Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Recommendations

As it is likely that significant portions, and in some cases almost the entirety, of these sites are located beneath the present Visitor Center complex and parking lots, it is recommended that archaeological monitoring take place during all phases of the proposed renovations. It is quite possible that the construction of the parking lot has obliterated the remains of these sites. If, however, features relating to these or other sites are uncovered during the process of renovation, it is recommended that Phase III excavations be conducted prior to completion of said renovations.

Introduction

Figure 1. General location of project area.

From March 17 through April 22, 1999, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation's Department of Archaeological Research (D.A.R.) conducted a Phase II assessment of portions of the Visitor Center Property (Figures 1 and 2). The project was undertaken in order to establish the integrity, boundaries, and significance of four potential sites identified during the 1998 Phase I survey of the property (Gilmore 1998). The Phase I survey was conducted in order to identify potential sites that may be negatively impacted by the proposed renovation of the Colonial Williamsburg Visitor Center. Gilmore (1998) classified these sites as having both historic and prehistoric components and theorized that the historic components were most likely related to nineteenth-century farmsteads.

The Phase II assessment focused on areas which had turned up positive shovel tests during the Phase I. Phase II excavations substantiated the Phase I conclusions, indicating that there were indeed four sites within the project area. Unfortunately, in each case excavations appear to have uncovered only the peripheral portions of the sites. The topography consists of a large terrace with gently sloping sides. It is likely that the core portions of 2 Figure 2. Close-up of project area. these sites are located in areas that serve as parking lots for the Visitor Center complex, the Group Arrivals facilities, and the YMCA Child Development Center. The majority of information regarding these sites has no doubt been buried beneath these buildings and their parking facilities, leaving only a fringe of artifact scatter at the outermost edges of the plateau and on the slopes leading down from the terrace.

Environmental Setting

Each of the four areas investigated during this survey warrants specific environmental description. Site 1, located northeast of the Child Care Center parking lot, slopes gently toward the northeast into a ravine and then up onto a narrow terrace of land running north to south. Vegetation included mature deciduous and coniferous forest. The area has been plowed and was a friable sandy loam.

Both Sites 2 and 3 are located south of the Group Arrivals Building facilities and are bounded on the northwest, west and southwest with a ravine and stream. A picnic area and associated shelter were located near the southern end of the tested area. The soil in this area had been plowed. Vegetation consisted of a mature deciduous forest toward the north while a mature pine forest grew toward the southern end of the area. A ten-centimeter-thick pine needle mat covered a friable sandy loam soil matrix under the pine forest.

Site 4 is wooded with a mature growth of pine, live oak, and American holly along with moderate secondary vegetation. Soils consist of friable sandy clay loam and sandy clay subsoil. The area lay upon a terrace bounded by the Blue Parking Lot perimeter road to the north and a rugged slope that descends toward the Colonial Parkway toward the south.

Prehistoric Overview

Native American culture, prior to European contact, can be divided into three main periods: the Paleoindian period, the Archaic period, and the Woodland period. The Paleoindian stage of cultural development lasted from 12,000-10,000 BP (years before present). The Archaic stage lasted from 10,000-3200 BP and is subdivided into three separate stages of cultural development. These are: Early Archaic (10,000-8500 BP), Middle Archaic (8500-5000 BP), and Late Archaic (5000-3200 BP). The Woodland period lasted from 3200-400 BP and is also subdivided into three cultural stages. These are: Early Woodland (3200-2500 BP), Middle Woodland (2500-1100 BP), and Late Woodland (1100-400 BP). Each of these stages of Native American prehistory are marked by notable socio-cultural and material changes.

Historical Overview

The office of the governor of Virginia during the seventeenth and eighteenth-centuries embodied several attractive perquisites, not the least of which was the landed estate that came with the office. Three thousand acres near Jamestown were set aside in 1618 by the Virginia Company to provide income and a residence for Governor Yeardley and his successors. The governor lived on part of the land while the remainder was rented to provide valuable revenue to the governor throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth-centuries until the Revolution.

The governor's residence was moved to Williamsburg shortly after the new capital was constructed on the site of Middle Plantation in 1699. The Governor's Palace was built on a seventy-five acre tract partly in the city and partly in York County. The combined income from the Governor's Land and this parcel was more than adequate to support the residence and office of the Governor. In 1768, eighty-seven additional acres were purchased from the estate of Lieutenant Governor Francis Fauquier. This parcel consisted of two parcels including fifty-two acres, acquired in January 1760 from John and Elizabeth Ferguson, and a thirty-five acre parcel acquired in May 1760 from Mathew Moody. Two hundred additional acres were added during the tenures of Lords Botetourt and Dunmore. By 1775, over three hundred sixty-four acres comprised the Palace Lands adjacent to Williamsburg. The College of William & Mary acquired both the Governor's Lands and the Palace Lands through an act of the General Assembly in 1784. By 1786, Edmund Randolph had acquired the Palace Lands through an unrecorded transaction and by 1790 the land had reverted back to the College. The Rev. Dr. Samuel Smith McCroskey purchased the three-hundred sixty-four acre Palace Lands tract from the College in June 1790. Rev. McCroskey served as Rector of Hungais Parish in Northhampton County from 1774 until his death in 1803 (Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 9: 298).

The history of the Palace Lands during the nineteenth-century revolves around a succession of doctors, lawyers, and professors who resided in and outside Williamsburg. Using the Palace Lands Papers (1815-1866), a chain of title can be traced for this century. Robert F. N. Smith administrated the estate of Rev. Dr. McCroskey in 1815. Robert Saunders acquired the tract including all buildings at auction from the McCroskey estate for $11.50 an acre in 1816. The parcel was evidently passed on to his son Robert and his wife Lucy (daughter of Governor John Page) as they sold it to John and Amanda Gregory in 1838 for $3,000. As the son Robert was only eleven years old when his family acquired the land in 1816, the land was passed it to him when he reached a more mature age. In 1833, Robert Saunders (the son) was made a professor of mathematics at William and 11 Mary and in 1847 he was made president pro tem. He also served as the head of the Eastern State Lunatic Asylum prior to the Civil War (Tyler 1915:217). John M. Gregory graduated from William & Mary with a law degree in 1830. He served James City County in the House of Delegates until 1841 when he was elected to the Council of State. He became lieutenant-governor in 1842 and acting governor in 1843. Gregory was appointed a district attorney and then Circuit Court judge in succeeding years. He retired from public service in 1880 and died in Williamsburg in 1888. The Gregorys sold the Palace Lands for $3,300 to Dr. Samuel S. Griffin in July 1841. Apparently, Dr. Griffin sold the Palace Lands parcel to Dr. Van F. Garrett sometime prior to 1866 as a deed of life interest for a house in the tract was acquired by Lovey T. Jackson from Dr. Garrett in that year. Dr. Garrett was one of the Directors of the Eastern State Asylum and served as President of pro tempore of its board during this time (Calendar of State Papers 1893:483). In 1904, the Southern Land Company received the Palace Lands (now called Garrett Farm) from Dr. Garrett for $5,000 (Palace Lands Papers 1815-1866, 1904).

The project area is included in the original seventy-five acre tract acquired by the Governor's Council in 1700. Only one site located thus far dates to the eighteenth-century occupation of the property. Three other historical sites relate to the early nineteenth-century ownership by the Saunders family. Documentary evidence indicates that these lands were used as pasturage, orchards, and farms. During the eighteenth-century the land was known as "the park" (Gibbs 1980:5). The 1781 Desandrouins map depicts ravines, woodlands, cleared areas and some roads and outbuildings. It is highly likely that the property owners during the eighteenth century leased the land to others or had slaves farm parts of the land to support the governor's household. The property owners during the nineteenth century probably leased the property to farmers.

Previous Archaeology

Site 44WB90 was identified during the June 1996 Phase I survey of eighteen acres behind the Colonial Williamsburg Visitor Center. Phase II and III investigations identified the site as a slave quarter associated with the Palace Lands. An irregularly-shaped feature with burnt clay and brick in its fill and an English-bond brick hearth and associated robber's trench were uncovered during investigations. Phase III investigations at site 44WB90 have taken place during the summers of 1998 and 1999.

A Phase I survey was conducted in the fall of 1998, covering areas of the Visitor Center Complex not tested during the 1996 Phase I. During the course of the 1998 Phase I survey five potential sites, most with both historic and prehistoric components, were located. This Phase II is an attempt to better understand four of these sites which may potentially be impacted by renovations to the Visitor Center complex.

Research Goals

The research design for this Phase II investigation was based on findings from the 1998 Phase I survey. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Phase II assessment attempted to define spatial and temporal boundaries of four previously identified sites. Additionally, the Phase II intended to evaluate the integrity and significance of the four sites.

Field Methods

Testing consisted of systematically placing 75x75-cm-square test units at ten-meter intervals within the areas previously designated as potential sites. In areas of higher artifact concentrations, intervals were collapsed to every five meters. Units were placed on the grid established during the Phase I survey. All units were assigned coordinates for their northwest corner with respect to the original datum point, 1000N/1000E.

A total of fifty-six 75x75-cm units and sixteen shovel test were placed across the project area. All units were excavated using shovels and hand trowels. Soil removed from the units was sifted through a ¼-inch hard wire mesh screen. Units were excavated following the natural stratigraphy of the soil. The majority of units had been heavily plowed; thereby mixing the stratigraphy into what is referred to as plowzone. All units were excavated to the level of subsoil, which was then examined for cultural intrusions.

Each layer was assigned an individual context number. Artifacts from each context were bagged accordingly. An Archaeological Context Record was entered into an on-site palmtop computer for each context. Information regarding the artifacts, soil layers, and cultural remains was included in each record. At the end of each day, information from the palmtop was downloaded into the DAR's database, Re:Discovery. Typical stratigraphic profiles were recorded for each excavation area. The location of each test unit was located on a site map. Information from context records and plan and profile maps were used to identify and analyze layers, features, and artifact concentrations.

Laboratory Methods

All artifacts recovered during the excavation were sent to the DAR's archaeology lab for processing and analysis. Artifacts were washed, identified, and inventoried, by context. Each context was assigned a terminus post quem (TPQ) date when possible. The TPQ date establishes the earliest date at which an archaeological layer, feature, or artifact assemblage could have been deposited. This date is always based on the artifact with the most recent initial date of manufacture. Artifacts were inventoried by ware type with all important functional and morphological characteristics noted. All of the documentation and artifacts recovered during the excavation are stored at the D.A.R. Laboratory.

Extensive plowing of the excavation area, along with soil erosion, had mixed modern with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century layers. TPQs were thus often much later than the occupation period on which the excavation focused. This was taken into consideration when interpreting both laboratory and field data.

Site 1 (Figure 3)

Site 1 had a relatively uniform and a straight forward stratigraphic profile (Figure 4). A thin layer of topsoil was followed by a layer of plowzone roughly 20 cm deep. Artifacts recovered included a gunflint, white salt-glazed stoneware, wine bottle glass, pearlware, nails, and delftware. Artifacts were scattered in low concentrations across the assessment area. No cultural features were uncovered.

Site 1 is located on a south-north slope. It is probable that the artifacts recovered were transported from the Visitor Center terrace along with eroding soil and then plowed. This leads to the conclusion that the site itself is actually located on the terrace under the employee parking lot and that the artifacts recovered were originally located in this area.

Site 1 appears to have been a domestic site. However, without features and with so few artifacts present, a more exact determination of the type of domestic site (e.g., slave Figure 3. Plan view of Site 1. Figure 4. Profile map of test unit 881/1115 15 quarter, tenant farm, or middling farmstead) is impossible. Brick concentrations were low and may have been from a foundation, hearth, or brick home.

Site 2 (Figure 5)

Site 2 contained both historic and prehistoric components. Artifacts from both occupation periods had been plowed together. The stratigraphic profile was similar to that at Site 1 and was relatively uniform across the site (Figure 6). Roughly 10 cm of topsoil sealed 20 cm of plowzone which came down on sterile subsoil. The only features uncovered were scars made by plows, again confirming that the area was extensively plowed.

Figure 5. Plan view of Site 2.

Figure 6. Profile map of test unit 1089/1061.

Historic artifacts included cut nails, wine bottle glass, and brick. Concentrations were light across the tested area, with the majority of test units yielding no finds. Any conclusions drawn about the nature of the site would be shaky, as so little evidence was uncovered. However, the presence of historic artifacts does argue for human occupation of the area during the eighteenth and/or nineteenth centuries. The assessed area lies on the southernmost edge of the terrace and is most likely on the periphery of a larger site, whose features and denser artifact concentrations lie below the employee parking lot.

Prehistoric artifacts recovered include quartzite debitage, a projectile point, worked flakes, fire-cracked rock, and net-pressed ceramic. Finds indicate that the site was occupied 16 by Native Americans during the Early Woodland period (3200-2500 BP), when sand tempered ceramic first came into use on the Virginia Peninsula. During this period native Virginians lived in small semi-permanent camps while utilizing outlying camps for hunting and gathering forays. Site one represents one of these temporary procurement sites. Fire cracked rock indicates more than a passing presence, while light artifact scatter points to the site's ephemeral nature leading to its classification as a procurement site rather than a more permanent base camp.

Site 3 (Figure 7)

Like Site 2, Site 3 contained both historic and prehistoric components and had been heavily plowed, providing for a straightforward stratigraphic profile (Figure 8). Historic artifacts point to a late eighteenth/ early nineteenth-century occupation period and include wine bottle glass, creamware, whiteware, pearlware, mochaware, window glass, and nails. Located on a north-south slope at the southwest edge of the Visitor Center terrace, this site, like Site 1, was most likely subject to erosion, causing artifacts to move from the terrace itself down the slope. Since artifact concentrations were much heavier in this area than at site one, site three was likely closer to the core of its larger site. The core of Site 3 Figure 7. Plan view of Site 3. Figure 8. Profile map of test unit 850/1040. 17 is most likely located below the Group Arrivals Building complex and the picnic area restrooms.

Historic artifacts recovered during excavations again point to a domestic site. However, without architectural remains (foundations, postholes, etc.) the status of the occupant/occupants is difficult to determine. By the nineteenth century, ceramic type is less of a status indicator, as similar assemblages may be found on both planter-class estates and slave quarter sites. Quantity is much more helpful in determining status. However, with the core of the site unavailable for examination and the assessed area lying on a slope, actual artifact quantity is unclear as is the nature of the site itself.

Prehistoric finds included coil-built, net-pressed, sand-tempered ceramic, a projectile point, and worked quartzite flakes. Like Site 2, this represents an Early Woodland procurement camp, most likely seasonal in nature.

Site 4 (Figure 9)

Site 4 revealed evidence of both an historic and prehistoric occupation. As previously stated, much of Site 4 is on National Park Service property and could not be tested. This severely limits the conclusions that can be drawn as to the nature of the site. The stratigraphic profile consisted of thin topsoil followed by 20-30 cm of plowzone, although in several cases all natural stratigraphy had been stripped away and replaced with clay fill during the road construction process (Figure 10). Historic artifacts included whiteware, Figure 9. Plan view of Site 4. Figure 10. Profile map of test unit 507/540. 18 creamware, pearlware, nails, wine bottle and window glass, and brick. No cultural features were uncovered. Like the previously discussed sites, Site 4 was also most likely a domestic site, with the same limitations preventing further analysis of the site. Only two pieces of quartzite debitage relating to the prehistoric era were uncovered and do not provide enough data to accurately place the site either temporally or culturally.

Summary

This Phase II assessment was conducted in order to establish the significance, boundaries, and integrity of four sites identified during a Phase I survey of the area conducted in September/October 1998. Although the construction of the Visitor Center Complex had obviously destroyed much of the terrace stratigraphy, it was hoped that enough information remained on the periphery to adequately identify and analyze the four sites.

With this goal in mind, fifty-six 75-cm-square test units and sixteen round shovel tests were placed within the areas previously identified as potential sites. Although these units turned up both historic and prehistoric artifacts in quantities sufficient to indicate long-term human occupation, not enough data was left to draw any substantial conclusions. No cultural features were located to indicate the types of structures that may have comprised the four sites. These features, along with the artifact concentrations that would be grouped around them, are destroyed by the Visitor Center and buried beneath its surrounding roads and parking lots. Whether anything survived the construction process has yet to be determined.

Recommendations

As significant portions of these sites are located beneath the present Visitor Center complex, it is recommended that archaeological monitoring take place during all phases of the proposed renovations. It is likely that the construction of the complex has obliterated the remains of the sites. If, however, features relating to these or other sites are uncovered during the renovation process, it is recommended that large-scale excavations be conducted prior to the completion of said renovations.