Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Initial Settlement and the Middle Plantation Period

The project area (Figures 1 and 2) is located within the area of initial expansion during the British colonial period in Virginia . In the seventeenth century, this area was known as Middle Plantation, and the project area itself was owned by one of the wealthiest men of the colony during that time, John Page.

In 1607, the Virginia Company of London established the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown. The colonists' arrival was motivated by hopes of economic success and a desire to transform the wild into the civilized (Muraca 1994). From 1607 to 1632, English settlement clustered along the James River and the mouths of its tributaries. Fortified dwellings were lightly dispersed across the interior. As the settlement expanded, contact and conflict arose between the colonists and the Native Virginians. In 1622, conflict escalated to war. This war involved an initial attack by the Powhatans, followed by bloody insurgencies by the colonists (Morgan 1975).

Figure 1. General project area.

Figure 2. Closeup of project area.

The colonists were aware that without interior expansion, their settlement would not prosper economically (Metz et. al 1998). In 1632/3 an Act of Assembly was created to establish Middle Plantation, the first major inland settlement. This settlement was bounded with a palisade, which stretched six miles from the mouth of College Creek, a James River tributary, to Queens Creek, a York River tributary (Figure 3). Middle Plantation, it was hoped, would secure the inland for colonial expansion and agricultural investments, and protect the area known as the Peninsula from Native American invasion.

Settlement of Middle Plantation began slowly, but steadily increased throughout the seventeenth century. Initially the colonists clustered along navigable waterways, such as Archer's Hope Creek near Jamestown, and Queens Creek farther inland. Wealthier landowners from Jamestown tended to establish plantations, manned by indentured servants, in the Archer's Hope area, while several smaller farmsteads existed near Queens Creek (Muraca 1994). Prominent landowners in the early period of Middle Plantation included John Potts, Francis Potts, George Menifee, and Secretary of the Colony Richard Kemp.

Figure 3. Plan view of James River tributaries.

Middle Plantation began a more rapid period of growth in the mid-seventeenth century. The English Civil War had resulted in an increase in migration to the colonies by wealthy members of the gentry who had been loyal to the crown. Many of these new members of Virginia saw investment opportunities in Middle Plantation, where they could purchase land and establish agricultural plantations. Prominent government officials who resided in Middle Plantation included Thomas and Phillip Ludwell, Thomas Ballard, and John Page. Page eventually became one of Middle Plantation's largest landholders, with 350 acres including the project area. Page also acquired over 3000 acres across the York in New Kent County.

Towards the end of the seventeenth century, government officials decided to move their colonial capital to Middle Plantation, where they planned to establish a formal town to be known as Williamsburg. John and Francis Page owned much of the property selected for the development of the new capital town. Several Page buildings had to be demolished as the new roads and buildings were constructed. On April 27, 1705, the burgesses requested that a Page house standing on Duke of Gloucester Street be torn down "that the prospect of the Street between the Capitol and the Colledge may be cleer and that you take care to pay what you shall judge those houses to be worth" (McIlwaine 1910:4:55) . On May 5 of that year, the Burgesses paid the Page estate 3 pounds to demolish the "four old Houses and Oven" (McIlwaine 1910:4:69) , a very low price considering that these were noted to contain brick. Some Middle Plantation buildings that did not disrupt the new town plan were incorporated into the town, such as the structure known as the Jones Cellar near the Public Hospital which stood until the 1760s, for example. In 1699, the year the new capital was established, an observer described Middle Plantation: "Here are great helps and advances made already towards the beginning of a Town, a Church, an ordinary, several stores, two Mills, a smiths shop, a Grammar school, and above all the Colledge" (Anonymous 1699) .

The Capital Era in Williamsburg

In the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Trustees of the Town of Williamsburg purchased property from the John Page estate, including the excavation area. The establishment of Williamsburg involved the division of property into half-acre lots. These lots were established along a grid bisected by a one mile-long street that stretched east from the College of William and Mary to the new Capitol building (Figure 4).

The excavation area straddles colonial lots 267 and 268. In 1713/14, Christopher Jackson purchased these two lots from the Trustees of Williamsburg. Jackson paid 4 pounds 15 shillings for these two lots plus four other lots—172, 271, 12, 43—also purchased at the same time. In accordance with common practice, the Trustees specified that Jackson must build a structure of specific size and materials on each lot within 24 months, or else the undeveloped lot would revert back to the Trustees as if the sale had never been made.

In 1715, Jackson sold lot 268, with "all houses, buildings, orchards" (Stephenson 1954:4) to Thomas Ravenscroft for the price of seven pounds. This transaction did not include the neighboring lot 267. It is not known if Jackson built and resided on lot 267, if he built and 4 Figure 4. Plan view of colonial lots. (from Stephenson 1954.) sold the lot, or if he did not build and the lot reverted back to the trustees. It is also possible that a building not mentioned in the deed already existed on the lot. The original price that Jackson paid the trustees was not elevated to include any pre-existing structures; however, documents relating to the sale of Middle Plantation structures reveal that the older buildings with brick foundations had been fairly appraised at less than one pound (McIlwaine 1910:4:69). Therefore, if a building had existed on lot 267 at the time of Jackson's purchase it would have had very little value.

Apparently, Jackson did allow at least two of the lots purchased in 1713/14, lots 172 and 43, to revert back to the trustees. These two lots were sold in 1716 and 1718 respectively, by the trustees to other individuals, again with the requirement that a building suiting the specifications be constructed on the lots. There is no information regarding what became of lot 267 immediately after Jackson purchased it.

In 1739, a reference to this lot was made in a mortgage transacted eight years earlier by Dudley Digges to Robert Wills (Stephenson 1954). This document mentioned three lots adjacent to Davenport's property (Davenport possessed lots 269 and 270) that Digges had recently acquired from Ravenscroft, probably 266, 267 and 268. There is no information regarding when nor from whom Ravenscroft had purchased the two other lots. In 1731, the same year the mortgage was enacted, Wills petitioned the court of York County to grant him license to operate an ordinary at his home. This license was granted. Wills may have been residing on Digges's property at that time. In 1739, Digges disregarded the mortgage payments and Wills foreclosed on the property. At the time of the foreclosure, the property value was 91 pounds 15 shillings. This marked a great increase from the seven pounds that Ravenscroft initially paid for lot 268, indicating that improvements had been made to the property during this time (Stephenson 1954).

In July 1739, Wills conveyed the three lots to Thomas Nelson for 100 pounds. Nelson died in 1745 and, according to his will, left his real estate to his son William. Later that same year, William Nelson leased lots 266, 267, 268 and 700 to John Holt (lot 700 has not been located on any historical maps). Four lots were now included in the transaction, again with no indication of how the fourth lot was acquired. Holt apparently ran into financial difficulties, for in 1753 he mortgaged the lots to Peyton Randolph and eventually left the colony bankrupt. In 1754, the remaining time from Holt's lease was granted to William Hunter (Stephenson 1954).

In 1763, Nelson granted a new lease to Joseph Royle. Three years later, Royle died and left the property to his son William. William Royle, evidently now the owner of the property, offered it for sale in 1785. A map dated 1791 indicated that "Jackson," possibly George B. Jackson, owned lots 266, 267 and 268 (Stephenson 1954). In 1826, Robert McCandlish possessed the property. McCandlish's carpenter, Richard Brooker, wrote an account of some repairs he had performed on the property. In this account he described an area of McCandlish's holdings as "the old bake house lot" that may have been lot 267 (Stephenson 1954: 15).

McCandlish held the property until 1865, when William Vest acquired the lots. Twenty-two years later Vest sold the lots, together with his other holdings on the Tayloe property, to M. R. Harrell. The dwelling on Harrell's property, on lot 268, had probably been in existence since the Ravenscroft period of 1715-1731, with structural additions added over time. In 1896, during Harrell's tenure, a large fire inflamed an entire block on Duke of Gloucester Street between Colonial and Botetourt Streets. This fire completely destroyed the Harrell buildings. In 1928, a resident of Williamsburg named Mr. Charles remembered the Harrell residence as "a long and very old one and a half story frame building with dormer windows" (Stephenson 1954:17) . Another resident of Williamsburg, Mrs. Victoria Lee, described this house with the following words:

This place had an unusual hall. There were two corner fireplaces, diagonally across from one another, in this hall; and it had also a very fine stairway. This was a two story house, which was occupied after the war, by negroes who were living there when the house burned fifty years ago

After this disaster the empty lots were conveyed to Eugene Potts in 1904, to Joanne Harris in 1905, and to Arthur Harris in 1906. The Williamsburg School Board acquired the property in 1907, and sold it in 1939 to Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated (Stephenson 1954). These lots remain in the possession of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation at present.

Modern Activity

In 1954, J.M. Knight uncovered the remains of two brick foundations—one located on lot 267, and the other located on lot 268 extending beneath Botetourt Street (Stephenson 1954). This excavation consisted of the placement of linear cross-trenches about 30 centimeters wide placed roughly 85 centimeters apart over the three lots, as well as the excavation of larger areas opened up around and within the brick foundations. The remains of these trenches and the larger excavations were clearly visible (Figure 5). There was also evidence of a larger disturbance between the two structures which postdated the trenching but may have also resulted from the archaeological investigation by Knight.

These disturbances had been backfilled with dark brown sandy loam containing heavy inclusions of brick rubble and artifacts from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries. Some of this disturbance had impacted 10 Figure 5. Plan view of modern activity. the archaeological resources on the site. The disturbed soil was removed from the site and, in certain areas, revealed intact seventeenth- and eighteenth-century stratigraphy beneath. None of the soil from the modern archaeological activity was screened.

Postholes

Two large postholes, with smaller replacement postholes within, were discovered in the excavation (Figure 6). These posts were three meters apart on a roughly north to south axis. They were positioned about 4.25 meters west of the large structural foundation on colonial lot 268, and about 5.40 meters east of the foundation and cellar on colonial lot 267. These posts were almost certainly in existence when the larger building on 268 was in use, and possibly in existence when the building on 267 was in use, though it is not known how or even if these posts related to either of the two buildings.

The lower and earlier postholes were 58 centimeters to 60 centimeters wide, and extended about 30 centimeters into the subsoil (Figure 7). The posthole fills consisted of brown sandy loam with flecks of brick, marl and charcoal throughout. There was no visible mold in these postholes, but the eastern half of both was cut by later replacement postholes, both of which contained post molds 10 by 13 centimeters in size. These later posts had been given extra support by filling the holes with clay and flat laid bricks.

The artifacts within the fill of the postholes, for both the larger, earlier holes and the smaller, later holes suggest that the posts were placed after 1720. Given that only two of the posts in this series were uncovered, it is difficult to assign a definite function to them. However, Figure 6. Plan view of postholes. 11 Figure 7. South wall profile of posthole. the size of the earlier posts, and the placement of the replacement posts in exactly the same location, suggest that these posts supported a heavy frame and that care was taken in their upkeep. Possibly, these were a pair of structural posts for a small earthfast structure or shed, although they may have also been used as fence posts.

Grey Midden and Clay Cap

One of the more intriguing features of this site was a layer of trash deposited within a ravine that ran westward across the excavation (Figure 8). The east edge of this deposit extended beyond the east edge of the excavation. On the west, this deposit abutted the brick foundation and cellar on colonial lot 267 and was contemporaneous with the early occupation of this structure. Sometime in the first two decades of the eighteenth century, this layer was sealed with a thick clay cap that isolated the deposit from later contamination. Unfortunately, a portion of this deposit had been impacted by the 1954 archaeological investigations.

Figure 8. Plan view of midden.

The midden expanded 9.10 meters, and spanned the area between the eastern edge of the excavation and the brick foundation on lot 267. On the eastern edge, the deposit was only 1.5 meters wide and 0.23 meters deep. The layer quickly widened and deepened to the west and reached a width of 5.2 meters and depth of 1.0 meter where it abutted the brick cellar foundation. Directly beneath this layer lay the builder's trench for the cellar. Therefore, it was possible to conclude that the artifacts recovered from the midden were deposited soon after the structure had been built. The brick foundation had been constructed within a ravine, which may have resulted in water damage to the eastern cellar wall. Possibly in an effort to fill the ravine and halt this damage, the ravine was filled with trash and debris and sealed with a clay cap.

Figure 9. West wall profile of midden.

The soil in the midden contained pockets of ash, clay, heavy brick rubble, charcoal and shell, as well as over 9000 artifacts. The soil varied in color from brown to brownish yellow. The deposit was thickest at 30 centimeters thick along the northeast edge of the ravine by the foundation, suggesting that the deposition originated from this area. A clay cap measuring 34 centimeters thick sealed this trash layer. The clay was brownish yellow, redeposited subsoil clay that contained small brick flecks throughout. This clay was packed against the brick cellar foundation (Figure 9).

A large assemblage of late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century artifacts were recovered from the ravine which can be associated with the occupation or use of the brick structure on colonial lot 267. These artifacts were identified, analyzed and described by Susan Christie. The most striking aspect of the midden assemblage was the very large amount of wine bottle glass recovered. Over 5700 fragments of wine bottle glass were found, comprising over 60% of the artifacts from the midden fill. The majority of the bottles were of the onion and mallet form manufactured during the late seventeenth to early eighteenth century. Rectangular case bottles also represented a small percentage of the bottles.

Six wine bottle seals were recovered (Figure 10). Four exhibited a crest displaying a coronet atop a coat of arms bearing a cross, supported on each side by standing dogs. Beneath the dogs was a scrolling banner bearing a motto in French, which on two seals read "MAINT…ARM…" and on one seal read "MAINT…DROIT." An association or date for these seals was not determined. The fifth seal depicted a baronial crown above a fox standing on a rouletted horizontal line representing earth. This seal could represent a more refined version of a ca. 1700 seal of the Peirpont family. The sixth seal was incomplete and bore a milled edge bordering a beaded coat of arms. Again, association and date for this seal has yet to be determined.

Figure 10. Wine bottle seals recovered from the midden. Drawn by H. Harvey.

In addition to wine bottle glass, the midden fill contained a few fragments of clear, leaded glass. The forms represented a decanter, a continental oil bottle, scent bottles, tumblers, and stemmed wine glasses. Two datable stems included a Silesian style, manufactured between 1710 and 1730 (Noël Hume 1991:190), and a funnel shaped style with basal teardrop, a decorative technique that began in the fourth quarter of the seventeenth century.

The ceramics recovered from the midden fill were dominated by English delftware, but also contained fragments of white salt glazed stoneware, Yorktown courseware and Buckley coarseware, which provided the T.P.Q. of 1725. Earlier dated wares included Red Sandy Ware, Fulham, Westerwald and Nottingham stonewares, North Devon coarseware and Chinese porcelain. A few fragments of locally produced, hand-built pottery were also recovered. In addition, two unusual vessels came from the midden and have tentatively been identified. One appears to be a seventeenth-century French tin-enameled salt, and the other a white salt-glazed vessel with a cylindrical bucket shape and squared rim, which may have also been a salt.

Non-kitchen related ceramic items from the midden included two, and possibly three, crucibles and fragments of seventeenth-century clay roofing tiles. The latter, being a particularly important architectural feature of the nearby structure, will be discussed further in this report.

Other artifacts recovered included tobacco pipe fragments, one of which displayed the maker's mark of the Manby family dating to the last quarter of the seventeenth century. A very small percentage of the fragments were locally produced "Chesapeake" pipes. In addition, varieties of metal hardware were found in the midden, including iron handles, hooks, hinges, tongs, a file, and other various objects. Copper alloy materials and lead items were also present. These metals included the following notable items: a brass coin weight, a complete lead excise bale seal dating from the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714), and several inscribed lead window casings indicating the date 1717.

Lastly, a large quantity of faunal remains was included in the fill of the midden. Bone comprised over 15% of the total artifacts from this feature. The various species represented 14 in the faunal collection has not been determined. However, a bear (Ursus americanus) tooth was observed in the collection, an unprecedented find for this period in Williamsburg (Bowen, personal communication). As this species had disappeared from the area by this time, its presence in the artifact collection from colonial lot 267 appears to be as an oddity brought in from the western part of the colony.

Colonial Structures

Previous archaeological investigations revealed two colonial structures within the vicinity of the excavation. One, on colonial lot 268, consisted of a large brick foundation with west wing and cellar (Figure 11). This structure was probably constructed during the 1715-1731 Ravenscroft ownership of the lot, with later additions. The western edge of the west wing was just beyond the eastern limits of the excavation. This structure was not investigated in the current excavation, nor were any features directly attributable to this structure encountered. It does appear that the building and related features remain intact outside the limits of the 1998 excavation.

On colonial lot 267, the southern half of another colonial structure had been previously identified and documented. The floor plan had at least two cells, with a later, brick addition extended off the northeast corner of the brick foundation. A brick-lined cellar was located beneath the southern room of the structure and was heated with a corner fireplace. The north cell area was not located in the 1954 excavations, nor was this area included in the current excavation, but its presence is indicated by the central, north-facing hearth constructed on the northern exterior of the cellar. Because Knight did not discover any brick remains of this cell during his excavation of the area, it is likely that the cell was founded Figure 11. Plan view of foundations on colonial lots 267 and 268 (from Knight 1954). 15 upon perishable materials, such as wooden posts. The brick foundation was substantial, measuring one and a half bricks wide, with English bond and shell mortar. During the current excavation, the only portion of this structure revealed was a section of the later addition placed off the northeast corner of the original foundation (Figure 12). The grey midden layer and clay cap described above were associated with the early occupation of the building and overlay the builder's trench excavated during the construction of the cellar.

The overall architectural style of the lot 267 structure was unique to Williamsburg. The narrow side of the building, with the cellar entrance in the center of the south wall, faced onto Nicholson Street. Yet to orient this building along the town grid, the entrance would also have been on this narrow south wall, probably through a narrow passage east of the central cellar steps. This front passage entry style has not yet been observed in Williamsburg, though this type of entrance can be found in England in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century urban contexts. There, two-celled structures with central hearths were entered through a narrow front passage extending along one side of the length of the building. These house plans were used in urban areas to maximize the space and accommodate more buildings along the street (Wenger and Graham, personal communication). Often, the front room of this type of building was referred to as a "shop" on historical plans. The meaning of this word at that time period is ambiguous, but could indicate a merchant-style setting. This urban construction style has also been found at Jamestown. However, the use of the front side passage was not previously known in Williamsburg. Here, buildings faced directly onto the street from either the long or narrow side of the structure. No narrow-end house fronts are known to have had central cellar entrances. It is also possible that the building had a direct entry into the north or east wall, but in these cases the building would not have been oriented towards Nicholson Street, indicating that the structure predated the street.

Figure 12. West wall profile of addition on colonial lot 267.

Another unique feature of this building was its nonconformity with Williamsburg's building codes. The city of Williamsburg was rigidly planned. Its structures were aligned along a grid system bisected by Duke of Gloucester Street, stretching east from the College of William and Mary to the Capitol. As the trustees of the city sold lots along Duke of Gloucester Street, they included in each deed a list of building requirements. For the back streets these requirements did not apply unless the property developers specified that these requirements be enacted in the deed of sale. In 1713/14, when Jackson purchased lots 267 and 268, the specifications were applied. However, the structure uncovered on lot 267 did not meet these specifications. Brick foundations supported only the southern half of the building, while posts may have supported the northern half, which would have been prone to deterioration. This indicates that either the building requirements were not rigidly enforced on the back streets, or that the structure was built before the requirements had been put into effect.

The artifacts recovered from the grey midden layer that postdated the building have also yielded some clues about the architectural components of this structure. These items include window glass, lead window casing, nails, dressed slate, whitewashed plaster, and ceramic roofing tiles.

The destruction of the building probably occurred in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. This can be discerned from the artifact collection excavated in 1954 from the fill of the cellar. These artifacts were likely deposited after the standing structure had fallen into ruin. Open cellars were often used for trash disposal, thus the artifacts may have come from the ruin itself, or brought to the cellar from a nearby household. Most of the artifacts were manufactured in the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century. The cellar was probably buried by the first quarter of the nineteenth century.

Both colonial structures on lots 267 and 268 retain significant archaeological integrity. A further investigation into the date of construction for the building on colonial lot 267, possible uses for this building, and how the building fit into the surrounding landscape will be presented in the next chapter.

Ravine

Figure 13. Plan view of ravine fill with intact ravine boundaries.

During the seventeenth century, a ravine cut through the excavation area in a roughly east to west direction (Figure 13). This ravine collected sand and debris as water flowed down to the west where it met the larger ravine presently beneath the Anthony Hay cabinetmaker's shop. This ravine contained banded deposits of sand, rubble, sandy-loam 17 and a few seventeenth-century artifacts. The south wall of the ravine sloped steeply, while the north wall was composed of a less dramatic slope. More sand and debris had collected along the south edge. The ravine was narrow and shallow to the east, measuring 1.20 meters wide and 0.26 meters deep. The west portion of the ravine within the excavation was wide and deep, measuring 6.20 meters wide and 0.70 meters deep. The structure on colonial lot 267 was constructed within this ravine, which promoted the filling and eventual sealing of the ravine in the early eighteenth century.

Middle Plantation Boundary Ditch

The earliest feature on the site was a boundary ditch that cut across the southeast corner of the excavation (Figure 14). This ditch was 0.64 meters wide and oriented along a southwest to northeast axis. It had been filled with a clean, olive brown silt loam with a band of lighter gray silt deposits along the bottom. The ditch sloped steeply along the south edge and gradually along the north edge. The complete lack of artifacts or inclusions suggested that this ditch predated most colonial activities on the site.

Figure 14. Plan view of Middle Plantation boundary ditch.

Partial excavation of this feature revealed four narrow depressions along the base and sides of the ditch at irregularly spaced intervals. These depressions measured approximately 10 centimeters across and 15 centimeters deep. The fill within these depressions was the same as that for the ditch. This suggested that these depressions were created while the ditch was in use. These depressions may have resulted from ditch maintenance such as dredging or cleaning activities.

The ditch was partially eroded in one area by the ravine, which provided evidence that the ditch predated the ravine as well as the structure that was constructed within the ravine. Thus, the ditch relates to early to mid seventeenth-century activities on the site. Similar 18 ditch features oriented off the Williamsburg town grid have been recovered at other sites in Williamsburg, such as the Peyton Randolph site, Shields Tavern, the Nicholson-Tyler site, and the Tucker House, for example. These features are often all that remains of the earliest historical occupation.