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 associated artifacts suggest.
[Illustration: Figure 32.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Structure B.]
X
_Mansion Foundation_
(_Structure B_)