Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Property History

The following property history is based on information from three research reports (Bullock 1931; McWilliams 1944; Stephenson 1956).

The first known mention of this property was in 1720, when the city trustees deeded Lots 331 and 332 to John Holloway in consideration for five shillings. The standard building clause was included, requiring that Holloway build a house on the Figure 1. Present-day view of Deane Garden from the east, with Deane House and Kitchen in background. Photo K62-JC-176. Figure 2. Deane Garden with brick paths separating planted areas. Photo 49-W-575. 4 premises within 24 months or the property would be escheated. Since there is no record that the land was forfeited, it is assumed that Holloway built a structure in the required time.

No further mention was made of the property until 1759, when Lots 331 and 332, along with Lots 329 and 330 (to the west), were sold to Dr. William Carter. Immediately before this time the land was apparently owned by Colonel John Chiswell. Chiswell was a member of the House of Burgesses until 1758, but in 1759 he and several partners discovered a lead mine in Augusta County. He went to England to negotiate a deal, and apparently was by then ready to sell his Williamsburg property. In any case, his son-in-law, Speaker of the House of Burgesses John Robinson, appears on a 1759 deed transferring the land to Carter.

The next mention of the land was in 1761, when Dr. Carter got into a dispute with his neighbor to the north, Robert Carter of Nomini Hall. William Carter claimed a certain amount of land on the north side of Robert Carter's palings, but for a consideration of five shillings was persuaded to abandon his claim.

Dr. Carter mortgaged his property in June 1767 to his brothers, surgeon James Carter and merchant John Carter. In this deed he granted to them "All those four Lots of ground in Palace Street in the city of Williamsburg whereon the said William now lives…" (York County Records, Deed Book VII:300). This is the first definite mention that William Carter was actually living on the property.

A fire in Dr. Carter's stable in July of that same year was reported in the Virginia Gazette (Purdie & Dixon, July 30, 1767). Apparently only the stable was destroyed, since fortunately there was little wind on that evening.

In late 1768 Dr. Carter offered his house for sale (Virginia Gazette, Purdie & Dixon, December 15, 1768):

"To be sold, on very reasonable Terms, for Cash, or on 3 or 4 years credit, paying Interest for the Money. The Dwelling-House in Palace street, with four Lots of Ground, well enclosed, and in good repair where the subscriber now lives. There is no situation in this city superior to it, for pleasantness and convenience.
WILLIAM CARTER"

Carter does not seem to have been able to sell his "superior" property until 1772, when coachmaker Elkanah Deane purchased it for 700 pounds (York County Records, Deed Book VIII: 238). Deane, apprenticed in Dublin to noted coachmaker 5 Joseph Carncross, had previously worked in Ireland and New York. Somewhat famous in his own right, he boasted that he "had the Honour of making a Coach, Phaeton, and Chaise, for his Excellency the Right Honourable the Earl of Dunmore" (Virginia Gazette, William Rind, June 17, 1772).

When he bought the property he began advertising for Customers. He stated that he proposed "to make and repair all sorts of coaches, landaus, chariots, postchaises, curricles, chaises, and chairs with harness of every sort. Also steel springs, and iron work of every kind, relative to the coachmaking trade. Likewise painting, gilding, and japanning" (Virginia Gazette, William Rind, May 21, 1772). In addition, he had "two or three spare rooms, [where he] would be glad to accommodate Gentlemen with private lodgings" (Virginia Gazette, William Rind, May 21, 1772).

Another coachmaker in town, Peter Hardy, once worked for Deane but soon became a bitter rival. He began referring to Deane as "an Hiberian cottager" and "the Palace Street Puffer" (Virginia Gazette, Clementina Rind, October 28; November 11; November 18; December 2, 1773).

When Deane died around October of 1775, his widow Elizabeth offered the property for sale. In this advertisement (Virginia Gazette, John Pinkney, October 26, 1775), she states:

"To be SOLD or RENTED, The HOUSES and LOTS of the late Elkanah Deane, pleasantly situated in Palace street, in this city. There is a well of good water in the lot belonging to the dwelling-house, and a fine garden and pasture at the back of the same, all well paled in; also several springs and a run of water throughout the land. The houses are in good repair, and some of them but lately built. And on Tuesday the 7th of next month will be sold, for ready money, the HOUSHOLD [sic] and KITCHEN FURNITURE, a large quantity of coachmakers, joiners, and blacksmiths TOOLS. There are on hand, and will be sold, very cheap, for cash, an elegant PHAETON, single and double CHAIRS of several sorts, finished in the best manner. All persons indebted to the said estate are requested to make immediate payment; and all those whose accounts are not settled at the next meeting of the merchants, it is expected will give bond. Those also who have demands against it are desired Immediately to bring in their account to the subscriber, who is authorized to settle the same.
ELIZABETH DEANE"

6

This advertisement is the first mention of Deane's garden, described here as "a fine garden and pasture ..., all well paled in."

Deane's personal property was apparently sold for 240 Pounds, which was "collected and feloniously carried off" by Elkanah's brother William Deane (Virginia Gazette, Dixon & Hunter, December 13, 1776). Several craftsmen soon occupied the property, though the widow apparently retained the house. Saddler Edmund Roberts was there in 1775, coachmaker William Holliday in 1776, and coachmaker Samuel Bell and coach painter Campbell Thomsen were there jointly in 1777.

Elizabeth Deane died by 1797, and the house apparently disappeared by 1806, as an insurance policy of that date describes the George Wythe House "between the Lott of Robert Saunders and the [Bruton Parish] Church Yard" (Mutual Assurance Society of Richmond, Policy #706, Henry Skipwith [insured]). In fact, the Wythe House now lies between the reconstructed Deane House and Bruton Parish Church, with the Saunders (formerly Robert Carter) House farther to the north. However, if the old Deane House had been torn down in 1806, then the policy would be correct.

Little is known about the property after that until 1847, when Robert Saunders, Jr. (owner of the former Robert Carter property to the north) had acquired the Deane lots as well. The Deane House apparently had not been rebuilt, since descriptions say that the only residence on the property at this time was the Saunders-Dinwiddie House, the former home of Robert Carter on the northeast part of the block.

At the time of the Restoration the former Deane property was occupied by at least three buildings: the First Presbyterian Church, the Merritt Foster Bungalow, and the L.S. Foster Bungalow (Figure 4). The Presbyterian Church stood along Prince George Street just west of the now-buried foundation of the Deane House, while the two frame-constructed Foster bungalows stood farther to the west along Prince George Street, between the Presbyterian Church and the buried foundations of Deane's Forge.

Previous Archaeology

In 1931 Herbert Ragland excavated several lots in this area: the Presbyterian Church Lot, the southern Calhoun Lot, the northern Calhoun Lot, and the western Foster Lot (see Figure 5). This was designated Block 30, Archaeological Area B. The Church was wrecked on March 10, 1931, and no structures were left standing in this area. The lots on which the two Foster bungalows still stood, and on which the garden has been reconstructed, were not excavated at this time.

Figure 4. Todd & Brown photos of Presbyterian Church (T-B 770), Merritt Foster Bungalow (T-B 771), and L.S. Foster Bungalow (T-B 772).

9

Unlike many other excavated areas, Ragland not write an archaeological report for these properties. A map, however, was prepared by draftsman James M. Knight on August 27, 1931. This map depicted at least nine brick foundations, described on the appended feature forms. The Deane House foundation (labelled A-1) was located at the corner of Prince George and Palace Streets (Figures 6 and 7). The Deane Kitchen foundation, labelled A-3, was located about 30 feet west of this structure (Figure 8), and a well, labelled C, was found some 56 feet to the northwest. Two post-colonial foundations, labelled A-4 and A-5, were located about 45 feet west of the Deane House, slightly south of the kitchen foundation (Figure 9). Neither of these foundations was identified, but A-4 appears to be a squarish 20 foot wide structure with a chimney or firebox on the north wall, while A-5 (which post-dates A-4) is the west wall of' a small outbuilding with at least one interior partition.

The foundation of the Presbyterian Church was also located in this area, some 15 feet west of the Deane House. An earlier foundation to this Church, on Palace Street some 8 feet north of the Deane House, was also located.

On the western Foster Lot, Ragland found the foundation of a shop, labelled B-1, which was at least 16 by 20 feet in size with a firebox on the interior of the west wall (Figures 10 and 11). A fallen piece of brick wall was located just west of this foundation, and a 5 by 7 foot firebox, labelled B-2, was found just west of this fallen wall.

Field notes and photographs make it appear that some 8-10 inches of dirt was removed over most of the excavated area, enough to expose the first two or three courses of brick foundations. Interior fill was left within the Deane Kitchen and the Deane Shop and Forge. At least nine courses of brick were exposed on the interior of the Deane House. A screen shown in the background on photo N1216 suggests that at least some dirt was sifted.

The area where the garden actually now stands was probably excavated somewhat later, after the Foster bungalows were torn down. There is no archaeological report on this project either, and no map of this part of the property has been drawn. James Knight (pers. comm. 1985) believes that the lots were cross-trenched, but since no old structural remains were found the area was not individually mapped. The modern foundations of the Foster bungalows may have been discovered but not drawn.

Figure 6. Elkanah Deane House foundation. Photo N944.

Figure 7. Elkanah Deane House foundation. Photo N945.

Figure 8. Elkanah Deane Kitchen foundation. Note screen on spoil heap in background. Photo N1216.

Figure 9. Foundations of outbuildings A-4 and A-5. Second foundation of Presbyterian Church on left and lower right. Photo N1215.

Figure 10. Elkanah Deane Forge foundation and fallen wall. Photo N1214.

Figure 11. Elkanah Deane Forge foundation and fallen wall. Photo N1218.

15

Map Research

According to extant 18th century maps, at least six structures were located on or near the property. The Frenchman's Map (1782) shows the location of the Deane House and Forge, along with four other outbuildings north and west of the garden (Figures 12 and 13). No structures are shown within the boundaries of what is now the garden. The Desandrouins Map (1782) shows only a large rectangular "bland block" and three northern outbuildings which are also shown on the Frenchman's Map (Figure 14). No detail within the large rectangular area is provided. The Berthier Map similarly shows only a large bland block, but on this map even the northern outbuildings are not shown (Figure 15).

This information was the basis for the reconstruction of six buildings: the Deane House, the Deane Shop and Forge, the Deane Servant's Quarters, the Robert Carter Stable, the Robert Carter Chariot House, and the Robert Carter Meat House. None of these maps, however, habitually show smaller outbuildings such as wells and privies, so this evidence does not rule out the possibility of smaller structures on the part of the property on which nothing was shown, nor does it rule out the possibility of larger structures which were burnt or torn down before the maps were drawn.

Reconstruction

Seven buildings were reconstructed on the Elkanah Deane property. The Deane House (Bldg. 1-A), Deane Kitchen (Bldg. 1-B), and Deane Forge (Bldg. 1-C) were reconstructed on their original foundations, while the Deane West Privy (Bldg. 1-G), East Privy (Bldg. 1-F), Well (Bldg. 1-D), and Woodshed (Bldg. 1-H) were placed in the reconstructed garden despite the lack of any archaeological evidence for their exact locations. Three post-supported wooden shelters were also built: Deane Forge Shelter (Bldg. 1-K), Deane Bee Skep Shelter (Bldg. 1-J), and Deane Craft Shelter (Bldg. 1-L). The well actually located archaeologically, lying northwest of the Deane House, was not reconstructed.

The decision to place the garden along Prince George Street was vigorously debated in the 1930s. The plan at first was to build it north of the Deane House across from Palace Green. In a letter dated December 1, 1937, landscape architect Arthur Shurcliff describes this plan and reiterates his support for it (Letter from Shurcliff to Kenneth Chorley, December 1, 1937). Documentation was later found, however, that Deane's garden was actually in back of the house (Letter from Shurcliff to Chorley, March 2, 1938). Shurcliff's "Plan 2" was then adopted, placing the garden along Prince George Street on the axial line of the Deane House.

Figure 12. Blow-up of relevant portion of Frenchman's Map, compared with 18th century foundations found by Ragland.
Present-day garden location is at bottom center of each map. From McWilliams 1944: Illustration # 1.

Figure 13.

Figure 14. Desandrouins Map.

Figure 15. Berthier Map.

20

No record of the reconstruction of this garden could be found. But according to Donald Parker (pers. comm. 1985), the brick walks were probably put in before the planting was actually done. If the area was not graded first, only the top four inches of soil would be disturbed when the walkways were put in place. The plating beds would normally have been dug only a few inches deeper, to about eight to ten inches below grade. When Shurcliff described his specifications for this particular garden, however, he suggested that the garden soil be prepared "deeper ... than usual" to cut down on unnecessary maintenance (Letter from Shurcliff to E.R. Holland, Jr., February 18, 1938). This suggests that any shallow archaeological features that may have been present in the planting area may now be destroyed, and that only fairly deep archaeological features could have survived.

Archaeological Potential—Garden

It is fairly difficult to establish the archaeological potential of this area, since the extent of excavation and the methods used in reconstructing the garden are unclear.

Any unexcavated sections are valuable since they presumably contains fairly intact stratigraphic layers that may be helpful in evaluating the 18th century landscape. No major structures appear in this area on late 18th century maps, but smaller structures such as wells, privies, dairies, and smokehouses were often omitted from such maps. Non-structural evidence for Deane's "fine gardens" may also be present, including fence postholes, planting beds, and garden walkways.

The archaeology may help to determine whether the garden was ever even on Prince George Street. Shurcliff at first believed that it was located north of the house, in the area where a well was in fact discovered (foundation "C" on the archaeological base map). Evidence for placing the garden along Prince George Street consists almost solely of the mysterious document describing the garden as "in back of the house." Thus, while the reconstruction of the garden may well be accurate, there is no certainty until garden remains are discovered on this part of the property.

However, recent disturbances have acted to reduce the potential for significant archaeological remains. The two frame structures owned by the Fosters stood on the site until the 1930s, as did the large First Presbyterian Church. While the footings of these structures were probably shallow, some land disturbances must have resulted from their construction, use, and destruction.

21

The reconstruction of the garden was apparently accompanied by unusually deep preparation of the soil, probably destroying shallow archaeological features in the planted area. Only the areas under the brick paths appear to have been unaffected.

The areas under the brick paths therefore are likely to contain the best remaining evidence for the actual 18th century use of this part of the property. No structural remains are anticipated, but garden features and perhaps partial stratigraphic layers might be discovered.

It is recommended that the first step of investigation be the excavation of a small test unit beneath one of the brick walks. This will help to make clear whether there can be any reasonable expectation of useful archaeological remains. A more extensive investigation, if remains are encountered, should probably include parts of the planted area as well, since deep archaeological features may still have left traces even if the top foot of soil has been disturbed.

22

References

Bullock, Helen

1931

Elkanah Deane or Carter House: Block 30, sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Colonial Lots # 329, 330, 331, & 332. Research report on file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Va.

McWilliams, Mary E.

1944

Elkanah Deane House and Shop: Block 30, Lots # 329, #330, #331, #332. Research report on file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Va.

Mutual Assurance Society of Richmond

1806

Policy No. 706, issued to Henry Skipwith. Policy on file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Va.

Stephenson, Mary

1956

Elkanah Deane House & Shop: Block 30, Colonial Lots 329, 330, 331, 332. Research report on file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Va.

23

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK 30-B

24

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

25

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

26

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

27

28

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

29

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

30

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

31

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

32

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

33

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

34

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

35

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

36

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

37

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

38

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

39

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B

40

SUMMARY SHEET—KNOWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES BLOCK, 30-B