Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Front Elevation

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

An outdoor museum such as Colonial Williamsburg offers unique opportunities for archaeological research. Projects are usually adequately funded, sites - are usually not immediately threatened, and support services are available. Equally important, the surviving documentary record is easily accessible and secondary historical analysis has often taken place. Williamsburg, at least, retains an extensive documentary record which can be used to isolate specific landholders and to develop their biographies. It is within this context that archaeological analysis is most effective.

Excavations in Williamsburg, particularly those since the late 1950s, have produced a large set of assemblages associated with known individuals or households (for some examples, see Derry, Edwards, and Brown 1982; Noël Hume 1969a, 1970). But while these excavations have revealed a great deal about the material possessions of certain individuals, it has proven far more difficult to proceed to another step— that of comparing households by the quantity and character of their material goods. Part of the problem is finding comparable individuals or households; that is, those similar enough in certain categories (e.g., political or economic position) that differences along other dimensions can be studied. Even when such individuals are found, differences in excavation techniques over the years can make comparisons of the archaeological assemblages impossible.

Only rarely is one presented with an opportunity for concurrent excavation of two archaeological assemblages, and it is even rarer that the assemblages should derive from two highly comparable individuals. Such a fortuitous circumstance, however, occurred in early 1984.

In 1982 the Office of Archaeological Excavation of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation commenced a three-year project investigating the outbuildings in the back yard of the Peyton Randolph House, an important property owned by one of the most influential of patriot leaders. Completely by coincidence, plans for a major renovation of the Williamsburg Lodge in 1984 necessitated a salvage excavation of the home built and owned by Peyton Randolph's younger brother, John. This home, known as Tazewell Hall after its second owner, was once among the grandest in Williamsburg, commanding a vista-like approach on the southern outskirts of the colonial town.

2

John Randolph, a Loyalist forced to leave Virginia at the start of the Revolutionary War, was one of Williamsburg's most prominent citizens— Attorney General, former Mayor, noted gardener and author, and a respected member of one of Williamsburg's first families. Lord Dunmore, the last British governor of Virginia, visited Tazewell Hall frequently, and in fact was entertained there the very night before he fled Williamsburg in June 1775. Although apparently of limited wealth, Randolph's political importance was clearly on the rise until he made his fateful decision to remain a servant of the Crown, thus parting from his brother Peyton.

The later owners of Tazewell Hall— wealthy and influential lawyer John Tazewell, his son Littleton Tazewell, and asylum-keeper Dickie Galt— were also among the city's most intriguing citizens. While not necessarily a hub of political or cultural life in the same manner as the Governor's Palace, the Capitol or the Raleigh Tavern, Tazewell Hall surely held more than its share of prominence in Williamsburg's social life. There seemed to be great potential in the archaeological study of the property, even when performed on the rigid timetable of salvage excavation.

The salvage excavation at the,Tazewell Hall site took place between June 25 and November 12, 1984. The prompting circumstance of this excavation was the planned construction of an underground parking garage and guest facility for the Williamsburg Lodge. This construction necessitated the removal of 44,000 cubic yards of earth in the area of Tazewell Hall, lowering the present grade by approximately 25 feet. Some five months were allotted for salvage of the cultural features in the impacted Area.

The former Tazewell Hall property lies on the south side of the City of Williamsburg, just outside the Restored Area of Colonial Williamsburg (Figure 1). The part of the property destined to be impacted was bounded by the Williamsburg Lodge on the north and west, South England Street on the east, and Newport Avenue on the south. This area had previously been designated by the Colonial Williamsburg Architecture Department as Block 44, Archaeological Area B (Knight 1948).

Physiographically this part of Williamsburg was formerly bordered by two large ravines, shown on the 1782 Frenchman's Map. These ravines ran roughly north-south, with tributary ravines extending out perpendicularly from these major branches. The Colonial Parkway now runs through the large ravine to the west, and the other has since been largely filled. Filling of the tributary ravines in the project area has resulted in a fairly flat landscape at around 82 feet above mean sea level.

3

Figure 1. Location of the Tazewell Hall Property

[Location of the Tazewell Hall Property]

4

Soils in the vicinity of the site are the same as throughout most of Williamsburg, characterized by an orange to tannish clay subsoil with a Munsell color value ranging from 10YR6/6 to 10YR7/2. With increasing depth this clay becomes mottled with red and white streaks. Cultural layers tend toward sandy loams with browner Munsell values.

At the beginning of excavation the northern part of the impacted area was covered by the lawn behind the East Wing of the Williamsburg Lodge (Figure 2). The rest of the property was covered by an asphalt parking lot extending to the corner of South England Street and Newport Avenue. Various shade trees, including maples, elms, and magnolias, had been planted in the lawn and the islands between parking bays. A brick-paved walk crossed the lawn near the northern edge of the impacted area, and concrete sidewalks lay along the eastern and southern edges of the property.

Previous excavations by James M. Knight in 1948 had resulted in the uncovering of the foundations of Tazewell Hall and the discovery of three outbuildings on the east side of the homelot (outside of the 1984 project area). The re-excavation in 1984 had three main purposes: (1) identification of any outbuildings on the west side of the property missed by Knight in 1948; (2) investigation of formal garden remains; and (3) comparison of household furnishings with those found in the Peyton Randolph Outbuildings Project.

Unfortunately, the initial stripping of the parking lot showed that almost all cultural layers had previously been graded away, leaving intact only fairly deep features such as cellars, planting beds, and postholes. Additionally, as is typical of urban archaeological sites, many of the deposits had been repeatedly disturbed by later construction and maintenance activities. This disappointing discovery curtailed much of the planned analysis of the Tazewell Hall property, as comparable deposits to those found behind the Peyton Randolph House were not in evidence. Likewise, structural remains of outbuildings, if they once existed on this part of the property, might well have been graded away. Investigation was necessarily limited to searching for and analyzing garden features and features associated with the colonial main house. But unexpected discoveries, as always, channeled the research and analysis into new directions.

5

Figure 2. 1984 Excavation Area

7

CHAPTER 2
PROPERTY HISTORY

English settlers first reached the Peninsula area in 1607, establishing a settlement at Jamestown Island. With the rich soils of Virginia particularly well suited for agriculture, tobacco rapidly became the area's primary cash crop. This tobacco economy played an important role in establishing the dispersed settlement pattern which characterized the Tidewater, since new land was continually needed to replace worn-out agricultural fields. Settlement on the Peninsula expanded along the major waterways of the James and York Rivers during the first half of the 17th century.

In 1622-23, the colony passed the Act for the Seating of Middle Plantation, later to become Williamsburg. Middle Plantation represented a move away from the major waterways into the interior of the Peninsula. Settlement grew at Middle Plantation, with the establishment of Bruton Parish Church, The College of William and Mary, a grammar school, an ordinary, and several stores (Anonymous 1930:332). In 1699, Middle Plantation's importance to the colony was greatly increased when the capital was relocated there, after a fire had destroyed the statehouse at Jamestown.

A town plan for Williamsburg was established by Governor Francis Nicholson at this time, with Duke of Gloucester, the town's main street, running east-west through the center of town. The Wren Building of the College of William and Mary stood at the west end of Duke of Gloucester, while the newly constructed Capitol Building (completed in 1705) was at the eastern end of this mile long street. The first map representation of Williamsburg is Theodorick Bland's "Draft of the City of Williamsburg and Queen Mary's Port and Princess Anne's Port in Virginia, 1699" (Bland 1699), showing the College, Bruton Parish Church, and the ground plot for the Capitol. Governor Nicholson's first act included instructions that the town be laid out in half acre lots and sold (Goodwin 1972). The condition that construction had to take place on these lots within two years of their purchase of have them revert back to the former owner helped to spur the growth of the new town. Williamsburg remained the capital of the Virginia colony until 1789, when the seat of government was moved to Richmond.

Due to the loss of many of the James City County Records, little is known about the Tazewell Hall property prior to its ownership by John Randolph. Before 1732, Thomas Bray owned property on the southern outskirts of Williamsburg. During that year, Sir John Randolph, Attorney General and Speaker and Treasurer of the Colony between 1736 and 1737, purchased lands from Bray south of and adjoining the town of Williamsburg. This property, some fourteen acres, adjoined land already owned by Randolph. Stephenson (1946) states that this was the land which was to become the site of Tazewell Hall, but later findings cast some doubt on this interpretation. Re-analysis of the documentary records, in light of recent archaeological findings suggest that Tazewell Hall was actually constructed on land which had been purchased by Sir John Randolph from his friend and neighbor John Custis, shortly before Randolph's death in 1737.

The land Randolph purchased in 1732 from Bray and formerly believed to have been the Tazewell property is described as

Fourteen acres more or less which is part of a tract of two hundred and ninety acres, devised to the said Thomas Bray, by his uncle Thomas Bray, deceased, being that parcel of inclosed land, in the occupation of Thomas Jones, gentleman, adjoining to the land of the said John Randolph.

Thomas Jones, a Burgess for the College of William and Mary, was documented in 1720 as living in "those houses bellonging to Genrll Nicholson" (College Papers n.d.:36). Archaeological excavations on the present site of the Dewitt-Wallace Gallery and the reconstructed Public Hospital uncovered the remains of the house which was occupied both by Nicholson and Jones during the early 18th century. Bottle seals bearing the names of both Francis Nicholson and T. Jones were located in the cellar of this building. This parcel of land is located adjacent to the land owned by John Custis, and would thus explain Custis' explanation of himself as a "neighbor of Sir John Randolph." However, the land occupied by Jones was located to the west of the ravine through which the Colonial Parkway now runs, while the Tazewell Hall property lies on the eastern side of this ravine, thus making it improbable that the land purchased from Bray later became the site of Tazewell Hall.

Sir John Randolph died on March, 9, 1736/7, bequeathing his Williamsburg property and the Tazewell tract to his wife, Lady Susannah Randolph, along with the profits from the remainder of his lands and possessions. Although it is not certain when buildings were constructed on the property, it appears that no structures were built on the Tazewell property during Sir John's lifetime. In accordance with Randolph's will, his oldest son Peyton came into his portion of the estate in 1745/6, when he reached the age of 24. Peyton Randolph, Attorney General (c. 1754-1766), Speaker of the House of Burgesses (1766-1775.), and President of the First Continental Congress (1774), received all of Sir John Randolph's property after Lady Susannah's death.

9

The actual date and year of Lady Randolph's death is not known. The last reference to her was recorded in 1754, when two of her slaves were baptized in Bruton Parish Church (Stephenson 1952). She had apparently died by 1758, when Peyton Randolph deeded the Tazewell property to his younger brother, John. Little information is available about young John Randolph, born in 1727/8, except that he graduated from the College of William and Mary and studied law in England (Warner 1924). By 1758 the 30 year old was back from England and ready to settle into life in Williamsburg.

The Tazewell property that he received is described in the 1758 deed as

90 acres, more or less, bounded as follows, on the North by a street called ___________ in the city of Williamsburg, East by the line of Philip Johnson, Esq. West by the bottom running from Mr. Powers' spring, including the whole bottom, and on the South by Mrs. Custis's Mill Pond'" (Southall Papers 1771-1850:Folder 182).

In November 1762, ten acres of this property, fronting on England Street, were added to the City of Williamsburg. According to Hening's Statutes, Randolph had "lately built and made considerable improvements" on the ten acres by that date (Hening 1819-1823:598-599). Since there was no mention of any structures on the property in the 1758 deed, it is therefore believed that Tazewell Hall was constructed by John Randolph sometime between his acquisition of the land in 1758 and the incorporation of the property into the city limits in 1762.

Tazewell Hall, as it was known to have appeared in the 18th century, was one of the most visually impressive private residences in Williamsburg. The length of its facade, 138.5', was rivaled only by the Governor's Palace (Moorehead 1949), and it commanded a vista-like approach south from the Powder Magazine. Situated on high ground between ravines to the east and west, the frame structure faced north toward town. The main house, one story tall, contained a two story central entrance hallway. Two story east and west wings, placed perpendicular to the main house and connected to it by enclosed passageways, gave the house an H-shaped appearance (Figure 3). It is most likely that these wings were constructed at the same time as the main house. Late 18th-century maps, such as the Frenchman's Map (1782) and the Desandrouins: Map (1781) depict the Tazewell Hall property in detail. Both maps show the structure as having wings and with the backyard enclosed.

The Desandrouins Map (1781) depicts what appears to be large formal gardens to the south of Tazewell Hall (Figure 4). Gardens 10 Figure 3. Plan of 18th-century Tazewell Hall 11 Figure 4. Desandrouins Map showing Tazewell property 12 such as these would be appropriate for a man of John Randolph's wealth and social standing. Randolph is reputedly the author of A Treatise on Gardening by a citizen of Virginia, a how-to book on vegetable and herb gardening written between 1760 and 1770. It is likely that the experiments described in this treatise took place in the gardens behind Tazewell Hall.

In 1766 Randolph was appointed Attorney General of Virginia. It was ultimately to be an unprofitable honor, for within a few years revolutionary sentiment began brewing. Randolph, carrying out his duties, became identified with the Crown's policies and lost his popularity. Although a political moderate like his brother Peyton, he chose to continue in his post and implement the Royal Governor's increasingly unpopular edicts. By June 1775, Lord Dunmore reported that "he [Randolph] together with his Family after having suffered the grossest insults and being threatened with the loss of their lives and having their House and every thing they have destroyed, are by my advice and approbration determined to go to England knowing they could not live any longer here, with much difficulty they have been persuaded to go" (Dunmore to Dartmouth, September 24 [PRO, CO 5-1353]). With the outbreak of the Revolutionary War imminent, John Randolph fled with his family to England that September. He left behind his servants -and his home, with all of its elegant furnishings. The 1775 indenture between John Randolph and his trustees Peyton Randolph, John Blair, and John Cocke lists the opulent furnishings of Tazewell Hall on a room-by-room basis (Tazewell Papers 1775). Objects such as the "compleat set of Nanquin Tea China" in the drawing room reflect Randolph's wealth, and the prints of the King and Queen in the dining parlour are indicative of his Loyalist sympathies. The full schedule is given in Appendix 1.

In October of 1775, Peyton Randolph, acting on his brother John's behalf in order to secure debts, advertised in the Virginia Gazette for the sale of Randolph's property and belongings. The sale was delayed, however, until July of 1778, when the property was sold at auction. According to the Virginia Gazette of July 17, 1778, "the sale will be on the premises, which are to be delivered to the purchaser the 1st day of October next, for ready money" (Dixon and Hunter 1778), John Tazewell, a wealthy Williamsburg lawyer, purchased the property and immediately began renovation. Beginning on October 2, 1778, John Tazewell entered into an account with carpenter Humphrey Harwood for a wide variety of repairs and services. Harwood's account book reveals that he made repairs to steps, mended arches and "larthing", laid hearths, and whitewashed 10 rooms, 9 closets, 6 passages, and the "Sheloon" (Harwood 1778:18). All of these repairs were made before the 15th of October, when Tazewell actually came into possession of the property, and it seems almost certain that the repairs were made to Tazewell Hall.

13

John Tazewell was a rich man, having perhaps the most extensive and certainly the most lucrative law practice in Virginia (Heaton 1967). Unfortunately he died only three years after having purchased Randolph's former property. In his will, recorded in James City County Court on April 9, 1781, he left his wife Sarah the use of the Tazewell Hall property (Southall Papers 1771-1850). Upon her death, the property was to pass to their son, James Tazewell. When James Tazewell died unmarried and intestate, the title passed to his two youngest surviving brothers, Littleton and William Tazewell (Southall Papers 1771-1850). Littleton Tazewell, later a representative in the state legislature, and his wife Catherine (Boush) Tazewell apparently took over Tazewell Hall, where they were to live for the next 30 years.

Insurance policies have been important documents in the reconstruction of the history of the Tazewell Hall property. The first known insurance policy on the Tazewell property was in 1802, obtained by Littleton Tazewell through the Mutual Assurance Society of Richmond (M.A.S. 1802). In this document, the house was described as "a wooden Dwelling house 150 feet long by 30 feet wide Two stories high underpined with Brick." A slightly later policy, in 1809, depicts the house more realistically as H-shaped, with a 661 main house connected to two 451 by 171 wings (M.A.S. 1809).

Towards the end of his life, Littleton Tazewell apparently suffered from prolonged periods of bad health, as referenced in a letter written in 1812 (St. George Tucker to Robert Wash, Oct. 2, 1812). An insurance policy taken early in 1815, the year of his death, indicates that Littleton was still living in Tazewell Hall, now described as a "dwelling of wood and covered with wood Body one story and wings two stories high, 136 [feet by] - 45 [feet]" (M.A.S. 1815). Like his father, Littleton Tazewell was a wealthy man, owning 242 acres, 36 lots, and 10 slaves in holdings in Williamsburg and James City County in 1815. His holdings placed him among the extensive real estate city's largest landowners, and the taxed assessment on Tazewell Hall similarly placed him in one of the most expensive homes. He owned a large quantity of household goods as illustrated by his payment of taxes on a large number of luxury items that year. His four mahogany dining tables and sideboard, 15 chairs, silver and cut glass reflect the entertainment equipage commensurate to the status of a wealthy urban dweller. Indeed, Littleton Tazewell paid over twice the taxes on these personal goods as did the average Williamsburg taxpayer, although he was not in the elite upper ten percent in the ownership of these goods. Overall, however, when Littleton Tazewell is measured against Williamsburg society in the ownership of real and personal property, he ranked in the top thirteen percent (Smart 1986). Upon his death in November, he bequeathed the Tazewell property to his wife Catherine and his daughter Sally.

14

Littleton Tazewell's daughter, Sally married William O. Goode of Mecklenburg County around 1820. A letter dated January 19, 1820 states that

Sally Tazewell is to be married on Sunday next to Mr. Goode, his Father I am told having made an arrangement by which young Goode will take possession of the Tazewell property here, pay off the Debts, and establish himself as a practicioner of law in Williamsburg (Page-Saunders Papers).

There is no record of the Goode's ever living on the property as the next reference to it comes in 1823, when Mutual Assurance Society Policy #5038 states that "the said building [Tazewell Hall] is at present owned by the heirs of said Littleton Tazewell residing at Mecklenburg County and is occupied by William Ball-overseer" (M.A.S. 1823). It appears that Sally Tazewell Goode and her mother had moved to her husband's home in Mecklenburg by this time. In 1830, Littleton Tazewell's heirs are still documented as owning the property and living in Mecklenburg County (M.A.S. 1830), but the name of the person who occupied Tazewell Hall at this time, recorded on the insurance plat, is now illegible. Apparently it was no longer William Ball, since his name drops out of the local personal property tax records after 1824.

In 1835, William Tazewell, acting as executor for Littleton Tazewell's estate, conveyed 400 acres of Tazewell lands to Dickie Galt. Along with the Tazewell Hall tract, this acreage included parts of the nearby Greenhow's tract, Saunder's Quarter, Saunder's undivided tract, Maupin's tract, and Lucy Quinn's lots (Southall Papers 1771-1850:Folder 182). Galt seems to have moved into Tazewell Hall, and an 1836 insurance policy describes the recent removal of one wing of the house and the detachment and subsequent relocation of the other to the east side of the property (M.A.S. 1836). The main portion of the house was also raised to form a two story structure. since this policy was obtained in January of 1836, these changes probably occurred in late 1835.

Born in 1797, Dickie Galt was the second youngest of the fifteen children of James Galt (1742-1800), silversmith keeper of the Public Gaol, and later superintendent of the Public Hospital. Dickie Galt himself became keeper of Eastern State Hospital in 1826 (Fishburne n.d.), and by 1828 personal property tax records show that he owned 7 slaves, 2 horses, and an expensive four-wheeled riding carriage. Clearly, like the Tazewells, he was a man of some means, and perhaps his purchase of the valuable Tazewell Hall tract was an indication of his upward mobility.

15

Galt still owned and occupied the property in 1846 (M.A.S. 1846). Although he was married, Galt died without issue (Galt Genealogy I. E. 14, p. 11) and what happened to the property upon his death is not known. It appears that Joshua Walker came into possession of the Tazewell Hall property around the early 1850s. Not much is known about Walker, but he and his wife were involved in litigation about the Tazewell property from 1851 to 1854 (C.W.D.B. 1: 55-56). An 1853 insurance policy issued to Walker (M.A.S. 1853) identifies a new wooden addition on the east side of the house and, among other outbuildings, two wood buildings southwest of the house and one to the northwest (Figure 5). In 1849, Rear Admiral Ralph Randolph Wormeley visited Williamsburg and described Tazewell Hall like this:

Williamsburg in its mournful dilapidation affected me deeply. The residence of my great-Grandfather Sir John Randolph I found in perfect preservation as well as that of the 1st President of the Congress of the U. S. his brother Peyton... (Wormeley Family Papers 1671-1944).

In 1855, the heirs of Joshua Walker conveyed the land and structures to John B. Christian (C.W.D.B. 1: 99). John Christian, a Judge of the General Court, died later that same year. Upon his death, he left the property to his daughter Martha Christian, who later married John Mitchell.

The more recent history of the property can be more quickly summarized. John and Martha Mitchell sold the Tazewell tract to Colonel John D. Munford by 1860 (M.A.S. 1860), though the deed was not conveyed until 1863 (C.W.D.B. 2:202). Munford lived there throughout the next two decades. A former soldier wounded at Gettysburg and once Mayor of Williamsburg, he was described by a contemporary as "one of the most courtly gentlemen that ever graced, by his presence, the streets of old Williamsburg" (Colonial Williamsburg Foundation 1933:57). After his death in 1880, a cousin named Tom briefly lived on the property (Bright 1941). Bright, great grandson of Colonel Munford, used to visit Tazewell Hall as a child and remembers a garden in the rear of the, house. - He also mentions that wings were present on either side of the house. Since both wings were documented as having been removed in, 1835, Bright was possibly referring to the enclosed passageways, one of which was still standing on the east side of the house in the 1898 photograph (Frontispiece).

In 1880, the land was conveyed to Mary E. Hamlin (C.W.D.B. 3:500-502). In 1901, Mary Hamlin conveyed 305 acres containing the Tazewell Hall property to Mr. and Mrs. Andrew J. Barnes (C.W.D.B. 5:706-708). The property was in the Barnes family in 1906, when the Colonial Extension Company, Incorporated, bought the property for $12,000 in order to extend South England Street (C.W.D.B. 10:276-277). At this time the 16 Figure 5. 1853 Mutual Assurance Society policy. 17 Tazewell tract was divided into smaller lots, many of which were soon sold and developed with homes along South England Street and Newport Avenue. In 1908, William Gray purchased 28 acres of land on the west side of England Street, and around that time the house was moved from its original location in order to extend the street. This relocation placed the house about 12 feet to the west, facing east towards England Street.

In a deed dated October 18, 1910, William Gray conveyed the land containing Tazewell Hall to Susan Garrett Nelson (C.W.D.B. 6:34-35). She owned the property, where she lived with her husband, Peyton Randolph Nelson, until she sold it to Reverend W. A. R. Goodwin in 1927. Susan and Peyton Randolph Nelson were still allowed to occupy the house under the Restoration's life tenancy policy. Peyton Randolph Nelson, a descendant of both Peyton Randolph and General Thomas Nelson of Yorktown, was quite a colorful character. He is reputed to have imported carloads of wild horses into the then-sleepy town of Williamsburg and to have placed brassieres on his cows because someone had been stealing their milk (Rouse 1982). After the death of his wife, he continued to live, rather eccentrically, at Tazewell Hall into the 1940s.

In the meantime the restoration of Williamsburg was proceeding. In 1929, Reverend Goodwin and his wife sold the property to the Williamsburg Holding corporation (C.W.D.B. 13:486-87). In a series of legal maneuvers, the Williamsburg Restoration, Inc. then conveyed the property to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who conveyed the land back to Williamsburg Restoration, Inc. in 1939, subject to life tenure for the current occupant.

In 1954, with the expansion of the Williamsburg Lodge, Tazewell. Hall was purchased by Lewis A. McMurran, Jr. and dismantled, piece by piece. The old property was graded and an asphalt parking lot and landscaped lawn replaced the former house site. The house lay in storage until 1964, when the McMurrans began reconstructing Tazewell Hall to its 18th-century appearance. Tazewell Hall now stands overlooking the James River in Newport News, Virginia.

19

CHAPTER 3
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY

Since the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg began in 1926, sporadic archaeological investigations have occurred on the Tazewell Hall property. The first archaeological report on the site was the description of a utility trench cut alongside South England Street on February 23, 1934. H.R. Shurtleff head of Colonial Williamsburg's Department of Research and Record, noted "two parallel foundation walls running east-west, 26'10" apart from each other"(Shurtleff 1934:1). He stated that "the bricks were large, looked old, and had a LIME shell mortar. The wall was one stretcher and two headers thick." This was a portion of the colonial foundation of Tazewell Hall.

No further archaeology was done on this property until 1948. In October and November of that year, James M. Knight of Colonial Williamsburg's Architecture Department, with a crew of two, completed fairly extensive testing on both sides of South England Street (Block 42, Archaeological Area A & Block 44, Archaeological Area B). Area A, on the east side of South England Street, measured 100 feet north-south by 75 feet east-west. Area B, on the west side of the street, was about 75 feet square.

These excavations, typical of archaeological investigations conducted in Colonial Williamsburg prior to 1957, had one main purpose: the discovery and investigation of the brick foundations present on the property. Although in most cases, archaeological excavations led to the reconstruction of colonial buildings, in this instance no reconstruction was attempted, perhaps due to South England Street cutting the property in half. Some artifacts were collected in the 1948 excavations but they were not systematically recorded or analyzed.

The method employed to locate these brick foundations involved diagonal cross-trenching, oriented roughly northwest-southeast. These trenches, dug a shovel blade in width and spaced about 5' apart, were usually excavated to subsoil. When brick foundations were encountered, cross-trenching was temporarily abandoned and the foundations traced and exposed. This involved the removal of one or two feet of earth on either side of the foundation, a method which usually destroyed all or most of the original builder's trenches. These foundations were then inspected, mapped, and photographed.

Unlike much of Mr. Knight's work in Williamsburg, no summary description of archaeological features was prepared for the 20 Tazewell Hall property. Mention of this work, however, was made by Singleton P. Moorehead of the Architecture Department in his 1949 report on the architecture of Tazewell Hall. In this report he stated:

The foundations excavated show the original structure except where digging was impossible in South England Street. Fortunately pretty complete evidence of the original wings, covered-ways and part of the main portion was uncovered which, as mentioned above, proved the accuracy of the 1809 insurance policy. Since the main portion of the building exists a complete picture of the whole layout was therefore possible.

The excavated foundations indicated chimney locations in the two-story wings, the fact that a full basement existed under all the original structure except the east wing, and the size of the front porch. The locations of several minor outbuildings were also determined, including an ice house.

(Moorehead 1949:16)

This report goes on to describe in detail the architectural features of Tazewell Hall, mostly as revealed by documentary research. It is particularly interesting that no other documentation of the 1948 excavations mentions an ice house nor was one located during the 1984 project. James Knight, who provided many valuable recollections during the 1984 project, could not recall ever finding an ice house.

Despite the lack of a written report by Mr. Knight, maps and photographs of the excavation do exist. The map of archaeological features, prepared by Knight, shows four foundations: the colonial house, two dairies, two smokehouses, and a kitchen/laundry (Figure 6).

The colonial house was discovered on both sides of South England Street. Photographs show that the foundation was extensively cleared, with only the portion under South England street remaining undisturbed. It is not known what amount and type of damage was the house foundation when South England Street was constructed. It originally, measured 27' N/S by 65' E/W in size, with indications of two identical 17' E/W by N/S wings connected to either side of the main portion of the house by 19' long "covered ways," or enclosed passageways.

The part of the main house found in Area 44-B was about 35' E/W and 27' N/S, with two interior hearth bases uncovered along the west wall (Figure 7). An interior partition and a 19th-century bulkhead entrance to the main house cellar were also found. The foundation was 12 courses high, 16 ¾" thick, and set in English bond with shell mortar. Brick size was noted as 8 ¼" x 4" x 2 ¼" to 2 ½".

21

Figure 6. Features uncovered by James Knight, Oct-Nov 1948

22

Figure 7. West foundation wall of main house

23

The west wing of the house, moved in 1835, was also investigated. The foundation walls were removed at the time the wing was moved, but the archaeological map shows a small section of brickwork remaining in the connecting covered way. The bulkhead entrance to the west wing cellar, also still intact, was cleared and recorded. Based on a comparison of brick sizes, Knight assigns the construction of the wing to the same period as the main portion of the house. Photographs show fairly extensive digging in this area (Figure 8). An L-shaped interior partition (?) and two hypothesized interior chimney bases were also noted on the map.

The three recorded outbuildings all fall on the east side of South England Street in Area 42-A. Although this is beyond the 1984 project area, these features will be briefly described.

The "dairy" was composed of two overlapping 10' by 10' brick foundations (Figure 9). The earliest, probably dating to the 18th century, is described as being of English bond with shell mortar, with 8 ¼" x 4" x 2 ½" bricks. Either this or the later foundation, which Knight stated was of 19th century construction, is probably the feature labeled as a dairy on the 1809 insurance map (M.A.S. 1809). Photographs show that both of these foundations were cleared, probably destroying the builder's trenches, but that interior fill was probably not excavated.

The "smokehouse" was located twelve feet south of the later of the two dairy foundations. It was composed of two 101 square foundations, one directly over the other. The earlier brick foundation, set in English bond with shell mortar, contained bricks measuring 8 ¼" x 4" x 2 ½". This or the later 19th-century building was labeled as a smokehouse on the 1809 insurance plat. The entire foundation was exposed, but interior fill appears to have been left intact.

The "kitchen/laundry" was a 17' E/W by 45' N/S foundation lying 11' south of the smokehouse (Figure 10). This is where one wing of the house was probably relocated when it was moved in 1835. The 1948 archaeological map describes the brickwork as 19th century, probably meaning that it was set with sand mortar. Two panels of brick paving, 2' by 6' in size, were found on part of the interior floor. The southern 4' of the feature was not excavated, however, and most of the interior fill probably remained intact. Part of a marl walkway, running north-south, was found on the western side of the foundation.

The Knight excavation in 1948 was the last archaeological investigation of the property before the 1980s. Until 1984 none of the project area outside of Knight's Archaeological Area 44-B had ever been archaeological logically examined. Despite the lack of archaeological work (outside of Area 44-B), various activities on the site during the 20th century have undoubtedly caused some 24 Figure 8. Bulkhead entrance to west wing cellar 25 Figure 9. Foundation of dairy 26 Figure 10. Foundation of laundry/kitchen 27 disturbance to the western side of the street. These would include the construction, property development and subsequent dismantling in 1954 of the 20th-century Tazewell Hall. In addition, the machine grading for the construction of the Williamsburg Lodge parking lot, as subsequently proven during excavation, erased virtually all traces of soil layers and features.

29

CHAPTER 4
FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODS

35

CHAPTER 5
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS

105

CHAPTER 6
ARTIFACTS
by Ann Morgan Smart and William Pittman

106

FIGURE 39

A. Chamber pot, base through rim. This saltglazed chamber pot is made up of a fine grey paste and is uniformly covered with a lustrous brown engobe. The only ornamentation is a broad mechanically incised band composed of short wavy lines interrupted by pairs of square impressions. The standing ring is simple as is the rolled rim. A single strap handle was applied to the side after the completion of the incised decoration. This type of brown saltglazed stoneware was commonly produced in Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire potteries as early as 1690.

Found in boundary ditch.
Catalog # 213.44B-514 (Vessel # 398).
Principal measurements: 12.2 cm standing rim diameter.
18 cm rim diameter.
12.75 cm height.
Archaeological context: 1762-1778.

B. Chamber pot, base/body fragments. Black-glazed redware. This vessel is composed of a high fired coarse earthenware body dusty brick red in color and is uniformly colored on the interior with a dark brown glaze. The same dark brown glaze partially covers the exterior except for the area nearest the base. The vessel wall curves gradually to a simple rolled base without footring. Black glazed redware was commonly produced throughout the 18th century in English potting centers.

Found in boundary ditch.
Catalog # 154.44B-514 (Vessel 382).
Principal projected measurement: 13.2 cm base diameter.
Archaeological context: 1762-1778.

107

Figure 39. Brown saltglazed and black-glazed redware chamber pots

108

FIGURE 40

Chamber pot, rim to base fragments. This undecorated creamware vessel has a thin-walled refined earthenware body covered by a clear lead glaze on interior and exterior surfaces. The pear-shaped body curves outward from a slightly constricted mouth and through a full-bellied waist to the standing ring. A single vertical strap handle terminal appears on the assembled fragments. Chamber pots of this ware were produced throughout the English pottery centers as early as 1762.

Found in boundary ditch.
Catalog # 155.44B-515 (Vessel # 392).
Principal measurements: approx. 12.8 cm base diameter.
approx. 20 cm rim diameter.
13.9 cm height.
Archaeological context: 1762-1778.

109

Figure 40. Creamware chamber pot

110

FIGURE 41

A. Bowl; rim and body fragment of annular creamware. Vessel is decorated with annular banding and common cable in blue, brown, tan, and cream. An incised herringbone band below rim is impainted with pale khaki, with a similar khaki band appearing below the cabled band. Clear lead glaze covers the entire surface of the assembled fragment. The body is a thin-walled refined earthenware fabric. Bowls of this type and design were known to have been produced by English potters as early as 1790.

Found in redeposited clay fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 020.44B-301 (Vessel # 53).
Principal measurement: approx. 12.4 cm diameter.
Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Bowl, rim/body fragments of annular creamware. Vessel is decorated with annular banding and common cable in brick red, blue, brown, and brown-grey on broad band of brownish-grey flanked by two narrow contiguous dark brown bands. Clear lead glaze covers the entire surface of the fragment. The body is a thin-walled refined earthenware fabric. Bowls of this type and decoration were known to have been produced by English potters as early as 1790.

Found in redeposited clay fill of the west wing cellar.
Catalog # 021.44B-301 (Vessel 56).
Principal measurement: approx. 14.4 cm diameter.
Archaeological context: 1835.

111

Figure 41. Annular creamware bowls

112

FIGURE 42

All fragments depicted are brown transfer printed whiteware of the "Italian Flower Garden" pattern produced by John and William Ridgeway of Staffordshire between 1814-1830.

A. Plate, rim through base fragments. This vessel has a true whiteware body and distinctive scalloped rim with embossed flowers. The molded shape is accented by the transfer printed pattern of sharply serrated dark brown lines and a similarly scalloped light brown stippled field. Beneath this is a rococo border of scallops interspersed with a floral motif on the vessel's marley. The central pattern is outlined by delicate brown lines and the extant portion on these fragments illustrates a stylized fountain and flowering prunus. Underglazed brown printing and stippling were introduced in 1810, but the ware type did not begin production until around 1820.

Found in Knight backfill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 093.44B-291 (Vessel # 172).
Archaeological context: 1948.

B . Platter, rim fragment. This transfer printed brown whiteware serving vessel is represented by one rim to marley fragment decorated with serrated edge, scroll and floral motif.

Found in redeposited clay fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 095.44B-119 (Vessel # 179).
Archaeological context: 1835.

C. Plate, base fragment. This portion of the central romantic motif is the same as shown in (A) by the stylized fountain and prunus and thus represents a second unique vessel of the same set on the bottom of this fragment is found the very corner of the pattern mark.

Found in Knight backfill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 094.44B-220 (Vessel # 323).
Archaeological context: 1948.

D. Platter, base fragment. The interior of the fragment depicts a stylized structure with foliage and palm-like trees behind a lake with mountains in the distance. As shown here, a large portion of the maker's mark and pattern name is printed on the bottom, in italic script "Italian Flower Gardens" with "JWR" beneath it, all in an oval of scrolled edges and flowers.

Found in Knight backfill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 095.44B-292 (Vessel # 179).
Archaeological context: 1948.

113

Figure 42. Matched transfer printed whiteware

114

FIGURE 43

Can, rim through base fragments. This cylindrical drinking vessel is made of a refined whiteware paste with a clear lead glaze covering the entire piece. A single vertical handle with foliate terminals is applied to the side of the vessel opposite a brown transfer printed scene above the caption "FOR A GOOD GI(RL?)" in Roman block letters. The majority of the scene is not present; however, a small cat-like animal is visible in the lower left foreground. No maker's marks are evident on these assembled fragments. Vessels of this type printed with special scenes, motifs, and messages were often presented as gifts in the last three quarters of the 19th century, while the ware type does not precede 1820.

Found in redeposited clay fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 099.44B-163 (Vessel 194).
Principal measurements: 6.0 cm base diameter.
6.2 cm height.
Archaeological context: 1835.

115

Figure 43. Whiteware can

116

FIGURE 44

This American grey stoneware storage jar is comprised of a fine grey paste upon which has been painted stylized floral motif s running laterally around the vessel at the height of the two lateral handles on the shoulder and again around the waist of the vessel. The painted motifs appear to be straight stems with graduated petals terminating in a closed tulip-like bud repeating around the vessel. The entire vessel has been salt glazed, leaving a very fine orange peel texture on both interior and exterior surfaces. This type of vessel was produced most commonly in Pennsylvania and Virginia and dates to the second quarter of the 19th century.

Found in mixed area of west wing cellar fill.
Catalog # 200.44B-130 (Vessel # 207).
Principal measurements: 22.5 cm base diameter.
22.1 cm rim diameter.
35 cm height.
Archaeological context: 1835.

117

Figure 44. American grey stoneware storage jar

118

FIGURE 45

A. Flower pot. This unglazed earthenware pot is composed of a coarse pale orange to buff colored body with small dark red brick-like inclusions. The interior surface exhibits potting rings and one large drain hole in the center of the base. The exterior surface has been smoothed and flairs gradually from the base to a raised and incised cordon beneath the flaired and rounded rim. One broad incised line appears approximately two-thirds the way up the side of the vessel. Similar unglazed flower pots have been excavated at many sites.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 201.44B-153/303/159 (Vessel # 20).
Principal projected measurements: 20.8 cm base diameter.
38 cm rim diameter.
29.4 cm height.
Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Flower pot. This unglazed flower pot is comprised of a coarse dusty-orange body with dark red brick-like inclusions. The interior exhibits potting rings while the exterior has been smoothed and has a slightly darker orange color. The vessel flairs gradually from the base to raised and incised cordon and a broad incised line can be seen approximately two-thirds the way up the side of the vessel.

Found in mixed area of west wing cellar fill.
Catalog # 202.44B-153 (Vessel # 121).
Principal measurement: 20.5 cm base diameter.
Archaeological context: 1835.

119

Figure 45. Earthenware flower pots

120

FIGURE 46

A. Cup plate. This nearly complete pressed colorless leaded glass vessel is molded on the exterior surfaces with a "sheaf of wheat" motif forming a scalloped edge. The flat base is molded with a raised floral and geometric design comprised of rows of faceted pyramids. Imposed between floral leaves radiating from the central open flower motif, appear small squares, each comprised of four faceted pyramids. The only interior molding is a series of small dots outlining the scalloped edge. Possibly attributed to Sandwich and/or New England Glass Company, beginning production in 1825.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 114.44B-313 (Vessel # 325).
Principal measurements: approx. 6.8 cm base diameter.
approx. 9.2 cm rim diameter.
Archaeological context: 1835.

121

Figure 46. Pressed glass cup plate

122

FIGURE 47

A. Wine bottle, rim, body and base fragments. This French wine bottle is of thin straw green metal, exhibiting some surface deterioration. The finish of the bottle consists of an uneven lip and a flattened string rim of varying width. The basal kick is domed with a distinct pontil scar. The shoulder of the body bears a vintner's seal consisting of a single application of glass into which a circular seal has been impressed. The seal consists of the words "Chateau Margaux" surrounding a vine with leaves and a cluster of grapes, superimposed upon a horizontally linear background.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 203.44B-303 (Vessel # 284)
Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Same as (A).

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 204.44B-303 (Vessel # 283).
Archaeological context: 1835.

C. Detail of vintner's seal on French wine bottle described in Figure 47B. The seal consists of the words "Chateau Margaux" surrounding a vine with leaves and a cluster of grapes, superimposed upon a horizontally linear background.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 131.44B-303 (Vessel 283).
Archaeological context: 1835.

123

Figure 47. Chateau Margaux wine bottles

124

FIGURE 48

A. Hearthstone (?). These fragments of fossiliferous limestone are believed to be part of a hearthstone. The stones vary in color from a slate gray to a pale dusty gray and exhibit a high percentage of fossiliferous inclusions, which are white in color. A shallow channel has been cut and smoothed running parallel to the finished edges but not equidistant from them. Considerable surface deterioration is evident due either to abrasive wear or heat.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 217.44B-130 (Object # 341).
Principal measurements: 22.5 cm width.
2.1 to 3.3 cm thickness.
3 cm channel width. Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Detail of hearthstone (?). These fragments are of the same material described above. These fragments differ from those previously discussed in thickness and are slightly curvilinear on one finished edge. The accompanying cut and smoothed channel follows this curving edge. As shown in this detail photograph, a hand written inscription appears on one edge, most likely carved on two separate occasions due to the difference in lettering. The inscription reads: "D. [block letter] W [block letter] ILKINS (cursive letters]". The identity of this D. Wilkins has not been established.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 217.44B-130 (Object # 340).
Principal measurement: 4.5 cm thickness. Archaeological context: 1835.

125

Figure 48. Hearthstone (?)

126

FIGURE 49

A. Tobacco pipe, bowl fragment. This pipe of fired earthenware has an exterior surf ace covered with lead glaze of a dark brown color. The interior of the bowl does not appear to have been intentionally glazed, even though some glazing appears. It is in the shape of a stylized Indian head complete with facial features and feather headdress. A renewable length of hollow reed was inserted into the base of this bowl. This type of inexpensive tobacco pipe became common around 1800 and were popularly known as "penny pipes". Pipes of this type supplanted the use of white kaolin pipes of British, and particularly Bristol, manufacturing popular during the previous two centuries.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog #126.44B-303.
Principal measurements: 0.6 to 0.7 mm reed aperture diameter.
1.6 cm breadth of bowl at base (through molded "face").
4.0 cm approximate length of base from reed aperture to bowl base.
Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Tobacco pipe, bowl fragment. This pipe is the same type as that described above. Its earthenware paste, however, is pinkish-tan, and it has a clear lead glaze.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar
Catalog # 125.44B-303.
Principal measurements: 0.8 cm reed aperture diameter.
1.8 cm bowl aperture diameter.
2.2 cm breadth of bowl at base (through molded "face").
3.5 = length of bowl from reed aperture to bowl base.
3.7 cm depth of bowl.
Archaeological context: 1835.

127

Figure 49. Stylized two-reale pieces

128

FIGURE 50

A. Spanish two-reale piece. This quartered silver coin was originally from a Spanish two-reale piece whose reverse side bears the arms of Spain and the complete inscription "HISPANIARUM REX", followed by a year date. The quarter pictured here bears only the " ... EX" and the first two digits of the year date 17__ . No mint mark appears on this fragment. The obverse—side (not shown) bears the partial inscription* "PH... " and a portion of the royal coat of arms with the Roman numeral II, indicating two reales. The inscription probably represents Philip V who reigned from 1700 to 1749.

Found in redeposited clay fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 214.44B-119.
Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Spanish two-reale piece. This is a nearly identical quarter to the one described above. It bears the same portions of the inscriptions and coat of arms. The surface of this quarter displays much more wear, but details of the design are still legible.

Found in redeposited clay fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 215.44B-119
Archaeological context: 1835.

129

Figure 50. Spanish two-reale pieces

130

FIGURE 51

Suspension eye and chains for hall lantern. This copper alloy apparatus was used to suspend a glass globe in which a candle was placed. These globes were often highly decorated and of French or English manufacture. They date from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century.

Found in redeposited clay fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 140.44B-335.
Principal measurements: 8.5 mm height of "finial".
4.4 mm diameter of bottom ring.
14.2 mm chain length.

131

Figure 51. Suspension device for hall lantern

132

FIGURE 52

A. Button, one-piece. This soft lead alloy button was possibly formed from a spherical lead projectile hammered into a disc and trimmed inconsistently around the edge with a blade to achieve approximate roundness. It appears to have been formed by striking repeatedly with an object other than a round-faced hammer. Two holes, slightly off-center, provided the means of attachment. The material and form of this button are similar to that used by the less affluent.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 130.44B-303.
Principal measurements: 3.0 cm diameter.
1.0 to 2.0 mm thickness, varying across the piece.
Archaeological context: 1835.

B. Shoe buckle, frame fragment. This is a cast copper alloy shoe buckle displaying openwork in a rococo entwined floral design. The casting has been visually enhanced by chasing on certain portions. This type of buckle was frequently gilded, although no evidence of this ornamentation remains on this fragment. This buckle style and decorative motif was popular from the mid 18th century through the Revolutionary War period and passed out,of vogue by 1800.

Found in boundary ditch.
Catalog # 161.44B-514.
Principal measurements: 7.2 cm conjectured length.
4.1 cm width.
Archaeological context: 1762-1778.

C. Buckle, frame fragment, possibly related to shoes. This copper alloy buckle is constructed of an alloy containing a relatively high percentage of copper and thus has deteriorated at a faster rate than similar buckles of lower copper content. It was cast in a rococo openwork decorative style, and was in use in the same period discussed above.

Found in boundary ditch.
Catalog # 162.44B-516.
Principal measurements: 3.3 cm fragment length.
Archaeological context: 1762-1778.

D. Buckle, frame. This copper alloy rectangular buckle frame carries no means of attachment for tines,. and thus a purely decorative rather than functional use is implied. The frame is devoid of decoration, although finished along the inner edge of the opening. It has a flat posterior surface and rounded anterior surface. There is a possibility that this 133 frame was unfinished due to a minor casting flaw evident on the anterior surface.

Found in plowzone.
Catalog # 138.44B-492.
Principal measurements: 2.9 cm length.
1.9 cm width.
2.1 cm x 1.1 cm interior opening.
Archaeological context: undated.

E. Buckle, corner fragment. This copper alloy fragment may, have been a part of a simple openwork shoe buckle. There is no apparent decoration on the extant portion.

Found in charcoal lens in fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 137.44B-195.
Principal measurement: 12.6 mm fragment length.
Archaeological context: 1835.

135

Figure 52. Buttons and buckles

136

FIGURE 53

A. Button, one-piece. This copper alloy button is of the type commonly used on outer garments, particularly of male attire. It is round, with impressed stars circling the edge. The central motif is a circle of radiating arrow heads joined with a series of crescent shaped lines composed of small impressed dots. This button was originally heavily gilded, remnants of which can be seen in all of the impressed designs. A single soldered loop on the back forms the only means of attachment.

Found in Knight backfill of main house.
Catalog # 133.44B-106.
Principal measurements: approx. 2.75 cm diameter.
1 mm thickness at rim.
Archaeological context: 1948.

B. Button, one-piece. This copper alloy button is of the same type described above. It is round with a highly stylized floral pattern engraved on the flat anterior surface. This floral engraving surrounds three centrally positioned concentric circles. All of the engraved decoration appears to have been mechanically applied. The back of the button is slightly concave and bears one single wire loop.

Found in spoil.
Catalog # 135.44B-125.
Principal measurements: 2.7 cm diameter.
2.0 mm thickness at rim.
Archaeological context: Undated.

C. Button, one-piece. Made of copper alloy, this flat small clothes button has no apparent surface decoration aside from a small quantity of gold gilding on the anterior surface. The back of the button is equally flat but is stamped "B & BURNHAM, best.d.gilt.11 A single soldered loop forms the means of attachment.

Found in Knight backfill of main house.
Catalog # 134.44B-102.
Principal measurements: 1.7 cm diameter.
1.5 cm thickness at rim.
Archaeological context: 1948.

D. Button, one-piece. This copper alloy small clothes button has a flat plain surface that may have been gilded, but has no remaining surface decoration. The rear of the button has a circular impressed design comprised of a series of stylized leaves within a broad band. The means of attachment was a single soldered loop.

137

Found in posthole.
Catalog # 132.44B-230
Principal measurements: 1.5 cm diameter.
0.5 mm thickness at rim.
Archaeological context: Post-1805.

139

Figure 53. Buttons

140

FIGURE 54

A. Button, one-piece. This copper alloy button has a slightly convex face and no engraved ornamentation. The posterior surface is slightly concave with an iron wire loop attachment. There is no evidence of gilding or any other applied or incised ornamentation. The size of the button would suggest use on outer garments, as compared to that used on small clothes.

Found in northern rectangular feature.
Catalog W 131.44B-428.
Principal measurements: 2.6 cm diameter.
1.0 mm thickness at rim.
Archaeological context: Post-1805.

B. Button, one-piece. Made of copper alloy, this plain flat round button has no apparent surface decoration. The face of the button is completely flat, as is the back, except in the area of the single loop which swells slightly toward the center.

Found in spoil.
Catalog W 136.44B-503.
Principal measurement: 2.2 cm diameter.
1.0 mm width at rim.
Archaeological context: Undated.

C. Button, one-piece. this small bone button was cut and turned on a lathe to produce a thin raised rim at the edge. It has a curving surface towards a depressed center and five unevenly spaced drilled holes. The back of the button is completely flat, but what appear to be saw blade marks are visible.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 128.44B-194.
Principal measurements: 1.75 cm diameter.
2.0 mm-width at rim.
Archaeological context: 1835.

D. Button, one-piece. Made of mother-of-pearl, this button has a chamfered edge on the front and is completely flat on the back side. There are four unevenly spaced holes which provide attachment. This type of button was commonly used on shirts, blouses, and undergarments.

Found in rubble fill of west wing cellar.
Catalog # 129.44B-159.
Principal measurements: 1.1 cm diameter.
2.0 mm width at rim.

141

Figure 54. Buttons

143

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION

As originally conceived, the Tazewell Hall project was intended to reveal details of the life and material remains of John Randolph's household. It developed, of necessity, into something entirely different: an investigation of the sometimes shadowy traces of garden and landscape features, a study of a group of terminal deposits associated with ownership changes, and evidence of the varying status of its different occupants over time.

Only recently have gardens received a great deal of attention from historical archaeologists. Archaeological investigations around large plantation houses at Carter's Grove, Kingsmill, and Monticello has shown the potential for interpretation of fencing, terracing, orchard and vineyard location and garden patterns (Kelso 1984b). Even on more disturbed urban sites in Williamsburg, archaeology has shown the locations of fences, walls, walkways, terraces and other features (A. Noël Hume 1974).

Tazewell Hall had an extensive formal garden in the 18th century. This is clear from the Desandrouins Map (1781), which shows a large enclosed garden behind the house, composed of two discrete rectangular sections of plantings and two smaller blocks which may represent either outbuildings or planting beds. As depicted on the map, the complex is oriented to reduplicate the dimensions of the house in two similar and parallel units, bordered on all sides by what are probably walkways. The detail of the interior of each garden unit is not easily discernible, although the northern one contains what may be a depiction of a set of perpendicular walkways dividing it into four roughly equal sub-units.

It is almost certain that the originator of this garden was John Randolph, whose interest in gardening led him to write a manual for his friends and neighbors (Warner 1924). Randolph's "Treatise" is devoted exclusively to the kitchen garden, i.e. the cultivation of edible vegetables. Although he relied heavily on Philip Miller's The Gardener's Dictionary, published in England in 1754, his alterations to suit Virginia's climate suggest that Randolph, did considerable personal experimentation in his own garden. The "Treatise" does not discuss the cultivation of purely ornamental flowering plants and shrubs, but one must assume that Randolph had these in his garden as well.

It is unfortunate that little remained of the occupation levels associated with Randolph's tenure. Almost without 144 exception his planting seems to have been relatively shallow and the evidence thus obliterated by subsequent plowing and grading. The planting bed found in the southwestern corner of the project area revealed little dating evidence, but from all indications appears to be associated with Randolph. However, no seeds or other remains could be obtained to determine what was being grown. A few other trenches and tree holes may date to this period, but no sort of pattern could be discerned from such scanty evidence.

Whatever its exact configuration, Randolph's garden was probably maintained by the next occupant, John Tazewell. Whether Tazewell or his son Littleton had any great interest in gardening is not known, but by the early 19th century, Littleton had considerably altered the garden bounds. An east-west fence line 1451 south of the house probably formed a division between the much reduced formal garden and some sort of back lot pasturage. An alteration in the garden's configuration might also be expected, but the lack of good dating control makes this almost impossible to determine. It is perhaps worth noting that most of the garden trenches and tree holes south of the house probably date from the early to mid 19th century, indicating deeper cultivation and/or more substantial planting during this period.

Aside from garden remains, the two most important features on the site were the filled west wing cellar and the western boundary ditch. Based on characteristics of the fill and documentary evidence, both represent a special type of archaeological context which may be called a terminal deposit. These are closely related to abandonment processes described on prehistoric sites (e.g., Deal 1985), the major difference being that the abandoned historic urban site is usually reoccupied more rapidly.

The material possessions that are reflected in the two terminal deposits share an important characteristic: they may not faithfully represent the entire range of normally deposited household goods. Because terminal deposits relate to a specific action— i.e. change of occupancy and physical replacement of one household with another— they must be analyzed with reference to the specific corollary actions involved in the moving process.

While most of the family's most valuable possessions would probably accompany them, several factors influence which ones remain behind. Deal (1985:270) suggests that these variables include (1) their portability, (2) the means of transportation (3) the distance to the new site (4) the season of movement, and (5) the relative functional utility of the items. They would apply, albeit differentially, under both gradual and rapid abandonment conditions.

145

In any case, the terminal deposit would probably be filled with those items, mostly utilitarian, whose value in real or emotional terms was less than the cost to transport them to a new location. Although inevitably some more valued pieces will be abandoned or broken during the moving process, the overall picture will be one that, if analyzed uncritically, reflects an unrealistic dependence on inexpensive or bulky goods and a relative lack of expensive luxury goods. Certainly in no case will the entire picture of a dynamic, living household be preserved.

The boundary ditch appears to have been filled after Randolph departed for England in 1775, probably as part of a general yard cleaning associated with readying the property for sale or preparing it for John Tazewell's occupancy. The northern part of the ditch, the area closest to the house and its activities, was composed of a dark brown sandy loam that superficially resembled occupation levels from other domestic sites in Williamsburg. Several almost totally reconstructable chamber pots, a large number of glass wine bottle bases and necks, and a number of other ceramics, glass and animal bones were found in this fill.

Months before leaving for England, John Randolph had drawn up an indenture for his brother Peyton Randolph, John Blair, and James Cocke to sell his real and personal estate after his departure, despite his assurance that he only intended to be gone a few months. Certainly he had enough time and foreknowledge to gather a few of his most treasured possessions for shipment. Additionally, after his departure his executors would have been able to maintain his other fine possessions for sale, either together with or separate from his real property. It seems likely that the ditch fill was composed only of the previously broken vessels swept up during yard cleaning and the mostly unpretentious chamber pots and bottles deemed unworthy of inclusion in Randolph's marketable personal property.

Table 2 lists the identifiable ceramic vessels found in the boundary ditch. While this assemblage seems to represent a variety of activities, closer inspection reveals some interesting trends. Tablewares and teawares are mostly represented by small non-mending fragments likely to have been generated from swept-up yard scatter. Among vessels composed of ten or more fragments, only one porcelain overglaze floral plate and one edged creamware plate were likely to have been relatively valued pieces. Two creamware chamber pots (11 and 216 fragments), a Staffordshire brown stoneware chamber pot (30 fragments), a black-glazed redware chamber pot (22 fragments), and a delft drug jar (37 fragments) were the five remaining vessels. Together these account for 316 of the 433 sherds identifiable to vessel. But surely this preponderance of utilitarian ware sherds does not accurately reflect the living Randolph household in its entirety; 146

Table 2.
Vessels Identified in the Boundary Ditch.

U.V.#	Description	# of Fragments
375	Delft ointment pot	3
376	Delft ointment pot	5
377	Delft salve pot	2
378	Delft drug (syrup) jar	37
379	Coarseware butter pot	8
380	Buckley coarseware bowl	3
381	Black-glazed redware bowl	5
382	Black-glazed redware chamber pot	22
383	Creamware plate	3
384	Creamware plate, feather edge	1
385	Creamware plate, dot and diamond	12
386	Creamware platter	3
387	Creamware saucer, beaded trombler	2
388	Creamware saucer	2
389	Creamware cup	2
390	Creamware pitcher	7
391	Creamware chamber pot	11
392	Creamware chamber pot	216
393	Westerwald chamber pot	4
394	Westerwald chamber pot	2
395	Fulham-type stoneware storage jar (?)	9
396	Fulham-type stoneware storage jar	5
397	Fulham-type stoneware storage jar	3
398	Staffordshire brown stoneware chamber pot	30
399	White saltglazed stoneware plate, barley pattern	4
400	White saltglazed stoneware plate	1
401	White saltglazed stoneware plate, lattice pattern	2
402	White saltglazed stoneware plate/platter	5
403	White saltglazed stoneware platter	1
404	White saltglazed stoneware tankard	2
405	Chinese export porcelain plate, underglaze blue	4
406	Chinese export porcelain small plate overglaze floral	14
407	Chinese export porcelain bowl	3
	TOTAL	433

147 it is simply a result of a discrete set of events during the abandonment process.

The assemblage associated with the filling of the west wing cellar was apparently much different. The cellar was almost certainly filled in 1835, when Dickie Galt acquired the property and removed the wings as part of a general structural renovation. The fill of the cellar hole consisted of alternating lenses of rubble, orange clay and brownish loam. The orange clay and brown loam were taken from elsewhere on the property to help fill the hole, thus containing items first deposited in an entirely different context. The rubble and its associated items, however, have been interpreted as the results of the primary construction and/or destruction activities involving the removal of the superstructure.

If the assemblage associated with the rubble is thought of as a terminal deposit, similar in origin to the boundary ditch fill, then some obvious problems immediately arise. The contents of the assemblage ranged from porcelain and fine earthenware tablewares and teawares, chandelier parts, and French bordeaux wine bottles to coarse earthenware chamber pots and stoneware bottles. While utilitarian wares were definitely present in quantity, much higher valued items were also dumped into the cellar hole. The questions then become: Why were these objects not transported to their owner's new home, and what does this say about the relationship of the owner/occupant to his or her material possessions? To understand this problem, it is necessary to look at the dynamics of the assemblage itself, the mechanics of acquisition, use and discard, and the history of the property prior to its sale and renovation in 1835.

Many of the ceramic tablewares from the primary rubble fill of the cellar were types commonly used in the 1820s and early 1830s (see Table 3). Viewed as a whole, however, the ceramic assemblage from the rubble fill includes a wide range of tablewares commonly believed to have been in use at different times. Included were feather edged creamwares common in the 1770s, as well as embossed shell edged pearlwares and whitewares. Shell-edge decoration was popular from 1790 to around 1850 and when combined with the edged cream wares from the assemblage, it is seen that this group of ceramic tablewares were in production for more than half a century. Yet it appears that all of these ceramics were discarded in 1835 either by a just departed occupant or from an already abandoned house. If it can be assumed that the ceramics were in use up until the abandonment in 1835, then this presents an excellent opportunity to study the problem of time lag in archaeological assemblages.

Time lag studies in archaeology have been used to determine the span of time between the manufacture and sale of an item and its subsequent discard. A study of late 19th-early 20th century 148

Table 3.
Vessels Identified in the Rubble Fill of the Cellar.

U.V. #	Description	Date Range
28	Black-glazed redware chamber pot	1700-1850
39	Creamware plate, undecorated	1790-1830
40	Creamware plate, feather edge	1762-1780
45	Creamware plate, royal rim	1770-1825
48	Creamware plate, dot and diamond	1763-1780
49	Creamware tea bowl, undecorated	1763-1820
53	Creamware bowl, common cable	1795-1830
55	Creamware basin, shell edge, embossed edge	1820-1830
56	Creamware bowl, common cable	1795-1825
68	Pearlware plate, shell edge, even scalloped rim	1800-1832
80	Pearlware plate, shell edge, even scalloped rim	1800-1832
81	Pearlware plate, shell edge, even scalloped rim	1800-1832
87	Pearlware soup plate, shell edge, embossed edge	1822-1835
88	Pearlware plate, shell edge, embossed edge	1822-1835
92	Pearlware plate, shell edge, embossed edge	1822-1835
102	Pearlware plate, shell edge embossed edge	1822-1835
104	Pearlware plate, shell edge, embossed edge	1822-1835
116	Pearlware dish, shell edge	1780-1830
118	Pearlware dish, shell edge, unscalloped edge, impressed	1809-1831
121	Pearl/whiteware dish, shell edge, embossed edge	1822-1835
128	Pearlware deep saucer, hand painted	1790-1830
149	Pearlware mug, hand painted polychrome	1790-1830
157	Pearlware mug, hand painted polychrome	1795-1830
158	Pearlware mug	1790-1830
172	Whiteware plate, transfer print, Italian Flower Garden pattern	1825-1830
179	Whiteware dish, transfer print, Italian Flower Garden pattern	1825-1830
184	Whiteware, deep saucer, transfer print, Swiss pattern	1825-1835
195	Pearl/whiteware mug, annular	1795-1830
196	Whiteware ewer, transfer print	1825-1835
197	Pearl/whiteware tray or box, transfer print	1825-1840
149
202	Fulham-type stoneware ointment pot	1690-1775
209	American blue & grey stoneware bottle, painted	1775-1860
229	Chinese porcelain plate	1700-1830
232	Chinese porcelain plate, underglaze blue	1700-1820
253	Chinese porcelain plate, overglaze enamel	1700-1830
277	Bone china bowl, bat printed	1810-1900
279	Porcellaneous scalloped plate	1820-1835

ceramics and glass at Silcott, Washington has shown that, when .compared with glass bottles from the same archaeological assemblages, there is an average time lag of 22 years for ceramics (Adams and Gaw 1977). The Tazewell Hall cellar fill provides a good deposit to use for testing time lag in an early 19th century context, since a terminal date of 1835 for the removal of the west wing is known through insurance records, with the resultant cellar hole filled during that same year. The artifacts within the rubble deposits therefore provide a tightly dated discard assemblage.

Adams and Gaw used both ceramics and glass from the Silcott assemblages, with glass providing a control date for comparison with the ceramics. During the time period represented by the Silcott sites (late 19th-early 20th century) , the glass industry was advancing at a phenomenal rate, with glass technology rapidly changing. Dating controls on glass for this period were often more -precise than those provided by ceramics, and bottles were used and discarded at a much faster rate than ceramic tablewares (Hill 1982). The Tazewell cellar fill, however, dated to the first quarter of the 19th century, before the glass industry had begun to make the advances that would allow close dating control on glass containers. All of the bottle glass from the cellar fill was free blown and thus difficult to date with accuracy. For this reason, the glass from the cellar fill was not included in this study. Instead the known date of the cellar fill was used as a control for (comparison with the ceramic assemblage.

Maker's marks were used by Adams and Gaw to provide dates for their ceramics, with the average mark in use for just over seventeen years. Since only one ceramic vessel within the primary cellar fill was marked, manufacture ranges were used, with vessel attributes such as color and decorative technique for certain ceramic types refining long manufacture ranges. A chronology developed by George Miller for edged wares provided tight dating control for many of the vessels contained within the assemblage, producing a date span of as little as ten to twelve years for some vessels (Miller n.d.; see Table 3). For examples, Figure 55 shows the variety of shell edged wares located in the 150 rubble fill of the cellar. Based on Miller's chronology of mean date ranges for the different types of edged wares, this sample spans a period of fifty-five years. Vessels A-C have scalloped rims with impressed curved lines, a type with mean beginning and end dates of 1802-1832 (Miller n.d.). Vessel D, with impressed straight lines, has a date range of 1809 through 1831. Vessel E, an embossed creamware, was probably produced between 1820 and 1830, and vessels F-J, with embossed patterns, were most popular between 1822 and 1835.

Thirty-seven identifiable ceramic vessels were located within the primary cellar fill. Initial, mean, and terminal manufacture dates were determined for each vessel. Calculating an average of the initial and terminal dates for these vessels provides a date range of 1784 to 1829.7 for the assemblage, with an average mean date of 1804.6. Thus a difference of 30.4 years elapsed between the mean date of the ceramic vessels' manufacture spans and the actual date of the deposit, a time lag approximately 8 years longer than that found by Adams and Gaw for Silcott.

This longer time period may be explained by several factors. Using the periods of manufacture of ceramics rather than maker's marks provided a somewhat longer date span for some of the ceramics, as much as 130 years in certain cases. Adams and Gaw found that the average mark of the Silcott assemblage was in use for a little over seventeen years, while the average manufacturer's span for the ceramic vessels in the Tazewell assemblage was 45.4 years. Removing the types of ceramic vessels which were manufactured for more than sixty years (i.e. porcelains and coarsewares) provides a date range of 1802.1 to 77 1822.2, with an average mean date of 1815.5. This gives a time lag of 19.5 years, a calculation more consistent with that found by Adams and Gaw.

Another explanation for the initial discrepancy in time lag lies in the difference in the controls used in the two studies. While Adams and Gaw postulated that the use span of glass would be shorter than that for ceramics, they did not actually determine the time lag of bottle deposition. A subsequent study using the Silcott bottles as one of four test cases showed that between six and sixteen years elapsed between manufacture and deposition, depending on what type of container was represented (Hill 1982). The lag for bottles was generally shown to decrease over time, as the amount of time required for manufacturing, bottling, and transportation decreased, along with the lowering cost of glass (Hill 1982). Although the time lag for the Tazewell cellar glass was not calculated due to the difficulty of assigning accurate dates, the ceramic dating does fall in line with the results seen in the Silcott analysis. Removing the few ceramic vessels which had long manufacture spans, which would 151 Figure 55. Shell edged wares from the cellar rubble fill. 152 skew the results towards earlier dates, produced a time lag consistent with that of Adams and Gaw.

It is thus seen that the majority of the tightly datable ceramics clustered around the 1820s. These probably represent some of the household goods of the occupant(s) of Tazewell Hall during the 20 year span between the time of Littleton Tazewell's death in 1815 and the 1835 purchase of the property. one known occupant was William Ball, an overseer living at the house in 1823 (M.A.S. 1823), but others may have subsequently occupied the property. Mutual Assurance Society records show that the value of the house declined from $4875 in 1815 to a low of $1500 in 1830, perhaps reflecting its deteriorating condition as a rental property whose out-of-town owners were somewhat neglectful of its upkeep. William Ball disappears from the local personal property tax lists after 1824, and it is not known what happened on the property between that date and 1835, the year the house was sold to Dickie Galt. It is presumed that the house probably continued to be rented, since the property remained within the Tazewell family, still living in Mecklenburg County. Rental of urban property was not unusual; in fact this was a common practice in Williamsburg during the early 19th century (Smart 1986).

This assemblage clearly shows the continuing use, through the first quarter of the 19th century, of ceramics such as feather edged creamwares which were popular in the late 18th century. There is also evidence of the purchase of individual pieces of ceramics, with the shell edged wares representing a variety of motifs, from embossed grapevines (Figure 55G) to floral swags (Figure 55H). None of these wares seemed to represent matched sets of tablewares, indicating instead that plates were purchased one or two at a time. This pattern of acquisition was also seen at Tabb's Purchase, occupied by tenants in the first half of the 19th century (G. Miller 1974). This type of purchasing behavior, as reflected in the cellar tablewares, as well as the date range of the assemblage, leads to the conclusion that the rubble- associated ceramics were not those of Littleton Tazewell. Rather, the makeup of the assemblage fits nicely with what little documentation there is for the house after Tazewell's death. The continued use of older ceramic tablewares along with more recent acquisitions, as well as the purchase of individual pieces of tableware as opposed to sets, would seem to indicate occupants of a lower economic status than that of the property's, earlier owners, perhaps poor or middling tenants such as overseers. This is also upheld in the increasing devaluations of the house during the 1820s and early 1830s, indicating a lack of upkeep to the property during a period when at least one overseer and perhaps other unknown renters occupied the house.

So if the rubble-associated assemblage does indeed represent the possessions of a tenant, possibly William Ball, it is 153 tempting to see his abandonment of the site as somehow qualitatively different than the abandonment behavior shown by wealthy owner John Randolph. Why did the tenant not take his possessions along when he departed? More importantly, exactly how representative is this assemblage of the way his household really lived?

One explanation, though by no means the only one, might be the abandonment of the house with the purpose of subsequent return. If the house were sold before the tenant's return, then it might be quite logical to expect most of the everyday household possessions to be intact. This explanation might account for the twenty reconstructable glass wine bottles also found in the rubble fill, at least two of which bearing the seal "Chateau Margaux". This fairly expensive French wine belies the stereotype of a poor tenant, but even more might indicate that whoever.left the wine fully intended to eventually return.

Galt's renovation in 1835 closed a chapter in the property's history. From its beginnings as John Randolph's expression of gracious living, through John Tazewell's short occupancy, to Littleton Tazewell's long residency, it was one of the most imposing homes in Williamsburg. Twenty years later it had deteriorated considerably, and the property had apparently changed to a semi-urban plantation seat with an absentee owner and a resident overseer. The action in 1835 was more than a change in ownership and occupancy; it was a true renaissance for the house that John Randolph built.

155

CHAPTER 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, William H., and Linda P. Gaw -

1977

A Model for Determining Time Lag of Ceramic Artifacts. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 11(2):218-231.

Anonymous -

1930

Speech Given by a College of William and Mary Student, May 1, 1699. William and Mary Quarterly 10 (2):332.

Blakely, Robert L., and Lane A. Beck -

1982

Bioarchaeology in the Urban Context. In Archaeology of Urban America: The Search for Pattern and - Process, edited by Roy Dickens, pp. 175-208. Academic Press, New York.

Bland, Theodorick -

1699

Draft of the City of Williamsburg and Queen Mary's Port and Princess Anne's Port in Virginia, 1699. Map on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Bowen, Joanne -

1978

The Analysis of Faunal Remains from Clifts Plantation. Report submitted to the Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, Inc., Stratford Hall, Virginia.

-

1985

The Peyton Randolph Planting Beds: A Discussion of the Non-Dietary Use of Bone. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Boston.

Bright, Robert S. -

1941

Memories of Williamsburg and Stories of My Father. Privately published in Richmond, Virginia.

Chao, Lincoln L. -

1974

Statistics: An Intuitive Approach. Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago.

Chapman, Joseph A., and George A. Fledhamer -

1982

Wild Mammals of North America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

City of Williamsburg

n.d.a

Plat Book 2:4. 156

City of Williamsburg -

n.d.b

Tax Records. Microfilm, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

College Papers -

n.d.

On file at Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

City of Williamsburg Deed Book [C.W.D.B.] -

n.d.

Colonial Williamsburg Deed Book. Colonial Williamsburg Department of Archives, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation [C.W.F.] -

1933

Recollections by Williamsburg, Va. Residents in the 1930s of the 1860s: Interview with John S. Charles. Unpublished report on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Colonial Williamsburg Photographic Record -

n.d.

Photograph No. 76-23. Personalities, Williamsburg. Photograph on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Custis, John -

1732

Letter Book of John Custis. Manuscript on file, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Deal, Michael -

1985

Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya Highlands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:243-291.

Dixon, John, and William Hunter (publishers) -

1778

Virginia Gazette, July 17, 1778.

Derry, Linda and Andrew Edwards -

1984

Spatial Patterning on the Peyton Randolph Back Lot. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology annual meeting, Williamsburg, VA.

Derry, Linda, Andrew Edwards, and Marley R. Brown III -

1982

Peyton Randolph House: 1982 Interim Report. Unpublished report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Desandrouins Map -

1781

Carte des Environs de Williamsburg en Virginie on les Armes Francoise et Americaine ont campes en September 1781. (By Desandrouins, Enlargement of Williamsburg Area.) original located in Paris, Ministry of Wars, 157 Service Technique dur Genie #47, Fascicule 8, carte #29. Photostat on file, Special Collections, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Dixon and Hunter, editors -

1778

Virginia Gazette, July 17, 1778.

Dunmore, Lord -

1775

Letter to Lord Dartmouth, private correspondence, September 24, 1775. Public Record Office, London, Colonial Office Papers 5-1353. Cited in 1775: Another Part of the Field, by Ivor Noël Hume, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1966.

Edwards, Andrew C. -

1986

Peyton Randolph Archaeology. Unpublished report on file, office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Ernst, Carl H., and Roger W. Barbour -

1972

Turtles of the United States. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Fishburne, Junius -

n.d.

Eastern State Hospital Index 1770-1860. Manuscript on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Foster, Andrea K. -

1984a

Interview with James M. Knight. Notes on file, office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1984b

Interview with Donald Parker. Notes on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Frenchman's Map -

1782

Plan de la ville et environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Photstat copy of map on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Galt Genealogy -

n.d.

I. E. 14, p. 11.

Gifford, Diane P. -

1981

Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology's Sister Disciplines. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Volume 4. Edited by Michael B. Schiffer. Academic Press, New York. 158

Goodwin, Mary -

1963

Use of Coal and Fire Grates in Eighteenth Century Virginia. Unpublished research report, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Goodwin, Rutherfoord -

1972

A Brief and True Report concerning Williamsburg in Virginia. The Dietz Press, Richmond.

Gordon, C., and J. Buikstra -

1981

Soil, pH, Bone Preservation, and Sampling Bias at Mortuary Sites. American Antiquity 46:566-570.

Habenstein, Robert W., and William M. Lamers -

1955

The History of American Funeral Directing. Bulfin Printers, Inc., Milwaukee.

Harris, Edward C. -

1979

Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London.

Harwood, Humphrey -

1778

Ledger of Humphrey Harwood. B:18. Manuscript on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Heaton, Lynda Rees -

1967

Littleton Waller Tazewell's Sketch of His Own Family ... 1823: Transcribed and Edited. M.A. thesis, Department of History, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Hening, William W. -

1819

The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All 1823 the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619. 13 volumes. Richmond, VA.

Hildebrand, Samuel F., and William C. Schroeder -

1928

Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Reprinted 1972, for the Smithsonian Institution by T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune, New Jersey.

Hill, Sarah H. -

1982

An Examination of Manufacture-Deposition Lag for Glass Bottles from Late Historic Sites. In Archaeology of Urban America: the Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 291 327. Academic Press, New York. 159

James City County -

n.d.

Tax Records. Microfilm, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Kelso, William M. -

1984a

Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia. Academic Press, Orlando.

-

1984b.

Landscape Archaeology: A Key to Virginia's Cultivated Past. In British and American Gardens in the Eighteenth Century, edited by Robert Maccubbin and Peter Martin, pp. 159-169. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Kirkby, A., and M.J. Kirkby -

1976

Geomorphic Processes and the Surface Survey of Archaeological Sites in Semi-Arid Areas. In Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past, edited by, D.A. Davidson and M.L. Shackley, pp. 229-253. Duckworth Press, London.

Kline, K., and J. Kline -

n.d.

The Meaning and Value of the Casket. Brochure of the Casket Manufacturers Association of America, Evanston, Illinois.

Knight, James M. -

1948

Archaeological Survey of Original Tazewell Hall and Outbuildings Located on South England Street Williamsburg, VA. Map on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Laughlin, Ledlie I. -

1981

Pewter in America; Its Makers and Their Marks. Volume 3. American Legacy Press, New York.

Luscomb, Sally C. -

1967

The Collector's Encyclopedia of Buttons. Crown Publishers, New York.

McManus, V. D. -

1937

Landscaping Plan for Corner of Tazewell Hall Street and South England Street. Blueprint on file, office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA. 160

McPherron, Alan -

1967

The Juntanen Site and the Late Woodland Prehistory of the Upper Great Lakes Area. Anthropological Papers No. 30. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Miller, George -

1974

A Tenant Farmer's Tableware: Nineteenth-Century Ceramics from Tabb's Purchase. Maryland Historical Magazine 69(2):197-210.

-

n.d.

Date Ranges for the Periods of Highest Popularity and Production for the Different Types of Shell Edge Decorated Pearl and White Wares. Manuscript on file, Office of Archeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Miller, J. Jefferson II -

1974

English Yellow-Glazed Earthenware. Barrie and Jenkins, London.

Moir, Randall -

1982

Sheet Refuse: An Indicator of Past Lifeways. In Settlement of the Prairie Margin, edited by Mark Raab, pp. 139152. Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Moorehead, Singleton P. -

1949

Tazewell Hall: A Report on its Eighteenth Century Appearance. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians XIV(1):14-17.

Munsell -

1975

Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth/Kollmorgen Corporation, Baltimore.

Mutual Assurance Society of Richmond [M.A.S.] -

1802

Policy No. 592, issued to Littleton & Sarah Tazewell. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1809

Policy No. 972, issued to Littleton & Sarah Tazewell. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1815

Policy No. 1529, issued to Littleton Tazewell. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA. 161

Mutual Assurance Society of Richmond [M.A.S.] -

1823

Policy No. 5038, issued to Littleton Tazewell's Heirs. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1830

Policy No. 7601, issued to Littleton Tazewell's Heirs. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1836

Policy No. 8338, issued to Dickie Galt. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1846

Policy No. 14391, issued to Dickie Galt. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1853

Policy No. 17655, issued to Joshua Walker. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

-

1860

Policy No. 21340, issued to John D. Munford. Virginia State Library, Richmond. Copy on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

National Geographic Society -

1983

Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

Noël Hume, Audrey -

1974

Archaeology and the Colonial Gardener. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Noël Hume, Ivor -

1969a

Archaeology and Wetherburn's Tavern. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 3. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA

-

1969b

A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

-

1970

James Geddy and Sons, Colonial craftsmen. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series No. 5. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA. 162

Roth, Rodris -

1961

Tea Drinking in 18th Century America: Its Etiquette and Equipage. Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology, United States National-Museum Bulletin 225:61-91. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Rouse, Parke -

1982

Peyton Randolph Nelson, Williamsburg's 'Grahnd Rahscal'. Daily Press, November 7, 1982:C3.

Samford, Patricia M. -

1983

Bruton Parish Church, Lightning Rod Conductor (Block 21, Building 1). Memorandum on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Schiffer, Michael B. -

1972

Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156-165.

1983

Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48(4):675-706.

Shurtleff, H.R. -

1934

Report on Tazewell Hall Old Foundation Walls. Memorandum on file, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Smart, Ann M. -

1986

The Urban/Rural Dichotomy of Status Consumption: Tidewater Virginia, 1815. M.A. Thesis, American Studies Program, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

South, Stanley -

1977

Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Southall Papers -

1771

Legal Cases and Estates, James City County. Folders 164 and 182, Tazewell Hall Estate, 1771-1850. Special Collections, Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Stephenson, Mary -

1946

House History for Tazewell Hall, Block 44. Unpublished research report, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA. 163

Stephenson, Mary -

1952

Peyton Randolph House, Block 28 Colonial Lots 207 and 237. Unpublished research report, Foundation Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Tazewell Papers -

1775

John Randolph's Deed of Trust on his Williamsburg Property to Peyton Randolph, John Blair and James Cocke, Dated August 25, 1775. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, VA.

Thomas, David Hurst -

1976

Figuring Anthropology: First Principles of Probability and Statistics. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

Tucker, St. George -

1812

Letter to Robert Wash, dated October 2, 1812. Tucker Manuscripts, Special Collections, Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Warner, M. F. (editor) -

1924

A Treatise on Gardening by a Citizen of Virginia. John Randolph, Jr. (1727-1784). Reprinted from The American Gardener of John Gardiner and David Hepburn, 3d edition, 1826. Appeals Press, Inc., Richmond.

Williams, Petra -

1978

Staffordshire: Romantic Transfer Patterns. Foundation House East, Jeffersontown, KY.

Wise, Cara -

1976

Date and Status in Eighteenth Century Delaware: An Archaeologist's View. Transactions of the Delaware Academy of Science 1974 and 1975. Delaware Academy of Science, Newark, Delaware.

164

[blank sheet]

1-1

APPENDIX 1

2-1

APPENDIX 2
MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY PLATS

Several Mutual Assurance Society policies reveal changes in the Tazewell Hall property between the years from 1802 and 1860. These fire insurance policies, issued by the Mutual Assurance Society of Richmond, Virginia, usually show the location of the house and outbuildings, the value and material of each, and the situation of the property in relation to neighboring owners. They are reproduced here in chronological order, beginning with Littleton and Sarah Tazewell's 1802 policy. originals are housed at the Virginia State Library in Richmond; these reproductions have been drafted from the photostat copies on file at- the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library.

2-2

Figure 2.1 1802 insurance policy

Figure 2.2 1809 insurance policy

2-4

Mutual Assurance Society Policy #1529 Revaluation of Buildings A formerly declared for Assurance by Littleton Tazewell per declaration #972
June 28, 1815

"... my building on a street in the South part of Williamsburg situated between the landing road west and Bassetts lands on the East in the County of James City and occupied by myself
The Dwelling House marked A at $4875"

Figure 2.3 1815 insurance policy

2-5

Mutual Assurance Society Policy #5038 Revaluation per Declaration #1529
March 28, 1823

"... That the said building is at present owned by the heirs of said Littleton Tazewell residing at Mecklenburg County and is occupied by William Ball-overseer
The Dwelling marked A at $2340"

Figure 2.4 1823 insurance policy

2-6

1830, May 20th
Mutual Assurance Policy #7601 Revaluation of Building declared for Assurance by Littleton Tazewells heirs as per Declaration #5038 by Littleton Tazewells heirs

"... that the said Buildings are at present owned by the heirs of the said Littleton Tazewell residing at Mecklenburg County and are occupied by **— That they are situated on a cross street on the north, and by plantation land in other directions in the county of James City...
The Dwelling & Wings marked A at $1500"

Figure 2.5 1830 insurance policy

2-7

Mutual Assurance Society Policy #8338 Revaluation of Buildings formerly declared by Littleton Tazewell per declaration #601 Dickie Galt residing at Williamsburg in the county of James City
Jan. 22, 1836

"my buildings on my own land in the City of Williamsburg now occupied by myself situated between the lands of Burwell Bassett on the East and Jessie Cole on the West

The Dwelling House	marked A at	$2500
The Kitchen Laundry	&c B	400
		$2900

Figure 2.6 1836 insurance policy

2-8

Mutual Assurance Society Policy #14391 revaluation of buildings formerly declared for assurance by Dickie Galt per declaration #9214
1846, October 3rd.

I the underwritten Dickie Galt residing at Williamsburg in the county of James City do hereby declare for assurance... my buildings on my own land now occupied by myself situated between a cross street on the North and my own lands on the East, South and West in the county of James City...

The Dwelling	marked A at	$4500
The Kitchen and Laundry	marked B at	800
		$5300

Figure 2.7 1846 insurance policy

2- 9

Mutual Assurance Society Policy #21340 revaluation of buildings formerly declared for assurance by Joshua Walker per declaration #17655
1860, [no month or day]

I the underwritten John D. Munford residing at Williamsburg in the county of James City do hereby declare for assurance... my building on my land adjoining the city of Williamsburg now occupied by Myself situated between a Street on the North and my own land otherwise and in the county of James City...

The Dwelling	Marked A at	$5000
The Kitchen	Marked B at	800
		$5800

Figure 2.8 1860 insurance policy

3- 1

APPENDIX 3
SAMPLE CONTEXT RECORD FORM

The context record is used for each soil layer or feature encountered during excavation. It is used in conjunction with a Harris matrix record (not shown) , which contains stratigraphic information about the relationship of each context with others on the site. The context record is designed specifically for use in computer-assisted data management, thus the coded information on soil type, archaeological technique, and feature or layer description.

3- 3

OEC CONTEXT RECORD version 1.2 10/2/84

please use CAP LOCK to capitalize all letters

MACRO-FEATURE 000	FEATURE 000	CONTEXT REF. 44000B 0001
PROJECT: TAZEWELL HALL	BLOCK 44 AREA 000B	SUB CONTEXT# 0001
NH
CONTEXT TYPE 007 topsoil

UNIT 00230N 00150E		EXCAVATORS RMA AEB
UNIT SIZE: 4 5x5 foot unit		SCREEN SIZE 1 not screened
DATE BEGUN 06/25/84	END 06/25/84	TREATMENT LEVEL 1 minimal
RECORDED PMS	APPROVED PMS	ENCODER GJB TPQ 1935

BOUNDARY SHAPE	1 smooth
BOUNDARY DISTINCTION	3 gradual

INCLUSIONS:	SHELL Y	BONE Y	WOOD N	FOSSIL Y	CHARCOAL N
	MORTAR N	BRICK Y	PEBBLE N	GRAVEL Y	BOG IRON N

METER READING	f8@1/250 sec	SOIL COLOR 10YR3/3
SOIL CONDITION	2	damp— slight moisture content
SOIL TEXTURE	11	loamy sand
SAND SIZE	1	fine sand
SOIL COHERENCE	2	friable

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
SOD REMOVED WITH SHOVEL;	CONTAINS COAL.

MOTTLINGS:	COLOR	TEXTURE	DISTRIBUTION	PATTERN	BOUNDARY SHAPE	BOUNDARY DISTINCTION
A		00	00%
B		00	00%
SKETCH #	107				SOIL #	—-
PHOTO #	—-				PEEL#	—-

4- 1

APPENDIX 4
MASTER CONTEXT RECORD

The master context record describes the groupings of related archaeological contexts. Feature numbers are assigned to intermediate groupings such as fill layers and postholes with their associated postmolds. Master context numbers are assigned to larger groupings such as fence lines, discrete activity complexes, and other groupings of related features.

The description of each master context is given below, along with the feature numbers and context numbers of which it is composed. Each master context is described in more detail within the body of this report.

4- 3

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
A01	WEST WING CELLAR	1	162
	(1= orange clay I)		163
			301
			321
	(2= rubble 1)	2	193
			194
	(3= orange clay 11)	3	118
			119
			120
			121
			130
			154
			300
	(4= rubble 11)	4	124
			126
			159
			303
			544
	(5= brick dust)	5	184
			185
			186
			187
			316
	(6= black loam)	6	173
			174
			175
			176
			207
			216
			217
			328
			337
	(7= lenses)	7	153
			155
			179
			180
			190
			192
			195
			302
			315
			317
			543

4- 4

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
A01	WEST WING CELLAR	8	320
	(8= hearth base)		327
			330
			335
			336
			338
	(9= trench in floor)	9	245
A02	BUILDER'S TRENCHES	10	110
	(10= 1762 main house)		117
	(11= west wing)	11	177
			178
			183
			191
			205
			206
			257
			280
			285
	(12= 1908/1909 house)	12	331
			332
			538
			540
A03	LIGHTNING ROD	58	244
			252
B01	PLANTING BED	13	322
			323
			375
			376
B02	PLOW SCARS	14	123
		15	148
		17	237
		18	258
		19	279
		20	269
		21	140
			141

4- 5

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
B02	PLOW SCARS	23	281
			282
		24	505
		25	519
			541
B03	TRENCHES	16	122
			127
		22	208
		26	399
		27	400
			495
		28	445
			450
		29	389
		30	499
B04	STAKE HOLES	31	250
		32	277
B05	MARL WALKWAY	33	019
			020
			026
			044
			050
			058
B06	BOUNDARY DITCH	34	512
			513
			514
			515
			516
			517
B07	DITCH	59	053
			054
B08	SQUARE CLAY-CAPPED FEATURE	60	417
			422
			479

4- 6

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
B09	TREES N. OF FENCE LINE 1	61	380
		62	371
			374
		64	346
		65	351
		66	373
		67	372
		68	433
			434
		69	391
		70	395
		71	367
B10	FOUR-HOLE FEATURE	64	304
		65	305
			310
		66	306
		67	307
B11	TREE LINE 1	63	414
		72	458
		73	436
		74	382
B12	TREE LINE 2	75	531
		76	533
		77	496
		78	510
		79	525
		80	523

4- 7

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
B12	TREE LINE 2	89	545
		90	547
			548
		91	549
B13	PLOWZONE	92	215
			219
			221
			222
			225
			226
			227
			228
			229
C01	NORTH RECTANGULAR FEATURE	35	428
	(35= silty clay fill)		429
		439	440
	(81= redeposited clay)	81	452
			453
			454
			455
	(82= wooden box)	82	475
			476
			477
			478
C02	SOUTH RECTANGULAR FEATURE	36	363
	(36= silty clay fill)		364
	(83= intrusion)	83	470
	(84= loamy sand)	84	471
			472
	(85= disarrayed wood)	85	473
			474
	(86= redeposited clay)	86	480
			481
	(87= small pit fill)	87	482
			483
			484
			485

4- 8

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
D01	FENCE LINE	37	342
			343
			344
		38	326
		39	423
			424
			425
			430
		40	437
			438
		41	418
			419
			426
		42	412
			413
		43	420
			421
D02	FENCE LINE 2	45	448
			449
			456
		46	358
			368
		47	370
		48	377
			378
		49	387
		50	442
			447
		51	441
			443
		52	398
			451
D03	FENCE LINE 3	44	446

4- 9

Master Context	Description	Feature	Context
D03	FENCE LINE 3	53	365
			379
		54	384
		55	489
		490
		491
		56	486
			487
		57	407
		408
		88	545

5- 1

APPENDIX 5