oil till' plat, sliows tliat Uv lullowfd tlu- oriniiul buuiicls. 

 Hi" dors note a 4'^, lU-polr riror in tlu- course along 

 I'utomac Creek, "which difTncncc gives several 

 Lots more than was in the old survey making oik- 

 Row of Lots more than was contained therein each 

 containiiig two thirds of an Acre." This was doubt- 

 less a contrivance desiijned to reconcile the Grenn 

 and Buckner surveys and also to benelil John Mercer, 

 lu any case, it is clear that the plats themselves are 

 Ixjth unieliai)le and inaccurate. What was actual 

 was shown in the archeological survey of \936 with 

 its record of boundary walls and at least one street. 

 An attempt has Ix-en made in fiijiiie 14 to give scale 

 to the Buckner sur\ey by superimposing the archeo- 

 logical map over it. There, Wall B U, if extended 

 north for 1 1 1 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 dis- 

 agree with the slightK- northwest-southeast basic 



orientation ol tlie street and \^M I • 



simplest explanation might \)c thai tl 



made on the basis of the 1 707 Gregg - 



it was fi." '- I for Pom 



the to\s ! growth ■ 



to .Mercer's occupancy, it is probable that (he i> 



orientation was 



Whether or imi 

 side was fundamental to the town, and prolKibb 

 built early in its history ai' 

 it.self was abandoned. \\ ■ 

 e\ideiice that Wall .-\ antedates il 

 were connected with it. Furihei 

 wall system in relation to the entii' 

 later. It may be concluded for nou 

 and the road Ix-side it represent the ii; 

 town as it was laid out in-fore .Meirfi 

 the stone walls were built Ix-fore tli thai Wall 



B II follows the fourth c<i un.it a> ■ ' 



Buckner's plat, and that : -. walls lu.i 



late as 1 750, as some of the associated artifacts suggest. 



83 



