesmen? would never exist. 52 Social and spiritual concerns were also expressed in the debates over towns. Religion and education were among the chief social benefits discussed by Makemie. 53 Poor attendance at religious services was perceived to be a persistent problem in Virginia and Maryland, though there is compelling evidence that this perception was incorrect. 54 Makemie believed that cohabitation in towns would remedy the situation somewhat by providing a ready congregation living near a Blaine A. Brownell and David R. Goldfield, 28. (Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1977), 30. 48 Makemie, A Plain and Friendly Perswasive, 261, 264. 49 Ibid.: 261. 50 Ibid.: 266. 51 Ibid.: 267. 52 Ibid., 266. 53 Ibid., 264-265. 54 See Patricia U. Bonomi and Peter R. Eisenstadt, ?Church Adherence in the Eighteenth-Century British American Colonies,? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 39, no. 2 (April 1982): 245-286. 38 church. Schools would benefit for the same reason. Also, by locating schools in towns, the number of scholars available would increase correspondingly. Makemie concludes his argument for towns by addressing some of the objections raised by town opponents. One concern was that a stable network of towns and a decreased reliance on English goods would cause the colonies to cast off their allegiance to the mother country. A second concern was that the tobacco economy would be hurt by the reduction of planters thus causing a shortage of tobacco. Correspondingly, many were concerned that planters would be presented with a hardship when forced to bring their tobacco to towns, as was instructed by most of the legislation to create towns by the Virginia and Maryland legislatures. Finally, Makemie?s ?perswasive? attempted to douse the fears of some who believed that town inhabitants would squander their earnings at local taverns. One glaring omission from the ?perswasive? is the institution of slavery. Makemie was writing when slave labor was the dominant mode of production in the Chesapeake region. Much of his argument centers on the problem of opportunities for servants when their terms had expired. Writers like Makemie were primarily interested in towns as functioning units within expanded economic and socio-political networks. They were not interested in the development of isolated towns. Essentially, Makemie, like so many others during the period, was interested in the stabilization of the tobacco economy first followed by the advancement of society through job diversification, enhanced opportunities for freed servants and the poor, and the promotion of education and religion. Many of 39 Makemie?s arguments restated central components of the seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century canon on town development. Makemie?s thoughts would have resonated with several powerful Presbyterian planters and merchants in Prince George?s County, Maryland including Robert Bradley, Ninian Beall, and James Stoddert who were involved in the early development of Charles Town and the Presbyterian church at Marlborough in 1704. Land speculation and the influence of these powerful merchant politicians and others guided the location of towns in early Prince George?s County and elsewhere in the colonial Chesapeake. These grandees also consolidated their mercantile interests at central locations, some of which would eventually become towns. But understanding those with the greatest political and economic power with the exclusion of all others, important as they were to the process of town founding, provides a grossly incomplete story of early towns on the Chesapeake and departing from an exclusive focus on the grandees necessarily broadens the story and thickens the plot. Three hundred years have passed since Makemie drafted his arguments and the historiography of the region still echoes those colonial elites who lamented the slow development or outright ?absence? of towns in the Chesapeake. Fifty years ago Arthur Pierce Middleton wrote: ?The peculiar property of the Chesapeake tidewater-- the land?s extraordinary accessibility to sea-borne traffic--that facilitated the rapid development of the two colonies and made possible the adoption of tobacco as a staple, had an adverse effect in discouraging the growth of towns.? 55 And though 55 Arthur Pierce Middleton, Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era, (Newport News, Va: Mariners? Museum, 1953), 382. 40 Middleton?s thesis on the Chesapeake was penned over a half century ago, I argue that his statement has remained a powerful element of the Chesapeake historical narrative as discussed in the literature review below. It is well established in colonial scholarship that the production and exchange of tobacco permeated every aspect of life on every social scale in colonial Chesapeake society. The physical geography of the region combined with tobacco cultivation created a distinct regional settlement landscape dominated by widely scattered tobacco plantations and slow town development. In the 1930s, historian Carl Bridenbaugh summed up the prevailing view on the settlement of the region that would last for decades to come. He wrote, ?From Boston on the north to Charles Town on the south stretched eleven hundred miles of wilderness, broken only by rare and occasional settlements.? 56 However rare and occasional they may have been, numerous towns did exist in one form or another along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay during the colonial period. These ?rare? settlements include capitals like Annapolis, St. Mary?s City, James Town, and Williamsburg as well as economic success stories like Baltimore during the late eighteenth century. Colonial capitals in the Chesapeake have been the topic of intensive historical and archaeological research. They are in fact valued, preserved, and studied in part because of their rarity. Yet, smaller gathering points, frequently called towns, became ubiquitous features of the Chesapeake landscape. It is the inner workings of these small scattered hamlets that barely register on regional maps that we know so little about, but may hold the key to better understanding the local character of the region. 56 Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness: The First Century of Urban Life in America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), 4. 41 I believe that there is a need to redirect the scholarly focus on colonial towns from macro to micro analyses. Fitting these small towns within the well-ordered system of regional or transatlantic trade will not result in a better understanding of early Chesapeake towns. Such analyses may situate towns in a regional focus, but will fail to capture the nuances of everyday experience. A goal of micro analyses should be to explore the meaning of these rare and occasional settlements to those who made, used, sustained, and abandoned them by comparing the historical and archaeological traces they left behind. Literature on Colonial Chesapeake Towns Many historians and geographers generally accept three broad conclusions about pre-1740s towns in the tidewater Chesapeake. First, although many towns were created through legislation, urban growth was slow to develop during the seventeenth century and the first few decades of the eighteenth century. Numerous causes are cited for the slow development of towns in the region including the abundance of available lands, the existence of many deep-channeled waterways where plantations and wharves could be constructed, and the overall nature of the tobacco economy in the region. 57 As historian John C. Rainbolt points out, ?no textbook on early 57 Glenn T. Trewartha, ?Types of Rural Settlement in Colonial America,? Geographical Review 36, (1946): 591; Edward M. Riley, ?The Town Acts of Colonial Virginia,? Journal of Southern History 16, (1950): 307; John C. Rainbolt, ?The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,? in Cities in American History eds. Kenneth T. Jackson and Stanley K. Schultz, 50. (New York: Knopf, 1972); Lois Green Carr, ??The Metropolis of Maryland?: A Comment on Town Development along the Tobacco Coast,? Maryland Historical Magazine 69, (1974):139; Earle and Hoffman, ?The Urban South?, 28; Kevin P. Kelly, ??In 42 American history is complete without reference to the absence of towns in Virginia during the Tidewater period of its history.? 58 This statement also applies to Maryland history. Second, in his pioneering work on colonial town planning in the Chesapeake, historian John Reps illustrates that most town plans in the Chesapeake were platted using simple grid designs. 59 Reps also concludes that ?their simple and straightforward gridiron schemes symbolized the lack of sophistication of a frontier society, which remained unconvinced that the creation of towns would bring substantial benefits and which, even if the will had been present, lacked the necessary skills and knowledge to lay out communities on any other pattern than the most obvious.? 60 With the notable exceptions of the layout for the regional political centers of St. Mary?s City, Annapolis, and Williamsburg this conclusion has stood largely unchallenged as representing the many smaller organized places throughout the region. Finally, there is a prevailing undercurrent in the literature that the significance of towns to the development of economic, social, religious, and political dispers?d Country Plantations?: Settlement Patterns in Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia,? in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century eds. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, 183-205. (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1979); Walsh, ?Community Network?, 200-201; Lois Green Carr, ?Rural Settlements in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake,? in ed. Ralph Bennett, ed., Settlement in the Americas: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993): 175-196; James Horn, Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1994), 140-141; Anthony S. Parent, Jr., Foul Means: The Formation of a Slave Society in Virginia, 1660-1740, (Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 2003), 97. 58 Rainbolt, ?The Absence of Towns?: 50. 59 John Reps, Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1972). 60 Ibid., 116. 43 institutions in the region before the second quarter of the eighteenth century was dubious. A familiar composite image drawn of the Chesapeake is a rural landscape of dispersed plantations and occasional unsophisticated and inconsequential towns. Unfortunately, conclusions about the form and function of towns as they fit in the overall settlement pattern of the region during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries serve to dismiss the relevance of what existed in smaller locales and what meanings were attached to these landscapes through their layout and eventual construction. Archaeologist Henry Miller is right in his judgment that towns should be assessed within their own historical contexts. 61 Much scholarship has been produced on the subject of towns in the Chesapeake in spite of and at times because of the difficulty in contextualizing these locales. Historical geographer Joseph Thomas recently expressed the need for scholars to understand how colonial Chesapeake towns developed over time rather than simply how they were initially planned. 62 Studying lot histories, as Thomas has done, clearly demonstrates the potential for diachronic analyses of colonial Chesapeake towns. Most scholarship supports the notion that town development in the colonial South did not come until the 1730s or 1740s. The development of permanent public and private architectural forms corresponds with the development of stable towns. Carville Earle and Ronald Hoffman suggest that the development of towns in the 61 Henry M. Miller, ?Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake,? Historical Archaeology 22 (1987): 69-70. 62 Joseph B. Thomas, ?One Hundred Lots Make it a Town: Four Surveys of Early Oxford,? Maryland Historical Magazine 94, no. 2 (1999):175. In his study Thomas uses lot histories in combination with a plat to describe the internal development of Oxford on Maryland?s eastern shore from 1668 to 1707. 44 colonial American South can be divided into three general time periods or stages. Town development was slow during the seventeenth century due to a variety of existing geographic, economic, and social conditions. The authors identify a second period of slow town growth beginning around the turn of the century to about 1740 followed by a proliferation of towns and a rapid acceleration of growth for the remainder of the eighteenth century. 63 The following discussion examines the development of towns in the context of Chesapeake society during the formative stages of town development from about 1680 to 1740. Poor economic conditions and political instability greatly affected the growth and development of towns during the period. The towns that did exist were often enterprises carried out by the wealthiest segment of the population. But their staying power within the hearts and minds of those who built and used them and those who write about them today clearly suggests that the significance of colonial towns lies in the interplay between the past and its reading. History, geography, and archaeology have developed diverse strategies for understanding seventeenth-century Chesapeake towns. It is the goal of this chapter to introduce the literature on colonial towns in the Chesapeake to evaluate the broad contours of how the story of Chesapeake towns has been told and to propose areas of future research. Natural ?Advantages? of the Chesapeake and European Settlement Dramatic changes in climate following the end of the last ice age shaped both the natural environment and the cultural traditions in the Chesapeake region. 64 63 Earle and Hoffman, ?The Urban South?: 48-51. 64 For detailed discussion of changing climate see Richard J. Dent, Jr., Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions (New York: Plenum Press, 1995). 45 Human settlement in the region adapted to changes brought on by the creation of the Chesapeake Bay and the filling of its major tributaries. Native Americans near the bay became more sedentary as population increased and available food supplies and procurement technologies changed. The Chesapeake Bay was formed during the Pleistocene period by rising sea levels beginning about 18,000 years ago 65 assuming its present form approximately 13,000 years later. A vast drainage system feeds the Chesapeake Bay extending from southern New York to southern Virginia and encompassing several major waterways on the western shore including the Susquehanna, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James rivers. This environment would have a profound impact on the Europeans arriving in the bay centuries later. Tidewater Maryland and Virginia relied on a tobacco-based economy throughout the colonial period. Planters generally constructed plantations near one of the many navigable waterways located in the colonies. Rich tobacco soils located along these rivers were an added enticement for planters to settle there and export their tobacco from private landings. These environment and physiographic conditions helped foster a dispersed settlement pattern. Yet, too often in the past the relationship between the environment and settlement pattern is characterized as a one-way determined result. An over reliance on and uncritical assumptions about statements made in travel accounts and by other contemporaries may have guided scholarship, especially in the 65 George W. Fisher and Jerry R. Schubel, ?The Chesapeake Ecosystem: Its Geologic Heritage,? in Discovering the Chesapeake: The History of an Ecosystem, eds. Phillip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 9. 46 early twentieth century, toward a focus on the environment. 66 Strict environmental determinism has been discarded by many geographers and historians in favor of cultural and ideological factors influencing the development of towns. 67 The most useful approach describes a reciprocal relationship between people and their natural environments placing sources in their proper context. 68 The pattern of European settlement in the Chesapeake region has been studied extensively and some general conclusions are widely accepted. Vast areas of land were available in the region for much of the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. The first areas settled were those along major waterways where access to shipping lanes was abundant and soils were nutrient rich. Colonists then patented interior lands after riverside parcels had been claimed. Patenting interior lands was by no means the inevitable next step following the exhaustion of lands along major waterways. For example, settlers took up cheap interior lands in Surry County, Virginia lower tobacco production costs and cushion the blow of the collapsing tobacco economy during the seventeenth century. 69 66 For a critique of the use of colonial travel accounts see Joseph A. Ernst and H. Roy Merrens ??Camden's turrets pierce the skies!?: The Urban Process in the Southern Colonies during the Eighteenth Century,? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 30, no. 4 (October 1973): 549-557. 67 Grim, ?The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia,? 4-11; John C. Rainbolt, ?The Absence of Towns?. 68 See Jeremy Korr, ?A Proposed Model for Cultural Landscape Study?, Material Culture 29, no. 3 (Fall 1997): 1-18; Also Donald W. Linebaugh combines a variety of contemporary accounts with other historical and archaeological data to assess the effect that the environment had on the construction of outbuildings during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, ??All the Annoyances and Inconveniences of the Country?: Environmental Factors in the Development of Outbuildings in the Colonial Chesapeake,? Winterthur Portfolio 29, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 1-18. 69 Kelly, ?In dispers?d Country Plantations?: 196-198. 47 European settlement in Maryland began at St. Mary?s City and gradually expanded northward throughout the seventeenth century. Lands along the Potomac and Patuxent were taken up first. Decades of historical research suggests that Anglo- American farmers selected home sites based on the nearness to well-drained fertile soils, deep-channeled waterways, and fresh drinking water. 70 These environmental criteria for settlement provide the groundwork for a predictive model of seventeenth- century site location. The cumulative data support the fact that during the seventeenth century most people initially set up plantations near waterways. The reasons settlers built precisely where they did, however, represent a complex set of individual decisions tempered with general economic and environmental circumstances. The area that would eventually become Prince George?s County is bounded by the Potomac River to the west, the Patuxent River to the east, and Charles County to the south. These large rivers easily accommodated ocean-going vessels and proved ideal for establishing plantations. Some of the best tobacco growing soils in the 70 Lorena S. Walsh, ?Land Use, Settlement Patterns, and the Impact of European Agriculture, 1620-1820?, in Discovering the Chesapeake: The History of an Ecosystem, eds. Phillip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 221-222; Michael A. Smolek, ??Soyle Light, Well-Watered and on the River:? Settlement Patterning of Maryland?s Frontier Plantations?, Paper Delivered at the Third Hall of Records Conference on Maryland History, St. Mary?s City, Maryland, May, 1984 available online at http://www.jefpat.org/research_papers.html (Accessed, October 31, 2007); Michael A. Smolek, Dennis J. Pogue, and Wayne E. Clark, ?Historical Archaeology of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake: A Guide to Sources? Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Paper No. 1 (St. Leonard, 1984); See also Kit W. Wesler ?Towards a Synthetic Approach to the Chesapeake Tidewater: Historic Site Patterning in Temporal Perspective? (PhD diss., University of North Carolina, 1982). For an empirical analysis of the importance of prime tobacco soils on settlement patterning in the colonial Chesapeake see Craig Lukezic, ?Soils and Settlement Location in 18 th Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia,? Historical Archaeology 24, no. 1 (1990): 1-17. 48 region were located along the Patuxent River. The Potomac drainage contained less productive soils and as a result settlement expanding northward from St. Mary?s was most extensive along the Patuxent River. Colonial land speculation along the upper tidal Patuxent began in the 1650s becoming more intense during the last two decades of the seventeenth century. By the end of the century most of the population of Prince George?s County was located on the eastern side of the county on or near the Patuxent while only one third had settled along the Potomac. 71 In Prince George?s County and throughout the region, plantations were often established in areas where Native American groups had lived and farmed for centuries. 72 Planters usually built earth-fast structures forming a plantation complex surrounded by tobacco fields. Most plantation houses and outbuildings were made of wood, and climate and topography influenced their design and layout. 73 The complex sometimes included a wharf at the river for loading tobacco. Thus, rivers served as connecting points between colonists and England. At the same time, colonists were changing the rivers in substantive ways. 71 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 97. 72 For discussion of this phenomena see Stephen R. Potter and Gregory A. Waselkov, "Whereby We Shall Enjoy Their Cultivated Places", in Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, eds. Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, 23-33. (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994); Walsh, ?Community Networks?: 204. 73 For an extended discussion of construction techniques in the early Chesapeake see Cary Carson, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton, ?Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies,? Winterthur Portfolio 16, no. 2/3 (Summer/Autumn 1981): 135-196. On the impact of climate on building traditions and plantation layout see Linebaugh, ?All the Annoyances and Inconveniences of the Country?; Amir H. Ameri ?Housing Ideologies in the New England and Chesapeake Bay Colonies, c. 1650-1700,? The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56, no. 1 (March 1997): 8-11. 49 Simply using the Patuxent River for travel and shipping required regular maintenance. Clear-cutting trees for agricultural fields changed the terrestrial environment, even though colonists took advantage of ?old? fields cleared by Native Americans whenever possible. Agricultural practices with tobacco as the staple caused very little damage to the environment. The use of the hoe and the fact that tobacco rapidly diminished nutrients in the soil required farmers to allow fields to lay fallow for extended periods, and this contributed to minimal soil erosion. It was not until the introduction of the plow and more intensive grain farming in the latter half of the eighteenth century that soil erosion became a serious sedimentation problem in the region. 74 The greater number of acres under agriculture by the late eighteenth century also contributed to the condition. Tilling these agricultural fields created a critical siltation problem for shipping along the Patuxent and other rivers by the nineteenth century. Soil erosion and sedimentation was a constant problem throughout the region during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries contributing to the demise of many towns relying on the rivers. 75 74 Walsh, ?Land Use?: 241-243; David O. Percy, ?Ax or Plow?: Significant Colonial Landscape Alteration Rates in the Maryland and Virginia Tidewater,? Agricultural History 66, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 66-74; Carville V. Earle, ?The Myth of the Southern Soil Miner: Macro-History, Agricultural Innovation, and Environmental Change,? in The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Environmental History, ed. Donald Worster (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 175-210; Henry M. Miller, "Transforming a ?Splendid and Delightsome Land?: Colonists and Ecological Change in the Chesapeake 1607-1820," Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76, no.3 (1986): 173-187. 75 For a discussion of the specific effects of region-wide sedimentation on port towns see L.C. Gottschalk, ?Effects of Soil Erosion on Navigation in Upper Chesapeake Bay,? Geographical Review 35, (April 1945): 219-238.; For a discussion of river maintenance and measures taken by governments to counter the effects of sedimentation and ballast stone dumping see Middleton, Tobacco Coast, 98-102. 50 Eventually constant dredging was required to clear channels for ships. The depth of the Patuxent River permitted entry of ships of 300 tons or better during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century. 76 Erosion due to extensive agricultural practices of the late eighteenth century took its toll on the environment and by the second quarter of the nineteenth century large ocean-going vessels were unable to reach the town of Nottingham five miles south of Charles Town. The effects of this siltation were cumulative and altered shipping and the ecology of the Patuxent River helping to create what we view today as the natural environment. 77 English settlers to Virginia and Maryland clearly remade the landscape to satisfy their social and spiritual desires and economic needs. Bounding the land to make fields and plantations provided a means for dividing land into controllable units. Simply dividing and staking out lands was often a difficult process. Surveyors in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake struggled with imprecise technology and landforms such as marshes. Regardless of the difficulties in early land survey, by the late seventeenth century individual plantations dominated the cultural landscape of the Chesapeake. Some saw towns, however, as a missing ingredient necessary for a complete transformation of the wilderness. This transformation was one of practical struggles with the physical realities mentioned. Many English settlers arrived in the colonies with a clear concept of civilization, often in contrast to the concept of wilderness. Wilderness was often conceived as a state of evil in opposition to Christian society. Dark woods were 76 Middleton, Tobacco Coast, 40; Earle, ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System,? 20. 77 Donald G. Shomette, Tidewater Time Capsule: History Beneath the Patuxent (Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 1995), 123. 51 equated with unholy things and many settlers sought to eradicate and conquer the wilderness as a civilizing as well as commoditizing process. 78 In America this ultimately meant transforming the land itself to suit English custom. Reshaping the landscape required a conversion in both form and meaning. Physically building plantations and towns brought with it a fundamental shift in the relationship between humans and nature. 79 Towns could be established, after nature was transformed from a state of wilderness, and as a result religion and education would flourish in a civilized setting. This was the logic followed by some seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century town proponents. Carolyn Merchant describes changes brought about in New England by initial colonization and later by post-colonial capitalist industrialization as ecological revolutions. 80 Merchant argues that through the process of colonization, relations between humans and nature changed from a mimetic, reciprocal relationship to a commodity relationship. Native Americans were part of the former world while Europeans introduced the latter. Merchant claims this shift resulted in a change of human consciousness toward nature. The author hypothesizes a second 78 Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982): 23-43; See also Sylvia Doughty Fries, The Urban Idea in Colonial America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1977) for a discussion of how towns functioned as the center of Christian society in colonial America. 79 Carolyn Merchant, Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989) argues that an ecological transformation took place in America when Europeans settled and created a commodity relationship between humans and the natural environment; In The World They Made Together (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 15-20, Mechal Sobel argues that Western colonialism itself helped transform the perception of landscapes from static (time bound) to fluid entities that could be remade. See also Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 19-20, on bounding the land. 80 Carolyn Merchant, Ecological Revolutions. 52 transformation shortly after the American Revolution with radical changes in land tenure and more intensive agricultural practices. Merchant?s work closely follows that of William Cronon who identified the changes brought about by the commoditization of the New England landscape. 81 Ecological changes similar to those Cronon and Merchant lament in New England were also underway in the colonial Chesapeake. According to Henry Miller, measurable ecological changes caused by human settlement did not truly appear until after the American Revolution. 82 One reason for the lag in ecological change was due to the particular type of agriculture being practiced in the region as previously discussed. According to Miller a dramatic change to the ecology of the Chesapeake came during the late eighteenth century. Siltation increased as populations grew, interior lands in the piedmont were rapidly settled, more intensive grain-based agriculture was adopted, and extensive plowing replaced hoeing. 83 This siltation resulted in the transportation difficulties mentioned earlier. Sedimentation in the Chesapeake and its tributaries also created an ecological transformation in the estuary very similar to the second ecological revolution observed by Merchant. The environment factored heavily in the founding and development of towns but it was merely part of the mix. Most of the literature on the life and death of colonial Chesapeake towns accepts the environment as a prominent factor in the development of towns and the overall settlement landscape. John Rainbolt suggests that, ?the proper formulation of the problem is not what forces prevented the 81 William Cronon, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England (New York: Hill and Wang, 1983). 82 Miller, "Transforming a ?Splendid and Delightsome Land?". 83 Ibid.: 183. 53 emergence of towns but why Virginia leaders failed to overcome the geographic barriers to the creation of the centralized economic and social activity they so desired.? 84 And regardless of higher religious or social concerns, the drive to create towns is largely interpreted as a remedy for economic instability. The vast majority of seventeenth-century towns simply did not survive without an economic or governmental base. Social, Political, and Economic Contexts of Towns in the Chesapeake, 1680-1720 Forty years ago, historian Jacob Price pointed out a fact about the colonial Chesapeake economy that persists today, namely that ?. . . we are traditionally taught to view Virginia and Maryland as somewhat backward compared to their northern neighbors, particularly in their lack of large towns and of those forms of a centralized market economy commonly based upon urban commercial centers.? 85 Economic conditions are repeatedly cited as a prime factor affecting the growth rate of towns within the Chesapeake region. The colonial Chesapeake economy is often framed as a series of ?boom and bust? cycles based on tobacco as a staple crop. Many historians characterize the Chesapeake economy as a period of steady, though undulating, growth lasting from the 1620s to the 1680s followed by a period of stagnation between about 1680 and ending sometime between the 1710s and 1730 with another period of growth lasting 84 Rainbolt, ?the Absence of Towns?: 51. 85 Jacob M. Price, ?The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake and the European Market, 1697-1775,? The Journal of Economic History 24, no. 4 (December 1964): 496. 54 through the end of the colonial period. 86 Economic periodization based on fluctuations in tobacco prices has been used by many to make sweeping region-wide generalizations. The basic assumption is that European demand caused prices of tobacco to rise prompting a corresponding increase in production. Planters then overproduced the weed leading to falling prices and a bust cycle. Yet, the validity of these boom and bust cycles is not without criticism in favor of more locally-based studies. 87 Many sub-regional or county-based studies have been produced in an 86 Price, ?The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake?: 497; Lois Green Carr and Russell R. Menard ?Immigration and Opportunity: The Freedman in Early Colonial Maryland,? in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, eds.Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, 207-208. (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1979); Allan Kulikoff ?Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies,? The Journal of Economic History 39, no.1 (March 1979): 275-288; Jean Butenhoff Lee, ?The Social Order of a Revolutionary People: Charles County, Maryland, 1733-86? (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1984), 10; Russell R. Menard, ?Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland? (PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1975), chapter 6; Charles Wetherell, ??Boom and Bust? in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy,? Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15, no. 2 (Autumn 1984): 187; Lorena S. Walsh ?Summing the Parts: Implications for Estimating Chesapeake Outcome and Income Subregionally,? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 56, no. 1 (January 1999): 53-94. Kulikoff extends the depressions in the region from 1680 to around 1750, Tobacco and Slaves, 79-81. Many geographers and historical archaeologists have relied on this region-wide temporal bracketing of the tobacco economy. 87 Charles Wetherell analyzed the tobacco pricing data used in estimates for the Chesapeake using numerous statistical methods and concluded that tobacco prices do not reflect cyclical behavior and that the available data do not support the central contention of the ?boom and bust? theory that increases in price led to greater production. Furthermore Wetherell calls for more locally based studies. See ?Boom and Bust in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy? especially 207-210. For a recent critique of the ?boom and bust? model and late seventeenth century depression theory see Bradburn and Coombs, ?Smoke and Mirrors?; Carville V. Earle relies heavily on the ?Boom/Bust? thesis to explain the changes in All Hallow?s Parish in Ann Arundel County, ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallow?s Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783? University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No. 170, (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1970) See also Walsh ?Summing the Parts? for another sub-regional economic analysis. 55 attempt to explain the precise role of towns as structures within the social and economic milieu of the colonial Chesapeake. It is clear that the economy had a measured effect on the growth and development of towns regardless of debates about the nature of long-term economic trends in the Chesapeake during the colonial period. Lois Green Carr?s extensive analysis of locally-based Chesapeake data bears this out. Carr suggests that the topography and the nature of the tobacco trade itself were reason enough to discourage the formation of towns. 88 Carr?s arguments generally follow the core reasons accepted by historians over the past fifty years. First, Carr asserts that tobacco planters were widely scattered across the landscape making it impractical to transport and ship tobacco from centralized towns. Second, the tobacco trade was controlled by merchants in London and Bristol, who worked through factors in the colonies and thus there was no real need for marketing services offered through towns. 89 Finally, tobacco, unlike wheat or other crops, did not require specialized processing services such as milling that could develop in towns. 90 The economy was also a major factor in the survival of even the largest towns in the region. Carr makes a compelling argument that St. Mary's City's economic base was too weak to sustain even a small population without the central presence of the government to bring people to the locale. 91 This line of analysis explains the fate of 88 Carr, ?Rural Settlements?. 89 Ibid., 179; Carr further argues that town development in Maryland was hindered by the fact that English merchants dealt directly with the planters thus eliminating the need for "middlemen" who might form the basis for a stable urban population, see ?the Metropolis of Maryland?: 139-140. 90 Carr, ?Rural Settlements?: 179. 91 Carr, ?The Metropolis of Maryland? :139. 56 many early towns in the Chesapeake, with the exception of Annapolis in the eighteenth century, as decentralized locations for shipping tobacco and collecting European goods. This conclusion about Maryland?s seventeenth-century capital is particularly applicable to understanding the survival or failure of governmental centers prior to the second quarter of the eighteenth century. Geographers have provided the foundational research and models for understanding settlement patterning. In his 1940s model on general settlement in the American colonies, Glenn Trewartha argues that the rural settlement model along the Atlantic coast followed the pattern of either compact agricultural villages or isolated farmsteads with the latter forming the predominant character of the middle and southern colonies. 92 Carville Earle also proposed a regional model for settlement in the American colonies. 93 Earle?s thesis presents a detailed model for the location of port sites rather than the more general settlement pattern offered by Trewartha. 94 Earle predicts the location and frequency of port towns by applying the theory that ?monopolists channeled capital and colonists into a single, centrally located port town, thereby avoiding the redundancy and resource inefficiencies of multiple ports.? 95 Earle?s analysis also suggests that the economic growth and survival of towns was based on the numbers of family units present, but Chesapeake towns 92 Trewartha, ?Types of Rural Settlement?, especially 568. 93 Carville V. Earle, ?the First English Towns in North America,? Geographical Review 67 (January 1977): 34-50. 94 Earle?s model holds up well for most major colonial ports with the exception of St. Mary?s City, Maryland. In that case Earle explains that the ?City? falls south of the predicted location due to the presence of hostile native groups. 95 Ibid.: 42. 57 struggled in the seventeenth century because the population contained a high number of unmarried immigrants. 96 During the 1970s and 1980s numerous studies took up the task of understanding how towns fit the overall settlement pattern in the colonial Chesapeake. Much of this scholarship was focused on the functional role of towns within the regional economy and social structure. These studies were usually defined by manageable geographical units such as the parish or county. This volume of literature remains enormously influential in the scholarship of the Chesapeake region today. Ronald Grim chose to focus on the processes that led to the lack of towns in the Chesapeake region during the seventeenth century. 97 Grim identifies the development of service centers as the precursors to the formation of towns in York County, Virginia. Service activities around structures including ordinaries, courthouses, churches, mills, and stores became clustered in several locales in the county by the last decade of the seventeenth century providing the infrastructural basis for the development of towns. An intriguing outcome of the study is Grim?s identification of three stages of urban development in York County. 98 These stages include a formative period before 1650 when population densities were low and most plantations were seated near major waterways. Following this stage was a period between 1650 and about 1690 where service activities began to cluster. Finally, Grim 96 Ibid.: 44-45; For a critique of Earle see James O?Mara ?Town Founding in Seventeenth-Century North America: Jamestown in Virginia,? Journal of Historical Geography 8, no. 1 (1982): 1-11. 97 Grim, ?the Absence of Towns?. 98 Ibid., 303-353. 58 identifies the period between 1690 and 1705 as the initial urban stage where towns emerge in conjunction with the passage of town legislation. 99 The study then looks at Yorktown in detail as a fully functional service center by the late seventeenth century. Grim places emphasis on service centers that extended beyond private plantations. 100 The town as service center is a valuable interpretive framework for studying Chesapeake town development because it deemphasizes the focus on towns as population centers. Another instructive component of Grim?s model is his emphasis on the convergence of internal service activities and external trade as important to the town founding process. 101 Carville Earle?s often-cited study on the development of All Hallow?s Parish in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, is slightly smaller than Grim?s in geographical scope, concentrating on the settlement of a parish rather than a county. 102 Like Grim, Earle focuses on the concentration of occupational specialists such as carpenters, doctors, and ordinary keepers to trace the development of plantations and towns in the parish. 103 He also relies on a detailed analysis of the economy to explain three general stages of urban growth in the study area between 1650 and the American Revolution. 104 According to the author before 1710 most specialists were located on plantations throughout the parish. This decentralized stage was followed by a period between about 1710 and 1750 when occupational specialists were concentrated in 99 Ibid., 365-368. 100 Grim relies on Central Place Theory in formulating his notion of towns as service centers, Ibid., 14-17. Grim?s model explicitly rejects the use of environmental determinism to explain town location, 5-11. 101 Ibid., 368. 102 Earle, ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System?. 103 Ibid., 62-76. 104 Ibid., 62-63, 77-100. 59 London Town on the South River in the eastern part of the parish. During this time London Town thrived as the primary commercial center in All Hallows Parish. Economic depressions of the late 1740s caused surrounding plantations to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on stores and other services in London Town. Baltimore, Alexandria, and Georgetown grew rapidly as regional trade centers after the mid-eighteenth century, also draining trade from the port at London Town. 105 Earle sees these factors leading to the demise of London Town as an urban center after 1750. 106 Earle?s study is important because, like Grim, he outlines the impact of towns as a factor in centralizing trade and services. The study is also important because the author claims the necessity to ?. . . look beyond the small size and the transitory nature of tobacco ports and examine the role they played.? 107 Another important study across the Patuxent River from All Hallows Parish was completed by Allan Kulikoff shortly after Earle published his research. 108 Much of Kulikoff?s data came from Prince George?s County, Maryland. Kulikoff?s study uses a wealth of demographic data to make sweeping conclusions about the development of African American and European American cultures during the eighteenth century. 109 His conclusions concerning general settlement patterns and the development of towns within Prince George?s County are crucial to the development 105 Ibid., 62. 106 For other detailed analyses of the rise and fall of London Town see Donald G. Shomette, Lost Towns of Tidewater Maryland, (Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 2000), 57-87. 107 Earle, 222. 108 Kulikoff?s original research is included in his dissertation ?Tobacco and Slaves?. He later expanded his study to cover the entire Chesapeake region and published his results a decade after the dissertation was completed. 109 Kulikoff?s publication is widely regarded as a major contribution to colonial Chesapeake history. 60 of the present study. 110 According to Kulikoff, significant town development did not occur in the Chesapeake region until the mid-eighteenth century. He links the slow development of towns from the seventeenth through the first third of the eighteenth century to general topography, development of roads, and expansion of wealth. First, Kulikoff echoes the standard explanation that the ?hundreds of miles of navigable water? discouraged urban development. 111 Kulikoff sees the beginnings of significant town growth in Prince George?s County between 1715 and 1740. He explains the underlying apparatus of this growth as follows: Towns did not develop until several hundred families, who lived near a town site, could quickly reach town over a dense road network. Furthermore, a number of wealthy families who could frequently patronize the services found in the towns had to live nearby. When merchants discovered a dense and wealthy population in an area, they invested and located in a town in that area. 112 These preconditions leading to the development of towns were the development of a reliable road network and a general rise in wealth among planters in the Chesapeake. Kulikoff sees these two conditions as sufficiently developed to support towns by the mid-eighteenth century and claims that ?for the first time, towns became important centers of daily social intercourse. . . ? 113 The author goes on to state that ?. . . the major cause of town growth can be found in the increasing wealth of householders.? 114 In other words, towns became practical because planters had more available expendable capital and they were able to get to town quickly and efficiently. 110 Specifically see Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves,? Chapters 9 and 10, and Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, chapters 3 and 6. 111 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 105-107. 112 Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves?, 342. 113 Ibid., 346. 61 Another important contribution by Kulikoff is his incorporation of towns in an explicit model of social organization. Three stages of community organization in the Chesapeake are proposed. Widely scattered settlements were established when areas were first occupied by Europeans. As more infilling occurred formal neighborhoods were formed. Finally, blood and marriage kinship solidified the ties between members of the neighborhoods. 115 Kulikoff relates these community networks to increasing patronage of stores and ordinaries located in towns beginning in the 1730s. 116 Unfortunately Kulikoff?s work offers little to explain the early development of the seven legislated towns that were in place by 1707. Understanding the early development of these towns might also contribute to our understanding of the early development of wider neighborhoods and kinship groups. Other studies have looked at towns as threads in the larger fabric of social networks. Lorena Walsh?s work on the development of community networks in southern Maryland is significant in this regard. 117 In comparing New England with the Chesapeake, Walsh sees the rural neighborhood rather than the town as the primary unit of community analysis 118 where informal networks of exchange were the primary means of social cohesion in the Chesapeake region during the seventeenth century. Like towns, these social networks were greatly influenced by the topography 114 Ibid., 346. 115 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 206. 116 Ibid., 217-228. 117 A good summary is found in Walsh, ?Community Networks? ; See also Darrett B. Rutman and Anita H. Rutman, Small Worlds, Large Questions: Explorations in Early American Social History, 1600-1850 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), chapter 3, for a summary of Community as a framework applied to New England and the Chesapeake. 118 Walsh, ?Community Networks,? 200. 62 according to Walsh. 119 Perhaps Walsh?s most succinct point is that ?. . . in the seventeenth century Chesapeake, informal neighborhood networks helped to bind individuals and disparate households to the larger society, supplanting the more formal institutions of manor, church, and county or provincial government.? 120 Rhys Isaac?s influential study of eighteenth-century Virginia also does not use the town as a unit of analysis. 121 Darrett and Anita Rutman?s comprehensive study of Middlesex County, Virginia, likewise focuses on neighborhoods and informal relations. 122 Rather than ignoring or dismissing urban development, however, the authors offer the development of the town of Urbanna as an example of social process and power struggles between individuals rather than purely the byproduct of economic or environmental conditions. 123 Joseph A. Ernst and Roy H. Merrens? assessment of Camden, South Carolina, caused a stir by claiming that general concepts of ?urban? and ?urbanization? used by many scholars were inappropriate for understanding towns in the colonial South. 124 Ernst and Merrens claim that scholars have relied too heavily on traveler?s accounts for descriptions of the way towns appeared and those accounts are often biased. They argue that population density often looms large in these accounts as the most important characteristic of towns in the South, and because historians have accepted these criteria so readily, they disregard what Ernst and Merrens see as the most 119 Ibid., 200-201, 218, 228. 120 Ibid., 241. 121 Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia. 122 Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia 1650-1750 (New York: Norton, 1984). 123 Ibid., 204-233. 124 Ernst and Merrens ??Camden's turrets pierce the skies!??. 63 important measure of towns, namely their function. The authors summarize their argument by saying that ??Urban,? in short, is a traditional category that only confuses the real issues, which are the structure and operation of the regional economies of the period.? 125 Reaction to their critique was both swift and forceful. Hermann Wellenreuther claimed that Ernst and Merrens did not provide enough information to substantiate their approach. 126 He also dismissed their grasp of the economy as it related to the geography of the region. Wellenreuther wrote that, ?it seems evident that Ernst and Merrens, by rejecting the infrastructural argument of earlier historical interpretations, that is, the significance of waterways, misunderstand one of the vital characteristics of the southern plantation economy and settlement pattern.? 127 The dismantling of Ernst and Merrens? article was not wholly unfounded. Wellenreuther rightly pointed out many factors leading to the development of towns that are not adequately considered by the authors, including personal initiative, migration, and road networks. 128 The author?s most salient point was made when he claimed that ?. . . not just one, but a series of complex forces, some of them pointing in opposite directions, provided the ingredients for the process of urbanization, a process that is certainly part of a much wider context than realized or conceded by Ernst and Merrens.? 129 Regardless of these criticisms, Ernst and Merrens did contribute to the study of urban process in the south by joining Earle in emphasizing the need for detailed 125 Ibid., 574. 126 Hermann Wellenreuther, ?Urbanization in the Colonial South: A Critique? William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 31, no. 4 (October 1974): 653-668. 127 ibid., 658. 128 Ibid., 662-663, 666. 129 Ibid., 665. 64 studies on the precise role of towns in the region. Lois Carr echoed Ernst and Merrens? more functional definition of towns two decades after their article was published saying, ?Where a merchant?s factor had a store at a landing, an ordinary, as Chesapeake inns were called, might also appear, and a competing merchant might also offer wares. Many such proto-towns, as historical geographers sometimes call them, came into being, but they did not become centers of population.? 130 Carr?s statement acknowledges the existence of towns as functional units if not important features of the Chesapeake landscape. More recently historian Christine Daniels argued against developmental models that would pit the perceived failure of small urban places in the Chesapeake against a standard of success measured in larger centers like Philadelphia. 131 Daniels argues that the considerable volume of scholarship on the topic of town development in the colonial Chesapeake has failed to grasp the role of smaller towns (the economic losers) in the process of urban growth in the region. The author cites the economic growth and decline of Chestertown on Maryland?s Eastern Shore and the growth of ?crossroad? villages between Chestertown and Philadelphia as examples of the importance for studying local circumstances of town growth. Daniels suggests the process of urban growth during the first half of the century followed a pattern whereby local merchants invested in localized ?clustered? trade based on diversified 130 Carr, ?Rural Settlements,? 179. 131 Christine Daniels, ??No Towns of Any Consequence?: The Lost Urban History of the Colonial Chesapeake,? In The World Turned Upside-Down: The State of Eighteenth-Century American Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century, eds. Michael V. Kennedy and William G. Shade (Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press, 2001), 95-119. 65 agricultural production. 132 Chestertown?s rise as an urban center by 1750 is explained by the importance of wheat and other grain products to the economic growth of the Eastern Shore, and its decline by the rise of Baltimore. 133 Along the way Daniels stresses the importance of local political factors in town founding in addition to economic concerns. These factors were much different on the eastern shore than they were in Prince George?s County and other places on the Western Shore. Daniels relies on an economic systems approach to understanding town development in the Chesapeake, but on the local scale she concludes that the success or failure of urbanization depended on timing, investment by merchants and others with capital, and generally the particular circumstances of location. 134 Daniels? contribution lies in demonstrating the importance of the interplay between local actions and regional trade to the success and failure of towns in the Chesapeake. Numerous studies in history, geography, and archaeology have looked at the role of individual towns in the social and economic development of the region. 135 Archaeology in particular offers a unique opportunity to study urban development and the effects of the regional economy on small settlements. The ?Lost Towns Project? in Anne Arundel County Maryland has been conducting archaeological and 132 Ibid., 102. 133 Ibid., 105. 134 Ibid., 112. 135 For examples compare Henry J. Berkley, ?Extinct River Towns of the Chesapeake Bay Region,? Maryland Historical Magazine 14, no. 2 (June 1924): 125-141; Ethel Roby Hayden ?Port Tobacco, Lost Town of Maryland,? Maryland Historical Magazine 40, no. 4 (December 1945): 261-276; David K. Hazzard and Martha W. McCartney ?Rescue Efforts to Save the Vanishing Traces of Glouchester Town,? American Archeology 6, no. 1 (1987): 68-80; Thomas, ?One Hundred Lots Make it a Town?; Robert J. Hurry, ?An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of St. Leonards Town,? Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Papers Number 5 (St. Leonard, 1990). 66 historical research on seventeenth century Chesapeake towns. Several papers have been published on town development as a result of this research. 136 As a group this scholarship shows the potential for a better understanding of the material culture of the mid- to late-seventeenth century Chesapeake. In the case of the search for the town of Herrington, this research also points to the difficulty in studying these ephemeral and often poorly documented towns. 137 In an unrelated project, Kit Wesler?s analysis of Doncaster on Maryland?s Eastern Shore offers another archaeological perspective on port-town development in the Chesapeake region. Doncaster was established as Wye Town on Maryland's Eastern Shore through a 1671 "Town Act." Wesler's analysis, based on a systematic archaeological field survey and historical documents, suggests that the town functioned like a private plantation and that its failure to survive was the result of economic competition from neighboring plantations. 138 Another example is the research conducted by archaeologist Dennis Pogue in 1985 on Calverton, in Calvert County, Maryland. 139 Pogue?s analysis is essentially a history of the town centered on a 1682 plat. Like Wesler, Pogue is interested in the 136 Joseph B. Thomas and Anthony D. Lindaur, ?Seeking Herrington: Settlement in a Very Early Maryland Town? Maryland Archeology 34, no. 2 (September 1998):11- 17; Al Luckenbach, Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County Maryland?s First European Settlement, (Crownsville: Maryland State Archives, Maryland Historical Trust, 1995); John Kille and Jason Moser, ?An Elusive Discovery: The 17 th Century Town of Herrington,? Maryland Archeology 38, no. 1(March 2002):4-12. 137 Thomas and Lindaur, ?Seeking Herrington?; Kille and Moser, ?An Elusive Discovery?. 138 Kit W. Wesler, "An Archaeologist's Perspective on the Ancient Town of Doncaster," Maryland Historical Magazine 80, no. 4 (1985): 383-391. 139 Dennis J. Pogue, "Calverton, Calvert County, Maryland: 1668-1725," Maryland Historical Magazine 80, no.4 (1985):371-376. 67 organization of the town. Unlike Wesler, he relies solely on documentary evidence. Pogue weaves a story concerning the prominent early residents of the town, the chain of title, and the general layout of the town and specific building locations. Pogue's main points come from his discussion of the "plat" especially in comparison to other descriptions of the town. What Pogue refers to as a plat could be more accurately called a map of the town with actual buildings drawn and labeled. This is an uncommon feature in most survey plats. From this map the author describes the characteristics of the buildings as compared to archaeological evidence and the general location of specific structures. He also establishes that contemporary descriptions claimed the buildings and streets to be uniform and organized which differs from the actual map which shows the town as somewhat less organized. 140 In this sense, Pogue's work highlights an intriguing discrepancy in the data. The question of why the discrepancy exists between the two sources remains unexplored but might be clarified with archaeological data. Unfortunately the incorporation of historical and archaeological data was beyond the scope of the article. In the end Pogue?s greatest contribution may be in his identification of Calverton as a multifunctional site and in his suggestion that other towns in the region ?may have achieved greater importance than previously has been believed.? 141 Donald G. Shomette explored the histories of ten towns established in Maryland during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century in Lost Towns of Tidewater Maryland. 142 The towns were selected as a representative cross-section of 140 ibid., 374. 141 Ibid., 375. 142 Shomette, Lost Towns. 68 the many towns established during the colonial period. 143 The cohesive threads that tie the work together are the fact that all of the towns were founded through legislative action, most were settings for the War of 1812, and most failed to survive until today. A detailed analysis of legislative efforts to create towns introduces the nine chapters that present individual case studies. Each of the case studies is written in a similar tradition to Ethel Roby Hayden?s ?Port Tobacco, Lost Town of Maryland? published in 1945. 144 The volume stands as a collection of stories detailing the circumstances surrounding the life and death of several individual towns rather than a cohesive argument or problem driven research. Shomette makes a considerable contribution with this compilation of research but the most pertinent component of the work for this dissertation is the tone of lament that underlies the entire volume. Each chapter ends with a reflection on what has been lost or the ghosts that now inhabit the various town sites. Shomette?s book offers an engaging, if at times romanticized, collection of stories about several failed towns in the Chesapeake filled with heroes, battle scenes, politicians, wealthy merchants and planters, and small business owners. At its core, Shomette?s work is a jeremiad about modernity and loss. The following passage summarizes what Shomette sees as the value of ?lost? colonial towns in Maryland: Today we live in a society based on consumerism that thrives upon the newest and most attractive and systematically bulldozes the physical foundations on which the culture was built. In the process, the sites of innumerable ancient and historic towns, hamlets, and plantations have been torn apart in the name of urban renewal and progress?. As we enter this new century, it is up to us to focus upon the preservation of that all but forgotten legacy of our colonial 143 Ibid., xi. 144 Hayden, ?Port Tobacco, Lost Town of Maryland?. 69 heritage, our early towns and ports. Lord Baltimore would certainly smile upon that. 145 Real and Ideal: Surveys of Town Planning and Planned Towns in the Chesapeake Considering municipal design in the 1930s Carl Bridenbaugh discussed town planning as it related to large urban centers on the east coast. 146 Bridenbaugh identified the founding architecture of the "great" villages as reflecting two patterns. The author claimed that places like Charles Town, South Carolina, and Philadelphia were true planned cities modeled after the Hooke and Wren plan for London after the "great fire of 1666." 147 According to Bridenbaugh, other villages were organized along paths which "tended naturally to follow the configuration of the terrain with little thought of symmetry." 148 Bridenbaugh's historical analysis identified the need for gaining control of ill-planned streets through improvement toward regularity. Most studies concur with Bridenbaugh's rejection of the well-organized town plan as a viable format for the construction of seventeenth-century American towns. Historian John Reps is probably the foremost scholar on town planning in America. He has also compiled the primary source book for town planning on the Chesapeake. In Tidewater Towns, Reps constructs a town planning narrative from the English town planning tradition through the planning of Baltimore, Maryland. 149 Using a combination of original plats and primary historical records Reps describes the development of various towns in detail including centers such as 145 Shomette, Lost Towns, 298. 146 Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness. 147 Ibid., 12. 148 Ibid., 13. 149 Reps, Tidewater Towns. 70 Williamsburg and Annapolis and smaller port towns such as Oxford, Maryland. Although not as exclusionary as Bridenbaugh, Reps devotes more attention to what he considers the two best examples of early town planning in the Chesapeake region: Williamsburg and Annapolis. In Reps' opinion, the overwhelming majority of towns reared in Virginia and Maryland were unsophisticated in design. He attributes the lack of organized planning to the fact that amateur surveyors who platted nearly all of the early towns lacked the skill and training to design complex towns. He further explains that the pervasive "gridiron" system employed in most towns was "not peculiar to the region but symbolized the lack of sophistication in town planning characteristic of all the colonies." 150 Reps sees the grid system as indicative of the simplest urban form available to planners. He explains that efforts to create a formula for town planning coincided with the implementation of the town acts beginning in the 1660s. 151 Reps engages in a lengthy discussion of the character of minor seventeenth-century port towns in Virginia and Maryland and implicitly evaluates them against an aesthetic of urban design. He concludes that very few well-conceived plans were implemented. Even in the more "sophisticated" city of Annapolis, Reps claims, "Nicholson, in his attempt to use the major elements of Baroque planning without a full understanding of their implications and the difficulties of reconciling them with the gridiron system, produced something of a caricature of this style of urban design." 152 150 Ibid., 296. 151 This was previously addressed in the discussion of Riley's piece, but Reps work is more focused on planning rather than the presence or absence of towns per se. 152 Reps, 124. 71 There are several weaknesses with Reps? general arguments. The most salient weakness is that he relies on plats as the primary data source and thus neglects where particular buildings were actually constructed. Working in Annapolis and St. Mary's City, Mark Leone and Henry Miller hypothesize that Reps underestimates the abilities of amateur planners to create "sophisticated" towns in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake region. 153 Geographer Joseph Thomas offered one of the most extensive evaluations of the impact of colonial town legislation in Maryland with the completion of his dissertation in 1994. 154 A major shortcoming of John Reps? work was the fact that he did not analyze how the many places established as towns by the legislature developed after their initial founding. Thomas departs from Reps by looking at how individual towns developed on the ground rather than focusing exclusively on the program of Chesapeake town development. Thomas? study also challenges those scholars who seek to define urban development in terms of what did not exist rather than what did. Thomas claims that scholars have focused too often on comparing the Chesapeake with New England rather than analyzing towns and urban development within the context of the Chesapeake. 155 Seventeen towns located on Maryland?s lower eastern shore were analyzed for the study. A variety of primary historical records were used to determine lot conveyances within the selected towns. Thomas begins his study with three basic questions about what he calls clustered settlements 153 Henry M. Miller, "Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake," Historical Archaeology 22, no.2 (1988):56- 73. 154 Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy. 155 Ibid., 2-4. 72 in the Chesapeake region. First, did clustered settlements exist at all? Second, if they did exist what did they look like and how did they develop over time? And finally, what was the relationship between these small settlements and the overall settlement landscape? 156 In his analysis of lot conveyances through time, Thomas does indeed demonstrate, like Shomette, that many towns saw considerable development on the ground. In the process his work illustrates how individuals took up and conveyed lots in the many towns included in the study. For example, Thomas shows how blocks were often created by owners procuring several adjacent lots. One of the most significant contributions the author makes is to point out the inadequacies of central- place models for explaining a Chesapeake settlement system that was clearly non- hierarchical and not reliant on centralized towns. 157 Thomas also concludes that although mass town legislation may have failed to create an integrated system of clustered settlements it did create the lasting legal apparatus for establishing towns and conveying lots. 158 Thomas?s study is limited somewhat by the method employed. The author concedes that lot conveyance information generally does not provide detailed data about the existence of buildings and other improvements. 159 A more precise picture of the towns covered by the study would have likely emerged had Thomas expanded his study to include more material culture data such as individual probate inventories. Also, the study would have benefited by an analysis of why individuals chose to build 156 Ibid., 3-4. 157 Ibid., see discussion on pp. 251-255. 158 Ibid., 57, 249. 159 Ibid., 8-9. 73 where they did and the social, political, and economic relationships between individual lot owners or tenants. The overall strength of the study is not weakened by the limitations of the methodology. Rather, those limitations merely call for more detailed studies of individual towns. Power and Town Planning in the Chesapeake Region Over the past two decades archaeologists have theorized town construction and designs in the Chesapeake as explicit expressions of power. This general approach was first applied to Annapolis and then later to St. Mary?s City. The following section will review several major statements on town planning that use power as a central component. St. Mary's City is the most thoroughly researched seventeenth-century town in Maryland. The process of exploring St. Mary's City speaks to both the differences between history and archaeology and how varying perspectives form the prism through which the past is constructed. Making sense of the town first required the accurate location of past structures, roads, and other landscape features. The layout of St. Mary?s city has been the pre-occupation of scholars for seventy years. 160 In 1974, Lois Green Carr drew on previous research to trace the history of the city from its founding in 1634 to its demise following the relocation of the provincial government to Annapolis in 1696. 161 She interprets the town as a relatively small group of scattered buildings supporting a peak population while court 160 See, Henry Chandlee Forman, Jamestown and St. Mary?s: Buried Cities of Romance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1938); Garry Wheeler Stone, ?Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger?s St. John?s? (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1982); Carr, "The Metropolis of Maryland?; Miller, "Baroque Cities in the Wilderness.? 161 Carr, "The Metropolis of Maryland.? 74 was in session. Her explanation for why the town failed to prosper is based on the decentralized-economy argument introduced earlier. Another valuable result of the research was the first glimpse of the town plan. A plat of the town has not survived so other documentary sources were used to reconstruct the town. The locations of lots, individual structures, and roads were determined based on deed research. Carr concludes that the resulting map demonstrates the unorganized and widely-dispersed nature of the town. In her article, she accurately predicted that archaeological excavations would help further explain the nature of the city. In this regard, archaeologist Henry Miller's re-construction of the town plan is of primary importance. 162 Miller's analysis of the St. Mary?s City town plan remains a seminal piece of scholarship on the origins and nature of town planning in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake region. Miller's work challenges the sweeping assumption that seventeenth-century "tidewater" towns were relatively dispersed and unsophisticated in design. A second more crucial challenge was that Chesapeake "cities were designed to serve as centers of political power, not centers of commerce." 163 Miller concludes that the contrived architecture of St. Mary's City, Annapolis, and Williamsburg is a central cue for this power. Miller uses archaeological data to redraw the plan of St. Mary's City illustrated by Carr. The identification of subsurface paling fence traces enabled more 162 Henry M. Miller, "Discovering Maryland's First City: A Summary Report on the 1981-1984 Archaeological Excavations in St. Mary's City, Maryland," St. Mary's City Archaeology Series No. 2. (St. Mary's City, 1986); Miller, "Baroque Cities in the Wilderness.? 163 Miller, "Baroque Cities in the Wilderness,": 69. 75 precise placement of the actual lots to be established. Arrangements of buildings and yard fences also allowed the orientation of streets to be determined. Through a combination of historical and archaeological data, and precise measurements, Miller determined that the town was deliberately planned in the 1660s using street lines leading from the town center to important public structures such as the State House, chapel, and prison. 164 Miller surmised that this design was a Baroque form possibly modeled after the 1666 plan of London. 165 This predates the Annapolis plan and suggests a Baroque plan designed to demonstrate power and control was blueprinted in Maryland at St. Mary's City. Miller's work is important because it refutes the notion that St. Mary's was an unplanned, scattered town and offers a framework suggesting Baroque planning on the Chesapeake was used for expressing power in a decentralized agrarian-based economy. In addition, Miller also demonstrates the usefulness of contrasting the archaeological record with historic documents. Generally Miller's is a well-crafted argument that leaves us with the central issue of how the architecture of a town actively plays on the individual to support a state power structure. The work of Mark Leone and others at Annapolis reveals the same kind of controlling plan developed in St. Mary's City. 166 164 This directly confronts Reps and Bridenbaugh's discussion of the general lack of sophisticated town planning on the Chesapeake. 165 "Baroque Cities in the Wilderness,": 67. 166 Mark P. Leone, Jennifer Stabler, and Anna-Marie Burlaga, "A Street Plan for Hierarchy in Annapolis: An Analysis of State Circle as a Geometric Form," In Paul A. Shackel, Paul R. Mullins, and Mark S. Warner, eds., Annapolis Pasts: Historical Archaeology in Annapolis, Maryland, (Knoxville, 1998): 291-306. 76 Leone et. al. contend through the analysis of Annapolis' town plan that the city's design was a conscious and competent effort to control the landscape and thus visual perspective by placing the state, in the form of the State House, at the center of thought via multiple sight lines. Leone, et. al. challenge Reps' conclusion that Annapolis' design was a poor attempt at Baroque planning by Governor Francis Nicholson, while also placing the design within a theory of power. Francis Nicholson was also responsible for Williamsburg's design which Reps considers to be the supreme example of early town planning on the Chesapeake. Reps bases his criticism of the Annapolis design on the 1718 Stoddert plan of the city which shows the vistas converging on the two circles containing the church and the State House as failing to intersect or converge in the circles to create symmetrical lines of sight. The authors use a combination of archaeological evidence, historic maps, and primary sources on town and garden planning to build a counter argument. Through a series of excavations around the perimeter of State Circle archaeologists were able to confirm that the location and dimensions of the circle were not stable and changed over time. Using dated features such as fence posts, public wells, and paling fence traces, archaeologists were able to discern the former shape and orientation of the circle. The authors use these excavations to argue that State Circle was originally a geometric egg, 167 a precise geometric form used in Baroque town planning such as the re-constructed plan of London in 1666. It seems obvious that Annapolis was modeled after London especially with the conspicuous Bloomsbury Square designed 167 Ibid., 296. 77 for formal gardens and laid out in both places. 168 According to Leone et. al., an egg rather than the perceived circle accentuates the slope of the hill and creates a visual focus on the State House porch and door. 169 This form was apparently used in combination with streets that converged on the State House to make it look closer. 170 Thus, the authors defend Nicholson?s competence as an urban architect while demonstrating that the carefully designed plan for Annapolis was a successful implementation of Baroque planning in America. Archaeological findings at Annapolis and St. Mary's City form a debate about how authority was maintained within the two capitals. In a diachronic analysis of social boundary maintenance, Paul Shackel synthesizes a variety of historical and material culture evidence from the two capitals to support a theory of power. 171 Shackel uses a diverse set of material culture to explain the core of how social authority works rather than pondering the idiosyncratic or exploring the limitations of authority. This challenging framework is used as a basis for understanding modern society. Shackel argues that a series of distinct social and material transitions occurred between the 1660s and 1740s in St. Mary's City and Annapolis. The crux of Shackel's argument is that during times of heightened social tension, new material culture is introduced to overtly reinforce class boundaries. First, Shackel reiterates 168 Anthony Edwin James Morris, History of Urban Form: Before the Industrial Revolutions (New York: Wiley, 1994), 263; Reps, Tidewater Towns, 123. 169 Leone et. al., 298-299. 170 Ibid., 304-305. 171 Paul A. Shackel, "Town Plans and Everyday Material Culture: An Archaeology of Social Relations in Colonial Maryland's Capital Cities," In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, eds., 85-96. (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994). 78 Miller's interpretations of the St. Mary's town plan while introducing an emergent racist legislative code to argue that the two occur as the result of felt social pressure by the rising gentry. Secondly, Shackel sees Nicholson's Annapolis plan as mapping authority on the new capital. Third, a radical redistribution of wealth into the hands of a minority elite occurred during the 1720s and 1730s. Shackel explains this shift as a need to establish control by elite Annapolitans demonstrated through the use of new rules for personal etiquette and further racist legislation. Fourth, Shackel argues that the decrease in individualized goods such as plates and forks in the 1730s suggests that there was less pressure on an unchallenged elite to separate themselves further through the use of specialized material culture. Shackel's contribution is important on several fronts. Most importantly, it takes us beyond the town plan and architectural changes per se, to explore the pervasiveness of power and control in other areas of social-material production. Shackel's interpretations attempt to explain how power was used for domination, but this same framework could also lead circuitously to the fault lines and limitations of authority. Perhaps his most important contribution was to link town planning and slavery. An expansion of this connection is needed in Chesapeake town research, especially during the period between 1680 and 1720 when slavery was expanded dramatically. More recently Mark P. Leone and Silas D. Hurry completed a broader analysis that incorporates research from Annapolis, St. Mary?s City, and Baltimore. 172 In their article they summarize the findings of Leone in Annapolis, Miller in St. Mary?s City, 172 Leone and Hurry, ?Seeing?. 79 and add an analysis of Baltimore. The authors argue that each of these cities was laid out according to Baroque and panoptic theories of power that reinforced the goals of the state. St. Mary?s City and Annapolis were designed using principles of Baroque design that solidified social hierarchy and the rule of the monarchy. After the American Revolution the Statehouse in Annapolis was reconstructed and several prominent structures were built in Baltimore. The authors argue that these later reconstructions served as expressions of panoptic power through the urban landscape. These two theories of power are applied to town designs in Maryland?s major cities at particular historical moments of political change or vulnerability to solidify state authority. The earlier Baroque designs ?proclaimed the center to be the source of power? while panoptic designs claimed ?that power in the center was a reflection of power spread throughout the state.? 173 The authors sum up their arguments by claiming that though these two theories of power are different in their effects they ?are both ways of maintaining a stasis in societies that are in flux.? 174 The work of Leone, Hurry, Miller, and Shackel all link the use of monumental architecture and state-level authority in Maryland?s major centers of political and economic power. Recent work at Virginia?s seventeenth-century capital approaches city planning and power from a different vantage point. Virginia?s seventeenth-century center of governmental power at Jamestown has been at the forefront of public consciousness and scholarship on early American history for a century. Audrey J. Horning recently completed another important reassessment of towns in the Chesapeake by looking at the application of British 173 Ibid., 57. 174 Ibid., 58. 80 ideals to the reality of constructing Jamestown. 175 In comparing the pioneering work by John L. Cotter with more recent excavations, Horning found that Jamestown was continually reconstructed by elites who were trying to emulate patterns of economic success in Britain rather than creating new patterns of adaptation to the Chesapeake environment. Repeated attempts to reconstruct the town ultimately ended in failure. The author?s re-analysis also dismantles the popular notion that brick buildings in Jamestown represented stability and the use of elite architecture. 176 Horning?s work is significant in that she compares the intentions of individual builders with the realities that emerged on the ground and in turn links these intentions with emerging processes in Britain. The way in which power is exercised through town planning is also a key component. Horning?s work differs from the work on Annapolis, St. Mary?s City, and Baltimore reviewed above in that she points out how the plan(s) of Jamestown didn?t work. As Horning argues, ?Colonial elites were far better able to symbolize their success and social status in the Chesapeake through the acquisition of land and the exercise of political power than through the speculative attempt at replicating a successful, progressive 17 th -century British town at Jamestown.? 177 Summary Three broad conclusions about the nature of towns and urban development in the colonial Chesapeake are accepted by many in the fields of history, geography, and 175 Audrey J. Horning ?Urbanism in the Colonial South: The development of Seventeenth-Century Jamestown,? In Amy L. Young Editor, Archaeology of Southern Urban Landscapes (Tuscaloosa, 2000), 52-68. 176 Ibid., 64. 177 Ibid., 67. 81 archaeology. First, towns were slow to develop in the Chesapeake before the mid- eighteenth century as compared to New England. Some like Joseph Thomas have argued that Chesapeake towns should be analyzed for what they were on the ground rather than how they failed to approximate the landscape of New England. Still, it is generally prevalent in the literature that towns were slow to take root in the Chesapeake. Second, many of the towns that did exist were secondary or irrelevant to the overall economy and social structure of the region. Third, much of the scholarly literature on colonial Chesapeake towns places them within the broad context of regional or sub-regional settlement patterns. Processes that are visible on the regional scale are an important part of the puzzle, but only a part. For all the research completed in history, archaeology, and geography, scholars have yet to tackle the difficult task of linking material culture, action, and the development of early colonial towns on the local level. Towns were at once settings for action and the material representation of action. More micro-level studies are needed to analyze the complex interrelatedness of people, their changing social relationships, and material culture that worked to create towns. In my view this is what essentially defines a colonial Chesapeake town. This process of town construction and use was not formulaic, but rather the result of countless actions and negotiations by people who envisioned, built and used them. The following chapters trace this process using the fragmentary historical and archaeological record from early Prince George?s County and Charles Town in particular. 82 Chapter 3: A Locale for Action: Three Moments in the Political Life of Mount Calvert Introduction This chapter starts with the premise that the rise and fall of towns in the Chesapeake before the 1730s was often a symptom of economic and political volatility played out on local and regional scales. Towns are misunderstood when thrown into the mix of regional social, economic, and political change without considering the local decisions that situated those towns. Historical geographer Joseph Thomas argues that the process of town founding was multi-tiered in the sense that decisions involved interests at the crown, colony, and county level and that the result was a series of towns that are best understood in the context of local economic conditions and kinship ties rather than part of a cohesive regional system. 178 Thomas argues that the settlement system in the colonial Chesapeake was not town-based. Yet, towns were clearly part of this settlement landscape and were important fixtures on the micro scale. The key to understanding how towns formed is directly related to the interplay between locale and location. Locale is defined here as ?the settings in which the social relations are constituted? and location as ?the effects upon locales of social and economic processes operating at wider scales.? 179 Following those who have stressed the importance of local context, the subsequent discussion will focus on three historical moments when the political and 178 Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 247-255. 179 John Agnew, ?Representing Space: Space, Scale, Culture in Social Science?, In Place/Culture/Representation, edited by James Duncan and David Ley, (New York: Routledge,1993), 263. 83 legal meaning of Mount Calvert changed. Several basic questions addressed in this chapter are vital to understanding the life history of towns. Why were particular town sites chosen? Who owned the land in and around a town and how did they benefit from the sites? Why did some towns survive while others failed? Each of these questions is answered by analyzing the politics of location and will be addressed in the course of this chapter. I will work from the bottom up in addressing these questions from town site to land surrounding the town to the larger network of towns as they existed in Prince George?s County during the early eighteenth century. I argue that particularly dramatic shifts in the role of a landscape can be read as social relationships taking form and that the process of choosing locations where action took place was guided by wealthy planters and merchants. Later chapters will investigate how the actions of a variety of players provided multiple meanings for the town and how the town was sustained by this social interaction. The conclusion that powerful local merchants and politicians attempted to control town landscapes is obvious. Yet, with notable exceptions from Annapolis and St. Mary?s City, the role of power in the construction of towns is often overlooked in the literature on town formation in the Chesapeake. Making the connections between local elites and the construction of towns is important and necessary groundwork for any town-based study. Mount Calvert, like so many other early towns in the Chesapeake, was a speculative venture for wealthy planters and merchants from the start and the following is an attempt to map and explain the contours of this fluid process. 84 Wealthy merchants did not firmly control actions within towns but they did influence where towns were situated. Therefore every town can be analyzed within at least three contexts, the politics of choosing the site, the control, ownership, and division of land in and around the town, and the place of the town within the political context of the countywide built environment. Each of these contexts was subject to colony-wide political and economic conditions to be sure. But only by going from the actions of individuals on local scales and the exercise of power in relation to regional politics do we see the true limits of legislative town planning efforts and the place of towns within the regional economy. ?By a Great Sunking Marsh?: The Politics of Location Part I European settlers recognized the land at the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Western Branch as a valuable and strategic economic resource by the middle of the seventeenth century. The colonial history of the locale began in 1657 as part of the land grab along the upper tidal Patuxent between about 1660 and 1680. Philip Calvert and his wife Anne arrived in Maryland in 1657 and were granted 1,000 acres of land at the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Western Branch near a great ?sunking marsh?. 180 Calvert patented the land the following year and the locale was known from then on as Mount Calvert or Calvert Manor. Philip was the brother of second Lord Baltimore Cecil Calvert and uncle of Third Lord Baltimore Charles Calvert and held numerous powerful positions in the Proprietary government including Governor. 180 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 67. 85 In 1667 Calvert sold the property to William Groome for 30,000 lbs of tobacco. 181 Groome died in 1677 and willed the property to his two sons William and Richard. 182 Both sons were minors at the time but William Jr. would eventually inherit the northern portion of Mount Calvert that became the town site. The property was surveyed again in 1681 as the result of a boundary dispute. 183 Several neighborhood representatives were to serve as witnesses to the resurvey as stipulated. This resurvey of the property on the eve of Mount Calvert=s designation as a town site illustrates the problems confronted when attempting to survey and bound irregular land forms with relatively simple techniques. In the resurvey of Mount Calvert an AAllowance of tenn Perches in every hundred? was granted to compensate for the Aunevenesse of the Land.? 184 The reconfigured property included 1306 acres rather than the previous estimate of 1000. Uneven terrain, marshes, and other natural features would present a challenge for later surveys of Mount Calvert, particularly when a town was laid out in a Aregular? grid pattern on the property. 181 Archives of Maryland, Volume 57, Page, 192-193. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000057/html/a m57--192.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 182 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 325. Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12. William?s younger son Richard received the southern 500 acres of Mount Calvert. 183 Archives of Maryland, Volume 70, Pages, 107-108. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000070/html/a m70--107.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 184 Archives of Maryland, Volume 70, Page, 231. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000070/html/a m70--231.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 86 ?A Great Advantage and General Good to this Province?: The Town Acts The resurvey of Mount Calvert came at a time when the regional economy was suffering from stagnant tobacco prices. Virginia and Maryland attempted to remedy the economic decline with comprehensive town founding legislation. The resulting efforts to create towns during the 1680s were the most sweeping legislative actions on the subject ever passed in Maryland and resulted in the establishment of Mount Calvert Town. Though the actions by the government to create towns are often cited as a means of propping up the sinking tobacco economy, they also represent a political maneuver by the ruling Calvert family. Regional political and economic struggles playing out on local landscapes dictated the success or failure of towns during this period. This climate would pit small planters against large land owners, Protestants against Catholics, and contribute to the overthrow of the proprietary government in 1689. An examination of town and port legislation passed by the Virginia and Maryland legislatures between about 1660 and 1710 illustrates the intent. 185 There were three major attempts to legislate towns in Maryland. The first occurred between the years 1668 and 1671, the second in the 1680s, and the third in the early 1700s. Each of these efforts sought better tobacco trade regulation through the establishment of landing places, ports, or towns. Though the explicit term town was not used until the 1680s, the purpose for creating these towns was similar. Each 185 For a complete discussion of the early town legislation in Maryland see Reps, Tidewater Towns, 92-116; Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 56-84. Shomette, Lost Towns, 1-29, follows Reps and Thomas with a detailed summary of the acts and an analysis of several colonial towns in Maryland. Riley, ?The Town Acts of Colonial Virginia? provides a review of the Virginia legislation. 87 place was legislated for the express purpose of regulating and stabilizing the tobacco trade and importing goods throughout the colony. Named ports of entry in Maryland first appear in the Proceedings of the Council in 1668. Instructions were given by Governor Charles Calvert that erected ?Sea Ports, Harbours, Creekes, and other places for discharge and vnladeing of goods and merchandizes out of shipps.? 186 The declaration further stipulates that the places designated in the acts were to be the only trading stations. A stiff penalty of ?one whole yeares Imprisom t without bayle? was the penalty for not abiding by the restrictions of the clause. 187 Eleven port sites were named in the declaration. A subsequent declaration in 1671 named several more trade sites along major waterways with the same conditions and language as the one issued in 1668. 188 These early attempts to legislate ports resulted in designated locales, legal trade restrictions, and penalties for noncompliance with the provisions. No mention of town form was provided in the declarations and the function was squarely focused on trade. A decade later Charles Calvert, third Lord Baltimore, expressed his dissatisfaction with the progress of town development, arguing that a change in the trading system was required to make it ?necessary? for people ?to build more close and to Lyve in Townes?. 189 This sentiment led to four acts passed by the General 186 Archives of Maryland, Volume 5, Page 31. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000005/html/a m5--31.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 187 Ibid., 32. 188 Ibid., 92-94; Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 59. Another declaration was issued in 1669. 189 Archives of Maryland, Volume 5, Page 266. 88 Assembly between 1683 and 1688 entitled the Act[s] for Advancement of Trade. As the title suggests the primary concern was for centralizing tobacco export within the colony by creating exclusive collection points. 190 These spaces were first legislated primarily as points where individuals could engage in the tobacco trade and exchange of goods. 191 Some have suggested this model for trade locales is based on an Italian precedent called the fondachi. 192 Approximately sixty towns were created as a result of these acts. 193 Prominent among the instructions listed in the acts was the disposition of goods. All imported and exported goods were to pass through these new towns except for personal and family provisions which could be bought and sold anywhere. 194 Penalties for noncompliance were somewhat less severe than before requiring a forfeiture of goods rather than imprisonment. 195 Curiously the trade restrictions were dropped altogether by Lord Baltimore?s proclamation in 1688, possibly as a result of pressure being applied by merchants opposed to the provisions. 196 A streamlined version of the act removing all trade restrictions was introduced later that year. 197 Town proponents flaunted these efforts as presenting a http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000005/html/a m5--266.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 190 Earle and Hoffman "The Urban South", 28. 191 Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 63. 192 James O'Mara, "Town Founding in Seventeenth-century North America?: 6. 193 Reps, Tidewater Towns, 98. 194 Reps, Tidewater Towns, 98. 195 Ibid., Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page 615. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/a m7--615.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 196 Reps Tidewater Towns, 98,. 197 Archives of Maryland, Volume 13, Pages 218-220. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000013/html/a 89 ?great advantage and generall good to this Province,? 198 speaking out against towns became a punishable offense. 199 Phrases proclaiming the general good of towns are common in the 1680s acts and are found alongside benefits to trade. Also, unlike earlier proclamations, the1680s legislation highlighted the word ?town? more conspicuously. It is unclear how this term was interpreted but these places were designed both for trade and cohabitation. 200 Particular attention was given to the construction of streets, and size and composition of the lots in the 1680s acts. At first, the Assembly proposed that towns be laid out in fifty acre plots divided into 100 ?-acre lots following Virginia?s legislative lead. After further consideration the decision was reversed, with the rationale being as follows: if the said fifty Acres be divided into one hundred lots of half Acre in a Lott, then no Streets can be Admitted, if Streets first Laid out, then every Lott will be too small for the Building a Dwelling house, Warehouse and Necessary Yard; which must certainly Discourage every Person Settling in the said Towns. 201 m13--218.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 66. 198 Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page 546. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/a m7--546.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 199 Archives of Maryland, Volume 5, Page 497. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000005/html/a m5--497.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 200 James O?Mara, ?An Historical Geography of Urban System Development: Tidewater Virginia in the 18 th century,? Geographical Monographs no. 13. (York University 1983), 177, suggests that in Virginia, town acts of the seventeenth century were attempts at social and economic engineering. 201 Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page 369. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/a m7--369.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 90 Concern over lot size caused the Assembly to create one hundred-acre sites divided into one hundred, one-acre lots. Joseph Thomas argues that one of the most enduring legacies of the town legislation in Maryland was the creation of a practical method for dividing and conveying town lots. 202 Instructions indicating the physical division of towns also suggest the intended function of these sites. Settlers were expected to live in towns but legislators also saw the need for public spaces and required ?Convenient streets, Laines & allies, with Open Space places to be left On which may be Erected Church or Chappell, & Marckett hovse, or other publick buildings.? 203 Legislative language coupled with the Statehouse and chapel already established in St. Mary?s City may have provided a template for situating public buildings in towns and the legal establishment of public lands suggests a desire to situate municipal services in towns. Though much research has concentrated on the form and function of towns, surprisingly little has focused on specifically how and why towns were chosen by the Maryland and Virginia legislatures during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. 204 Some locales had clear geographical advantages over others. Nearly all early town sites in the Chesapeake were located close to the bay or one of its major tributaries. But a key component of the accepted historical narrative of the Chesapeake is that towns were hindered by the fact that individual planters could ship goods from private landings located along abundantly available river front property. 202 Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 74-75. 203 Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page 612. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/a m7--612.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 204 Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 253. 91 Another factor affecting town development is population density. But population density in the early Chesapeake did not automatically result in the construction of a town. Myopic views of town formation miss the point entirely. Instead, towns were designated by the legislature for a variety of reasons including geography, population density, and most importantly, political lobbying. Towns were the result of negotiation. So what were the major factors that led to the choice of Mount Calvert as a town site? Who stood to gain from the construction of a town? Mount Calvert Town One of the many sites established by 1680s acts was located ?Att pigg Pointe vpon Mount Colverte mannor.? 205 ?Mount Calvert Town? was founded by the Maryland Legislature in 1684 as part of a supplement to the 1683 Act for Advancement of Trade. Much of Mount Calvert Town?s early history is unclear because of the loss of historical documents prior to the founding of Prince George?s County in 1696. Before that year Mount Calvert Town was part of Calvert County and unfortunately most of the early records from that county were destroyed in a series of courthouse fires. This and subsequent chapters deal primarily with the rise and fall of the town between 1696 and 1721 a period for which a nearly complete set of county records has survived. Understanding the circumstances leading to its founding and eventual rise to the status of county seat is necessary for providing background context. 205 Archives of Maryland, Volume 13, Page112. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000013/html/a m13--112.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 92 The confluence of the Patuxent River and a sizable tributary offered an attractive trade site. Population densities had increased considerably along the upper tidal Patuxent River by the 1680s, but the area to the south of Mount Calvert contained a greater population and was settled first. 206 So why was Mount Calvert chosen instead of a site further to the south? Mattapany Landing was located a little more than four miles to the south of Mount Calvert and contained a particularly deep- channeled harbor. 207 Yet when the final decision was made, Mount Calvert was named the northern-most town on the Patuxent River. Mattapany Landing was not created as a town until Nottingham was founded there in 1706. Therefore it seems geography is only one part of the equation. Political maneuvering also played an important part in situating the town at Mount Calvert. Greater tobacco prices fostered by towns promised to bring higher quitrents for the Proprietor and many members of the lower house owned lands where towns were proposed. 208 Though many planters opposed the sweeping legislative acts that would create dozens of towns in Maryland during the 1680s 209 , serious resistance did not doom the provisions in the acts until the late 1680s. 210 Opposition to the legislation was especially strong among small planters who saw little advantage in 206 Carr, County Government in Maryland, Volume I, 573. 207 Shomette, Lost Towns, 140. 208 Michael G. Kammen, ?The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689?, Maryland Historical Magazine 55, no. 4 (December 1960): 293-333; Lois Green Carr and David William Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution in Government, 1689-1692, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 19. 209 Edward C. Papenfuse, ?Doing Good to Posterity?: The Move of the Capital of Maryland from St. Mary?s City to Ann Arundell Towne, Now Called Annapolis (Crownsville: Maryland Historical Trust, 1995), 8-10; Carr and Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution, 19-21. 210 Carr and Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution, 19. 93 transporting tobacco to town sites. The Lower House delayed the legislation in 1682 as a political maneuver aimed at influencing the way burgesses were elected. 211 A list of objections was drafted by the Lower House as a means of stalling the bill. 212 The last of these objections is perhaps the most telling for the future of the legislation. In speaking to the provision that all planters transport their tobacco to towns, the burgesses stated the simple fact that ?there is no reasonable way laid down how he shall be Enabled to bring it to the Town, or house, and Secure it when brought there.? 213 Another problem was the issue of the ?bulk? tobacco trade. Bulk tobacco consisted of various grades of tobacco marketed and shipped in the same large hogshead. On instructions from the Crown, the Proprietary government attempted to enforce a ban on the exportation of bulk tobacco in 1687. 214 Small planters put pressure on their elected representatives in the lower house to oppose restrictions on the bulk tobacco trade. The lower house responded by arguing that most planters relied on bulk transport, and that small tobacco growers would suffer from its absence. 215 In the end Lord Baltimore conceded to the futility of the trade restrictions. In rescinding them, Calvert admitted that the planters were ?not in a condition as yet to bring their Tobaccoes to Townes? and that there were insufficient ?store houses at the severall places appointed for Townes to shelter all such goods 211 Reps, Tidewater Towns, 94; Shomette, Lost Towns, 11. 212 Reps, 94. 213 Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page 369. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/a m7--369.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 214 Kammen, ?The Causes of the Maryland Revolution?, 313-314. 215 Ibid., 315. 94 wares and merchandizes as were intended by that Act.? 216 The friction caused by this debate would contribute to the revolutionary undercurrent that brought about the removal of the Calvert family from power in 1689. Mount Calvert Town was founded squarely within the debate and implementation of town legislation, the revolution of 1689, and the establishment of the royal government. The rise and fall of Mount Calvert Town and later Charles Town was determined in large part by the shifting control of land tracts around the locale. In 1684 two tracts were offered as ideal town sites along the upper tidal Patuxent River. 217 One of these was Mussel Shell located on the Western Branch of the Patuxent River, 218 patented by John Bigger in 1671. Bigger was a prominent politician in Calvert County and was elected to the lower house of the Maryland Assembly in 1692. 219 The bid to establish a town at Mussel Shell, however, was abandoned in favor of Mount Calvert. Mount Calvert?s position directly on the Patuxent River figured in the decision, but politics undoubtedly played a part in the choice. Mount Calvert?s owner probably exerted very little influence on the choice of the town site. William Groome Sr. had wielded some power in the Proprietary government but William Jr. was still a minor when he was willed the property in 216 Archives of Maryland, Volume 8, Page 43. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000008/html/a m8--43.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 217 Archives of Maryland, Volume 13, Page 22. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000013/html/a m13--22.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 218 The tract was called ?Muffs shell banke? in the legislation. 219 Edward C. Papenfuse, Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and Gregory A Stiverson, A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789, Vol. 1, (Baltimore, 1979), 32. 95 1677. His mother Sybil had remarried Henry Jowles by 1678. 220 William Jr. stood to gain a great deal by the establishment of a town at Mount Calvert and perhaps Jowles flexed his political muscle in the decision to establish the town. Jowles? was a Protestant whose political career was substantial including the local positions of Justice (1677-1681, 1685-1692) and Sheriff (1681-1685) of Calvert County, and a member of both the upper and lower houses of the Maryland Assembly. 221 Lord Baltimore was initially favorable toward Jowles and granted him a commission as a militia officer where he rose to the rank of colonel by 1679. 222 Ten years later Jowles would be instrumental in the Protestant Revolution that removed the Calverts from power. Jowles was one of the most powerful and influential leaders in Calvert County at the time, second only to Henry Darnall. 223 Using his considerable political influence, Jowles likely aided in steering the town site to Mount Calvert. Merchant Henry Darnall also had an interest in locating the town at Mount Calvert. The choice between Mount Calvert and Mussel Shell may have mattered little to Darnall. As long as the site was near his major land holdings he could profit from mercantile trade at the town. Darnall lived at the ?Woodyard,? 224 located west of Mount Calvert, and his ties to the Calvert family and the Catholic elite were solid. He was cousin to Charles Calvert, third Lord Baltimore and held many top governmental positions at the time that the 1680s town legislation was being drafted 220 Ibid., 501. 221 Ibid. 222 Carr and Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution, 267. 223 Ibid. 224 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 111. 96 including seats in the Upper House and Council, rent roll keeper, and chancellor. 225 Far from being a marginal figure in the debates, Darnall actively promoted the town legislation including advancing the requirement of assigning officers for each town to ensure compliance with the legislation. 226 Darnall was responsible for assigning the officers for towns in Calvert County. 227 A town at Mount Calvert would have been more favorable to Darnall than Mattapany Landing or elsewhere to the south. Ninian Beall did not enjoy the political power of either Darnall or Jowles, but gained prominence as a member of the militia and major land speculator during the 1670s and 80s. Few matched Beall as a land speculator and by 1689 he had patented over 12,000 acres and retained well over 4,000 acres including his home plantation of ?Bacon Hall? adjacent to Marlborough. 228 Much of Beall?s land was located near the eventual site of Marlborough, approximately three miles west of Mount Calvert. In 1686, Beall was assigned as Mount Calvert Town?s first officer responsible for tracking mercantile trade through the town. 229 It is plausible that his position as deputy surveyor of Calvert County from 1680 to 1685 230 and the fact that his home plantation was only a few miles west of Mount Calvert contributed to this appointment. Beall may have had little to do with the decision to establish a town at 225 Papenfuse, et. al., A Biographical Dictionary, 250-251. 226 Archives of Maryland, Volume 5, Page 495. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000005/html/a m5--495.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 227 Ibid., 527. 228 Papenfuse, et. al., A Biographical Dictionary, 122; Carr and Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution, 234-235. 229 Archives of Maryland, Volume 5, Page 502. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000005/html/a m5--502.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 230 Papenfuse, et. al., 122. 97 Mount Calvert, but he was clearly powerful among the rank and file in the area and took an active role in the town?s development during its first years. Though he held relatively few offices in the proprietary government, he was well respected and the leader of a group of powerful Scottish Presbyterians living in Calvert County. He also became one of the leaders of the group of Protestant Associators who toppled the Calvert government a few years later. Henry Jowles, Henry Darnall, and Ninian Beall each had a stake in the designation of Mount Calvert as a town site. One was the guardian of the owner of Mount Calvert, one was a powerful member of the Proprietary government and nearby resident, one was a successful land speculator who also lived in the area, and all were major players in Maryland?s revolution of 1689. Many others had a stake in the choice but these three individuals stand out as being in a position to influence the political process. When Prince George?s County was formed six years later, these individuals probably had less to do with the daily activities at Mount Calvert Town but the legacy of the revolution and the new royal government was evident on the landscape. ?Mount Calvert Doe For the Future goe by the Name of Charles Town?: The Politics of Location Part II. Mount Calvert Town was chosen as the first county seat of Prince George?s County and renamed Charles Town in 1696. A number of factors contributed to Mount Calvert Town being chosen as the county seat including the fact that there was already a town platted on the site equipped with the usual landing, storehouses, 98 ordinaries, and ferry crossing. Renaming Mount Calvert Town and establishing the court were also political statements at a particular historical moment in the colony. Charles Town was a product of its time and as such was eventually supplanted by a more permanent location like so many other river front county seats. The following discussion is devoted to the political underpinnings of these decisions on both local and regional scales. Dramatic changes in Maryland?s political structure occurred between 1689 and 1696. The Calverts were removed from power in 1689, the Anglican Church was established in the colony, the Capital was moved from St. Mary?s City to Annapolis, and Prince George?s County was established. Each of these regional developments combined with the actions of local politicians redefined the cultural landscape at Mount Calvert and provided a new purpose for the town. The connections between sweeping institutional changes on the regional scale and the actions of local politicians were manifest in both the physical environment and the social restraint brought by the Anglican Church and the county court. The Anglican Church and the county court were the most powerful tools for enforcing the goals of the gentry following the revolution of 1689. There was clearly a new vision for Maryland following the overthrow of the Calverts. St. Mary?s City was no longer located at the political or economic center of the colony and settlement to the north over several decades had put pressure on the government to move the capital from St. Mary?s. In the early 1680s Charles Calvert, Third Lord Baltimore, had favored moving the capital to the south of present day Annapolis on the land that 99 would become London Town. 231 Calvert never saw his vision fulfilled as he was removed from power a few years later. The capital was finally moved to Arundelton from St. Mary?s shortly after Maryland became a Royal colony and a decade after Calvert considered the move. Second Royal Governor Francis Nicholson was instrumental in moving the government to Arundelton and renaming the town Annapolis in 1695. Though the Catholics had been removed from power by the Protestant Associators and Nicholson was a devout Anglican, the governor still had little choice but to compromise with all religious and political groups. 232 The move of the government was one of these compromises. Nicholson?s career as governor and the move of the government from St. Mary?s to Annapolis are well documented. The governor?s role in creating local political landscapes, however, is poorly understood. There are many parallels between Nicholson?s efforts in Annapolis and the construction of government spaces at Mount Calvert Town between 1695 and 1698. Nicholson and local politicians influenced the structure of the governmental and religious institutions that gained power following the revolution. Choosing and Naming a Courthouse Locale Courthouses and churches in colonial Maryland and Virginia have long been associated with the countryside rather than towns. Churches continued to be located in the countryside throughout the colonial period. 233 Yet in Maryland there was a distinct progression of courthouse locations that held true for many of the counties in 231 Papenfuse, ?Doing Good to Posterity?, 10. 232 Ibid., 13. 233 Isaac, Transformation of Virginia, 58. 100 existence before 1730. Professional and avocational interest in courthouses has resulted in a volume of literature on the subject. The three primary topics of this literature are the importance of courthouse locations to county history, the particulars of courthouse architecture, and the courthouse and surrounding lands as a symbolic landscape. 234 The emphasis here is on symbolic nature of the courthouse and church lands at Charles Town. 234 For the best review of courthouses in Virginia see Lounsbury, The Courthouses of Early Virginia. See also John O. Peters and Margaret T. Peters, Virginia?s Historic Courthouses, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1995). For courthouses in Maryland see Morris L. Radoff, The County Courthouses and Records of Maryland, Part One: The Courthouses, (Annapolis: The Commission, 1960). The majority of literature on courthouses in the colonial Chesapeake comes out of Virginia including dozens of articles and book chapters on individual counties. Much of this literature is written for a public audience. For a sample see Mary Kegley Bucklen and Larrie L. Bucklen, County Courthouses of Virginia: Old and New, (Charleston: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1988); Numerous articles were published on individual counties in the Virginia Cavalcade magazine from the mid-1960s through the late 1970s by William Gaines and others for the general public; Edward Miles Riley, ?The Colonial Courthouses of York County, Virginia? William and Mary Quarterly 2 nd Series 22, no. 4 (1942): 399-414. For courthouse architecture studies see Carl R. Lounsbury, ??An Elegant and Commodius Building?: William Buckland and the Design of the Prince William County Courthouse? Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 46, no. 3 (1987): 228-240; Lounsbury, The Courthouses; Marcus Whiffen, ?Early County Courthouses of Virginia? Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 18, no. 1 (1959): 2-10; Roamond Bierne and John Scarff, ?William Buckland, 1734-1774: Architect of Virginia and Maryland,? Studies in Maryland History, No. 4 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1958); Claude O. Lanciano, ?Our Most Skillful Architect?: Richard Taliaferro and Associated Colonial Virginia Constructions, (Gloucester: Lands End Books, 1981). For court ritual see Rhys Issac, ?Dramatizing the Ideology of Revolution: Popular Mobilization in Virginia, 1774 to 1776?, William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 33, no. 3 (1976): 357-385; Rhys Issac, The Transformation of Virginia; Carl R. Lounsbury, ?The Structure of Justice: The Courthouses of Colonial Virginia?, in Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, Volume 3, eds. Thomas Carter and Bernard L Herman, (Columbia: published for the Vernacular Architectural Forum by University of Missouri Press, 1989): 214-226; Roeber, ?Authority, Law, and Custom?; E. Lee Shepard, ??This Being the Court Day??; Dell Upton, Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986). 101 During much of the seventeenth century, county courts were often convened in dwellings, storehouses, ordinaries, or other structures not expressly designed as courthouses. 235 Courthouse buildings were uncommon in Maryland and Virginia before the 1660s. 236 In 1667 the House of Burgesses empowered the Virginia county courts to condemn two acres of land for building a church and courthouse. 237 Seven years later the Maryland legislature passed a law requiring counties to build a courthouse and prison within two years at the county?s expense. 238 Many of the first courthouses in Maryland were located along major waterways and large feeder creeks. Early courthouse locations, like wooden buildings, almost never lasted more than a few decades. Courts often moved several times until finally settling in a locale closer to the center of the county where towns either formed or were already in place when the court arrived. This pattern repeats itself over and over again in Maryland and between 1680 and 1730 nearly all courts made the transition from shifting riverfront locations to permanent inland towns. Choosing a courthouse location was not a matter of inevitability. Rather, courthouse locations and their internal landscapes, like the surrounding rural landscape of plantations, represented careful 235 For a discussion of the movement away from private and commercial structures for holding court and to the development of particular architectural courthouse forms in the Chesapeake see Carl R. Lounsbury, The Courthouses; For a comparative discussion of courthouse architecture in Massachusetts see Martha J. MacNamara, From Tavern to Courthouse: Architecture & Ritual in American Law, 1658-1860, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). 236 Lounsbury, The Courthouses, 62, suggests that the courthouse as an architectural form did not occur in Virginia until the third quarter of the seventeenth century. 237 Peters and Peters, Virginia?s Historic Courthouses, 5. 238 Raphael Semmes, Crime and Punishment in Early Maryland, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938), 6; Archives of Maryland, Volume 2, Page 413. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000002/html/am2-- 413.html. (Accessed January 10, 2008). 102 and incremental decisions aimed at supporting the powerful gentry that would solidify by the mid-eighteenth century. Mount Calvert Town was remade in the 1690s to suit the social and political aspirations of wealthy merchant politicians living in Prince George?s County. One example of the shift of Mount Calvert Town is the name change. At one of the first meetings of the court in 1696, the justices ordered that ?Mount Calvert Doe For the Future goe by the Name of Charles Town.? 239 Maryland State Archivist Edward Papenfuse argues that renaming Mount Calvert Town to Charles Town amounted to a political concession to Charles Calvert, the Third Lord Baltimore of Maryland. 240 Papenfuse briefly outlines the familiar narrative in Maryland history that tells of how the revolution of 1689 removed the Catholic Calvert family from power and replaced them with a royal governor under the crown of England. Papenfuse correctly points out how the story of Catholic disenfranchisement has become a dominant component of the narratives created by historians of the colonial Chesapeake. He argues that the act of renaming the town Charles Town was a concession by Protestant justices on the Prince George?s County court to the underlying power still wielded by the Calvert family. 241 239 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 5. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--5.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 240 Edward C. Papenfuse, ?What?s in a Name? Why Should We Remember, Remarks on the Occasion of the 300 th Anniversary of the Commencement of Prince George?s County, April 23, 1996?. http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/stagser/s1259/121/7508/html/0002.html (Accessed, July 16, 2007). 241 Ibid. 103 A change in the physical layout of Mount Calvert after 1696 is a second example of political interests taking physical shape. Several individuals provided the political muscle to redefine Mount Calvert Town as a political center. Two of the most powerful family alliances when Prince George's County formed in 1696 were the Addisons and Brookes, and the Hollydays and Greenfields. 242 John Addison was a major player in Provincial politics after the revolution of 1689. Addison was one of the revolutionary leaders and was appointed to the first royal council. 243 John's son, Thomas, his brother-in-law William Hatton, and business partner William Hutchinson were all Justices on the Prince George?s county court. 244 The Hollyday and Greenfield families were even more influential to the landscape of Mount Calvert. Thomas Hollyday and Thomas Greenfield both married into the Trueman family 245 and assumed the two most powerful political positions in the newly formed county. Thomas Hollyday was the first Chief Justice of the county court and Greenfield was appointed as the first sheriff of the county. Hollyday and Greenfield had considerable influence in the construction of the county landscape as well as the creation of Mount Calvert as a public place. The most influential of this group was Thomas Hollyday He arrived in Maryland in 1678 at the age of eighteen and served as an apprentice and factor for 242 Carr, County Government, Volume 1, 679-683. 243 Ibid., 679. 244 Ibid., 680. 245 Hollyday and Greenfield married daughters of Dr. James Trueman, brother of Thomas Trueman Esq. who was councilor from 1665-1676, and 1683-1686, Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 322; Carr and Jordan Maryland?s Revolution, 38. 104 Timothy Keyser. 246 He apparently dissolved his relationship with Keyser and was a factor for Peter Paggen and Company when the county was created. 247 Between 1690 and his death in 1703, Hollyday held numerous public offices including Justice of the Peace in Calvert County (1690-1696), Vestryman of St. Paul?s Parish at Charles Town beginning in 1692, and chief justice of the Prince George?s County court from 1696 until his death in 1703. 248 At the time of his death, Hollyday owned nearly 3,500 acres of land, and boasted an estate worth just over ?743 after outstanding debts had been paid. 249 Hollyday?s home plantation was at Billingsley point just across the Western Branch of the Patuxent to the north of Charles Town. Thomas Greenfield was less directly involved with the development of Mount Calvert than Hollyday. Greenfield?s political career began shortly after the revolution of 1689 with his appointment as a justice for Calvert County until 1696. 250 He was also one of the first vestrymen to serve in the Anglican Church at Mount Calvert in 1692. 251 County Sheriffs wielded considerable power within local affairs as essentially an extension of the Royal Governor and the Council. 252 One of the most significant duties of a Sheriff was the collection of tobacco as county levies, of which 246 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 332-333. 247 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12. 248 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 333; Archives of Maryland, Volume 8, Page, 473-474. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000008/html/a m8--473.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 249 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 334. 250 Ibid., 323. 251 Ibid., Archives of Maryland, Volume 8, Page, 473-474. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000008/html/a m8--473.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 252 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Preface, Page 40. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am202p-- 40.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 105 they would receive one-tenth of that collected. 253 Greenfield's position as County Sheriff made him a powerful player in county politics. Hollyday and Greenfield would have favored Mount Calvert Town as a choice for the first county seat. The fact that a town was already platted on the site also made the choice plausible. Even more important than these two factors was the presence of the Anglican church. In 1696, Mount Calvert Town was an opportunity to assert the status of the Anglican Church and reinforce the power of those in the vestry like Hollyday, Greenfield, and many of the other justices. Planning a Courthouse Town Radial, regular grid, and irregular forms dominate town planning history. Perhaps the oldest of these forms was the radial pattern first emerging in Seventh- century Greece. 254 Radial patterns were based on lines of sight and were later incorporated into Baroque designs. The grid pattern suggested a more utilitarian and strategic approach to town planning. 255 Two major advantages of the regular grid were that it required little specialized skill to survey and it was infinitely expandable. Finally there were irregular forms associated with medieval cities and English villages. 256 This form was based on a more "casual alignment of village lanes along natural topographical or irregular property boundaries" 257 Therefore these forms contained more highly localized design characteristics. Surviving plats from the early 253 Ibid., 39. 254 Sylvia Doughty Fries, The Urban Idea in Colonial America, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1977), 26. 255 Ibid. 256 Brian K. Roberts, The Making of the English Village: A study in Historical Geography (Harlow, England: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1987); Fries, The Urban Idea in Colonial America. 257 Fries, The Urban Idea in Colonial America, 26. 106 eighteenth-century Chesapeake show a regular grid was used as the principal formal template for laying out towns. One method of organizing these grids that was pervasive in late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century plats and land tenure in the Chesapeake was to reserve public open spaces on the interior of the town with areas near the landing reserved for private lots. 258 Landscape historian John Stilgoe suggests that this model was possibly influenced by Dutch city planner Simon Stevin and was well suited for mercantile cities because it was highly modifiable and growth friendly. 259 Mount Calvert town was probably laid out according to this formula but it is difficult to determine without the benefit of a plat. There is no solid reference point linking the church and courthouse lots with other lots, for example, though they were probably not located along the main town road paralleling the river. Lots placed along the road were ideal locations for constructing dwellings or commercial structures such as ordinaries and the public buildings at Mount Calvert were located in the interior. Mount Calvert?s formal layout has not been reconstructed thus far. At least one original and two updates of the plat were completed but none of these has been located. 260 The best indication of how Mount Calvert was divided comes from 258 For numerous examples of town layouts see Reps, Tidewater Towns, 102-115; Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, Chapters 4-7. 259 John R. Stilgoe, Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845, ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 94. 260 A plat was first mentioned in 1696, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 14. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--14.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). In 1703 the Prince George?s County court ordered Edward Batson to make an updated plat of Mount Calvert including improvements, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 240. The town was 107 surviving land records. Mount Calvert was probably divided into one acre lots as the legislation stipulated. 261 It is uncertain whether a full one hundred lots were surveyed and without knowing this, the specific layout of the town remains unclear. As with most towns established by the General Assembly, Mount Calvert was probably laid out in a grid pattern but lot numbers do not appear in the land records until after the passage of the 1706 act. The highest lot number recorded in the land records is forty- three. 262 Land records also indicate that the cost of a one-acre lot ranged from about 500 to 1,000 lbs of tobacco. 263 This price was probably for unimproved or minimally improved lots. 264 The dimensions of these lots varied from about 105 x 400 ft., to 180 x 230 ft., to 140 x 235 ft. 265 Variable lot sizes such as these are a common feature on early eighteenth-century plats. 266 Historical records have thus far yielded very little direct information about the overall planning of the town. The establishment of the Prince George?s County court at Charles Town does provide a window into some formal planning efforts that were possibly resurveyed under the supervision of Thomas Greenfield The ?original? plat of Charles Town is mentioned again in 1707 as part of a land dispute between James Stoddert and Henry Darnall relating to ?Beall?s Gift?, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 165a. Charles Town may have been re-platted as part of the 1706 act. Six town plats were commissioned and paid for out of the 1707 levy, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 186a. 261 The legal division of the town was probably by one acre lots. For example, James Stoddert and Josias Towgood each owned one acre lots in the town by 1697, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, ff. 91-92, 154-155. Unfortunately few specific references to early town lots were located. 262 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 215. 263 For example see Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 91; Liber C, f. 215. 264 Improved lots could fetch a higher price. For example James Stoddert paid Josias Towgood 1,300 lbs of tobacco for a one acre in 1705, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 133a. 265 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, ff. 91-93, 155; Liber C, f. 133a. 266 See Reps, Tidewater Towns; Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy. 108 implemented after 1696. It is the role of Charles Town as the first county seat that is important for understanding both the planned and realized construction of the town. A noticeable gap in town legislation exists between 1688 and 1706 in Maryland. Maryland?s revolution of 1689 which removed the Catholic Calvert family from government and established the Anglican Church as the state religion may have contributed to this lull as attention shifted to other more pressing governmental concerns. Another reason there was less activity in the legislature to create towns was a shift in the perception of towns. Governor Nicholson=s attitude toward towns is highly instructive in this regard. Nicholson felt the attempts by the Maryland legislature to create towns were ineffective. He expressed his disappointment to the Council of Trade and Plantations in 1697 saying, ?people in these parts have been used to live separately...It is very difficult to bring them at once to cohabit, especially by restraint.? 267 Instead of concentrating on ?mass? town legislation, Nicholson focused his efforts on constructing monumental town designs. Nicholson?s plans of Annapolis and Williamsburg are well known, studied, and debated by Chesapeake scholars. 268 Less is known of Nicholson?s influence on smaller settlements in the region. 267 Francis Nicholson, ?Address to the Council of Trade and Plantations, March 27, 1697,? in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Vol. 15, 421.(Vaduz: Reprinted by Arrangement with Her Majesty?s Stationery office, London by Kraus Reprint LTD., 1964). 268 Reps, Tidewater Towns; James D. Kornwolf, ??Doing Good to Posterity?: Francis Nicholson, First Patron of Architecture, Landscape Design, and Town Planning in Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina, 1688-1725," The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 101, no. 3 (July 1993): 333-374; Leone and Hurry, ASeeing?. 109 There is compelling evidence that Nicholson and the new government under a Royal Governor had an influence on remaking the town design at Mount Calvert. In 1697 the justices of the newly formed court instructed Thomas Addison to lay out three acres for a courthouse and two acres for the Anglican church already constructed on the site (Figure 3.1). By November of 1697, the lots were surveyed and recorded in the court minutes. 269 These two lots were located adjacent to one another. Both the proportion of the two lots and their proximity were influenced by 269 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 278.http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am20 2--278.html (Accessed January 16, 2008). Figure 3.1 1697 Plat of the Church and Courthouse Lots at Charles Town. Source: Courtesy of the Maryland State Archives Plat of the Church and Courthouse Lots in Charles Town, Prince George?s County Maryland, 1697 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 157a. MSA-C1237-2 110 Nicholson=s efforts in Annapolis. The proportion of the two lots was carefully planned. Under Nicholson=s direction, two acts were passed by the General Assembly in 1697 that established dimensions of church and courthouse lots in the province. 270 Church lots were not to exceed two acres while courthouse lots were to be three acres. This proportion mimics the one established by Nicholson for the church and Statehouse lots in the Annapolis plan. In that case, Statehouse Circle clearly overshadows Church Circle. Another feature of the Nicholson plan for Annapolis was the placement of the church and Statehouse adjacent to each other. Some scholars have argued that Nicholson, a devout Protestant, wanted to demonstrate a direct symbolic proximity between the Anglican Church and State through the physical layout of Annapolis. 271 Nicholson may have wanted to extend this argument to other towns as well and had originally proposed that the AChurch at mount Calvert be fitted to serve as well for a Court house as Church.? 272 Ultimately, two separate structures were constructed adjacent to each other. As in Annapolis, the proximity and proportion of the two lots is an attempt to physically demonstrate the relationship between Church and State being established in the colony. Nicholson had a hand in shaping the relationship between the Church and county government in Prince George=s County from its inception. Creating Prince 270 Archives of Maryland, Volume 19, Pages 589-91, 592-594. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000019/html/am19-- 589.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 271 Miller, ?Archaeology and Town Planning?, 80. 272 Archives of Maryland, Volume 19, Page 233. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000019/html/a m19--233.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 111 George=s County was an initiative sponsored by Nicholson and he aimed to mold it according to his role as the Royal Governor. His goal to establish a close relationship between Church and State through town planning at Annapolis was evident in the county landscape. Although town legislation called for public lands to be set aside for a church or chapel, the relationship between the public structures at Charles Town reflects a more volatile regional political climate than existed when the town was founded in 1684. Although the plan of Mount Calvert was likely based on a simple grid design with one-acre lots, the symbolic placement of the church and courthouse lots and their dimensions marks a shift in the meaning of Mount Calvert as a town site. Restructuring the town speaks to the pliable nature of these places as political and social constructions, rather than simply static two-dimensional gridiron towns. ?Inconvenient to two thirds or more of the County?: The Politics of Location III A distinctive characteristic of the colonial Chesapeake was the frequent relocation of county courts. Residents often petitioned county courts to move the location of the courthouse to a place more convenient to the general population. In application courthouse locations and the division of counties had as much to do with the aspirations of wealthy merchant politicians as it did with the good of the population. The movement of courthouses to more permanent inland locations was coupled with the stabilization of a system of market towns and landings still located on major rivers advantageous to trade, or at crossroads. 112 This trend holds true in Prince George?s County. In 1718 residents petitioned the Maryland General Assembly to move the county court from Charles Town to Marlborough. The petition was granted by the Assembly in an act that stated: the Court house allready built at mount Calvert is very Inconvenient to two thirds or more of the County that Marlborough is the nearest the Centre of the County, and the most Convenient place that Can be thought off for the Settleing of a Court house at, which plainly Appeared by the willingness of the Several Petitioners who have made so Large Subscriptions Toward Building of a new Court house. 273 A new courthouse was built in Marlborough and the move was completed in 1721. But what were the underlying reasons for this shift? What happened between 1696 and 1718 to make Marlborough a more favorable locale for the court? Who were those in position to make ?large subscriptions? toward the courthouse? Wealth and power are at the heart of these questions and the context of specific power structures and political strategies warrants more attention. The ?Ease and Convenience of the People? was often cited as a catch phrase justifying the movement of a county seat to a more central location. E. Lee Shepard asserts that this seemingly logical reason based on population distribution often masked the social and political forces under the surface of debates to move court locations. In examining Spotsylvania County, Virginia, Shephard demonstrates how understanding political forces is always paramount to finding out how a place is maintained as a county seat. 274 For example, when Spotsylvania County was first 273 Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page 239. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--239.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 274 Shepard, ??The Ease and Convenience of the People?: Courthouse Locations in Spotsylvania County, 1720-1840," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87, no. 3 (1979):279-299. 113 created in 1720, then Governor Spotswood was given authority over the construction and placement of public facilities. The governor chose his own estate at Germanna, where he retired in 1722, as the site of the courthouse. Many justices, attempting to reduce Spotswood?s control over local affairs, pushed for the removal of the court from Germanna. They achieved this goal in 1732 when the seat was moved to Fredericksburg, but only after years of struggle and bitter debate. 275 Spotsylvania provides an instructive example because it demonstrates the role of politics in the establishment and abandonment of courthouse sites. This example also illustrates how the movement of a courthouse may be proceeded by a lengthy period of political maneuvering. ?An Act for the Removing the Court house from Charles Town? The actions of the gentry created a particular landscape that linked plantations to main roads and main roads to towns. 276 This section examines the process of landscape formation from a micro level, rather than reaffirming the rise of the gentry writ large. This approach can contribute to the study of the early Chesapeake by seeing the creation of landscapes, and towns in particular, as the result of intentional individual actions rather than simply emerging through passive means. Understanding the powerful individuals involved in creating towns in Prince George?s County can help answer the question of why Charles Town did not survive as a town while Marlborough, Queen Anne, and Nottingham thrived. A handful of powerful individuals created a landscape that promised opportunity for some, a false sense of mobility for others, and actual and symbolic brutality for countless 275 Ibid., 280-284. 276 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 209-213. 114 individuals who lived and died under the conditions of chattel slavery. This landscape of inequality would define the course of Chesapeake society for decades to come. Exploitation and Power The fortunes of powerful merchants were built in large part on the exploitation of a system of bound labor and deference. These individuals lived in a world of privilege and many provided the same for their descendants. Those who had the fewest privileges and rights in Prince George?s County society provided the means for this wealth accumulation. Enslaved Africans, English servants, tenants, and poor and infirm individuals all lived with, worked for, or were otherwise supported and subjugated by wealthy merchants and planters. This section will discuss the enslaved and indentured labor force at the bottom of the power structure in Prince George?s County who served the needs of the wealthiest merchant-politicians and planters. It is well established that the shift in the labor force from indentured servitude to slavery occurred in the Chesapeake between about 1680 and 1720, and in the process the region was transformed from a ?society with slaves? to a ?slave society?. 277 This shift was marked by a distinctive plantation economy where slavery was the central productive force. 278 The conditions that would force hundreds of thousands to live and work under the dehumanizing codes of chattel slavery did not suddenly appear at the end of the 277 Ira Berlin, Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America, (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998), 109-111; Carr and Menard, ?Immigration and Opportunity,? 236-241; Menard, Economy and Society, chapter 7. 278 Pem Davidson Buck, Worked to the Bone: Race, Class, and Privilege in Kentucky, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001), 23-27; Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, 8. 115 seventeenth century. Rather, the ingredients for the labor shift were already in place by the time that Maryland and Virginia began to codify race during the middle years of the seventeenth century. Anthony S. Parent challenges the received narrative that the shift to enslaved labor was simply the by-product of a diminished supply of English indentured servants. 279 Parent argues that the ?great planters? orchestrated the shift to a ?slave society? in Virginia through a series of legislative maneuvers and raw economic, social, and political power. These wealthy planters had the capital and credit to monopolize and control the bound labor market and were able to absorb the potential losses due to slave mortality. 280 One of the most important actions by these wealthy grandees was their systematic implementation of laws designed to define and control enslaved Africans. Similar laws were passed in Maryland during the seventeenth century. The first legal measures to codify slavery in Virginia were implemented during the mid-seventeenth century. Between about 1640 and the end of the century people of African descent in Virginia went from having essentially the same legal status as white immigrants to being slaves for life based on their race. 281 A long history of racism within English society made the transition from Africans as people to legally-defined as property an easy one for white colonists to accept. 282 Pressure to formalize the status of African slaves in Maryland led to the passage of An Act Concerning Negroes and Other Slaves by the General Assembly in 1664. 283 This 279 Parent, Foul Means. 280 Ibid., 70. 281 Ibid., 107-129. 282 Ibid., 106; Horn, Adapting to a New World, 132-133. 283 Archives of Maryland, Volume 1, Page, 539. 116 statute established the condition that African slaves and their progeny were slaves for life, or Durante Vita. Subsequent acts established that slaves could not escape bondage by converting to Christianity, English women could not lawfully marry slaves, and several acts restricted the movements of servants and slaves. 284 The cumulative result of these acts not only severely restricted enslaved Africans but also created a system of punishment that applied both to bound labor and those who assisted them in violation of the statutes. Fear over slave insurrection increased during the late eighteenth century and there was a corresponding effort by legislators, who also owned most of the slaves, to severely restrict their movements. The result of this legislative action was a slave society where the most powerful individuals both created the conditions of bondage and held the majority of the resulting labor force. The importation of large numbers of slaves during the late seventeenth- and early- eighteenth centuries was in part a response to labor concerns, but foundations for a ?slave society? were already firmly in place by 1700 in both Maryland and Virginia, and those who benefited most by the new labor configuration were by far the merchant politicians and large planters. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000001/html/a m1--533.html (Accessed January 10, 2008). 284 Archives of Maryland, Volume 2, Page, 272. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000002/html/a m2--272.html (Accessed January 10, 2008). Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page, 204. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/a m7--204.html (Accessed January 10, 2008). Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page, 48. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--48.html (Accessed January 10, 2008). 117 The most dramatic shift in bound labor occurred in Prince George?s County between about 1700 and 1710. In 1703 just over 44 percent of unfree labor was indentured and by 1709 that percentage had decreased to around 17 percent. 285 Official estimates of the slave population in Prince George?s County increased from 436 in 1704 to 1297 in 1710. 286 Russell Menard?s revised estimate for the slave population in Prince George?s County puts the 1704 figure at 610. 287 Between 1710 and 1715 servants comprised little more than 7 percent of the unfree labor force recorded in estate inventories and rose again to 16.4 percent between 1716 and 1721. 288 Though the transition was clearly underway, indentured servitude continued to offer a labor option for small and middling planters throughout the first quarter of the eighteenth century. This was especially attractive for individuals leaving estates of about ?40 to ?100 between 1716 and 1721. 289 Individuals in this wealth category could afford the lower initial costs of indentured servants if not paid laborers. Russell Menard used numbers compiled from inventories from Calvert, Charles, Prince George?s, and St. Mary?s counties between 1658 and 1730 to suggest that slave ownership was dispersed and few planters owned large numbers before 285 Carr, County Government, Volume I, Table 5, 187. 286 Archives of Maryland, Volume 25, Pages, 256, 258. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000025/html/a m25--256.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 287 Russell R. Menard, ?Five Maryland Censuses 1700 to 1712: A Note on the Quality of the Quantities?, The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 37, no. 4 (October 1980): 620. 288 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 144-366; Liber TB no. 1, ff. 102-119. 289 Ibid., Liber BB no. 1, ff. 250-366; Liber TB no. 1, ff. 102-119. Thirteen inventories valued between ?40 and ?100 for the years 1716 to 1721 listed between 1 and 3 servants. 118 1710. 290 Only 5 percent of the slaveholders who left inventories between 1658 and 1710 owned more than twenty slaves. 291 Even more telling is the fact that only 28 percent of the slaves on the lower Western Shore before 1711 lived on plantations with more than twenty slaves. 292 These figures suggest two trends. Namely those large slave holders were a minority and most slaves lived on small slaveholding plantations. The first part of the equation is true but the significance of this fact could not be overstated. The second applies to early Prince George?s County only if large slaveholding estates are divided and tabulated by quarter. Inventories taken between 1696 and 1729 in Prince George?s County suggest a more rapid expansion of large slave holding estates than indicated by composite numbers for the entire region (Table 3.1). Five (26%) of the nineteen slaveholder estates recorded in inventories from 1696 to 1709 claimed more than fifteen slaves. 293 290 Russell R. Menard, ?The Maryland Slave Population, 1658 to 1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 32, no. 1 (January 1975): 34. 291 Ibid., 34. 292 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 330. Table 3.1 Estates with Unfree Labor in Prince George?s County, 1696-1729. Number 1-4 5-9 10-14 15+ Wealth in Sterling None ServantSlave Servant Slave Servant Slave Servant Slave Number of Estates 0-40? 197 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 214 48% 41-99? 49 26 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 21% 100-199? 10 27 35 0 7 0 0 0 0 63 14% 200-299? 2 8 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 23 5% 300-399? 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 2% 400-499? 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 7 2% 500+? 1 11 1 5 3 0 2 0 27 34 8% 260 90 72 6 25 1 5 0 27 442 Source: Prince George's County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1 (1697-1720), Liber TB no. 1 (1720- 1729), Maryland State Archives, Annapolis Maryland. 119 This trend continues between the years 1710 and 1721. For that time period more than 19 percent (n=11) of the fifty nine slaveholder inventories contained fifteen or more slaves. 294 Likewise 20 percent (n=11) of the fifty nine slaveholding estates between 1722 and 1729 contained fifteen or more slaves. 295 The total number of slaves living on these large plantations also appears to have increased sharply between 1710 and 1721. Slave owners in Prince George?s County, like the rest of southern Maryland, consisted of essentially two groups between 1696 and 1721, those who owned more than a dozen slaves and a much larger group who held between one and five. These numbers are clearly linked to wealth. Between 1696 and 1709 the five largest estates accounted for 126 (64%) of 194 slaves and eleven individuals owned 350 (71%) of 495 slaves recorded in inventories taken between 1710 and 1721. 296 This percentage remains high through the 1720s as eleven of the largest estates accounted for 355 (68%) of 524 slaves recorded in inventories taken between 1722 and 1729. 297 In total, twenty-seven estates owned 828 (69%) of the 1,204 slaves recorded in Prince George?s County inventories between 1696 and 1729 (Table 3.2). All of these 293 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 1-143. This does not include John Johnson?s inventory that was taken in 1710 and is listed on pages 3 and 4. 294 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 3-4, 144-366, Liber TB no. 1, ff. 102-119. 295 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB no. 1, ff. 1-102, 119-308. 296 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 1-366, Liber TB no. 1, ff. 102-119. 297 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB no. 1, ff. 1-102, 119-308. 120 individuals had estates worth over ?500, nearly all lived on the eastern side of the county, and many resided in Mount Calvert Hundred. 298 Over 84% (n=16) of all slave holding estates were located on the Patuxent side of the county between 1696 and 1709 accounting for 76 percent of all enslaved Africans recorded in the inventories. 299 Most wealthy merchant-planters owned between twenty and forty 298 James Buttler lived in New Scotland Hundred, Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1B, 158. The Hundred of residence for Benjamin Hall and Francis King were not determined. All residence information was taken from Carr, County Government,Volume II, Appendix VI. 299 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 1-144; Hundred of residence was determined from Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI. Table 3.2 Estates in Prince George?s County with 15 or more Slaves, 1696-1729. Merchants in Bold Letters. Name No. of Slaves No. of Servants Value of Estate in ? Year of Inventory Addison, Thomas 76 0 3656:11:00 ? 1727 Barton, William 32 9 1479:13:01 1706 Beall,. James Senr 26 0 1876:04:11 1/2 1725 Berry, Benjamin 15 0 615:01:09 1720 Bradford, John 49 9 1606:06:05 3/4 1727 Brooke, Roger 23 2 1110:00:01 1719 Butler, James 31 0 1097:18:11 1709 Cecell, Joshua 17 0 781:08:03 3/4 1717 Covington, Levin 17 5 1516:17:11 3/4 1726 Craycroft, Ignatius 26 1 1199:06:08 1709 Craycroft, John 16 0 850:07:03 1722 Darnall, Henry 106 0 3505:03:03 1713 Digges, Edward 36 0 1129:12:10 1716 Greenfield, Thomas 22 1 585:02:00 1716 Hall,,Benjamin 32 2 1419:08:02 1722 Hepburn, Patrick 45 6 1981:00:05 3/4 1728 Hollyday, Thomas 18 3 1059:18:05 1703 King, Francis 15 0 667:19:01 1726 Magruder, Samuel 15 1 501:15:04 1711 Marsham, Richard 32 4 1150:16:07 1713 Ridgely, Henry 32 0 2292:16:04 1710 Rozier, Notley 31 0 1163:11:03 1727 Sprigg, Thomas 26 1 1054:04:10 1725 Stoddert, James 25 0 707:05:07 1726 Truman, Thomas 18 0 885:00:02 1718 Wight, John 19 0 721:13:02 1705 Wilson, Josiah 28 5 1178:15:1 1/2 1718 Source: Prince George's County Inventories, Liber BB No. 1 (1697-1720), Liber TB No. 1 (1720- 1729), Maryland State Archives, Annapolis Maryland. 121 slaves. Henry Darnall was by far the largest slave owner with at least 106 enslaved individuals in 1713, including thirty-eight at the ?Woodyard?. 300 Most slaveholding estates (n=33, 54%) fell within the ?40 and ?200 range. These generally held less than four slaves and only three held five or six. Quarters Large-scale slavery provided some planter-merchants with the necessary labor force to generate wealth and accumulate large inventories of goods. In most cases these goods were sold out of stores in or around a town, but the base of the merchant operation was usually centered at the outlying quarters. Large slave owners divided their workforce among the home quarter and a few outlying quarters. Home quarters normally contained larger numbers of slaves though the composition of individual quarters may have fluctuated considerably. During the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century the ?quarter? ?became the institutional embodiment of the slave community in the Chesapeake.? 301 The majority of quarters consisted of between one and four enslaved Africans and occasionally a few white or indentured servants. The numbers of slaves on larger plantation quarters were potentially greater. Men outnumbered women on most quarters. 302 Children lived on many slaveholding plantations but were most numerous in larger quarters. For example, Edward Digges?s inventory taken in 1714 lists two outlying quarters in addition to the home place. 303 Nineteen slaves are listed at the home place including eleven men, one woman, four boys, and three girls. The 300 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 206-214. 301 Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, 132. 302 Menard, ?The Maryland Slave Population?, 32-33. 303 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 266-272. 122 ten individuals living at George?s quarter consisted of eight men, one woman, and one boy. By contrast Okey?s quarter consisted of Jo, his wife Peg, a man named Peter, one girl Sarah, and three boys Jacky, Jo, and Billy. An obvious contrast between the two quarters is that Okey?s quarter was centered around his family while George?s was primarily adult males. Larger numbers of women and children lived on some plantations between 1710 and 1721 including those owned by Thomas Greenfield, Henry Ridgely, Richard Marsham, Henry Darnall, Roger Brooke, and Josiah Wilson and all seven of the largest estates between 1722 and 1729. On some of these plantations, however, the number of people living at individual quarters remained small. On Henry Darnall?s plantations the quarters began to resemble the ?plantation towns? that would emerge in later generations. Four quarters in addition to the main plantation are listed in Darnall?s inventory and each contains at least eleven individuals. 304 Josiah Wilson?s quarters located in southern Prince George?s County near Aquasco provide a more typical view of the quarters from their composition to how the merchant-politicians capitalized this labor force. Twenty-eight enslaved Africans are listed in Charles Town merchant Josiah Wilson?s inventory. These individuals lived and worked at Wilson?s dwelling, Henry French?s Quarter, Swanson?s Creek, and John Hooper?s Quarter. These four locales show the extent to which enslaved Africans could be isolated from the interaction between white planters and tradesmen in town landscapes and the geographic scope of Wilson?s operation. Archaeological and historical studies of these locales must 304 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB no. 1, ff. 206-214. 123 take into account the fact that quarters are at the same time isolated and linked to the larger system of exploitation and wealth production. Without other accounts and without the benefit of archaeological data, the inventory provides a starting point for understanding the lives of those who lived and worked at the home plantation and the quarters in support of the merchant enterprise. Henry French?s quarter and Swanson?s Creek were most likely located near Wilson?s ?Buttington? in southern Prince George?s County. French was a small planter who purchased a 150-acre portion of ?Rencher?s Adventure? near ?Hogg Pen? and northwest of Buttington in 1715. 305 It is unclear the exact type of arrangement Wilson made with French but he acted as an overseer of the quarter. The location of John Hooper?s quarter was not established and Hooper apparently did not own land in Prince George?s County. 306 It is possible that Wilson was renting enslaved Africans to French and Hooper. Whatever the arrangement, it would have generated tobacco for Wilson while at the same time freeing him from direct oversight of the operation. The same was true for Henry Darnall whose inventory lists three separate renters or overseers. 307 Between seven and eleven enslaved individuals lived at each remote quarter. Six men and three women lived at Henry French?s quarter, three men, four women, and four children lived at John Hooper?s Quarter, and three men, three women and one child lived at Swanson?s Creek. One woman named Morcea and one girl lived at the home plantation along with servants Walter Thompson, John Hastings, George 305 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 363. 306 No land transactions associated with Hooper were found for Prince George?s County. Hooper may have been a tenant somewhere in the county. 307 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, ff. 211-213. 124 Noble Smith, Robert Masefield, and Josiah Bonett. Thompson, Hastings, and Masefield each began their servitude in 1713. 308 Mary Avery also served in Wilson?s house as late as 1712 but had completed her service before the inventory was taken. 309 European indentured servants and enslaved Africans made up the core labor force of Wilson?s enterprise. Unfortunately the daily activities of these individuals at the quarters and home plantation can only be surmised. These individuals only represent those who labored for Wilson at the time of his death. Very few material goods are listed at the quarters beyond a bed, cooking utensils, and a hand mill. 310 Each of the quarters and the home plantation had a variety of pigs and cattle. Sheep were also raised at Hooper?s quarter. Though these quarters were located far from any town 311 , they comprised a key wealth generating component of the mercantile enterprises that sustained towns like Charles Town and made them possible. Essentially all of the large quarters fueled the wealth of the most powerful merchant-planters in the county. These large quarters, and others that are not represented in the inventories, are important locales for many reasons. The structure and composition of the slave community in the Chesapeake was primarily African between 1680 and 1720 312 and it was in these larger quarters where sizable numbers of Africans first came together and struggled to form communities and kinship ties in 308 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 292. 309 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 174. 310 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, ff. 319-320. 311 Mill Town was located several miles to the East of the French or Swanson creek quarters. 312 Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, 110; Michael A. Gomez, Exchanging our Country Marks: The Transformation of African Identities in the Colonial and Antebellum South. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 194. 125 early Prince George?s County. 313 Places like the Woodyard quarter near Upper Marlboro or perhaps Josiah Wilson?s quarters near Swanson Creek to the south were reference points on the landscape where Africans could meet. They also provided an opportunity to find a spouse for the many men and women living on smaller plantations. Several trends are apparent in Prince George?s County when the countywide data are disarticulated from the data on southern Maryland as a whole. The most obvious conclusion is that about two dozen decedents owned roughly 70 percent of the enslaved population between 1696 and 1730. Second, nearly all of the merchants whose inventories listed store contents are among the largest slave owning group. 314 Merchant politicians had the financial means to buy and keep slaves, and as a result were able to outright purchase or leverage the acquisition of surplus goods for resale. By the 1710s wealthy merchants like Josiah Wilson and Henry Darnall controlled the production of tobacco on many plantations and leveraged this production to buy surplus goods. Places like Wilson?s quarters near Swanson?s Creek and Darnall?s ?Woodyard? quarters were tied to Charles Town and Marlborough through the production of wealth and the distribution of goods in town stores. Land Speculation and Power The history of land use and ownership around Charles Town between 1696 and 1721 illustrates how individuals profited from activities at the town and gambled 313 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 318. 314 Robert Levett (Marlborough), was the only local merchant found in the inventories who operated a store and owned less than 15 slaves. 126 on its future. There are two levels of land speculation related to Charles Town: town lot and adjacent parcel transactions (Tables 3.3 and 3.4). Town lot transactions were Table 3.3 Lot Ownership in Charles Town Owner and Occupation(s) DescriptionDuration Price Comment Ninian Beall Planter, Town Officer 2 Lots ?-1705 Unknown Probably acquired before 1697 Thomas Hollyday Planter, Merchant, Justice 1 Lot Before 1697-? Unknown Charles Tracy Ordinary Keeper 2 Acres 1695-1698 Unknown From William and Mary Groome Josiah Towgood Attorney 1 Acre 1697-1705 800 lbs Tobacco From William and Mary Groome James Stoddert Tailor, Planter, Merchant Justice 1 Acre 1697-? 800 lbs Tobacco From David Small & Thomas Emms William Stone & John Meriton Attorneys 2 Acres 1698-? 800 lbs Tobacco From John Davis Joshua Cecill, Clerk, Merchant 2 Acres 1698-? 800 lbs Tobacco From John Davis Thomas Emms Mariner 1 Acre 1703-? None Reserved in Transaction with Stoddert Henry Darnall Sr. Merchant 1 Lot Before 1704-at least 1711 Unknown James Stoddert (see above) 1 Acre 1705-? 1,300 lbs Tobacco From Towgood James Stoddert (see above) 2 Lots 1705-? ?30 Sterling From Ninian Beall James Stoddert (see above) Lot #43 ?-1707 Unknown Christopher Beans Ordinary Keeper Lot #43 1707-1716 1000 lbs Tobacco From Stoddert John Smith Sr. Ordinary Keeper Lot #42 1709-? None Taken up Henry Boteler Planter, Sheriff Lot #10 ?-1713 Unknown Improved with House Charles Reid Merchant Lot #10 1713 ?15 Sterling From Boteler 127 Josiah Wilson Merchant, Planter, Sheriff, Justice Lot #10 1713-at Least 1717 s5 Sterling From Reid, rent Josiah Wilson (see above) Lot #43 1716-1717 ?20 Sterling From Beans Edward Willet Clerk 1 Lot ?-1743 Unknown From Stoddert Source: Prince George?s County Court Records, 1696-1705; Prince George?s County Land Records, 1696-1720; Prince George?s County Wills Book 1, 1743, Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. 1713 Will of Henry Darnall, Sr., Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Transcript on file at the M-NCPPC, Natural and Historical Resources Division Library, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Table 3.4 Land Ownership Around Charles Town. Tract Acres Ownership or Lease Years Mount Calvert 1,000 Philip Calvert 1658-1667 1,000 (Resurveyed as 1,306 in 1681) William Groome Sr. 1667-1677 North Half 653 William Groome Jr. 1677 ? 2+ Charles Tracy 1695-1698 ? 100 John Davis Before 1696-1698 ? 163 David Small and Thomas Emms 1697-1700 ? 250 David Small and Thomas Emms 1698-1704 ? 2+ David Small 1698-1700 ? 2 William Stone and John Meriton 1698-? ? 2 Joshua Cecil 1698-? ? 96 Joshua Cecil 1698-1702 ? 32 1/2 John Deakins 1698-1710 ? 2+ Thomas Emms 1700-1703 ? 163 Thomas Emms 1700-170 ? 96 John Deakins 1702-1710 ? 2+ James Stoddert 1703-1726 ? 162 Jame Stoddert 1703-172 ? 1 Thomas Emms 1703-? ? 250 Josiah Wilson 1704-1717 ? 96 Josiah Wilson 1710-171 ? 32 1/2 Josiah Wilson 1710-1717 South Half 653 Richard Groome 1677 ? 160 Robert Bradley ?-1720 ? 100 Charles Tracey 1695-1698 ? 100 Joshua Cecil 1698-1716 ? 100 Robert Bradley 1716-1720 Beall?s Gift ? 11 1/2 Francis Swinsen (Surveyed) 1682 ? 16 James Moor (patented) c. 1700-1704 ? 16 James Stoddert 1704-1726 Billingsley Point 500 Thomas Hollyday 1687-1703 Brook Hill Baker Brook 1664- ? Richard Brook ?-1713 128 ? Josiah Wilson 1713-1717 Brook Ridge Robert Brook 1664- Brook Ridge and Beans Landing 50 Christopher Beanes ?-1711 ? ? Thomas Simpson 1711-1724 Brook Ridge 60 Christopher Beanes ?-1711 ? ? William Beanes 1711- Brook Ridge 18 Christopher Beanes ?-1716 ? ? Josiah Wilson 1716-1717 ? Remaining portion Christopher Beanes ?-1723 Brook ridge and Bean?s Landing 50 Mary Boyd 1724- Cuckolds Point Ninian Beall 1671-? ? 150 Acres Teague Tracy ?-1699 ? 150 Edward Fenix 1699-1711 ? 70 Jane Liddell and Charles Yates (via William Liddell) 1711-1722 ? 70 Francis Piles 1722- Dear Bought Thomas Truman 1664-1718? Hailes Rest William Haile 1681- ? 200 Christopher and Grace Thompson ?-1700 ? ? Josias Towgood 1700-? Harry?s Lott Charles Boteler 1679- Kingsdale Jeremiah Sullivan 1671 ? 250 John Hume ?-1694 ? 250 David Small 1694-1701 ? ? Thomas Emmes 1701- ? ? Robert Sollers ?-1713 ? ? Josiah Wilson 1713-1717 Moore?s Littleworth 40 James Moore 1694-1706 Moore?s Littleworth and Moore?s Craft 40 and 58 Jane Liddell (via William Liddell) Charles and Jane Yates 1706-1720 ? ? Robert Oram 1720-1722 ? ? Robert Bradley 1722- Mussel Shell John Bigger 1671-1711+ Potterne Weake 35 James Moore 1685-1707 ? ? Benjamin Berry 1707-? The Island 1 Thomas Addison 1697-? Source: Prince George?s County Land Records, 1696-1726, Libers A, C, D, E, F, I; Prince George?s County Wills, 1698-1770, Liber 1. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland; Archives of Maryland, Volume 57, Page, 192-193. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000057/html/am57--192.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007); Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, Tract Map, 12, 23. Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI; Clement Hill Papers. 129 the first level. Individual lot transactions within the town are difficult to determine and only a few survive in the record but several private lots were improved with structures by the early eighteenth century (Table 3.3). It was this growth that caused the court to order surveyor Edward Batson to ?runn out ye town of Mount Callvert now Called Charles Town and make a platt thereof Signifying therein who hath built upon ye same and made improvement thereon.? 315 Second, there are those tracts neighboring and directly adjacent to Charles Town that were taken up and improved. Land transactions indicate that a handful of individuals took an active interest in land speculation near the town (Table 3.4). Like other towns in the region, the actions of these individuals contributed mightily toward determining the fate of Charles Town. There were essentially three groups who took up land in and around Charles Town. First, wealthy merchant-planters, including Thomas Hollyday, Henry Darnall, Ninian Beall, David Small, James Stoddert, Robert Bradley, and Josiah Wilson, built on their political and economic fortunes by purchasing or leasing land. 316 Others were interested in the town purely because of their relationship to the court including Sheriff Henry Boteler, Clerk of the court Joshua Cecil, and attorneys Josiah Towgood, William Stone, and John Merriton. Finally, ordinary keepers Charles Tracy, Christopher Beans, and John Smith each took up lots in the town. 317 Much of the land surrounding Charles Town was patented between the early 1660s and the 1680s and larger tracts were later subdivided. The first large tract 315 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 240. 316 With the exception of Henry Darnall and Ninian Beall, these individuals served as justices on the county court and Wilson served as county Sheriff for much of the first decade of the eighteenth century. 317 Many more ordinary keepers were identified in Charles Town but may have been either tenants or were otherwise supported by one of the lot owners. 130 patented after Mount Calvert was established was Billingsley?s Point, patented in 1662 by John Billingsley. 318 It is unclear whether John Billingsley ever improved the 700 acre property. In 1681 George Billingsley of Virginia, willed 500 acres of the property to his sister Margaret and the remaining 200 acres to his friend Barnaby Kearne. 319 Margaret later sold her share of Billingsley to Thomas Hollyday in 1687. 320 Hollyday patented other tracts during the 1680s including ?Tewksberry? along the Collington Branch in 1685 and ?Hollyday?s Choice? located southwest of present-day Bowie in 1688. 321 Hollyday owned over 3,000 acres at the time of his death in 1703. 322 Hollyday was living at Billingsley Point by the mid-1690s and clearly understood the opportunities presented by the church and court at Charles Town. Hollyday died in 1703 with an estate valued at over ?1000 and willed Billingsley Point to his son James. 323 James was probably born at Billingsley in 1696 but the family had moved to Talbot County by the 1720s. 324 Shortly after Hollyday?s death Billingsley became a thoroughfare for traffic from the north rather than a strategic land holding. William Groome, Jr., subdivided his 500-acre half of Mount Calvert into four large tracts around the time the court was being established (Figure 3.2). The first parcel was a one hundred-acre tract located west of Charles Town. Groome and his 318 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, Tract Map. 319 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 58. 320 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber I, f. 628. 321 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, Tract Map. 322 Papenfuse et. al., A Biographical Dictionary, 453. 323 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 19. Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB, no. 1, ff. 49-53, 62-66. 324 Papenfuse et. al., A Biographical Dictionary, 450. 131 wife Mary conveyed the property to John and Elizabeth Davis probably through a lease sometime before 1696 (Table 3.4). Davis was a planter and may have bought into the tract for its productive value, but he also profited from the presence of the court. Davis charged Robert Brothers for the lumber his men cut off this parcel in 1698 while building the courthouse. Davis also sublet two-acre sections of the property to individuals with regular business before the court. One of these two-acre tracts was leased to attorneys William Stone and John Meriton. 325 It is unclear howlong the two attorneys held the lease but both handled many cases before the court and they may have improved the property with an office. The second tract was sold to Joshua Cecil in June 1698. 326 Cecil followed William Cooper as clerk of the court from 1696 to 1698 and clerk of indictments from February 1699 to August 1701. 327 Davis sold his interest in the remaining ninety-six acres to Cecil in September 1698. 328 Cecil was dismissed from his duties in 1701 for overcharging the county 329 and sold the lease to Carpenter John Deakins the following July. 330 Deakins added this land to an adjoining 32?-acre portion of Mount Calvert purchased from Groome in 1698. 331 Unlike Cecil, Meriton, and Stone, Deakins did not profit from the court directly. Rather, as a tradesman he may have been interested in potential clientele coming to the court. Deakins sold all interest in his 132 acres of Mount Calvert to 325 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 93. 326 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 111. 327 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 311. 328 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 165. The selling price was 15,000 Lbs of tobacco probably indicating improvements to the property. 329 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 310-311. 330 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 18. 331 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 120. 132 A ? Beall?s Gift, 16 Acres: 1) James Moor, carpenter, ordinary keeper, planter, 1700-1704; 2) James Stoddert, merchant, politician, planter, 1704-1726 (Moor retained ? acre). B ? Tracy?s Lot, 2 1/2 Acres: 1) Charles Tracy, ordinary keeper, planter, 1695-1698; 2) David Small, merchant, planter, 1698-1700; 3) Thomas Emms, mariner, 1700-1703; 4) James Stoddert, 1703-1726. C ? Mount Calvert, 163 Acres: 1) William Groome, ordinary keeper, 1677-1697; 2) David Small and Thomas Emms, 1697-1700; 3) Thomas Emms, 1700-1703; 4) James Stoddert, 1703-1726 (Emms retained 1 acre); D ? Mount Calvert, 100 Acres: 1) William Groome, ordinary keeper, 1677-1696; 2) John Davis: planter, before 1696-1698; 3) Joshua Cecil, Clerk of court, 1698-1702; 4) John Deakins, carpenter, planter, 1702-1710; 5) Josiah Wilson: Merchant, politician, 1710-1717. E ? Mount Calvert, 2 Acres: 1) William Groome, ordinary Keeper, 1677-1698; 2) William Stone and John Meriton, attorneys, 1698-?. F ? Mount Calvert, 2 Acres: 1) William Groome, ordinary Keeper, 1677-1698; 2) Joshua Cecil, 1698-?. G ? Mount Calvert, 32 1/2 Acres: 1) William Groome, ordinary keeper, 1677-1698; 2) John Deakins, 1698-1710; 3) Josiah Wilson, 1710-1717. H ? Mount Calvert, numerous tracts: 1) David Small and Thomas Emms, 250 acres, 1698-1704; 2) Josiah Wilson, 1704-1717; 3) Robert Bradley, merchant, politician, 160 Acres; 4) Charles Tracy, 100 acres, 1695-1698; 5) Joshua Cecil, 100 Acres, 1698-1716; 6) Robert Bradley, 100 Acres, 1716-1720. I ? Mount Calvert, 22 acres: William Groome, 1677-?. Source: Prince George?s County Land Records, 1696-1726. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis Maryland. Heinton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12, Table 3.4. Figure 3.2 Land Ownership and Division of Mount Calvert, 1677-1726. 133 Josiah Wilson in 1710 332 and was living at Brookes Discovery, southwest of Mount Calvert, by 1720. 333 The two largest subdivisions of Mount Calvert were 163 and 250 acres leased for ninety-nine years to David Small and Captain Thomas Emms in 1697 and 1698. 334 Excluded from the lease on the 163-acre property were lots already taken up as part of the town and one acre previously sold to Josiah Towgood. Small and Emms were business partners in the tobacco trade for a brief period during the last years of the seventeenth century and speculated on the potential of Charles Town as a trade site by leasing these lands. The two quickly turned a profit on the venture when a jury awarded them 900 lbs of tobacco an acre for the church and courthouse lands in 1697. 335 David Small was a factor for the London firm of Joseph Jackson and had entered a partnership with London mariner Thomas Emms by the mid-1690s. 336 Emms was the captain of the John and Joseph out of Yarmouth during the early 1690s. 337 Small was also one of the first justices of the Prince George?s County court 332 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 15a-15b. 333 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber F, f. 296. 334 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, ff. 65-69, 137-140. 335 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 277. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--277.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 336 Archives of Maryland, Volume 25, Page, 596. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000025/html/a m25--596.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Small was also a factor for James Round, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 418. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--418.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 134 from 1696 to 1697. 338 Through their partnership, Small and Emms leased much of the land in and around Charles Town when the court was established. 339 Their joint venture at Charles Town was probably dissolved by 1700 and Small eventually sold Emms his interest in most land around Mount Calvert. 340 Emms sold all but one acre of the 163-acre section to James Stoddert in 1703 and the remaining 250 acres to Josiah Wilson in March 1704. 341 Small was less influential than Hollyday and most of the other county justices but his economic and political aspirations converged at Mount Calvert at the time when Prince George?s County was looking for a seat of government. Robert Bradley was another powerful politician and merchant who speculated on land near Charles Town during its early years. Bradley was a Presbyterian merchant and factor for Edward and Dudley Carleton during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. 342 He lived near Charles Town 343 and kept a storehouse on a lot in or very near the town. The Carleton firm was one of the largest tobacco 337 Archives of Maryland, Volume 8, Page, 239. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000008/html/a m8--239.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 338 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 357. 339 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, ff. 65, 137. 340 Ibid., Liber A, f. 324.; Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 357 suggests that Small sold his land, livestock, and servants to Emms in 1701 in payment of debts. However, he still received a sum of 30,000 lbs of tobacco from Emms for the 250 acre tract known as Kingsdale, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 424. 341 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, ff. 66, 120a. 342 Papenfuse, et. al., A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 159; Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12. 343 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 301. 135 importers in London during the late seventeenth century. 344 Bradley was a factor for the company by 1696 but it is unclear how many years he was associated with the firm. Bradley?s store was used to house the records of the court for a brief time during 1696. 345 Like Thomas Hollyday and David Small, Robert Bradley held numerous positions in the Prince George?s County and colonial governments including the post of justice beginning in 1696 and chief justice by 1705. Bradley owned as much as 800 acres during his lifetime including one hundred acres of Mount Calvert to the south of Charles Town. 346 He was elected to the House of Delegates in 1701, was the speaker by 1708, 347 and eventually rose to the post of Provincial Court Justice primarily on the strength of his professional skills rather than his wealth and connections. 348 Bradley was also instrumental in establishing the Presbyterian Church at Marlborough in 1704. 349 Bradley may have also operated a store on a lot he owned in Marlborough. 350 Another individual who owned land at or near Mount Calvert was Christopher Beanes. Beanes owned 500 acres of Brook Ridge, a portion of Mount Calvert to the south of Charles Town, and at least two lots in the town between 1707 and 1716 344 Jacob M. Price and Paul G. E. Clemens, ?A Revolution of Scale in Overseas Trade: British Firms in the Chesapeake Trade, 1675-1775? The Journal of Economic History 47, no. 1 (March 1987): 15, Table 3. 345 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 38. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--38.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 346 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 302. 347 Ibid. 348 Carr, County Government, Volume 1, 611. 349 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 116b; Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 91-93. 350 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 493. 136 (Tables 3.1 and 3.2). He was a planter and ordinary keeper at Charles Town by the 1710s and was probably a planter but never held a position of power in the county government. Beanes lived in Charles Town at the time of his death in 1716. 351 Within this group of individuals involved in the early land speculation in and around Charles Town, only Beanes appears to have maintained an ongoing concern in the town. By the first decade of the eighteenth century the town had essentially become a speculative venture for two powerful individuals, and a few ordinary keepers like Beanes. Land transactions in and around the town show that the fate of Charles Town as a county seat was tied to Josiah Wilson and James Stoddert and competing merchants from other towns who moved to unseat the locale. James Stoddert invested in the future of Charles Town through land transactions beginning in the late 1690s. Stoddert served as a justice on the county court between 1699 and 1716 and had achieved the status of Chief Justice by 1709. 352 Stoddert was also a delegate from Prince George?s County from 1713-1715 and served as a Provincial Court Justice from 1716 until his death in 1726. 353 Chesapeake historians are familiar with Stoddert for two reasons. First, he is well known for a confrontation in which the Piscataway Indians on the Potomac were accused of killing one of his slaves. 354 Second, he is often cited for his 1718 resurvey 351 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 98. 352 Papenfuse, et. al., A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 782; Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23. 353 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 366. 354 The incident involved a group of ?Indians? accused of killing one of Stoddert?s slaves on his Potomac plantation in 1697. Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 30-31. For a summary of the case see Archives of Maryland, Volume 19, Page 523. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000019/html/a m19--523.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 137 of Annapolis. While his involvement in the history of Mount Calvert is rarely noted, he had a significant impact on the development and eventual demise of the town. Stoddert began purchasing land in and around Charles Town in 1697 with a one-acre lot in the town purchased from David Small and Thomas Emms. 355 Most of Stoddert?s land purchases occurred between 1703 and 1705. During this time he purchased 163 acres of Mount Calvert from Emms, a sixteen-acre tract adjacent to Charles Town known as Beall?s Gift, one town lot from Josiah Towgood, and two town lots from Ninian Beall. 356 Stoddert sold lot forty-three in Charles Town to Christopher Beanes in 1707, but retained the majority of the properties until his death in 1726. With these transactions Stoddert secured much of land in and around Mount Calvert by 1705. It has been suggested that Stoddert moved to the vicinity of Charles Town by March of 1698 but land records indicate that his family was living along the Potomac River until at least January 1700. 357 The court ordered that the county standards be kept in Stoddert?s house in late 1700 358 so it appears that he kept a residence at or near the town by the end of that year, but had moved back to the Western side of the county by at least November of 1713. 359 Stoddert built his political career at Charles Town but the movement to move the court was underway by the time he became chief justice in 1709. 355 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 154. 356 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, ff. 66, 114b, 133a, 138a., Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23. 357 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 366; Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 340. 358 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 83a. 359 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 444. 138 Josiah Wilson was the second prominent land speculator near Charles Town. Wilson was a merchant in Prince George?s County as early as 1709 and an attorney and factor for Joseph Jackson and Company by 1716. 360 Wilson acquired considerable wealth and influence through his position as sheriff of Prince George?s and Anne Arundel counties, land acquisition, and merchant activities. He served as High Sheriff in Prince George?s County from 1702-1705 and 1708-1711, and in Anne Arundel County from 1705-1708. 361 Wilson was also a justice of the Prince George?s County Court from 1714-1716. 362 Wilson owned twenty-eight slaves and considerable land throughout Prince George?s County including at least two houses at Charles Town and a ?Warehouse downe by the water side at Mount Calvert.? 363 This warehouse was probably used to store tobacco gathered from local planters. Wilson may have lived near Charles Town when he assumed the position of sheriff in 1702. He began acquiring land in and around Charles Town in 1704 with the purchase of 250 acres of Mount Calvert Manor from Thomas Emms for ?90. 364 To this tract, Wilson added 132 acres of Mount Calvert purchased from carpenter John Deakins for ?50 in 1710 and lot number ten in Charles Town leased from merchant Charles Reid in 1713 for 5s. 365 Wilson also purchased Christopher Bean?s lot and house in Charles Town for ?20 in 360 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 15a; Liber H, f. 95. 361 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 381. 362 Ibid. 363 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 94. 364 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 120a. 365 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 15a, 322. This low was originally improved with a house by Wilson?s brother-in-law Henry Boteler. 139 1716. 366 Lands added to his holdings directly west of Charles Town after 1710 included all or portions of ?Good Will,? ?Kingsaile,? ?Brook Hill,? ?Brook Ridge,? and ?Cuckold?s Point.? 367 As with other merchants, Wilson?s activities as a merchant in Charles Town are somewhat unclear. For example, Wilson owned lots in other towns including four in Marlborough and several in Annapolis 368 and it is also possible he kept stores in these towns. He also owned land around Nottingham 369 but it is clear that Wilson concentrated his land speculation on the area between Charles Town and Marlborough to complement his plantation at the southern end of the county along Swanson?s Creek 370 and holdings in Baltimore and Anne Arundel counties. 371 Stoddert and Wilson were the two main players in land acquisition at Mount Calvert and these transactions allowed the pair to essentially control the landscape in and around Charles Town by 1710. Stoddert owned the majority of land in and directly adjacent to Charles Town and Wilson owned large tracts to the south and east of the town. Not surprisingly these two men also occupied the most powerful positions in the government at the time. It is likely that they were cashing in on the short term success of the locale rather than the long term survival of the town. They could profit from the court traffic and go elsewhere when their political and economic 366 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 97. 367 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 19, 215, 219, 468; Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, ff. 94-95. 368 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 94. Anne Arundel County Land Records, Liber WT 2, f. 592; Liber IB 2, f. 135. 369 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 271. 370 Called ?Buttington?, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 299-301. 371 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, ff. 94-95. 140 fortunes expanded. The actions of these two powerful land owners marked a critical moment in the history of Charles Town. The Political Demise of Charles Town Several factors and events led to the downfall of Charles Town as the county seat. Some of these were cumulative factors such as population growth, the development of road networks, and wealth accumulation. 372 But singular political actions were still required for the move to happen. The first indication that Charles Town would be supplanted as the county seat came in the first years of the eighteenth century. A look at the rise of other towns along the Patuxent side of the river provides a window into why Charles Town failed to retain its identity as the county seat. Merchants guided town formation in early Prince George?s County from the beginning. Powerful merchant-planters built their plantations in strategic locations for trade along or near the Patuxent and Potomac rivers. From there they could dominate trade and build networks of credit and debt as factors for large firms in London or as independent merchants. Many of the wealthiest merchants also held the most powerful political appointments. These wealthy merchant-planters benefited from the trade that passed through towns. Towns also offered a public venue where class distinctions could be reinforced and a meeting space clearly separated from the plantations and quarters. Stores and ordinaries were already in place when Marlborough, Queen Anne, and Nottingham were established in 1706. Like Charles Town, the development of 372 See Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves?, 342. 141 these towns should be examined within the context of individual decisions to purchase land, build plantations, petition for roads, and open businesses. 373 A stable town landscape along the Patuxent River in Prince George?s County began to materialize during the first years of the eighteenth century (Figure 3.3). This development began several years before the Maryland General Assembly passed yet another round of town legislation in 1706. This mass town legislation was similar to the earlier round in the 1680s with a few enhancements such as exempting tradesmen who located in towns from all levies for the first four years of residence and offering citizenship to foreign merchants, tradesmen, and laborers who settled in towns. 374 One of the towns created was Nottingham located just south of Charles Town at ?Mattapany Landing on the Land of Thomas Brooke Esq r? . 375 The site was chosen for its natural advantages, and because of the individuals who invested in the land and infrastructure around the site. First, the landing offered a deep-channeled access to the Patuxent River. 376 Powerful individuals capitalized on this natural advantage by establishing stores and purchasing land around the site. The town site was platted out of a tract called ?Prospect? patented by Brooke in 1695. 377 Brooke was an influential political figure who owned over 9,000 acres of land by 1696, 378 and benefited from the sale of numerous lots in the town. Mercantile 373 For a historical summary of Nottingham and Queen Anne see Shomette, Lost Towns, chapters 5 and 6. 374 Reps, Tidewater Towns, 100. 375 Archives of Maryland, Volume 26, Page 637. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000026/html/a m26--637.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 376 Shomette, Lost Towns, 140. 377 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 133. 378 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 308. 142 activities were well established at Nottingham prior to the establishment of the town. Merchant George Harris and John Bradford set up stores at Mattapany Landing around the time that the town was established. 379 Bradford was a factor for John Hide of London and became a major land speculator during the 1710s possessing over 14,000 acres by the time he died in 1726 along with an estate worth over ?1900 379 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 14.; Prince George?s County Land Records Liber E, f. 16; Archives of Maryland, Volume 27, Page 160. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000027/html/a m27--160.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Figure 3.3 Towns in Prince George?s County, 1684-1720. 143 including forty-nine slaves. 380 Bradford had also established a tan yard at Nottingham sometime before 1722. 381 Phillip Lee was also a merchant and Justice on the county court who was living in Nottingham shortly after the town was platted. Lee married Thomas Brooke?s daughter Sarah and inherited a portion of Brookefield located west of Nottingham and purchased a house in the town from Thomas Brooke, Jr. in 1713. 382 Lee was a pivotal figure not only in the success of Nottingham but also the movement of the court from Charles Town to Marlborough several years later. Other powerful individuals with an interest in Nottingham included Thomas Greenfield who lived near the town and purchased the rights to Harris? ?Saltstore House? in the town, merchant Leonard Hollyday who built a twenty foot storehouse there, attorney Daniel Dulany who owned a lot in the town, and Josiah Wilson who owned ?Twiver? adjacent to Nottingham during the 1710s. 383 Queen Anne was also a profitable venture for merchants as well as tradesmen. Merchants Henry Ridgely and his step-son-in-law Robert Tyler lived in the area and Tyler established a store in the town. 384 Merchant Richard Lancaster purchased 207 acres of ?Essington? located near the future site of Queen Anne in 1701. 385 He also 380 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 298-301; Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB no. 1, ff. 32-38. 381 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 156. 382 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 225-226. 383 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 271, 728, 847. 384 . Tyler lived at ?Bowdell?s Choice? located directly west of Queen Anne, Prince George?s County Wills, Book 1, f. 281. Tyler?s Store was probably located on Lot 36 in Queen Anne, see Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 446. For Henry Ridgely see Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 507 385 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 402. 144 purchased lots in the town and other properties around the town by 1722. 386 Several tradesmen also took up land in and around the town including planter/ordinary keepers John and Mary Boyd, keeper Mahitabell Peirpoint, carpenter Reuben Ross, and blacksmith John Mason. 387 Many planters also took up lots in Queen Anne shortly after the town was platted in 1706 including John Pottinger, Robert Harris, Thomas Lemarr, John Turner, and Thomas Ricketts. 388 Three years earlier Pottinger and Lemarr and several other planters rented a portion of ?Cool Spring Manor? south of the Queen Anne site and built a tobacco shed near ?Stafford?s Cove?. 389 Pressure was being put on the court to construct roads in Collington and Patuxent Hundred where these individuals lived and it was clear that momentum to create a town was underway several years before the town was formally established. It is also plausible that considerable pressure was exerted not just from wealthy merchants and politicians but smaller planters like Pottinger as well. Similar speculation was underway at Marlborough to the west of Charles Town. In 1706 a town was established at ?Belt?s Landing? along the Western Branch of the Patuxent. The town was surveyed out of two tracts, one called ?The Meadows? owned by Ninian Beall and a second called ?Darnall?s Chance? and ?Addition to Chance? owned by Henry Darnall. 390 The framework for a town was already established by the time the town was formally platted. Several wealthy planters and merchants lived in the area around Marlborough by 1700 including Darnall, Beall, 386 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber F, f. 278; Liber I, f. 7. 387 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 446, 540, 819, 839. 388 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 89a. 389 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 113. 390 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 122. 145 Thomas Spriggs, and Roger Brooke. Kulikoff attributes Marlborough?s development by 1715 to a number of factors such as a dense road network that included the main road from Charles County that passed through the town to London, population increase in the county, and the rich tobacco soils surrounding the town that attracted wealthy planters. 391 He summarized his observation by noting ?since the town was in the center of a relatively populous region, and at the hub of a road network, merchants willingly located there.? 392 Another draw to the town site was the Presbyterian church established at the locale in 1704. Several individuals took up lots at the time or shortly after the town was established. These individuals included planters Andrew Hambleton, William Offett, Christopher Thompson, James Moore, William Head, ordinary keeper Robert Robertson, plasterer William Chillingsworth, joiner John Freeman, and others. 393 There were also several merchants in addition to Henry Darnall who took up lots in the town including Dr. Patrick Hepburn, Robert Levitt, and Thomas Spriggs. 394 These men controlled the political and economic apparatus in and around the town. Nottingham, Queen Anne, and Marlborough survived because powerful merchants used the towns as a home base of operations and they concentrated the distribution of goods within these towns thereby consolidating their power. In retrospect it seems inevitable that Charles Town would yield the county seat to Marlborough. What is truly remarkable is that it took so long for the move to occur. 391 Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves?, 344. 392 Ibid. 393 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, ff. 214a, 215, 226; Liber E, ff. 294, 395, 447, 644. 394 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber D, f. 35; Liber E, ff. 394, 395, 447. 146 Merchant politicians had speculated on the future of Charles Town by the early 1700s. Merchant politicians like Thomas Hollyday, David Small, Robert Bradley, James Stoddert, and Josiah Wilson used the town to expand their fortunes. Hollyday, Bradley, Stoddert, and Wilson each rose to the prestigious level of Chief Justice and each owned houses near the town making it easy to preside over the court. At the same time these individuals understood the potential of Marlborough as the county seat. Stoddert and Bradley were principles in establishing a Presbyterian church at the Marlborough site in 1704 395 and along with others attempted to establish a school in the town in 1719. 396 Bradley and Wilson also both took up lots in the town. 397 Lois Green Carr and Louise Joyner Hienton have suggested that the rift between county residents over the operation of the ferry at Charles Town was a political power struggle between factions with interests in the locale and those with interests in other emerging towns. 398 This struggle would set the course for moving the court. Residents of Collington Hundred, north of Charles Town petitioned the court in 1703 for the construction of a road through the "Old ffield of deceased Coll Thomas Hollyday." 399 The landing at Billingsley was being used for regular ferry service by 1710 when then Chief Justice James Stoddert was ordered to keep a ferry "att Charles Town" and ferry inhabitants from the upper part of the county "to Coll 395 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 93. 396 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 143-144; Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber F, f. 155. 397 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 493; Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 94. 398 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23-24; Carr, County Government, Volume 1, 684. 399 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f.231. 147 Hollydayes Poynt or to ffetch them from thence." 400 Stoddert was paid 2,919 lbs of tobacco in 1710 and 5,000 lbs in 1711. 401 Although the petition to operate the ferry had the support of over forty county residents, there were dissenters. Chief among these were Philip Lee and John Bradford who had mercantile interests in Nottingham to the south 402 and by this time were both Delegates for Prince George?s County. 403 This opposition led to the introduction of a petition in the General Assembly against the ferry at Mount Calvert, supported by Lee, Bradford, and fellow Prince George?s County Delegate Robert Tyler in 1711. 404 Tyler was a wealthy merchant who had a lot in Queen Anne and land in the vicinity of the town. Four of the justices of the court, including Stoddert, were cited by the General Assembly for keeping the ferry without the consent of the other ?Justices and Inhabitants thereof?. 405 In October 1711, the justices were ordered to discontinue operating the ferry at the county?s 400 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 39. 401 Stoddert was only paid for 7 months of ferry service in 1710. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 280, 311; G, f. 40a, 167. 402 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23-24. Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 156. 403 Archives of Maryland, Volume 27, Page 517. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000027/html/a m27--517.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23-24. 404 Archives of Maryland, Volume 29, Pages 11, 18. http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000 029/html/am29--11.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23; Carr, County Government, Volume I, 690. 405 Archives of Maryland, Volume 29, Pages, 58, 70. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000029/html/a m29--58.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007); Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 23. 148 expense. 406 Shortly after this event, Stoddert moved to the Potomac side of the county but retained much of the land he had purchased in and around Charles Town. While Stoddert was an absentee owner, Josiah Wilson took a more active role in daily operations at Charles Town. Wilson lived near Charles Town and it is likely that he kept at least one of his stores at Charles Town in addition to his warehouse near the water. A petition to move the court from Charles Town to Marlborough was finally introduced in the General Assembly in 1718, a year after Wilson?s death. The county standards, previously held by Wilson, were ordered in the custody of Thomas Claggett at Marlborough in late 1717. 407 This may be coincidental, but with Wilson gone, the last significant political player was removed from the landscape around Charles Town and formal action to move the town was taken. By 1721, a new courthouse was constructed at Marlborough and the court adjourned for the last time at Charles Town. Conclusion At least three significant political transformations took place in the area commonly known as Mount Calvert between 1684 and 1721. First a town was platted there in 1684. The second shift occurred when the town was designated as the first county seat of Prince George?s County in 1696 and the town was renamed Charles Town. Finally, a less abrupt shift took place when the court was moved to 406 Archives of Maryland, Volume 29, Pages, 58. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000029/html/a m29--58.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 407 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, f. 313. Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 17. 149 Marlborough in 1721. Each of these political moments was marked by a change in the way the landscape at the site was used. A small group of wealthy merchant grandees orchestrated these shifts not necessarily because of their skills but because of sheer economic and political power. This power was measured in part by their ability to control land. Where a town was founded or where a courthouse was built depended largely on who controlled the land. Land was an exchangeable commodity the same as a tankard, bottle, or hogshead of tobacco. Powerful merchant politicians like Henry Darnall, Ninian Beall, and James Stoddert controlled much of the land at Charles Town. These individuals gained in many ways from land speculation in and around the town. By controlling the land they also profited from the flow of commerce including the exchange of store goods and the sale of alcohol at the ordinaries. The most lucrative public spaces in the colonial Chesapeake were the courthouse and its grounds. Political careers were founded within these spaces and merchant politicians could advance their positions and fortunes by locating close to the action. In this regard, town founding in the early Chesapeake was as much a matter of local politics as it was a product of colony-wide political decisions or the impact of the regional economy. The purchase and exchange of land was an expression of agency and power at the heart of town founding in Prince George?s County and elsewhere in the region. 150 Chapter 4: ?An ordinary in this town under ye favour of this court?: Agency and Ordinary Keeping Introduction Ordinaries are often cited as important locales for social interaction in the Chesapeake region during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As social arenas, ordinaries served as gathering points for individuals attending court services, visiting stores, or moving through the landscape. Ordinaries and taverns in the colonial Chesapeake were sites where individuals met to compete in games, discuss politics, catch up on local news, and generally socialize in public. 408 Ordinaries were also places where people ate, slept, and consumed alcohol. Many ordinaries were situated near courthouses where people gathered during court days. ?Court Days? in the tidewater Chesapeake were important gatherings that provided a stage where people could congregate in a public forum while reaffirming the social hierarchy of the 408 Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 94-98; Nancy L. Struna, ?Sport and the Awareness of Leisure? in Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century eds. Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert. (Charlottesville: Published for the United States Capital Historical Society by the University Press of Virginia, 1994), 409; Lounsbury, The Courthouses of Early Virginia, 270. See also Sharon V. Salinger, Taverns and Drinking in Early America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002); and Jane Carson, Colonial Virginians at Play (Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1989). For a discussion of the role of taverns in social and political life in colonial New England see David W. Conroy, In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts. (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1995). For a discussion of the development of taverns and ?taverngoing? in Philadelphia see Peter Thompson, Rum Punch and Revolution: Taverngoing and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999). 151 county and region. 409 Residents understood the courthouse town of Charles Town as the physical and symbolic apparatus that tied people together as county residents rather than simply members of scattered local neighborhoods. 410 Rhys Isaac claims that, ?By looking at the taverns, where out-of-court activity centered, we can most readily sense the texture of community life.? 411 In his study of ordinaries in seventeenth-century Maryland, Xiaoxiong Li concluded that these institutions ?not only presented important victualling services but also acted as the center point of a galaxy of commercial, judicial, legislative, governmental, social, economic, and leisure activities.? 412 But these gatherings were not open to all members of society and were structured by explicit and implicit boundaries defined by race, class, and gender. Part of the purpose of gathering at ordinaries was to enforce solidarity and social position between free whites and indentured servants. In the process of gathering, bartering, and exchanging, these citizens reinforced long held beliefs about whiteness and, by exclusion, blackness. Indians and those of African descent were at times present at 409 For discussion of the function of court days see Roeber, AAuthority, Law, and Custom,?; Shepard, ??This Being the Court Day??; Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 88-94. For a discussion of court ritual in this regard see Rhys Isaac, ADramatizing the Ideology of Revolution: Popular Mobilization in Virginia, 1774 to 1776," William and Mary Quarterly 3rd Series 33, no. 3 (1976): 357-385; Carl R. Lounsbury, AThe Structure of Justice?; Upton, Holy Things and Profane. 410 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 207-216, describes neighborhoods as groups of individuals who formed alliances according to shared interests. Neighborhoods formed and re-formed, were highly localized, and functioned within the jurisdiction of the county. 411 Isaac, The Transformation of Virginia, 94. 412 Li, Xiaoxiong "Liquor and ordinaries in seventeenth century Maryland". Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 1992. In ProQuest Digital Dissertations [database on-line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 9216593; accessed October 3, 2007), 74. 152 ordinary gatherings, but were not free participants in public spectacles such as wagering on horse races or club meetings. Restrictions within the white population based on class and gender were also present. For example, white women were not actively involved in most events at ordinaries but they were not excluded and they often managed the daily operation of these establishments. This chapter will analyze the many social, economic, and political dimensions of ordinaries as they existed in Chesapeake towns between 1680 and 1720. Race, class, and gender will be discussed as important categories for analyzing these establishments. Popularized images of colonial taverns tend to focus on the last half of the eighteenth century, and often on upper class establishments such as those reconstructed at Williamsburg. 413 This was a time when taverns became more specialized and class driven. Major studies of taverns have tended to focus on large cities rather than small villages or rural areas and/or emphasize the last half of the eighteenth century. 414 The focus on larger cities and towns is understandable. Many taverns were located together in cities providing a ready data set. More records are likely available for city taverns especially during the late eighteenth century compared to their rural counterparts that could expect a smaller pool of potential patrons and were generally more ephemeral. This chapter explores the context of ordinaries and their keepers within a landscape where a network of towns and associated infrastructure was in its infancy rather than fully developed state. 413 John M. Chenoweth, ??What?ll Thou Have?: Quakers and the Characterization of Tavern Sites in Colonial Philadelphia?, Northeast Historical Archaeology 35, (2006): 77. 414 For examples see, Conroy, In Public Houses; Thompson, Rum Punch and Revolution. 153 The period between 1680 and 1720 is an important period for understanding ordinary keeping in the Chesapeake. It was during this time when those places that would become lasting towns formed and ordinaries were among the most fundamental and ubiquitous institutions located in these towns. This was also a time when enslaved Africans were being imported in great numbers and the differences between white and black public gatherings became codified in legal terms. Enslaved Africans were prohibited from meeting while whites were free to assemble but the courts regulated some aspects of these gatherings. Evidence from Prince George?s County indicates that most of the ordinary licenses taken out during the period were for town locations. How did these institutions participant in the development of how a new county and its emerging gentry? What was the social, economic, and political makeup of the ordinary keepers? What were the economic or social opportunities for keepers? What was the social and economic makeup of the ordinary patrons? Who was excluded from ordinaries? What actions took place at the ordinaries and which were sanctioned by the power structure in the county? And most importantly what effect, if any, did exchange at the ordinaries have on the development of towns in the Chesapeake? This last question can provide valuable information about the importance of towns, not just ordinaries, as social arenas. I will address this final question by looking at whether the social and economic relationships created through the exchange of goods and services and these relationships were grounded to a single place like Charles Town or if these businesses were easily transported to different locations. 154 Ordinary keepers were primary agents who mediated daily social interaction and sustained the daily operations of towns. Keepers were also not only the primary trades people, they were also by far the most numerous occupants of ephemeral towns like Charles Town. The following discussion examines the social, political, and economic lives of the ordinary keepers, their patrons, and the politicians who regulated the trade as expressed through human agency and material culture. After providing a profile of ordinary keeping in early Prince George?s County, I will discuss the role of the ordinary as a social institution where people shared drinks and conversation. Specifically, I will outline the types of material culture found in the ordinaries and explain how these objects were used in everyday social encounters. Second, I will examine the economic context of ordinary keeping including the web of debt created between keepers, patrons, and merchants. Third, I discuss the political context via attempts at regulation by the court rather than through political actions within the ordinaries. This section includes a detailed narrative of those operating in Charles Town during the period to demonstrate the individual tactics and struggles involved with maintaining an ordinary in a single town. The summary runs chronologically to show how ordinary keepers dealt with the changing political and economic climate during this period of dramatic change in Prince George?s County. This final section also demonstrates the fluidity of the trade as it relates to the organization of towns. 155 Ordinary Keepers in Prince George?s County, Maryland Very little in-depth research has been conducted on ordinaries and ordinary keeping in early Prince George?s County during the colonial period. Part of the problem lies in the fact that detailed accounts of what took place in the ordinaries are scarce. Most of what has been written to date has been used to craft larger county- wide or regional contexts, rather than an understanding of the ordinaries themselves. Lois Green Carr?s extensive study of county government in Maryland provides an overview of the county and its inhabitants including their occupations and relative social status between 1696 and 1710. 415 Carr?s is a detailed and thoroughly researched study of the county during its first fifteen years, and includes a checklist of twenty-seven ordinary keepers in the county. Although there are many pieces of information about these keepers and their ordinaries scattered throughout the work, she was not concerned with the details of their lives and businesses and thus did not make a concerted effort to place them in context. Louise Joyner Hienton identified several ordinaries she attributed to Charles Town, Marlborough (Upper Marlboro), and Beall Town. 416 Unfortunately, she merely lists the ordinary keepers and provides little detailed information on their operations. Allan Kulikoff provided the most substantive analysis of ordinaries in the county. 417 In Tobacco and Slaves, Kulikoff draws from his dissertation research to interpretat the role of ordinaries in the colonial Chesapeake. The author relies primarily on travel accounts for regional context, William Wirt?s tavern ledger from 415 Carr, County Government, Volume I, 562-698. 416 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 13, 122, 137. 417 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 221-228. 156 1772, and miscellaneous county records. Like Rhys Isaac, he is mainly concerned with the period after 1740. Kulikoff uses the data to analyze the frequency and timing of visits, a demographic profile of the clientele, and a cross-section of activities at taverns for the late colonial period. He emphasizes the importance of patrimony and the rise of the Chesapeake gentry in his interpretation, arguing that taverns were essentially competitive settings for men. Kulikoff concludes that, ?men visited public houses to escape home, wife, and crying infants, and while they were there, they ate, drank, gambled, argued politics, and proved their worthiness as men in fisticuffs and games.? 418 Several questions relevant to this dissertation arise from Kulikoff?s research. First, does the male-dominated-competitive-proving-ground model outlined by Kulikoff hold true for the first twenty-five years of the county?s history? Who owned these ordinaries and what was their economic or social status? Who were the patrons of these establishments? What was the timing of their visits? Before we can begin to address these questions, a baseline of information needs to be established. How many ordinary keepers operated between 1696 and 1720? What was their length of operation? Where did they operate? These questions are addressed as a precursor to a more detailed look at the ordinaries located in Charles Town. At least seventy-four ordinary businesses were established in Prince George?s County between 1696 and 1720, including nineteen at Charles Town. 419 This number 418 Ibid., 221. 419 I gathered information about ordinaries in Prince George?s County from Court Records. Court Records list when licenses were issued, denied, or revoked. An analysis of these occurrences was used to compile a list of ordinaries at Charles Town and other towns and locales in Prince George?s County between 1696 and 1720. 157 reflects an occurrence where an individual took out a license or was cited for keeping an ordinary without a license in a particular locale rather than specific ordinary buildings. Buildings used to house ordinary businesses usually doubled as dwellings and were often rented, thus a single building could have housed numerous keepers over the course of its history. A total of sixty-eight keepers were identified as operating in the county. All that is known about most of these keepers are the dates when they were issued licenses or when they were cited by the court for operating without a license. 420 Location of an ordinary business was established where possible but the locations of approximately one quarter (n=16, 24%) remain unidentified. Despite these limitations, some general trends are evident. Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 include a summary of the keepers working in Prince George?s County by location, date, and years of their operations. The first obvious trend was that from the beginning most ordinaries were located in towns. More than three quarters (n=58, 78%) of the licensed ordinary businesses in the county between Once I established the list of ordinary owners, trespass cases and other cases such as breach of peace were examined to make a more accurate assessment of the operation and to better establish the years of operation for each ordinary. In some cases I was able to extend the operation of the ordinary several years prior to the initial record of a license by looking at the details contained in trespass cases. It is assumed that the debt accounts recorded in the court record to prove each case contain reliable dates. For example, many debt cases contain a detailed list of expenses taken from the ordinary keeper?s ledger and it is assumed that the recorded date of the expense is close to the date of service. Levy records listing payment of tobacco for hosting grand juries were used as an indication of an ordinary?s proximity to the court at Charles Town. I identified a minimum of 74 individual ordinary businesses between 1696 and 1720 using this method and cross checked my data with that gathered by Louise Joyner Hienton Prince George?s Heritage, 13 and Lois Green Carr County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 3B, 223-224. The location of many of the ordinaries was indeterminate. 420 There are exceptions to this lack of data. For example, a great deal of information was gathered about several of the ordinaries operating out of Charles Town through a careful reading of court cases and probate data. 158 1696 and 1720 were located in towns. There may have been ordinaries operating under the county court radar without licenses that are not included in this discussion, but the data gathered approximate the general conditions of ordinaries within the county. The high percentage of ordinaries located in towns between 1696 and 1720 is similar to the two-thirds estimate observed by Kulikoff for the mid-eighteenth century. 421 Ordinaries were frequently located in towns even before 1706 when most of the early towns in Prince George?s County were established by the Maryland legislature. Justices may have encouraged ordinaries in towns in accordance with English judicial guidelines that called for alehouses to be only admitted ?about the town?except upon the Riverside and where there is great need.? 422 Between 1696 and 1705, ten out of the eighteen businesses identified were located in Charles Town, four were located in places that would soon become towns, and four were unknown. Ordinaries at ferry crossings and private landings were common in the colonial Chesapeake, but very little information was located on these operations in early Prince George?s County. The heaviest traffic likely occurred at those ordinaries located in towns, especially those near the court. Most of the debt cases brought before the court between 1696 and 1720 involved ordinaries located at Charles Town. 423 Ordinaries operated by Robert Robertson at Marlborough, John Middleton at Piscataway, and John and Mary Boyd at Queen Anne were successful businesses 421 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 226. 422 Archives of Maryland, Volume 153, Page 33. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000153/html/a m153--33.html (Accessed, January 11, 2008). 423 Several ordinaries in Charles Town were popular destinations between 1696 and 1706 including those operated by Jonathan Willson, Nicholas Sporne, James Moore, Jane and Joseph Addison, and Marmaduke Scott. 159 prior to the establishment of the towns. The duration of their businesses is some indication of the success of an ordinary. Table 4.1 Ordinary Operators in Prince George?s County by Location, 1696- 1720. Location Ordinary Keeper Dates of Operation Comments Charles Town Total = 19 5 Women, 14 Men William Groome (?)-1698 Charles Tracey (1694)-1698 (5 yrs) Jonathan Willson (1689) -1698 (10 yrs) Nicholas Sporne 1698-1708 (11 yrs) Jane Addison 1700-1707 (8 yrs) Jane Bell (Beall) 1700-1703 (4 yrs) Joseph Addison 1701-1708 (8 yrs) James Moor 1701-1704 (4 yrs) Marmaduke Scott 1703-1709 (7 yrs) Alexander d?Hinoyossa 1705 Solomy d?Hinoyossa 1706-1711 (6 yrs) John Smith 1707-1709 (3 yrs) Ann Skinner 1710-1711 (2 yrs) James Robinson 1711-1712 (2 yrs) John Middleton 1712-1714 (3 yrs) Christopher Beans 1715 Mary Gwynn 1715 Josiah Wilson 1716-1717 (2 yrs) Samuel Heigh 1717-1718 (2 yrs) Marlborough Total = 16 5 Women and 11 Men Robert Robertson 1703-1708 (6 yrs) Hannah Price 1707-1708 (2 yrs) Nicholas Sporne 1707 Joseph Belt 1711 Elizabeth Clarke 1709-1712 (4 yrs) William Gwynn 1711-1712 (2 yrs) Catherine Robeson 1711 James Robinson 1712-1715 (4 yrs) William Chillingsworth 1713-1715 (3 yrs) Samuel Heigh 1714-1715 (2 yrs) Mary Beard 1715 Mathew Browne 1715 Robert Biddle 1716-1717 (2 yrs) John Smith 1716 Mary Biddle 1718-1719 (2 yrs) John Docura (sp.?) 1719 Queen Anne Total = 9 4 Women, 5 Men John Boyd 1701-1705 (5 yrs) Mary Boyd 1705-1711 (7 yrs) John Holland 1709 Mahitabell Pierpoint 1711-1715, 1718 (6 yrs) Rueben Ross 1713-1714 (2 yrs) Rachel Mariate 1715 160 Michael Morris 1717 Rebecca Cherry 1718 Thomas Brashear 1719-(1722) (4 yrs) Nottingham Total = 9 3 Women, 6 Men Edward Swann 1704 Bethia Taylor 1708-1711 (4 yrs) Samuel Heigh 1710-1712 (2 yrs) Joseph Sarrett 1710-1712 (3 yrs) Ann Skinner 1710, 1712 (2 yrs) Elenor Carroll 1713 William Turner 1713-1715 (3 yrs) Robert Saunders 1714-1715 (2 yrs) James Gardiner 1716 Piscataway Total=1 John Middleton 1704-1707 (4 yrs) Mill Town Total=1 Benjamin Hugoe 1718 Aire/Broad Creek Total=1 William Tyler 1714-1715 (2 yrs) Rural Total=2 Hugh Williams 1707 Elizabeth Smith 1719 Unknown Location Total=16 5 Women, 11 Men Gabriel Burnham 1697 Jane Vaughn(sp) 1700 James Watts 1703 Mary May 1705 Elizabeth Hurley 1706 John LeCount 1706 Caleb Norris 1706 Rice Owens 1708-1709 (2 yrs) Ralph Adams 1718 Randall Blake 1718-1719 (2 yrs) John Chittam Jr. 1718 Alexander Mecants 1718 William Nicholls 1718-1719 (2 yrs) Ann Beckworth ?-1719 John Dalby 1717, 1719 2 (2 or 3 yrs) Mary Heighes 1720 Possibly Charles Town Total Number of Ordinaries = 74 Women, 23, 31%, Men 51, 69% Source: Prince George's County Court Records, 1696-1720; Prince George's County Land Records, 1696-1722. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland; Green Carr County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 3B, 223-224; Hienton Prince George?s Heritage, 13. 161 At least thirty-one businesses could only be linked definitively to one year of service (Table 4.3). This constitutes just under half of all the ordinary businesses identified in the county between 1696 and 1720. Of the remaining businesses, all of those (n=23) with at least three years of service were located in towns. Several keepers (n=9) were in service for at least six years. The majority (n=6) of these were supported by the court at Charles Town, two were at Queen Anne, and one at Marlborough. Not surprisingly, the four longest running businesses were located at Charles Town. Table 4.2 Number of Ordinary Keepers in Prince George?s County by Year and Location, 1696-1720. Year Charles Town Marlbor- ough Queen Anne Notting- ham Piscata- way Mill Town Aire Rural Unknown Total 1696 3 3 1697 3 1 4 1698 4 4 1699 1 1 1700 3 1 4 1701 5 1 1 6 1702 5 1 6 1703 6 1 2 1 1 9 1704 5 1 1 1 3 1 4 9 1705 5 1 1 1 1 9 1706 5 1 1 1 3 11 1707 6 3 1 1 1 12 1708 5 2 1 1 1 10 1709 3 1 2 1 1 8 1710 2 1 1 4 8 1711 3 4 2 3 12 1712 2 3 1 3 9 1713 1 2 2 2 7 1714 1 3 2 2 1 9 1715 2 5 2 2 1 12 1716 1 2 1 1 5 1717 2 1 2 1 6 1718 1 1 2 1 5 10 1719 2 1 1 4 8 1720 1 1 2 1 John Boyd?s ordinary prior to the establishment of Queen Anne. 2 Robert Robertson?s ordinary at Darnall?s Landing prior to the establishment of Marlborough. 3 Edward Swann?s ordinary at Mattapany Landing prior to the establishment of Nottingham. 4 John Middleton?s ordinary prior to the establishment of Piscataway. Source: Table 4.1. 162 Table 4.3 Duration of Ordinary Businesses in Prince George?s County, 1696- 1720. Years of Operation Total Number of Keepers Number of Keepers in Towns Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total 10+ 2 3% 2 100% 9 0 0% 0 100% 8 2 3% 2 100% 7 2 3% 2 100% 6 3 4% 3 100% 5 2 3% 2 100% 4 7 9% 7 100% 3 5 7% 5 100% 2 18 24% 14 77% 1 31 43% 18 58% Indeterminate 2 6% 1 50% Total 74 100% 58 76% Source: Table 4.1. There were at least two keepers operating in the town in any given year except for perhaps 1699 and nearly four keepers a year were working in the town between 1696 and 1712 (Table 4.2). 424 Multiple ordinaries were also established at Marlborough, Queen Anne, and Nottingham within a few years of their establishment by the Maryland General Assembly in 1706. Competition within these towns seems to have increased between 1710 and 1715. If historian Edward Riley is correct and the success of a town can be measured by the number of ordinaries, 425 then the increase in competition between keepers at Marlborough, Queen Anne, and Nottingham and the concurrent decline of competition at Charles Town not only 424 Though the number of keepers operating within the year was determined, I did not establish how many ordinaries were operating simultaneously at a particular site in any particular year. 425 Edward M. Riley suggests that the large number of ordinaries in colonial Yorktown is a barometer of economic growth and success of the town during the first half of the eighteenth century, ?The Ordinaries of Colonial Yorktown,? William and Mary Quarterly, 2 nd Series 23, no. 1 (January 1943), 23. 163 foreshadows the movement of the court to Marlborough a decade later, it also indicates the rapid development of a network of towns along the upper tidal Patuxent drainage by the second decade of the eighteenth century. A second trend evident in the data is that both women and men were operating ordinaries throughout the period. Twenty-three (31 %) women were identified as ordinary keepers between 1696 and 1720. Furthermore, this figure only represents those women who were issued licenses. The figure for women involved in the trade would be much higher if wives, servants, and hired keepers were added. 426 This is not an unexpected occurrence and historians looking into the subject quickly recognize that women were regularly involved in the trade. 427 This is especially true for the period before tavern keeping became a specialized trade during the mid- eighteenth century. 428 Women made up a quarter to a third of all ordinary keepers in Annapolis for much of the eighteenth century although these percentages decline after the revolution. 429 Still, the social importance of ordinaries and taverns are relegated to the domain of men particularly if they are interpreted as political spaces. 426 The total number of women involved in ordinary keeping could not be reliably established. 427 For a discussion of women tavern keepers see Salinger, Taverns and Drinking, especially pp. 161-173; for studies of the Chesapeake region see Sarah Hand Meacham, ?From Women?s Province to Men?s Domain: Gender, Technology, and Alcohol in the Chesapeake, 1690 to 1800? (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1997) especially chapter 4; Jessica Merle Kaplan, ?Female Tavern and Boardinghouse Keepers of Eighteenth-Century Annapolis, Maryland? (master?s thesis, University of Maryland, 1994). 428 For decline in the number of women tavern keepers during the eighteenth century see Kaplan, Female Tavern and Boardinghouse Keepers, 54-65. Salinger, Taverns and Drinking, 161. 429 Kaplan, Female Tavern and Boardinghouse Keepers, 100. 164 A third (n=7) of the ordinaries operated by women were in service for at least four years. Some of these ordinaries, including Jane Addison?s at Charles Town, Mary Boyd?s at Queen Anne, and Bethia Taylor?s at Nottingham, provided the necessary services to these towns during their early years. 430 Wives and daughters often assisted, or outright operated their husband?s ordinaries even if they were not granted licenses. 431 Some, like Mary Biddle and Mary Boyd, were widows who took over their husband?s business. 432 Solomy d?Hinoyossa operated an ordinary at Charles Town while her husband Alexander pursued other business ventures, and Jane Addison and her husband Joseph may have operated separate ordinaries. Those sixty-eight individuals involved in the management of ordinaries in Prince George?s County generally fall in three broad categories comprised of wealthy planters merchants with land holdings greater than 1,000 acres (n=3, 5%), planters owning less than 1,000 acres (n=10, 15%), and those who did not own land beyond town lots (n=55, 80%), (Tables 4.4 and 4.5). First, it is clear that most of those who were either issued ordinary licenses or operated them illegally were not part of the emerging gentry. Most of the wealthy families in the county were engaged as merchants, landlords, or procured lucrative positions in local or regional government. They were generally not involved in the daily operation of ordinaries. 430 Mary Boyd was operating the ordinary at the eventual location of Queen Anne by at least 1705, Bethia Taylor was operating an ordinary at Nottingham by 1708 and although Jane Addison?s ordinary was not established until 1700, it was a significant presence during the first decade of the eighteenth century. 431 For example, accounts in Table 4.15 indicate that Jonathan Willson?s wife Kathrine served customers at the ordinary. 432 Mary Boyd was granted a license in June of 1705 to continue her husband?s business following security put up by Ishmael Baleman. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 388. 165 At least ten ordinary keepers identified between 1696 and 1720 owned plantations smaller than 1,000 acres. 433 The personal wealth left by this group ranged from just over ?60 for Charles Tracy in 1698 to ?112 5s 9d for John Boyd in 1705. 434 James Watts? estate was worth nearly ?400 in 1703 but land ownership could not be confirmed at the time of his death. 435 These ordinaries varied in length of operation from eleven years to a single year. One of the most successful ordinaries was owned by John Boyd, Sr. Boyd owned over 800 acres of land near Queen Anne Table 4.4 Prince George?s County Ordinary Keepers With Land, 1696-1720. 1 Name Date(s) of Operation Ordinary Location Land in Acres Gabriel Burnam 1697 Mattapany Hundred 200 (1697) William Groome 1696-1698 Charles Town 500 (1698) Charles Tracy 1694-1698 Charles Town 100 (1696) John Boyd, Sr. 1701-1705 Queen Anne 871 (1705) Mary Boyd 1705-1711 Queen Anne 871 (1705) James Moor 1701-1704 Near Charles Town 1457 ? (1706) John Middleton 1704-1707 Near Piscataway 365 (1706) 2 Caleb Norris 1706 Unknown 190 (1708) Hugh Williams 1707 Mattapany Hundred 3 87 ? (1707) Joseph Belt 1711 Marlborough 150 (1711) 4 William Tyler 1714-1715 Near Aire 100 (1714) Christopher Beans 1715 Charles Town +1800 (1716) 5 Josiah Wilson 1717 Charles Town +3,400 (1717) 1 This table includes a list of ordinary keepers who owned land in Prince George?s County at the time their business was in operation. It does not include those who owned or occupied only town lots or those who owned land before or after their ordinary was in service. For Example Alexander and Solomy d?Hinoyossa owned 100 acres in Anne Arundel County but sold the property in 1702 prior to their move to Prince George?s County Anne Arundel County Land Records, Book WT1, f. 275. Others including James Watts and John Chittam may have owned land at the time their ordinary licenses were 433 This figure was derived from the ordinary list (Table 1), land transactions recorded in the Prince George?s County Land Records, Books A, C, and E, Prince George?s County Wills, and from Lois Green Carr?s estimates in, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Tables 1 and 2, 154-215. The figure does not include those individuals who only owned or occupied town lots. 434 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB, ff. 12-13, 81. 435 Carr County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1B 164, confirmed that Watts owned 270 acres in Mattapany Hundred in 1696, but Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 98a, indicate that he was living on lands owned by Nicholas Sewell adjacent to Brookfield and near the future site of Nottingham by 1703. He may have applied for an ordinary license to take advantage of the increased activity and road travel in the area. 166 issued but they don?t appear in the table if a determination could not be made. 2 Middleton had sold the 200 acre Wheelers Choice tract (1706) south of Piscataway and a portion of Appledore near Piscataway by the time he opened his ordinary at Charles Town in 1712. He probably owned land at the time but this was not confirmed. 3 Probably located on Dove?s Perch or Dove?s Nest near Swanson?s Creek in southern Mattapany Hundred. 4 Carr indicates Belt owned 150 acres in 1706. No land transactions were found for Belt between 1706 and 1711 and it is assumed that Belt still owned at least 150 acres when he was issued an ordinary license. 5 Carr lists Beanes as owning 1937 acres in 1706 but land records indicate Beanes sold of small portions of Brooke Ridge and Beanes Landing between 1711 and 1716. Source: Prince George?s County Wills, 1696-1720; Prince George?s County Land Records, 1696-1720 Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland; Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI. and capitalized on the increasing traffic to the newly established capital at Annapolis by establishing an ordinary on his property. Mary Boyd continued to operate the ordinary at Queen Anne following her husband?s death in 1705. John Middleton owned over 300 acres of land at the time he operated his ordinary near the future town of Piscataway from 1704 to at least 1707. 436 Most of Middleton?s lands were located near Piscataway Creek and along the Potomac River to the south. Table 4.5 Prince George?s County Ordinary Keepers Without Land, 1696- 1720. Name Date(s) of Operation Location Jonathan Willson 1689 -1698 Charles Town Nicholas Sporne 1698-1708 Annapolis 1 , Charles Town, Marlborough Jane Addison 1700-1707 Charles Town Jane Bell (Beall) 1700-1703 Charles Town Jane Vaughn(sp) 1700 Unknown Joseph Addison 1701-1708 Charles Town Robert Robertson 1703-1708 2 Marlborough Marmaduke Scott 1703-1709 Charles Town James Watts 1703 Unknown Edward Swann 1704 Mattapany Landing/Nottingham Alexander d?Hinoyossa 1702-1705 Annapolis 3 , Charles Town Solomy d?Hinoyossa 1706-1711 Charles Town 436 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff.337a-338; C, f. 37 167 Elizabeth Hurley 1706 Unknown John LeCount 1706 Unknown Hannah Price 1707-1708 Marlborough John Smith 1707-1709, 1716 Charles Town, Marlborough Rice Owens 1708-1709 Mattapany Hundred Bethia Taylor 1708-1711 4 Nottingham John Holland 1709 Queen Anne Samuel Heigh 1710-1718 Nottingham, Marlborough, Charles Town 5 Joseph Sarrett 1710-1712 Nottingham Ann Skinner 1710-1712 Nottingham, Charles Town Elizabeth Clarke 1709-1712 Marlborough William Gwynn 1711-1712 Marlborough Mahitabell Pierpoint 1711-1715, 1718 London Town 6 , Queen Anne Catherine Robeson 1711 Marlborough James Robinson 1711-1715 Charles Town, Marlborough Elenor Carroll 1713 Nottingham Rueben Ross 1713-1714 Queen Ann William Turner 1713-1715 Nottingham William Chillingsworth 1713-1715 Marlborough Mary Beard 1715 Marlborough Matthew Browne 1715 Marlborough Mary Gwynn 1715 Mount Calvert Rachel Mariate 1715 Queen Ann Robert Saunders 1714-1715 Nottingham Robert Biddle 1716-1717 Marlborough James Gardiner 1716 Nottingham Michael Morris 1717 Queen Ann Ralph Adams 1718 Unknown Randall Blake 1718-1719 Unknown Rebecca Cherry 1718 Queen Ann John Chittam 1718 Unknown Benjamin Hugoe 1718 Mill Town Alexander Mecants 1718 Unknown William Nicholls 1718-1719 Unknown Ann Beckworth 1718-1719 Unknown Mary Biddle 1718-1719 Unknown, Probably Marlboro Thomas Brashear 1719-(1722) Queen Anne John Dalby 1717, 1719 Unknown John Docura 1719 Marlboro 168 Elizabeth Smith 1719 Whites landing Mary Heigh 1720 Unknown 1 Total years of service in Annapolis was not established but he still owned three lots in Annapolis near the statehouse in 1702, Anne Arundel County Land Records, WT-2, f. 40. He was operating an ordinary in Annapolis as early as 1693. 2 The first license found for Robertson was at his house at Groves Landing in 1703. Groves Landing was a tract patented by Ninian Beall in the area that would become soon become Upper Marlboro. A license was not located for 1704 but it was assumed that Robertson continued to operate his ordinary during that year. 3 Total years of service in Annapolis was not established but he owned the lots where Sporne kept his ordinary from 1702-1707, Anne Arundel County Land Records, WT-2, f. 40, 514. 4 The first license found for Bethia Taylor was for Mattapany Landing at or near Nottingham. A ?new? license was issued for Nottingham in 1710. Taylor was cited in 1711 as being ?a common disturber of the peace amongst her neighbors?, and was probably still running an ordinary at Nottingham Prince George?s County Court Records Liber G, f. 72. Her ordinary is listed as Nottingham because it appears to have always been very near or at Nottingham. 5 Based on levy record for 1 Grand Jury allowances in 1717 and 2 in 1718. 6 Years of Service in London Town was not established but Shomette, Lost Towns, p. 63, found licenses issued to her for the years 1703, 1704, 1705, 1709, and 1711. She continued to hold lots in the town until at least 1718 including the 25 foot house where court was held, Anne Arundel County Land Records, Book IB2, f. 431, 545. Source: Table 4.4. A few landowners apparently tried their hand at ordinary keeping but abandoned the business after a year or two. For example, William Tyler, who owned Battersea near the town of Aire on the Potomac River, saw a brief trade in the years 1714 and 1715. 437 Some smaller landowners like Hugh Williams operated ordinaries out of their plantations. In Williams? case the venture apparently failed as he was only granted a license for 1707. 438 Caleb Norris? business probably suffered a similar fate. 439 Norris and William Tyler also worked as carpenters. 440 Very little 437 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 693; H, f. 4. 438 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 158a. Williams? plantation was probably in Mattapany Hundred south of Charles Town and near Swanson?s Creek, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, f. 88. Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1A, 157, lists his land holdings in Mattapany Hundred as 87 ? acres in 1706. 439 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 74. 440 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 3C, 226. Norris spent three years as an apprentice to Bartholomew Goff learning the carpentry trades prior to his ordinary business, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 193; 169 information was found on these keepers from the court record, especially those that operated outside Charles Town, but some were apparently successful based on the length of operation, especially Mary Boyd at Queen Anne. A group of fifty-five ordinary keepers were identified who could not be confirmed as landholders, beyond town lots, at the time of their ordinary operation (Table 4.5). 441 Ordinary keeping provided a secondary income for some. This is perhaps the case for John LeCount who was a mariner and merchant before taking an ordinary license. 442 For others it was their primary occupation. Many of these individuals were tenants of wealthier landowners while others took up town lots and improved them with a structure. Two distinct groups emerge from these ordinary keepers. First is a group of individuals who tried their hand at ordinary keeping as a means of supplementing their income from other trades or tobacco cultivation. The second group is made up of individuals whose primary occupation was ordinary keeping. The former group is difficult to describe because many were only in the business for a year or two. Fulltime innkeepers can be described in greater detail and are more germane to studies of town development. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 216. Tyler is listed as a carpenter in his will, Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 117. 441 Several individuals owned land before their ordinaries were in operation and probably at the time of their operation, but these individuals were not included in Table 4 when land ownership could not be confirmed. William Nichols owned several tracts prior to his ordinary operation beginning in 1718 and he probably owned land at the time of service, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 98, 386, 483. The same can be said for John Chittam who owned several properties before 1718, Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 42, 232. Others probably owned land but if ownership could not be confirmed they were not included in the list of land owners. 442 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 291, http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000 202/html/am202--291.htm (Accessed, April 9, 2005). 170 Nearly half (n=26, 47%) of the landless ordinary keepers were issued a license for only one year. The location of ten of these ordinaries could not be determined, fourteen were located in towns, and one was located at White?s Landing on the Patuxent River. The only information found on most of these ordinaries is the fact that they were issued a license. 443 It is unclear in most cases whether the ordinary was actually established. Thirteen (23%) ordinary keepers were in the business for at least two or three years and an additional fourteen (29%) were in service for four years or more. Among the former group are individuals who tried their hand at ordinary keeping on a small scale for a short time 444 while the latter group is made up of individuals who were fulltime ordinary keepers. 445 All of these sixteen keepers were situated in towns and ten (63%) ran ordinaries out of Charles Town for at least two years. This group is also distinguished by the fact that at least a third of these ordinary keepers ran a trade at numerous locations in the county and province during their career. Fulltime ordinary keepers not only took advantage of emerging neighborhoods to set up their operations but also took an active part in making those meeting places into towns. The wealth of most ordinary keepers is difficult to determine. Table 4.6 lists the ordinary keepers whose estates were probated between 1696 and 1720. All twelve individuals listed in the table were operating ordinaries at or near the time of 443 Several of these individuals died shortly after applying for the license including John LeCount, Matthew Brown, and James Gardiner. 444 Joseph Sarrett and William Nicholls died within two years after beginning their ordinaries. 445 This group of individuals stands out because of their duration and/or the volume of trade coming through the establishment. All of these individuals were in the business for at least 4 years. This group is important because it provides considerable insight into the daily activities at Charles Town. 171 their death. The estate values vary considerably and hint at possible motivations for starting a business. Charles Tracy, Jonathan Wilson, and James Robinson profited by taking advantage of the court at Charles Town. Matthew Brown at Marlborough and James Gardiner at Nottingham, whose estates were valued at less than ?10, may have been keeping ordinaries for wealthier individuals, and got into the business out of financial necessity. Regardless of their financial situation, the vast majority of ordinary keepers relied on the financial support of wealthy individuals in the colony and merchants abroad. These individuals sponsored keepers through security Table 4.6 Ordinary Keepers with Probated Estates, 1696-1720. Name Ordinary Location Years of Operation Year of Probate Value of Estate Charles Tracey Charles Town (1694)-1698 1698 66: 13: 00 Jonathan Willson Charles Town 1689 -1698 1698 62: 06: 03 James Watts Unknown 1703 1703 393: 18: 04 John Boyd Queen Anne 1701-1705 1705 112: 05: 09 John LeCount Unknown 1706 1707 65: 11: 02 Matthew Brown Marlborough 1715 1715 9: 09: 06 Joseph Sarrett Nottingham 1710-1712 1715 18: 19: 03 James Robinson Charles Town, Marlborough 1711-1715 1716 136: 06: 00 Christopher Beans Charles Town 1715 1718 27: 14: 03 Josiah Wilson Charles Town 1716-1717 1718 1178: 15: 01 James Gardiner Nottingham 1716 1719 6: 14: 01 William Nicholls Unknown 1718-1719 1719 26: 19: 10 Source: Prince George?s County Inventories, Book BB 1, 1696-1720. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. payments to the court and payment of debts, housing, and supplies of necessary goods to the ordinaries. As a result, planters and merchants profited directly and indirectly from the ordinary trade. As a whole those licensed to keep an ordinary in Prince George?s County represent a broad cross-section of the population. They had many different reasons 172 for testing the ordinary keeping waters. Most were located in towns while about a quarter were scattered across the countryside on private plantations and landings. Available historical information presents a profile of who the ordinary keepers in Prince George?s County were from 1696 to 1720. Many were landless men and women who set up shop in towns for a few years before vanishing from the historical record. They were also at the center of an economic trade network based on the exchange of alcohol. The exchange of alcohol in town ordinaries provided economic opportunity and survival for some, an opportunity to regulate trade and social conduct for a small group of ruling elite, and another mechanism of exclusion for others. The Material Culture of Ordinaries: The Prosaic and Active World of Goods Every social, political, and economic transaction that took place at the ordinaries was accomplished through the use of material culture. Most of this material culture was not unique to ordinaries and included items such as tankards and bottles for serving alcohol, plates and trenchers for eating, casks for storing cider, tables for playing cards, chairs for sitting, and beds for sleeping. Each of these material culture forms is found in inventories not associated with ordinaries. In her study of New England taverns Kathleen Bragdon noted that objects frequently listed in keeper inventories included bottles, wine glasses, serving dishes, specialized vessels, and large numbers of tables and chairs. 446 Not surprisingly the greater volume of bottles, chairs, and alcohol in tavern inventories stand out in Bragdon?s 446 Kathleen J. Bragdon, ?Occupational Differences Reflected in Material Culture?, In Mary C. Beaudry ed., Documentary Archaeology in the New World, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 85. 173 data, but what truly differentiates the material culture of ordinaries, beyond the percentages of particular forms, is the fact that material objects were always used in the completion of a transaction. Most of the material forms found at ordinaries would also appear in private dwellings but the context of use was entirely different. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the material world of ordinaries during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries using data from probate inventories and court cases from Prince George?s County. Ordinaries consisted of three primary categories of material culture. The most obvious is the ordinary space itself. Included in this space are the structure, interior furnishings, and exterior spaces used as gathering points and for pasturage. The second form of material culture is the alcohol and food served at the ordinaries. These items were used for sustenance and also as commodities. Finally there were many ceramic, glass, metal, and wooden vessels used to prepare and serve food and alcohol. Each of these material forms was used in social, economic, and political transactions at Charles Town and other towns in the province. These transactions will be demonstrated in subsequent sections. Tobacco was also consumed at the ordinaries, but no documentary evidence was found. A discussion of tobacco use at Charles Town is included in Chapter 6. Ordinary Spaces There are several predictable qualities of ordinaries located at Charles Town and elsewhere during the period. First, the structures were wooden, following common construction techniques established in the early Chesapeake. 447 They would have been constructed with a chimney for heat and cooking. The structures were also 447 Li, Liquor and Ordinaries, 79. 174 small, with few rooms and limited space for eating, drinking, and sleeping. 448 Ordinaries were as small as twenty feet wide 449 and most were simple gathering points on the landscape. These small structures were consistent with most dwellings in the early Chesapeake region. 450 Second, structures also frequently served as the primary residence of the keeper and perhaps their family or servants. This would have surely compounded the problem of overcrowding. Under these conditions, the exterior of the structure likely served as the primary gathering point for individuals. No direct information about the exterior spaces of the ordinaries was found in the historical record. But there is direct evidence that games such as nine pins and horse racing took place at or near the ordinaries in Prince George?s County like elsewhere throughout the region. There is also some indication of the types of material culture found in the ordinary interiors. A certain level of accommodation was required by law but the extent of compliance by most keepers is uncertain. Charles Tracy and Jonathan Willson apparently complied with the 1674 instruction by the Maryland General Assembly that all keepers provide four good feather beds and four ?flock? beds for the ?entertainment of customers? in addition to ?his own for his own private use.? 451 448 Ibid., 81. 449 Evidence of this comes from the twenty-foot wide structure at Terrace site C, Chapter 6, and reference to Jonathan Willson?s two twenty-foot houses, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 558. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--558.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 450 James Horn, ??The Bare Necessities:? Standards of Living in England and the Chesapeake, 1650-1700?, Historical Archaeology 22, no. 2 (1988): 78. 451 Archives of Maryland, Volume 2, Page 346. http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000 175 This legislation targeted class distinctions among the patrons by explicitly differentiating between quality of bedding. Six flock beds, two feather beds, three bedsteads, and associated furniture are listed in Tracy?s inventory (Table 4.7). One of the feather beds apparently included curtains and a valance. Willson?s inventory contains four flock beds, four feather beds, one old bed, and two additional bedsteads Table 4.7 Charles Tracy?s Inventory, May 30,1698 Item Value in ? 2 Horses 07.00.00 3 Cows & 2 Yearlings 07.10.00 16 Head of Small Hoggs 07.00.00 6 Flock Bedds and Furniture & a Couch with 3 Bedsteads 04.00.00 1 Feather Bedd and Furniture Curtains and Vallence & Bedstead & Couch Feather Bed and 5 Feather Pillows 04.00.00 3 Iron Potts and Pothooks 1 Iron Pot Rack and 3 frying Panns & Fier Shovell and Tongues 01.05.00 1 Ovele Table 01.00.00 2 Square Tables and Formes 00.14.00 6 Wooden Chaires & 6 Flagg Chaires 01.00.00 2 Gunns both Old 00.15.00 5 Pewter Basons 00.14.00 7 Ditto Porringers 3 Chamber Potts & 5 Small Salts 00.10.06 A Parcell of old Pewter Potts all Leekey 00.02.00 32 Pound of Pewter Dishes at 8d Pr. Pound 01.01.04 19 Pewter Plates 00.10.00 A Parcell of Tinn Ware 00.10.08 A Parcell of Earthen Ware 00.04.06 2 Small Brass Skilletts & 1 Small Brass Kettle 00.07.00 1 Small Case and Bottles with Mallasses in them 00.08.00 3 Chests 00.06.00 A Large Trunke 00.07.00 An old Baggonett and Belt 00.02.06 A Parcell of Nailes & Iron Ware and a P(????) of Alcemy Spoones 01.00.00 A Pair of Small Stilliards 00.02.00 A Pair of Pockett Stilliards 00.02.00 40.11.06 A small Bible and a Parcell of old Bookes 00.03.06 9 old Cyder Cask, 2 Runletts & a Parcell of Turnery & Wooden 02.10.00 002/html/am2--346.html (Accessed, November 29, 2005). Subsequent acts reaffirmed this regulation. 176 Ware 2 old Prospective Glasses 00.01.06 6 Knives and a Case & Other odd Trumpery with Glass Bottles 00.04.00 2 Flasketts & 45 Pd of Tallow wth Some Candles 01.00.00 1 old Mans Saddle Bridle and Halter & 1 old Side Sadele and Horse Collar 01.00.00 A Parcell of Thread Silk & Buttons 5 Packs of Cards & odd Pieces of Raggs 00.06.00 5 Perch Lines and Hoocks & 2 Papers of Ink Powder 00.03.00 2 hatts & Mans Wareing Woolen app:ll 02.00.00 A Pcell of Woemens Wareing Woolen Apparrell 00.15.00 3 Pr Woemens Gloves 1 Pr Mens one knife and Forke 2 boxes & Pcell Woemens Head attire 01.00.00 3 Small Dear Skinns & 1 Looking Glass 00.06.00 4 Quier Paper 3 yards Bedd Ticking & a Remnt Printed Linenn & a Knife 00.10.06 A Pcell Mens Wareing Linnen 00.14.06 6 yds Genting 00.09.00 A Pcell Woemans Wareing Linnen 00.05.06 2 Doz Napkins 4 Table Cloths & 5 Towels 01.05.00 A pair Sheets 7 Pillow (????) & 1 Bed Cord 00.13.06 Ready Cash 01.17.00 A box of Drawers 5 nuttmeggs & a pcell of needles 00.02.06 9 ows & a Quad? Of old Silver 02.01.06 4 Small Gold Rings 00.16.06 A Boate Canew & Grapling 06.00.00 On the other Side 40.11.06 ?64.16.00 12 (?) of Sugar & 2 Galls of Rum 01.15.00 Razor & hone 1 pair Spurs pin knife & ink box 00.02.00 Total 66.13.00 Source: Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, 1698, ff 12-13. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. (Table 4.8). This evidence suggests that both ordinaries could accommodate numerous overnight guests as required by law. In some cases individuals stayed for extended periods at the ordinaries. 452 Many inventories from other known ordinary 452 For example, Daniel Troy was charged for two months accommodations at Tracy?s ordinary in 1696, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 128. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--128.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 177 keepers do not demonstrate this level of accommodation. The inventories of Charles Town keepers James Robinson (Solomy d?Hinoyossa) and Christopher Beans taken in January of 1716 show both the difference in level of accommodation and discrepancies in the level of detail included in inventories. Robinson?s inventory simply lists ?a parcel of bedding? while that of Christopher Beans contains two beds. The fact that Robinson?s bedding was valued at over ?17 and Beans? beds were valued at ?3 1/2 suggests that Robinson owned a greater volume or higher quality of Table 4.8 Jonathan Willson?s Inventory, October 7, 1698 Item Value in ? One Feather bead, bolster, 2 pillows Rugg and blanket 03.10.00 One Ditto 2 blanketts 1 Rugg 2 pillows 02.10.00 1 flock bead bolster 2 blanketts 1 Rugg 01.00.00 1 old Ditto bolster 2 blanketts 1 Rugg 00.12.06 1 Ditto, bolster, 2 blankets 1 Rugg 00.12.06 1 Ditto & Sam Furniture 00.15.00 2 bolsters 3 pillows 1 blankett 2 pieces ruggs 00.08.00 1 Small father bed bolster 2 pillows Rugg and blankets 01.10.00 2 tin [????] pans, 4 milk pans, 1 Dripping pan 1 sunele(sp?), 1 sauspan, 19 potts 1 pepper box all tin 00.08.00 A parcele of pewter Dishes wt 36(?) 01.04.00 14 plates at 8d 00.09.04 2 Small flagons, 2 tankards, 2 qt potts, 1 pint pott, 1 half pint pott, 2 quart(???) potts, Small cupp, 3 porringers, 2 Saucers 00.16.00 38(?) of old broken pewter at 4d 00.12.08 1 brass kettle 18a at 00.18.00 4 brass Candlesticks & 1 brass ladle 00.07.00 1 old brass kettle good for naught wt 5 lbs 00.01.06 ?15.14.06 1 Pr brass Scales & 3 weights 00.02.00 3 Iron potts & 1 kettle wt 140 lb at 2d 01.03.04 2 Iron dripping pans 00.10.00 1 Spitt, 1 pr pott racks, 1 gridiron, 2 pr pott hooks, 2 chafing dishes 00.11.00 1 Spade 2s.6 & 1 tin (????) 2s 00.04.06 6 Leather Chairs 01.10.00 2 old ditto 00.02.00 11 wooden Chairs 01.02.00 3 small old Chests 00.06.00 2 Bedsteads 00.10.00 178 2 Bead Cords 3s. 9 Glass bottles 2s.3 00.05.03 110 lbs Sugar 01.16.08 500 (?) of 8d nailes 00.02.00 5 tables 01.05.00 1 Couch 00.10.00 1 Large Chest 00.10.00 1 old broken pair of playing tables 00.02.00 1 fowling piece, 1 muskett 01.05.00 1 old Sadle and padd 00.07.00 1 box of glass & (lead?) quantity unknown 02.00.00 2 mopps & 1 brush 00.02.06 12 plate trenchers 00.02.00 2 ceder tubs 2 ceder pailes 00.10.00 6 wooden boules & 2 trays 00.04.00 5 wooden Cans 00.02.06 1 tin gall Cask & 2 old (???) Sifters 00.03.00 1 bay horse & 1 gray horse 07.00.00 1 earthen pott & mugg 00.02.00 195 foot of ? Inch oak Plank 00.15.00 2 P new Shoes 2 P old 00.12.00 1 new, 3 old Castor hatts 01.02.00 3 Coates, 2 Jacketts, 2 P Britches 02.10.00 6 P worsted hose 2 Pr gloves 00.10.00 1 Sett old lin(iy) Curtaines, 1 Sett Callico ditto 00.15.00 1 Carpett 00.08.00 2 buck Skins 10s, 5 books 5s 00.15.00 5 P Sheets, 10 old napkins 01.10.00 12 Gall Tarr 00.08.00 15 Gall Rum 02.05.00 9 Cyder Casks 04.02.06 Brought Over ?51.01.03 1 old bead & C(?????) 04.00.00 ?55.01.03 1 Cask Cyder dispersed of to Mr Tho Hollyday & 3 Casks ditto to Mr Nicho Sporn, contents unknown To us, butt the Adms of (est?) tell us ye w(?) mr. Willsons Estate should be Charged (?) for them, that they the Sd. Hollyday & Sporne were to pay for them The following goods they had of the decd Claimeth as a Bona Parapanaliah, but have appraised the Same & leave it to the Comissary Gen ll to order as he pleases 3 Pewter dishes, 1 bason, 1 Chamber pott 18 (?) 00.12.00 6 plates 00.04.00 4 porringers 1 Salt 00.03.00 179 2 milk trays 1 broad tray, 1 boul 1 Sifter 00.03.06 1 P bellows 1 box Iron, 1 looking glass 1 mortar 00.04.00 1 frying pan, 1 ladle, 1 Skinner, 1 flesh fork 00.05.06 1 Iron pott & hooks 00.05.00 1 feather bed, 1 P Sheets, 1 Boulster 2 blanketts 1 Rugg 1 pillow, 1 Suite Liney Curtains 1 Bedsted & Cord 05.00.00 1 Carpett 00.08.00 Total ?62.06.03 Source: Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, 1698, ff. 28-30. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. bedding. 453 Some ordinary keepers such as Matthew Brown at Marlborough and James Gardiner of Nottingham each had a single bed presumably for their own use. 454 These smaller operations may have been supported by merchants or large planters who supplied keepers with a building and perhaps some furniture. Couches, tables, and chairs were common in ordinaries. Jonathan Willson owned at least six leather chairs, two ?old? chairs, and eleven wooden chairs. Charles Tracy owned a dozen chairs and each keeper owned a couch that perhaps doubled as a bed and resting station when legs gave out. Cane or flag chairs may have also been present in some ordinaries. Mary Biddle?s (Marlborough) 1722 inventory lists nineteen ?matted? chairs valued at just over ?1 1/2 . 455 Tables also appear in a variety of forms in most inventories. Drinking, eating, and gaming all took place at the ordinary table. Tracy owned at least one oval table and two square tables while Willson owned at least seven and each ordinary was also equipped with napkins. Merchant and ordinary operator John LeCount?s inventory provides little evidence of his ordinary furnishings other than perhaps six cane and five wooden chairs. In contrast, Christopher Bean?s inventory includes two leather and two wooden chairs 453 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, ff. 279-280. 454 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, ff. 249, 332. 455 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB1, f. 147. 180 and Robinson is listed as simply owning a parcel of chairs. Robinson also owned four tables possibly used in the ordinaries he and Solomy kept at Charles Town and Marlborough. There is very little other information about the internal furnishings of ordinaries in Charles Town or anywhere else in Prince George?s County. The estates left by some keepers such as Joseph Sarrett (Nottingham), James Gardiner (Nottingham), Matthew Brown (Marlborough), and William Nichols (Unknown location) were all well under ?30 and provide virtually no information about the interior furnishings at their ordinaries. 456 Even the inventories of some wealthier keepers do not reflect the type of material resources necessary for operating an ordinary. John Boyd?s (Queen Anne) estate was valued at over ?112 but there is little evidence of his ordinary operation outside of perhaps the twelve leather chairs he owned. 457 In this case Mary Boyd possessed the materials necessary to continue the operation, and it is likely most items were simply not listed on the inventory. 458 The overall profile of the ordinary spaces suggests that a variety of accommodations existed. At places like Charles Town more extensive lodging accommodations were required because of the traffic supplied by the court versus rural establishments or less frequented locales such as James Gardiner?s ordinary at Nottingham. Volume of service offers only a partial explanation for the differences in accommodations as more wealthy keepers were able to supply a greater variety and quality of furnishings to their patrons. Historian Gloria Main?s probate research 456 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, ff. 249, 252, 332, 350. 457 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, f. 81. 458 Mary Boyd?s 1722 inventory lists very few household possessions. Presumably the ordinary goods were not listed in the inventory. Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB1, f. 125. 181 suggests that upper and middle class families can be distinguished from poorer families by the greater number of chairs owned by those in the upper wealth categories. 459 Main also asserts that most households valued quality bedding over the total number of beds. 460 Ordinary keepers like Jonathan Willson and Charles Tracy at Charles Town may have possessed the financial means to provide the different class- based amenities for their varied clientele that ranged from justices to laborers. There was little variance found in the price of lodging at the ordinaries and it was inexpensive at four and six pence a night. So it was up to the discretion of the keeper who slept in the flock bed and who got the feather bed. This ?choice? was likely guided by deference to class that was mutually understood by the keeper and the variety of patrons who came to the ordinary. Serving and Preparing Food and Drink Common eating and drinking vessels used in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century English taverns included stoneware Bellarmine jugs, leather blackjacks and bombards, punch bowls, tumblers, toby jugs, tygs, posset pots, and wine and flip glasses. 461 Determining the types of objects used in the ordinaries is difficult because so few keepers left an inventory. Where inventories exist, they vary considerably both in the detail included and the value of the estate and are almost entirely void of the forms mentioned above. For example, the estates of Matthew Brown at Marlborough (1715) and James Gardiner at Nottingham (1719) were valued at less than ?10 and contained few, if any, objects associated with the ordinaries. 459 Main, Tobacco Colony, 249-254. 460 Ibid., 251, 254. 461 Bragdon, ?Occupational Differences,? 84. 182 Other inventories do provide a profile of the types of objects used in the consumption of food and alcohol. Many food production and consumption vessels were either wooden or metal. A variety of iron cooking vessels such as pots and frying pans or skillets and tin ware are commonly found in inventories of the period. Charles Tracy and Jonathan Willson?s inventories again provide excellent examples of the types of vessels used in early Prince George?s County ordinaries. Pewter and wooden vessels were the most common serving pieces at the Wilson and Tracy ordinaries. Willson?s inventory lists six wooden bowls, two trays, and five cans. Many vessels were also made of pewter. Pewter eating vessels were common in middle and perhaps lower-class households during the seventeenth century but drinking vessels were scarce during the period. 462 Patrons used pewter porringers, plates, salts, and miscellaneous dishes at Tracy?s ordinary. James Robinson?s inventory also contains an unspecified list of pewter vessels. A diverse group of vessels was used for preparing and consuming food and beverages in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Drinking, serving, and cooking vessels were often wooden or metal and materials such as ceramics recovered from the archaeological record represent a small percentage of what was used during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 463 Conversely, it is also true 462 Mary C. Beaudry, Janet Long, Henry M. Miller, Frasier D. Neiman, and Garry Wheeler Stone ?A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac Typological System?, Historical Archaeology 17, no. 1 (1983): 25; James Horn, ??The Bare Necessities:??: 83; Main, Tobacco Colony, 170-171. 463 Horn, Adapting to a New World, 317; Ann Smart Martin, ?The Role of Pewter as Missing Artifact: Consumer Attitudes Toward Tablewares in Late 18 th Century Virginia,? Historical Archaeology 23, no. 2 (1989):1-27; Anne Yentsch, ?Minimum 183 that probate inventories often under-represent the total material culture of a household that was purchased, used, broken, and discarded. 464 Earthenware vessels were often either not listed or described as simply ?a parcel.? The same is true for glassware. Inventories regularly used cursory descriptions such as ?earthenware and glass,? ?a parcel of glass,? and a ?box of glass.? Bottles were also commonly listed as parcels. By contrast, the inventory of Marlborough ordinary keeper Mary Biddle included nearly 300 quart bottles. 465 Minimal as their presence in inventories may have been, some glass and ceramic objects were integral to the regular maintenance of social relationships and sustenance. As commodities or potential commodities, glass and ceramic objects appear to have held a low economic value. In contrast, their use value was potentially quite high. This is particularly true of punch bowls, individual drinking containers, and glass bottles that were used in everyday transactions between keepers and patrons. Alcohol and Food The historical record provides little information about what foods were consumed at the ordinaries. Debt cases brought before the Prince George?s County court almost always list food simply as ?dyett?. There are several cases that cite mackerel or oysters being served. Other foods cited in the historical record are wheat Vessel Lists as Evidence of Change in Folk and Courtly Traditions of Food Use,? Historical Archaeology 24, no. 2 (1990): 29. 464 See John Bedell, ?Archaeology and Probate Inventories in the Study of Eighteenth-Century Life?, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 31, no. 2 (August 2000): 223-245. 465 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB 1, f. 148. 184 cakes that were common during the early eighteenth century at ordinaries operated by Jane Beall and the Addisons. 466 Henry M. Miller has illustrated the dietary changes that occurred in the colonial Chesapeake using a combination of archaeological and historical data. 467 Miller?s analysis of inventories and faunal collections dating from the early seventeenth century to about 1740 show distinct changes in subsistence strategies during the period. Though swine and especially cattle were common throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, households in the first half of the seventeenth century were much more reliant on wild species such as deer and fish than those in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. 468 Sheep were also less common in the early seventeenth century, perhaps because of their vulnerability to wolves. 469 Some ordinary keepers like Charles Tracy at Charles Town and John Boyd at Queen Anne kept livestock for slaughter while others such as Joseph Addison at Charles Town opted to purchase pork and other food from local planters. 470 Future analysis of archaeological data from Charles Town may clarify the strategies used by 466 For examples see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 13, 370. 467 Henry M. Miller, ?An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745?, In Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo eds., Colonial Chesapeake Society. (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1988), 176-199. 468 Ibid., 193. 469 Ibid., 183. 470 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, ff. 12, 81; Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 206. 185 the keepers to provide guests with food. 471 The types and quantities of alcohol served at ordinaries are much better illustrated. Reverend Hugh Jones of Christ Church Parish in Calvert County commented on the quality of drink found along the Patuxent drainage several months after arriving in Maryland in 1696. 472 In a letter to Benjamin Woodroffe, Jones wrote that, ?Our common drinke is syder, which is verry good, and where it is rightly ordered not inferior to the best white wine. We have wine brought us from Madera & phiol and rum from Barbadoes, bear, mault and wines from England. We have plenty of good grapes growing wild in the woods but there is no Improvement made of them.? 473 Jones accurately describes the types of beverages available at the Charles Town ordinaries. An itemized summary of the types and quantities served at three early ordinaries are located in Tables 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11. 474 Two obvious differences between the three ordinaries is the total number of purchases, and the variety of drinks offered. Jonathan Willson?s patrons chose from seventeen different drinks compared to ten varieties listed in the Tracy accounts. 475 Hugh Jones? claim that cider was the ?common drinke? is clearly evident. Cider was by far the most 471 For example, archaeological data from an early eighteenth century borrow pit at Site B yielded a sample of 5,000 bones, half of which were fish, though the primary food sources in this particular case were still pig and cow. These data were not fully analyzed in time to be included in this dissertation. 472 George F. Frick, James L. Reveal, C. Rose Broome and Melvin L. Brown, ?Botanical Explorations and Discoveries in Colonial Maryland, 1688 to 1753,? Huntia Vol. 7 (1987): 8-22. 473 Ibid., 40. 474 Tables 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11 represent a sample of the purchases. The five largest itemized accounts for each ordinary keeper are included in the tables. 475 Choices in drink were probably limited by what was available and in stock. Therefore, patrons may have had fewer choices in the matter of drink selection. 186 common drink served by Tracy (n=79, 47%) and Willson (n=162, 35%). Cider and sugar was the second most popular drink (n=42, 25%) at Tracy?s. Punch was the Table 4.9 Variety and Quantity of Drinks Served at Charles Tracy?s Ordinary, 1695-1696. Beer Cider Flip Punch Rum Wine Other Total Pint 5 5 ? Pint 17 17 Gill 1 1 Bottle 82 8 90 ? Bottle 0 Tankard 1 1 ?Tankard 0 Bowl 6 6 Small Bowl 1 ? Bowl 1 0 ? Bowl 0 Can 1 2 3 Porringer 0 Quart 8 2 1 11 Gallon 28 28 ? Gallon 3 3 Unidentified 1 1 To Club 1 1 Total 0 123 3 8 24 0 10 168 Source: Abstracted from five debt cases involving Robert Brothers, William Cooper, Richard Edwards, Thomas Moody, and William Westry. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 599- 600, 66-67, 194, 171, 103. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). second most common drink at Willson?s ordinary (n=65, 14%) followed closely by a variety of other concoctions. Taken as a group cider based drinks were more common at Tracy?s (n=123, 73%) as compared to Willson?s (n=211, 46%). Nicholas Sporne?s ordinary shows a slightly different trend. Cider drinks were common (n=120, 28%) but drinks made with beer were equally important (n=124, 29%). Each ordinary offered a variety of rum and flip drinks and smaller percentages of specialty drinks such as lemonado were present. 187 Patrons consumed liberal amounts of alcohol at ordinaries. It is estimated that most English adults drank a gallon or more of ale a day. 476 By the end of the eighteenth century their American counterparts were consuming ?just under six 476 Sarah Hand Meacham, ??They Will Be Adjudged by Their Drinke, What Kind of Housewives They Are?: Gender, Technology, and Household Cidering in England and the Chesapeake, 1690 to 1760?, in Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives, eds. Debra Meyers and Melanie Perreault, (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006), 203. Table 4.10 Variety and Quantity of Drinks Served at Jonathan Willson?s Ordinary. Beer Cider Flip Punch Rum Wine Other Total Pint 34 34 ? Pint 18 1 19 Gill 27 27 Bottle 18 182 22 2 4 228 ? Bottle 0 Tankard 2 4 6 ?Tankard 0 Bowl 24 24 Small Bowl 0 ? Bowl 27 27 ? Bowl 0 Can 1 1 Porringer 4 4 Quart 11 21 11 5 5 4 3 60 Gallon 8 1 9 ? Gallon 0 Unidentified 10 10 To Club 1 4 5 Total 30 211 33 65 88 5 22 454 Source: Abstracted from five debt cases involving Robert Brothers, John Joyce, Matthew Mackeboy, Nathaniel Taylor, and John Rooke, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 598-599, 500-501 531-532, 482-483, 600-601. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). 188 gallons of absolute alcohol per year.? 477 It is also not surprising that cider drinks were common as they were well represented throughout the colonies. 478 Cider was a Table 4.11 Variety and Quantity of Drinks Served at Nicholas Sporne?s Ordinary. Beer Cider Flip Punch Rum Wine Other Total Pint 1 4 1 6 ? Pint 19 1 20 Gill 44 44 Bottle 101 102 37 19 3 262 ? Bottle 1 1 Tankard 1 1 5 6 13 ?Tankard 2 2 Bowl 1 5 6 Small Bowl 4 4 ? Bowl 1 1 ? Bowl 1 1 Can 0 Porringer 0 Quart 21 16 13 10 60 Gallon 1 1 2 ? Gallon 0 Unidentified 4 4 To Club 3 1 4 Total 124 120 58 19 68 22 19 430 Source: Abstracted from five debt cases involving John Davis, Matthew Mackeboy, Joseph Winger, William Scott, and Ninian Beall Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 449. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 18-19, 42-43, 114. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. homegrown commodity 479 produced in volume while merchants supplied imported drinks like rum and wine. Historian Sara Hand Meacham demonstrates that women 477 Mark Edward Lender and James Kirby Martin, Drinking in America: A History. (New York: The Free Press, 1987), 14. The authors also speculate that the average for actual drinkers was probably much higher. 478 Ibid., 9. 479 Many inventories include equipment for producing cider and some distilled spirits. For examples, Thomas Greenfield?s inventory includes 10 ?cider? casks, a cider press, a pewter Alembic, and a ?copper still?, Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, ff. 256-257. Henry Ridgely?s inventory contains the contents 189 were the primary producers of cider in the Chesapeake during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. 480 Therefore, the majority of alcohol supplied to the ordinaries may have come from male planters and merchants but it was produced by women. Considering the ease of production, female keepers probably also produced at least some of the cider for their operations at Charles Town. The total volume of alcohol consumed is somewhat underestimated in surviving debt accounts. For example in March of 1696 alone Willson purchased 150 gallons of strong beer and fifty gallons of boiled cider from William Round. 481 Many keepers kept hundreds of gallons of the drinks on reserve. For example, William Tyler?s inventory taken in 1722 included 630 gallons of cider, thirty gallon?s of wine, thirteen bottles of Lisbon wine, and thirty gallons of rum while Christopher Beans possessed 145 gallons of cider and eleven gallons of wine at the time of his death about 1716. 482 Alcohol, unlike many other goods, was normally consumed at the point of purchase and not carried about through the county making it an ideal service based commodity. Alcohol was listed in debt cases either by volume (i.e., pint, quart, etc?) or vessel form (i.e., tankard, bottle, etc?) (See tables 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11). Bottles were clearly the mainstay of drink service at the ordinaries. Beer, flip, and especially cider were regularly sold in bottles. In fact most drinks, with the exception of rum, were of a ?Still? house including an alembic Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, f. 150. 480 Meacham, ?They Will Be Adjudged by Their Drinke?, 211-214. See also Li, Liquor and Ordinaries, 151. 481 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 564. http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000 202/html/am202--564.htm (Accessed, September 2, 2005). 482 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, f. 279, Liber TB 1, f. 156. 190 sold by the bottle. Nearly all varieties of alcohol including rum were sold by the quart though less frequently than by the bottle. 483 Rum was usually sold by the pint, half pint, or gill and punch was most frequently sold by the bowl or half bowl. Only cider drinks were regularly sold in gallon amounts. Less frequent volumes included tankards, porringers, and cans. Each of these vessel forms were used to exchange small quantities of alcohol as economic commodities between keepers and patrons and as social commodities between patrons. Conversations between patrons and keepers can scarcely be reconstructed from the historical record, but the material transactions that were a necessary part of these conversations are present in court records and other historical documents. Social Encounters at the Ordinaries Eating and drinking provided nourishment, but in the context of the ordinary these everyday actions also provided the material context for social interaction and economic obligation. The nuance of this material context can be partially reconstructed from surviving historical data. Material objects provided the necessary medium for engaging in social transactions and the following section discusses the potential social contexts of objects used at Charles Town and recovered archaeologically. Social exchange took many forms at the ordinaries including simple conversation with a neighbor, competitive wagers, disputes, and violent confrontations. These actions were aided by the consumption of alcohol. 483 Since most bottles were roughly a quart, this volume may have been distributed via the bottle. 191 For the purpose of the following discussion these transactions are grouped into four categories of action including sharing drinks, paying for drinks and providing credit for others, meeting in formal or informal clubs, and competitive wagering. Each of these actions placed the participants in a different relationship to each other and assumed varying degrees of obligation. In some cases the transactions clearly represent what Igor Kopytoff referred to as ?relations of reciprocity? whereby the gesture required a payback that was understood by both parties. 484 The agents involved in these transactions were engaged in the subtle forms of social power that were reinforced through countless everyday actions. The following are a few examples evident from the record (Tables 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16). 485 Table 4.12 Summary of James Moore Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1701-1704. Year Month Day Patron Service Expenditure 1701 Mar 4 Thomas Bridges Drinks and ? 1 Mar 4 Richard Powell Drinks and ? Mar 25 George Athey Drinks 82 Mar 26 George Athy Drinks, 1 Lodging, and 2 Dyetts 110 Mar 26 Thomas Locker Drinks 157 Mar 27 George Athy Drinks, 2 Dyetts, 1 Lodging, and ?to part of Clubb pr man? 185 Mar 27 Thomas Locker Drinks 117 Mar 28 George Athy Drinks, 1 Lodging, and 1 Dyett 189 Mar 28 Thomas Locker Drinks, 6 Dyetts, 3 Lodgings, and a Quart of Rum ?you had of My Wife? 354 Mar 29 George Athy Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and 1 Lodging 169 May 10 Francis Ballinger Drinks and ? 2 ? May 10 William Greenup Drinks and ? ? Oct 13 Thomas Locker Drinks and ?1 horse Lent you? 129 Dec 20 Francis Stroot ?to my note to John Simons to ?01.00.00 484 Igor Kopytoff, ?The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process,? in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. Arjun Appadurai, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 69. 485 All of the examples discussed are taken from court cases summarized in tables 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16. 192 Creddit you with 2 [barrels] of Indian Corne? 1702 Jan 3 Francis Stroot Drinks and ?money Lent you? ?00.01.10 May 20 Francis Stroot Drinks and a Quart of Molasses ?00.01.10 June 15 Francis Stroot 1 Gallon of Molasses ?00.03.00 June 23 Francis Stroot Drinks ?00.00.06 June 24 Francis Stroot Drinks ?00.04.04 June 24 George Spicer Drinks, ?a Dyett to you and Wife?, a Dyett (and?) Club ?00.07.00 July 8 William Humphries Drinks ?00.01.03 July 20 William Humphries Drinks and Cash Lent ?00.15.09 July 21 William Humphries Drinks ?00.05.09 July 23 William Humphries Drinks and Dyett ?00.04.02 July 24 William Humphries Drinks ?00.02.06 July 27 William Humphries Drinks, to ?your Loosing at Play? and ?4 Dollars lent you? ?01.03.00 Aug 25 George Spicer Drinks ?00.03.06 Aug 27 George Spicer Drinks, 1 Dyett, and ?your Clubb in punch? ?00.05.00 Sept 22 Maureen Duvall Drinks and Balance of a former account ?00.14.09 Oct 28 George Athy ?1/2 Pint rum at Ye race? ?and to Cash Lent you at Ditto? 66 Oct 29 George Athy Drinks, 1 Dyett, 4 Cakes, 1 Bushell of Beans, 6 Gallons of rum 420 Nov 23 Francis Stroot Drinks ?00.00.07 Nov 26 George Spicer Drinks and 1 Plate of (???) ?00.05.01 Nov 27 Francis Stroot Drinks ?00.01.03 1703 Jan 26 George Spicer Drinks and a Dyett (and?) Club ?00.05.06 Jan 27 George Spicer Drinks, 10 Cakes, ?to your Jury Charge? ?00.14.04 Jan 28 George Spicer Drinks, and (credit ???) to Gregory ?00.06.08 Feb 16 Maureen Duvall Drinks ?00.12.02 Feb 17 Maureen Duvall Drinks ?00.05.02 Mar 10 William Joseph Drinks ?00.03.07 Mar 24 William Joseph Drinks ?00.01.06 Mar 24 George Spicer Drinks ?00.05.09 June 22 George Spicer Drinks, 1 Dyett, and 2 Dyetts (and?) Clubb ?00.06.06 June 24 William Joseph ?to Your Jury Charge?, a Dyett (and?) Clubb ?00.11.06 Aug 24 George Spicer Drinks and a Dyett (and?) Clubb ?00.07.01 Oct 11 George Spicer Drinks and 2 Cakes ?00.09.00 Nov 3 George Spicer Drinks and ?to Gregory?, and (??) to Archibald Edmonston ?05.18.01 Nov 24 William Joseph Drinks ?00.01.06 Nov 25 George Spicer Drinks ?00.14.08 193 Nov 26 William Joseph Drinks ?00.02.01 1704 Mar 28 Maureen Duvall Drinks ?00.02.01 Apr 15 William Joseph A Dyett (and?) Clubb, Credit to to Blandford, and a new Wallett ?00.04.06 1 Taken from drunkenness case against Moore. The writing is somewhat unclear but year of the incident appears to be 1701. 2 Taken from a case against Greenup for Fighting with Francis Ballinger at Moore?s house. Source: Abstracted from debt cases and other court cases. Prince Georges County Court Records, Liber B, 1701-1705, ff. 119a, 187a, 212a, 213a, 227, 227a, 295a, 357c, and 418a. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. Table 4.13 Summary of Joseph Addison Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1701-1704. Year Month Day Patron Service Expenditure 1 Comment 1701 June ? John Davis ?To Your Account to Ballance? 00.10.06 June 12 John Davis Drinks, Cakes, ?To one tankard of bear at Ye Race?, to ?more expences? 00.08.06 June Court John Davis Drinks 00.09.00 July 27 John Davis Drinks 00.04.00 Sept Court John Davis Drinks, 2 Cakes, and a Dyett 00.04.00 ? John Davis To more expenses, Drinks 00.12.06 At Race 1702 May 1 Silvester Matthews Drinks, 3 Cakes, ?a Pair of Silver Buckles?, and Money Lent 01.18.06 May 6 Silvester Matthews Drinks, 2 Cakes 00.05.06 Aug 10 John Davis Drinks and Cakes 00.04.06 At Race Nov Court John Davis Drinks, a Dyett, and ?Share of a quart of flip? 00.02:00 1703 April 1 Silvester Matthews Drinks 01.05.00 April 8 Silvester Matthews Drinks, Cakes, ?to [credit] Richard Groome 4? 00.15.06 April 19 Silvester Matthews Drinks, 8 Cakes, 00.03.06 April 24 Silvester Matthews Drinks, 4 Cakes, Money Lent 01.09.00 June 8 John Davis Drinks and a Dyett 00.03.06 Oct 20 Edward Rush Drinks 00.06.00 Oct 30 Edward Rush Drinks 00.09.00 1704 Jan 24 Edward Rush Drinks, a Dyett, To Money Lent You 00.04.06 Jan Court? Edward Rush Drinks, 2 Dyetts, a Lodging, Shared Bowl of Punch 00.16.06 June Court James Drinks 00.02.06 194 Whittmash Oct 26 James Whittmash Drinks, ?Part Share of a Qt Madera wine?, a ?cake Ginger Bread?, ?Pt Share a quart of madera wine? 00.05.06 At Race Nov 28 James Whittmash Drinks, 4 cakes, and a Dyett 00.07.06 Dec 20 James Whittmash Drinks 00.04.06 1 Expenditure in ? Sterling. Source: Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, 1703-1705, ff. 247, 364, 370, 415. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. Table 4.14 Summary of Charles Tracey Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1695-1696. Year Month Day Patron Service Expenditure 1695 Mar 25 John Clarkson Drinks 80 Mar 27 John Clarkson Drinks 80 May 1 John Clarkson Drinks 140 Dec 23 William Westry Drinks and a Dyett 70 Dec 24 William Westry Drinks, 3 Dyetts, and 2 Lodgings 230 Dec 25 William Westry Drinks and a Lodging 85 1696 Jan 11 William Westry Drinks 130 Jan 13 William Westry Drinks, a Lodging, and Credit to Henry Glover 110 Jan 14 William Westry Drinks 30 Mar 28 Thomas Moody Drinks and a Dyett 115 June 4 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 70 June 5 William Cooper Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and Lodging 85 June 6 William Cooper Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and Lodging 70 June 7 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 25 June 8 William Cooper Drinks 75 June 9 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 25 June 9 Thomas Moody Drinks 30 June 10 William Cooper Drinks and ?a Bottle of Corne? 55 June 12 William Cooper Drinks 15 June 13 William Cooper Drinks 45 June 14 William Cooper Drinks 15 June 15 William Cooper Drinks and Lodging 12.5 June 18 William Cooper Drinks 45 June 20 William Cooper Drinks 75 June 21 William Cooper Drinks, Dyett, and 12 Ears of corn 127 June 23 William Cooper Drinks 27 June 23 Richard Edwards Drinks and a Dyett 90 195 June 25 William Cooper Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and 6 ears of corn 63 June 27 William Cooper Drinks, Dyett, and Lodging 45 June 28 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 40 June 30 William Cooper Drinks 15 July 1 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 22 July 9 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 20 July 18 William Cooper Dyett and Lodging 15 July 19 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 22 July 21 William Cooper Dyett and Lodging 15 July 27 William Cooper Drinks, Dyett, and ?4 Gallons of Syder made into Dyett Drinke? 255 Aug 6 William Cooper Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and Lodging 35 Aug 8 William Cooper Drinks and 2 Dyetts 35 Aug 9 William Cooper Dyett and Lodging 15 Aug 10 William Cooper Dyett and Lodging 15 Aug 21 William Cooper Drinks and ?to cortnys wife by your order? 100 Aug 25 William Cooper Drinks, Dyett, and Lodging 30 Aug 26 William Cooper Drinks and Dyett 32.5 Sept 16 Thomas Moody Drinks 15 Sept 22 Richard Edwards Drinks and ?to your part in punch? 130 Sept 23 Richard Edwards Drinks and 2 Dyetts 104 Aug 24 Richard Edwards Drinks and 2 Dyetts 175 Oct 17 Thomas Moody Drinks 100 Oct 21 Thomas Moody Drinks and a Dyett 45 Oct 23 Thomas Moody Drinks 15 Oct 26 Richard Edwards Drinks and a Dyett 137 Nov 24 Richard Edwards Drinks, 2 Dyetts, Lodging, and 12 ears of corn 97 Nov 26 Richard Edwards Drinks 147 Nov 27 Richard Edwards Drinks 64 Dec 12 Richard Edwards Drinks and 2 Dyetts 83 Source: Abstracted from debt cases. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages, 66-67, 116, 194, 171, 103. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). Table 4.15 Summary of Jonathan Willson Ordinary Accounts From Debt Cases, 1689-1698. Year Month Day Patron Service Expenditure 1689 ? ? Francis Collier Drinks to Mr. John Evans 110 Feb 24 Francis Collier Drinks, and Drink to Thomas Clawson 150 Dec 15 Francis Collier Drinks, and 3 quarts Russian cider 170 196 carried with you 1691 Mar 2 Francis Collier Drinks, 3 Dyetts, 2 Lodgings 70 Apr 13 Francis Collier Drinks 40 Apr 15 Francis Collier Drinks, and 3 quarts rum carried home with you 170 1692 June 21 and 22 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks and a Dyett for you and Richard Jones 100 1694 Jan 26 Isaac Williams Drinks 220 Mar 19 Isaac Williams Drinks and Lodging 45 Mar 27 Isaac Williams Drinks, and Dyetts and Lodging to Widdow Graves 50 Apr 20 Isaac Williams Drinks 70 Aug 15 John Rooke Drinks and a Dyett ?00.03.06 Aug 24 Francis Collier Drinks 60 Sept ? John Rooke Drinks and 2 Dyetts ?00.07.00 Sept 19 Francis Collier Drinks and Drinks to Thomas Stafford 80 Sept 20 Francis Collier Drinks sent to Mr. Jenkins 40 Oct 1 John Rooke Drinks ?00.05.04 Oct 2 John Rooke Drinks ?00.08.00 Oct 4 John Rooke Drinks ?00.04.03 Oct 5,6, and 20th John Rooke Drinks ?00.09.06 Oct 10 Isaac Williams Drinks, Dyett, and Lodging 24 1995 Jan 26 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 80 Dec 6 John Rooke Drinks and a Bottle of Syder with Charles Treacy ?00.05.06 1696 Mar 23 Maureen Duvall Drinks 65 Mar 23 John Mills Drinks 30 Mar 23 Joseph Winger Drinks 70 Apr 6 John Deaver A Bowl of Punch with Tim Sewell and Abraham Burkett 50 Apr 17 John Rooke Drinks and a Lodging ?00.04.00 Apr 19 and 20 John Rooke Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging ?00.05.06 June 14 John Deaver Drinks and a Dyett 20 June 22 John Mills Drinks 15 June 23 John Deaver Drinks 102 July 19 John Deaver Drinks 20 July 26 John Deaver A Dyett with Mr. Willkinson 10 Aug 23 1 John Deaver Drinks and a Dyett 50 Aug 24 John Deaver Drinks 100 Aug 25 John Mills Drinks and 2 Dyetts 125 Oct 14 John Rooke Drinks and your Club in Punch ?00.11.06 Nov 3 John Mills 6 Bottles Cider and Dyett to Your Wife 100 1697 Jan 12 Joseph Winger Drinks 52 197 Jan 14 John Rooke Drinks ?00.04.00 Jan 16 John Rooke Drinks and a Bottle of Syder Lost att Cards ?00.02.00 Jan 18 John Rooke 2 Gallons of Syder and ? Bowl of Punch ?00.06.00 Jan 22 Joseph Winger Drinks 47 Jan 24 Joseph Winger Drinks 50 Jan 25 John Mills Drinks 48 Feb 28 John Rooke Drinks and a Dyett in Mackrell; A Mackrell?, Bottle of Syder, and Dyett ?00.09.07 Mar 23 Charles Beall Drinks 45 Mar 23 John Deaver Drinks 12 Mar 23 John Joyce Drinks 60 Mar 24 John Deaver Drinks and a Dyett 32 Mar 24 John Joyce Drinks and Dyett 85 Mar 24 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks and a Dyett 230 Mar 25 John Joyce Drinks and Dyett 115 Mar 25 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.02.00 Mar 25 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 57 Mar 26 John Joyce Drinks 35 Mar 27 John Joyce Drinks 18 Mar 26 and 27 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks, 2 Dyetts, a bottle of flip delivered to Robert Goarding, and credit given to James Foard 193 Apr 6 William Harbert Drinks 30 Apr 10 John Joyce Drinks 42 Apr 23 John Joyce Drinks and Dyett 30 Apr 24 John Joyce Drinks 25 Apr 25 John Joyce Drinks and Dyett, and Gill of Rum and Sugar to Tom the Sadler 33 May 25 William Greenup Drinks 30 May 27 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.10.00 May 28 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.01.00 May 29 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 120 May 30 William Gaskin Drinks 5 May 30 William Greenup Drinks 92 June 15 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks to Yourself and two men with you ?00.18.00 June 19 Robert Brothers Drinks 8 June 19 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?to the same carpenter? ?00.02.00 June 20 Robert Brothers Drinks 15 June 20 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.00.06 198 June 21 Charles Beall Drinks 35 June 21 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.02.00 June 22 Robert Brothers Drinks, a Dyett, and Lodging 60 June 22 Maureen Duvall A Dyett and Quart of Beer to Your wife 14 June 23 Robert Brothers Drinks, 2 Dyetts, a lodging, Your Club in Beer, and your club in punch 138 June 23 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, Dyett, and Drinks Credit to Your Mate Taylor ?00.15.06 June 24 Robert Brothers Drinks and a Dyett 105 June 24 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks, 12 ears of corn, and a Sheafe of Gates 58 July 12 Charles Beall Drinks 42 July 14 Matthew Mackeboy 2 Drinks 83 July 19 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.03.00 July 19 Charles Walker Drinks 40 July 22 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.02.06 July 24 Robert Brothers Drinks 90 July 25 Robert Brothers Drinks, a Dyett, and a Lodging 65 July 26 Robert Brothers Drinks 25 Aug 9 Robert Brothers Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging 140 Aug 9 John Lennam Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging. Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging to Your Friend 280 Aug 14 John Joyce Drinks and Dyetts 35 Aug 20 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and ?to a Bottle of Syder with Mr. Selby? ?00.03.00 Aug 24 John Joyce Drinks and 4 Dyetts 120 Aug 24 Charles Walker Drinks 40 Aug 24 Joseph Winger Drinks 90 Aug 27 John Joyce Drinks 50 Aug 27 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.02.00 Aug 28 John Joyce Drinks and 4 Dyetts 98 Sept 6 Maureen Duvall Dyett 10 Sept 29 Robert Brothers Drinks, a Dyett, and a Lodging 81 Sept 29 Charles Walker A Dyett 10 Sept 30 Robert Brothers Drinks and a Dyett 81 Sept 30 William Greenup Drinks and Lemonadoe to John Green 55 199 Oct 1 Robert Brothers Drinks and ?2 Pasturages for your Horse? 85 Oct 2 Robert Brothers Drinks, 2 Dyetts, a Lodging, and 2 Bowls of punch to Robert Goarding 170 Oct 8 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and ?to a Bottle of Syder from my Wife? ?00.02.00 Oct 8 Charles Walker Drinks 30 Oct 15 William Gaskin Drinks and a Bottle Lent 68 Oct 17 John Weathers 1 Gallon of Syder 24 Oct 25 William Greenup Drinks 51 Oct 26 John Weathers 1 Gallon of Syder and a Pint of Burnt Rum 48 Oct 27 John Weathers Drinks 48 Oct 29 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks with Mr. Betty ?00.01.00 Nov 1 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.01.00 Nov 2 John Joyce Drinks, 2 lodgings, and 2 Dyetts 427 Nov 2 Joseph Winger Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging 155 Nov 3 John Joyce Drinks 120 Nov 3 Joseph Winger Drinks, a Dyett, and Lodging 86 Nov 4 Joseph Winger Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging 100 Nov 5 Joseph Winger Drinks 60 Nov 6 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging ?00.18.06 Nov 15 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and a Lodging ?00.08.09 Nov 16 Robert Brothers Drinks, 2 Dyetts, a Lodging, and a Sheafe of Gates 116 Nov 16 Maureen Duvall Drinks 24 Nov 16 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging ?00.06.06 Nov 17 Robert Brothers Drinks and 12 ears of corn ?to your men? 47 Nov 17 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, a Dyett, and a Lodging, and ?3 Porringers of Burnt Rome Lost att Cards? ?00.11.06 Nov 18 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, Dyett, and a Lodging ?00.07.06 Nov 18 John Weathers Drinks and To 18 for William that Lives at Treacys 30 Nov 19 Maureen Duvall 6 Mackrell Carried with you 24 Nov 19 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, Dyett, and a Lodging ?00.07.06 Nov 21 Robert Brothers Drinks, a Dyett, and Lodging 57 Nov 22 Robert Brothers A Gallon of Syder sent to John Davis?s house 24 Nov 23 Maureen Duvall Drinks 12 Nov 23 John Joyce Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and Lodging 87 200 Nov 24 Robert Brothers Drinks, 2 Bottles of Syder to Nathaniell Brothers, and to Tobacco paid to Charles Baker 198 Nov 24 John Joyce Drinks, 4 Dyetts, and 2 Lodgings. 2 bottles cider to John Stone and 1 pint Burnt Rum to John Boyd. 183 Nov 24 John Lennam Drinks 5 Nov 27 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and Lodging ?00.02.06 Nov 29 William Greenup Drinks and a Gallon of Syder sent to Mr. Stoddarts 72 Dec 6 John Joyce Drinks, Dyett, and 12 Ears of Corn. 2 Dyetts to John Stone. 138 Dec 7 John Joyce Drinks and Dyett 58 Dec 8 John Joyce Drinks, 2 Dyetts, and a Lodging. 12 Ears of Corn and 3 Sheaf of gates. 160 Dec 8 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and a Dyett ?00.08.00 Dec 9 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and a Dyett ?00.06.00 Dec 11 William Gaskin Drinks 15 Dec 14 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.01.00 Dec 18 John Weathers Drinks 24 Dec 20 John Weathers Drinks 24 Dec 23 John Weathers Drinks 12 Dec 24 John Weathers A Gallon of Syder Carried Home 24 Dec 27 Charles Walker Drinks 24 Dec 30 Charles Walker Drinks 30 1698 Jan 8 Charles Beall Drinks 66 Jan 9 Robert Brothers A quart of Syder and a Gill of rum to your house Keeper and the man that was with her 12 Jan 9 William Greenup Drinks 24 Jan 14 John Weathers Drinks 12 Jan 21 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and a Lodging ?00.02.06 Jan 25 John Joyce Drinks, 3 Dyetts, and 2 Lodgings 52 Jan 25 and 26 William Greenup Drinks 149 Jan 25 Charles Walker Drinks 24 Jan 27 John Joyce 2 Dyetts and a lodging 25 Jan 28 John Joyce Drinks, Dyett, and Lodging 35 Jan 29 John Joyce Drinks, 3 Dyetts 62 Feb 21 Robert Brothers Drinks 115 Feb 22 Robert Brothers Drinks 5 Feb 24 Charles Drinks 5 201 Walker Mar 2 Maureen Duvall A Bottle of Flipp sent Down to the Landing 30 Mar 6 and 7 Charles Beall Drinks 191 Mar 22 Maureen Duvall Drinks 54 Mar 22 Charles Walker Drinks 12 Mar 23 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.01.00 Mar 23 Charles Walker Drinks 24 Mar 24 Maureen Duvall Drinks 60 Mar 24 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks and a Dyett ?00.06.06 Mar 24 Charles Walker To your Club in Rum and Syder 20 Mar 26 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks, 6 Dyetts, 4 Lodgings, and ?To Sundry Expences Charged by my Wife and Daughter? ?00.19.09 Mar 28 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.00.06 Mar 31 Nathaniell Taylor Drinks ?00.01.00 Apr 14 Robert Brothers Drinks and 5 Dyetts 110 Apr 15 Robert Brothers Drinks, 9 Dyetts, and 2 Lodgings 162 Apr 21 Robert Brothers Drinks, a Dyett, and 6 ears of corn 141 Apr 22 Robert Brothers Drinks and 6 ears of corn 16 Apr 25 Robert Brothers A Bottle of Flipp for Benjamin Maddox; 2 Bottles of Flipp, 3 Quarts of Flipp and a gill of rum for John Murphey; and 2 Bottles of Flipp to Laurance Parker 168 Apr 26 Robert Brothers 1/2 Bowl of Punch for John Murphey: ? Bowl Punch for Benjamin Maddox 50 May 4-? 3 Robert Brothers A Tankard of Punch and ? Bowl of Punch to John White; 3 Quarts of Flipp and ? Bowl of Punch to John White; a Bowl of Punch to John Murphy; a Tankard of Punch to Benjamin Maddox; ? Bowl of Punch to Laurence Taylor; ? Pint of Rum to John Murphey; ? Pint rum to Benjamin Maddox; 1? Pints and a Gill of Rum to Nathaniell Brothers; 2 Bottles of Flipp, ? Pint and a Gill of Rum, to John Harris; 3 Gills of Rum to Murphey, Maddox, and Treacy; 2? Pints of Rum to Murphey and Parker; a Gallon of 406 202 Syder to John Murphey; and 2 Bottles of Syder to John Harris and Benjamin Maddox. Is listed as ?3? but is probably 23. 2 Numerous purchases were listed for Mackeboy after July 14, but dates of service could not be confirmed. 3 This account may span several days after May 4 th . Source: Abstracted from five debt cases. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages, 482-483 500-501, 503- 506, 511, 531-532, 540, 583, 585-586, 598-599, 600-601, 611. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008); Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, 1699, ff. 8, 9. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland.. Table 4.16 Summary of Nicholas Sporne Ordinary Accounts from Debt Cases, 1696-1708. Year MonthDay Patron Service Expenditure Comments 1696 June 6 Thomas Bridges Drinks 55 June 7 Thomas Bridges Drinks 80 1697 June 20 John Bennet Jr. Drinks 291 1698 June 28 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 30 Aug ? John Davis Drinks 111.50 Aug 7 David Ambrose and Robert Goarding Drinks and Dyett 279 Aug 22 John Davis Drinks and Dyett 85 Aug 23 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks and Dyett 220 Aug 25 John Davis Drinks 71 ? 26 David Ambrose and Robert Goarding Drinks and Dyett 70 27 David Ambrose and Robert Goarding Drinks and Dyett 95 Aug 28 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 30 Sept ? Matthew Mackeboy Drinks and Dyett 250 Sept Court (?) William Scott Drinks 220 2 Bowls of Punch to Clubb Sept 4 John Davis Drinks 50 Sept 5 David Ambrose and Robert Goarding Drinks and Dyett 193.50 Sept 12 John Davis Drinks 49.50 Sept 20 John Davis Drinks 78 Sept 26 Solomon Stimpson Drinks 23 Sept 27 John Davis Drinks 59 Sept 27 Phillip Dennis Drinks 70 Sept 30 Joseph Winger Drinks and Dyett 69 Nov ? Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 263 Nov ? Joseph Winger Drinks, Dyett, Lodging, and Pasturage 194 Nov Court (?) Solomon Stimpson Drinks 138.50 Nov 1 John Davis Drinks 190 Nov 23 Robert Goarding Drinks and Dyett 162.50 203 Dec ? William Scott Drinks 84 1699 Jan ? Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 45 Jan Court (?) William Scott Drinks 15 Feb Court (?) William Scott Drinks 69 Mar Court (?) Stephen Venner Drinks 50 Mar Court (?) Phillip Dennis Drinks, Dyett. Drink to Bignall and Dyett to Ye Woman 129.50 Mar 18 William Scott Drinks 75 Mar 18 Solomon Stimpson Drinks and Dyett 70 Mar 19 William Scott Drinks, Dyett, Lodging, and Horse Stabling, Fodder, and Pasturage 52 Mar 19 Solomon Stimpson Drinks and Dyett 80 Mar 28 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 195 Mar 28 William Scott Drinks, Dyett, and Horse Stabling and Fodder. Also ?a knife which you broak? 127.50 Mar 29 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks, Dyett, and ?A Jury?s Expense? 185 Mar 29 William Scott Drinks 20 Apr 29 Phillip Dennis Drinks 39 Apr 29 William Scott Drinks 22.50 Apr 29 Solomon Stimpson Drinks and Dyett 40 June ? Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 53 June 4 Francis Ballinger Drinks 45 June 27 Phillip Dennis Drinks and Dyett 175 June 27 William Scott Drinks and Dyett 90 June 27 Stephen Venner Drinks and Dyett 95 June 27 Joseph Winger Drinks 139 June 28 Phillip Dennis Drinks and 3 Dyetts 102.50 June 28 William Scott Drinks, Dyett, Lodging, and Horse Pasturage 156 June 28 Solomon Stimpson Drinks 75 June 28 Joseph Winger Drinks and Dyett 222 July 8 Stephen Venner Drinks 86.50 Aug 22 Francis Ballinger Drinks 27 Aug 22 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks, Lodging, and Horse Pasturage 162 Aug 22 Stephen Venner Drinks and 2 Dyetts 50 Aug 22 Joseph Winger Drinks 76 Aug 23 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 20 Aug 23 Stephen Venner Drinks 30 Aug 23 Joseph Winger Drinks 30 Aug 24 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 15 Aug 24 Stephen Venner Drinks 45 Aug 26 Phillip Dennis Drinks and Dyett 62.50 Sept ? Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 146 Sept 26 William Scott Drinks 165 204 Sept 26 Solomon Stimpson Drinks, Dyett, Lodging, and Horse Stabling, Fodder, and Pasturage 47 Sept 26 Joseph Winger Drinks and Dyett 68 Sept 27 Francis Ballinger Drinks 30 Sept 27 Stephen Venner Drinks and Dyett 80 Sept 27 Joseph Winger Dyett 10 Sept 28 Francis Ballinger To Cash Lent 30 Oct ? Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 63 Oct 6 Francis Ballinger Drinks and Dyett 49.50 Oct 17 Joseph Winger Drinks 24 Oct 18 Francis Ballinger Drinks 30 Oct 18 Stephen Venner Drinks 82.50 Oct 19 Francis Ballinger Drinks 30 Oct 19 Stephen Venner Drinks 65 Oct 20 William Scott Drinks, Dyett, Lodging, and Horse Pasturage 58 Oct 28 Joseph Winger Drinks 72 Nov 11 Matthew Mackeboy Drinks 222 Nov 28 William Scott Drinks 16 1707 Nov 20 William Greenup Drinks 0:4:6 1708 Jan 15 William Greenup Drinks 0:0:6 Jan 16 William Greenup Drinks 0:1:18 Jan 29 William Greenup Drinks 0:1:12 Feb 7 William Greenup ?to Ye Clubb for Flipp to William Lintell (Sp?)? 0:0:9 Source: Abstracted from debt cases. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pagee 449, 470, 529, . http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008); Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 18-19, 39, 40, 40a, 42-43, 65, 65a, 66a, 114; Liber D, f. 137. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Maryland. Sharing drinks or food was the most basic form of social transaction at the ordinaries. Sharing a drink was a transaction that did not necessarily have to be repaid. Often one party would assume the debt, but in some cases the cost was shared. The only requirement of this transaction was that both parties were present and sharing the drinks. Although only nine examples of this type of exchange were found in the court records, it is likely that most of these subtle transactions did not make it into the keeper?s ledger let alone the court record. Those examples that did survive in the record hint at the meaning of this form of transaction. 205 It is difficult to determine when a sharing transaction resulted in an obligation. When George Spicer shared drinks and a meal with his wife at James Moore?s ordinary in June of 1702 there was clearly no reason for reciprocation. The same is probably true for occasions where the costs of the transaction were divided between the parties. Local planter John Davis shared a quart of flip with an unknown party at Joseph Addison?s ordinary during the November 1702 court session. In another case at Addison?s ordinary, James Wittmarsh shared the cost of two quarts of wine with an unknown party at a horse race in October of 1704. In both of these cases the parties shared an equal economic standing in the transaction. The balance of the transaction was unequal in other cases. Numerous transactions at Jonathan Willson?s ordinary illustrate the one-sided nature of many of these encounters (Table 4.15). On July 26, 1696, John Deaver was charged for a ?dyett? with Mr. Wilkinson at Willson?s ordinary. William Wilkinson was a factor for the London merchants Edward and Dudley Carleton and the two may have met at the ordinary to discuss a business transaction or debt. On another occasion Deaver assumed the charge for a bowl of punch shared with Tim Sewell and Abraham Burkett. There are several examples involving Presbyterian minister Nathaniel Taylor who spent many days at Willson?s ordinary between March 1697 and March 1698. 486 Taylor assumed the cost of drinks with others at the ordinary. In one case Taylor shared a ?bottle of syder with Mr. Selby.? 487 The precise meaning of these transactions is lost, but the fact that they were common is clear. 486 Taylor was the first minister at the Presbyterian church established in Marlborough in 1704, Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 92-93. 487 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 483. 206 The second type of transaction involved payment for services or credit issued where sharing was not indicated. These were examples of one individual paying another?s debt or buying someone a drink as a gift or payment. In one case, Maureen Duvall instructed Jonathan Willson to have ?A Bottle of Flipp sent Down to the Landing.? 488 This bottle may have been destined for the crew of a ship bringing a fresh supply of English goods. Or the bottle may have been consumed by an acquaintance purchasing goods, a local merchant, or Duvall himself. In any of these scenarios the bottle in the context of the public landing was not merely a vessel for holding flip but rather a catalyst for creating or reinforcing an economic and/or social relationship. In a similar case, Robert Brothers was charged for a gallon of cider ?sent? to ?John Davis?s house? presumably in gratitude or obligation for use of his land for lumber and his house for lodging while Brothers? craftsmen were constructing the courthouse. Likewise, William Greenup ?sent? a gallon of cider to county justice James Stoddert possibly as gratitude or payment. Each of these cases represents a gift given, not necessarily shared. Other transactions substituted as payment for services rendered. The best examples of this are Robert Brothers? many debts for drinks served to his men at Willson?s ordinary. These laborers included Benjamin Maddox, John Murphey, Laurence Parker, John Harris, John White, and Laurence Taylor. These men were employed by Brothers to construct the courthouse at Charles Town in 1698. In this http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am202-- 483.html (Accessed, January 16, 2008). 488 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 504. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--504.html (Accessed, January 16, 2008). 207 case the men drank punch, rum, and hard cider together at Willson?s ordinary when they were not occupied with the courthouse construction. In some cases individuals extended credit to other patrons. This form of transaction occurred on several occasions at James Moore?s ordinary (Table 4.12). On two separate days George Spicer provided credit for ?Gregory.? In another case William Joseph extended credit to ?Blandford.? The charge for extending credit at the ordinary was another form of gift or perhaps payment. Cases involving payment of someone else?s debt or charges for sending someone a bottle of cider were a form of social interaction containing a certain degree of detachment not possible when drinks or food were shared. Club meetings were a third form of social activity at the ordinaries. Patrons met in clubs at nearly every ordinary in Charles Town during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. It is unclear whether these clubs represent informal gatherings or more structured groups, though it is probably the former. There are two important elements of these meetings. First, they represent a gathering of several people and second they nearly always involved a mutual assumption of the debt charged. Punch was the communal drink of choice especially in larger clubs though other drinks such as ?lemonado?, burnt rum, and beer were also shared. For example, William Scott was charged for two bowls of punch to his club at Nicholas Sporne?s ordinary in September of 1698 (Table 4.16). Both William Joseph and George Spicer were charged for expenses to their clubs at James Moore?s ordinary in June of 1703 (Table 4.12). Though the exact content of the conversations that took place at these 208 clubs is lost, it is likely that both local and regional politics and the mundane news of the neighborhood were discussed in these groups. All of the social transactions discussed above involved the use of material culture summarized in the previous section. In fact it would have been impossible to complete the transactions without material culture at the heart of the exchange. First consider the alcohol itself. Some drinks were sold in volumes for individual consumption. Rum is the prime example of a drink made for individual consumption and was rarely indicated in social transactions recorded in the debt cases. 489 Patrons shared a variety of other drinks including hard cider, punch, beer, wine, and flip. Cider was most often shared by the bottle and punch exclusively by the bowl. Flip and wine were shared by the quart. Larger groups shared punch by the bowl while cider, flip and wine were shared between two or three people. Individuals also frequently purchased single drinks for other patrons. Cider was the most versatile drink in that it could be shared at the ordinary or sent to another location. The exchange of alcohol mediated and was mediated by the particular forms of material culture used to serve and transport it. The bottle was the most versatile form of material culture used in the exchange of alcohol. Glass or stoneware bottles allowed for alcohol to be easily transported beyond the confines of the ordinary, such as the case of Maureen Duvall sending a bottle of cider to the landing. Also, inexpensive glass, earthenware, or stoneware vessels would have been more expendable and thus potentially more 489 For an exception see, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 611. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--611.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 209 mobile than pewter vessels. The same is true for the many wooden vessels discussed in the previous section. Other vessels were possibly restricted to the confines of the ordinary itself. Expensive glass ware, punch bowls, and pewter vessels likely remained within the vicinity of the ordinary. Punch bowls were not only fragile and expensive they were also expressly intended for stationary communal drinking, not for transport. Glassware, if present at all, was also fragile, expensive, and designed for small volumes. Given the information gathered, there would have been little use for glassware at the ordinaries at Charles Town and greater Prince George?s County during the period. Most drinking took place within the ordinary space, but it is possible that patrons brought their own drinking vessels to the ordinaries and left with them. The punch bowl enabled conversation by requiring participants to remain at the table. In this way punch bowls were the most restricting drinking vessel present at the ordinaries. Vessels used for consuming meals such as plates and trenchers would have also been confined to the ordinary space. More mobile activities such as outdoor gaming required portable vessels like tankards and mugs. All of these material culture forms were common but essential in structuring the way food and alcohol was consumed and exchanged at the ordinaries. Material culture also structured games and sporting events at the ordinaries. A final way that social obligations were secured was through competitive wagering. The tradition of gaming at colonial taverns in the British American 210 Colonies is well documented. 490 Therefore it is not surprising that there is direct evidence of sporting and wagering at ordinaries in early eighteenth-century Prince George?s County. Historian Nancy Struna argues that sporting events at taverns during the eighteenth century, such as horse racing and nine pins, were opportunities for participants to compete in displays of physical ?prowess.? 491 These games involved both the interior and exterior spaces of the ordinaries. Card playing was the most common interior activity that often involved wagers. For example John Rooke, Nathaniell Taylor, and Matthew Mackeboy were each charged by Charles Town keeper Jonathan Willson for drinks lost at cards. 492 The only material culture necessary in such transactions was a table, benches or chairs, cards, and alcohol for securing the wager. 493 Some games and sporting events took place on the exterior of the structure. Games such as nine pins and other games were probably common at most ordinaries, but the only instances found were those where the participants were cited by the court for breach of peace. 494 Horse racing was also a popular activity and races were being held at Charles Town by the first years of the eighteenth century. Ordinaries provided the necessary refreshment for these events. George Athy was charged by James Moore on October 28, 1702 for ?1/2 Pint rum at Ye race? and ?Cash Lent you 490 See Salinger, Taverns and Drinking, 71-75; Nancy L. Struna, People of Prowess: Sport, Leisure, and Labor in Early Anglo-America, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996), 148-164. 491 Struna, People of Prowess, 154. 492 See Table 8 for Nathaniel Taylor and John Rooke accounts; for Matthew Mackeboy see Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 532. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--532.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 493 Struna, People of Prowess, 148. 494 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 357-357a; Liber D, f. 236. 211 at Ditto? (Table 11). It is possible that Athy used the cash for wagering. Joseph Addison provided John Davis with drinks and food at two races during 1701 and 1702 and James Whittmash at another in October of 1704 (Table 12). For the participants, these events were social engagements that when coupled with wagering resulted in the obligation of a tangible economic debt. Social exchange at the ordinaries in early Prince George?s County engaged a wide range of material culture. The physical spaces of the ordinary and its grounds provided the physical setting that both structured and were structured by the activities that took place within them. Clubs were interior gatherings where bowls of punch were often shared at whatever table was available. Card playing was an interior event that involved a table, but in contrast to the club the participants were opposed to each other and drinking was more likely solitary with vessels such as tankards employed. Alcohol, unlike food, could be consumed and exchanged beyond the interior of the structure. Exterior activities involved individual drinking vessel forms, but if these belonged to the house they may have been restricted to use near the structure. All of these social encounters at the ordinaries must be placed within the cultural context of the early Chesapeake region. The first cultural component of exchanges at the ordinaries is race. Race dictated actions in the ordinaries in several ways. First, slaves were not part of the historical cultural context and custom of tavern going and did not possess the financial means or legal status to participate in the system of debt. These limitations were essentially extended to all people of color and both the Virginia and Maryland legislatures attempted to restrict the sale of 212 alcohol to Indians. 495 At the same time, white servants were permitted to drink at ordinaries with their master?s permission. By the late seventeenth century ordinaries were institutions where whites of all classes could come to drink and socialize. Class barriers were not diminished upon entering the ordinary door, but were perhaps made less relevant by a constructed racial equality. White privilege allowed entry into the ordinary and other social, economic, and political institutions defined by whiteness. From another perspective, social interaction at the ordinaries represented a gendered space. Returning to Kullikoff?s comments about taverns being competitive proving grounds for men, it is clear that although there is evidence that women did drink in the ordinaries, most of the social interaction at the ordinaries took place between white men. It is equally clear that women structured the everyday interactions at the ordinaries. These women were primarily wives, servants, and widows who were thrust into the business out of financial necessity or because of the terms of their servitude. Though their role in the social encounters at the ordinaries is not always visible in the historical record, they organize the settings for these encounters. Women provided the drinks and tallied the debts owed by patrons and the means in which those debts were amassed. They also had to negotiate violence within their establishments as a means of preserving their livelihood. Women needed to provide the variety of necessary material culture for social transactions to occur, such as tables, cards, tankards, alcohol, and beds. The business would surely fail without these amenities. Ordinaries were places where white men from indentured servants 495 Salinger, Taverns and Drinking, 24. 213 to merchant politicians engaged in the social milieu of early Prince George?s County. In many ways the ordinaries were interchangeable settings as long as they provided the necessary space and rudimentary material culture for social exchange to occur. Furthermore, because gatherings at the ordinaries were sporadic during the period it was the corpus of material culture and the engagement itself that mattered most rather than the location or ownership of a particular ordinary. This is especially true of courthouse sites like Charles Town. The most mundane social transactions including sharing a drink took place on countless occasions at the ordinaries. Much of the meaning behind these exchanges is unrecoverable, but the social and legal rules of the ordinaries and the common forms of material culture associated with these institutions provided the structure whereby active agents were able to engage each other on terrain that was mutually understood. It is only within this context that any interpretive sense can be made of a tankard, bottle, table, or deck of cards found in a keeper?s inventory or fragment of a punch bowl found at an archaeological site of an ordinary. Economic Opportunity and Entanglement Towns offered many ordinary keepers an economic opportunity not available at plantations or ferry crossings. This was the case in Prince George?s County by the early 1700s as a network of towns solidified along its eastern side. In an economy with very little paper money, patrons ate, slept, and drank on credit extended by the ordinary keepers and backed by wealthy local citizens and London merchants. This 214 chain of credit and debt was predicated on a thirst for rum, cider, and other drinks and on the ordinary to provide a gathering point. Cider was a profitable commodity for keepers if they could prevent spoilage. For example, in the early eighteenth century a keeper could buy a gallon of cider from a local planter for eight pence and resell a gallon of mulled cider for four shillings at the ordinary representing a gross profit of over 80 percent. Rum on the other hand could be purchased for 3.5 shillings per gallon and resold by the gill (4oz) for six pence. This converts to slightly less than 80 percent gross profit. 496 Rum was about as profitable as cider by this estimate, but was easier to keep. Costs varied depending on the quantities of alcohol purchased at wholesale. Xiaoxiong Li suggests that gross profits for cider, brandy, and rum could match or exceed 100 percent. 497 Table 4.17 Average Ordinary Expenditure Per Visit. Ordinary Keeper Number of Cases Average Expenditure in Shillings Per Visit Charles Tracy (1695-1696) 56 4.76 Jonathan Willson (1689-1698) 179 5.81 Joseph Addison (1701-1704) 23 7.65 James Moore (1701-1704) 52 9.48 Total 310 Source: Tables 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15. Prices listed in tobacco were converted to sterling by year using the price series in Menard, ?Economy and Society?, Appendix III, Table A-8, 477. Ordinary keeping was not a path to wealth in the paper credit economy, but the markup of alcohol at the ordinaries ensured at least a margin of return on the commodity. Individual drinks were consumed rapidly and regularly, and debts were soon amassed. An average expenditure at the Charles Town ordinaries during the 496 For wholesale and resale estimates for rum and cider see, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 247, 366, 371; Liber D, ff. 205, 222. 497 Li, Liquor and Ordinaries, 127. 215 first ten years was between about five and nine shillings per visit (Table 4.17). 498 Table 4.17 suggests the average expenditure was increasing during the period. Though lending small amounts of cash to customers, perhaps for wagering, was not uncommon by the first years of the eighteenth century 499 , the primary means of financial leverage was through the tally of credit and debt for services. For most keepers operating an ordinary was a matter of financial necessity. For example, Reuben Ross sought to supplement his carpentry work in the county by opening an ordinary in Queen Anne. The same is probably true for William Tyler at Broad Creek. Ross?s ordinary was operated by his wife and family while he was procuring work throughout the county. His 1713 petition to the court reads as follows; ?being by trade a carpenter and having a great family to maintain finds ye times so hard that he and his family cannot be well maintained by his own labour and being willing while he is at work abroad his family might be endeavouring to get a livelihood at home.? 500 Often keepers like the Ross family became hopelessly tangled in the web of debt and credit leaving little choice but to continue the business. Consider Jane Beall?s petition to continue her license at Charles Town 1703. The plea before the court reasoned that she ?hath for several years kept an ordinary in this town under ye favour of this court whereby she hath contracted severall considerable debts and credditts and have noe other way or means to pay and obtain the same and 498 This figure was derived from debt accounts found in the Prince George?s County Court Records for Charles Tracy, Jonathan Willson, Joseph Addison, and James Moore. 499 Several examples of cash lent were found in court cases after 1700. For example, Nicholas Sporne and Joseph Addison lent small accounts of cash to visitors (see Tables 4.12 and 4.17). 500 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 386. 216 procure a living for subsistence of herself and family but to employ herself in the same way.? 501 Debts owed to these keepers involved patrons from all strata of society and often lingered long after the principles had died, further entangling the next generations in the web of debt. The nature and extent of this web of debt is evident in two debtor lists included in the estate inventories of ordinary keepers Mary Biddle and Charles Holloway. 502 Biddle was a keeper at Marlborough during the 1710s until her death in 1721. At the time of her death, Biddle?s personal property was valued at just over ?43 but debts owed by ordinary patrons were nearly five times that amount. Similar debts were owed to Charles Holloway who operated an ordinary at an unknown location in Prince George?s County during the 1720s. 503 Holloway?s personal property was valued at ?86 while his list of debts from the ordinary totaled nearly ?180. Debtors are listed in both inventories by name and range from servants to wealthy merchants and politicians. Even Maryland poet turned Prince George?s County lawyer Ebenezer Cooke who penned ?The Sot-Weed Factor? was listed among Holloway?s many ordinary customers. 504 A total of 293 individuals are listed as debtors to Biddle and 129 to Holloway. The amount of debt carried by customers 501 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 251a. 502 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB 1, ff. 149-156; Liber PD 1, ff. 40- 42. 503 Holloway was not included in the general ordinary keeper profile presented at the beginning of the chapter because a systematic survey was not completed for keepers entering the trade after 1720. 504 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber PD 1, f. 41; David Morrell, ?Ebenezer Cooke, Sot-Weed Factor Redivivus: The Genesis of John Barth?s ?The Sot-Weed Factor? The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association 8, no. 1 (Spring 1975), 39. 217 varied, but the average for both businesses was about ?1. 505 There is also some indication of the nature of this debt. Biddle?s ?debts due? are listed as either ?good,? ?hopeful,? ?hopeless,? or ?bad,? while Holloway?s are listed as either ?bad,? ?dubious,? or no disposition was indicated. If the data are reorganized to indicate the general outlook for recovering the debt the two lists are nearly identical. 506 Just over 50 percent of the debt for both inventories was considered recoverable (Figure 4.1). For widows like Biddle, holding this debt was an opportunity for wielding economic and perhaps political leverage and an expression of agency. It was illegal to ?refuse to credit any person? at an ordinary who was ?capable of giving a vote for election of 505 This calculation does not include three individual debts that were listed in tobacco. Only one of these individuals does not appear elsewhere on the list. 506 In Biddle?s case good and hopeful debt were combined as good debt while bad and hopeless were combined as bad debt. Bad and dubious debts in Holloway?s list were considered bad debt and those debts where no indication of disposition was entered were considered good debt. Figure 4.1 Debt Owed to Ordinary Keepers Mary Biddle and Charles Holloway. Source: Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB1, ff. 149-156, Liber PD1, ff. 40-42. 54% 46% 53% 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Biddle Holloway Bad Debt Good Debt 218 burgesses,? 507 and extending credit was simply a mode of operation regardless of how hopeless the debts. These two cases also highlight the reality that the world of credit and debt did not necessarily translate to economic prosperity. Some keepers began as servants and ordinary keeping provided an alternative to planting or other labor. 508 Still, many remained on the economic margins providing little hope of advancement for their offspring. 509 Most of the labor for operating the ordinary was supplied by the keeper/manager themselves. This individual was not necessarily the license holder, and the wife of male operators often tended the establishment. Some who were better financially situated would acquire a servant or perhaps a slave to help with the daily operation. Solomy d?Hinoyossa employed a female servant to help with her operation at Charles Town, and perhaps a slave when she operated an ordinary with James Robinson. 510 The bound labor force, especially indentured servants, was often an important part of the operation of many ordinaries in Charles Town and elsewhere. Unfortunately, these individuals are almost entirely absent in the historical record. Their presence was nonetheless an important component of the daily operation of the ordinaries. 507 Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page 47. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--47.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 508 Mary Day, for example, was a servant to Hugh Riley during the 1690s and was later cited for keeping an ordinary without a license. Caleb Norris was a servant and carpentry apprentice to Bartholomew Goff prior to becoming an ordinary keeper. Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 193; Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 216. 509 For example, Bethia Taylor (Nottingham) bound her daughter Ann into servitude to William Watson in 1709 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, ff. 173- 174. 510 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 25; Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, f. 280. 219 Some keepers took in widows and paupers to generate further income. 511 Those who were paid by the court to take in the poor were more financially secure. Poor individuals who successfully petitioned the court were either paid a pension directly or assigned to a caretaker who was reimbursed through the levy. 512 Historian Zachary Ryan Calo claims that the number of people receiving relief payments in Prince George?s County remained relatively small during the first decades of the eighteenth century and as a result did not present an undue financial burden for taxables. 513 Caretakers were often wealthy individuals who were paid through the county levy for providing food, shelter, and medical care for recipients. 514 Yet ordinary keepers and others of lesser means were also paid through the levy for keeping or burying the poor and physically disabled. 515 There was clearly a financial incentive for ordinary keepers like Caleb Norris, Solomy Robinson, Rice Owen, Mary Biddle and others to take in the poor. Like indentured servants and possibly slaves who worked at the ordinaries, the poor were part of the often precarious financial balancing act of keeping an ordinary in the early Chesapeake. These individuals were 511 For example, Mary Biddle was allowed 600 lbs of tobacco in 1719 for keeping Elizabeth King and Mahitable Pierpoint was allowed 1,000 lbs for keeping King and 300 lbs for keeping Grace Goodwin in that same year. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, ff. 957, 966. 512 Zachary Ryan Calo, ?From Poor Relief to the Poorhouse: The response to Poverty in Prince George?s County, Maryland, 1710-1770? Maryland Historical Magazine 93, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 396-398. 513 Ibid., 409. 514 Ibid., 399-400. For example, Josiah Wilson was responsible for keeping numerous people between 1712 and 1716 including court drummer John Mason, ordinary keeper Ann Skinner, Ellinor Baker, Derrick Decline, Aron Acton, Christian Marloe, court cryer Simon Nicholls, Elizabeth Acton, and Christopher Allen, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 285, 529; Liber H, ff. 16-18, 168. 515 For examples in the levy record see, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, ff. 270-271; Liber G, f. 285; Liber H, ff. 168, 957. 220 also important contributors to the complex matrix of human interaction at the ordinaries. Ordinary keeping was a financially worthwhile venture for some. The fact that so many keepers could only be traced to one year of service on the other hand underlies the transient nature of the trade and may suggest that some keepers were simply incapable of sustaining the business (see Table 4.3). Many factors limited the profitability of ordinaries in the early Chesapeake including the sporadic volume of patronage and chronic bad debts. 516 But the sustainability of ordinaries often relied on wealthier individuals to provide financial security for the operation. Sarah Hand Meacham suggests that many ordinaries in the Chesapeake were owned by wealthy planters and claims that ?until now all scholars have presumed that tavernkeeping was open to all white men and women, and have emphasized the variety of people who engaged in the trade.? 517 Like many studies, much of Meacham?s data comes from the period after 1740 and her conclusion is somewhat overstated and only partially applicable for early Prince George?s County. It is not surprising that ordinary keepers relied on more wealthy individuals for supplies, licensing through the court, and other support. Planters and merchants frequently provided financial security in support of petitions to the court for ordinary licenses. A standard payment of ?20 sterling was pledged to the court for securing 516 Li, Liquor and Ordinaries, 129. 517 Meacham, ?From Women?s Province to Men?s Domain?, 88. A shortcoming of Meacham?s research is perhaps the fact that she relies almost exclusively on newspaper accounts and advertisements, travel accounts, and secondary sources. A survey of the court record, land records, and other primary sources, might provide a better estimation of the condition of Taverns. 221 the ordinary license. 518 Sometimes these individuals were middling planters like Charles Walker and John Cole who committed the funds to support Jane Beall?s ordinary at Charles Town. 519 Other financial backers were more powerful such as lawyer Thomas Macnemara and merchant and former clerk of the court Joshua Cecil who provided security for Robert Robertson?s ordinary at Marlborough. 520 It remains unclear exactly what benefit these financial backers gained by providing financial security to ordinary keepers. Keepers also became indebted to merchants and larger planters through the purchase of supplies. For example, merchants Joseph Taylor and Isaac Millner and Company supplied Joseph Addison?s ordinary with rum, brandy, sugar, decks of cards and other necessities in 1707. 521 At the same time planter Griffith Jones was supplying Addison?s ordinary with pork and hard cider. 522 Within a year or perhaps two Joseph and Jane Addison would be out of the ordinary business altogether perhaps hastened by mounting debts such as payments he still owed to Isaac Millner and Company and others by late 1710 and early 1711. 523 At times merchants eased the debt load on ordinaries while strengthening obligations to their own businesses. Local merchants as well as London based firms such as Peter Paggen and Edward and Dudley Carleton often assumed ordinary patron debts in the form of either promissory notes or credit provided at particular ordinaries. 524 This 518 This was the standard payment for the first years of the eighteenth century. 519 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 165a. 520 Ibid., f. 353. 521 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, ff. 222-225. 522 Ibid., f. 206. 523 Ibid., Liber G., ff. 7a, 45a. 524 For examples involving keepers Nicholas Sporne, Robert Robertson, Marmaduke Scott, and Elizabeth Clark see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, ff. 17a, 48, 232, 646; Liber H, f. 120. 222 arrangement allowed the ordinary keepers to exchange patron debt for the supplies necessary to operate the business. Local merchants and wealthy planters also paid other?s debts entirely. For example, Chief Justice Thomas Hollyday paid off minister Nathaniel Taylor?s ordinary debt of nearly ?9 plus damages owed to Jonathan Willson?s estate in 1699. 525 Debts assumed by merchants offered the keeper at least a small degree of leverage to purchase goods and sustain the chain of debt and obligation to the merchant, but did little to lessen the expansive lists of debtors such as those compiled by Mary Biddle and others. Powerful planters and merchants attempted to control avenues to wealth whenever possible but even economically marginal keepers were able to leverage their positions through the economy of debt and credit. The many petitions to the court for licenses, debt cases, and charges against keepers indicate that in many cases it was the license holder and not the supporting merchant or planter who controlled the daily operation of the ordinaries with some degree of autonomy and assumed the majority of risks associated with the business. Clearly the ordinaries at Charles Town could not be sustained without the presence of the court. It was precisely these powerful merchants and planters who controlled the court and limited the actions of keepers and their patrons. 525 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 483. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--483.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 223 Keeping ?Good Rule?: Ordinary Keeping and the Court Ordinaries were a perceived threat to the colonial administrators in Maryland for much of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This fact is evident in the many attempts by the Maryland legislature to regulate both the number and nature of the businesses. As a result, ordinary keeping was one of the most strictly regulated trades in the colony. Keepers found themselves in an awkward position between following the regulations passed by politicians and actions in the ordinaries that were often beyond their control. The court attempted to regulate the use and exchange of material culture to suppress actions that slighted the authority of the gentry who controlled the legal apparatus. Proceedings at the Anglican church also strengthened their position of authority. Unfortunately because the early vestry minutes have not survived for St. Paul?s Parish, there is little evidence of interaction between individuals at the church in Charles Town. Surviving court records do show how the court attempted to regulate behavior. There are many examples of these regulatory measures contained in the court record, but the following discussion will only focus on those actions aimed at the ordinaries. Powerful individuals assumed controlling positions in the structure of the church and court at Charles Town. Many of the early justices on the Prince George?s County court served as vestrymen in the Church including the first Chief Justice Thomas Hollyday, and Justices William Hutchinson, William Barton, William Tannyhill, Robert Tyler, John Hawkins, Robert Wade, Samuel Magruder, and James 224 Stoddert. 526 Scheduled church and court proceedings at Charles Town provided the structure for codifying legal and moral authority. In general, church and court meetings at Charles Town served to identify the county as a creation of the Protestant establishment headed by the Royal Governor. These justices held both the legal and moral authority over the rest of the population. Regulation and prosecution of ordinary keepers and their patrons was a convenient way of displaying this authority. The daily operation of the ordinaries was regulated through laws passed by the Maryland General Assembly. 527 In addition, the Justices used Michael Dalton?s The Country Justice as a guide. This volume contained an entire section on regulating ordinaries. 528 The Assembly acts contained instructions on licensing, fair liquor rates, required accommodations, and appropriate fines for keeping ?evil rule? in the house. Evil rule referred to any violation of the ordinary laws such as making people drunk on Sundays. The legislation put the burden of deciding who could operate a licensed 526 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 27-28. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am202p-- 27.html (Accessed January 20, 2008). 527 Many acts were passed during the seventeenth and eighteenth century aimed at regulating ordinaries. For late seventeenth century acts see Archives of Maryland, Volume 13, Page 488. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000013/html/a m13--488.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Archives of Maryland, Volume 22, Page 518. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000022/html/a m22--518.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page 44. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--44.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page 116. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--116.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 528 Archives of Maryland, Volume 153, Page 26. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000153/html/a m153--26.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 225 ordinary squarely in the hands of the Justices. They also judged cases against the keepers. Fines, such as 1,200 lbs of tobacco for keeping an unlicensed ordinary, were included in the legislation. 529 Other fines were issued for failing to provide adequate bedding, failure to follow the liquor rates, drunkenness, and other offences. An important characteristic of the regulations was the incentives for turning in offenders. Half of the fine for breaching the ordinary laws was awarded to the informant and the other half to the presiding justices. Some keepers took advantage of this rule by turning in unlicensed keepers. The court was a double edged sword for the keepers. Court days supplied the flow of clientele needed to sustain the businesses. Their survival also relied on the discretionary actions of the court justices. People were frequently cited for keeping an ordinary without a license, but were usually granted a license after paying a fine and the necessary fees. It appears that little effort was put into limiting the number of ordinary licenses issued in the county. A more substantial demonstration of authority was issued when allowing for jury credit and prosecuting breach of peace charges. The court regularly issued credit at one of the ordinaries in Charles Town as payment for jury service. Juries were issued an allowance of 400 lbs of tobacco at a designated ordinary and the ordinary was paid out of the county levy. The court seems to have issued these allowances somewhat evenly without consideration of earlier citations for ?evil rule.? The levy record shows that nearly every keeper operating in the town honored the jury credit at some point. The potential for abusing 529 Archives of Maryland, Volume 13, Page 489. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000013/html/a m13--489.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 226 licensing procedures, issuing fines, or favoring some keepers over others in issuing jury allowances was present. It was the restrictions placed on gaming and drinking however, that most clearly demonstrates the direct attempt by merchant politicians to control the actions of keepers and their patrons. Horse racing and the wagers involved with them were both common and entirely acceptable, but some activities were not. Historian Nancy Struna makes an important distinction between gaming and gambling with the former equated with excess and the latter with acceptable behavior. 530 Regulations against improper gaming were codified in the Acts of assembly especially when they occurred on Sunday. 531 Lawmakers in Maryland and Virginia put considerable effort into regulating ordinaries during the seventeenth century and in 1674 Maryland lawmakers made it illegal to drink on Sunday. 532 Prince George?s County justices were also concerned with gaming on Sundays. On June 18, 1704, James Cross, Robert Fry, John Hill, and James Boulton were cited for playing ?trapp ball and runn Races and divers other sorts of Games and Playes? on the Sabbath. 533 In another case John Trundle was fined for playing nine pins on the Sabbath in June of 1708. 534 This game may have occurred at Robert Robertson?s ordinary in Marlborough. 535 All of 530 Struna, People of Prowess, 157. 531 Archives of Maryland, Volume 19, Page 418. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000019/html/a m19--418.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Justices used Michael Dalton?s The Country Justice as a guide, Archives of Maryland, Volume 153, Page 89. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000153/html/a m153--89.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 532 Salinger, Taverns and Drinking, 91. 533 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 357-357a. 534 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 236. 535 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 173. 227 these men convicted of gaming probably held very little power in the emerging structure of the county. 536 Prosecution of such cases provided an opportunity for justices to exert their authority over an otherwise unregulated gathering. The combination of alcohol and gaming also provided a catalyst for physical as well as symbolic violence. Violence was relatively common in colonial ordinaries. 537 Cases charging public drunkenness and fighting were regularly brought before the Prince George?s County court including many associated with the operation of ordinaries. 538 The consumption of alcohol, often in excessive quantities, put the ordinaries in a precarious position between keeping ?good rule? and unruliness. Many keepers were cited for making people drunk, providing accommodations on Sunday, or supplying drinks to servants without their master?s permission. 539 Keepers themselves were often entangled in violent acts likely aided by alcohol. 540 Though violence could 536 Only John Hill is listed by Carr as participating in the county government, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1D,170 and Table 8B, 459. 537 Struna, People of Prowess, 153-154; See also Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 222.; Salinger Taverns and Drinking, 73; Lounsbury, The Courthouses, 270-271. 538 For example, Benjamin Berry and Robert Goarding were put in the stocks and issued a fine in October of 1696 for being found ?drunk att [sic] an ordinary and profanely Cursing and Swearing?, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 60. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--60.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). This incident probably took place at one of three ordinaries operating in Charles Town at the time by Charles Tracy, William Groome, and Jonathan Willson. Also see case against Matthew Mackeboy, Paul Busey, John Rooke, William Gaskin, John Mortemore, and Henry Buttler for fighting, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 458. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--458.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 539 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 169, 170, 233, 421a; Liber C, f. 161; Liber D, f. 18. 540 For examples involving the Addisons see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 218a, 412; Liber C, f. 62. 228 become extreme, it was often settled with a fine in court. Competition, gaming, drunkenness, and violence were common in Chesapeake ordinaries, and though the regulations remained on the books prosecutions were not always vigorously pursued. 541 But this unrest could be regulated by the justices when they occurred within the institutional context of the ordinary. The courts also regulated who could be served at ordinaries. For example, it was unlawful to accommodate servants without their master?s consent. 542 White indentured servants could still enter the ordinaries with permission. The same was not true for enslaved Africans and Indians. Both of these groups were excluded from the social rituals of the ordinaries. The deeply embedded cultural rituals of the ordinary would have been utterly meaningless to these groups. Slaves were allowed and required to testify in court proceedings which were also beyond their cultural experience. Within the legislated and implied notion of ?keeping good rule? was an understood white morality that clearly defined social hierarchies based on race and class. Action and subsequent regulation of action were opportunities to establish and reaffirm social and economic relationships within the ordinaries. Ordinaries were also income generating enterprises for a wide variety of individuals from the landless to the powerful elite. Ordinaries were one of the most basic institutions in the early Chesapeake and it was advantageous for keepers to locate in towns because of the increasing number of patrons throughout the early eighteenth century. The regulation 541 Struna, People of Prowess, 147. 542 For example see, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 233. 229 of ordinaries as a method of compelling managers to keep ?good rule? was most effectively accomplished when ordinaries were located in towns, especially places like Charles Town where the courthouse bench was so close to the ordinary door. Ordinary Keeping and the Development of Charles Town A quarter (n=19, 25%) of all ordinary keepers identified for Prince George?s County between 1696 and 1720 were located in Charles Town. As a group the circumstances of these individuals offer a detailed profile of the social, political, and economic lives of keepers, their clientele, and those who supported them with goods and services. This section will examine these ordinaries in detail within the context of the development and demise of Charles Town and the early structure of Prince George?s County. Ordinary keeping was the primary trade and keepers were the most numerous residents of Charles Town. People came to Charles Town for court days, to unload goods at the landing, and to buy goods in stores. Few citizens probably came to the town to simply visit the ordinaries but the following discussion of ordinary keepers in Charles Town provides a diachronic case study of how the trade functioned in the context of one colonial Chesapeake town. The ordinaries at Charles Town differ from those in other areas of the county in several ways. Over half (n=12, 63%) of the nineteen businesses identified in the town were run by fulltime ordinary keepers, at least a quarter (n=5, 26%) of the keepers at Charles Town also owned land at the time of operation, and the average duration of service was at least four years. The ordinary keepers of Charles Town 230 were in business from periods of a year to over ten years (Table 4.1). 543 In general, the presence of the court made the ordinaries at Charles Town both sustainable and moderately profitable. Ordinary businesses in Charles Town can be separated into three time periods that roughly correspond with the development of the town. Between 1696 and 1698 the court was established, construction of a courthouse began, and individuals were using the court to negotiate the political and spatial arrangement of the county. Beginning in 1698 Charles Town experienced an expanded period of growth and stability that lasted until about 1710. During this time Charles Town was the primary public gathering point for the citizens of the fledgling county. This was followed by a decade when Charles Town gradually yielded to Marlborough as the site of the county court. The following summary discusses several prominent ordinaries to provide a profile of the keepers operating in the town. A summary of all the keepers not included in this discussion can be found in Appendix A. Opportunity and the Court: 1696-1698 It is impossible to estimate the number of keepers operating in the town before 1696 because of the lack of court records for Calvert County. William Groome, Charles Tracy, and Jonathan Willson each established ordinaries in Charles Town 543 The length of ordinary operation was not firmly established in most cases but the court record gives some indication. The d?Hinoyossa ordinary appears to have lasted at least seven years from 1705 to 1711. The Sporne ordinary was in operation for at least 11 years from 1698 to 1708. Other ordinaries may have lasted four years or less including those owned by James Moore, Marmaduke Scott, John Smith, Ann Skinner, Christopher Beans, and Mary Gwynn. John Middleton was operating an ordinary near Piscataway as early as 1704. Middleton was issued a license for Charles Town in 1712 and 1713. Joseph and Jane Addison ran ordinaries at Charles Town for nine years from 1700 to 1708. 231 before Prince George?s County was formed. 544 The court instructed these businesses to provide sufficient accommodations for the horses of those individuals meeting at the town for government business or otherwise. 545 It is unclear exactly how long these individuals operated before 1696 but all were out of the business by 1698. 546 These ordinaries were at the town in the years prior to the creation of Prince George?s County but this familiar landscape changed when Tracy and Willson died in 1698. In that same year Groome refused to continue keeping an ordinary. 547 What sets these first ordinary keepers apart from the majority of those that followed was that none of these early keepers was cited for breaching the ordinary regulations. 544 For first licenses issued see Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages, 17, 19, and 150. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--17.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Charles Tracy was granted a license in June of 1696 to keep an ordinary in Prince George?s County (at Charles Town). At the time Tracy is listed as formerly running an ordinary in Calvert County, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 13. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--13.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). His Calvert County ordinary was probably at Mount Calvert and was in operation as early as 1694, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 599. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--599.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Other ordinaries certainly existed within the bounds of Prince George?s County before 1696 but their number was not explored in this study. Richard Hulse ran an ordinary by 1696 in an undetermined location, but probably somewhere along the Patuxent River. Hulse was not included in the list of Prince George?s County ordinary keepers. 545 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 249. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--249.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 546 Groome refused to continue his ordinary in 1698, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 300. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--300.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Tracy and Willson both died in 1698. 547 Ibid., 276. 232 Jonathan Willson was operating an ordinary as early as 1689 and continued the business until his death in 1698. 548 His wife Kathrine and Joshua Cecell were left as executors to settle his estate and Kathrine was probably directly involved with the daily operation of the business. During the 1690s Willson purchased a portion of the alcohol for his tavern from William Round. 549 Though the exact location of Willson?s ordinary is unknown, he may have improved his lot with other structures. Simon Nicholls sued the estate for 1,200 lbs of tobacco for ?Drawing in of timber for 2 20 foot houses.? 550 The size of these houses would have been in accordance with the guidance outlined in the Acts for Advancement of Trade issued in 1683 and may indicate Willson had taken up more than one lot prior to the creation of Prince George?s County. A reference to Willson?s ?house? at Charles Town appears in early 1697 and the court convened at the ordinary at least two times prior to the completion 548 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages, 168, 300, 502. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--168.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Willson was paid 600 lbs of tobacco for expenses of two grand juries hosted at his ordinary in 1697, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 278. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html (Accessed, November 5, 2007)./am202--278.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). A trespass case brought before the court in 1696 indicates Willson was operating an ordinary at some location by at least 1689, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 123. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--123.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). It is possible that this early reference to Willson?s ordinary referred to St. Leonard?s Town to the south. The charges on the estate as a whole suggest that his business was located at Mount Calvert at least as early as the mid-1690s. 549 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 563. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--563.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 550 Ibid., 558. 233 of the courthouse in 1698. 551 This seems to indicate that Willson?s ordinary was a well-appointed establishment. Numerous cases brought before the court following his death suggest that the ordinary was a popular destination for those traveling to the town. Charles Tracy?s ordinary was also a successful venture during the latter years of the seventeenth century. Unlike Willson, he was a landowner by 1697 holding a ninety nine year lease from William Groome?s brother Richard for a one hundred- acre tract located south of Charles Town. 552 Tracy left no other family and his largest creditor David Small was named executor of his estate when he died on August 10 th, 1698. 553 Tracy?s ordinary was located on a two-acre plot he owned at Charles Town. The best information on Tracy?s business comes from debt cases brought before the court. Willson and Tracy?s ordinaries were in service for many years and were supported by those arriving at Charles Town for court days. Inventories of the two estates taken in 1698 suggest they were of similar economic means (Table 4.6). Livestock listed on Tracy?s 1698 inventory including two horses, sixteen head of hogs, three cows, and two yearling cows, represent roughly a third of the total value of his estate (Table 13). These livestock were probably raised on the one hundred- acre farm he leased from Richard Groome and they may have been butchered to serve the ordinary. Farming implements are not listed on the inventory. The only livestock listed in Willson?s inventory are two horses. The single most valuable item besides 551 Ibid., 163, 291. 552 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 228. Tracy paid Groome 6,000 lbs of tobacco and yearly rent of one ear of corn for consideration of the tract. 553 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 331. 234 the livestock listed in Tracy?s inventory was a boat valued at ?6 which he rented for additional income on at least one occasion. 554 Overall, the ordinaries operated by Jonathan Willson and Charles Tracy were probably very similar. Each ordinary appears to have been successful to some extent during Prince George?s County?s founding years. William Groome also saw enough business during these early years to support his ordinary, but the costs of doing business may have contributed to his refusal to continue his ordinary beyond 1698. Both Groome and Tracy owned land beyond Charles Town and though Wilson did not own land beyond town lots he did possess the means to construct two houses on his land in Charles Town. These three ordinaries provided both the necessary accommodations for visitors and a setting for social and political exchange and all were favored by the court. Their swift departure in 1698 left a void quickly filled by others eager to profit from the court at Charles Town. Growth and Expansion of Opportunity at Charles Town: 1699-1710 Many seized on the opportunity to engage in the ordinary trade at Charles Town during the first decade of the eighteenth century. An expansion of the court business coincided with an overall increase in the county?s population and the need to settle an increasingly greater number of disputes, and develop the infrastructure of the county such as roads. As the court business expanded so did the ordinaries. The period between 1699 and 1707 saw the number of businesses expand from one to as many as six (Table 4.2). By the early eighteenth century many county residents 554 Tracy sued Richard Hulse for 3,000 lbs of tobacco owed to him upon the delivery of a flat Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 66. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--66.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 235 owned a horse and were able to ride to Charles Town for court days. 555 As with most early courthouse river towns, the prosperous times at Charles Town would soon end. But for a brief period during the early eighteenth century, Charles Town provided one of the few public settings available to county residents. The most substantial period of economic activity at Charles Town took place between 1700 and 1710. 556 Ordinary keepers operating during this period include Nicholas Sporne, Jane Addison, Joseph Addison, Jane Beall, James Moore, Marmaduke Scott, Alexander d?Hinoyossa, Solomy d?Hinoyossa, and John Smith. These keepers were supported by increased activity at the site following the completion of the courthouse. The most prominent of these keepers were Nicholas Sporne, Jane and Joseph Addison, and Solomy d?Hinoyossa. 557 Nicholas Sporne was a successful ordinary keeper who also operated a business in Annapolis on three lots he owned near the statehouse until 1702. 558 Sporne?s ordinary at Charles Town was in operation around the time that the finishing touches were being put on the court house. In 1698 the court ordered that ?Sporne 555 Evidence presented by Carville Earle suggests that horseback was the dominate means of travel by the 1680s, Earle, ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System?, 143-145; Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves,? 324. 556 The greatest number of ordinaries at Charles Town occurred between the years 1701 and 1708. As many as six keepers held licenses for Charles Town ordinaries in 1707. 557 For a profile of James Moore, Marmaduke Scott, and John Smith see Appendix A. 558 Anne Arundel County Land Records, WT-2, f. 40. At the March 1700 Prince George?s County court, Thomas Bridges was charged for accommodations including lodging provided by Sporne at Annapolis in 1698. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 39. It appears that Sporne was operating an ordinary at Annapolis as early as 1693, Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 555. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--555.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). For services provided in Annapolis see Anne Arundel County Court Judgment Record, Liber G, ff. 170-171; Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 39. 236 may have Free priveledge [sic] to keep Ordinary in Charles Towne [sic] Dureing [sic] the Courts pleasure?. 559 Sporne purchased most of Josiah Willson?s remaining stock of cider from his estate 560 and may have occupied the building vacated by Willson. Sporne appears to have operated as a merchant on a limited scale, possibly as a factor for Samuel Groome of London by 1687 561 and he may have been active in Dorchester County during the early 1690s 562 but there is no indication that he was still engaged as a merchant at the time he was operating his ordinaries. The volume of trespass cases brought by Sporne suggest that his ordinary was one of the busiest establishments in the town for the first ten years of its existence. The court was favorable to Sporne?s establishment, though he was charged but found not guilty of overcharging for ordinary services. 563 He was granted an allowance on several occasions for hosting grand juries. 564 Sporne may have continued his ordinary business at Charles Town as late as 1708. 565 Sporne was also issued a 559 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 350. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--350.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Sporne?s ordinary at Charles Town may have been in operation for two years prior to this proclamation. A trespass case against Thomas Bridges indicates that Sporne?s ordinary was established by at least June 1696. It is possible that these charges may have been for Annapolis. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 39. 560 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, f. 30. 561 Provincial Court Judgment Record, Liber DSC4, ff. 222-223. 562 Ibid., ff. 285-286. 563 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 14a. 564 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 30a, 83a. 565 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 20; Liber C, f. 158a; Liber D, ff. 137-138. A case against William Greenup in 1709 lists accommodations provided at the 1708 ?March court at Mount Calvert? Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 138. 237 license for Marlborough in 1707 and like many was already speculating on the future of the newly established town. 566 Sporne was the proprietor of ordinaries in Annapolis, Charles Town, and Marlborough and relied on others to run his daily affairs. He was probably living in Anne Arundel County at the time his ordinary was operating in Charles Town and is identified as both a planter and inn holder in that county. 567 The day to day operations of the ordinary at Charles Town were probably accomplished and supervised by his ?house keeper? Grace Onion, or his servant David Wallcroft. 568 Sporne was forced by the court to part with Onion in 1707 after she was presented to the grand jury for having a bastard child. 569 Beyond serving patrons these individuals would have kept the ?house? and stable in order, and Onion may have been producing some of the cider and beer so prevalent at the ordinary. Sporne?s ordinary appears to have been successful during the early years of the eighteenth century. Considering the timing, Sporne may well have moved into a building vacated by Groome, Willson, or Tracy. Sporne was probably the only licensed ordinary keeper operating in Charles Town in 1699, but competition would soon arrive. 566 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 186. 567 Anne Arundel County Court Judgment Record, Liber G, ff. 101-102, 711. 568 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 613. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--613.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, ff. 179, 184. 569 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, ff. 179, 184. 238 Jane Addison and Jane Beall attempted to capitalize on the steady court business by establishing ordinaries in the town as early as 1700. 570 These ordinaries may have cut into Sporne?s business and he is cited as presenting the two for vending liquors without a license in 1700. Each was allowed to continue their ordinaries after submitting a payment of ?5 sterling to the court. 571 As the informant, Sporne was entitled to half of the fine issued according to Maryland law. 572 Ironically, keeper Hannah Price would inform the court about Sporne?s illegal operation in Marlborough seven years later. 573 Records indicate that Beall?s ordinary was operating until 1703 and Addison?s until 1707. 574 Little is known about their clientele since few records exist. Both were cited for making people drunk on the Sabbath. 575 Beall was also cited for providing liquor to Christopher Beans? servant on May 30, 1702. 576 Addison appears to have been in good favor with the court after her initial problems and was allowed 400 lbs of tobacco for grand jury accommodations in 1704 and 800 lbs for two grand juries in 1707. 577 Beall was 570 Jane Beall?s operation may have been running by September, 1699 when laborer Richard Sharp was charged with stealing 10 wheat meal cakes from Beall. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 2a. 571 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 57a. 572 Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page 46. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--46.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 573 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C., f. 180. 574 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 53, 108, 191, 233, 251a; Liber C, ff. 154a, 158a, 179; Liber D, f. 100. 575 Jane Addison was fined for making Peter Cotterill (or Cottorill) and Robert Goarding and probably others drunk on July 24, 1702, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 169-171. Beall was cited for the same ?Breach of Peace? for June 24, 1701 or 1702 (illegible), Ibid., Liber B, f. 171. 576 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 233. 577 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 307; C, f. 186a. 239 perhaps a widow but Addison was married and her husband Joseph may have run a separate ordinary in the town during the period. It is possible that Joseph and Jane Addison were operating separate ordinaries between 1700 and 1708. In many cases wives ran the ordinaries even though their husbands were issued the license. 578 There are several reasons the Addisons may have operated separate businesses. The most obvious was to boost household income. It is also apparent that there were tensions between the two and that they were not living together. In June of 1702 Jane Addison was accused of ?cohabitating? with Robert Gording. Charges were brought against Addison and Gording before the court but both were acquitted because their accuser, Johanna Jones, did not appear to testify. 579 There was likely some truth to the accusation. In October of that same year Gording was accused and later convicted of assaulting Joseph Addison. 580 This assault may well have sprung from the relationship between Gording and Jane Addison. A second reason to speculate that the Addisons were operating independently is the fact that the two establishments are referred to as Jane Addison?s ordinary and Joseph Addison?s ordinary on numerous occasions. 581 However, there are several occasions where the two are cited together in the court 578 For example, Reuben Ross? wife and family ran his ordinary at Queen Anne. Also there is evidence in debt accounts that Jonathan Willson?s wife and daughter were at least occasionally in charge of the ordinary (see Table 4.15). See also Struna, People of Prowess, 146. 579 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 170a. 580 Ibid., Liber B, f. 218a. 581 For Example, Jane and Joseph Addison took out separate licenses and each was awarded grand jury allowances for separate years. 240 record. Most notably is a case where both were convicted for assaulting John Jackson in 1705. 582 Joseph Addison operated an ordinary at Charles Town between 1701 and 1708. 583 Like many ordinary keepers Addison was landless (Table 4.5). He was a planter by at least 1695 584 and by 1697 he was a tenant of William Groome on a part of Mount Calvert adjacent to Charles Town. 585 According to their agreement Addison was to raise a crop of tobacco and corn and generally improve the land with an orchard and ?Fence Sufficient to Keep horses in att Court time;? in return Addison was to have half of all crops produced on the land. 586 The agreement also required that Groome provide Joseph?s wife with enough ground to make a hogshead of tobacco. 587 Addison was also required to secure carpenters to build on the plantation. It appears that carpenter John Deakins, who testified on Addison?s behalf, was employed to construct the necessary buildings. 588 Groome defaulted on the agreement a year later and Addison was awarded damages. 589 The pasture was probably used by patrons of Groome?s ordinary. Groome discontinued his ordinary business in the same year he broke his agreement with Addison. Shortly after settling 582 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 412. 583 Ibid., Liber B, ff. 354, 369c, 370; D, f. 19. 584 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 205. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--205.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 585 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 415-417. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--415.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 586 Ibid., 415. 587 Ibid. 588 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 376. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--376.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 589 Ibid. 241 the dispute, Addison began considering the ordinary business himself. In fact the breakup of the agreement may have left Joseph and Jane Addison little choice but to enter the ordinary business. The Addisons probably learned the ordinary trade from their association with Groome and it is possible that the Addisons were assisting or perhaps running Groome?s business all along. Joseph Addison probably operated his ordinary out of a ?house? in Charles Town he rented from Henry Darnall, 590 while Jane may have occupied Groome?s former establishment. Darnall?s house was located close to the confluence of the Western Branch and the Patuxent River 591 but it is unclear where Groome?s ordinary was located. It is somewhat difficult to separate which debts settled in court were for Jane?s and which were for Joseph?s ordinary. All debts incurred were settled by Joseph. Husband and wife were considered one person under English common law and all debts and profits belonged to the husband. 592 By 1707, however, the court ordered that Jane be allowed to sue and be sued without any advantage taken of her husband. 593 Though no debt cases were found, this ruling by the court suggests some level of autonomy while exposing the degree of financial risk assumed by Jane. In the end it was likely the inability to cover debts that led to the failure of the ordinaries operated by Jane and Joseph Addison. No other record was found of the Addisons in Prince George?s County after 1708. 590 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 196. 591 It was likely the lot in Charles Town Darnall owned along the boundary of Beall?s Gift. Proximity to the point was determined through an analysis of the sale of Beall?s Gift from James Moore to Stoddert in 1704. 592 Carr, County Government, Volume I, 589-590. 593 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 158a. 242 Alexander and Solomy d?Hinoyossa operated an ordinary out of Charles Town from about 1705 to at least 1711. 594 Alexander d?Hinoyossa?s father was the Governor of the Dutch colony at New Amstel in New Jersey from 1659 until the settlement was surrendered to the English in 1664. 595 Garrett Van Swearingen served with the elder d?Hinoyossa as a Counselor at New Amstel and emigrated to St. Mary?s City following the collapse of the Dutch colony where he operated an ordinary during the last quarter of the seventeenth century. d?Hinoyossa?s lands were confiscated following his ouster and he traveled to Maryland in an attempt to recover them, but when this failed he returned to Holland. 596 The younger Alexander apparently stayed in Maryland and eventually migrated from Kent County 597 to Anne Arundel County and later to Prince George?s County sometime after he was accused of murder in 1686. 598 The d?Hinoyossas purchased three lots near State Circle in Annapolis from Nicholas Sporne in 1702 and probably operated an ordinary there until they came to 594 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 354; Liber C, ff. 74, 158a, 160a, 184, 199-199a; Liber D, f. 67, 148, 311; Liber G, f.126. 595 Henry C. Conrad, History of the State of Delaware, from its earliest Settlements to the Year 1907: Volume 1. (Wilmington, 1908, author), 48-53. 596 Ibid., 49; Archives of Maryland, Volume 49, Preface, Page 18. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000049/html/am49p-- 18.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 597 d?Hinoyossa was living in Kent County as late as the spring of 1686. Archives of Maryland, Volume 717, Page 419. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000717/html/a m717--419.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 598 Archives of Maryland, Volume 5, Page 494. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000005/html/a m5--494.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 243 Charles Town in 1705. 599 The couple also owned at least one hundred acres of land in Anne Arundel County before selling the property in 1702. 600 The only record of land ownership in Prince George?s County was a brief ownership of Lot thirty-three in Marlborough in 1707. 601 Alexander was issued a license in 1705 for their ?house at Charles Towne? 602 but after that year it appears that Solomy operated the ordinary at Charles Town with little involvement from her husband outside of perhaps settling debts. Solomy assumed the license in 1707 but she was probably running the operation at Charles Town from the beginning while her husband was engaged elsewhere. Alexander had achieved the status of gentleman by 1702 and was appointed as the administrator of merchant John Cobb?s estate as early as 1705, 603 and settled numerous debts on behalf of Cobb between 1705 and at least 1711. 604 He supplemented his income by employing William Smith to operate the ferry from Charles Town to Anne Arundel County in 1705 605 but it is unclear how long this business lasted. Itemized ordinary accounts were not found in the court record but scattered court cases give a cursory view of their business as well as the personalities and status of the d?Hinoyossas. Like the Addisons the d?Hinoyossa?s marriage was a convenient arrangement. In June of 1704, Alexander refused to pay any debts incurred by Solomy in Annapolis 599 He sold the lots to Amos Garrett in January, 1707. Anne Arundel County Land Records, Book WT2, ff. 40, 514. 600 Anne Arundel County Land Records, Book WT1, f. 275. 601 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 214a-215. 602 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 354. 603 Anne Arundel County Land Records, Book WT 1, f. 275; Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, ff. 19-20. 604 For accounts see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, ff. 19-20, 23- 23a, 83-83a, 137a; Liber G, f. 44a. 605 Ibid., f. 437; Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 16. 244 accusing her of ?adulterous? and ?indecent? behavior and ?threatening him with the loss of his life.? 606 It was shortly after this that they began their ordinary business in Charles Town. The d?Hinoyossas did not run separate ordinaries. Alexander attempted to secure a license in 1706 but was unqualified. 607 Alexander did settle some, but not all of Solomy?s ordinary debts at the Prince George?s County court. 608 In 1707 the court ordered that Solomy could legally sue and be sued in the same manner as Jane Addison. 609 The dissolution of Solomy?s ordinary business at Charles Town coincides with the death of her husband sometime between August of 1711 and March of 1713. 610 In November of 1711 Solomy was charged and later found guilty of living with James Robinson. 611 Robinson was issued a license at Charles Town in 1712 and by March of 1713 the two were married and soon started an ordinary business in Marlborough. 612 The ordinary may have been seated on Lot thirty-three in Marlborough. 613 James Robinson was issued a license for both Marlborough and Mount Calvert (Charles Town) in November of 1713 so Solomy may have continued 606 Anne Arundel County Land Records, Book WT 2, f. 133. 607 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 58. Alexander was apparently operating an ordinary at Charles Town as late as March of 1706 before he was found unqualified, see suit against William Anslin, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, ff. 103-104. There is no explanation of why he was found unqualified. 608 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 176a-176b. For debts settled by Solomy see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 202; Liber G, f. 90. 609 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 160a. 610 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, ff. 103, 324. 611 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, ff. 125, 176. 612 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, ff. 324, 456. 613 Solomy and James occupied a house on Lot 33 in Marlborough when Edward Rumney of Anne Arundel County purchased the lot in 1713. Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, ff. 294-295. This is the same lot owned by Alexander d?Hinoyossa in 1707. 245 her business at the county seat until then under Robinson?s license maximizing the couples? revenue. 614 There is no evidence of the couple running an ordinary in Charles Town after 1713. The two continued their business in Marlborough until James? death in 1716. By 1717 Solomy had married John Docura and continued her ordinary business in Marlborough under his name. 615 Solomy may have been operating the ordinary in Marlborough as late as the 1730s when Docura died leaving his wife two improved lots in the town including their dwelling and 167 acres of Collington. 616 Solomy was clearly managing the ordinaries for her husbands in Annapolis, Charles Town, and Marlborough from as early as 1702 to at least the 1720s. Yet she relied on servants and perhaps slaves to accomplish the many tasks associated with operating an ordinary. Ann Holy and Sarah Gilburne, the ten-year-old daughter of William and Mary Gilburne, were servants to the d?Hinoyossas and both may have worked in the ordinary during the first decade of the eighteenth century. When Sarah was indentured in 1710 she was to be taught to read and do plain sewing work. 617 Ann Holy was apparently treated poorly by Solomy. Solomy was fined in January of 1707 for fighting with Ann Holy and later that year she petitioned for her freedom based on the ill-treatment she received. 618 James Robinson was one of the few 614 Ibid., f. 456. 615 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, f. 582. Prince George?s County Administration Accounts, Liber JB, f. 200. 616 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 276. 617 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 25. 618 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, ff. 111, 183a. 246 ordinary keepers to leave a record of owning slaves. 619 Robinson?s 1716 inventory lists two enslaved women and a male servant. 620 These individuals would likey have completed the daily chores around the ordinary. 621 The same may be true of Docura?s servant James Appleton. 622 While she was keeping the ordinary at Marlborough, Solomy was given an allowance by the court for taking in Jane Roul, a poor woman. 623 It is possible that Jane assisted with the ordinary operation. The time between 1700 and about 1710 was a prosperous one for ordinary keepers in Charles Town. The longevity of businesses such as those operated by Solomy d?Hinoyossa and the Addisons speak to the stability of the court at Charles Town. Several other keepers joined those mentioned above and established businesses in Charles Town during these years including James Moore, Marmaduke Scott, and John Smith. A summary of these businesses not discussed in this chapter are located in Appendix A. This period also demonstrates that women including Solomy d?Hinoyossa, Jane Addison, Jane Beall, and Grace Onion were in charge of most of the daily operations at many if not all of the ordinaries in the town. Charles Town was the only designated town in Prince George?s County for most of this period and the court and storehouses there continued to draw residents from around the county. Charles Town rapidly declined as a public meeting place as other towns including Marlborough, Queen Anne, and Nottingham were established by the 619 Two slaves and two servants are also listed in William Tyler?s inventory, but Tyler was also a planter. 620 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, f. 280. 621 There is no indication in the record of Robinson either being engaged in planting tobacco himself or renting his slaves. 622 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, f. 931. 623 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, f. 168. 247 Maryland legislature beginning in 1706. The number of ordinaries in these new towns increased as people seized on the economic opportunity of the trade. The Decline of Opportunity at Charles Town: 1711-1721 It is clear that by the 1710s Charles Town?s days as the county seat were numbered. The court continued to function at Charles Town for another decade but the momentum to move the court to Marlborough was gathering strength. Stores, a Presbyterian church, and ordinaries were already established in Marlborough, and it was closer to the center of the county, with a suitable infrastructure of roads well established in the area. The evidence gathered suggests that fewer ordinaries were established in Charles Town after 1710 and they were shorter in duration. Table 4.2 shows that the number of ordinary keepers who were granted licenses for Charles Town held steady at between five and six for the years 1701 to 1708. After 1708 the numbers dropped to between one and three for any given year. These numbers are roughly the same as those for Nottingham, Marlborough, and Queen Anne during the same time. This precipitous drop in licenses issued foreshadows not only the decline of Charles Town, but also the establishment of a network of towns along the eastern edge of the county. At least seven keepers were operating in Charles Town after 1710 including the continuation of James and Solomy?s business. The Robinsons eventually moved their business to Marlborough. Others such as Ann Skinner and John Middleton moved their operations from other towns to Charles Town. 248 Middleton ran an ordinary for several years at the eventual site of Piscataway on the western side of the county near the Potomac river. 624 No record of Middleton?s ordinary was found between 1707 and 1711, but he had apparently started a business in Charles Town by 1712 and continued there until at least 1714. 625 A grand jury was allowed 400 lbs of tobacco ?at Mount Calvert at the house of John Middleton? in March of 1714. 626 Middleton may have still owned land on the western side of the county at the time he began operating at Charles Town but little is known about his ordinary business. Ann Skinner also moved her business from a nearby town to the court at Charles Town. Skinner was first issued a license in 1710 for driving a trade in Nottingham but was issued a license for Charles Town later that year. 627 Her move to Charles Town was brief and by 1712 she was back in Nottingham. Mary Gwynn and Christopher Beans were each issued a license in 1715. 628 Both ordinaries were located in their principal dwellings at Charles Town. It is unclear what Gwynn?s status was, although she was possibly the widow of William Gwynn who operated an ordinary in Marlborough by 1711 (Table 4.1). The only reference to Gwynn?s ordinary was her 1715 license. Christopher Beans held a considerable amount of land and his estate was valued at just over ?27 at the time of 624 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 337a-338; Liber C, f. 37. 625 Ibid., Liber G, ff. 263, 456, 693. 626 Ibid., 721. 627 Ibid., Liber D, f. 311; Liber G, f. 39. She may have been operating an ordinary as early as 1708. This speculation is based on the information that a Clarke Skinner was operating an ordinary by 1708. The two may have been married but proof was not established. No license for Clarke or Ann Skinner was found before 1710 but a court case from that year indicates Clarke was providing ordinary accommodations by June of 1708. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 31a. 628 Ibid., Liber G, f. 787; Liber H, f. 6. 249 his death in 1717 (Table 4.6). Beans purchased lot number forty-three from James Stoddert in 1707 for 1,000 lbs of tobacco and may have operated his ordinary on this lot. 629 At least five people were granted licenses to operate in Marlborough in 1715 (Table 4.1). There was considerable activity around Marlborough at the time and ordinary keepers attempted to cash in on the increased traffic to the town. Meanwhile, business generated by the court at Charles Town may have not been enough to support more than a couple institutions. Josiah Wilson and Samuel Heigh filled the void left by Christopher Beans, and represent the last two keepers identified for Charles Town. It is unlikely that Josiah Wilson was running the daily operations of an ordinary at Charles Town. He probably employed a free keeper or servant to manage the everyday operations. There is also no evidence that Wilson was ever issued a license. The only evidence that Wilson ever provided ordinary accommodations comes from the court levy. Wilson was paid for accommodating grand jury participants in 1716 and 1717. 630 Wilson?s home plantation was possibly located adjacent to Charles Town and he also purchased Christopher Bean?s house and lot in the town. 631 Wilson may have continued Beans? operation out of his house and lot. Wilson was by far the wealthiest individual directly associated with the Charles Town ordinaries. Wilson built a substantial fortune as a merchant and through his position as county Sheriff. At the time of his death in 1718, Wilson?s estate was valued at 629 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 215. 630 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, f. 168, 570. 631 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 94. 250 ?1178 15s 1d before debts and he owned more than 3,400 acres of land (Tables 4.4 and 4.6). Given his wealth and status, he may have taken it on himself as a justice on the court to provide the necessary accommodations while generating some additional income. Though the prominence of the town was dwindling, there was still a need for ordinaries to accommodate court participants at Charles Town during its final years. Samuel Heigh is the last ordinary keeper identified at Charles Town. Like Wilson, Heigh was identified as an ordinary keeper from 1717 to 1718 through the levy record. 632 Heigh differed from Wilson considerably, however, in terms of his status. Heigh, like most ordinary keepers, did not own land. He first established an ordinary business in Nottingham in 1710, moved to Marlborough by 1714 and ended up in Charles Town three years later. 633 There were probably ordinaries operating at Charles Town between 1719 and 1721 but no direct evidence was found in the record. Conclusion Several broad conclusions can be made about ordinary keepers in early Prince George?s County that possibly apply elsewhere in the Chesapeake. First, many of those who took out licenses or kept the facilities were of meager economic means. This is especially true for keepers operating outside of Charles Town. Second, many women were involved in the trade either as licensed keepers, wives of licensed keepers, or indentured servants. Third, the historical record suggests that many 632 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, 568, 777. 633 Ibid., Liber G, ff. 38, 263, 612, 693; Liber H, ff. 4, 568. 251 keepers were only licensed for a short time. And finally, most licensed, and thus historically visible, keepers located their businesses in or near towns, especially Charles Town and Marlborough. Towns provided the structure for a steady trade especially in courthouse towns. The last section of the chapter demonstrated that ordinaries were vital institutions necessary to towns and Chesapeake society in general, but ordinary keepers themselves had little effect on the ultimate survival of a town in the early Chesapeake. This is because of the fluidity and transient nature of the occupation. Keepers could move from one town to another with little difficulty. If they chose not to move or abandoned the business there was always another willing to take their place as long as there was enough patronage to sustain the service. A second set of conclusions emerge about how agents used the various material culture of the ordinaries to form and strengthen economic, political, and social relationships formed within towns. The preceding discussion summarized three dimensions of ordinary keeping that directly affected how towns functioned in the early Chesapeake. First, ordinaries were social institutions. Patrons at the Charles Town ordinaries used bottles of cider, card games, tables, bowls of punch, and other forms of material culture to strengthen and mediate social ties. Second, ordinaries were economic institutions. Towns provided an opportunity for individuals to sustain themselves or provide supplement income by keeping an ordinary. Few became wealthy from the trade, but it did provide an opportunity for some individuals if only for a brief period. Courthouse towns like Charles Town offered the traffic necessary to sustain businesses. Yet even most of these seem to have teetered on the edge of insolvency as paper credit and debt was exchanged like bowls of punch. As we have 252 seen, the number of individual debtors could be quite large. Credit was extended liberally as illustrated by the many debt cases and keepers and their patrons became engulfed in a sea of debt only a few could hope to reconcile. But the continuance of the system was necessary and it was advantageous for both the keepers and the merchant politicians to center this flow of credit and debt within towns. Finally, the ordinaries provided the county justices with a platform for reaffirming their moral and legal authority over private gatherings. Punishments for drunkenness, gaming on Sunday, and fighting often took place at the ordinaries. The ordinaries at Charles Town were easily monitored because of their proximity to the court and their keepers were often cited in court. A third set of conclusions relate to cultural meanings embedded in the institutions as meeting places in early Chesapeake society. Both the operation and patronage of the ordinaries were entangled in complex race, class, and gender relations. Ordinary keepers were mostly poor to middle-class white men and women. If they could afford it, these keepers would purchase a white indentured servant. There is scant evidence that slaves were employed in the operation of ordinaries during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and they were obviously restricted from freely participating in gatherings at the ordinaries because of their status. Slaves did travel to Charles Town to stand before court and to deliver hogsheads of tobacco. Although there is no direct evidence, it stands to reason that these enslaved Africans also accompanied their white owners as they frequented one of the ordinaries in town. Keepers James and Solomy Robinson owned two slaves while they operated in Marlborough during the 1710s, but the transient nature of the 253 business and the lack of fluid capital discouraged most keepers from purchasing slaves. White indentured servants on the other hand were a common addition to the ordinary labor force. These individuals were often a viable option for keepers who existed on the economic margins and who were perhaps only a few years removed from indentured servitude themselves. Ordinary keepers, their patrons, and those who labored at the institutions were key players in the development of towns during the period between 1680 and 1720. While these individuals did not directly influence the development of towns, they provided an institution essential to the success of these places. There were rural ordinaries scattered around the county during the period, but most of these businesses were located in the emerging towns along the Patuxent and Potomac rivers. Individual keepers made their impression on towns in subtle ways but it was the enduring institution of the ordinary itself with its customary activities and associated material culture that was invaluable to the social, economic, and political life of towns. In the final assessment, the ordinaries at Charles Town were core social institutions well-understood and used by white citizens of the county to solidify social relationships. These institutions were expressions of whiteness that stood in contrast to blackness as codified in the slave laws passed in the seventeenth century. 254 Chapter 5: ?sell barter & Trafficke away all goods?: Stores, Wealth, and the Development of Towns Introduction Countless stores were kept at plantations, landings, crossroads, and towns in the Chesapeake during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The 1683 Act for Advancement of Trade passed by the Maryland General Assembly, called for all ships trading in the colony to ?sell barter & Trafficke away all goods? through town stores established by the Proprietary Government. 634 Unfortunately, the historical record provides very little information about the precise location of these structures or if they were even constructed. Stores had to be stout enough to protect valuable goods from theft and occasionally prevent prisoners from escaping. 635 Robert Bradley and David Small?s stores were secure enough to hold the records of the court at Charles Town during its first year. 636 Stores were necessarily secure but not elaborate and 634 Archives of Maryland, Volume 7, Page, 609. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000007/html/am7-- 609.html (Accessed, January 15, 2008). 635 For example, in 1693 Ninian Beall used Hugh Ellis?s ?Store at Calvert Towne? to keep his prisoners in and was instructed to pay Ellis 800 lbs of tobacco for the service. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 132. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--132.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Calverton was located along the Patuxent River in Calvert County south of Charles Town. 636 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages, 38, 42-43. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--38.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 255 Chesapeake merchants squandered very little capital on the construction of these buildings. 637 Stores were primary locales where goods were distributed and, like the ordinaries, where credit and debt were amassed. In this sense stores provided a key material setting for a web of debt and credit that ensnared most white residents of Prince George?s county. Though stores were scattered across the Chesapeake landscape, it is clear that the success of the legislative efforts to create towns relied heavily on the willingness of merchants and factors to construct stores at town sites. In fact, the insufficient number of stores at designated towns was cited by the Proprietary government as a primary cause for dissolving the restrictions included in the 1683 Act for Advancement of Trade. 638 Chapter 3 illustrated the political and economic role that merchant politicians played in controlling where towns were located and how they were planned. The goal of this chapter is to examine the system of supply and acquisition of goods that attracted these merchant politicians to establish stores at landings and emergent towns like Charles Town and Marlborough. Three central questions about this system of supply and acquisition of goods are addressed. First, what was the role of local merchants and factors and the enslaved labor force in the distribution of goods along the Patuxent River during the late seventeenth and eighteenth century? To answer this question I use primary source material to determine the volume and types of goods that were readily 637 Earle, ?Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System?, 70. In one case 1,000 Lbs of tobacco was charged for the construction of a store in 1698. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 33a. 638 Archives of Maryland, Volume 8, Page, 43. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000008/html/a m8--43.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 256 available to consumers during the 1690s and early 1700s. I also determine the level of mercantile activity ranging from factors working for London merchants to the independent trade of local merchants. Second, what were the purchasing patterns of consumers in early Prince George?s County? Who were store patrons? When did they come to the stores? What did they buy? How much did they spend? These questions address the nature of consumerism in the colonial Chesapeake as it existed at the point of exchange between merchant and patron as agents in the broad world of commodity exchange. The final question is an assessment that draws on the first two. What was the role of stores in maintaining towns? This question is answered by determining whether or not the supply and distribution of material goods were grounded in a particular locale. Allan Kulikoff described the necessary system of store patronage as follows: ?a number of wealthy families who could frequently patronize the services found in the towns had to live nearby.? 639 Kulikoff identifies the convergence of wealth as important to the successful formation of towns, but sees this process as more reactive than proactive. In other words, merchants located in towns when a critical level of wealth was achieved in the surrounding population. 640 But Kulikoff?s assessment fails to appreciate precisely who those customers were and how they used towns, especially courthouse towns like Charles Town that attracted all members of society. During the first decades of the eighteenth century Chesapeake elites had begun to separate themselves from other groups through the purchase of material goods, the elaboration of their post-in-ground structures, the construction of brick 639 Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves,? 342. 640 See Kulikoff , ?Tobacco and Slaves,? 339-351. 257 dwellings, and most importantly their ever-expanding use of enslaved labor. 641 Material culture has often been linked to the rise of gentility during the period 642 , yet, the vast majority of the goods purchased from merchants were necessities rather than luxuries. Much of the acquisition process had nothing to do with the spread of gentility. Several recent studies have analyzed the specific patterns of distribution and acquisition of store goods in Virginia and Maryland during the colonial period. Ann Smart Martin?s dissertation on the system of distribution and consumption of goods in Bedford County, Virginia during the eighteenth century looks at the process on many levels from the large London merchants to the small shop owners and finally to the consumer. 643 Martin looks at the details of the trade from the layout of stores to the choices made by consumers and merchants. This study is important for this dissertation in two ways. First, the decisions by merchants, storekeepers, and customers are examples of agency working on many levels of the consumerism process. Second, she illustrates the types of goods that were important to the lives of consumers during the latter half of the eighteenth century. In his dissertation on store trade in Fairfax County, Virginia during the same period, Paul Crowl Reber draws similar conclusions about consumerism in northern Virginia. 644 Both of these studies 641 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifesyles?, 61; Shackel, Personal Discipline, 123-128. 642 Richard L. Bushman, The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992). 643 Ann Smart Martin, "Buying into the world of goods: Eighteenth-century consumerism and the retail trade from London to the Virginia frontier". Ph.D. diss., The College of William and Mary, 1993. In ProQuest Digital Dissertations [database on-line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 9407425; accessed October 29, 2007). 644 Paul Crowl Reber, "Retail trade and the consumer in Fairfax County, Virginia, 1759--1766". Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2003. In ProQuest 258 stress the importance of store location, competence on the part of merchants and their storekeepers, and the overwhelming importance of cloth and clothing to the success of retailing through stores. In another important study, Charles M. Flanagan analyzes the purchase and use of consumer goods by wealthy merchant James Carroll of Maryland during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. 645 Flanagan?s study shows Carroll trading and purchasing material goods to build wealth and social connections, and to set himself apart from others through the presentation of opulence. Particularly important was Carroll?s use of cloth and clothing both for his own wardrobe and as payment for debts, services rendered, and as gifts. Flanagan?s study is particularly convincing in showing how everyday material culture was used to make connections between individuals and to project identities. Each of these studies points out the importance of goods that barely register in probates such as cloth, rum, or other consumables. Yet, these were the most sought after consumer items at stores in Charles Town and countless other locales throughout the region. Merchants and Stores in Early Prince George?s County Stores existed in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake but it was not until the increase in Scottish trade during the 1730s or 1740s that year-round stores appeared Digital Dissertations [database on-line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 3112492; accessed October 29, 2007). 645 Charles M. Flanagan, ?The Sweets of Independence: A Reading of the ?James Carroll Daybook, 1714-21??. (PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2005). 259 with regularity. 646 Low population densities also contributed to the slow development of permanent stores in the region during the seventeenth century. 647 Stores remained scattered throughout the landscape during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries but the distribution of the most active stores directly influenced the development of towns. By the 1760s, nearly all stores in Prince George?s County were located in towns. 648 Charles Town was founded during the formative stage of this process when the economic foundations of towns were being solidified. It was during this stage that the actions of merchants and their patrons had a profound effect on the survival of Nottingham, Marlborough, and Queen Anne, and the failure of Charles Town. Citizens throughout the county traveled to stores to purchase goods on credit. These credit networks were decidedly local and played a major part in the development of what Kulikoff called neighborhoods. 649 For example, merchants in Baltimore County during the 1730s extended most credit within five to ten miles of their stores. 650 The success of store-based exchange networks was predicated on the ability of patrons to travel to and from stores by a viable road network 651 and the ever 646 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles?, 107-108; Price, ?The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake?: 508-509; Lorena S. Walsh, ?Urban Amenities and Rural Sufficiency: Living Standards and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1643-1777? The Journal of Economic History 43, no. 1 (March 1983): 116; Price and Paul Clemens, ?A Revolution of Scale?, 7. 647 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles?, 106. 648 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 226. 649 Ibid., 288-290. 650 Charles G. Steffen, ?The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake: Baltimore County, 1660-1769? The Journal of American History 76, no. 1 (June 1989): 32. Carr and Walsh suggest a tighter 3 to 5 mile radius in the seventeenth century, ?Changing Lifestyles?, 106. 260 increasing traffic to and from these places sometimes created tension between citizens. Consider the following excerpt from a petition by Anthony Smith and Samuel Brasshear before the Prince George?s County court in 1702: Certaine of the Neighbours formerly for their own Private Ends and for a nigh Cutt to ye River in ffishing time & the like have made a Roade through both your Petitioners Plantations which at first was not much frequented but since ye Stores have been kept by Mount Pleasant it is made ye Chief and only Roade to ye Store & to all ye Neighborhood thereabouts leaving the Maine Road?they coming on horse back & Pulling downe ye stones and Barrs or Gates that stand in their way, and soe Ride away & Leaving it and Letting horses and Calves or whatsoever is within ye fences into ye woods. 652 So why did some neighborhood store locales become towns while others like Mount Pleasant did not? Some historians have suggested that such private landings did not develop into towns because the credit and processing of tobacco originated in Europe rather than the colony. 653 In this system there was little need for middle managers who would set up permanent operations in towns. But this conclusion does not account for the fact that in Prince George?s County during the 1710s, merchants began to establish local distribution centers in towns. More importantly, the question points to the fluidity of the mercantile trade on the local scale. It is difficult to accurately estimate the number and location of all merchant stores that existed in Prince George?s County between 1696 and 1720. Likewise the number of those identified as merchants was not firmly established for the entire period. Lois Green Carr identified no fewer than forty merchants in the county before 651 For the importance of early road networks see Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves? Chapter 9. 652 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 195a. 653 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 107; Carr, ?Rural Settlements?, 179. 261 1710. 654 An additional sixteen merchants were identified in Prince George?s County between 1710 and 1721 through land records. 655 Some merchants listed in the court records could not be positively identified as living in Prince George?s County. In fact most large merchants found it profitable to operate in neighboring counties at the same time. Many merchants who kept the first stores in Prince George?s County were among the wealthiest individuals in the colony. Therefore, the most active and successful merchants in Prince George?s and surrounding counties also left the wealthiest estates. 656 William Barton, Ignatius Craycroft, John Craycroft, Henry Darnall, Thomas Hollyday, Richard Marsham, Henry Ridgley, Sr., Josiah Wilson, Thomas Addison, and Samuel Perrie each had estates worth more than ?1,000 at the time of their deaths (Table 3.1). Most of these merchants were factors for large firms located in London at some point in their careers and were politically well-connected. Factors during the seventeenth century usually worked on commission for merchant houses in London while Scottish storekeepers, who began to dominate the trade by the second quarter of the eighteenth century, worked as salaried employees of the merchants. 657 Most early merchants in Charles Town worked on commission for firms in London. William Paggen & Company and Edward Carleton & Company were two of the six leading tobacco importers in London and Cowes during the 1680s. 658 Factors for each of these firms operated a store in Charles Town by 1696. Other merchants such as 654 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 3B, 221-223. 655 There were more individuals who functioned as local merchants between 1696 and 1721. This figure only includes those who were confirmed as operating in the county. 656 Earle, ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System?, 69-70. 657 Price and Clemens, ?A Revolution of Scale?, 4. 658 Ibid., 15. 262 Joseph Jackson and Timothy Keyser were also active at Charles Town. Merchants in Prince Georges County and elsewhere in the Chesapeake during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century acted as intermediaries between overseas markets and local planters. Considerable scholarship has been devoted to understanding the tobacco trade in the Chesapeake on the macro scale and further elaboration is not necessary. Rather, the questions here relate to the micro-level details following in line with historian Charles G. Steffen?s assessment a decade and a half ago that ?local merchants whose stores dotted the countryside remain shadowy figures, somehow out of place in a world of planters and slaves.? 659 Having said this, the fact that merchants were among the wealthiest individuals in the county does not require reiteration. Most were clearly powerful individuals in the local social, economic, and political hierarchy. It is more critical to understand the web of people that made this accumulation of wealth, the flow of goods, and ultimately the development of towns possible. Merchant elites were the only individuals able to continually stock a large supply of store goods. They also ranked among the largest slave owners in the county. Rather than being ?out of place? in the world of planters and enslaved Africans, they were at the heart of the system. Charles Town Stores Stores are poorly documented at Charles Town. The problem with interpreting mercantile activities at the Charles Town stores is twofold. First, while identifying who served as factors for London merchants trading along the Patuxent 659 Steffen, ?The Rise of the Independent Merchant?, 11. 263 River is not particularly difficult, determining where individual stores were kept is much more problematic. Stores were often constructed at private landings and because most factors were also landowners, stores could be located at their plantations rather than towns. Court days provided an incentive to locate stores at or near Charles Town after 1696, but the number of stores located there remains unclear. A second problem with understanding exchange at stores is the scarcity of primary historical data about the structures themselves. Financial relationships between individuals surrounding the stores are more apparent. Like the ordinaries, some of these relationships can be pieced together through store accounts reproduced in the court record. Even with this source very little is known about the stores at Charles Town and most of what is known comes from the period between 1696 and about 1705. Several merchants used Charles Town as a base of operations during this time. 660 Chief Justice Thomas Hollyday, David Small, and Robert Bradley owned stores in or near Charles Town by 1696. The Hollyday and Small stores were used as temporary locations for the county court before the courthouse was finished in 1698. 661 As a result, the activities and material culture at these sites also relate to the 660 This only includes those merchants who were confirmed as keeping a store or taking up a lot in Charles Town. Many local merchants and factors probably off- loaded goods at the Charles Town landing but these were not included if they could not be confirmed as entering a lot in the town or owning land adjacent to the town. Therefore, the number of merchants who kept a temporary store at Charles Town between 1696 and 1721 may be significantly higher than the data presented in this study. The data presented here provides a brief profile of the merchants known to have operated in the town. 661 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Preface, Page 23. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am202p-- 23.html (Accessed January 20, 2008). 264 function and ritual of the court. Bradley?s store was used to hold the court records in 1696 following the death of the clerk of the court, William Cooper. 662 Several others may have also operated stores out of Charles Town by 1705. 663 Numerous London merchants had business interests in Charles Town and greater Prince George?s County during the last decade of the seventeenth and first decades of the eighteenth century. Each of these merchants employed local factors to exchange their goods for tobacco. Among these factors were Thomas Hollyday and John Gerrard for Peter Paggen and Co., David Small and Josiah Wilson for Joseph Jackson, Thomas Carpenter for Daniel Ivey and Henry Arthur, Henry Jowles for Jacob Moreland & Co., William Hutchinson for Matthews and Co., John Bradford for John Hyde, and Robert Bradley and William Wilkinson for Edward and Dudley Carleton. 664 Joseph Jackson, Peter Paggen, and the Carletons were three of the most active firms in supplying goods and extending credit on the upper tidal Patuxent River. 665 Presbyterian merchant politician Robert Bradley was a factor for the Carletons during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Bradley lived near Charles 662 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 38. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--38.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 663 Louise Joyner Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12, claims that numerous merchants opened stores in Charles Town, but many of these could not be confirmed as operating in the town. Some individuals Hienton lists at Charles Town operated stores elsewhere such as John Bradford and George Harris who owned stores at Nottingham. Only those individuals who could be confirmed as owning stores at or near Charles Town are included in this section. 664 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 391, 63a, 156, 100, 296, and 435; Liber H, f. 95; Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12. 665 This judgment was made based on the volume of debt cases brought before the Prince George?s County court during the first decade after the founding of the county. 265 Town 666 and either kept his store there or at a lot in the town. Bradley was also distributing goods under his own name by the early eighteenth century. 667 Many debt cases involving the Carleton firm brought before the Prince George?s County court involved Bradley as the factor. It appears that Bradley controlled the company?s interests in and around Charles Town while William Willkinson represented their interests in Mattapany Hundred to the south. David Small represented the firm Joseph Jackson and Company through his store at Charles Town. The extent of Jackson?s trade within Prince George?s County is evident from the many debt cases the firm brought before the court during the early years of the eighteenth century. 668 But it is not clear precisely how long Small operated a store at Charles Town, nor is it certain who represented Jackson at Charles Town after Small?s departure around 1700. Thomas Hollyday was a factor for London merchant Peter Paggen and kept a store in Charles Town as early as 1692. 669 Peter Paggen and his brother William were the third largest tobacco importers in London during the 1680s. By 1686 they were importing over a million pounds of tobacco into London and Cowes. 670 Much of the firm?s trade was conducted out of Cowes located southwest of London on the Isle of Wight. It was there that the company enjoyed a brisk transit trade whereby 666 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 301. 667 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 365a-366; Liber G, f. 10a. 668 For a sample of these cases between 1700 and 1704 see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 34-34a, 66-66a, 94-94a, 95, 144, 172-173, 176-176a, 286, 329a. 669 Archives of Maryland Volume 202, Page 65. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--65.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 670 Price and Clemens, ?A Revolution of Scale?, 15, Table 3. 266 tobacco was shipped to Cowes and quickly re-exported to Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and other cities. 671 In 1686 the transit trade at Cowes amounted to more than 4.6 million pounds of tobacco with most vessels arriving from Maryland. 672 This trade was almost non-existent at Cowes after the beginning of the French war in 1689 673 and it is uncertain how the Paggens faired from this fallout. Richard Charlett may have been the factor representing the firm out of Mount Calvert (Charles Town) at the time of this transit trade. 674 Paggen was highly influential in Maryland during the years following the Protestant revolution and was appointed to represent Maryland?s mercantile interests in London in 1692. 675 Thomas Hollyday may have partnered with Paggen because of his close ties with the Protestant Associators in addition to the promise of financial gain. Others, including Walter Smith who owned land west of Charles Town, also served as factors for Paggen along the Patuxent and debt cases brought before the court are often difficult to assign to an individual factor. 676 Court cases associated with other firms are more clearly assigned to particular factors. David Small, Thomas Hollyday, and Robert Bradley represented the interests of powerful London merchants and acted as intermediaries between the firms and 671 Ibid., 13. 672 Ibid. 673 Ibid. 674 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 12. 675 Carr and Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution, 179. Archives of Maryland, Volume 13, Page 467. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000013/html/a m13--467.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 676 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 59a. For debt cases see, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 16, 59a, 60a, 175a, 191a-192, 223a-224, 390a-391. 267 Chesapeake consumers. A small portion of the increasingly massive flow of goods and exportation of tobacco was channeled through stores at Charles Town. Several other merchants retained an interest in Charles Town during the first quarter of the eighteenth century but their physical operations in the town are poorly documented. James Stoddert and Josiah Wilson owned most of the land in and around Charles Town during the first quarter of the eighteenth century and both were also involved in mercantile trade during the period. Stoddert was an attorney for merchant William Round but the extent of his mercantile operation is unknown. Wilson kept a supply of his own store goods as well as being an attorney and factor for Joseph Jackson and Company. 677 Merchants like Wilson and Bradley began to accumulate the capital to stock and trade goods on a small scale during the 1710s. Hollyday, Bradley, and Wilson also sold goods under their own names during the first decades of the eighteenth century and all of these merchants were justices on the Prince George?s County court. Most of their activities as Charles Town merchants are unknown especially for Thomas Hollyday who died in 1703, David Small who was likely out of the business by around 1700, and James Stoddert whose career as a merchant is unclear. The historical record yields a slightly better profile of Josiah Wilson and Robert Bradley. Hollyday, Small, Bradley, and Wilson were involved in two levels of trade at Charles Town as factors for London merchants and as independent or semi- independent merchants controlling the distribution of material culture into the town. London merchants made their fortunes on the trade of material goods for tobacco, 677 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, f. 95; Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB, ff. 315-321. 268 while Maryland merchants controlled the supply and flow of these goods to their local customers. Two types of information about this trade are evident from the available historical data. First, inventories and other sources show the type and quantity of goods available to the consumer. Second, debt accounts show the types and volume of goods being purchased from both London and local merchants. Furthermore the individual circumstances of these transactions illustrates the opportunities offered to both the merchants and their customers through the sale and acquisition of goods. The act of supplying and purchasing goods is interpreted here as strategies used by individuals to maintain or improve the conditions of their social, economic, or political circumstances. Offering a World of Goods Merchants kept stores stocked with a variety of goods at private plantations, landings, towns, courthouses, and anywhere people gathered. The details of these gatherings at stores are far from clear, but the variety of goods provided to patrons is apparent from many sources. Goods were commonly distributed throughout the Chesapeake during the seventeenth and early eighteenth century through factors working as agents for large mercantile firms in London. This system of trade from merchant to factor is well understood in the Chesapeake. Historian Lois Green Carr provides a concise description of the system: English merchants sent ships to the Chesapeake with goods to purchase tobacco. A factor in charge of the cargo might accompany the ship; the ship captain might act also as a factor; or a factor might be established in Maryland or Virginia. He had responsibility for selling the cargo and purchasing and lading tobacco for the return trip. He often had a store at a landing to which 269 the ship would come. Factors and shipmasters bargained directly with planters and sent sloops to collect tobacco and deliver goods where the ship itself did not go. It often took months to load the ship. 678 Carr?s description applies to the trade at Charles Town, Mattapany Landing (Nottingham), and other locales up and down the Patuxent drainage during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. 679 An accounting of local merchant- planter Basil Warring?s business as a factor for Edward and Dudley Carleton on the Patuxent River south of Charles Town suggests how the system of material culture exchange worked. Edward and Dudley Carleton were major players in the late seventeenth century tobacco market along the Patuxent River during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and Arden Carleton was still operating in Prince George?s County when the firm was swept up in a wave of bankruptcies that plagued the London trade between 1711 and 1716. 680 A flurry of debt cases before the Prince George?s County court involving Arden Carleton suggests the firm probably became insolvent by 1714. 681 Warring secured tobacco for the Carletons from many of his neighbors probably in the same way that Robert Bradley did at Charles Town. Warring died sometime in the late 1680s and in so doing left an unfulfilled account with the Carletons that was recorded in the Provincial Court Records. 682 This account provides a brief example of the relationship between a 678 Carr, ?The Metropolis of Maryland?, 139. 679 See also, Middleton, Tobacco Coast, 119-122. 680 Ibid., 18, n 54; Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB 1, ff. 277-278. 681 For debt cases involving Arden Carleton during 1714 see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G. 682 Archives of Maryland, Volume 717, Pages 504-534. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000717/html/a m717--504.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 270 London merchant, their Chesapeake factor, the many planters who traded goods for tobacco, and the type of goods purchased. Warring received two super cargoes of goods from the firm in 1687 and 1688. The value of the cargoes was estimated at just over ?546 and ?417 respectively. 683 This collection of goods was destined for Warring?s neighbors and acquaintances who supplied the factor with payment in hogsheads of tobacco. A list of 144 names of outstanding debtors gives an impression of the amount of expenditure by various customers. 684 A total of 167,000 lbs of tobacco debts were outstanding at the time of the claim. The average debt was 1,160 lbs of tobacco but individual spending varied widely from small outlays of less than one hundred lbs to Henry Trueman?s balance of over 4,000 lbs. Only twenty seven individuals are listed as having paid their debt amounting to 17,173 lbs. 685 Nearly half of these debts were paid by others. It is unclear why so many debts were assumed by others, but it was a common occurrence. More importantly these two shipments provide a profile of the types of goods Warring?s customers desired. A wide variety of goods is listed in the two parcels. 686 The most obvious trend is the expenditure on clothing. Clothing, cloth, and clothing production items such as pins and scissors comprised well over 60 percent of each cargo by value. Varying degrees of style and quality of cloth were available to Warring?s customers. Readymade clothing including petticoats, gloves, hose, and falls made up even a larger percentage of the shipments. Cloth and clothing are most striking in their 683 Ibid., 518, 524. 684 Ibid., 528-530. 685 Ibid., 533. 686 Ibid., 508-524. 271 variability when compared to other goods in the lists. Most of the other material goods do not show the same variation of style and form as the cloth. There are exceptions such as ?New fashioned? dishes and plates and some variations in bedding and chairs. But differences represent a small portion of the overall package of goods. Most of the ceramic and pewter items are generic forms such as porringers, tankards, mugs, dishes and trenchers. Planters mostly needed tools to build their houses and work their fields and these items are listed in ample quantities. They needed a variety of iron ware to cook their food, salt to cure it, perhaps spices to add taste, and alcohol to wash it down. Warring?s frontier customers also needed guns and ammunition, equipment to fit their horses, and tobacco pipes for smoking. Nearly 5,000 tobacco pipes were included in one of the cargoes. Much of the distribution of these goods took place at the landing and store where customers were treated to a ?barrel of beer? costing 400 lbs of tobacco. 687 It is not clear how often Warring was present at the sales and a man was hired on at least two occasions to tend the store. 688 The sale of these goods was an important time for neighbors to get together and share stories, play cards, or catch up on gossip over a tankard of beer. It is very likely that the same gatherings took place at Charles Town more frequently after the court was established there and more local merchants representing London firms conducted business from the landing and their stores. The Basil Warring account offers a brief example of the type and volume of trade that took place along the Patuxent River at the end of the seventeenth century. 687 Ibid., 528. 688 Ibid., 527-528. 272 A second tier of distribution took hold with the expansion of stores by wealthy merchants in Prince George?s County. Large stocks of goods listed as store contents begin to appear in merchant inventories in the 1710s. Not surprisingly these store contents appear in inventories valued at more than ?500. Several of these merchants had considerable interest in the development of towns in the county including Wilson at Charles Town, Henry Darnall, Patrick Hepburn, and Robert Levett at Marlborough, Robert Tyler at Queen Anne, and John Bradford at Nottingham. 689 A less visible dimension of these two tiers of distribution is the use of enslaved labor to transport goods and tobacco through the county. The great merchant politicians in the county controlled 70 percent of the enslaved work force by the early eighteenth century. 690 The size of this labor force owned by local merchants created two conditions vital to the development of a centralized trade system. First, the large number of slaves owned by the merchants enabled increased production on their large plantation holdings and supplied a source of liquid capital that could be leveraged as credit. Second, they provided the labor for distributing goods and rolling hogsheads. Wealthy merchants distributed goods to free citizens of Prince George?s County both as factors and independent merchants during the early eighteenth century. It is clear that some of the wealthiest local merchants saw the advantages of consolidating the distribution of goods in towns and used an increasingly large enslaved labor force to transport goods and hogsheads. Citizens would continue to 689 Bradford had a store and several other business interests in Nottingham and was a factor for John Hyde, but it is uncertain whether he was keeping his own stock of store goods. Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, ff. 156-157. 690 See Chapter 3. 273 purchase goods from neighbors 691 , but stores located in or near towns became primary acquisition points for many white consumers early in the eighteenth century. Five store inventories recorded between 1713 and 1729 provide a rough approximation of the types and volume of goods sold to citizens during the first third of the eighteenth century (Table 5.1). The total value of these goods range from ?83 to ?563 and are listed among the estates of Henry Darnall (Marlborough), Josiah Wilson (Charles Town), Roger Brooke (Rural, Mount Calvert Hundred), Robert Levett (Marlborough), and Patrick Hepburn (Marlborough). As a group these five local merchants provide a profile of the emerging role of private stores in contrast with those individuals who acted primarily as agents for large firms based in London. Table 5.1 Value of Goods in Prince George?s County Merchant Store Inventories, 1710 to 1730. Roger Brooke (1718) Henry Darnall (1713) Patrick Hepburn (1728) Robert Levett (1722) Josiah Wilson (1718) Value in ? Clothing and Cloth 40.42 373.70 78.90 293.26 118.89 905.17 Manufactured Goods 36.72 180.84 121.13 138.27 32.87 509.83 Food 4.26 8.86 10.09 29.13 2.9 55.24 Medicinal 0 0 0 7.4 0 7.4 Unidentified 2.09 0 .83 1.2 6.25 10.37 Value in ? 83.49 563.40 210.95 469.26 160.91 1488.01 Source: Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, ff. 208-209, 315-318, 327-329; Liber TB1, ff. 169-181, 310-314. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis. Merchant inventories often list the contents of more than one store and there is some evidence of an increasing awareness of the importance of internal organization of the stores. In some cases separate stores were kept as a means of organizing 691 Carr, ?The Metropolis of Maryland?, 139-140. 274 goods. 692 Items such as cloth were kept separate from building supplies or tools for example. Separating different types of goods may represent the beginnings of targeted retailing within the structures rather than merely warehousing goods. 693 Robert Levett (Marlborough) maintained an ?Inward store? stocked with clothing, cloth, and small manufactured items and an ?Outward store? with primarily tools while Levin Covington?s (Marlborough) inventory listed a store, plank house, and warehouse. 694 Those items listed within the stores are by no means the entire stock of goods sold by the merchants. For example, Robert Levett?s inventory also lists an unspecified ?Cargoe of New goods? worth ?314. 695 Also, merchants may have kept more valuable or perishable items within the primary rooms of their dwellings for added security. 696 Another complication is the fact that most merchants also owned plantations. Stores were kept to supply plantation holdings and larger planters and merchants regularly distributed supplies to their less wealthy neighbors but the shear volume of goods and the fact that most large merchants maintained town lots supports the hypothesis that many of these ?store goods? were intended for resale to small and middling planters, tradesmen, and other free citizens living in and traveling to towns. 692 A reconstruction of the interior layout of the stores was not possible from the inventory contents. For an excellent analysis of store layouts and the use of space to display goods see Ann Smart Martin, ?Commercial Space as Consumption Arena: Retail Stores in Early Virginia?, Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, People, Power, Places, Vol. 8 (2000): 201-218. 693 For the development of marketing strategies and organizational refinement of store interiors during the third quarter of the Eighteenth century see Martin, ?Buying into the World of Goods?, 198-210. 694 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB 1, ff. 95-101, 249-254. 695 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB 1, f. 101. 696 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles?, 107. Martin, ?Buying into the World of Goods?, 204. 275 Henry Darnall?s store inventory taken in 1713 contained the largest supply of goods. Darnall likely kept a store in Marlborough or perhaps nearby at his Woodyard plantation. Robert Levett and Dr. Patrick Hepburn were also merchants who kept stores in Marlborough during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. Hepburn was also a partner with Thomas Bordley of Annapolis and may have had an interest in a store at the capital city. 697 The value of goods in the Levett and Darnall stores was similar to the super cargoes assigned to Basil Warring. Darnall, Levett, and Hepburn probably kept their stores on lots they occupied in Marlborough. Clothing and textiles comprise over 60 percent of the Darnall and Levett inventories. The smaller percentage (37%) of clothing and textiles in Hepburn?s store is somewhat misleading considering that clothing and cloth were by far the most valuable goods he held in partnership with Thomas Bordley. Manufactured items including a variety of tools, objects used in food production and consumption, and other items generally made up a smaller percentage by value of the overall store inventories in comparison to clothing and textiles. Josiah Wilson?s interest in Charles Town was examined in Chapter 3, but his store inventory provides some indication of the type of goods he stocked for resale. Wilson operated at least three stores in 1717. The contents of these three stores called the ?Day Store,? ?Middle Store,? and ?Lower Store,? are listed in his 1718 inventory. 698 The combined goods listed for all three stores in the inventory amount to just over ?160 in value (Table 5.1). Nearly three quarters of that value is 697 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB 1, ff. 281-287. Bordley and Hepburn died with an extensive list of ?558 worth of unsold goods resulting from their partnership. 698 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB, ff. 315-321. 276 assigned to cloth and clothing. Manufactured items such as tools and cooking equipment comprised 20 percent of the inventory followed by food (2%) and unclassified items (4%). An inventory of merchant Roger Brooke?s estate taken in the same year provides an interesting comparison (Table 5.1). 699 Brooke was probably living in Mount Calvert Hundred 700 and his inventory contains a list of goods in his store. There are several differences between the two inventories. First, the value of Brooke?s store inventory is half that of Wilson?s combined stores. Second, although the value of clothing and cloth was great (48%), a much higher percentage (44% of total value) of manufactured goods were present compared to Wilson?s inventory. The absolute value of manufactured items in the two inventories is similar suggesting that Wilson was expending more capital on cloth and clothing than Brooke. The difference may relate to the timing of when the inventories were taken. Though the differences between the two operations are unclear, cloth and clothing was certainly the staple commodity. So what was the level of mercantile activity in the town? And how did this exchange help shape relationships between people living in and visiting the town and the merchant politicians who controlled the trade? Charles Town was an entry point for goods throughout the first half of the eighteenth century. But was it a primary destination for patrons wishing to purchase goods? Itemized accounts from debt cases involving Edward and Dudley Carleton, Joseph Jackson, and Peter Paggen begin to answer these questions. These accounts when combined with several from 699 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB, ff. 326-331. 700 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 2B, 195. 277 independent merchants demonstrate which goods were central to the lives of consumers and which represented speculative purchases. Purchasing Patterns at Stores Purchasing patterns of free white citizens of the county can be derived from existing debt cases. These debt cases are evidence of a negotiated system of trade between whites in early Prince George?s County. The legal system regulated the resulting debts. Settling debts involved a plaintiff who was usually a local merchant, factor or agent for a large London firm, or wealthy planter and a less wealthy defendant. The actors within this confrontation were all members of the stratified free white society in Prince George?s County. In this system, the exchange of goods and settlement of debt was a negotiated action resulting in the reaffirmation of the mutual obligations between white members of early colonial Chesapeake society. 701 Many of the debts settled in the Prince George?s County court between 1696 and 1721 contain only the amount of the debt to be settled, the litigants, and the dates with few other particulars of the cases. The few accounts that contain lists of goods purchased from the various merchants illustrate patterns of acquisition by individuals. Patrons acquired goods from factors working for large London firms and from the merchant politicians themselves. Purchases from London firms are evident from many debt cases in the court records. Itemized lists of goods purchased from independent merchants are less frequent but do provide a partial view of the transactions that took place. Transactions involving the firms Edward and Dudley 701 Roeber, ?Authority, Law, and Custom,? 41-43. 278 Carleton, Joseph Jackson, and Peter Paggen are analyzed below followed by purchases from local merchants including Robert Bradley, Josiah Wilson, and Patrick Hepburn who began to assert more control over the local distribution of goods beginning in the 1710s. Numerous local planter-merchants worked to secure Maryland tobacco for Edward and Dudley Carleton of London including Robert Bradley out of Charles Town. Several itemized debts associated with the firm between 1690 and 1703 are found in the Prince George?s County court record and collectively provide an example of the type of transactions that occurred at Charles Town. How much tobacco was shipped out of Charles Town by the Carleton firm remains unclear, but the debt accounts provide a profile of their business on the Patuxent. A total of twenty-five itemized accounts were selected from the court record for analysis. At least six patrons purchased items from Robert Bradley and seven from William Wilkinson. 702 Many more actions involving the firm were found but only those with itemized transactions were selected for analysis. These accounts are summarized and organized by date of transaction in Table 5.2. In general the accounts provide an example of clients, timing, amount, and types of purchases, as well as how interdependence was formed through credit and debt. Most, though not all, of the individuals indebted to the Carletons were planters who could supply the firm with tobacco. Occupations were identified for twenty of 702 Robert Bradley supplied goods to William Barton, Richard Edwards, Hugh Jones, Robert Robertson, John Mills, and Thomas Tracy while William Wilkinson supplied Henry Cross, Matthew Mackeboy, William Joseph, Paul Rawlings, Jesper Kennett, Daniel Newport, and John Taylor. Henry Cross also bought goods from William Penn who was probably a mariner. The factor in the other transactions could not be determined. 279 Table 5.2 Edward and Dudley Carleton Accounts, 1690-1703. Date of Entry Patron Debt Credit Comments ? John Gardiner 1023 5/20/90 George Young 1549?? + Damages 4/8/92 Hugh Jones 1798 ?To John Willsons note you accepted 400? ?? Hugh Jones 120 By Robert Bradley for a Bedstead ?? Hugh Jones 130 By Matthew Bosswell ?? Hugh Jones 150 By Robert Bradley for Setting up a mill ?? Hugh Jones 432 By hogshead 1 of Tobacco att Kenestons ?? Hugh Jones 100 By Thomas Brooke Esq. ?? Hugh Jones 438 By one hogshead Tobacco Henry King ?? Hugh Jones 240 Damages 4/25/92 John Mills 1437 5/4/92 John Mills 432 ?to Richard Edwards 100, to Joshua Hall 100? 5/7/92 John Mills 318 5/11/92 John Mills 441 7/6/92 John Mills 430 9/24/92 Simon Nicholls 437 8/20/92 Simon Nicholls 604 10/11 & 31/ 92 Simon Nicholls 200 12/3/92 John Mills 385 ?/?/1692 Richard Edwards 1529 To the balance of Account then Settled Richard Edwards 1100 To your bill Assigned by John Gardner ?/?/1692 Richard Edwards 100 By John Mills ?/?/1692 Richard Edwards 406 By 1 hdds: Tobacco neate 1/7/93 John Mills 448 2/13/93 John Mills 150 2/93 Richard Edwards 422 By 1 hdds: Tobacco neate 2/93 Richard Edwards 460 By 1 hdds: Tobacco neate 2/93 Richard Edwards 844 By 2 hdds: Tobacco neate 3/25 and 3/31 1693 Simon Nicholls 515 ?To Gawen Hambleton 400? 4/8/93 Richard Edwards 426 To goods paid you 4/8/93 Richard Edwards 460 To your bill past on Account of Hugh Reyley 4/8/93 Richard Edwards 431 To your account and Assumption on Account H. Trueman 4/8/93 Simon Nicholls 929 ?to William Thompsons debt you assumed payment 229? 4/15/93 Stephen Smith 6572 7/21/93 Simon Nicholls 133 ?? Simon Nicholls 240 Damages ?? Simon Nicholls 50 By Balance Due to you on John Veitches booke ?? Simon Nicholls 1308 By 1 hogshead of tobacco 508, By Mr. Thomas Greenfield 800 280 1693 Stephen Smith 400 By one hogshead Tobacco at Robert Harris Stephen Smith 1272 By 3 hogsheads Stephen Smith 600 By Thomas Brooke Esq. Stephen Smith 400 By Jobe Evans 9/25/93 William Prather 579 10/2/93 William Prather 456 10/7/93 William Prather 861 12/3/93 John Mills 1450 ?to balance your account in John Veitches book 121? 12/17/93 John Mills 653 1694 Richard Edwards 404 By 1 hdds: Tobacco neate 1694 Richard Edwards 440 By 1 hdds: Tobacco neate 1694 William Prather 1412 By 3 hogsheads Tobacco 1/2/94 John Mills 908 ?to paid Thomas Swaringham 400, to paid John Cash 400? 2/14/94 John Mills 120 3/4/94 John Mills 160 4/10/94 William Barton 429 To the Balance of Accounts then made up 4/10/94 William Barton 1000 Damages 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes 1: 18: 04 To balance of Account made up when you went out of the country 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes 440 To paid secretarys fees about the salt 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes 800 To Paid Mr. Dent Attorneys Fees 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes 420 To Paid the Sheriffe and Cryers Fees 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes ? Due to you in tobacco Account 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes ? By tobacco Received for goods sold 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes 0: 16: 0: By Mr. William Barton 5/14/94 Capt. Thomas Bankes 0: 16: 0: By Thomas Brooke Esq. 7/23/94 Thomas Vaughan 1160 9/7/95 John Mills 260 9/28/95 John Mills 367 ?to paid Col. Ninian Beall 271? 12/13/95 Thomas Vaughan 670 ?? Thomas Vaughan 240 Damages ?? Thomas Vaughan 1000 By Mr. Samuel Solsworth 1695/96 William Prather 1379 ?paid Mr. Parker 553? 2/9/96 John Mills 1809 ?to paid Samuel Brashears 850, to paid John Boyd 476, to paid Mr. William Parker Sheriffe for you 475? 3/14/96 Maureen Duval 208 4/23/96 John Mills 1346 4/96 Maureen Duval 302 8/10/96 Maureen Duval 185 8/8 & 8/22 1696 William Prather 1476 ?paid Mr. Greenfield 912? 8/21/96 Thomas Tracey 905 8/26/96 Robert Robinson 480 281 ?? Robert Robinson 48 By James Moor ?? Robert Robinson 900 Damages 8/29/96 Thomas Tracey 457 8/29/96 Thomas Tracey 336 Damages ?? Thomas Tracey 500 By John Prater 1696 William Prather 462 By 1 hogshead 9/17/96 Maureen Duval 1300 ?paid Solomon Stimpson per your order 900? 9/96 Henry Cross 139 Bought of William Penn 10/9/96 John Mills 1035 10/10/96 Maureen Duval 691 11/20/96 Maureen Duval 430 ?paid Theophilus Bishop per your Order 400? 1697 Henry Cross 1645 Bought of William Wilkinson 1697 William Prather 906 By 2 hogsheads 1697 Stephen Smith 886 By 2 hogsheads 1/9/97 Maureen Duval 699 1/16/97 Nicholas Lewis 400 1/16/97 Nicholas Lewis 240 Damages 2/20/97 Maureen Duval 1414 ?paid William Groome 400? ?? Maureen Duval 1346 To 3 hogsheads Tobacco neate 4/14/97 Paul Rawlins 30 5/29/97 Paul Rawlins 935 Includes 670 for ?coates? 5/31/97 Thomas Clark 870 5/31/97 Thomas Clark 216 Damages 6/7/97 Paul Rawlins 1152 Includes 849 charge 7/2/97 John Davis 1020 ?to assumption to pay for Samuel Watkins? 1697 John Davis 25 By tobacco overpaid in last account 7/12/97 Matthew Mackeboy 243 Bought of William Wilkinson 7/18/97 Paul Rawlins 75 11/26/97 Matthew Mackeboy 219 Bought of William Wilkinson 1698 William Prather 906 By 2 hogsheads 1/24/98 Paul Rawlins 58 4/18/98 Paul Rawlins 920 5/21/98 Paul Rawlins 271 5/23/98 Paul Rawlins 502 Paid in Tobacco ? Paul Rawlins 614 Paid by Hugh Williams ? Paul Rawlins 92 By plantation for corn 5/25/98 Paul Rawlins 1988* * 822 Fees to J. Cecell 5/29/99 Paul Rawlins 581 6/6/99 Paul Rawlins 750 6/10/99 Paul Rawlins 237 1699? Paul Rawlins 1552 Tobacco 9/23/1700 Nathaniel Langley 615 12/30/1701 John Taylor 1266 Bought of William Wilkinson 5/26/1702 John Taylor 801 Bought of William Wilkinson 8/5/1702 William Joseph 495 Bought of William Wilkinson 8/18/1702 William Joseph 370 Bought of William Wilkinson 10/8/1702 John Taylor 802 Bought of William Wilkinson 11/22/1702 William Joseph 986 Bought of William Wilkinson, 47 pounds of shoe makers lace 940 9/1703 Williams Joseph 460 By tobacco 282 Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 32, 34, 102, 148, 273, 340-341, 370, 379-385, 404-408, 437. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 22a, 126a, 293a- 294, 356b. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis. the twenty-five individuals recorded in Table 5.3. Among these individuals were thirteen planters, one cooper, one carpenter, one brick layer, one mariner, one weaver, one ordinary keeper/planter, and one merchant. At least nine of the Carleton patrons owned between eighty-seven and 340 acres around the time of the debts. William Barton owned over 2,400 acres at the time of his death and William Joseph owned at least 710 acres. The bulk of customers were middling planters who had tobacco to trade for goods. Poorer tenants may have acquired their goods through other means such as smaller purchases from more wealthy local merchants and planters. Table 5.3 Edward and Dudley Carleton Patrons, 1690-1703. Store Name Occupation Residence/ Hundred Land Unknown Capt. Thomas Bankes Mariner Unknown Unknown Bradley William Barton Merchant, Planter, Justice Collington 2493 a. at Death Unknown Thomas Clark Unknown Unknown Unknown Wilkinson Henry Cross Brick Layer Unknown Unknown Unknown John Davis Planter Mount Calvert 100 a. by 1696 Unknown Maureen Duvall Planter Mount Calvert 200a. in 1706 Bradley Richard Edwards Planter Patuxent 200a by 1696 Unknown John Gardiner Cooper Collington 200a. by 1696 Bradley Hugh Jones Planter / carpenter Mattapany Yes ? Wilkinson William Joseph Planter Mount Calvert 710a. by 1706 Wilkinson Jesper Kennett Planter Unknown Unknown Unknown Nathaniel Langley Weaver Unknown Unknown Unknown Nicholas Lewis Unknown Unknown Unknown Bradley John Mills Planter Patuxent 340a. in 1706 283 Wilkinson Matthew Mackeboy Planter Collington 154 by 1706 Wilkinson Daniel Newport Planter Unknown Unknown Unknown Simon Nicholls Carpenter Patuxent 100a. in 1706 Unknown William Prather Planter? Collington 100a in 1696 Wilkinson Paul Rawlings Planter Mattapany 87 ?a. by 1696 Bradley Robert Robinson Planter, Ordinary Keeper Mount Calvert One lot in Marlboro, 1706 Unknown Stephen Smith Unknown Unknown Unknown Wilkinson John Taylor Planter Unknown 90 Acres by 1714 Bradley Thomas Tracey Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Thomas Vaughan Unknown Unknown None Unknown George Young Planter Prob. Mattapany Yes ? Source: Table 5.2; Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Tables 1 and 2, 150-215; Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber E, 1714, f. 421. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis. Goods were delivered or purchased from one of the Carleton stores during most months of the year (Table 5.2). For example, in 1693 goods were purchased in every month of the year except for May, June, August, and November. In 1697 March, August, September, October, and December were excluded. Patrons traveled to the Carleton stores most frequently between April and May and August through October. Some itemized accounts represent a one annual visit while others represent small purchases spread throughout different months of the year. The longest running debt is attributed to John Mills who was charged with back payments from April 1692 through October of 1696. These purchases were probably made at Robert Bradley?s store in Charles Town. 703 Over three quarters of Mills? debt was incurred during December and April. If the month of May is added, that percentage rises to nearly 90 percent. Maureen Duvall?s spending between March of 1696 and February 1697 703 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 408. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--408.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007).. 284 shows a slightly different pattern. Duvall also purchased during the early months of the year but devoted a considerably higher percentage of capital during the fall months. Half of Duvall?s spending occurred between January and April compared to 46 percent during the three months between September and November. Less than 5 percent of all spending took place between the months of June through August. Duvall was living in upper Mount Calvert Hundred 704 but it is unclear where he received these goods. The purchases of Paul Rawlings from William Wilkinson between May 1697 and April 1698 illustrate an entirely different pattern. In this case, spending between April and June accounted for over 95 percent of the total expenditure for the year. In his analysis of purchases made at the Smith-Baird store in Piscataway in 1769, Allan Kulikoff determined that although patrons visited the store regularly throughout the year, they typically spent more during June, July, and August. 705 Kulikoff attributes this spending pattern to the fact that by these months ?planters and merchants knew?both the size and probable value of the crop in the ground.? 706 The labor intensive process of transporting the seedlings to the main fields beginning in April, constant weeding through the summer, and harvesting in September probably left little extra time for other activities. 707 Purchases made by John Mills and Maureen Duvall in the late seventeenth century show a pattern very different from the one Kulikoff observed. This discrepancy in timing between the two data sets 704 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1A, 154. 705 Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves,? 359-361. 706 Ibid., 361. 707 T.H. Breen, Tobacco Culture: The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of the Revolution, (Princeton, 1985), 46-58; Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves,? 354-362. 285 represents the expression of personal choice on the part of Mills and Duvall. Carleton?s year-round stores extended credit for supplies purchased by patrons throughout the year and offered a degree of flexibility for patrons while at the same time attracting them to a central location for purchasing goods, rather than from their neighbors. Patrons like Mills and Duvall could purchase supplies on credit while attending court in any month of the year. When all of the Carleton itemized accounts recorded between 1690 and 1703 are combined, a noticeable spike in expenditures occurs in April and May with another smaller rise in August (See Figure 5.1). This composite data is similar to that presented by Kulikoff. Clearly the two data sets are not directly comparable for many reasons including the fact that they are separated by seventy years and the Smith- Baird sample represents a complete ledger for an entire year. The few itemized purchases made by John Mills, Thomas Tracey, and Robert Robinson at Bradley?s store after April 1696 generally coincided with court days but on at least two occasions purchases made by Tracey and Mills were at other times of the month. The presence of the court was important but not necessary for store patronage. Purchases from Peter Paggen show a different purchasing pattern. Six itemized accounts for purchases between 1695 and 1702 are summarized in Figure 5.2. 708 The limited data from debt accounts suggests that patrons acquired goods throughout the year. Patrons purchased goods from the Joseph Jackson and 708 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page191, 192, 197. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--191.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 60, 175a, 191a, 192, 224. 286 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ja n uar y Fe b r u ar y M arc h Ap r i l Ma y Ju n e J ul y Aug us t Sep tem b er O c to be r Nov e mbe r D ec em b er Number of purchases Figure 5.2 Number of Purchases by Month from Peter Paggen and Company, 1695 to 1702. Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 191-192, 197. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008); Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 60a, 175a, 192, 224. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis. Figure 5.1 Debt Owed to Edward and Dudley Carleton of London Settled in Prince George?s County Court, 1690-1703. Debt to Edward and Dudley Carleton 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Date of Purchase Tobacco in Pounds Source: Table 5.2. 287 throughout the year. Patrons purchased goods from the Joseph Jackson and Company store via David Small during most months of the year. In eleven itemized cases from 1696 to 1699 at least one transaction was carried out in each month with the exception of January, February, November, and December. 709 Also, twelve (70%) of the seventeen purchase dates listed were not associated with court days, suggesting regular attendance at the store by Small or his storekeeper. Similarly eleven (65%) of the seventeen purchase dates listed in the Paggen itemized accounts between 1696 and 1702 were not related to court days. No definitive conclusions can be drawn from the sample because only those cases that were itemized were counted. What the combined data from the merchant stores do show is that patrons were traveling to the stores at Charles Town and elsewhere throughout the year to collect goods. Sometimes patrons would schedule their store visits around court days, but the limited amount of data available suggest that visitors were just as likely to purchase goods from stores at other times of the month. For some individuals these visits were yearly or bi-yearly affairs and for others they were more regular occasions. Most patrons went to the stores a couple times a year and a few chose to spread their purchases out over several visits. Between April of 1698 and March of 1699 William Moore traveled to Charles Town to purchase goods at David Small?s store no fewer than seven times (Table 5.4). 710 John Mills traveled from his 709 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 420, 479, 480, 526, 561. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--420.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007)., Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 34a, 66a, 94a, 95, 172a. 710 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 172a. 288 plantation possibly located north of Charles Town 711 to Bradley?s store six times in 1692 purchasing goods worth over 3,400 lbs of tobacco. 712 For Moore and Mills these were opportunities to replenish their stock of goods for their plantations but they were probably also occasions to stop at an ordinary and converse with whomever happened to be in the town that day. Some individuals traveled a considerable distance in the early years of the county to reach a store. Only one of the six individuals identified as patrons of Bradley?s store at Charles Town could be confirmed as living in Mount Calvert Hundred (Table 5.3). The need to travel long distances would lessen during the first decades of the eighteenth century as more towns were established and the 711 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1D, 171. 712 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 405, 406. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--405.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Table 5.4 Timing of Goods Purchased from Merchants Edward and Dudley Carleton, and Joseph Jackson and Company, 1692 to 1699. Christopher Beans No. Lbs John Mills No. Lbs William Moore No. Lbs Paul Rawlings No. Lbs Total No. Lbs January 2 556 1 58 3 614 February 3 296 3 296 March 1 160 1 49 2 209 April 2 2769 1 1348 2 1807 5 5924 May 3 1191 2 518 3 1196 8 2905 June 1 745 2 337 3 1082 July 1 171 1 400 1 68 2 462 5 1101 August 1 96 1 30 2 126 September 2 356 1 314 3 670 October 1 140 1 1055 2 1195 November 0 0 December 2 1999 2 1999 Total 4 1152 17 8782 7 2327 10 3860 38 16121 Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 405-408. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008); Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 22a 66a,172a. Maryland State Archives, Annapolis. 289 road network expanded. 713 The fate of merchant stores at Charles Town?s was linked to the steady stream of clients who purchased goods while attending court sessions and at other times during the year. This fact mattered more than the distance between the stores and the surrounding plantations. Some individual cases provide examples of the different strategies used by patrons in securing goods from these merchant stores. Six of the eleven debts owed to Joseph Jackson were for goods purchased on a single day, while most of the transactions between customers and the Carleton and Paggen firms were for multiple days. Single purchases were sometimes small but made it into court because of debts traded by others that boosted the amount owed by the patron. For example, John Chappman was charged 108 lbs of tobacco by Joseph Jackson for two gallons and one quart of rum on September 12, 1698. 714 In addition to this debt, Chappman was charged for a debt for 400 lbs of tobacco owed to James Williams. In another case Mary Hay was charged for a gallon of rum and sugar amounting to seventy-two lbs plus an additional 200 lbs for a debt to Thomas Prather. 715 Single purchases were not necessarily small. John Cash purchased clothing and cloth worth over 800 lbs of tobacco from Jackson in 1698 including a single ?fine druggett coate? costing 450 lbs. 716 In another example Thomas Clark purchased 870 lbs worth of goods from 713 See Kulikoff, ?Tobacco and Slaves,? 338-353. 714 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 561. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--561.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 715 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 95. 716 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 480. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--480.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 290 Edward and Dudley Carleton in May of 1697 including a coat and breeches worth 460 lbs. 717 The majority of debt accounts indicate that inexpensive items such as pipes or ceramics were usually part of a much larger expenditure on clothing, cloth, horse tackle and other more costly items. Customers ?paid? for goods in several ways. Patrons became linked through the network of credit and debt to merchants and factors, and other patrons through these various methods of payment. The most common form of payment was through delivery of hogsheads of tobacco. In many cases the planter would deliver the tobacco, but it was not uncommon for others to provide the payment in hogsheads. This payment would show as a credit by tobacco received from another planter (Table 5.2). Even more common was the practice of exchanging promissory notes for goods. This was a common method used by ordinary keepers who regularly extended credit to customers. One example of this is William Groome?s account with Peter Paggen. In November of 1696 Groome purchased rum, sugar, and molasses for his ordinary at Charles Town. The total bill was over 2,400 lbs which he paid for in part ?by William Westryes noate.? 718 There are many other examples of notes showing up as both credit and debt and store customers exchanged them as currency as long as the merchants were willing to accept them. 719 At times individuals would provide credit for others such as Charles Barrow giving credit to John Davis at ?Mr. Small?s 717 Ibid., 370. 718 Ibid., 197. 719 For examples involving the Carleton firm see Table 5.2, especially the John Mills account, for an example from Joseph Jackson see, Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 172a, for another example involving Paggen see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 60. 291 Store.? 720 Patrons also performed tasks to pay off their debt to the merchant. Labor or supplies were commonly exchanged for store goods. Such was the case with William Dimond who paid off part of his debt to Joseph Jackson and Company by providing 1,000 logs and stakes to David Small. 721 Hugh Williams worked off 270 lbs of his debt to Edward and Dudley Carleton by building a bedstead and setting up a mill for Robert Bradley. 722 These arrangements would potentially offer the factor the ability to negotiate wholesale labor while allowing the patron to repay the debt through services. All of these forms of payment acted to further commodify not only labor but the economic relationships between people as well. Notes of credit, labor, and tobacco could all be exchanged freely from patron to merchant and from patron to patron. In this way the exchange of store goods was part of a process whereby the obligation of the exchange was constantly shifting. Instead of being indebted to their neighbors, customers would find themselves beholding to a merchant firm in London. The debt accounts also give an impression of the type and volume of material goods purchased from the stores. Two tiers of information are available from the data. First, the purchases provide a composite view of the material goods the patrons were buying at the stores. Second, when individual cases are examined they can offer suggestions about individual choice and purchasing strategies. Both scales of analysis are important for understanding the relationship between patrons, merchants, 720 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 31. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--31.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 721 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 173. 722 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 385. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--385.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 292 and the commodities that connected their worlds. This type of information gives a unique perspective on the lives of patrons not necessarily available through other sources such as inventories or the archaeological record. When combined, these sources have the potential for providing a much more complex picture of how individuals and groups shaped their material lives. Some general spending trends are evident from the debt cases. Eighteen of the twenty-five accounts gathered had sufficient information to determine spending patterns by material type. The eighteen accounts represented a total debt of 56,981 lbs of tobacco owed to the Carletons. Over 38,000 lbs of this debt is attributed to material goods. These debts were divided into eight categories, cloth, clothing, other manufactured goods, food, debts paid, debts brought forward, loans, and unidentified goods. Not surprisingly cloth and clothing made up the two largest expenditure categories. This mirrors the composition of the stores summarized earlier. Together these two necessities made up 68 percent of the total expenditure on goods. Manufactured items and food made up 21 and 8 percent of the total. Of these items only a portion of the manufactured goods would ever survive in the archaeological record and many perishables and delicate objects may not be included in a probate inventory even if one were taken. Six itemized accounts of debt owed to Peter Paggen (Figure 5.3) suggest that cloth and clothing was less important making up thirty-seven percent of the total expenditure compared to forty-seven percent for food 293 and alcohol. 723 The numbers for both the Paggen and Carleton accounts are difficult to interpret unless they are analyzed by individual purchases and strategies. A closer look at the itemized accounts of Hugh Jones, John Mills, Robert Robinson, and Thomas Tracy suggest the type of material goods purchased from Edward and Dudley Carleton through Robert Bradley. These four individuals spent a total of 11,742 lbs of tobacco on goods. Clothing and textiles made up 59 percent of the total expenditure followed by manufactured items (19%), food (17%), and unidentified goods (5%) (Figure 5.4). The clothing and textile category is comprised of cloth, manufactured clothing, thread, and buttons. A variety of cloth was purchased from Bradley including dowlas, crape, cotton, silk, caddis, blew, canvas, linen, flannel, penistone, duffield, and others. Clothing purchases ranged from expensive items such as petticoats and jackets costing over 300 lbs of tobacco to smaller items such as hats, shoes, gloves, and woolen hose that cost less than fifty lbs of tobacco. Manufactured goods included a variety of items that were grouped into the following seven categories; ammunition, clothing production, building materials, food production and consumption, horse accessories, tools, and other (Table 5.5). Nearly all of the manufactured items purchased from the store were necessities rather than luxury items. This pattern is consistent with region-wide trends during the period. 724 Food production and consumption and horse accessories were the most conspicuous expenditures. Iron cooking pots and saddles were the most expensive 723 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page191, 192, 197. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--191.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 60, 175a, 191a, 192, 224. 724 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifesyles?, 106. 294 Goods Purchased from Peter Paggen 0 10 5 47 4 0 1 2 3 27 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Bui l di ng S uppli es Cl oth/ Cl othing P r oduc ti on Cl othi ng Fi r ear ms and A mmuni ti on Food and Al c ohol Fur ni tur e Hor s e T ack T abl e/Foo d P r epar ati on T ool s Mi s c . Percen tag e Figure 5.3 Percentage of Goods Purchased from Peter Paggen and Company, 1695 to 1702. Source: See Figure 5.2. Figure 5.4 Purchases from Edward and Dudley Carleton through Robert Bradley's Store. Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 273, 385, 404-408. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). 0 20 40 60 Percent Clothing and Cloth Manufactured Goods Food Unidentified 295 Table 5.5 Manufactured Goods Purchased from Edward and Dudley Carleton Through Robert Bradley. Quantity Item Expenditure (Lbs of Tobacco) Ammunition 1 Runlett Powder 60 12 Lbs Shot 36 Subtotal 96 (4%) Clothing Production 12 Needles 5 2000 Pins 22 3 Scissors 15 Subtotal 42 (2%) Building Materials 2000 10d Nails 100 2000 8d Nails 90 1000 6d Nails 36 50 20d Nails 40 Subtotal 266 (12%) Food Production and Consumption 1 Frying Pan 72 1 Gallon Leather Bottle 70 3 Iron Pots and Hooks 345 2 Sieve 20 6 Spoons 22 3 Tin Pa 70 1 Ti Pot 9 Subtotal 608 (27%) Horse Accessories 2 Halter 27 3 Saddle 550 1 Pair Spurs 10 Subtotal 587 (26%) Tools 4 Hoes 62 4 Knives 29 1 Spade 60 6 Tobacco Tongs 24 Subtotal 175 (8%) Other 1 Looking Glass 20 2 Doz Pipes 8 1 Box 7 1 Rug and Blankets 340 9 Lbs Soap 96 1 Stock Lock 14 Subtotal 485 (21%) TOTAL 2259 Source: Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 273, 385, 404-408. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/ (Accessed January 20, 2008). 296 items within these two categories. Most of the tools purchased from Bradley were used in the production of tobacco. The only exception was an ivory handled knife purchased by Thomas Tracy. All of the other tools were purchased by John Mills for his plantation. In fact 88 percent of all manufactured items were purchased by Mills. Several general trends are evident from the accounts analyzed. First, most of the patrons whose debts were itemized in the court record were planters who purchased goods at various times of the year according to their individual needs. A surprising number of purchases were made at the Charles Town stores on dates not related to the regular court meetings held on the fourth Tuesday of most months. Second, the number of trips to stores varied and appears to be the result of personal strategies rather than a recognizable acquisition pattern. Third, although the number of goods purchased varied, clothing and cloth were the most important good traded by both value and volume, followed by a variety of manufactured goods, food, and alcohol. Goods that were consumed rapidly such as alcohol and food, those that needed to be replenished such as soap, lead shot, and powder, and those that wore out such as cloth and clothing were the staples of the store trade. In the case of cloth the variety offered is even more telling than the overall volume. This item above all others truly offered the consumer a measure of choice. Finally, the ways that patrons paid for goods demonstrates the strategies used to leverage their own credit, debts, and labor to acquire a variety of material culture available through the stores. When viewed through the lens of individual cases these four trends translate as strategies used by individuals to fulfill their basic need and desire for goods. These strategies highlight why and when customers visited stores at towns or landings. 297 A detailed analysis of several debt cases shows how individuals relied on stores to acquire goods throughout the year. John Mill?s purchases from Edward and Dudley Carleton at Robert Bradley?s store between April of 1692 and October of 1696 are some of the best examples of patrons visiting Charles Town (Table 5.6). Table 5.6 Goods Purchased from Merchants Edward and Dudley Carleton, and Joseph Jackson and Company, 1692 to 1699. Christopher Beans Lbs % John Mills Lbs % William Moore Lbs % Paul Rawlings Lbs % Total Lbs % Building Supplies 126 11.6 266 3.0 321 8.3 713 4.4 Cloth/ Clothing Production 504 46.6 2933 33.4 1055 45.3 822 21.3 5314 33.1 Clothing 164 15.2 2009 22.9 742 31.9 1435 37.2 4350 27.1 Firearms and Ammunition 96 1.1 60 2.6 156 1.0 Food and Alcohol 115 10.6 1964 22.4 124 3.2 2203 13.7 Furniture 340 3.9 150 3.9 490 3.1 Horse Tackle 392 4.5 174 7.5 499 12.9 1065 6.6 Table/Food Preparation 518 5.9 32 1.4 92 2.4 642 4.0 Tools 10 1.0 200 2.3 166 7.1 231 6.0 607 3.8 Misc. 163 15.1 64 1.0 98 4.2 186 4.8 511 3.2 Total 1082 8782 2327 3860 16051 Debts Assumed 70 3275 2342 Source: See Table 5.4. Mills was a middling planter who owned at least forty acres of land on the Patuxent near Mount Pleasant north of Charles Town by September of 1696. 725 Two 725 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 8. 298 years later he inherited 200 acres of a tract called Chelsea 726 , and to this Mills added one hundred acres of Mount Pleasant in 1702. 727 It is uncertain exactly where Mills was living at the time of his purchases from the Charles Town store, but it is possible that he was living a few miles north of the town. Consecutive purchases made only a few days apart in May of 1692 suggest Mills may have been living relatively close to the town during that year. If Mills was living in the area near Mount Pleasant, then the stores at Charles Town may have been the best option for procuring goods during the 1690s. Stores at Mount Pleasant were established sometime around 1702 728 alleviating the need for neighboring residents to travel south to the stores at Charles Town. Mills? neighbor Richard Edwards would also have to travel the distance south to the stores at Charles Town. 729 Mills traveled this route to pick up goods at Bradley?s store no fewer than seventeen times between 1692 and 1696. The most substantial purchases came in the months of April, May, October, and December. Mills chose to make smaller purchases during the late winter and early spring and during cutting season in September. The accounts suggest that Mills made the trip to the store a few times during the year to replenish his dwindling stock of goods. Mills generally chose to purchase goods at many times of the year rather than following a rigid annual cycle. Mills purchased cloth and food or alcohol on nearly every visit to the store. He also frequently purchased clothing and tools. The value and timing of these 726 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8B, 483. 727 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 38. 728 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 195a. 729 Edwards may have been living at Mount Pleasant and sold 100 acres of the property to Mills in 1702 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 38; Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1D, 170. 299 purchases shows the outlay required to purchase goods at the store. Cloth and clothing made up 56 percent (lbs=4,942) of all of Mills?s purchases. Nearly all of his visits where he spent over 400 lbs involved substantial purchases of cloth and clothing. Two purchases of a gown and petticoat worth 350 lbs in May of 1692 and a ?druggett? suit costing 450 lbs in 1696 show Mills?s attention to formal dress. Perhaps Mills purchased the suit in anticipation of the regular court proceedings that had just begun at Charles Town. These proceedings would offer Mills an opportunity to advance his standing through public display of his dress and his participation in the court ritual. 730 At the same time Mills was purchasing a variety of clothing of lesser value for his wife and children. In addition to these items, Mills almost always purchased a variety of cloth, buttons, pins, needles, or thread for making clothing at his visits to the store. Sugar, salt, molasses, and rum were purchased throughout the year in small quantities as required with one exception. Between July of 1692 and February of 1693 Mills purchased over eighteen gallons of rum, twenty two pounds of sugar, and nine gallons of molasses. It is plausible that Mills was using Bradley?s store at Charles Town to supply an ordinary operation during this time. 731 Shot, powder, nails, soap, and tobacco pipes were also purchased when needed. Mills frequently needed tools for his plantation such as tobacco tongs but these items generally amounted to less than forty lbs of tobacco for a single visit. 730 Charles Flanagan argues that ?status was performed with goods rather than being linked directly to inherited position,? ?The Sweets of Independence?, 200. He goes on to argue that clothing was the best vehicle for performing this status. Flanagan also points out that Carroll compensated employees with valuable clothing, thus enhancing their ability to ?perform? status as well, 296. 731 Twelve years later Mills would provide the necessary security for Joseph Addison?s ordinary at Charles Town. Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 354. 300 The general impression taken from the Mills account is that he was not spending lavishly on consumer goods for his family and his plantation. On the other hand, Mills may have recognized the utility and prestige associated with wearing a quality suit or petticoat, and he purchased strategically based on this knowledge. At the end of his days Mills would have little to show for this early spending. When his estate was probated in 1717 his wearing apparel was valued at five shillings and his entire estate of material goods including livestock was ?26.15.9. 732 As a comparison, Josiah Wilson?s wearing apparel alone was valued at ?12 in that same year. 733 Mills was able to stay on top of his debt by supplying hogsheads to Bradley. Twenty-five hogsheads are listed as payment received for the debt. Mills does not appear to have supplied services for payment of his debts, but Mills?s debt does show debts owed to others in varying amounts that were accepted by the Carleton firm. Over 3,200 lbs of Mills?s debt was transferred to the London firm. Paul Rawlings?s account with Edward and Dudley Carleton for goods purchased from William Wilkinson shows some similar patterns of acquisition but varies according to timing and frequency (Table 5.4). Rawlings, who probably lived near Swanson?s Creek in southern Prince George?s County, limited his purchase of goods to the months of April, May, June, and July. Like Mills, a large proportion of his expenditure was for clothing and cloth. He too purchased an expensive coat and breeches and smaller but steady purchases of tools, food, and alcohol. He did spend more on equipment to fit his horses, but the general acquisition from Wilkinson?s store was similar to that of Mills. 732 Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, f. 299. 733 Ibid., f. 315. 301 If a customer lived close to a store they could theoretically acquire goods more frequently as needed. Christopher Beans was a land owner, planter, and later ordinary keeper at Charles Town who purchased goods from Joseph Jackson at David Small?s store (Table 5.5). Beans purchased goods on at least four occasions during 1698. Beans did not have to coordinate his visit with court days and could purchase goods when supplies ran low. Clothing was a priority for Beans, but he did not purchase expensive clothing in the few transactions recorded, buying only inexpensive hose for his family and falls for himself. Like so many others when he died there was little cloth or clothing in his probate inventory. 734 The depreciation on cloth and clothing was probably quite rapid. Such depreciation would yield a steady market for the goods, versus expensive but durable and inconspicuous items such as metal cooking pots. Clothing and especially cloth were well suited as commodities not only because they wore out but also because they were adaptable, necessary, easily transported, and open to the whims of style. Alcohol was another commodity well suited for trade. Most store customers purchased alcohol along with sugar, molasses, and other food items. These commodities were purchased in large quantities at times. The most glaring example of this was Richard Brightwell?s purchase of sixty two gallons of rum from Peter Paggen via Walter Smith. 735 Large amounts of alcohol were often destined for the ordinaries. Between the 14 th and 25 th of November of 1696 William Groome purchased 29.5 gallons of rum, four gallons of molasses, and four pounds of 734 Cloth and clothing in his inventory are valued at just over ?1.5. Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, f. 279. 735 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 59a-60. 302 sugar from Paggen for his ordinary business at Charles Town. In Groome?s case, and that of every other ordinary keeper, the presence of a store nearby helped the ordinary business maintain the necessary supply of consumables. Studying how individuals purchased goods from large merchant firms through local factors shows the process of exactly how goods were purchased on the human scale. Rather than losing the forest for the trees, this method allows us to situate the consumer as an active participant within the larger system of transatlantic trade as it existed in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. It is this embodiment of the consumer that gives meaning to the system as a whole. Customers traveled to Charles Town at many times of the year and on dates not necessarily associated with court days. They acquired staples such as alcohol, salt, cloth, lead shot, soap, and tools to keep their households supplied with the necessities of life. At times they purchased expensive clothing but this was the exception rather than the rule, when a fine suit could cost as much as a hogshead of tobacco. Still some middling planters like John Mills saw the utility of such expenditures for presenting themselves in public spectacles such as the court proceedings at Charles Town. Others such as John Tate did not or perhaps could not provide the capital necessary to leverage such expensive single purchases. In Tate?s case he opted to concentrate on sheer necessities such as food and ammunition rather than elaborate single purchases of cloth and clothing per se. Tate?s largest single purchase was a gun for 350 lbs of tobacco. 736 Cloth and clothing were undoubtedly the single most important commodities sold in the stores at Charles Town and elsewhere. Whether these goods 736 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 224. 303 were purchased as necessities or as a means of genteel performance, the act of purchasing was both a matter of individual choice, capacity, and agency. Patrons also purchased goods directly from local merchant politicians and planters who possessed the liquid capital and credit to sell goods under their own names. Robert Bradley and Josiah Wilson were both successful at selling small quantities of goods to neighbors and other customers in Prince George?s County. Cloth, clothing, and rum were staples of the trade involving these local merchants. These local merchants may have offered more agreeable terms for purchasing goods than the larger merchant firms. Six itemized cases involving Bradley and Wilson show that they dealt in ready cash and services as payment for goods rather than hogsheads of tobacco. For those not engaged as planters they could trade services or cash for goods. 737 Tailor John Hendrick purchased goods from both Bradley and Wilson during 1709. These purchases came while Hendrick was renting a house from Bradley on one of his properties. 738 Most of the purchases were clothing with a few purchases of staples including shot, powder, and meat from Wilson and rum from Bradley. All of these goods were paid for through his services as a tailor. In Wilson?s case he was credited ?5 for work done but charged ?10:13:04 for an additional eight months of service due. This arrangement probably suited all parties involved. Hendrick may have had little else to offer for the goods, while Bradley who was appointed as a Provincial Court Justice in 1709 and Wilson who was in his second term as sheriff of Prince George?s County both likely required a variety of tailored suits for their regular appearances at court. There are other examples of the 737 See Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles?, 103. 738 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, ff. 10a, 15a-16. 304 two exchanging small quantities of goods for cash or other goods including wheat and salt. 739 Bradley appears to have profited from the rum trade. In 1704 he supplied merchant John Cobb with forty-six gallons of rum and Marmaduke Scott with nearly 120 gallons for his ordinary at Charles Town. 740 The rum sales to Scott alone totaled ?22. Wilson probably also supplied smaller planters and perhaps ordinaries with imported alcohol. 741 Bradley and Wilson kept stores of goods and profited from this small scale retail trade as a means of securing cash or services. Within the realm of colonial politics both individuals were highly visible but these small-scale mercantile transactions might go unnoticed under the long shadow cast by colony-wide trade. It was these small scale trades that made the economy function at the local level. Yet, this type of small-scale periodic trade did not provide a foundation for sustaining towns like Charles Town, Nottingham, or Queen Anne. By the late 1710s local merchants like Robert Tyler at Queen Anne and Robert Levett and Patrick Hepburn at Marlborough began to supply the volume of trade necessary to establish economic hubs. Two itemized lists of goods purchased by Maureen Duval and Thomas Crump from Patrick Hepburn at Marlborough in 1717 and 1718 show the difference between his store trade and the examples from Bradley and Wilson a decade earlier. 742 One 739 For itemized debt cases see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 366, 429a, Liber G, ff. 16, 394. 740 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 366, 429a. 741 Wilson?s inventory contains 20 gallons of rum and 50 gallons of ?Soare? wine in addition to 312 ? gallons of Molasses. These are not listed under the store contents. Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber BB1, f. 320. 742 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber H, ff. 291-292, 618-620. 305 difference is the number of transactions. In both cases customers traveled to the store on numerous occasions during many months of the year. The volume and variety of goods purchased is also greater at Hepburn?s store. Building supplies, tools, tobacco pipes, and spices were among the many goods listed in the two accounts. Another significant difference was the fact that Hepburn?s clients paid with hogsheads of tobacco. These cases are too few to draw any definitive conclusions, but the scale of Hepburn?s trade suggests a stabilizing entr?pot at Marlborough that relied on local independent merchants. The material objects recorded in the accounts represent an important measure of strategic purchasing. Unfortunately the meanings behind these purchases are elusive. The data presented here is more illustrative of acquisition patterns. Also included in the accounts are indications of how the web of credit and debt bound people together. First there is the simple fact that the chain of debt entangled all. Local Chesapeake merchants were indebted to large tobacco merchants in London. Smaller planters became indebted to these merchants through stores operated by local factors. Landless tenants and small freeholders were indebted to larger planters who supplied them with year-round staple goods, and so forth. All of these economic connections underlie the simple fact that credit and the exchange of debt offered free citizens the opportunity to buy into the world of consumer goods. The point of entry into this material world was increasingly located at a store in one of the many developing towns in the early Chesapeake. A central component of the exchange of consumer goods in early Prince George?s County is the fact that the system of consumption through stores via credit 306 was yet another example of the social construction of whiteness. This is important not only because of the obvious fact that enslaved Africans were excluded from this system of consumer trade, but that social stratification could be further solidified within white society by the fact that goods were available to all free citizens but there was a limit to what could be purchased based on the amount of credit that could be leveraged. Poor whites were free to make choices about the material goods they purchased, but those choices were limited. Conclusion The chapter concludes with a question posed at the beginning. How important was the role of the exchange of goods in making and sustaining Charles Town? The answer to this question seems clear. Stores were some of the first structures established at places that would later become towns. These points of exchange were places where many people replenished their stocks of goods during the year. The cases presented in this chapter show that people visited the stores at Charles Town throughout the year, but the frequency of these trips varied. Wealthy merchants speculated on courthouse towns like Charles Town and Marlborough where citizens regularly came for court days. Yet, the court cases presented in this chapter suggest that court days were not nearly as important for sustaining the stores as they were for the ordinaries. The itemized debt lists show that people traveled to the stores at Charles Town on an infrequent basis and often purchased sizable quantities of goods. Clients were willing to buy fashionable and expensive clothing at times but most often depended on the stores to supply the 307 staples necessary for the everyday household and plantation economy. The economic shift whereby occasional store visits blossomed into market towns had occurred in Prince George?s County by the 1730s and perhaps as early as the 1710s. Charles Town missed this threshold and the very nature of the supply and acquisition of goods during the period was not favorable for sustaining the town. The key to this problem is the fact that the distribution and acquisition of goods was a geographically fluid enterprise. A local merchant working as a factor or semi-independently could take up a lot fee simple or purchase a lot at Charles Town and erect a store for less than 2,000 lbs of tobacco. They could also rent a structure or simply sell goods from an arriving ship thus eliminating the need for a store. 743 Many local merchant politicians such as Josiah Wilson and Robert Bradley were active regionally with interests in several counties. But most of these wealthy merchants generally had a base of operations located in or near a town. Historian Ann Smart Martin demonstrates that in Virginia by the third quarter of the eighteenth century stores had become specialized havens for shopping. 744 In the case of Charles Town the base was easily shifted. One problem with Charles Town was the fact that it was a dead end. There was a road leading there and a ferry to Anne Arundel County but this was not a well- traveled route for traversing the region. Even the ferry service at the landing appears to have been sporadic or nonexistent directly following the removal of the court. Other towns like Queen Anne located along a major roadway and Nottingham with its deep shipping channel also sustained merchant stores. Marlborough eclipsed Charles 743 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles,? 107. 744 Martin, ?Buying into the World of Goods,? 209-210. 308 Town as a trade center by the second decade of the eighteenth century. Marlborough was only a few short miles away and merchants like Bradley could easily shift their operations there without inconveniencing their customers. But this shift did not necessarily diminish Charles Town?s role in the local trade network. Improved roads expanded the overland trade networks and strengthened the position of towns like Marlborough, Nottingham, and Queen Anne, but the landing at Charles Town still functioned as a primary entry point for goods arriving on ocean-going ships. Yet the historical record suggests that it was no longer a primary locale for acquiring goods. Marlborough merchants owned small vessels used to transport goods from the main landing at Charles Town to their stores in the town. 745 Though some small day stores may have still operated at or near the town, Charles Town?s primary function was as a distribution point for goods destined for stores and plantations elsewhere. Stores were fluid and not necessarily attached to place in the ephemeral world of the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Chesapeake region. Merchants relied on a web of customers to sustain the demand for goods and consumers were increasingly connected to local merchants through towns. Charles Town failed to develop after the court moved in part because it never changed from simply a primary distribution center for goods to a destination for consumers. Places like Nottingham, Queen Anne, and Marlborough passed over this threshold and by the 1730s had become local hubs for the resale of consumer goods. 745 Levin Covington owned an interest in at least two sloops and Josiah Wilson owned several vessels used to transport goods from the landing to Marlborough or other locations in the county. Prince George?s County Inventories, Liber TB1, f. 252; Liber BB, f. 320. 309 Chapter 6: Making the Material World of Public Spaces: Objects, Landscapes, and the Social Construction of Charles Town Introduction The previous chapters explored the individual actions that put Charles Town on the map and worked to maintain the town through the early years of the eighteenth century. Ordinary keepers, merchant politicians, and their patrons used the exchange of land, alcohol, and store goods at Charles Town for economic, political, and social ends. These individuals also purchased and sold goods and services as a means of expressing their place in early Prince George?s County society. Exchanging material goods and services was an exercise of daily interaction and this engagement in the material world was made possible through the exploitation of enslaved and indentured labor. Not surprisingly, the distribution and exploitation of material resources were largely controlled by a small group of county elites who held a vastly disproportionate share of economic wealth and political capital. Even so, tradesmen and landless ordinary keepers were able to control the point of exchange and the physical construction of the built environment at Charles Town. These county residents along with countless patrons acted to create the material record of Charles Town through the use and discard of material goods. Social, political, and economic encounters are visible in the historical record as singular moments of exchange. This chapter addresses how the construction and maintenance of buildings and the material goods used and discarded at Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park represent the diachronic creation of the town. 310 Archaeological and historical data are combined to show the way the town was organized and used through time rather than merely at the point of material exchange. The following discussion combines archaeological and historical data to explore the centrality of objects to everyday social encounters at Charles Town. An analysis of the types and distribution of artifacts across the site, and historical references to buildings are used to create a composite picture of how the landscape of Charles Town was organized as a cumulative and collective phenomenon. Using this technique provides a view of the spatial organization of Charles Town and demonstrates the process of town building as it unfolded on a daily basis at Charles Town. This approach provides a more fluid representation of the town layout and use compared to static impressions provided by plats and government instructions. Three areas in and around Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park were chosen for spatial and qualitative analysis based on archaeological and historical research. The physical properties of each of these areas influenced where buildings were constructed. Archaeologists and historians have long understood topography, soils, and distance to navigable and fresh water as important factors in locating sites. Historical and archaeological data suggest each of these factors weighed heavily in the choice of building locations at Charles Town, although the environment did not strictly determine where sites were located. People situated themselves on the land to take advantage of both the natural features and the flow of activity through the town. Artifacts recovered from the archaeological record also provide a profile of the types of everyday material culture used at Charles Town. This material culture primarily represents middling and lower class household possessions of those who 311 lived at Charles Town and provided accommodations to those attending the court and church services. Archaeology provides a view of the lives of those who used the town by illuminating a material world that was scarcely represented in inventories and other records. The archaeological and historical record is analyzed to determine where buildings were located and why, their spatial relationship to other structures, the approximate dates of occupation, function of buildings, and possible meanings associated with the small finds recovered from the various Charles Town archaeological sites. Together this information provides a composite view of the spatiotemporal construction, use, and everyday material existence at Charles Town. This composite making of the town was accomplished through agency and the use of material culture. Situating and constructing the courthouse involved the actions of many known agents from carpenters to justices. The identities of those responsible for the archaeological record are more elusive. But, the archaeological record can demonstrate agency if we view it as a composite form created by many individuals moving through and using the space as a community and public space. This group of individuals included ordinary keepers, indentured servants, enslaved Africans, tradesmen, citizens attending court, and patrons visiting stores and the ordinaries. The creation of the archaeological record represents both the intended and unintended consequences of the actions by these groups and the use of material culture. 312 The Construction of Church and State at Charles Town Chapter 3 discussed the symbolic landscape of the court at Charles Town in terms of local and regional politics. In contrast, this section discusses the reality of constructing the courthouse and other public structures. The construction of the courthouse and other public buildings shows the interaction between people and material culture in three distinct ways. First, careful attention was paid to landform in situating and constructing the courthouse and other public structures. Second, the physical construction of the public structures and their maintenance offered an economic opportunity for carpenters in the town. Finally, the process of constructing the courthouse demonstrates the tension between the ideals and aspirations of the justices and the realities of on-the-ground construction by the carpenters and other tradesmen. Some of these carpenters took up land adjacent to the town and they all frequented the ordinaries while employed there. Theirs was the job of constructing much of the built environment that would become Charles Town. Problems of where to hold court proceedings surfaced immediately after the court was established. Willson?s ordinary, the Anglican church, and stores owned by Thomas Hollyday and David Small were all used to house the court before the courthouse was completed. 746 As a result, a pattern familiar to the seventeenth century was followed where private structures were frequently used for court proceedings. The standard instruments of punishment, including a whipping post, 746 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 59, 163, 279. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--59.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 313 stocks, cage, and pillory, were built by carpenter Archibald Edmonston and in place before construction began on the courthouse. 747 These structures were probably moved to the courthouse grounds sometime within the first few years of the county?s establishment. The colonial government encouraged the placement of these instruments of punishment ?as near each court house as may be.? 748 Still, there is evidence that the cage at Charles Town was kept a good distance from the courthouse well into the eighteenth century. A ?round house? is mentioned in the sale of Beall?s Gift in 1704. 749 Round house was a common term for a community jail in England. One early eighteenth-century passage clarifies its use: ?I sit up every night at the Tavern: and in the Morning lie rough in the Round- house.? 750 It is likely that the round house at Charles Town served as a short term lockup prior to the construction of a ?prison? in 1710. 751 The boundary description of Moore?s half acre suggests the round house was somewhere very near the confluence of the Patuxent and Western Branch. It is curious why the architects of Charles Town chose to construct the roundhouse near the point of the river. The fact that the point is the most prominent section of land from the river may have factored in the choice. It is also possible that the location was close to an existing ordinary, where people might be sitting ?up every night at the Tavern.? The reason for the position is 747 Ibid., 5, 53, 84. 748 Archives of Maryland, Volume 22, Page 103. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000022/html/a m22--103.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 749 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 115b. 750 Oxford English Dictionary Online http://www.oed.com (Accessed January 9, 2008). 751 This notion is supported by the fact that no payments were found in the levy for another structure until the 1710 prison. 314 unclear, but there was a clear design for consolidating all the governmental buildings of the new county in one place. The time between the establishment of Prince George?s County in 1695 and the completion of the courthouse in 1698 was a transition period when the landscape of Charles Town changed from an unsettled gathering point for the county court to a landscape organized around a central core of dedicated institutional structures. Justice and moral authority could be handed down and punishment administered in one central location on the landscape following the completion of the jail near the courthouse in 1710. The nucleus of this new landscape was in place by 1698. The physical setting for the first governmental center of Prince George?s County was a slight hill just west of the M-NCPPC property (Figure 6.1). This area was identified as the probable location of the courthouse and Anglican church based on early land and court records. The single most important clue, first identified by historian Louise Joyner Hienton, is the fact that two lots divided out of John Davis?s land adjacent to Charles Town in 1697 were described as being ?neare the Church in Charles Towne.? 752 One of these two-acre lots was purchased by the second clerk of the court Joshua Cecell and the second was taken up by William Stone and John Meriton, two of the most active attorneys in the court. 753 Stone and Meriton likely improved their lot with an office and Cecell may have also constructed an office while he was clerk of the court. The legal papers of the county were kept at Cecell?s 752 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage,16. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 258. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--258.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 753 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, ff. 93, 111, 165. Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 16. 315 Beall?s Gift Terrace Site C Terrace Site B Terrace Site A Tracy?s Ordinary Probable Location of Church and Courthouse Figure 6.1 Location of all Colonial Archaeological Sites at Mount Calvert 316 house in 1697 but it is unclear if this was located at Charles Town. 754 The exact location of the church and courthouse in relation to these lots is unknown but they were close. The dimensions and construction of some public buildings is well known through county court records. A detailed description of both the courthouse and jail exist in the historical record. Less is known about the Anglican church at Charles Town. The church was constructed before the official establishment of the Anglican Church as the State religion of the Province in 1692. 755 This church served all of St. Paul's Parish until 1693 when Captain Richard Brightwell donated the land for the construction of a chapel of ease to serve the southern portions of the parish. 756 Early vestry records from the church have not survived and very little is know about the proceedings and who attended. The church was the longest surviving public institution at Charles Town and was in use at least until 1745. Some information exists about the church itself. First, it appears that there were at least two churches built at Charles Town between 1692 and 1745. 757 The first church was probably a wooden frame building and was likely replaced around the time that the county court began meeting at the town. In 1695, Governor Nicholson ordered that the ?Church at mount Calvert be fitted to serve as well for a Court house as Church, and so in all other places where 754 Archives of Maryland, Volume 22, Page 103. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000022/html/a m22--103.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 755 Archives of Maryland, Volume 8, Page 473. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000008/html/am 8--473.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Hienton, Prince George's Heritage, p.57. 756 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber A, f. 63a. 757 Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 58. 317 the Same can conveniently be done?. 758 This idea was quickly abandoned in favor of a separate courthouse. Court was held in the first church at Mount Calvert before the courthouse was constructed. But court records indicate that this structure was perhaps an older building. In July of 1696, the justices of the court ordered Sheriff Thomas Greenfield to ?Cause all the Shingles and Lumber to be removed out of the Old Church and the Same to be Sweept Cleane And Provide a table and Formes for the Commitioners of the County to keep a Court in the twenty Fifth day of August Next.? 759 This passage suggests that the church was ?old? and it was being used as temporary storage when the court was first convened. It is unlikely that the ?shingles and lumber? in the church were intended for the courthouse since construction on that building did not begin for another year. It is possible that the lumber was being used to complete a new church on the site. Further evidence comes from the fact that when the court met at the end of November it promptly adjourned to ?Mr. David Small?s Store house by reason the new house Intended for a Church is Soe open that they Cannot Sitt by reason of the hardness of the weather.? 760 Perhaps this ?new house? was not fully completed when the November court met. 758 Archives of Maryland, Volume 19, Page 233. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000019/html/am 19--233.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 759 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 8. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--8.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 760 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 59. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--59.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 318 The new church was likely wooden and in 1701 a painter was contracted to ?Couler and Lay the Church in Oyle.? 761 At the same time carpenter Robert Goarding was paid for fixing the locks and bolts to the church doors and merchant Robert Bradley was paid for the supplies. 762 Numerous repairs and improvements were made to the structure between the 1730s and 1740s and wine was delivered to the church as late as 1743. 763 In general very little specific information about the structure or material culture used within the church was located. The construction of the new church and other structures at Charles Town represented an opportunity for carpenters like Robert Goarding to ply their trade in the town. Also, the draw of the courthouse may have made Charles Town a viable base of operations for some during the town?s early years. Few tradesmen found it profitable to live in towns during the first decades of the eighteenth century in spite of the incentives offered by town legislation. To this point the historical record has yielded very little information about how many tradesmen if any took up lots in Charles Town. Carpentry skills were a valued commodity in the colonial Chesapeake economy. 764 Those who profited from the trade were not necessarily located in towns 765 and traveled to plantations for building projects. Dwellings, tobacco barns, stores, slave quarters, and other structures needed to be constructed and some carpenters were successful as a result of the demand. Carpenters could charge between 1,000 and 1,400 lbs of tobacco for the construction of large tobacco barns, 761 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 139. 762 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 139a. 763 St. Paul?s Parish Vestry Minutes, 1733-1819, ff. 111, 114, 117. 764 Earle, ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System?, 66-67. 765 Ibid., 89. 319 500 lbs for a fifteen-foot dwelling, and between one hundred and 200 for a coffin. 766 These services could be rendered at the plantation but there were some who profited from towns. Rueben Ross was one carpenter who traveled around Prince George?s County during the early eighteenth century offering his carpentry skills. His business was transient but he made his home base at Queen Anne Town where his family operated an ordinary. 767 Carpenters benefited from the construction of private structures and publicly funded building projects at Charles Town. It is uncertain how many carpenters may have lived in and around Charles Town during its life as a town. The only carpenter known to have lived in the immediate vicinity was John Deakins. Deakins, who was also a planter, realized the potential of owning land near Charles Town. Between 1698 and 1710 he acquired 130 acres of land directly west of Charles Town (Table 3.2). His carpentry skills enabled him to make a variety of small portable items as well as complete large building projects. When Deakins was working for fellow carpenter Michael Ashforth in Charles County, he charged him for making a coffin, gunstock, tubs, barrels, fencing his fields, planting and harvesting his crops, and tending his livestock among other tasks. 768 He also did a variety of 766 These figures are from debt cases. A 1,000 lb fee for two 15-foot dwellings may refer to slave or servant quarters. Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages, 75, 308, 318, 442. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--75.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 767 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 386. 768 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 75. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--75.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Ashforth is identified as a carpenter in Prince George?s Land Records, Liber A, f. 124. 320 carpentry projects for planter John Davis in 1697. 769 Five years later Deakins would purchase the same property that Davis was living on west of Charles Town and employed servants to assist with planting and carpentry work. 770 In 1698 carpenters, perhaps including Deakins, used the property to supply the wood for constructing the courthouse. On June 24, 1697 the Prince George?s County court, under the direction of Thomas Hollyday, agreed to pay carpenter Robert Brothers 50,000 lbs of tobacco to build a courthouse similar to the one used by the Calvert County Court by December 25. 771 The fees were to be paid in two installments, one out of the next levy and the final payment after the court house was finished. Half of the fee was paid out of the November levy as agreed 772 but problems quickly surfaced. Progress on the courthouse apparently went slower than expected and the building that was supposed to be finished by December was still not completed when the court met in March of 1698. Brothers blamed the delay on the fact that his family was ?verry Sick? and assured Thomas Hollyday that the construction would be 769 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 422. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am202-- 422.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 770 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 275. 771 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 208-209. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am 202--208.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007); Archives of Maryland, Volume 545, Page 117. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000545/html/a m545--117.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007); Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 15. 772 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 279. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--279.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 321 finished soon. 773 Hollyday responded by ordering Brothers to bring the ?Frame of the Court house to Charles Towne? by April 15 th or stand in breach of contract. 774 Such construction delays were not uncommon in the colonial Chesapeake, but perhaps there was a greater sense of urgency among the Prince George?s County justices because the county was new or because of the public construction projects in Annapolis. Some further details of the Brothers? actions are found in the court records. Brothers used Jonathan Willson?s ordinary and John Davis?s land located west of Charles Town as a base of operations for the building project. Brothers stayed at Willson?s ordinary on numerous occasions between June of 1697 and May of 1698 (See Table 4.15). He first stayed at the ordinary when negotiations for the courthouse contract were being finalized in June of 1697 and on numerous occasions between July and October usually around court dates. Carpenter Robert Goarding and others were helping with the construction by October, but it is unclear what progress they had made. It seems that Brothers heeded Hollyday?s warning and by the end of April he had hired several tradesmen to help complete the project including Benjamin Maddox, John Murphy, Lawrence Parker, John White, Lawrence Taylor, and John Harris (See Table 4.15). These men probably assembled the frame and completed the construction on the courthouse lot. Willson?s ordinary provided drinks for the men while they worked on the courthouse during April and May but they did not stay there. Robert Brothers and his crew stayed at a house on Davis? land from April 773 Ibid., 326. 774 Ibid. 322 through at least December of 1698. 775 It was during this time period that most of the work on the courthouse was completed. Timber for the courthouse was cut from Davis? land, Davis? wife made clothing for the men, and Davis even supplied nails for the project. 776 The courthouse was apparently in place by June of 1698 777 and when Brothers died the following spring, Elisha Sedgewick was named the sole executor of his will. 778 In August of 1699 the court ordered Sedgewick to ?appear the next Court in order for Making an addition to the Court house.? 779 This addition may refer to the "Clarks Office" stipulated in the original design. In 1701 or 1702 a "pent house" was added to the structure by carpenter John Deavor thus completing major construction on the building. 780 Archaeological excavations have not taken place in the area where the courthouse was probably located, but detailed instructions provided for its design have survived in the court record. The instructions read as follows: a five and thirty foot house in Length and 22 foot wide to be a Substantiall framed house with Locus or Ceder grunsells the Remainder of the frame to be Oake with two doors in the front with folding Shutters Between the Doores two transum windowes of Six Lights Each to be Sett one on Each Side of the place of Judicatory & the Lower Roome to be in the Same forme & Method as 775 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 31a. 776 Ibid. 777 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 346. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--346.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 778 Archives of Maryland, Volume 546, Page 143. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000546/html/a m546--143.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 779 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 541. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--541.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 780 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 117. 323 Calvert County Court house only the place of Judicatory to be one foot one halfe higher then Calvert County Court house is to build an office in the Same forme as Calvert County office the buigness of the houses only Excepted the Stares & upper Roome to bee in the Same manner & forme as Calvert County Court house is in the difference of the buigness of houses (Excepted) to be well Lathed and Plaistered above Stares and belowe with one Large windowe at Each Gable End of the upper Roome Instead of the dorment windowes in Calvert County Court house with Rales banisters formes & tables in the place of Judicatory in the Clarks Office and in the upper Roome as in Calvert County Court house. 781 This lengthy description of the first courthouse provides a valuable source of information on the dimensions, construction materials used, interior layout, and fenestration. Because the court records for Calvert County have not survived, it also provides insight into the appearance of that courthouse. The courthouse was modeled after the existing structure at Calverton in Calvert County. Many of the newly appointed Justices including Thomas Hollyday, had previously held offices there prior to the establishment of Prince George?s County. 782 Therefore, a design based on the Calvert County courthouse was a logical choice. The internal layout of the courthouse was similar in design to other courthouses of the period. 783 Justices sat a few feet higher than the congregation and their position was framed by the two windows on either side. The "upper Roome" in the courthouse may have served as a station for jury members. Finally, the "Rales" and "banisters" were used to separate direct participants in the court ritual from the 781 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Pages 208-209. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am 202--208.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 782 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Preface, Pages 27-28. http://aomol.net/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/am202p-- 27.html (Accessed January 20, 2008). 783 Upton, Holly Things and Profane, 205-206. 324 general public and by-standers. This form of division was a common feature of courthouse design 784 and was used within the structure of justice in the Chesapeake. By the description the building was made primarily of oak laid on wooden ground sills. It is not surprising that the structure was wooden given that very few brick courthouses existed in the Chesapeake at the end of the seventeenth century 785 and that the county government was in its infancy. Periodic repairs and alterations were made to the structure during the first two decades of the eighteenth century including mending windows and shutters, and constructing new steps. 786 The frame courthouse at Charles Town lasted until at least 1721 when the court was officially moved to Marlborough. The spaces outside the courthouse are poorly documented. The colonial government was sensitive to the preservation of court records and wished to isolate courthouses from buildings with chimneys to prevent fire. 787 At places like the Charles County courthouse that contained a chimney and an ordinary nearby, the records were kept at the clerk?s house for safety. 788 Trees around the courthouse at Charles Town were cleared by ordinary keeper Nicholas Sporne sometime around November of 1698 as a further protection. 789 Counties were also instructed to rail in 784 Ibid., 206. 785 Lounsbury, The Courthouses, 91, 103; See also Carson et. al., "Impermanent Architecture," for a discussion of the development and origin of post-in-ground architecture in the Chesapeake. 786 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 184; Liber G, ff. 39, 456. 787 Archives of Maryland, Volume 22, Page 102. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000022/html/a m22--102.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 788 Ibid. 789 Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page 417. 325 the houses containing the court records 790 , though it is unclear whether there was a courtyard at Charles Town. A jail was constructed on the courthouse grounds in 1710. Prince George's County court records also provide a detailed description of the structure. The prison was contracted as follows: with Squared Timbers of Nine Inches Square Seven foot Pitch, fflore and Loft of Ye Same all Joyned Close Togather and Mortist and Tennant and ye Roofe Shingled with Cyprus and ye sides and ends to be wether Boarded with Inch Plank and Lofted wth Plank Sett on Cedar blocks and within to be 20 foot Long and tenn foot broad and a partition of Inch Plank to be in Ye middle wth door and good Lock also to be one Tenn foot Cage before Ye Prison door five foot wide and door and Lock to Ye Same and two Strong Doors to ye Maine Prison the one Foulding on ye other made of good three Inch White Oak Plank with Lock to Ye one and Lock and Iron barrs to ye other with an Iron Pisdale of two foot Long to be fixt through one of ye Timbers for makeing water Through for Building of wch Prison wth ye Dementions afforesaid ye Court have Agreed with Mr James Stoddart for doeing the Same & the County to Pay him Twelve Thousand pounds of Tobacco. 791 After the jail was constructed it was Josiah Wilson and not Stoddert who was paid for completing the work on the structure. 792 The jail was well built and survived without recorded repairs until at least 1721 when the court was moved to Marlborough. 793 This structure was framed and placed on wooden blocks rather than ground sills like the courthouse. This style was especially common at the end of the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century and was practical because raising the frame on blocks http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--417.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007); Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, 15. 790 Archives of Maryland, Volume 22, Page 103. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000022/html/a m22--103.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 791 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, ff. 311-312. 792 Ibid., Liber G, f. 40a. 793 ibid., Liber K, f. 79. 326 reduced the extent of moisture damage. 794 There was a ten foot cage outside of the jail and there were two ten foot spaces within the jail to complement the exterior free spaces of the courthouse lot itself. Separating identifiable restricted and unrestricted spaces reinforced the spectacle of authority in the landscape of the fledgling county. The many spectacles associated with the court proceedings and administration of justice were meant for all members of Prince George?s County from merchant politician to bound laborer. Court days in Maryland and Virginia were complex affairs where social hierarchies were established and reaffirmed through the ritual of the court. Both the interior arrangement of the building and structure of the proceedings set the stage for the balancing act between being a neighbor and being an adversary. The structure of the court in early Prince George?s County was thoroughly researched and analyzed in Lois Green Carr?s dissertation. 795 Still, the structure of the court was vital in determining who came to and under what conditions they participated in the proceedings. All members of society appeared before the court including servants and slaves. Most landed white male Protestant citizens rotated between various positions including constable, juryman, press master, and constable, while the emerging gentry occupied the most powerful and lucrative positions including Sheriff, lawyer, and justice of the peace. Carr argues that county government ?was organized around the principle that public service was the obligation of all landowners and that each should give service suitable to his station.? 796 Although the 794 Carson et. al., "Impermanent Architecture,"153. 795 Carr, County Government, Volume I. 796 Ibid., 676. 327 wealthiest planters were more prominently featured in the proceedings, nearly all male landed residents served as witnesses or jurymen in addition to their direct involvement in personal claims or disputes. 797 Those assuming guiding positions on the court used the opportunity to advance their own careers. But the court also brought in non-landed individuals into the town and the court was a powerful mechanism for rationalizing boundaries of race and class. Roeber suggests that the court proceedings in colonial Virginia were a careful balance between English customs and law. 798 In his view the power of the court could only be maintained by striking this balance. Roeber uses the dramaturgical model to suggest that particular acts such as contempt of court, debt cases, grand jury meetings, and the use of the court by the landless all contain examples of how the court created authority by filtering the legal proceedings through well-understood and accepted English values and customs. Roeber goes on to suggest that the legal system and required deference to authority broke down when ?Virginia society failed to grapple with the contradictions inherent in chattel slavery based upon race.? 799 This is an important point in that colonial Chesapeake society had to confront the contradiction of human beings who were also legally defined as personal property. 800 Thus the courts issued orders of punishment upon enslaved Africans while being mindful of the potential compensation paid to planters upon the death of a slave during the administration of justice. 797 ibid., 676-677. 798 Roeber, ?Authority, Law, and Custom?. 799 Ibid., 51. 800 Ibid., 50. 328 A limit of thirty-nine lashes was imposed as punishment to slaves in many cases including runaways caught on other plantations and monetary compensation was required if a slave was executed. 801 The whipping post at Charles Town served the administration of justice for all members of society regardless of race. In one case a slave of Edward Digges was convicted of laboring on Sunday and given twenty lashes on the post. 802 Enslaved Africans stood trial for stealing and could stand as witnesses in cases. 803 Slaves probably also accompanied their owners to the court proceedings. Though it is unclear if any enslaved Africans lived in the town, they were regular participants, subjects, or attendees of the court proceedings. Indentured servants also stood before the court, but to them, the authority of the court may have been upheld as much by underlying cultural customs as by raw power and violence. It is within this context of race and class that the proceedings of the court took place within the context of increasingly formalized courthouse spaces. The type of buildings that were constructed and their location represents a movement toward formalized legal spaces that occurred in the Chesapeake during the last quarter of the seventeenth and the first quarter of the eighteenth century and in New England during the latter half of the eighteenth century (Figure 6.2). 804 At Charles Town, the courthouse, lawyers and clerks offices, church, and jail were all situated in a common landscape by 1710. This landscape was separated from the 801 Archives of Maryland, Volume 75, Page 690. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000075/html/a m75--690.html (Accessed December 10, 2007). 802 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 238. 803 For a case involving the theft of potatoes see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 201. 804 Lounsbury, The Courthouses, 62; McNamara, From Tavern to Courthouse, 46. 329 Figure 6.2 Courthouse at Moore?s Lodge, Charles County, Maryland, 1697. Source: Courtesy of the Maryland State Archives, Courthouse at Moore's Lodge Charles County Court (Proceedings), Liber V, no. 1, 1697, MSA C -277 330 commercial space running along the Patuxent River terrace. This governmental space was also positioned on a small hill slightly elevated from the lower terrace fronting the Patuxent. This layout deviates slightly from Charles Town?s predecessor at Calverton where the courthouse along with most other structures fronted the river. 805 It is similar in that the public buildings including the courthouse, chapel, and jail are located near each other. 806 The similarity of the church and courthouse space at Charles Town and that in Annapolis and their relationship to regional politics has already been discussed. 807 The actual choice of location for the church and courthouse was dictated in part by topography. The builders of Charles Town chose a high point on the landscape to construct the church and courthouse similar to Annapolis. Like the elevated justices? bench this spot suggests the government?s position of authority. The courthouse and associated buildings were also located in the interior of the town. The centrality of the government and religious buildings was likely symbolic, and there is no sign of substantial physical expansion of the town from the beginning. This location was also logical because the buildings would have been constructed along the main road coming into town and continuing along the terrace to the point at the confluence of the Patuxent and Western Branch. These public buildings would have also been situated to the west of any structures located on the flat bluff east of the main road. The manufacture of institutional structures at Charles Town was a statement about the establishment of the new county and the authority of a small group of 805 Pogue, ?Calverton?, 374. 806 Ibid. 807 See Chapter 3. 331 wealthy elites rather than the permanence of Charles Town as a meeting place for the court. On a much wider scale these buildings were the physical apparatus for negotiating boundaries of race and class as they became visible in the public setting of the court proceeding and the administration of justice. A precedent was set along the Patuxent and elsewhere in the Chesapeake. The administration of government, law enforcement, and moral authority were linked under a common space. And this space was organized in what colonists understood as legally defined towns. The construction and maintenance of the public buildings also provided an economic opportunity for craftsmen working in the area. This is evident from the many craftsmen employed to construct and complete periodic repairs on the public structures. Finally, the process of constructing the courthouse illustrates the tension that existed between the carpenters doing the work and the restless gentry eager to formalize the governmental landscape of Prince George?s County. Riverfront Commerce and Dwelling Archaeological data provide several types of information including where buildings were located, their spatial relationship to other structures, the approximate dates of occupation, function of buildings, and possible meanings associated with portable material culture when combined with historical data. The archaeological and historical data gathered thus far suggests that most of the non-governmental structures at Charles Town were constructed near the Patuxent River. In this way, the town 332 would have resembled most other small Maryland hamlets. 808 It is unlikely that ordinaries were adjacent to the courthouse due to the threat of fire but there may have been one or two in the general vicinity. The lack of specific archaeological and historical information about commercial structures beyond the boundaries of Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park, restricts the discussion to general land use along the Patuxent River. Archaeological data from a series of shovel test pit and surface collection surveys suggest that the most intensive building took place within about 300 feet of the Patuxent River. Few historic artifacts were located beyond this occupation zone. This pattern follows a well-established colonial settlement model whereby most sites are located near good tobacco soils, major waterways, and fresh water springheads. 809 All three of these conditions exist along the terrace. The soils are predominantly sandy Sassafras and Galestown series, 810 both good for growing tobacco. There is at least one active springhead along the bank, and of course the Patuxent River was a major transportation artery for the colony. The distribution of archaeological sites is the best indication of land use along this section of upland. Twelve seasons of field survey and excavation conducted by the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Natural and Historical Resources (NHRD) Archaeology Program between 1996 and 2007 identified five Charles Town 808 Joseph Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, traced the lot transactions for many of the early towns on Maryland?s eastern shore and the balance of his data clearly show that riverfront lots were the first to be taken up. 809 Smolek, ??Soyle Light, Well-Watered?; Smolek et. al., ?Historical Archaeology of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake?. 810 Robert M. Kirby, Earle D. Matthews, and Moulton A. Bailey, Soil Survey of Prince George?s County, Maryland, (Washington, 1967). 333 period sites on the property, most of which are located along the Patuxent. Much of the archaeological data is plow zone context material from a combination of intensive surface collections, shovel testing, and excavation. As most of the sites contain multiple components, the data analyzed were only those positively dating to the first half of the eighteenth century. Over 127,000 artifacts from these excavations have been recovered and catalogued. The type of archaeological data gathered at the time of this dissertation prohibits the kind of detailed spatial analysis of homelot architectural and artifact patterning common in many studies of the seventeenth- century Chesapeake. 811 Lot based spatial analyses at Charles Town await more intensive site-specific investigations. For the purpose of this dissertation, the artifact distribution data are sufficient enough to identify site locations and produce a profile of the flow of activity in the town versus its planned layout. When combined with historical data, these artifacts suggest a composite picture of the material lives of the inhabitants of Charles Town. Figure 6.3, shows the composite distribution of tobacco pipe stems along the Patuxent River. These data suggest that most activity took place near the river. Land records indicate this distribution of artifacts follows the main road leading into Charles Town. There was also a public landing, and a ferry crossing by at least 811 Robert W. Keeler, ?The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier" (PhD diss., University of Oregon, 1978); Julia A. King, ?Comparative Analysis of a Household and Inn in St. Mary?s City, Maryland?, Historical Archaeology 22, no. 2 (1988): 17-39; Julia A. King, ?An Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Van Sweringen Site, St. Mary?s City, Maryland? (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1990); Dennis J. Pogue, ?Culture Change Along the Tobacco Coast: 1670-1720? (PhD diss., American University, 1997). 334 1694 812 in addition to these upland sites, but their exact locations are unknown at this time. The majority of the artifacts used to identify colonial site locations were pipe stems, ceramics, and bottle glass. Pipe stems were particularly useful for identifying the distribution of sites along the terrace. At least four distinct Charles Town period sites have been identified along the terrace through archaeological survey, excavation, and distribution analysis (Figure 6.3). Varying levels of information are available for each site and the occupants, builders, or owners could not be identified for any of the sites. Even if ownership of a particular lot could be connected to a precise location on the land, the problem with tenancy still limits the interpretation of occupancy. 813 Furthermore, dwellings also doubled as ordinaries in most cases so attributing the archaeological assemblage to 812 Archives of Maryland, Volume 19, Page 134. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000019/html/a m19--134.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 813 For a discussion of the methodological problems associated with land tenancy see Thomas, Settlement, Community, and Economy, 9. Probable Location of Church and Courthouse Beall?s Gift Terrace Site C Terrace Site B Terrace Site A Tracy?s Ordinary N Figure 6.3 Distribution of Tobacco Pipe Stems at all Archaeological Sites. 335 the owner or even tenant if known is dubious in terms of material culture use. The archaeological record rarely if ever surrenders the names of those who used or broke a bottle, or who constructed a building. Therefore, based on the archaeological information available so far, only a rough characterization of the individual sites is possible, but the overall land use pattern is clear. Charles Tracy?s Ordinary The first loci identified going from south to north along the Patuxent drainage is probably the site of Charles Tracy?s ordinary. Tracy owned an ordinary that supported the court participants during its first years from 1695 until his death in 1698. 814 The structure was located near the courthouse and Tracy was allowed a fee in tobacco for hosting the grand jury. The only lot Tracy owned was a roughly two and a half acre triangular lot that fronted the Patuxent River terrace and extended to the main road in Charles Town. 815 Tracy also owned a one hundred-acre portion of Mount Calvert south of Charles Town, but the property was leased as a farm lot and it is unlikely that the ordinary was kept such a distance from town when Tracy had purchased a small lot adjacent to the town land. The location of this lot was identified through land record descriptions. In the spring of 2006 the NHRD Archaeology Program conducted a controlled surface collection survey in the open fields near Tracy?s lot. A twenty by twenty foot grid was established and 785 squares were collected resulting in the recordation, 814 See Chapter 4. 815 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 66a. 336 cataloging, and analysis of 3,042 artifacts. 816 Pipe stems were the most numerous colonial artifact recovered from the survey (Table 6.1). A total of forty-four white ball clay pipe stems were recovered. Nearly equal numbers of 5/64 (n=21) and 6/64 Table 6.1 Pipe Stems by Bore Diameter Recovered from Charles Town Sites. Terrace Site A, Plow Zone Terrace Site A, Borrow Pit (Feature 71) Terrace Site B, Plow Zone Beall?s Gift Tracy?s Ordinary Total 4/64 Inch 14 0 1 35 0 50 5/64 Inch 506 16 266 354 21 1163 6/64 Inch 277 64 425 153 20 939 7/64 Inch 16 4 34 32 3 89 8/64 Inch 1 0 0 0 0 1 9/64 Inch 1 0 0 0 0 1 Binford Mean Date 1726.39 1716.83 1714.53 1728.31 1717.98 Hanson Mean Date 1717.99 1710.07 1708.17 1719.58 1711.02 Total 815 84 726 574 44 2243 Source: M-NCPPC, NHRD, Archaeology Program, Archaeological Database, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Mean dates derived from Lewis Binford, ?A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Fragments.? Southeastern Archaeology Conference Newsletter 9, no. 1 (1962): 19-21; Lee Hanson, ?Kaolin Pipe Stems?Boring in on a Fallacy?, Historic Site Archaeology 4, (1969):2-15. 816 All artifacts were systematically flagged and recorded in the field according to the NHRD Archaeology Program cataloging system. To save time and resources, only diagnostic artifacts, such as projectile points, prehistoric pottery rims, and pipe stems, were saved and brought back to the laboratory for analysis. Most historic period artifacts were returned to the laboratory including all pipe stems for bore diameter analysis. All the raw data collected from the survey was cataloged and entered into the NHRD Archaeology Program database for analysis. 337 (20) diameter stems were recovered from the survey. These would be expected in assemblages dating from 1710-1750 (5/64) and 1680-1710 (6/64) respectively based on archaeologist J.C. Harrington?s original observations. 817 Manufacture dates of 1717.98 using Lewis Binford?s 818 straight-line regression formula and 1711.02 using Hanson?s 819 subsequent modification were established for the assemblage (Table 6.1). This is within the Charles Town range but much later than expected. These dates are probably not statistically reliable based on the small sample size, but the large proportion of 6/64 stems and the presence of two Rhenish stoneware fragments support a Charles Town occupation date. The distribution pattern of these pipe stems, however, is much clearer. Distribution analysis of these stems identified a concentration along the eastern edge of the collection area and near the western side of Tracy?s lot (Figure 6.4). The majority of the site may be located east of the current park road and beyond the boundary of this survey. Subsurface testing has not been completed, but given the isolation and concentration of pipe stems, the association with Tracy?s lot, and the fact that the lot owner from 1698 to 1703 was London mariner and merchant Thomas Emmes, and the subsequent owner was James Stoddert who was already established in the town, the assemblage is most likely attributed to Tracy. It is also possible that Stoddert was leasing the property after 1703. 817 J. C. Harrington, ?Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth-and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes?, Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 9, no. 1 (1954): 10-14. 818 Lewis Binford, ?A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Fragments? Southeastern Archaeology Conference Newsletter 9, no. 1 (1962):19-21. 819 Lee Hanson, ?Kaolin Pipe Stems?Boring in on a Fallacy?, Historic Site Archaeology 4, (1969):2-15. 338 N Figure 6.4 Distribution of Pipe Stems at Tracy's Ordinary 339 The proximity of Tracy?s lot to the courthouse would have made it a prime location for operating an ordinary. It was also situated near the Patuxent River and along the main road leading into town. All three factors influenced Tracy?s choice for the lot location. It is possible that other keepers rented Tracy?s house from Emmes or Stoddert after 1698. Future archaeological excavations may reveal a prolonged period of tenancy during the early eighteenth century, but Tracy first used this location to take advantage of the court business during the late seventeenth century and his success may have lured other ordinary keepers to rent the house following his death. Terrace Site A Two additional archaeological sites were identified several hundred feet to the north of Tracy?s ordinary during field testing in 1997. 820 Field survey identified two distinct concentrations of colonial artifacts and one definite subsurface feature (Figures 6.5 and 6.6). Field excavations took place the following summer based on the results of this survey. In May of 1998, archaeologists from the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and the Maryland Historical Trust?s Office of Archeology began excavating in the area with the help of dozens of volunteers as part of the Archeological Society of Maryland?s Annual Field Session. A total of eighty-three 820 Shovel testing at 25 by 25 foot intervals was used because the area was not under agricultural lease and shovel testing was a more cost effective strategy based on budgetary constraints. The testing and subsequent excavations in the area were funded in part through the Maryland Historical Trust?s Non-Capital Grant program and assistance from the Archeological Society of Maryland?s Annual Field Session in 1998. 340 Figure 6.5 Distribution of Tobacco Pipe Stems, Terrace Sites A and B. Terrace Site B Terrace Site A N Terrace Site B Terrace Site A Figure 6.6 Distribution of Wrought Nails, Terrace Sites A and B. N 341 five by five foot units were excavated in five areas based on the results of the survey. 821 Distribution analysis identified two colonial period artifact concentrations. The first of these two, Terrace Site A, contained many domestic artifacts and several intact features. Testing began with a checkerboard distribution of units followed by an expansion to large contiguous block excavations. Two blocks containing twenty units each were eventually opened and the plow zone was removed to reveal a variety of intact colonial features (Figure 6.7). These features included a large borrow pit, several east/west running trenches, and three posts. Though the full layout of the site has not been determined, a few conclusions can be drawn from the features tested and the plow zone artifacts recovered. 821 Over 32,000 total artifacts were recovered, cataloged, and analyzed. Figure 6.7 Archaeological Features at Terrace Site A. Photograph by Michael Lucas, courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Post Borrow Pit/Cellar 342 A total of 815 measurable tobacco pipe stems were recovered from the plow zone sample (Table 6.1). Again the Binford (1726.39) and Hanson (1717.99) bore diameter dates are later than anticipated, but do fall within the first quarter of the eighteenth century. A smaller sample (n=84) of measurable stems from the borrow pit yielded earlier dates of 1716.83 (Binford) and 1710.07 (Hanson). In addition, eleven pipe bowls were identified by type. A mean date of 1705 was established using standard dated bowl types. 822 The 925 colonial ceramics recovered from the plow zone further support an early eighteenth-century date for the site (Table 6.2). Tin-glaze (n=574, 62%) dominates the assemblage, followed by other common varieties including Rhenish grey (n=150, 16%) and English brown stonewares (n=96, 10%), and North Devon gravel tempered (n=31, 3%), English Yellow-glazed 823 (n=65, 7%), and green-glazed earthenwares 824 (n=9, 1%). The assemblage produced a mean ceramic date of 1706.09. Most of the percentages by sherd count are similar to those of the other Charles Town sites with the exception of the English yellow- glazed type that constituted a larger percentage of the total assemblage. The borrow pit feature contained similar ceramic types including Tin-glazed earthenware (n=49, 59%), North Devon gravel tempered earthenware (n=20, 24%), and Rhenish grey 822 Seth Mallios, ?Back to the Bowl: Using English Tobacco Pipebowls to Calculate Mean Site-Occupation Dates?, Historical Archaeology 39, no. 2 (2005): 95. Three bowls with spur-like heels (1680-1710), four with slightly flattened heels (1680- 1715), and four heel-less (1700-1740) varieties were recovered from the borrow pit. 823 This ware may be Midlands Yellow and is commonly found at Mount Calvert. Many examples were reported by Pogue at King?s Reach in Calvert County, Maryland, Culture Change along the Tobacco Coast, 151, 153. This variety is common on late-seventeenth and early eighteenth century sites and should not be confused with the early nineteenth century ware also referred to as English Yellow- Glazed Earthenware or sometimes ?canary? ware. 824 This ware looks similar to early seventeenth century ?border? wares recovered from Jamestown. 343 stoneware (n=14, 17%). This assemblage yielded an earlier mean ceramic date (1699.69) than the plow zone sample. The total absence of common post-1720s ceramics, including white salt-glazed stoneware, Buckley and other types, further suggests a pre-1720s site. 825 In general, the archaeological data support an occupation date between 1700 and 1720. Table 6.2 Colonial Ceramics Recovered from Charles Town Sites. Terrace Site A, Plow Zone Terrace Site B, Plow Zone Terrace Site A, Borrow Pit/Cellar Beall?s Gift Tracy?s Ordinary Total Tinglaze Mean: 1701 574 40 49 455 0 1118 North Devon Gravel Temper Mean: 1687.5 31 6 20 25 0 82 Rhenish Grey Mean: 1712.5 150 2 14 61 2 229 Staffordshire Slip Mean: 1722.5 0 0 0 4 0 4 Yellow-Glazed Earthenware Mean: NA 65 1 0 8 0 74 Green-Glazed Earthenware Mean: NA 9 12 0 8 0 29 English Brown Mean: 1732.5 96 11 0 39 0 146 Jackfield Mean: 1765 0 0 0 1 0 1 Buckley Mean: 1747.5 0 0 0 3 0 3 White Salt-Glazed Stoneware Mean: 1762.5 0 0 0 5 0 5 Whieldon Mean: 1755 0 0 0 2 0 2 Mean Ceramic Date 1706.09 1706.89 1699.69 1704.86 NA 1693 Source: M-NCPPC, NHRD, Archaeology Program, Archaeological Database, Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Mean dates from The Digital Archaeological Archive of Chesapeake Slavery, http://www.daacs.org/cgi-upload/MCDTypes.pdf (Accessed January 22, 2008). 825 Pogue also used the absence of white saltglazed stoneware as support for a pre- 1715 date for the Kings Reach site. 344 Fragments from at least three glass stemware vessels were also recovered from the plowzone. One of these stemmed glasses is an air twist variety developed in the second quarter of the eighteenth century and perhaps earlier. 826 A second glass drinking vessel recovered from the site has a baluster with a round knop similar to types produced during the first third of the eighteenth century. 827 Three glass stemware fragments were also recovered from the borrow pit feature but could not identified by type. Two black glass fragments were also recovered in the plowzone of Terrace Site A. These two fragments are the only examples recovered thus far at Charles Town. Similar examples were recovered from two sites occupied by prominent Dutch innkeeper Garret Van Sweringen in St. Mary?s City between 1672 and 1698. 828 Historical data presented in chapter four suggest that glassware, though present, was not a primary means of social or economic exchange at most ordinaries at Charles Town and elsewhere during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Yet, fashionable wares such as the black glass and delicate stemware vessels suggest a level of refinement among the users of Terrace Site A. Ceramic tableware at the site is less indicative of social status. Ceramic wares were generally not luxury items. For example, roughly a third of households whose probate inventories were valued at under the ?50 range in Anne Arundel County owned coarse earthenware ceramics by 1700. 829 A minimum of thirty-seven ceramic 826 Ivor No?l Hume, A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. (New York: Knopf, 1969), 193. 827 Ibid., 190-191. 828 Anne Dowling Grulich, ?Fa?on de Venise Drinking Vessels on the Chesapeake Frontier: Examples from St. Mary?s City, Maryland? Historic St. Mary?s City Research Series No. 7, (St. Mary?s City, 2004), 19. 829 Carr and Walsh, ?Changing Lifestyles,? 78. 345 vessels were recovered from the plow zone at Terrace Site A (Table 6.3). Most of these vessels (n=22, 59%) were beverage consumption forms such as jugs, mugs, and cups. In comparison, sixteen percent (n=6) of the vessels were used for food production, storage, and consumption. The higher percentage of drinking vessels may indicate an ordinary rather than simply a dwelling assemblage. Roughly half as many olive colored glass bottle fragments (n=457) as ceramics (n=925) were recovered from the Terrace Site A plow zone. If the site was used as an ordinary then bottles should be well-represented in the assemblage more substantially. One conclusion drawn from the data may be that ceramics were more prevalent in the daily lives of the occupants and their guests. Another scenario is that the alcohol bottles were deposited beyond the limit of the excavations. A third possibility is that cider was simply decanted into pewter or ceramic tankards or other vessels. Many objects used for bodily adornment were recovered from Terrace Site A. There are two important and interrelated aspects of this material culture that apply to archaeological data from Charles Town and other colonial Chesapeake sites. Unlike most surviving material culture these objects were regularly transported throughout the town or across the county. A second characteristic is their ability to express social identities and status. Using archaeological material to study identity is particularly challenging given that ownership is often impossible to establish. 830 Personal objects associated with presentation exist in fluid social and spatial contexts. But rather than hindering study, this fluidity promises a rich source for multiple interpretations of 830 Carolyn L. White, American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820: A guide to Identification and Interpretation, (Lanham 2005), 7. 346 Table 6.3 Colonial Ceramic Vessels Present at Terrace Site A. Function Form Ware Number Food Processing Pipkin Midlands Yellow 1 Pan Slip Decorated Redware 1 Subtotal 2 (5%) Food & Drink Storage Pot North Devon 1 Pot Redware 1 Subtotal 2 (5%) Beverage Consumption Jug Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Cup Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Mug English Brown Stoneware 6 Mug Rhenish Grey Stoneware 3 Jug Hohr Stoneware 5 Jug Rhenish Grey Stoneware 4 Jug English Brown Stoneware 1 Unidentified English Brown Stoneware 1 Subtotal 22 (59%) Food Consumption Plate Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Basin Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Subtotal 2 (5%) Health & Hygiene Galley Pot Tin-glazed Earthenware 2 Chamber Pot Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Chamber Pot Green Glazed Bordeware 1 Subtotal 4 (11%) Other Candlestick Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Subtotal (3%) Unidentified Hollowware Tin-glazed Earthenware 2 Hollowware Redware 1 Unidentified Tin-glazed Earthenware 1 Subtotal 4 (11%) Total 37 Source: M-NCPPC, NHRD, Archaeology Program, Archaeological Database, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. 347 personal objects. Numerous buckles, buttons, and other personal objects have been recovered that date to the early eighteenth century (Table 6.4). Artifacts recovered from Terrace Site A provide an example of the potential multiple meanings that are attached to personal objects within the context of early eighteenth-century Prince George?s County. Table 6.4 Personal Items Recovered from Borrow Pit, Terrace Site A Object Number Bead 197 Bells 1 Button 1 Cowrie Shell 3 Coin 1 Pins 85 Total 288 Source: M-NCPPC, NHRD, Archaeology Program, Archaeological Database, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Cloth was the most abundant item in stores during the early eighteenth century. 831 Unfortunately, cloth and clothing rarely survive in the archaeological record. Pins, buttons, and buckles used to make and secure clothing are more durable and commonly found on archaeological sites. Straight pins were found in nearly every layer of the borrow pit at Terrace Site A. 832 Pins were purchased literally by the thousands from merchants for pennies 833 but were invaluable in that they were used to construct and hold clothing together. Though some men like James Stoddert were 831 See Chapter 5. 832 The recovery of pins, beads, and other small artifacts was accomplished by water screening 100% of the borrow pit fill through standard wire mesh window screen. 833 1,000 pins could be purchased for less than a shilling during the late seventeenth century. For example see Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 313. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--313.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). Beaudry claims that pins did not become affordable until the nineteenth century, See, Beaudry, Findings, 42. 348 listed as tailors, clothing was commonly constructed by women. A bone needle case lid from the borrow pit and an embroidery scissors recovered from the plow zone at Terrace Site A are further evidence of clothing manufacture and mending at the site (Figure 6.8). Though manufactured clothing such as petticoats were purchased from local merchants, bulk cloth was the most common item sold. If ordinary keeping was Figure 6.8 Embroidery Scissors from Terrace Site A. Photograph by Paul A. Newman, courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. the primary business of Charles Town, clothing manufacture and mending were two of the many regular tasks undertaken by women. In the case of Sarah Gilburne, her indenture to ordinary keepers Solomy and Alexander d?Hinoyossa was contingent on 349 them providing her with instruction on ?plain sewing work.? 834 The product of this labor, the finished garment, was used in public presentation at the courthouse, store, church, and ordinary. Objects such as buttons and buckles are directly related to style and presentation. A single pewter shank button was recovered from the Terrace Site A borrow pit. The button is small (11.7 mm) with an undecorated front and may represent a small waistcoat or breeches button. 835 Pewter buttons were inexpensive and worn by men of all classes during the early eighteenth century but were associated with lower status by the mid- to late eighteenth century. 836 Class was exhibited through dress, and buttons were a small though significant component of the ensemble. The nondescript button recovered from the borrow pit is difficult to place within this context of status display, but consider this button in comparison with buttons and buckles found in the plow zone. Five buttons were recovered from the plow zone at Terrace Site A. These included a simple solid cast pewter button and three undecorated hollow cast examples. In contrast to these is a silver hollow cast example with an ornately incised face. No?l Hume dates an almost identical example to the late seventeenth and eighteenth century. 837 This example contrasts sharply with the others recovered from the plow zone and the one found in the borrow pit and suggests variability in the style of dress at the site. 834 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber G, f. 25. 835 White, American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 59. 836 Ibid., 64. 837 No?l Hume, A Guide to Artifacts, 89. 350 Several buckle fragments (n=7) were also found in the plow zone. These are primarily made of copper alloy in styles and sizes common in the early eighteenth century. A variety of styles from plain shoe buckles to more ornate varieties were recovered, but like the buttons most of these were undecorated. One ferrous example appears to contain some decoration but the oxidation was too great to identify the style. Several additional objects of adornment found in the borrow pit fill speak to the problem of context in studying identity, agency, and shared material culture. Beads were by far the largest subset of personal artifacts recovered from the borrow pit. These came in a variety of colors and nearly the entire assemblage was made up of seed beads. Beads are often associated with trade between Europeans and Native Americans, but were also important among enslaved and free African Americans. 838 In addition these beads may have also been incorporated into European dress. The volume of beads suggests they are related to trade rather than clothing. Many of the powerful political figures in the early years of Prince George?s county, including James Stoddert, traded with local Native American groups as late as the 1690s. Beads were a prime component of trade between Native Americans and Europeans, but merchants also traded beads by the millions for enslaved Africans. Guns, Asian textiles, and Italian beads were a few of the items used as currency in the African slave trade. 839 Charles Town was on the fringe of this international trade. 838 Linda Francine Stine, Melanie A. Cabak, and Mark D. Groover, ?Blue Beads as African-American Cultural Symbols,? Historical Archaeology 30, no. 3 (1996): 49- 75. 839 Jacob M. Price, ?What Did Merchants Do? Reflections on British Overseas trade, 1660-1790?, The Journal of Economic History 49, no. 2 (June 1989): 277. 351 A single hawk?s bell recovered from the borrow pit is another object often associated with European and Native American trade. African women may have also woven these small bells into hair designs. 840 Archaeologist Ivor No?l Hume called the bell ?one of the most common sights and sounds in colonial and nineteenth- century America,? and small ?rumbler? bells were attached to a baby?s ?coral-and- bells? in colonial European contexts. 841 Given the present context of the hawk?s bell, any one of these interpretive scenarios is plausible. Another type of object recovered from the borrow pit is almost always associated with Africans and entangled in the global slave trade of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Three cowrie shells were recovered from two layers of the pit. Cowrie shells (Cypraea moneta) were harvested by the billions from the Indian Ocean and used by English and Dutch traders to purchase West- African slaves. 842 In the Bight of Benin cowries accounted for 44 percent of the value of imports from England and about 6 percent region wide between about 1660 and 1700. 843 Cowries were exchanged as currency, used as objects of adornment, and incorporated into spiritual practices. Europeans and African Americans also used coins for purposes other than currency. A single silver English three pence dating to the late sixteenth century was recovered from borrow pit fill (Figure 6.9). The coin has been intentionally pierced 840 Anne Elizabeth Yentsch, A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 193. 841 No?l Hume, A Guide to Artifacts, 58. 842 C. A. Gregory, ?Cowries and Conquest: Towards a Subalternate Quality Theory of Money?, Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 2 (April 1996): 197-198. 843 Akinwumi Ogundiran, ?Of Small Things Remembered: Beads, Cowries, and Cultural Translation of the Atlantic Experience in Yorubaland,? International Journal of African Historical Studies 35, no 2/3 (2002): 429-430. 352 twice. The edge of the coin is broken at the first perforation possibly as a result of a failed first attempt or wear. Pierced coins are often found on archaeological sites and frequently associated with African or African American spiritual practices, yet altering coins by either bending or piercing them was a common practice in England for centuries. 844 These altered coins were used for their ability to cure illness and ward off evil. Late sixteenth-century perforated three and six pence coins are particularly common. 845 Archaeologist James Davidson argues that there are three important elements that make these coins particularly potent as charms. The first two 844 James M. Davidson, ?Rituals Captured in Context and Time: Charm Use in North Dallas Freedman?s Town (1869-1907), Dallas, Texas,? Historical Archaeology 38, no. 2 (2004): 26. 845 Ibid., 28. Figure 6.9 Pierced Silver English Three Pence, 1559-1602. Recovered From Terrace Site A Borrow Pit. Photograph by Paul A. Newman, Courtesy of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 353 elements are inherent to the piece. They contain the symbol of the cross and they were made of silver. The third element is the post-manufacture alteration of the coins. Each of these elements made the coins potent instruments against evil and witchcraft. 846 Perforated coins were used by the English for working magic and preventing harm at least as far back as the sixteenth century. 847 Because the archaeological context does not appear to illustrate an intentional placement of the coin, its cultural context is difficult to determine. The coin may have been used and intentionally pierced by someone of African descent. But it also remains very plausible that Europeans at the site used the coin for protection, perhaps from witchcraft. The belief in the supernatural world and the fear of witchcraft was very real in the minds of English settlers along the Patuxent River during the late seventeenth century. These beliefs were codified in Maryland law, including the criminalization of witchcraft. One of the most famous witchcraft trials in Maryland involved a woman who lived a few miles west of Charles Town. In 1685, Rebecca Fowler was accused of ?being led by the instigation of the Devil certain evil & diabolical arts called witchcrafts?.did use practice & exercise in upon & against one Francis Sansbury & several others?. 848 Fowler arrived in Maryland in 1656 as an indentured servant and worked for Henry Cox on his plantation along the Patuxent River. 849 Cox?s plantation was probably located near Magruder?s Landing several miles south 846 Ibid., 28-30. 847 Ibid., 30. 848 Francis Neal Parke, ?Witchcraft in Maryland?, Maryland Historical Magazine 31, no. 4 (1936): 283. 849 Rebecca L. Logan, Witches and Poisoners in the Colonial Chesapeake, (PhD diss., The Union Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2001), 101-102. 354 of Mount Calvert Town. It was there that Rebecca met her husband John and the two moved to ?Fowler?s Delight? west of Mount Calvert Town (Charles Town) in 1684. 850 Francis Sandsbury fell ill in August of 1685 and blamed Rebecca for the malady charging her with witchcraft. 851 Fowler was convicted of the charge and was hanged on October 9 th . 852 Though many accusations of witchcraft in the Chesapeake stemmed from defamation cases, the general belief in supernatural phenomena was not uncommon in the lives of English colonists in the late seventeenth-century Chesapeake. 853 The presence of the pierced coin in the borrow pit suggests that the belief in the power of material objects over the supernatural world was also alive and well in Charles Town. This is true regardless of whether the coin was intentionally pierced and used by someone of European or African descent. Interpreting the meaning of objects such as pins, scissors, beads, pierced coins, hawk?s bells, and even cowrie shells remains difficult because the social position or ethnicity of the agent is often elusive and requires a detailed reconstruction of context that may be impossible to achieve. 854 The occupants and function of Terrace Site A are not known, and may never be positively identified even with the benefit of a plat because of the issue of tenancy. A few general conclusions can be drawn from the data available. First the building was an earthfast structure. One post identified near the borrow pit feature supports 850 Ibid., 105-112. 851 Ibid., 113. 852 Parke, ?Witchcraft in Maryland?: 282-284. 853 Horn, Adapting to a New World, 413-415. 854 See, Beaudry, Findings, 5; Christopher C. Fennell, ?Conjuring Boundaries: Inferring Past Identities from Religious Artifacts? International Journal of Historical Archaeology 4, no. 4 (2000): 281-313. 355 this hypothesis. Ethno botanical evidence from the feature suggests that white oak was used to construct the building. 855 Second, the structure contained a fireplace. A substantial sample (n=171) of daub recovered mostly from the upper layers of the borrow pit suggests a wattle and daub chimney. This daub coupled with the presence of numerous micro-strata suggests that the pit was open for a considerable time prior to the destruction of the building. Third, the enormous quantity of bone (n=5,533) and oyster shell (wt=10,819 gm) recovered from the borrow pit coupled with a wide variety of domestic artifacts recovered from the site indicate it was either a dwelling or more likely a dwelling/ordinary location. Finally, the location was chosen for several reasons. The proximity to the Patuxent River terrace and the landing location is the first obvious reason. Another reason for building at this location is the presence of a major springhead along the edge of the terrace slightly north of the site. This springhead would have supplied fresh water to the ordinary/dwelling. Finally, like Tracy?s lot, the site was located near the main town road. But who lived at the site? Several early eighteenth-century ordinary keepers possibly occupied the site including Marmaduke Scott, Solomy d?Hinoyossa, John Smith, Anne Skinner, Mary Gwynn, John Middleton, Christopher Beans, and perhaps Samuel Heighs. Unfortunately, the short duration of most of these businesses makes it difficult to determine a concise occupation sequence. This sequence is further complicated by the fact that many of these keepers probably occupied the same structure at different times during the first two decades of the eighteenth century. Because the 855 Justine Woodard McKnight, Summary of Botanical Remains from Mount Calvert (18PR6), (Upper Marlboro, MD: Unpublished report on file at the NHRD Archaeology Laboratory, 2000). 356 occupational sequence has not been determined, the collection is interpreted here as a generic dwelling/ordinary location. Terrace Site B A second archaeological site (Terrace Site B) is located along the Patuxent River just north of Terrace Site A. A clear concentration of tobacco pipe stems and brick fragments was identified based on the shovel test data, a block of seventeen five by five foot units was opened in the area during field excavations in the summer of 1998. Excavation began with staggered units followed by additional contiguous units. Numerous historic and prehistoric features were located as a result of these excavations and over 5,000 historic artifacts were recovered, cataloged, and analyzed. The identification of this site is difficult given the relatively amount of archaeological data gathered thus far but there are some obvious differences between Terrace Site A and Terrace Site B. The types and percentages of artifacts present are very different. The overall volume of colonial artifacts is much greater at Terrace Site A compared with Terrace Site B. For example, the plow zone in Terrace Site B yielded nine ceramics per five by five foot unit versus twenty-six per unit at Terrace Site A. Another difference was the volume of pipe stems present. Terrace Site B contained a much higher concentration of pipe stems per unit (n=97.3) than Terrace Site A (n=46.3). The reason for these differences may be the result of overall site function or the extent of the area tested. Future excavations on the site may clarify, or further complicate, this discrepancy, but an assessment is offered here based on the results of the 1998 excavations. 357 The number of colonial ceramics recovered is small (n=72) but the frequency of types present is similar to the other colonial sites identified at Charles Town (Table 6.2). Most of the ceramics are Tin-glazed earthenwares (n=40, 56%) followed by smaller numbers of green-glazed earthenwares (n=12, 17%), English Brown Stoneware (n=11, 15%), North Devon gravel tempered earthenware (n=6, 8%), Rhenish Grey Stoneware (n=2, 3%), and English yellow-glazed earthenware (n=1, 1%). Like the ceramics at Terrace Site A, those recovered from Terrace Site B support an early eighteenth-century occupation of the site. A mean ceramic date of 1706.89 was established for the assemblage. Pipe stem dates of 1714.53 (Binford) and 1708.17 (Hanson) were approximately a decade earlier than those identified for Terrace Site A (Table 6.1). Rouletting is much more common on both the pipe bowls and stems at Terrace Site B compared to Terrace Site A. Rouletting on pipes, especially the bowl, becomes increasingly less common during the eighteenth century. 856 Twenty rouletted bowl fragments and eighteen rouletted stems were recovered from terrace Site B. The stem decorations ranged from simple band to more elaborate Dutch styles including oval linked chains and V style chain milling (Figure 6.10). 857 In 856 Dennis J. Pogue, ?Clay Tobacco Pipes from Four 17 th -Century Domestic Sites in the Lower Patuxent River Valley of Maryland,? in The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, XII: Chesapeake Bay, edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, 3- 26. Liverpool: Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies, 1991. 857 For examples of styles see Silas D. Hurry and Robert W. Keeler, ?A Descriptive Analysis of the White Clay Tobacco Pipes from the St. John?s Site in St. Mary?s City, Maryland,? in The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, XII: Chesapeake Bay, edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, 37-71. Liverpool: Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies, 1991. 358 contrast, only one rouletted stem was recovered from Terrace Site A. The greater volume of rouletted examples support an earlier date for Terrace Site B. The site was chosen for its proximity to the Patuxent River, main road, and perhaps the springhead mentioned earlier in association with Terrace Site A. The function, builders, and users of Terrace Site B remain indeterminate. It is clear from the volume of pipe fragments that there was considerable activity associated with the site. Precisely what that activity was remains unknown and further excavations may yield additional information on the function of the structure. Still, several pieces of evidence suggest that the site could be associated with an ordinary or dwelling rather than a strictly a periodic store or other structure. First, the large number of tobacco pipe stems matches what archaeologists have come to expect from some tavern assemblages. 858 Yet, smaller percentages of pipe stems are expected on rural tavern sites. Terrace Site B is more in line with the percentages found in urban tavern assemblages. 859 Smoking was a primary activity at the site regardless of the percentages. Second, the fact that there were even a small number of ceramics recovered from the site supports a domestic use of the site, perhaps a dwelling that 858 Bragdon, ?Occupational Differences?, 90; Chenoweth, ??What?ll Thou Have?,? 85-86. 859 Diana Diz. Rockman and Nan A. Rothschild, ?City Tavern, Country Tavern: An Analysis of Four Colonial Sites? Historical Archaeology 18, no. 2 (1984): 114. 359 Figure 6.10 Rouletted Tobacco Pipe Stems from Terrace Site B. Photograph by Paul A. Newman, Courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 360 doubled as a store. Finally, the large number of brick fragments recovered from the site suggests a substantial structure beyond the rudimentary low cost stores constructed by merchants. Still, the function of building remains uncertain and the data from this site are most useful for providing an overview of the general layout of the town as expressed through use rather than planning. ?Standing Upon a Poynt by the River Side?: Terrace Site C A final archaeological component was identified on the Patuxent terrace at the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Western Branch. A shovel test survey and several excavations in the area between 1996 and 2006 established the location of at least three post-in-ground structures (Figure 6.11). Fieldwork in the area is ongoing and all of the artifacts were not fully processed, cataloged, and analyzed in time to be summarized in this dissertation. A preliminary overview of the area is possible using the data currently available. First, two isolated structural posts were identified during the excavations. One of these posts was located during excavations in 1996 just west of the standing brick planter?s house. This post appeared to be too large to represent scaffolding used in the construction of the extant late eighteenth-century brick dwelling. The size, date, orientation, and function of the structure are unknown. The same is true of an isolated structural post located near the Western Branch terrace. The probable alignment of this structure was determined by the slope of the post hole, but the building?s function, date, and size were indeterminate. The final structure in the area has been partially excavated and much more information is available. This post-in-ground building (Terrace Site C) contained at least one large rectangular cellar measuring approximately eight by twelve feet by at least three feet 361 Unidentified Structure #1 (Post Hole) Unidentified Structure #2 (Post Hole) Terrace Site C Figure 6.11 Archaeological Features, Patuxent Terrace Site C. 362 deep (Figure 6.12). Artifacts within the cellar indicate that the structure was in use during the early eighteenth century and abandoned sometime before the second quarter of the eighteenth century. 860 Diagnostic artifacts recovered from the excavations including ceramics and glass support the early eighteenth-century date. Bottle shapes from the cellar are consistent with those dating from 1700-1715. 861 A few early eighteenth-century stemware base fragments were also recovered from the cellar fill. The few ceramics recovered from the cellar thus far are almost exclusively tin-glazed earthenware and unidentified red-paste wares. Post-1720s ceramics were absent from the cellar and the artifact assemblage suggests the structure was occupied during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. 862 Also, considerable ash on the floor of the cellar suggests the structure contained a fireplace. The orientation of the structure was determined by the presence of structural posts and ground sills (Figures 6.12 and 6.13). The building is situated on an angle squarely facing the Patuxent River and parallels the original boundary line of the 163-acre parcel leased by David Small and Thomas Emms. A similar orientation was determined for the isolated structural post found along the Western Branch terrace (Figure 6.11). The building was twenty feet wide and at least twenty feet long. An entryway to the cellar was 860 An English 6 pence dating to 1700 found at the top of this fill confirms that the upper layers of fill were deposited after that date. A 1695 Spanish Reale found in the top of a structural posthole further suggests an early eighteenth-century occupation. Obviously these coins could have been deposited long after their manufacture, and unfortunately they only provide TPQ?s for fill deposits as opposed to the structure itself. Pogue used coins found in similar contexts to support the date of the King?s Reach site. 861 No?l Hume, A Guide to Artifacts, 63-64. 862 A cellar was also found directly inside the doorway at the King?s Reach quarter, Pogue, ?Culture Change Along the Tobacco Coast?. But in that case there does not appear to have been the corresponding wide entrance extending beyond the exterior wall of the structure. 363 Cellar Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Post Ground Sill N Scale Feet 135 B u i l d i n g O r i e n t a t i o n Cellar Entrance Bulk Figure 6.12 Archaeological Features at Terrace Site C. 364 identified in the center of the structure at the southern end and may also represent a doorway into the main floor. The entrance is between three and four feet wide and is flanked on either side by large structural posts (Figure 6.14). This entrance extends beyond the exterior wall of the structure to the south and may have been a way of rolling cider casks into the cellar for storage. The floor of this large cellar was lined with hard packed clay and ash and its depth and size would have been ideal for storing and preserving casks of cider. Excavation of the cellar yielded several important pieces of information about the structure and the strategies employed by its builders and users. Archaeological data suggest that the structure was in use for many years. The structure was standing Post Brick Rubble Cellar Post Post Post Post Post Post Cellar E n t r a n c e B u i l d i n g O r i e n t a t i o n Figure 6.13 Structure at Terrace Site C. Photograph by Michael Lucas, courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 365 long enough to require replacement of damaged structural posts and possibly the abandonment of the large cellar entrance on the south side. There is also evidence that the occupants of the structure had to constantly battle the considerable effects of erosion in the loose sandy loam soil. At some point during the latter part of its history the cellar was dug out and expanded by two feet (possibly a joist width) maybe as a means of combating the slumping problem (Figure 6.15). There is evidence that wooden shoring with small posts was installed along the expansion wall as method of alleviating the erosion problem. The structure was built in a fashion similar to other dwellings of the time and suffered the same maintenance issues. In the case of Terrace Site C, the builders seem to have gone to considerable lengths to counter the forces of nature and retain their business at the point. Finally, the fill directly on top of the cellar floor suggests the site was simply abandoned sometime before the Figure 6.14 Posts Located at the Entrance to the Cellar of the Domestic Structure at Terrace Site C. Photograph by Michael Lucas, courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 366 second quarter of the eighteenth century, rather than being destroyed by fire. Also, the lack of artifacts within the fill suggests the cellar was not used as a primary trash pit after being abandoned. The data indicates the structure was used as a dwelling or dwelling/ordinary. But who owned and used the building? There are two plausible scenarios based on existing historical data. The structure was located on or near parcels owned by Henry Darnall and James Moore. Henry Darnall?s will indicates he owned only one lot and house in Charles Town. The description of the 1704 land transfer of Beall?s Gift places Darnall?s lot and ?shed? somewhere near the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Western Branch, and Joseph Addison was renting the building from Darnall 19 th Century Fill Late 18 th Century Yard Late 18 th Century Fill Mid to Late 18 th Century Destruction Fill Early to Mid 18 th Century Post Destruction Fill Late 17 th Early 18 th Century Occupation Fill Cellar Floor Cellar Expansion Cellar Entrance Post Post Post Post Figure 6.15 Profile of Cellar at Terrace Site C Showing Fill Layers. Photograph by Michael Lucas, courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 367 during the first decade of the eighteenth century. 863 Therefore, the historical evidence places Addison?s ordinary somewhere near the point. It is plausible that this structure is Addison?s ordinary. James Moore also retained a one half-acre portion of Beall?s Gift near the point bordering Darnall?s lot and the building may have also housed his ordinary, although this seems less likely. In either case the building was most likely used as an ordinary during the first decades of the eighteenth century. Beall?s Gift The final area analyzed is located on a small rise along the northern edge of Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park. This building location was once part of a tract called Beall?s Gift. Beall?s Gift was originally an eleven and a half acre parcel located along the northern edge of Mount Calvert Manor surveyed for Francis Swinsen in 1682. Swinsen apparently died before he patented the land. 864 James Moore resurveyed Beall?s Gift to include an additional five acres and eventually patented the property around 1700, twenty years after the original survey. 865 Moore possibly constructed an ordinary on the site during the first years of the eighteenth century. 866 By 1704 Moore was no longer operating his ordinary and sold Beall?s 863 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, f. 196. 864 The Clement Hill Papers; Jane Baldwin, The Maryland Calendar of Wills: Wills from 1635 (Earliest Probated) to 1685, Volume I, (Baltimore: Wm. J.C. Dulany Co., 1901), 162. 865 Patent Record, Liber DD5, ff. 64, 76. 866 See Chapter 4. 368 Gift to James Stoddert for a sum of ?85. 867 Beall?s Gift remained in the Stoddert family until James?s son John sold the property to James Pelley in 1733. 868 Archaeological excavations were conducted on Beall?s Gift in 1997 and 1999 based on field data gathered in 1997. 869 A ten by ten foot controlled surface collection of a plowed field running through the center of Beall?s Gift resulted in the identification of a distinct concentration of colonial artifacts including ceramics, pipe stems, and bottle glass. A total of 1,463 surface collection units yielded nearly 20,000 artifacts including many dating to the Charles Town period. Much of the surface material is of limited value because of the long duration of site occupation that stretches from the early eighteenth to well into the nineteenth century. 870 The temporal mix of artifacts makes the results of methods such as pipe stem dating inconclusive. There are some clear patterns in the data, however, that helped focus the excavations. Colonial ceramics recovered included buff-bodied English yellow-glazed earthenware (n=7), North Devon gravel tempered earthenware (n=16), tin-glazed earthenware (n=57), English brown stoneware (n=6), Rhenish brown stoneware 867 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 114b. Moore did retain ? acre of the property, possibly the improved portion. 868 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber T, f. 69. 869 The surface collection on Beall?s Gift began in early 1997 and was completed in the fall. Random excavation units were opened at the same time that the surface collection was being completed. It was clear from intensive surface reconnaissance, however, that a concentration of colonial artifacts was present at the top of the hill. This pattern was clearly present following the completion of the surface collection, cataloging, and analysis of the collection completed in the fall of 1997. Results are reported in Michael T. Lucas, ?Att Pig Pointe Upon Mount Colverte?: A Phase I Archaeological Survey of Mount Calvert (18PR6). Unpublished site report on file at the Maryland Historical Trust Library, Crownsville. 870 Early nineteenth century ceramics probably associated with slave quarters or an overseers? house were prevalent throughout the area, including the hill top. 369 (n=1), and Rhenish grey stoneware (n=13). Distribution analysis shows a clear concentration of these ceramics at the top of a rise near the bank of Western Branch (Figure 6.16). Pipe stem distribution data show a similar pattern. A sample of 187 measurable pipe stems was recovered from the surface collection. Sixty-five percent of these stems measured 5/64? (n=122). The distribution of stems 6/64? or larger is similar to the overall distribution of the colonial ceramics (Figure 6.17). Other colonial artifacts including shoe buckles and furniture tacks confirmed the identification of the site. Twenty-four five by five foot excavation units were completed during the Archeological Society of Maryland?s Annual Field Session held at Mount Calvert in May of 1997. 871 Just over 13,000 artifacts were recovered, processed, and cataloged. The six units excavated near the concentration of colonial artifacts yielded a total of 3,677 artifacts, 1,559 of which were historic. No definitive colonial features were uncovered during these excavations. Archaeologists from the NHRD Archaeology Program returned to the area in the spring of 1999 once again with the assistance of the Maryland Historical Trust?s Office of Archeology and the Archeological Society of Maryland. These excavations were more extensive than those in 1997 and included an additional forty-two five by five foot excavation units. 872 Of the 23,801 artifacts recovered from these excavations, 7,407 of them were historic including over 5,000 from the units within the colonial site boundary. The following analysis includes data from twenty-six 871 Units were excavated to culturally sterile soils when possible. 872 Units excavated in 1999 were excavated to the base of the plow zone to expose historic and prehistoric features. This strategy differed from that used in 1997 where most units were excavated to culturally sterile soils. 370 N Figure 6.16 Distribution of Colonial Ceramics at Beall's Gift. 371 N Figure 6.17 Distribution of Tobacco Pipe Stems from Beall?s Gift with Bore Diameters of 6/64 Inch or Greater. 372 units excavated near the top of the hill combined with that recovered from the six 1997 units previously mentioned. Analysis of the thirty-two units excavated on Beall?s Gift is problematic because of the fact that most of the data is from the plow zone and can not be reliably assigned to a precise occupation period. Most of the diagnostic artifacts again suggest two primary occupation phases. Ceramic types recovered from the area suggest that the colonial phase of occupation was probably confined to the first quarter of the eighteenth century. The second period represents an early nineteenth- century occupation possibly associated with slave quarters or an overseers? house. This occupation was identified by 761 pearlware (1775-1830) and creamware (1762- 1820) sherds among other artifacts dating to the early nineteenth century. The presence of five white salt-glazed stoneware (1720-1805) sherds and two ?Whieldon? ware (1740-1775) fragments may suggest that this early occupation extended into the second quarter of the eighteenth century. The small number of these middle eighteenth-century wares may be explained by a short term occupation during the second quarter of the century or a carryover of earlier ceramics into the early nineteenth century. What the data do clearly show is that there was an occupation of the site while the court was meeting at Charles Town. Five hundred and seventy four measurable pipe stems recovered from the excavations yielded dates of 1728.31 (Binford) and 1719.58 (Hanson) (Table 6.1). In addition eight pipe stems recovered from the site have been carved. These pipes were apparently broken and then carved down to form a new mouthpiece. These remanufactured pipes have been found on 373 other sites 873 and are probably the result of supply rather than cost. It is curious that all of the carved pipe stems found at Mount Calvert were recovered from the Beall?s Gift site. It is possible that this modification is the action of a single individual. Colonial ceramics (n=603) included types similar to those recovered from Terrace Sites A and B. (Table 6.2). Tin-glazed earthenware (n=455, 75%) dominates the ceramic assemblage followed by Rhenish grey stoneware (n=61, 10%), English Brown stoneware (n=39, 6%), North Devon gravel tempered earthenware (n=25, 4%), and small percentages of Staffordshire slipware, yellow and green glazed earthenwares, and English black-glazed earthenwares. The combined colonial ceramics yielded a mean date of 1704.86 (Table 6.2). These wares were divided into a variety of vessel forms (Table 6.5 and Figure 6.18). Twenty nine distinct vessels were identified in the assemblage. Beverage consumption vessels such as tankards and mugs constitute the largest portion of the assemblage at 40 percent (n=12). Smaller percentages of food processing (n=4, 14%), food consumption (n=4, 14%), food storage (n=3, 10%), health and hygiene (n=2, 7%), and unidentified (n=4, 14%) vessels are present. It is difficult to make conclusions based on such a small number of vessels, but the types present do suggest a household and/or perhaps an ordinary. Other archaeological data also support this conclusion. Turned leads for encasing windows found at the site also support a dwelling/ordinary site with windows. Unfortunately none of the window leads examined produced a date. 874 873 No?l Hume, A Guide to Artifacts, 301-302. 874 Dates were often stamped on the interior of window leads as they were drawn through a vise. Dates are commonly found on leads from seventeenth and early eighteenth century sites. 374 Table 6.5 Colonial Ceramic Vessels Present at Beall?s Gift. Function Form Ware Number Food Processing Pan Redware 2 Unidentified North Devon 1 Unidentified Midlands Yellow 1 Unidentified Border Ware 1 Subtotal 5 (17%) Food and Drink Storage Crock Buckley 1 Bottle Rhenish Brown Stoneware 2 Subtotal 3 (10%) Beverage Consumption Tankard English Brown Stoneware 1 Tankard Rhenish Grey Stoneware 1 Cup Tinglaze 1 Jug English Brown Stoneware 1 Mug Rhenish Grey Stoneware 2 Punch Bowl Tinglaze 2 Mug, Jug, or Bottle Rhenish Grey Stoneware 2 Holloware Manganese Mottled 1 Holloware Staffordshire Slip Combed 1 Subtotal 12 (40%) Food Consumption Bowl Tinglaze 1 Basin Tinglaze 2 Plate Tinglaze 1 Subtotal 4 (13%) Health and Hygiene Galley Pot Tinglaze 1 Chamber Pot Tinglaze 1 Subtotal 2 (7%) Unidentified Holloware White Salt-glazed Stoneware 1 Holloware Redware 1 Unidentified Tinglaze 2 Subtotal 4 (13%) Total 30 Source: M-NCPPC, NHRD, Archaeology Program, Archaeological Database, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. 375 Figure 6.18 Sample of Ceramic Vessels from Beall's Gift. Top Row, L to R: Rhenish and English Brown Mugs, Rhenish Grey Jugs. Middle Row, L to R: Rhenish Brown Bottle, Tin-glazed Earthenware Cup, Tin-glazed Bason, Tin- glazed Plate. Bottom Row, L to R: Tin-glazed Galley Pot, Tin-glazed Bowl, Green Glazed Earthenware, North Devon Gravel-tempered Earthenware. Photograph by Paul A. Newman, courtesy of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. 376 Several features were identified and mapped in 1999 including a rectangular burned area possibly representing a hearth, one possible post hole and mold, and a large bone filled midden located directly south of the hearth area (Figure 6.19). These features were covered and preserved for future field seasons. The data presented here indicates the presence of a domestic component from the early eighteenth century. But why was it constructed so far from the Patuxent when the common domestic land use pattern favored waterfront construction? Who may have built on the site? And what was the purpose for building? This portion of Beall?s Gift was probably chosen as a building site because of the presence of a springhead located along the Western Branch bank to the north. This springhead would have provided ample water for the domestic site located at the top of the hill. The springhead was still being used in the twentieth century to supply water to the brick house on the point. A ready supply of fresh water would have overridden the desire to build near the waterfront. But who made this choice? The site was occupied when either James Moore or James Stoddert owned the property. If Stoddert was living on the property it would have been after 1704 and before 1713 when he was living on the Potomac side of the county. Stoddert?s house at Charles Town was used to hold the county standards in 1700, well before he had purchased Beall?s Gift. 875 Stoddert owned several ?houses? at Charles Town during the early 1700s and may have rented Beall?s Gift to someone during his ownership. It 875 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 83a. 377 Figure 6.19Archaeological Features at Beall?s Gift. 378 is unlikely that Stoddert?s ferry keeper John Edgerly was staying so far away from the river in 1710. The site may represent an occupation associated with James Moore. Moore patented the property shortly after the court was established at Charles Town in 1696. With the presence of a springhead on the property it is unclear why someone did not patent the property between Swinsen?s original survey in 1682 and 1700. It is possible that interest in the town as a dwelling location may have been impractical before the arrival of the court in 1696. Moore?s interest in the property is tied to speculation about the town following the arrival of the court. Moore was one of the first ordinary keepers in Charles Town during the early eighteenth century. There is no indication that Moore owned a lot in the town, and he probably kept his ordinary somewhere on Beall?s Gift. Moore?s ownership of Beall?s gift and the duration of his ordinary operation are closely aligned (See Table 4.1). It is also possible that his ordinary was located on Beall?s Gift but closer to the point. The most plausible explanation is that Moore used Beall?s Gift for his ordinary location and perhaps Stoddert later rented the property. James Pelley may have also lived on the property during the 1730s and 1740s. His 1747 will indicates he was living at ?Mount Calvert? on a property purchased from John Stoddert, but it is unlikely that his house is the Beall?s gift site. 876 Discussion Archaeological and historical data present a composite profile of the town as it was laid out and used. Several pieces of information are combined to form this 876 Prince George?s County Wills, Liber 1, f. 389. 379 composite image including the location of buildings, the spatial relationship to other sites, the dates and length of occupation, the activities at the sites, and possible meanings associated with the small finds recovered from the various Charles Town archaeological sites. The overview of the material culture of Charles Town presented in this chapter contributes to an understanding of the development and everyday life in the town in three ways. First, the distribution of archaeological sites and artifacts illustrates the detritus left by people using and building the site. It is possible to construct an overview of the primary areas where people interacted when archaeological data are combined with topographic data and historical information. Artifacts that are sensitive indicators of social activity such as tobacco pipes, ceramics, and glass bottles were chosen for distribution analysis. The result of this analysis shows a clear flow of activity across the site. A second contribution is an overview of the everyday material culture of Charles Town. Citizens of Prince George?s County from the wealthiest merchants to indentured servants and enslaved Africans interacted in the town. Most of these individuals came to the site for court days or religious services, or stopped at the town on their way to another destination. While there they reconstituted the social fabric of the county by making new allies and enemies, reconciling debts, or reconnecting with friends and neighbors. They also contributed to the archaeological record while sharing a drink or smoke during these transactions. Attributing the archaeological record to individuals at early colonial towns is difficult due to the often tenuous or ambiguous links between the historical and archaeological record. Therefore a generic overview of the types of material possessions discarded at the site is perhaps the best indication of what life 380 was like in the town. Finally, archaeological and historical data discussed in this chapter suggests the duration of most activities at the site. In particular the archaeological record can answer the question of precisely what became of Charles Town following the removal of the court. The King?s Highway and the Walking Landscape The spatial distribution of ceramics and ball clay pipe stems shows that most social interaction took place within 300 feet of the Patuxent River terrace. This pattern of land use is a result of the proximity to the main road, active springheads along the terrace, and distance to the Patuxent landing and navigable water. These factors combined to form a linear village with a primary access road. Brian K. Roberts notes that in this ?row? style village type so common to the English countryside, the road acts as ?a highway and a front yard, a public space, the king?s highway, usable by all travelers, and a focal area which helps to bind the settlement together.? 877 People would travel down the main road between the courthouse and church to ordinaries and other buildings located along the terrace. They may have also traveled the short distance to the house on Beall?s Gift. In that case the building was also located close to a freshwater springhead. These patterns of site location are predictable based on the results of extensive historical and archaeological research conducted during the past thirty years. The land use pattern is very similar to that established at Calverton. Linear settlements along major rivers are indicative of a society who saw towns as important anchors but not as expansive entities. White Chesapeake society still needed places ?called? towns where public discourse could 877 Roberts, The Making of the English Village, 33. 381 take place and status and deference were on display. Towns, with courthouses, taverns, and other familiar institutions, provided a sense of security and a public space for enacting English customs that could not be properly carried out on private plantations. Places like Annapolis with its centrally located public structures and surrounding commercial and residential areas were well-situated for expansion, whereas places like St. Mary?s City with its closed baroque plan were probably never designed with expansion in mind. The users and builders of Charles Town were part of a society of immigrants linked to England by the major rivers. They also lived in the interior, but generally constructed their public spaces along the rivers. This scenario began to change throughout the region by the turn of the eighteenth century. County courthouses moved to interior locations as road networks were improved and inland populations grew. Colonists still lived on major waterways, but the focus of public building was centrality. With centrality also came the ability to expand. For example, the courthouse in Marlborough was platted in the center of the town with private and commercial lots surrounding. The courthouse was not constructed directly on the river at Charles Town either but this placement appears to represent a space of symbolic prominence rather than a location chosen with expansion in mind. The church and courthouse were situated at the axis of the main road leading into town, the continuation of that road to the point, and perhaps town lots located to the east beyond the boundaries of Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park. The construction of buildings along the terrace served the needs of people traveling both to the church and court 382 and to the landing. It was here that the citizenry could engage in political, economic, or social exchange at the landing or one of the ordinaries. The builders and keepers of these sites actively sought locations along the main road to take advantage of the flow of activity and movement of people thorough the town, and in the process they made the road their front yard. The archaeology shows this linearity of use along the main road and terrace. But what was the meaning of this linearity? Plantations, towns, and the roads that connected them created the peripatetic landscape of early Prince George?s County. Avenues of movement within and between places were not monolithic in terms of their meanings by any stretch. The few towns that did exist were public places where spectacles of authority could be carried out and roads were the pathways in and between the public and private worlds of towns and plantations. Roads, including the main road at Charles Town, were traveled by all members of society just as all members performed on the public stage of the court, but the meaning of towns and roads as public spaces was a matter of perspective and position in the power structure of the county. From the merchant planter perspective the plantation was the center of their personal power, towns were a means of displaying their power and expanding their wealth base, and the roads in between were important travel routes as they carried on their weekly business. Small to middling planters had less free time to travel the roads from their small land holdings to towns, but when they did they used towns to re-supply their stock of goods, settle debts in court, catch up on local news, and take part in social activities. Indentured servants traveled these roads even less and came 383 before the court to be judged, and drank at the ordinaries with their master?s permission. Slaves also traveled the official paths between and within towns and plantations, but their movements were restricted by law. Gatherings at Charles Town were free meetings for white citizens of the county. Activities at the church, courthouse, ordinaries, stores, and the main paths between these structures were monitored by both the authority of the court and the citizens of the county who could act to regulate the gatherings themselves or inform the court about illegal or immoral behavior. Enslaved Africans took part in the linear procession down the road at Charles Town and between the town but these were not their public spaces. During the seventeenth century enslaved Africans met in large numbers on Sundays to attend funerals and socialize in general. 878 These gatherings sometimes took place at large plantations or at sites beyond the watchful eyes of white politicians, planters, and overseers. These public meetings were tolerated by some planters at first but by the 1680s as the numbers of slaves grew, many white planters and officials became more fearful of insurrection. Fear of slave revolts caused the Virginia and Maryland legislatures to pass several acts regulating the movement and gathering of slaves. These laws restricted the ability of slaves to move through the landscape as they had done openly earlier in the century. 879 The first of the acts entitled An Act Restraining the Frequent Assembling of Negroes within this Province was passed in Maryland in 1695. 880 This act was 878 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 328-329; Parent, Foul Means, 126-127, 149. 879 Berlin, Many Thousands Gone, 113. 880 Archives of Maryland, Volume 38, Page 48. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000038/html/a m38--48.html (Accessed, January 14, 2008). 384 designed to suppress the ?concourse of Negroes on Sabboth & holy days meeting in great numbers.? 881 The act suggests that planters were both fearful of insurrection and ?the opportunity of Imbezelling & bartering away sundry Goods belonging to their Masters or Owners.? 882 These meetings were opportunities for enslaved Africans to define their own public lives and rituals. Enslaved Africans exchanged goods, mourned their dead, and celebrated life through rituals of their own making. These meetings and rituals were poorly understood and consequently feared by white citizens because they circumvented the English public rituals such as the court proceedings that substantiated the authority of the gentry. Slaves were able to use their accumulated knowledge of public roads, fields, and backwoods to travel to these meetings. Maryland Governor Francis Nicholson cautioned in 1698 that slaves ?know not only the publick, but private Rodes of the Country, and Circumstances thereof.? 883 In one instance slaves used this knowledge to travel as far as the falls of the Potomac to meet in seclusion from white colonists. 884 Slaves would eventually attempt to establish their own independent communities but these were rare and short lived. 885 Planters implemented increasingly violent means of controlling the movement of slaves throughout the early eighteenth century. Enslaved Africans evaded these attempts when they could and created their own public places that countered public 881 Ibid. 882 Ibid. 883 Archives of Maryland, Volume 23, Page 499. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000023/html/a m23--499.html (Accessed, January 14, 2008). 884 Kulikoff, Tobacco and Slaves, 329. 885 Ibid., 328-329. 385 landscapes like Charles Town. Enslaved Africans walked along the main road in Charles Town, but they also chose to create their own public spaces where the legally constructed terms of blackness were suppressed. The linearity of Charles Town was a familiar town layout for the English settlers of early Prince George?s County. Traversing between the court house and the ordinary to play western games of skill and chance was a custom unfamiliar to people of African descent. These individuals instead created their own public spaces and rituals when possible. Possessing Material Culture Archaeology also illustrates the contours of the everyday material culture of Charles Town not present in the historical record. The small finds such as ceramics and pipe stems recovered in the field are the remnants of the fragile, mostly inexpensive objects broken, lost, and discarded by those living on and using the sites. The five discrete archaeological sites summarized above clearly illustrate that most, if not all, may have served as dwelling/ordinary sites at some point during their occupation. This is impossible to determine from the artifacts alone. It is also impossible to disentangle those objects used by the keeper?s family from those used by their patrons because they represent the same group of material culture. Archaeologists have attempted to use glass and ceramic vessels to classify colonial tavern/ordinary sites according to categories such as social class, rural versus urban contexts, or other functional criteria. 886 Most important is Rockman and Rothschild?s often cited analysis of rural and urban sites by function and 886 Rockman and Rothschild, ?City Tavern, Country Tavern?; Bragdon, ?Occupational Differences?; Al Luckenbach and Patricia N. Dance, ?Drink and Be Merry: Glass Vessels from Rumney?s Tavern (18AN48), London Maryland?, Maryland Archaeology 34, no. 2 (September 1998): 1-10. 386 specialization. 887 Rockman and Rothschild hypothesized that urban taverns were generally more specialized and often served as meeting places while rural taverns concentrated on more generalized services including an emphasis on food consumption. Artifacts recovered from tavern sites should reflect these differences. The authors used The Brainerd-Robinson Coefficient of Agreement to measure the similarity between artifact assemblages from two rural and two urban taverns and their analysis supports their hypothesis that urban tavern sites were used for meeting and socializing (greater percentage of tobacco pipes) while rural taverns functioned to accommodate the traveling public (greater percentages of ceramics present). 888 Artifact assemblages from early colonial ordinary sites are at times stubborn and imprecise indicators of class or even function. John Chenoweth recently questioned the rural versus urban functional analyses many archaeologists rely on by comparing an urban tavern in Philadelphia with five other urban sites and nine rural sites. 889 In Chenoweth?s analysis Melchior Neff?s late eighteenth-century Philadelphia tavern assemblage looked similar to rural taverns in the high percentage of food service related ceramics. Chenoweth?s analysis illustrates a pitfall in relying on functional patterning to analyze archaeological assemblages. Still, artifact categories related to drinking, eating, and smoking can illustrate the importance of various activities at sites when compared with the historical record. Smoking, drinking and eating were common activities at the Terrace A, Terrace B, and Beall?s Gift sites. The predominance of tobacco pipe fragments at all 887 Rockman and Rothschild, ?City Tavern, Country Tavern?. 888 Ibid., 117-118. 889 John M. Chenoweth, ??What?ll Thou Have?: 84-88. 387 of the sites fits closely with the meeting and socializing activities Rockman and Rothschild associated with urban tavern sites (Figure 6.20). The percentages of ceramic sherds coupled with the number of drinking vessel forms suggests that food consumption was a secondary activity at Beall?s Gift and Terrace A and almost non existent at the Terrace B site. If these domestic sites also served as ordinaries then the assemblage pattern underestimates the importance of meals at the sites. Itemized debt accounts for the Jonathan Willson and Nicholas Sporne ordinaries indicate that patrons were charged for a meal on a third of the days they visited the establishments. 890 Small numbers of ceramics may be misleading because many of the vessels used for serving and cooking were either metal or wooden and are not represented in the archaeological record. 891 One of the most interesting aspects of the three artifact assemblages is the small number of glass alcohol bottles present (Figure 6.20). Alcohol consumption was the main service at the ordinaries, yet bottle sherds represent a meager 12 to 16 percent of the assemblages. The smaller numbers may indicate that alcohol was often distributed by the bottle but consumed by the mug or tankard, resulting in less handling and subsequent breakage. Cider was probably also decanted directly from the cask into these vessels. Or perhaps the small number of glass fragments represents a more sporadic service than previously realized. 890 29 (33%) of the 88 individual day charges at Sporne?s ordinary contained a ?dyett? and 62 (33%) of the 189 charges at the Willson ordinary were for food. Ears of corn and mackerel taken home were not included in this calculation. See chapter 4, tables 4.16 and 4.17. 891 See Chapter 4. 388 Personal artifacts recovered from the sites give an indication of social identities expressed through material goods. Artifacts recovered from the plowzone and borrow pit at Terrace Site A hint at both everyday presentation and the spiritual lives of the site occupants. These objects also demonstrate the multiple and often elusive meanings attached to objects. Pins, buckles, buttons, and scissors were all common items purchased at stores. Clothing was both a necessity and a social marker. Though the few artifacts recovered are largely anecdotal they do suggest variability in the types and quality of the clothing worn by the inhabitants. These artifacts also speak to the disconnect between the importance of cloth and clothing evident in the historical record and the few material items remaining in the archaeological record. Other objects used as adornment include beads, cowrie shells, and a hawks bell, but these objects were also imbued with cultural meanings by Figure 6.20 Percentage of Tobacco Pipe, Bottle Glass, and Ceramic Fragments at Terrace Site A, Terrace Site B, and Beall?s Gift. 30 15 55 23 16 61 4 12 85 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Terrace A Beall's Gift Terrace B Tobacco Pipes Glass Ceramics 389 enslaved Africans brought to early Prince George?s County to produce wealth for free planters and merchant grandees. Cowrie shells in particular link Charles Town to the transatlantic slave trade regardless of whether they were used by Africans or possessed by European colonists. The cowrie shells serve as a reminder that Africans were present and possibly sold at Charles Town. The same could be true for the beads and the hawk?s bell, though these items were also used in trade between Europeans and Native Americans in Early Prince George?s County. English folk beliefs were also alive and well in late seventeenth-century Prince George?s County including the fear of witchcraft. Pierced silver coins, like the one discovered in the borrow pit at Terrace Site A, were commonly employed as charms in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English society. Early eighteenth-century enslaved Africans may have also used the coin in spiritual practices. In either case, the coin is a powerful symbol of the persistence of folk beliefs in the shadow of the Anglican church situated just west of Terrace Site A. Though many of these objects cannot be definitively associated with a particular ethnic group, as a whole they symbolize the complex racial landscape that existed in early Prince George?s County. The everyday material objects used at Charles Town were similar at most of the archaeological sites identified thus far. Archaeological data provides little information on the status of the inhabitants because most objects in the archaeological record such as ceramics and tobacco pipes were well within reach of most citizens regardless of their wealth. These objects formed the material basis for their everyday lives, but the overall volume of material still suggests a population that neither 390 possessed nor required an abundance of portable material goods to set themselves apart. Social, economic, and political divisions were already made, understood, and verified in the court procession. It is also evident that the users of Charles Town were deeply rooted in folk beliefs they transported from England. The uniformity of material culture at the archaeological sites discussed does not necessarily suggest equal conditions of existence, it may simply represent what was available. It is not the material culture itself but how it is used or enacted, as demonstrated in Chapter 4, that matters. This type of agency is impossible to empirically demonstrate through the archaeological record alone. A Product of Time and Place The archaeological record also suggests a population at Charles Town who thrived for a time with the presence of the court and rapidly abandoned the town following the move to Marlborough. Like many locales of the period there is virtually no evidence that the users of Charles Town attempted to establish any permanence at the site. Almost all the datable colonial artifacts from Charles Town suggest most activity took place during the 1700s and 1710s and was quickly abandoned after the court was moved. Architectural data and the volume of artifacts suggest that some sites such as Terrace Site A and Terrace Site C were occupied for several years during the early eighteenth century. Archaeologically, a greater number of artifacts may represent a more expansive service in the case of ordinaries and does not necessarily translate to longevity. Evidence from Terrace Site C also demonstrates the measures the users took to maintain the structure and how swiftly it was abandoned. 391 The combination of historical and archaeological data provides a far more complete, and at time problematic, interpretation of the material construction and use of Charles Town than either source alone. Activities such as meeting at ordinaries or purchasing goods at stores were located in the historical record while many forms of material culture used in those transactions were recovered from the archaeological record. These artifacts do not readily connect with those countless everyday actions described in earlier chapters. What the archaeological record does show is that these activities took place primarily at locations along the main road near the Patuxent River. The archaeological data recovered and processed suggest a community with the primary activity areas located in a linear alignment fronting the Patuxent River and the formal church and courthouse spaces located on a small hill to the west. The Beall?s gift site is an exception to this pattern. In that case the builders chose a location close to a major springhead. The data indicate a town focused on trade and sustained as a public meeting place by the presence of the county court. Artifact types indicate a greater expenditure on some glass stemware and perhaps ornate clothing, but most of the artifacts recovered were relatively inexpensive objects such as ceramic vessels, glass bottles, and clay tobacco pipes. All of these objects were inexpensive but were the most important objects used in interactions at Charles Town. 392 Chapter 7: Conclusion Conclusion Charles Town began its decline as a meeting place with the removal of the court to Marlborough in 1721. In that year Charles Town changed from being a courthouse town to a distribution center for goods coming into Prince George?s County. Lots at Charles Town continued to be transferred and sold into the 1740s, but by that time the site was no longer a central meeting place. How Charles Town was founded, what happened there while it was the county seat, and how it was supplanted in prominence to Marlborough are all explained as a process of agency enacted on the landscape. People came to the town primarily because of the courthouse and local parish church. The ritual attendance at the church and court ensured a steady flow of individuals to the town. But what happened beyond the walls of the church and courthouse was equally important for understanding the meaning of Charles Town as a public meeting place in the new county. Historical research suggests that ordinary keepers, a small group of powerful merchant politicians, and a steady stream of clientele who frequented the stores and ordinaries in and around the town were the primary stakeholders in making Charles Town a public place through the use and exchange of material culture. This dissertation started with the primary task of creating a cultural biography of a courthouse town. I hoped that by studying the lives of those who built, used, visited, and speculated about the future of the town I would arrive at some conclusions about how and why colonial Chesapeake towns formed, survived, or 393 failed. In this regard the historiography of the region is clear. Towns were slow to develop in the region or failed to develop at all until the mid-eighteenth century. Each of the towns that did form has its own unique history. But simply reciting these histories is not enough. It is also important to understand how individuals understood and negotiated the material conditions of history. Courthouse towns like Charles Town were the primary spots for political, social, and economic exchange. Material culture was an integral component of this exchange and the Church and Courthouse served as the apparatus for controlling this material exchange. The Anglican Church established the moral standards for region-wide behavior and exchange and the court codified those standards through regulations, including many placed on ordinaries. Court proceedings were also necessary to regulate the exchange of goods and services, ensure the legal settlement of debt claims, and also determine how slaves, servants, and free whites should be treated. A complex world of material exchange was regulated by the court, but the control and exchange of three types of material culture were key to the development and material existence of even the smallest and most ephemeral towns in the colonial Chesapeake. Land, alcohol and food, and store goods were the primary forms of material culture used and exchanged as commodities at Charles Town. The contention of this dissertation is that many activities at towns like Charles Town can be understood through the use and exchange of these three classes of material culture. Studying the use and exchange of material culture provides several key pieces of information on the development and vitality of Charles Town. How the town developed spatially, how material culture was used to form relationships and express 394 identity, how town sites were chosen, why town sites survived or failed, and what was the nature of out of court activity are all understood through a close reading of the exchange, control, and use of material culture. This dissertation contributes to the scholarship on colonial Chesapeake town development by illustrating how the sinuous relationship between material culture and the lives of many individuals created and sustained the courthouse town of Charles Town. Towns such as Charles Town are best understood as a series of actions and social relations that are continuously in flux and conditioned by the material circumstances of history. Each actor discussed in the previous chapters realized these circumstances and acted according to their capacity to control their material environment. In this regard it would be grossly naive to assume that each individual possessed an unhindered capacity to act. Landless ordinary keepers, enslaved Africans, European indentured servants, the poor, and many of the patrons who drank at the ordinaries found themselves under historical conditions they did not make or choose. Land, alcohol and food, and store goods were manipulated for political, social, and economic gain from purchase, to rent, to retail sale, to post acquisition use and so forth. By following the potential social lives of material culture and the people who used it from sale to use to discard or resale, it is possible to represent a town as agency enacted on the landscape. This is precisely the type of representation I have attempted to build in this dissertation through an examination of the people who used the place and the material culture they used to construct their daily lives. The single most important piece of material culture to the development and survival of Charles Town was land. Land was also the most valuable form of 395 material culture used and exchanged and much of the land in and around Charles Town was controlled by a few merchant politicians. Large tracts around Charles Town were purchased or patented by merchant politicians like Thomas Hollyday, Josiah Willson, David Small, or Robert Bradley. Smaller planters like John Davis and carpenter John Deakins were exceptions to this trend. Though lots could be taken up fee simple within the town itself they had to be improved in order for the settler to retain the lot. When justice David Small and mariner Thomas Emms leased the 163- acre portion of Mount Calvert containing Charles Town, they effectively prevented anyone from entering the remaining lots that had not been taken up prior to 1697. Most of the individuals who purchased or entered a lot at Charles Town were either merchants, politicians or land speculators. The three exceptions were ordinary keepers Charles Tracy, Christopher Beanes, and John Smith Sr.. Both Tracy and Beanes owned land elsewhere and land ownership by John Smith could not be confirmed. It is possible that carpenters like Robert Goarding or otherwise landless ordinary keepers may have taken up and improved lots. Ordinary Keeper Jonathan Willson apparently contracted the construction of two buildings during the late seventeenth century, but the location and eventual disposition of these buildings could not be determined. The evidence gathered from the historical record supports the interpretation that merchants and politicians controlled most of the land in and around the town. Ordinary keepers like Mary Gwynn and Solomy d?Hinoyossa lived in the town but there is no indication that they owned their ?dwelling? house. However, they did control the consumption of food and the flow of alcohol within the town. 396 Ordinaries were the most important meeting places for individuals outside of the church and courthouse at Charles Town. Horse racing, gaming, and fighting took place on a regular basis at the ordinaries but the mainstay of the establishments was drinking. The purchase of food, alcohol, and lodging represented more than merely sustenance. These were commodities sold, purchased, bartered, and presented as symbolic capital. Ordinary keepers made a living by selling these commodities, especially rum and cider. By extending credit with the backing of merchants and support of the court, they could insure a steady clientele and backlog of debt. But herein lies the economic conundrum of keeping an ordinary. Keepers had no choice but to extend credit to patrons in most cases. They were required by law to do so. As we have seen the profit margin on alcohol could be quite large, but if the debt could not be recovered then the margin between wholesale and retail meant very little. Keepers became as entangled in the web of debt as their patrons. Ordinary keeping was a maintenance, as opposed to wealth generating, occupation for the majority of takers. Ordinary keepers were at the center of the social life at places like Charles Town. Ordinary keepers assumed most of the risks associated with the trade. The threat of physical violence, unruliness, and drunkenness was always present and it was the responsibility of the ordinary keeper to mediate these actions. Keepers were also expected to provide fair exchange, and examples were made of those who did not follow the regulations placed on ordinaries. Many female keepers were cited by the court for breach of the ordinary regulations. These women, including Jane Beall, Jane Addison, and Solomy d?Hinoyossa at Charles Town, were also periodically 397 involved in physical altercations with patrons. Alcohol created the means for economic survival and mutual obligation but it also fueled the physical peril associated with ordinary keeping. The system of alcohol exchange at the ordinaries provided an ideal medium for affirming social relations. Alcohol was an equalizing factor when sold in small quantities. Everyone from laborer to merchant politician paid the same price for a gill of rum or bottle of cider. Furthermore, because the commodity was purchased on credit the patron could extend the gift of a bottle or tankard of drink to an associate without the benefit of cash on hand. Also, because alcohol was consumed at the time of exchange, obligations between individuals or within clubs could be continually reaffirmed in rapid succession. Since the commodity was consumed, it could not be resold or possessed by the recipient beyond the point of exchange. There is no residual materiality from the encounter and thus the entire process relies on memory and custom after the initial economic exchange between patron and keeper. The final class of objects used in the construction and maintenance of Charles Town was store goods. Goods were purchased at stores, at landings, and from individuals living at various locations throughout the county who had the capital to stockpile items. Most patrons purchased goods totaling 400 lbs of tobacco or more per visit to the Carleton stores. In other words roughly a hogshead of tobacco was the standard unit used in purchasing store goods. Goods were purchased throughout the year, especially during the spring and early summer months. Goods purchased from local merchants like Robert Bradley were necessities rather than luxuries. The most expensive items were cooking pots and saddles. It was advantageous for merchants 398 like Bradley to keep a store at or near Charles Town because of the traffic supplied by the court. Perhaps the most telling aspect of the trade was the extent to which the London merchants controlled the debt of early Prince Georgeans. London merchants routinely assumed ordinary expenses and other debts owed by the planter. Ordinary keepers in turn could purchase goods by essentially selling their debt to merchants like Edward and Dudley Carleton. Planters also traded debts owed from other planters or tradesmen for goods. Economic relationships were thus created and regulated through stores controlled by London merchants and their factors on the ground in Prince George?s County. By at least the 1710s several local merchants were also offering goods out of their own stores located in towns. The full complexity of the relationships created through credit and debt in early Prince George?s County is impossible to determine from the historical record. The initial purchase of store goods, whether at Charles Town or elsewhere, was only a brief encounter in a much larger web of relationships. The act of purchasing store goods was very different than the purchase of alcohol and other accommodations at the ordinaries. Material goods were purchased at a store or landing and transported for use on distant plantations rather than used or consumed on site. Therefore the material evidence of store goods being used at Charles Town comes from the few who lived there or those who visited the ordinaries. Land records suggest that most wealthy merchants who owned land did not retain a permanent residence in the town. For example Sheriff Henry Boteler improved lot number ten at Charles Town with a ?house? but constructed a 399 substantial residence elsewhere. The same is true for Henry Darnall and probably also Josiah Wilson and James Stoddert. Most of the ?houses? they constructed in the town were likely rented to those willing to settle in the town, especially ordinary keepers, carpenters, and ferry keepers. The security of stores in the town could also be maintained by resident tenants or servants. Given the evidence available, the majority of those who dwelled in the town were transient and most were tenants. Therefore, the material culture recovered in the archaeological record from town sites like Charles Town is more commonly associated with landless individuals who may have retained indentured servants but rarely slaves. It is difficult to determine the fate of individuals who lived in Charles Town because many died without an estate inventory or will. The archaeological record combined with historical records provides an initial assessment of how the town functioned as a material space. It also provides a measure of the daily lives of those who lived and interacted in the town. Archaeological data gathered from survey and excavations were analyzed for two types of information. First, archaeological data was used to explain how the town was constructed through use rather than formal planning. Second, artifacts were used to interpret the function and daily material culture used at each of the archaeological sites. Analysis of the distribution of artifacts within the boundary of Mount Calvert Historical and Archaeological Park determined the approximate location of at least five discrete archaeological sites. Artifact types suggest at least three of these sites were domestic (dwelling/ordinaries) and a fourth site probably represents the location 400 of Charles Tracy?s ordinary. The function of the fifth site was not determined. A major bias in the interpretation is the fact that the primary artifact categories used to analyze the site layout, namely ceramics, bottle glass, and tobacco pipes, are best suited for locating domestic structures. As a result these categories were used in combination with architectural data to determine site locations and the primary flow of activity within the boundaries of the park. Several broad conclusions are offered based on the survey and excavation data. The distribution of archaeological data demonstrates that the area fronting the Patuxent River was the most heavily used portion of the site. Many low density sites such as stores are not necessarily visible using this technique, but it does give an approximation of where most of the eating, drinking, and smoking occurred on the site. These activities are essential ingredients for creating of a place through occupation and use rather than abstract planning. Many of the people who called Charles Town home, with the exception of those who lived at the springhead site on Beall?s Gift, lived along a narrow corridor paralleling the Patuxent River. This created a linear alignment of the town leading from the point at the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Western Branch down the main road along the Patuxent bluff to the area identified through historical documents as the location of the church and courthouse. This linear space also likely represents the movement of people from the courthouse to the dwellings/ordinaries that lined the Patuxent. Dwelling is represented in this case through the embodiment of space by individuals using the services at the ordinaries and sharing in the activities that were so much a part of court days. By the early eighteenth century Charles Town had become a familiar 401 public meeting place to the citizens of Prince George?s County, and perhaps the reluctance to move the court to Marlborough sooner was based in small part on this conditioned familiarity. The linear alignment of the town based on activity, regardless of whatever planning may have taken place, was a common town form in the colonial Chesapeake. Where places like Annapolis, London Town, and Marlborough realized the possibilities of expansion and more centrally located public structures, the users of Charles Town clung to the linear roadside model akin to those places in rural England. The shift of the court to an inland site with a resident population was only a matter of time. All county courts would make this transition by the mid-eighteenth century as boundaries solidified and populations expanded. Building along the Patuxent bluff followed the existing landform rather than the division of land through lots. There was a clear path of movement through the town along the main road and the organization of space along the Patuxent bluff was an expression of agency by those who took up lots, built houses, dwelled there, and visited the town. Artifacts discarded as a result of this land use are a primary source of information on the material culture used at Charles Town. Material goods were purchased from large London firms through local factors and several merchants in Prince George?s County who had amassed the capital to stock their own local stores. Finished clothing, cloth, and objects used to produce clothing were clearly the most common items traded in the early eighteenth century. Only a fraction of this material assemblage is available in the archaeological record. Objects used for clothing production include scissors, pins, and a needle case, while 402 metal buttons and buckles are generally the only items remaining from the finished product. The tools for producing clothing were not luxury items, and the skills required to produce clothing were necessary for everyday production in the town. Style of clothing was one of the methods the merchant politician grandees used to distinguish themselves from those of lesser means. The overwhelming majority of those who lived in and used the town were not part of this small group of elites. Clothing and other objects were important for self presentation, but personal objects such as the beads, cowrie shells, and pierced coin recovered from the eighteenth-century borrow pit were also used in expressing cultural and spiritual identities that had little or nothing to do with European models of fashion and style. These objects were clearly defined and regulated as economic commodities but were redefined in countless ways once they entered the sphere of use. The artifacts recovered from archaeological surveys and excavations represent a partial record of this complex redefinition of objects through use. Most of these discarded objects were not luxuries and many of the individuals responsible for creating the archaeological record at Charles Town are poorly represented in historical documents. The multi-disciplinary approach employed in this study provides the best way for creating a meaningful context around these objects. Ceramic and glass artifacts recovered from the archaeological record were not luxury items. These were relatively inexpensive items used to consume food and drink. Pewter and wooden vessels were also used at the dwelling/ordinary table but are generally not represented in the archaeological record. The style of ceramics in particular suggests functionality over formality. This is where the so-called 403 ?consumer revolution? that was beginning to take hold in the Chesapeake enters the picture. Objects that make up the archaeological record are generally not luxury items and most of those who could afford luxury items did not keep their principal residence in towns. Even so, ceramics, glass stemware, glass bottles, and clay tobacco pipes were not what separated the emerging gentry from the rest of society. The grandees set themselves apart through their vast wealth represented in land and slaves and they legitimated their authority through positions in the county and colonial government. Everyday objects discussed in historical documents and found in the archaeological record were important because they were part of a context of exchange and use in the public setting of a town. It was in this setting that they held their greatest potential for meaning beyond simple function. In the ordinary setting, tankards and bottles were used to exchange drinks and solidify relationships. They were also the medium for economic exchange between ordinary keepers and patrons. Finally, tankards, bottles, and tobacco pipes are the material remnants of objects used by those generally landless individuals who dwelled in the town. The archaeological record at Charles Town is simultaneously the product of the daily lives of those who dwelled in the town and the social interaction that took place in the town and necessarily kept it from failing. The complexity of material interaction that took place at Charles Town from the purchase of goods, to the use of those goods in the economic and social exchange of alcohol and food, to the expression of cultural identities is diminished if the archaeological record at Charles Town is rearticulated as merely the social aspirations of particular individuals. Rather the goal of material culture study should be to 404 understand the depth of complexity and social life of goods as expressed through human agency. This context will not come from the archaeological record alone but rather a refitting of archaeological and historical sources as they exist. There is and always will be a disconnect between the historical and archaeological record from Charles Town. But acknowledging and embracing this misalignment between the two sources and points where the two appear to intersect results in a richer and more complex biography of the town that ends with questions as well as answers. 405 Appendix A Additional Information about Ordinary Keepers not Included in Chapter 4 Discussion William Groome William Groome inherited the land that would become Charles Town in 1677 and was probably operating an ordinary at the site prior to 1696. Groome was a juvenile at the time he inherited 500 acres of Mount Calvert and was possibly still living with his step father Henry Jowles when Mount Calvert was designated a town site in 1684. Though Groome owned most of the land surrounding Charles Town during the last decades of the seventeenth century, he had sold off most of his holdings by the early eighteenth century and may have moved away from Prince George?s County. James Moore James Moore arrived in Maryland in 1646 and held the office of constable in Prince George?s County in 1698. 892 Moore owned over 1,400 acres and was among the largest landowners in Mount Calvert Hundred during the first decade of the eighteenth century, out paced only by some of the wealthiest men in the county including, Ninian Beall,Sr., Joshua Cecil, Thomas Sprigg, Samuel Magruder, Roger Brooke, and Henry Darnall, Sr. 893 Many of the lands Moore patented were in the 892 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8B, 486; Archives of Maryland, Volume 202, Page, 395. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000202/html/a m202--395.html (Accessed, November 5, 2007). 893 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8B, 186,187, 195, and 200. 406 vicinity of Mount Calvert and Marlborough including Potterne Week, The Horse Race, and Moores Littleworth. 894 Moore began operating an ordinary by 1701, possibly on a sixteen-acre tract adjoining Charles Town to the North called ?Beall?s Gift?. Moore patented the property about 1700 and subsequently sold all but ? acre of the land to James Stoddert in 1704. 895 Several entries in the court record support the speculation that Moore operated an ordinary on the property during the first few years of the eighteenth century. First, Moore received payment for providing accommodations to several grand juries. 896 This establishes that the ordinary was near the court at Charles Town. Moore was also found guilty of breach of peace for ?vending of Licquors and making of people drunk on ye Sabbath Day.? 897 The first references to Moore?s ordinary came in March of 1701. At that time a grand jury was allowed 400 lbs of tobacco credit at James Moore?s ordinary. 898 The first debts owed to Moore also begin in March of 1701 and there were no debts recorded after April of 1704 (Table 15). The dates of 1701 to 1704 for Moore?s ordinary correspond closely with his ownership of Beall?s Gift. Therefore, considering its proximity to Charles Town and dates of ownership it seems likely that Moore?s ordinary was located somewhere on Beall?s Gift. 894 See Hienton, Prince George?s Heritage, Tract Map. 895 Prince George?s County Rent Rolls, Book 2, f. 322; Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 114b. 896 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 146, 272a. 897 Ibid., f. 191. 898 Ibid., f. 99. 407 Moore was among the wealthiest ordinary keepers to operate at Charles Town. By 1706 he had amassed over 1,400 acres of land. 899 Moore likely found the ordinary business profitable for a time but eventually discontinued the operation. It is also possible that Moore grew tired of his continued problems with the court. Though grand juries were granted credit at Moore?s ordinary, he was cited several times for ?breach of peace? during the first years of the eighteenth century. 900 It is also possible, though unlikely, that the court refused to renew Moore?s license in 1704. In fact, there is no direct evidence that Moore was issued a license after 1702. It remains uncertain why Moore abandoned his ordinary business but it is likely that he had given up the trade altogether sometime during the later half of 1704. Marmaduke Scott Marmaduke Scott operated an ordinary at Charles Town from 1703 to at least 1709. 901 Scott was paid an annual fee of 1,000 lbs of tobacco for being the court drummer at Charles Town. 902 Credit was allowed to grand juries for Scott?s ordinary much like it was for the Addison and Moore ordinaries. 903 Scott was not a landowner and his ordinary probably provided little more than the staples of beer and rum coupled with an occasional drink of punch, flip, or cider. 904 At least some of the liquor served at Scott?s ordinary was supplied by John Gandy and miscellaneous 899 Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 1A, 156. 900 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, ff. 119a, 187a, 191. 901 Ibid., Liber B, 360a, 371-371a; Liber C, f. 74, 139, 154a; Liber D, f. 251. Scott still retained the title of ?innholder? until at least March of 1711 but solid evidence was not found to confirm that his ordinary was in operation after 1709. 902 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber B, f. 286. 903 Ibid., Liber B, f. 398. 904 Ibid., for example of services see Liber B, f. 421; Liber D, August 1708, Page number was illegible, debt case against Morris Morris. 408 goods were purchased from Nottingham merchant George Harris. 905 Apparently Scott could not pay the yearly fee of 1,200 lbs of tobacco to the crown in June of 1707 but continued to operate. 906 Later that year he was cited by the court for operating without a license. 907 Scott was married and retained a servant named Mary Safforne daughter of James and Mary in 1707. 908 A few scattered debt cases exist for Scott, but little is known about his operation. 909 His business appears to have been less extensive than that of James Moore or the Addisons, but this conclusion remains highly speculative pending further evidence. John Smith, Sr. John Smith ran an ordinary for a few years at Charles Town between 1707 and 1709. 910 Very little evidence was found on Smith?s ordinary. Part of the problem is identifying which John Smith took out the license. At least two individuals named John Smith lived in Prince George?s County during this time. 911 Also no court cases directly involving John Smith?s ordinary were found, but he was buying regular quantities of rum and sugar from merchant Joseph Taylor as early as 1707. 912 The exact location of the ordinary is unknown, but it was probably located on or adjacent to lot forty-two, which he took up in late 1708 or early 1709. 913 The precise location of lot forty-two could not be determined because a plat of Charles Town has not been 905 Ibid., Liber C, ff. 33-34, 150a.. Gandy was listed as a Mariner. 906 Ibid., 139. 907 Ibid., 179a. 908 Ibid., 180. 909 For ordinary expenses owed to Scott see Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber C, ff. 21, 23-23a, 171a, 172. 910 Ibid., Liber C, ff. 154a, 179; Liber D, f. 165. 911 See Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 358-361. 912 Prince George?s County Court Records, Liber D, f. 199. 913 Prince George?s County Land Records, Liber C, f. 234. 409 found and the description in the land records is brief. The timing of this lot entry is at least one year after he started his ordinary and may refer to a lot adjacent to his business. Smith?s business at Charles Town may have been short lived as no reference to the ordinary was found after 1709. A John Smith was issued a license in 1716 for Marlborough but it is uncertain if this is the same individual. 914 914 It is possible the individual in question is John Smith of Jordan. See Carr, County Government, Volume II, Appendix VI, Table 8A, 358-359. 410 Bibliography Primary Sources MARYLAND STATE ARCHIVES, Annapolis, Maryland Anne Arundel County, Court Judgement Records, 1703-1705. Anne Arundel County, Land Records, 1699-1709. Patent Records, 1700-1713. Prince George?s County, Court Records, 1696-1721. Prince George?s County, Inventories, 1696-1729. Prince George?s County, Land Records, 1696-1726. Prince George?s County, St. Paul?s Parish Vestry Minutes, 1733-1819. Prince George?s County, Wills, 1698-1770. Provincial Court Judgment Records, 1692-1693. MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Baltimore, Maryland Clement Hill Papers Printed Primary Sources Baldwin, Jane. The Maryland Calendar of Wills: Wills from 1635 (Earliest Probated) to 1685, Volume I. Baltimore: Wm. J.C. Dulany Co., 1901. Makemie, Francis, A Plain and Friendly Perswasive to the Inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland for Promoting Towns & Cohabitation. (London, 1705) reprinted in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 4 no. 8 (1897): 255-271. Nicholson, Francis, ?Address to the Council of Trade and Plantations, March 27, 1697,? In Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Vol. 15, Vaduz: Reprinted by Arrangement with Her Majesty?s Stationery office, London by Kraus Reprint LTD., 1964. 411 Papenfuse, Edward C. et al.. Archives of Maryland (Annapolis: The Maryland State Archives). http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us Secondary Sources Agnew, John. ?Representing Space: Space, Scale, Culture in Social Science.? In Place/Culture/Representation, edited by James Duncan and David Ley. New York: Routledge, 1993: 251-271. Ameri, Amir H. ?Housing Ideologies in the New England and Chesapeake Bay Colonies, c. 1650-1700.? The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 56, no. 1 (March 1997): 6-15. Barrett, John C. ?A Thesis on Agency.? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia- Anne Dobres and John E. Robb. London: Routledge, 2000: 61-68. Beaudry, Mary C. Findings: The material Culture of Sewing. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Beaudry, Mary C. Lauren J. Cook, and Stephen A. Mrozowski, ?Artifacts and Active Voices: Material Culture as Social Discourse?, In The Archaeology of Inequality, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991: 150-191. Beadry, Mary C. Janet Long, Henry M. Miller, Frasier D. Neiman, and Garry Wheeler Stone. ?A Vessel Typology for Early Chesapeake Ceramics: The Potomac Typological System.? Historical Archaeology 17, no. 1 (1983): 18- 43. Bedell, John. ?Archaeology and Probate Inventories in the Study of Eighteenth- Century Life?, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 31, no. 2 (August 2000): 223-245. Berkley, Henry J. ?Extinct River Towns of the Chesapeake Bay Region,? Maryland Historical Magazine 14, no. 2 (June 1924): 125-141. Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998. Bierne, Roamond and John Scarff. ?William Buckland, 1734-1774: Architect of Virginia and Maryland.? Studies in Maryland History, No. 4, Baltimore, Maryland Historical Society, 1958. Binford, Lewis. ?A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem 412 Fragments.? Southeastern Archaeology Conference Newsletter 9, no. 1 (1962): 19-21. Bonomi, Patricia U. and Peter R. Eisenstadt, ?Church Adherence in the Eighteenth- Century British American Colonies.? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 39, no. 2 (April 1982): 245-286. Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Translated by Richard Nice. London: Routledge, 1984. Bradburn, Douglas M. and John C. Coombs, ?Smoke and Mirrors: Reinterpreting the Society and Economy of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake.? Atlantic Studies 3, no. 2 (October 2006): 131-157. Bragdon, Kathleen J. ?Occupational Differences Reflected in Material Culture.? In Documentary Archaeology in the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988: 83- 91. Breen, T.H. Tobacco Culture: The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of the Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Bridenbaugh, Carl. Cities in the Wilderness: The First Century of Urban Life in America. New York: Knopf, 1964. Buck, Pem Davidson. Worked to the Bone: Race, Class, and Privilege in Kentucky. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001. Bucklen, Mary Kegley and Larrie L. Bucklen. County Courthouses of Virginia: Old and New. Charleston: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1988. Bushman, Richard L. The Refinement of America: Persons, Houses, Cities. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992. Calo, Zachary Ryan. ?From Poor Relief to the Poorhouse: The response to Poverty in Prince George?s County, Maryland, 1710-1770.? Maryland Historical Magazine 93, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 393-427. Carr, Lois Green. ??The Metropolis of Maryland?: A Comment on Town Development along the Tobacco Coast.? Maryland Historical Magazine 69, (1974):124-145. _____.County Government in Maryland, 1689-1709, New York: Garland Publishing, 1987. _____.?Rural Settlements in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake.? In Settlement in the Americas: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, edited by Ralph 413 Bennett, 175-196. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1993. Carr, Lois Green and David William Jordan, Maryland?s Revolution, 1689-1692. Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1974. Carr, Lois Green and Russell R. Menard. ?Immigration and Opportunity: The Freedman in Early Colonial Maryland.? In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, edited by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, 206-242. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Carr, Lois Green, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean RB. Russo. ?Introduction.? In Colonial Chesapeake Society, edited by Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean RB. Russo, 1-46. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Carr, Lois Green and Lorena S. Walsh. ?Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake?, In Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, 59-166. Charlottesville: Published for the United States Capital Historical Society by the University Press of Virginia, 1994. Carson. Jane. Colonial Virginians at Play, Williamsburg: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1989. Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton. ?Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies.? Winterthur Portfolio 16, no. 2/3 (Summer/Autumn, 1981): 135-196. Chenoweth, John M. ??What?ll Thou Have?: Quakers and the Characterization of Tavern Sites in Colonial Philadelphia?, Northeast Historical Archaeology 35, (2006): 77-92. Conrad, Henry C. History of the State of Delaware, from its earliest Settlements to the Year 1907: Volume 1, Wilmington: Henry C. Conrad, 1908. Conroy, David W. In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983. Daniels, Christine. ??No Towns of Any Consequence??: The Lost Urban History of 414 the Colonial Chesapeake.? In The World Turned Upside-Down: The State of Eighteenth-Century American Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Michael V. Kennedy and William G. Shade, 95-119. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press, 2001. Davidson, James M. ?Rituals Captured in Context and Time: Charm Use in North Dallas Freedman?s Town (1869-1907), Dallas, Texas?, Historical Archaeology 38, no. 2 (2004): 22-54. Dent, Richard J., Jr. Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: Plenum Press, 1995. Dobres, Marcia-Anne and John E. Robb. Editors, Agency in Archaeology, London: Routledge, 2000. ______.?Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude?? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, 3-17. London: Routledge, 2000. Dornan, Jennifer L. ?Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions?, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9, no. 4 (December, 2002): 303-329. Earle, Carville V. ?The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallow?s Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783.? University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No. 170. Chicago: University of Chicago Department of Geography, 1975. _____.?the First English Towns in North America,? Geographical Review 67, (January 1977): 34-50. _____.?The Myth of the Southern Soil Miner: Macro-History, Agricultural Innovation, and Environmental Change,? In The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Environmental History, edited by Donald Worster, 175-210. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Earle, Carville and Ronald Hoffman. ?The Urban South: The First Two Centuries.? In The City in Southern History: The Growth of Urban Civilization in the South, edited by Blaine A. Brownell and David R. Goldfield, 23-51. Port Washington: Kennikat Press, 1977. Emirbayer, Mustafa and Ann Mische. ?What is Agency.? The American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 4, (January 1998): 962-1023. Ernst, Joseph A. and H. Roy Merrens. ??Camden's turrets pierce the skies!?: The 415 Urban Process in the Southern Colonies during the Eighteenth Century.? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 30, no. 4 (October 1973): 549-574. Fennell, Christopher C. ?Conjuring Boundaries: Inferring Past Identities from Religious Artifacts? International Journal of Historical Archaeology 4, no. 4 (2000): 281-313. Fisher, George W. and Jerry R. Schubel. ?The Chesapeake Ecosystem: Its Geologic Heritage?, In Discovering the Chesapeake: The History of an Ecosystem, edited by Phillip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher, 1-14. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Flanagan, Charles M. ?The Sweets of Independence: A Reading of the ?James Carroll Daybook, 1714-21.?? PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2005. Forman, Henry Chandlee. Jamestown and St. Mary?s: Buried Cities of Romance, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1938. Frick. George F.. James L. Reveal, C. Rose Broome and Melvin L. Brown. ?Botanical Explorations and Discoveries in Colonial Maryland, 1688 to 1753,? Huntia 7, (1987): 5-59. Fries, Sylvia Doughty. The Urban Idea in Colonial America, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1977. Gardner, Andrew. ?Agency?, In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, edited by R. Alexander Bentley, Herbert D. G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippendale, 95-108. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2008. ______.editor, Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human. London: UCL Press, 2004. ______.?Introduction: Social Agency, Power, and Being Human?, In Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human, edited by Andrew Gardner, 1-12. London: UCL Press, 2004. Giddens, Anthony. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Gomez, Michael A. Exchanging our Country Marks: The Transformation of African Identities in the Colonial and Antebellum South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Gottschalk, L.C. ?Effects of Soil Erosion on Navigation in Upper Chesapeake Bay,? Geographical Review 35, (April 1945): 219-238. 416 Gregory, C. A. ?Cowries and Conquest: Towards a Subalternate Quality Theory of Money,? Comparative Studies in Society and History 38, no. 2 (April 1996): 195-217. Grim, Ronald E. ?The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia: The Emergence of Service Centers in York County.? PhD diss. University of Maryland, 1977. Grulich, Anne Dowling. ?Fa?on de Venise Drinking Vessels on the Chesapeake Frontier: Examples from St. Mary?s City, Maryland? Historic St. Mary?s City Research Series no. 7. St. Mary?s City, MD: Historic St. Mary?s City, 2004. Hanson, Lee. ?Kaolin Pipe Stems?Boring in on a Fallacy?, Historic Site Archaeology 4, (1969): 2-15. Harrington, J. C.. ?Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth-and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes.? Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological Society of Virginia 9, no. 1 (1954): 10-14. Hayden, Ethel Roby. ?Port Tobacco, Lost Town of Maryland,? Maryland Historical Magazine 40, no. 4 (December 1945): 261-276. Hazzard, David K. and Martha W. McCartney. ?Rescue Efforts to Save the Vanishing Traces of Glouchester Town.? American Archeology 6, no. 1 (1987): 68-80. Hienton, Louise Joyner. ?Sidelights: Charles Town, Prince George?s First County Seat.? Maryland Historical Magazine 63, no. 4 (December 1968): 401-411. ______.Prince George=s Heritage: Sidelights on the Early History of Prince George?s County, Maryland from 1696 to 1800. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1972. Hodder, Ian. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Horn, James. ??The Bare Necessities:? Standards of Living in England and the Chesapeake, 1650-1700.? Historical Archaeology 22, no. 2 (1988):74-91. ______.Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth- Century Chesapeake. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1994. Horning, Audrey J.. ?Urbanism in the Colonial South: The development of 417 Seventeenth-Century Jamestown?, In Archaeology of Southern Urban Landscapes, edited by Amy L. Young, 52-68. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000. Hurry, Robert J. ?An Archaeological Survey of a Portion of St. Leonards Town.? Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Papers Number 5, Annapolis: Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, 1990. Hurry, Silas D. and Robert W. Keeler. ?A Descriptive Analysis of the White Clay Tobacco Pipes from the St. John?s Site in St. Mary?s City, Maryland.? In The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, XII: Chesapeake Bay, edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, 37-71. Liverpool: Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies No. 14, BAR International Series 566, 1991. Isaac, Rhys. ?Dramatizing the Ideology of Revolution: Popular Mobilization in Virginia, 1774 to 1776?, William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 33, no. 3 (1976): 357-385. ______.The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1982. Johnson, Matthew H., ?Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation?, In Interpretive Archaeology: A Reader, edited by Julian Thomas, 211-227. London: Leicester University Press, 2000. Johnson, Matthew. ?Agency, Structure, and Archaeological Practice?, In Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power, and Being Human. edited by Andrew Gardner, 241-247. London: UCL Press, 2004. Kammen, Michael G. ?The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689?, Maryland Historical Magazine 55, no. 4 (December 1960): 293-333. Kaplan, Jessica Merle. ?Female Tavern and Boardinghouse Keepers of Eighteenth- Century Annapolis, Maryland.? master?s thesis, University of Maryland, 1994. Keeler, Robert W. ?The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier.? PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, 1978. Kelly, Kevin P. ??In dispers?d Country Plantations?: Settlement Patterns in Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia.? In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, edited by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, 183- 418 205. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Kille, John and Jason Moser. ?An Elusive Discovery: The 17 th Century Town of Herrington,? Maryland Archeology, 38 no. 1(March 2002): 4-12. King, Julia A. ?Comparative Analysis of a Household and Inn in St. Mary?s City, Maryland?, Historical Archaeology 22, no.2 (1988): 17-39. _____. ?An Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Van Sweringen Site, St. Mary?s City, Maryland.? PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1990. Kirby, Robert M. Soil Survey, Prince Georges County, Maryland. Washington: The Service, 1967. Kopytoff, Igor. ?The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process.? In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64-91. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Kornwolf, James D. A>Doing Good to Posterity=: Francis Nicholson, First Patron of Architecture, Landscape Design, and Town Planning in Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina, 1688-1725." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 101, no.3 (July 1993): 333-374. Korr, Jeremy. ?A Proposed Model for Cultural Landscape Study,? Material Culture 29, no. 3 (Fall 1997): 1-18. Kulikoff, Allan Lee. ?Tobacco and Slaves: Population, Economy and Society in Eighteenth-Century Prince George?s County, Maryland,? PhD diss. Brandeis University, 1976. ______.?Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies,? The Journal of Economic History 39, no. 1 (March 1979): 275-288. ______.Tobacco and Slaves: The development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1986. Lanciano, Claude O.. ?Our Most Skillful Architect?: Richard Taliaferro and Associated Colonial Virginia Constructions, Gloucester: Lands End Books, 1981. Lee, Jean Butenhoff. ?The Social Order of a Revolutionary People: Charles County, Maryland, 1733-86.? PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1984. 419 Lender, Mark Edward and James Kirby Martin. Drinking in America: A History. New York: The Free Press, 1987. Leone, Mark P. and Silas D. Hurry. ?Seeing: The Power of Town Planning in the Chesapeake? Historical Archaeology 32, no 4 (1998): 34-62. Leone, Mark P. Jennifer Stabler, and Anna-Marie Burlaga, "A Street Plan for Hierarchy in Annapolis: An Analysis of State Circle as a Geometric Form." In Annapolis Pasts: Historical Archaeology in Annapolis, Maryland, edited by Paul A. Shackel, Paul R. Mullins, and Mark S. Warner, 291-306. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998. Li, Xiaoxiong. "Liquor and ordinaries in seventeenth century Maryland". Ph.D. diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 1992. In ProQuest Digital Dissertations [database on-line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 9216593; accessed October 3, 2007). Linebaugh, Donald W. ??All the Annoyances and Inconveniences of the Country?: Environmental Factors in the Development of Outbuildings in the Colonial Chesapeake.? Winterthur Portfolio 29, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 1-18. Logan, Rebecca L. Witches and Poisoners in the Colonial Chesapeake, PhD diss., The Union Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2001. Lounsbury, Carl R. ??An Elegant and Commodius Building?: William Buckland and the Design of the Prince William County Courthouse.? Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 46, no. 3 (1987): 228-240. _____. ?The Structure of Justice: The Courthouses of Colonial Virginia.? In Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, Volume 3, edited by Thomas Carter and Bernard L Herman, (Columbia: published for the Vernacular Architectural Forum by University of Missouri Press, 1989): 214-226. _____. The Courthouses of Early Virginia: An Architectural History, Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005. Luckenbach, Al. Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County Maryland?s First European Settlement. Crownsville: Maryland State Archives, Maryland Historical Trust, 1995. Lukezic, Craig, ?Soils and Settlement Location in 18 th Century Colonial Tidewater Virginia.? Historical Archaeology 24, no. 1 (1990): 1-17. MacNamara, Martha J. From Tavern to Courthouse: Architecture & Ritual in American Law, 1658-1860. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. 420 Main, Gloria L. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Mallios, Seth. ?Back to the Bowl: Using English Tobacco Pipebowls to Calculate Mean Site-Occupation Dates?, Historical Archaeology, Vol 39 no 2 (2005):89-104. Martin, Ann Smart. ?The role of Pewter as Missing Artifact: Consumer Attitudes Toward Tablewares in Late 18 th Century Virginia?, Historical Archaeology 23, no. 2 (1989):1-27. _____. "Buying into the world of goods: Eighteenth-century consumerism and the retail trade from London to the Virginia frontier". Ph.D. diss., The College of William and Mary, 1993. In ProQuest Digital Dissertations [database on-line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 9407425; accessed October 31, 2007). _____. ?Commercial Space as Consumption Arena: Retail Stores in Early Virginia.? In People, Power, Places. Perspectives in vernacular architecture, 8, edited by Sally Ann McMurry and Annmarie Adams, 201-218. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2000. McKnight, Justine Woodard. Summary of Botanical Remains from Mount Calvert (18PR6), Unpublished report on file at the NHRD Archaeology Laboratory, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, 2000. Meacham, Sarah Hand. "From women's province to men's domain: Gender, technology, and alcohol in the Chesapeake, 1690 to 1800". Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 2003. In ProQuest Digital Dissertations [database on- line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 3144659; accessed October 31, 2007). _____. ??They Will Be Adjudged by Their Drinke, What Kind of Housewives They Are?: Gender, Technology, and Household Cidering in England and the Chesapeake, 1690 to 1760.? In Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives, edited by Debra Meyers and Melanie Perreault, 201-226. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006. Menard, Russell R. ?Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland.? PhD diss., University of Iowa, 1975. _____. ?The Maryland Slave Population, 1658 to 1730: A Demographic Profile of Blacks in Four Counties? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 32, no. 1 (January 1975): 29-54. _____. ?Five Maryland Censuses 1700 to 1712: A Note on the Quality of 421 the Quantities?, The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 37, no. 4 (October 1980): 616-626. Merchant, Carolyn. Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender, and Science in New England. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Meyers, Debra and Melanie Perreault. ?Introduction.? Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives. edited by Debra Myers and Melanie Perreault, xi-xxiii. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006. Middleton, Arthur Pierce. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era. Newport News, Va.: Mariners? Museum, 1953. Miller, Henry M. "Discovering Maryland's First City: A Summary Report on the 1981- 1984 Archaeological Excavations in St. Mary's City, Maryland," St. Mary's City Archaeology Series no. 2. St. Mary's City: St. Mary?s City Commission, 1986. ______."Transforming a `Splendid and Delightsome Land': Colonists and Ecological Change in the Chesapeake 1607-1820." Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 76, no.3 (1986): 173-187. ______.?Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake.? Historical Archaeology 22, (1988): 56-73. ______.?An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745.? In Colonial Chesapeake Society edited by Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo, 176-199. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Moreland, John. ?Restoring the Dialectic: Settlement Patterns and Documents in Medieval Central Italy.? In Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. edited by A. Bernard Knapp, 112-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Morrell, David. ?Ebenezer Cooke, Sot-Weed Factor Redivivus: The Genesis of John Barth?s ?The Sot-Weed Factor?.? The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association 8, no. 1 (Spring 1975): 32-47. Morris, Anthony Edwin James. History of Urban Form: Before the Industrial Revolutions, New York: Wiley, 1994. Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. 422 No?l Hume, Ivor. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Knopf, 1969. Ogundiran, Akinwumi. ?Of Small Things Remembered: Beads, Cowries, and Cultural Translation of the Atlantic Experience in Yorubaland.? International Journal of African Historical Studies 35, no. 2/3 (2002): 427-457. O?Mara, James. ?Town Founding in Seventeenth-Century North America: Jamestown in Virginia.? Journal of Historical Geography 8, no. 1 (1982): 1-11. ______.?An Historical Geography of Urban System Development: Tidewater Virginia in the 18 th century.? Geographical Monographs no. 13. York University, 1983. Oxford University Press. Oxford English Dictionary Online http://www.oed.com (Accessed, January 9, 2008). Papenfuse, Edward C. ?Doing Good to Posterity?: The Move of the Capital of Maryland from St. Mary?s City to Ann Arundell Towne, Now Called Annapolis. Crownsville: Maryland Historical Trust, 1995. _____. ?What?s in a Name? Why Should We Remember, Remarks on the Occasion of the 300 th Anniversary of the Commencement of Prince George?s County, April 23, 1996?. http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/stagser/s1259/121/7508/html/0002.html (Accessed, July 16, 2007). Papenfuse, Edward C., Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and Gregory A Stiverson. A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789, Vol. 1. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979. Parent, Anthony S., Jr. Foul Means: The Formation of a Slave Society in Virginia, 1660-1740, Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Parke, Francis Neal. ?Witchcraft in Maryland?, Maryland Historical Magazine 31, no. 4 (1936): 271-298. Paynter, Robert and Randall H. McGuire. ?The Archaeology of Inequality: Material Culture, Domination, and Resistance?, In The Archaeology of Inequality, edited by Randall H. McGuire and Robert Paynter, 1-27. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991. Percy, David O. ?Ax or Plow?: Significant Colonial Landscape Alteration Rates in the Maryland and Virginia Tidewater,? Agricultural History 66, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 66-74. 423 Peters, John O. and Margaret T. Peters, Virginia?s Historic Courthouses, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1995. Pogue, Dennis J.. "Calverton, Calvert County, Maryland: 1668-1725," Maryland Historical Magazine, 80 no.4 (1985):371-376. ______.?Clay Tobacco Pipes from Four 17 th -Century Domestic Sites in the Lower Patuxent River Valley of Maryland?, In The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe, XII: Chesapeake Bay, edited by Peter Davey and Dennis J. Pogue, 3-26. Liverpool: Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies, 1991. _____.?Culture Change Along the Tobacco Coast: 1670-1720.? PhD diss,, American University, 1997. Potter, Stephen R. and Gregory A. Waselkov. "Whereby We Shall Enjoy Their Cultivated Places." In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, 23-33. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994. Price, Jacob M. ?The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake and the European Market, 1697-1775.? The Journal of Economic History 24, no. 4 (December 1964): 496-511. _____.?What Did Merchants Do? Reflections on British Overseas trade, 1660- 1790.? The Journal of Economic History 49, no. 2 (June 1989): 267-284. Price, Jacob M. and Paul G. E. Clemens. ?A Revolution of Scale in Overseas Trade: British Firms in the Chesapeake Trade, 1675-1775.? The Journal of Economic History 47, no. 1 (March 1987): 1-43. Radoff, Morris L. The County Courthouses and Records of Maryland, Part One: The Courthouses, Annapolis: The Commission,1960. Rainbolt, John C. ?The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia.? In Cities in American History, edited by Kenneth T. Jackson and Stanley K. Schultz, 50-65. New York: Knopf, 1972. Reber, Paul Crowl. "Retail trade and the consumer in Fairfax County, Virginia, 1759- 1766". Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland, College Park, 2003. In ProQuest Digital Dissertations [database on-line]; available from http://www.proquest.com/ (publication number AAT 3112492; accessed October 31, 2007). Reps, John. Tidewater Towns: City Planning in Colonial Virginia and Maryland 424 Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 1972. Riley, Edward Miles. ?The Colonial Courthouses of York County, Virginia? William and Mary Quarterly 2 nd Series 22, no. 4 (1942): 399-414. _____. ?The Ordinaries of Colonial Yorktown.? William and Mary Quarterly 2 nd Series 23, no. 1 (January 1943): 8-26. _____. ?The Town Acts of Colonial Virginia.? Journal of Southern History 16, (1950): 306-323 Roberts, Brian K. The Making of the English Village: A study in Historical Geography. Harlow, England: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1987. Rockman, Diana Diz. and Nan A. Rothschild. ?City Tavern, Country Tavern: An Analysis of Four Colonial Sites.? Historical Archaeology 18, no. 2 (1984): 112-121. Roeber, A. G. ?Authority, Law, and Custom: The Rituals of Court Day in Tidewater Virginia, 1720 to 1750.? William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 37, no. 1 (1980): 29-52. Rutman, Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman. A Place in Time: Middlesex County, Virginia 1650-1750. New York: Norton,1984. _____. Small Worlds, Large Questions: Explorations in Early American Social History, 1600-1850. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994. Salinger, Sharon V. Taverns and Drinking in Early America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Scharf, J. Thomas. History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day, Vol. 1. Hatboro, PA: Tradition Press, 1967. Semmes, Raphael. Crime and Punishment in Early Maryland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938. Shackel, Paul A. Personal Discipline and Material Culture: An Archaeology of Annapolis, Maryland, 1695-1870. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993. _____."Town Plans and Everyday Material Culture: An Archaeology of Social Relations in Colonial Maryland's Capital Cities." In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, 85-96. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1994. 425 Shepard, E. Lee. A>The Ease and Convenience of the People=: Courthouse Locations in Spotsylvania County, 1720-1840," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87, no. 3 (1979): 279-299. _____.??This Being the Court Day?: Courthouses and Community Life in Rural Virginia? Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 13, no. 4 (1995): 459- 470. Shomette, Donald G. Tidewater Time Capsule: History Beneath the Patuxent, Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 1995. ______.Lost Towns of Tidewater Maryland, Centreville: Tidewater Publishers, 2000. Sies, Mary Corbin. ?Toward a Performance Theory of the Suburban Ideal, 1877- 1917.? In Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture IV edited by Thomas Carter and Bernard L. Herman, 197-207. Columbia, MO: University Press for the Vernacular Architecture Forum, 1991. Smolek, Michael A. ??Soyle Light, Well-Watered and on the River:? Settlement Patterning of Maryland?s Frontier Plantations?, Paper Delivered at the Third Hall of Records Conference on Maryland History, St. Mary?s City, Maryland, May, 1984. available online at http://www.jefpat.org/research_papers.html (Accessed, October 31, 2007). Smolek, Michael A., Dennis J. Pogue, and Wayne E. Clark. Historical Archaeology of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake: A Guide to Sources. Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum Occasional Paper no. 1. St. Leonard, MD: Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, 1984. Sobel, Mechal. The World They Made Together. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Steffen, Charles G. ?The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake: Baltimore County, 1660-1769? The Journal of American History 76, no. 1 (June 1989): 9-33. Stilgoe, John R. Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Stine, Linda Francine, Melanie A. Cabak, and Mark D. Groover. ?Blue Beads as African-American Cultural Symbols?, Historical Archaeology 30, no. 3 (1996): 49-75. Stone, Garry Wheeler. ?Artifacts are not Enough.? In Documentary Archaeology in 426 the New World, edited by Mary C. Beaudry, 68-77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. _____.?Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger?s St. John?s.? PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1982. Struna, Nancy L. People of Prowess: Sport, Leisure, and Labor in Early Anglo- America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996. _____.?Sport and the Awareness of Leisure.? In Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert, 406-443. Charlottesville: Published for the United States Capital Historical Society by the University Press of Virginia, 1994. Tate, Thad W. ?The Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake and its Historians.? In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society, edited by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, 3-50. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1979. Thomas, Joseph B. ?Settlement, Community, and Economy: The development of Towns on Maryland?s Lower Eastern Shore, 1660-1775.? PhD diss., University of Maryland, 1995. ______.?One Hundred Lots Make it a Town: Four Surveys of Early Oxford,? Maryland Historical Magazine 94, no. 2 (1999):.173-191. Thomas, Joseph B. and Anthony D. Lindaur, ?Seeking Herrington: Settlement in a Very Early Maryland Town? Maryland Archeology 34, no. 2 (September 1998): 11-17. Thompson, Peter. Rum Punch and Revolution: Taverngoing and Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. Trewartha, Glenn T. ?Types of Rural Settlement in Colonial America.? Geographical Review 36, (1946): 568-596. Tucker, Kenneth H., Jr. Anthony Giddens and Modern Social Theory. London: Thousand Oaks, 1998. Upton, Dell. Holy Things and Profane: Anglican Parish Churches in Colonial Virginia. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986. Walsh, Lorena S. ?Urban Amenities and Rural Sufficiency: Living Standards and 427 Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1643-1777.? The Journal of Economic History 43, no. 1 (March 1983): 109-117. _____. ?Community Networks in the Early Chesapeake.? In Colonial Chesapeake Society, edited by Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo, 200-241. Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1988. _____. ?Summing the Parts: Implications for Estimating Chesapeake Outcome and Income Subregionally.? The William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 56, no. 1 (January 1999): 53-94. _____. ?Land Use, Settlement Patterns, and the Impact of European Agriculture, 1620-1820.? In Discovering the Chesapeake: The History of an Ecosystem, edited by Phillip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher, 220-248. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Wellenreuther, Hermann. ?Urbanization in the Colonial South: A Critique? William and Mary Quarterly 3 rd Series 31, no. 4 (October 1974): 653-668 Wesler, Kit W. ?Towards a Synthetic Approach to the Chesapeake Tidewater: Historic Site Patterning in Temporal Perspective.? PhD diss., University of North Carolina, 1982. _____. "An Archaeologist's Perspective on the Ancient Town of Doncaster." Maryland Historical Magazine 80, no. 4 (1985): 383-391 Wetherell, Charles. ??Boom and Bust? in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy.? Journal of Interdisciplinary History 15, no. 2 (Autumn,1984): 185-210. Whiffen, Marcus. ?Early County Courthouses of Virginia.? Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 18, no. 1 (1959): 2-10. White, Carolyn L.. American Artifacts of Personal Adornment, 1680-1820: A guide to Identification and Interpretation. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2005. Wilkie, Laurie A. and Kevin M. Bartoy. ?A Critical Archaeology Revisited?, Current Anthropology 41, no. 5 (December 2000): 747-777. Wise, Barton H., ?A Perswasive to Towns and Cohabitation.? The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 4, no. 8 (1897): 252-254 Wood, Joseph S., ?Village and Community in Early Colonial New England? Journal of Historical Geography 8, no.4 (1982): 333-346. 428 Yentsch, Anne. ?Minimum Vessel Lists as Evidence of Change in Folk and Courtly Traditions of Food Use?, Historical Archaeology 24, no. 2 (1990): 24-53. _____. A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.