Westerwald stoneware. before 1750 Surface (USNM 60.104; 60.121)

Tidewater-type earthenware. (USNM 60.141; 60.154)

Iron gate pintle. (USNM 60.90; figs. Wall E gateway, 6 29 and 88) inches from west end, south side, 13 inches above undisturbed soil, in bricks in second course.

Bra.s.s harness ring. (USNM 60.53; 2 inches west of figs. 29 and 83i) Wall E gateway, on top of third course of bricks, 7 inches above undisturbed soil.

Bridle bit. (USNM 60.67; figs. 29 5 inches west of and 91c) Wall E gateway, first course, 4 inches above undisturbed soil.

Bottle seal, marked with "I^[C.]M" (See matching Underneath bridle and first three digits of date seal dated 1737 bit (see above).

"173...." (USNM 60.68) on wine bottle, USNM 59.1688; fig. 78; ill. 37)

Fragment of iron potlid (USNM 60.69; Southwest corner of fig. 87a) Wall E gateway, 7 inches above undisturbed soil, at lowest brick course.

Indian celt, with hole drilled for 16 inches east of use as pendant. (USNM 60.87) southwest corner of Wall E gateway, at undisturbed soil, 7 inches below wall base.

Iron loop from swingletree. (USNM 30 inches east of 60.86) southwest corner of Wall E gateway, at undisturbed soil, 7 inches below wall base.

Wine-bottle base. Diameter 4-1/2 1735-1750 Wall E gateway. Top inches (USNM 60.83) course of bricks, 16 inches north of pintle (see above).

Iron plow colter. (USNM 60.88, Wall E gateway. Top ill. 79) course of bricks, 5.5 feet east of pintle (see above).

In addition to the artifacts listed above numerous others were excavated from the trenches, although few of these have archeological value for purposes of a.n.a.lyzing the structures. Only the finds accompanied by depth and provenience data are significant in evaluating these structures, and in the case of the gateway few are helpful to any degree. The fragmentary bottle seal found there matches exactly a whole seal that occurs on a wine bottle described in a subsequent section.

That seal is dated 1737, and thus this seal must have been similarly dated. Its presence near the lowest level suggests that the wall was in construction at the time the seal was deposited. Bottles were used for a long time, however, so the seal may have reached its final resting place years later than 1737. The Indian celt no doubt fell from the topsoil while the trench in which the wall was built was being excavated. The swingletree gear next to it probably was left there during the construction. The colter, although it appears to be of early 18th-century origin, may have been in use late in the 18th century after the wall had been removed. Since the colter is badly bent, it may have struck the top of the underground wall foundation, and, having been torn off from the plow, perhaps was left on the bricks where it fell.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 20.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Marlborough.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 21.--EXCAVATION PLAN of wall system.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 22.--LOOKING NORTH up the old road leading to the creek side.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 23.--OUTCROPPING OF STONE WALL along old road from creek side.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 24.--JUNCTION OF STONE WALL A, running from creek side to this point, with brick Wall A-I at top left, Wall A-II at right.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 25.--LOOKING NORTH in line with Walls A and A-II, Wall A-I joining at right angles.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 26.--WALL A-II. Breaks in wall date from subsequent placement of fence posts.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 27.--JUNCTION OF WALL A-I with southeast corner of Structure B.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 28.--WALL E, south of kitchen, showing gateway foundation.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 29.--DETAIL OF GATEWAY in Wall E, showing iron pintle for gate hinge in place; also bridle bit (see fig. 91c), harness ring, and bottle base (see ill. 35).]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 30.--WALL B-II looking toward Potomac Creek, with "Gutt," shown in 1691 survey, at right.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 31.--WALL D, looking east toward Potomac River from Structure E (kitchen).]

HISTORICAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF WALL SYSTEM

John Mercer commented with exasperation in his Land Book about the unresolved discrepancies between the Buckner survey of 1691 and the missing Gregg survey of 1707 (p. 14). There are as many disparities between Buckner's plat and the plat resulting from the Savage survey of 1731. In the latter a new row of lots is added along the western boundary, pushing the Buckner lots eastward. Where in the Buckner plat the lots and streets in the lower part of the town west of George Andrews' lots turn westerly 1 from the indicated main axis of the town, paralleling the 30-pole fourth course of the town bounds which runs to the creek's edge, the Savage map shows no such change. Yet Savage, in describing the courses of the survey in a written note on the plat, shows that he followed the original bounds. He does note a 4, 10-pole error in the course along Potomac Creek, "which difference gives several Lots more than was in the old survey making one Row of Lots more than was contained therein each containing two thirds of an Acre." This was doubtless a contrivance designed to reconcile the Gregg and Buckner surveys and also to benefit John Mercer.

In any case, it is clear that the plats themselves are both unreliable and inaccurate. What was actual was shown in the archeological survey of 1956 with its record of boundary walls and at least one street. An attempt has been made in figure 14 to give scale to the Buckner survey by superimposing the archeological map over it. There, Wall B-II, if extended north for 111 feet beyond its length of 384 feet to equal the 30 poles (495 feet) of the fourth course, would exactly touch the southwest corner of lot 21 where the fourth course began. But, in spite of this congruence, the other features of the plat are distorted and disagree with the slightly northwest-southeast basic orientation of the street and wall system. The simplest explanation might be that the layout was made on the basis of the 1707 Gregg survey. Since it was following the second Act for Ports of 1705 that the town achieved what little growth it made prior to Mercer's occupancy, it is probable that the town's orientation was made according to this survey.

Whether or not this is the case, the road to the creek side was fundamental to the town, and probably was built early in its history and maintained after the town itself was abandoned. We know from archeological evidence that Wall A antedates the brick walls that were connected with it. Further evaluation of the wall system in relation to the entire site will be made later. It may be concluded for now that Wall A and the road beside it represent the main axis of the town as it was laid out before Mercer's arrival, that the stone walls were built before that event, that Wall B-II follows the fourth course somewhat according to Buckner's plat, and that the brick walls may date as late as 1750, as some of the a.s.sociated artifacts suggest.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 32.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Structure B.]

X

_Mansion Foundation_

(_Structure B_)

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

With the exception of Wall A, the protruding bit of brickwork near the clump of trees (where Highway 621 makes its turn to the southeast) was the only evidence remaining above ground in 1956 of Marlborough's past grandeur. Designated Structure B, it was plainly the remains of a cellar foundation, which the tangled thicket of vines and trees adjacent to it tended to confirm. Since its location corresponded with the initially estimated position of the courthouse, it seemed possible that the foundation might have survived from that structure.

Excavation of Structure B began accidentally when the excavators began following the westward course of Wall A-I, as described in the preceding section on the "Wall System." Wall A-I ab.u.t.ted, but did not mesh with, the corner of two foundation walls, one of which ran northward and the other continued on for 28 feet in the same direction as Wall A-I. The brickwork in the 28-foot stretch of Wall A-I was laid in a step-back, b.u.t.tress-type construction. At the bottom course the wall was 2.65 feet thick, diminishing upward for five successive courses to a minimum of 1.5 feet. A wall running northward--the east foundation wall--was exposed for 16 feet from the point of its junction with Wall A-I until it disappeared under the highway. It was found to have the same b.u.t.tress-type construction. There was no evidence of a cellar within the area enclosed by the foundation walls south of the highway.

Excavation of the east foundation wall was resumed north of the highway, but here no b.u.t.tressing was found, with evidence of a cellar visible instead. This evidence consisted of a curious complex of features, comprising remnants of two parallel cross walls only 4.5 feet apart with a brick pavement between 4.8 feet below the surface. The east wall and the cross walls had flush surfaces. The northerly cross wall was tied into the brickwork of the east wall, showing that it was built integrally with the foundation. The northerly cross wall had been knocked down, however, to within five courses on the floor level. The pavement was fitted against it.

The southerly cross wall was not tied into the brickwork of the east wall, and the pavement had been torn up next to it. Thus it was evident that this wall had been erected subsequent to the building of the foundation, that it had shortened the cellar by 4.5 feet, and that the cellar extended southward to a point beneath the highway where it was impossible to excavate. Doc.u.mentary evidence to confirm this alteration will be shown below (p. 91).

Extending 12.5 feet north of the original cross wall was another cellarless section, with step-back b.u.t.tressing again featuring the foundation wall. Another paved cellar was in evidence north of this, extending for 26 feet, with a final 14.25-foot cellarless portion as far as the north wall of the structure. The interior of the cellar, to the extent that inviolate trees and shrubs made it possible to determine, was filled with brickbats and debris, large portions of which were removed. Evidence, however, of construction of cross walls and of floor treatment remained concealed.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 33.--SITE OF STRUCTURE B before excavating, looking northeast.]

The entire length of this extraordinary foundation totaled 108 feet.

The northwest corner of Structure B was not excavated because it was hidden beneath a group of cedar trees which could not be disturbed.

South of the trees, however, the section of the west-wall foundation was exposed to a length of 15.5 feet. This section was situated partly in, and partly north of, the north cellar area. The cross measurement, from outer edge to outer edge, was 28 feet, the same as the length of the south foundation wall. Another short section of the west foundation wall also was exposed from the southwest corner as far as a private driveway which limited the excavation.

Ab.u.t.ting the exterior of the north wall of the foundation a flagstone pavement was found, extending 8.45 feet northward and 16 feet westward from the northeast corner. Against the foundation, within this s.p.a.ce, was a U-shaped brick wall, forming a hollow rectangle 5 feet by 3.6 feet (inside). The s.p.a.ce was filled with ashes, loose bricks, and other refuse. This brickwork was the foundation for a small porch, the lime-sandstone slabs surrounding it having been an ap.r.o.n or a small terrace.

Extending westward from the cedar trees, beyond the projected 28-foot length of the north wall, was a short section of brick wall foundation, the outer surface of which was faced with slabs of red sandstone and dressed on the top with a cyma-reversa molding. The tops of the slabs were rough, but each had slots and channels for receiving iron tie bars (ill. 3) that were still in place. This wall was inset four inches to the south of the alignment of the main north foundation wall.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 34.--SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STRUCTURE B. Piazza foundation extends to left, with red sandstone block at junction of piazza with main foundation. To the left of top of sign, molded red-sandstone trim can be seen which apparently surrounded the piazza.

Bricks in front of trim appear to have been added later as step foundation. Brick b.u.t.tressing of main-foundation footing appears at right.]

The northwest corner of this additional structure was hidden under the highway. Even now, however, the discerning eye can pick up the contour of a wall running parallel with the west foundation wall under the blacktop pavement. For a brief distance, between the point where the road swings eastward from it and the private driveway covers it again, excavation exposed this wall. Designated Wall C, it was 22 inches thick, entirely of brick, with no evidence remaining of red sandstone on the outside. The exterior surface was 9.5 feet beyond the west foundation wall.