Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Results

Conclusions and Recommendations

The testing of both Areas I and II revealed seventeenth-century activity as well as intact eighteenth- and nineteenth-century layers and features. While both areas have been somewhat disturbed by modern activities, enough archaeological remains have survived to warrant further large-scale archaeological investigation. Given the extent of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century material, we recommend that additional large-scale excavation be conducted within the actual construction of the parking lot and sited development areas. In this way, data recovery can be tied directly to the impact area with corresponding savings in both time and money.

Description of the Project Area

The project area is located within the City of Williamsburg just northwest of Colonial Williamsburg's Historic Area. Block 31 is bounded to the north by Scotland Street, to the east by N. Henry Street, to the south by Prince George Street and to the west by N. Boundary Street. The northern part of the block consists of two empty lots, the H. M. Stryker House and the Dovell House (both owned by Colonial Williamsburg), and one private residence, all with surrounding yards. The eastern part of the block contains the Brooks House and Cottage, and the Fields House (with surrounding yards and parking areas), in addition to an alleyway entrance and a parking lot for the Crestar Bank. The southern portion of the block contains Crestar Bank's drive-through facility, a row of commercial properties, including the Sacalis and Hitchens' Buildings (some of which are owned by Colonial Williamsburg) and an alleyway entrance. (NB: Crestar Bank is now "SunTrust"). The western portion of the block consists of two office buildings (owned by the 2 Figure 1. Project area and the imposed subdivisions. College of William & Mary), the Creasy Property, and the McGregor House (all with surrounding yards), as well as an alleyway entrance and parking spaces.

The area scheduled to be impacted by the parking facility was divided into Area I and Area II in order to simplify data analysis (Figure 1). Area I encompassed two empty lots on the northwest corner of the block, fronting Scotland Street and N. Boundary Street. Area II was composed of areas owned by Colonial Williamsburg, including the center of the block, surrounded by various buildings fronting all four streets. Area II was further subdivided according to existing lot lines, creating four sub units:the Stryker Lot, the Dovell Lot, the Brooks Cottage, and the Parking Area South of the Alley. The parking area behind the Fields House, which now houses the Structures Group, was omitted from the assessment due to previous archaeological testing in September 1994. A summary of the results of the Fields House assessment is included in the "Previous Archaeology" section of this report.

Environmental Setting

The city of Williamsburg is situated on a peninsula that falls between the York and James Rivers. It sits on a ridge surrounded by a number of ravines. According to the eighteenth-century Frenchman's and Desandrouin maps, Block 31 is a level area with ravines to the north and east. Despite its elevation, this block has drainage problems, demonstrated during this and previous excavations. The nearest defined water sources are College Creek, located approximately one mile to the west, and Queens Creek, located approximately one and a half miles to the north.

Williamsburg has a temperate climate with four distinct seasons. Fall and winter tend to be mild with average temperatures falling between forty and fifty-five degrees. Spring exhibits an average temperature of fifty-five degrees with precipitation. Summer is hot and humid averaging temperatures in the nineties with increased precipitation.

Block 31's Area I and Area II exhibit a balance of green space and development. Area I is currently an undeveloped green space with a number of old growth trees that currently define old lot lines. Area II is a combination of green space and parking areas some of which are paved. This area contains a variety of old growth and new growth trees, including holly, oak, Japanese magnolia, and crepe myrtle. There are also a number of flowering and non-flowering shrubs, including boxwoods, as well as a variety of flowering and non-flowering plant life.

Research Design and Methods

Archaeology conducted on this block in 1969 and 1994 identified significant archaeological features and intact stratigraphy. Therefore, a Phase I survey of Block 31 was deemed unnecessary. Instead, a Phase II assessment was undertaken, designed to determine the extent of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and twentieth-century archaeological remains. In addition to locating these activity areas, the assessment also gauged the integrity and significance of this cultural material.

European Settlement to Society (1607-1750)

The earliest known European settlement in the vicinity of the project area was during the third and forth decades of the seventeenth century. In 1632 the House of Burgesses passed the "Act for Seating of the Middle Plantation" (Hening 1969) which called for the building of a palisade between the James and York Rivers, across what is today the City of Williamsburg. Two sections of this palisade were found-one during a Phase I survey of the proposed Second Street extension (Hunter et al. 1985) and another during the private survey of the Bruton Heights School property (Muraca et al. 1992).

During the subsequent decades of the seventeenth century, the settlement of Middle Plantation grew in population and importance. By 1676 Middle Plantation was considered consequential enough for Nathaniel Bacon to launch his rebellion there (Goodwin 1959) and by 1693 important enough to be selected as the location for Virginia's first college, the College of William & Mary. By the time the General Assembly was seriously considering moving the capital there, Middle Plantation contained "a church, an ordinary, several stores, two mills, a smith's shop, a grammar school, and above all the Colledge" (reprinted in Anonymous 1930:323-337).

In 1699 Theodorick Bland was ordered by the General Assembly to survey and lay out the new town of Williamsburg at the existing settlement of Middle Plantation. The purpose of the survey was to establish the boundaries of a new capital city for Virginia. Along with the town, two ports were included in the plan, one at Archer's Hope Creek, later known as College Creek, connecting the new city to the James River, and another at Queen's Creek, connecting the city to the York River and to Yorktown, a deep water port town established in 1691 that became Williamsburg's seaport.

Although Williamsburg was firmly established as the capital of the Virginia Colony during the first half of the eighteenth century, it remained small, with a permanent population of about 1500. As the capital, it grew enormously, if temporarily, twice yearly, during "Publick Times" when the General Assembly was in session. In spite of the growth of Williamsburg and Yorktown as commercial and cultural centers, the majority of the population remained rural throughout this period.

Colony to Nation (1750-1789)

By the mid-eighteenth century, the capital of Virginia, the largest and most prosperous English American colony, had established itself as a viable and diverse community and cultural center, although it never came to rival New York, Boston, or Philadelphia because of the rural nature of Virginia's economy. During this period, Williamsburg had a continuously operating theatre, a college, the colonies' first asylum for the insane, a host of craft industries, and taverns. The population of the town remained small, except during the great influx of people during the "Publick Times." Leaders in the move toward revolution (such as Peyton Randolph, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington) were members of the General Assembly, lived in Williamsburg, or frequently had reason to be there, making this period the most influential and exciting in Williamsburg's history.

Early National Period (1789-1830)

The effects of moving the capital from Williamsburg to Richmond became evident in the years following the revolution. Williamsburg and the Tidewater in general fell into economic decline as the population and influence centers moved westward. The surrounding counties continued their agrarian orientation and the rotation of wheat and corn crops (Rochefaucauld 1799). The short-live boom of wheat production declined sharply after the war in and with Europe came to an end. This was helped along by insect ravages and the poor quality of soil in over-farmed Tidewater (Brown et al. 1986).

Antebellum Period (1830-1860)

During this period, agriculture continued to be the predominant economic activity in the Williamsburg, James City, and York County area. Some improvement in the soil's ability to grow crops was initiated by Edmund Ruffin. Ruffin discovered that marl, a naturally-occurring outcrop of Miocene fossil shell, could be mixed with soil to mitigate its innate acidity, allowing better growing potential. Marl was an inexpensive and readily available commodity throughout the area. By 1840, wheat and corn production was up some 200% (Bruce 1932).

Industry in the mid-nineteenth century Williamsburg area included five dry goods stores, eight lumberyards, one tannery, two gristmills, a carriage manufactory, and a furniture shop. By 1860 there were fourteen mills in the area, eleven in James City and three in York County (Brown et al. 1986).

Williamsburg in 1835 consisted of 200 houses in addition to a new market house, sixteen stores, a manufactory, four mills, three tan yards, and a saddler's shop. In 1855 a new courthouse and two Baptist churches were under construction in the city (Carson 1961).

During the early nineteenth century several free black communities were established in the Williamsburg area. The most notable was Centerville, located in James City County, several miles northwest of the city. By 1850 nearly 400 free African Americans lived around Centerville, gainfully employed in agriculture and craft-related industries.

By the outbreak of the Civil War, the Williamsburg area was recovering from the economic setbacks of the late eighteenth century, both agriculturally and industrially, becoming a viable entity in Tidewater Virginia once again.

Civil War (1861-1865)

Williamsburg again became a center of activity during the first half of the Civil War as an enemy-occupied town during the Peninsula Campaign. Although no known fortifications existed within a kilometer of the project area, Fort Magruder and associated earthworks are located about three kilometers (1.8 miles) to the south.

Reconstruction and Growth (1865-1917)

The James City, York County, and Williamsburg area recovered slowly from the effects of the Civil War. Agriculture was still the basis of the economy, but the lack of slave labor changed farming practices. A large population of free blacks remained in the area, serving again as laborers on farms. While other parts of the country were experiencing a rise in industrialization, this area remained strongly agrarian. Large plantations were broken up into smaller farms, some owned by the slaves that once attended them (Brown et al. 1986).

The advent of the railroad in 1881 as an efficient method of transporting both people and commodities began to help the area out of its economic slumber, but not until well into the twentieth century. Unfortunately, highways fell into disrepair, probably into a worse state than they were in during the first part of the eighteenth century. The steamship also saw its rise in this period with regular stops in West Point, Williamsburg, Newport News, and Norfolk.

It should also be noted that the early preservation movement that was to become so important to the Williamsburg area in the next period, began with activities centered around the tercentenary of the establishment of Jamestown. The Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities was founded in 1889, the College of William & Mary re-opened in 1888, President Roosevelt called national attention to Jamestown in 1907, and the Reverend W.A.R. Goodwin restored Bruton Parish Church in 1907.

World War I to Present (1917-1996)

The Williamsburg area remained largely dependent economically on farming well into the twentieth century. In the late 1920s new industries were established that would forever change the economic landscape of the Williamsburg area-historic preservation and tourism. The restoration of Virginia's second capital through the efforts of W.A.R. Goodwin and John D. Rockefeller succeeded in bringing the area out of its economic rut, causing a great deal of growth in a relatively short time. Within the last 30 years, the small farm has all but disappeared from the landscape, being replaced by shopping centers, outlet malls, and housing developments. Tourism has become the major source of income in the area. Other 9 industries in the Williamsburg area include beer manufacturing, glass making, fibers, and a winery.

Site-Specific History

The first documented history of Block 31 begins in the seventeenth century during the Middle Plantation period. Originally part of a large tract of land, this area may have been owned by the Ludwells, then Ballard, and then by the College in 1693. A second possibility is that Block 31 was owned by Francis Page (Levy 2000). In 1699, part of this land, including what is now known as Block 31, was incorporated by the city.

In January 1720 lots 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, and 318 (Figure 3) were granted to Thomas Jones, merchant, by the Trustees of Williamsburg for £9 (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 3:322-323). Under general lease and release agreements, Jones had twenty-four months to make improvements upon the land. However, Jones failed to build upon the lots, and it was repossessed by the Trustees and granted to other individuals within a three-year period.

From 1722 onward, the block was subdivided amongst a number of people, many of whom were craftsmen in Williamsburg. In September of that year, Henry Cary, a contract builder and carpenter, was granted lots 316, 317, and 318 by the Trustees for 45 shillings (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 3:391-192). Cary was well known for many of Williamsburg's most important buildings, including the Courthouse, the Chapel and the President's House at William & Mary. Figure 3. Map showing lot locations on Block 31. 10 In February 1723, surveyor Christopher Jackson was awarded the other three lots (313, 314, and 315) by the Trustees for £3..15..0 (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 3:393-394). Both men were subject to the same building terms specified in Jones' lease and release.

Cary must have built upon lots 317 and 318, but no improvements were indicated on Lot 316, which reverted back to the Trustees. Lot 316 was next granted to David Menetrie, a bricklayer, in August 1725 for 15 shillings current Virginia money (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 3:447-448). This would have doubled Menetrie's holdings on the block since Cary sold Lot 317, "...with all the lands, profits..." to him for £10 in February 1724, eighteen months prior (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 3:414-415). Within a month of this transaction, Cary sold Lot 318 for £10 to Benjamin Harrison, planter, "...will all profits...Pasturage, woods..." (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 3:416-417). The purchase price for each lot suggests that any buildings that might have been on these lots were insubstantial.

In July 1736, 10 ½ years later, Menetrie sold his two lots to joiner James Wray for £86 current Virginia money. The selling price in addition to the deed of sale suggests that Menetrie had made substantial improvements on the property. The deed states that James Wray has "full and peaceable possession" of the land including the houses and yards upon it (York County Records, Deeds and Bonds 4:431-434). Archaeological excavations in 1969 located a main dwelling house, kitchen, and outbuildings upon the property (Department of Archaeological Research, March and April 1969). It is likely that some or all of these were standing on the property at the time of the sale.

James Wray and his wife Mary occupied these lots for fourteen years, until his death prior to March 1750. At this time, his son, also named James and also a joiner, inherited the property (Tucker-Coleman Collection). He and his wife continued to live here until 1796. There is a reference to a sale of Lot 316 to George Hughes and then to John Ratcliffe in 1775. However, in the deed, the number three hundred and sixteen is mentioned amidst a description of a land survey, but does not specify the parcel of land as Lot 316 (York County Records, Deeds 8:495-496). Considering the rest of the history of this block, it is quite probable that this deed refers to a different property.

According to the ca. 1782 Frenchman's Map and the 1781 Desandrouin map, there were ten buildings on this block in addition to a large garden (Figure 4). An advertisement posted by John Jaram in the Virginia Gazette, dated April 20, 1780, advertises that his stallion was boarded at James Wray's stable in Williamsburg. It is possible that this stable was located on Block 31 since Wray owned only one additional lot in Williamsburg at the time.

In June 1796, Wray sold his lots to Joseph Prentis, lawyer and planter. In an 1812 deed between Prentis and Henry Skipwith (the subsequent owner), reference is made to the purchase of land called, "...Wrays Lot, containing three acres of Land more, or less..." (Tucker-Coleman Collection). From this documents, it is apparent that Wray owned a large portion, if not all, of the lots on the block before the sale to Prentis. However, it is not clear as to when or how 11 Figure 4. Frenchman's and Desandrouin maps. Wray acquired this additional property because documentation for Lots 313, 314, 315, and 318 ends in 1723/4.

There is some question as to whether Wray shared ownership of Block 31 with Frances Hubard. A July 1782 deed between Hubard and the executors of Prentis's estate, in which Prentis buys Hubard's land, indicates that the land was "...in the Neighborhood of James Wray..." (York County Records, Deeds VI:146). However, there is no direct reference to lots on Block 31. Further, this deed was recorded 14 years earlier than that between Wray and Prentis, yet Hubard is not mentioned in the 1796 deed. Given this information and considering the acreage of land purchased by Prentis from Hubard, there is a compelling argument that Wray owned the entire block, and transmitted it to Joseph Prentis.

Joseph Prentis died in October 1807, leaving his estate to his sons to dispose of as they saw fit in order to settle his debts. As previously mentioned, in 1812 Block 31 was conveyed from the executors of Joseph Prentis to Henry Skipwith. However, in the deed, it states that Mr. Skipwith acquired the land, "...in Trust for the sole and separate use and Benefit of Mrs. Evelina Barbe Skipwith, now the wife of Fulwar Skipwith..." (Tucker-Coleman Collection). It is apparent that Henry Skipwith did not intend to live on the property himself.

This block was conveyed as a single unit to a number of individuals throughout the nineteenth century:Skipwith to John Goodall circa 1813, Goodall to Robert B. Randolph circa 1821, Randolph to John Gregory circa 1829, Gregory to Robert H. Armistead in 1841 (Stephenson 1961:16). In an oral history transcript entitled Recollections of Williamsburg, former resident John S. Charles notes that in the 1860s, "...The square bounded by Prince George, Scotland, Boundary and Henry Streets had no house on it, and for many years subsequent to the [Civil] War. It had no signs of ever having had a building thereon. It was known as the 'Four Acre Lot' and belonged to Colonel R. H. Armistead" (Charles 1930:8). Unfortunately, 12 there are no known records for the property between 1842 and 1886.

The next reference to ownership of the property occurs in a 1891 deed referencing the inventory of R. F. Cole's estate in 1887. The deed records that the transaction of ownership passed from Edward P. Cole, successor, to his brother Robert R. Cole (Williamsburg Deed Book #2:599-601). Cole in turn sold the block unimproved to Robert Spencer in November 1895. Within a few years, Spencer subdivided the block into multiple residential lots and sold them off. A conveyance from Spencer to Sarah E. Probasco, dated January 1899, notes the presence of the existing alleyway and states that it would be opened, "...at the discretion of the said R. L. Spencer when a sufficient number of lots have been sold from the said four acre lot" (Elliott 1975:1).

Consequently, rapid redevelopment of this area occurred. According to the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, this block was divided into fifteen lots, with all but one lot containing a structure. All were residential, many with additional outbuildings, except for two storage buildings located on the southwest corner of the block. By 1933, there were seventeen lots and seventeen main buildings. Eventually most of these properties would come under the ownership of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the College of William & Mary.

Summary of 1969 Archaeological Work

In March and April 1969, rescue archaeology was conducted at the corner of N. Henry and Prince George Streets in response to the construction of the existing banking facility. Considering time limitations, excavations were concentrated in two locations. These locations were stripped to the eighteenth-century layers by machinery and then excavated. Excavations in March revealed a large quantity of eighteenth-century artifacts in addition to "...four small outbuildings, three open drains, a drainage tunnel, an oval-shaped section of paving, and various holes for setting fence posts, planting vegetation, and depositing rubbish" (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:3). Additional excavations in April identified a kitchen foundation, a main house, a small structure predating this main house, unidentified brickwork and an oval-shaped hole dug during the French occupation of Williamsburg (DAR Monthly Report, April 1969).

The following is a detailed summary of the features found in March and April 1969:

The First Period Main House (Figure 5), measuring approximately 28'0" wide, was thought to be a structure shown on the Frenchman's Map of 1782. (This building is not the same as that labeled "conjectured main house" in Figure 6.) The building was partially intact although it had been seriously damaged by the construction of the building which houses Parlett's Card and Gift Boutique and The Book House. Intact portions of the original structure included the northeast corner and the chimney located on the east wall. Foundations indicating that the house had two additions built onto it were also found intact, although no dates were noted for these separate events. Based on the destruction rubble found along the outer northeast wall, it was thought that this house was abandoned after the 1770/1780s (DAR Monthly Report, April 1969:2-3).

Figure 5. Main dwelling house (bottom), kitchen (top), and eighteenth-century foundations and features excavated in April 1969 (DAR Monthly Report, April 1969).

The Small Structure Predating Main House, located directly underneath the second addition to the Main House, was only partially excavated. Artifacts found in the builder's trench on the interior of the building dated it after 1725/1730 (DAR Monthly Report, April 1969:3).

Feature D (Figures 5 and 6), measuring 15'0" wide and at least 22'1" feet long, was interpreted as a kitchen that predated 1781. The eastern wall of the building was not positively located, so the actual dimensions of the building were not determined. The makeup of the building included at least two ground-floor rooms, each with a fireplace. Mrs. Helen Fields, a resident on the block in the 1980s, suggested that one of these fireplaces contained two ovens, "one for cooking and one for warming" (Fields 1980:1). A brick drain was discovered in the south wall and possibly in the eastern section of the building as well. Additional brickwork was found projecting out of the northeast corner, but it did not share the same construction techniques found in the rest of the building. Its function remained undetermined (DAR Monthly Report, April 1969:1-2).

Feature C, measuring 6'6" x 5'3", consisted of "robbed wall trenches filled with brick bats" as well as an additional robber's trench adjacent to the west wall. Eighteenth-century artifacts and a rare torus-shaped brick were found in association with this building, suggesting a post-1750 deposition (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:4).

Feature A, measuring 10'0" x 6'0", consisted of brick foundations and a clay floor. Its function was not positively identified, but it was suggested that this was Figure 6. Location of eighteenth-century foundations and features excavated in March 1969 (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969). 16 the remains of a "large chimney footing." The unidentified features to the south of Feature A were possibly related (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:3).

Feature B, measuring 3'0" in diameter, was a round firebox interpreted as part of a smokehouse. The trajectory of an ash-laden ditch intersected the location of this outbuilding, linking the two features. It was thought that this ditch was used to drain water away from this outbuilding. Artifacts from both of the features dated to the eighteenth century and included tin-glazed earthenware, Chinese porcelain, German stoneware, and wine bottle glass. The artifacts suggested a post-1750 deposition date (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:3-4).

Two brick drains following the same trajectory were also found. The earliest was a subterranean vaulted brick drain measuring 1'0" wide and 1'4" high. This was an unusually small size for this sort of structure and it probably became obsolete shortly after its construction. The second drain had probably been built to replace the subterranean one. It is speculated that both of these features would have connected to a large dwelling house (designated as "Conjectured Main House" in Figure 6) (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:4-5).

Feature F was a circular hole filled with domestic refuse dating to the mid-eighteenth century. Since it was not excavated, its function was not positively determined (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:6). Speculation identified it as a well shaft used to provision livestock (Fields 1980:1; Richmond Times-Dispatch 1969).

Numerous Rubbish Pits, not indicated on the maps, yielded a large quantity of artifacts indicating a high amount of activity on the property between 1735 and 1755. These artifacts included "...three intact wine bottles, part of a rare Nailsea glass flask, a quillon block from a sword and cast from the same mold as the example found at the James Geddy site, stirrups..., a fine quality cheek piece for a bit, numerous items of cutlery, [and] the earliest (c. 1735) bone brush back yet found in Williamsburg..." ( DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:6).

E.R. 1213B, also not indicated on the site maps, was a pit containing thousands of fragments of window glass, a short length of unprepared lead used to repair casement windows, and turned leads. Turned leads were also found in additional pit features across the site, totaling approximately 30 in all (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:6). In subsequent years, it was discovered that turned leads contained information regarding their manufacturing date as well as the initials of the glazier who made them. This allowed the leads to aid in dating a site. The leads analyzed from this site indicated a date of 1746 (Ladd 2000).

Feature E.R. 1219B was an oval-shaped hole that cut the south wall of the kitchen. Since it contained French glass tumbler and wine bottle fragments, it was thought to date to the French occupation of Williamsburg in 1782 (DAR Monthly Report, April 1969:2).

Feature E consisted of a "carefully laid (without mortar) oval patch of brickwork." Its function was not determined (DAR Monthly Report, March 1969:6-7).

Summary of 1994 Archaeological Work

In September 1994, a Phase II archaeological assessment was conducted in the backyard of the Fields House on the east side of Block 31 (Figure 7). This assessment was conducted in anticipation of construction associated with the renovation of the property. A total of fourteen 75 x 75 cm test units were systematically spaced throughout the backyard. Intact stratigraphy and features were identified.

The majority of the features found in this lot were composed of various brick fills. These were located in the northeastern, northwestern and central western sections of the site. All features dated to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and represent the presence of either structures or landscaping features. One of these features, located in the northeastern portion of the site, contained an undiagnosed decorative coping brick generally associated with landscaping activity. In the central eastern area of the site was a posthole with a mix of eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth-century artifacts. It was interpreted as part of a twentieth-century storage structure.

When artifact distributions were charted out over the entire area (Figure 8), a number of patterns were identified. First, a concentration of eighteenth-century artifacts was found on the eastern half of the lot at the rear of the existing structure. This is not surprising since the Frenchman's Map of 1782 identifies three structures on the Fields property, one of which was located over the eighteenth-century artifact concentration. Second, nineteenth- and twentieth-century artifact concentrations revealed activity in the central eastern portion of the lot. Third, few artifacts were recovered in the western half of the lot, suggesting that this part of the property was not used as extensively. One last trend that was identified was a Figure 7. Location of datum point and test units in the Fields Lot backyard. 18 lack of artifacts dating to the first half of the nineteenth century, reconfirming documentary evidence suggesting that there were no standing buildings on the block before the start of the Civil War (Pickett 1994).

Figure 8. Location of eighteenth-century artifact concentration in the Fields Lot backyard.

Seventeenth-Century Occupation and Activity

Based on a concentration of artifacts, a seventeenth-century component was identified in Area I on the northwest corner of the block (Figure 9). The artifacts identifying this concentration consisted of ceramic roofing tiles (found in Units 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7) and Fulham stoneware (found in Unit 1). There were also a few ceramic roofing tile fragments found in the Dovell Lot (Units 19, 20, and 24).

Ceramic roofing tiles are often found on seventeenth-century archaeological sites such as the John Page and Nassau Street sites. The roofing tiles were flat and similar to those made in John Page's kiln, which was used in the 1660s (Muraca 2000). Also found was Fulham stoneware, a popular ceramic first manufactured during the late seventeenth century. It predated the advent of refined earthenwares and was used primarily for activities associated with food and food preparation. The location of these artifacts suggests that this seventeenth-century component extends out of the project area to the north and west.

Eighteenth-Century Occupation and Activity

From documentary and archaeological evidence, it is clear that there was an abundance of activity on this block during the eighteenth century. Intact stratigraphy was found in all testing areas. Small portions of these eighteenth-century layers were found to be impacted by nineteenth- and twentieth-century activities, but a Figure 9. Location of seventeenth-century ceramic roofing tiles and Fulham stoneware concentrations. 20 substantial eighteenth-century component still exists. By analyzing artifact concentrations, the main eighteenth-century activity areas were defined.

Three activity areas and evidence of a structure dating to the middle of the eighteenth century were identified based on artifact concentrations and features. These three activity areas did not correspond with concentrations of architectural materials such as brick or wrought nails, suggesting that these artifacts were not associated with a structure.

The three activity areas, located in Unit 31 in the Brooks Cottage Lot, Units 34 and 35 in the Parking Area South of the Alley, and Unit 23 in the Dovell Lot, were primarily identified by the presence of white salt-glazed stoneware (first manufactured in 1720) (Figure 10). Unit 31 had a number of layers and two features that were not datable due to the absence of artifacts. One of these features, found at the bottom of Unit 31, was a large, trench-like feature oriented on a north-south axis. Due to standing water, this feature could not be investigated and its function remains undetermined. Unit 23 contained an early eighteenth-century layer that sealed an unidentified round feature (Figure 11). This feature was only partially uncovered as it extended into sidewalls of the unit. Since Figure 10. Mid-eighteenth-century activity defined by the presence of white salt-glazed stoneware. 21 Figure 11. Early eighteenth-century feature, Unit 23, Dovell Lot. it contained no artifacts, its function is also unclear, but it could possibly represent a planting hole.

The remains of an eighteenth-century structure were identified in the Stryker Lot. Units 14, 15 and 16 revealed a large, circular feature composed of brick rubble and oyster shells (Figure 12). In the center of the rubble was a round area containing no bricks, similar to the size of a large building post. No traces of mortar were found on the bricks suggesting that they were used in the fill surrounding the post for added support. A complete neck of a wine bottle dating to the first quarter of the eighteenth century was found in this feature. A concentration of hand-wrought nails was also located in this area, suggesting that this may have been an early structure.

According to the location and distribution of artifact concentrations, the second half of the eighteenth century was characterized by an increase in activity and permanent occupation. Significant findings from the 1969 archaeological excavations Figure 12. Early eighteenth-century brick rubble feature, Units 14, 15, 16, Stryker Lot. 22 Figure 13. Later eighteenth-century activity identified by the presence of creamware and wrought nails. on the Wray site support this. These activity areas were primarily identified through concentrations of creamware (first manufactured in 1762) and hand-wrought nails (Figure 13).

A major artifact concentration was identified in Area I adjacent to the McGregor House's north property line. A number of wrought nails in addition to shell mortar and brick fragments found in Unit 9 suggests that there may have been a substantial structure located in this area. Directly to the west, a large concentration of creamware suggests domestic activity. This occupation area was still in use during the late eighteenth century. The Frenchman's Map of 1782 did not document a building in this area, and by the early nineteenth century, artifact concentrations diminished, implying that this area fell into disuse.

The second artifact cluster was located along the eastern section of the Dovell Lot extending across the Stryker Lot into the northeast corner of Area I. Two distinct artifact concentrations were identified. A substantial concentration appeared at the easternmost edge of the testing area. Units 22, 25, and 28 contained a number of domestic artifacts including a variety of ceramics, such as Chinese porcelain, German stonewares, and North Midland slipware, tobacco pipes, wine bottle glass, and faunal remains. Architectural remnants included nails, brick and window glass. Unit 3 in Area I represented the westernmost extent of this activity and contained artifacts similar to those found in Units 22, 25, and 28.

Unit 22 contained a squarish feature approximately 20 cm (8 in) deep that cut eighteenth-century layers and sterile subsoil (Figure 14). The extent of this feature could not be determined because it continued under both the north and east sidewalls of the excavation unit. It had no artifacts associated with it, but it was sealed by a mid-eighteenth-century soil layer (with a TPQ of 1762). Despite the shallow depth of the feature, it is possible that this it represents a structural posthole.

Due to the absence of pearlware, a late eighteenth-century ceramic, it is evident that activity in this area ended circa 1775. The 1781 Desandrouin map indicates 23 Figure 14. Mid-eighteenth-century squarish feature, Unit 22, Dovell Lot. the presence of a large garden on the northeastern portion of the block. There is a building shown at the northwest corner of this garden that could be the source of the architectural remains.

Located in the area of Unit 23 was another activity area (see Figure 13). Identified by a concentration of wrought nails and a significant amount of window glass, this area also contained domestic refuse including ceramics and a large amount of wine bottle glass. The presence of pearlware and the continued accumulation of domestic refuse, including ceramics and a large amount of bottle glass, suggests activity in this area continued until the end of the century.

A third activity area dating to the mid-eighteenth century was located in the Parking Area South of the Alley. It contained concentrations of both creamware and wrought nails. The Frenchman's Map of 1782 confirmed the presence of a building in this location. In the early eighteenth century there was little activity in this area. After 1762 a significant amount of domestic refuse indicates that this area was used more extensively. Artifacts included refined earthenwares, both German and American stoneware, Chinese porcelain, tobacco pipes, wine bottle glass, and faunal remains. Architectural debris included a large amount of window glass and brick fragments.

There was a large linear feature in Unit 39 associated with this activity area, possibly evidence of the building indicated on the Frenchman's Map (Figure 15). It covered the entire western half of the unit and contained wine bottle glass and wrought nails. The extent of this feature could not be determined because it continued under the north, west and south sidewalls of the excavation unit. The total depth of the feature was determined to be 34 cm (approximately 1 foot).

There is a good possibility that this feature extended into Unit 37. There was a significant amount of brick found in one soil layer that coincided with the depth of the linear feature in Unit 39. Unfortunately, due to standing water, this layer 24 Figure 15. Mid-eighteenth-century linear feature, Unit 39, Parking Area. could not be fully explored. However a shovel test recovered fragments of a clear, leaded glass flask-like perfume bottle. Clear leaded glass was first produced in 1676. The feature may represent a robber's trench or foundation of the building identified on the Frenchman's Map. The lack of pearlware in this area suggests that the function of this domestic area changed circa 1775, perhaps due to the sale of the property.

By the late eighteenth century, documentary evidence suggests that James Wray owned the majority of lots on this block, if not all of them. There are ten buildings identified on either the Frenchman's Map or the Desandrouin map, or both (Figure 16). These maps identify a pattern in which occupation became concentrated in the southeastern section of the block. As previously discussed, by the late eighteenth century, artifact patterns suggest that the number of activities in the area was decreasing.

Nineteenth-Century Occupation and Activity

The historical record for the nineteenth-century occupation of Block 31 is less clear than that of the eighteenth century. However, archaeological testing indicates that a number of changes were instituted early in the nineteenth century. The entire block was conveyed as one unit of land during this time period. By the early to mid nineteenth century, two new activity areas were identified using the distribution of whiteware (first manufactured in 1820). Neither overlapped with occupation and/or activity areas present in the late eighteenth century, suggesting that a restructuring of land use took place.

A major activity area was defined by a presence of both whiteware and wire nails in the Stryker Lot (Figure 17). This concentration was centered between Units 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16, with domestic and architectural refuse spreading in a northeasterly direction including Unit 19 in the Dovell Lot. Artifacts included Chinese porcelain, American and German stonewares, coarse earthenwares, lamp chimney fragments, table glass, and wine bottle glass. Architectural debris included brick, iron hardware, and window glass.

Figure 16. (Above) Details of Frenchman's map (in red) overlaid onto modern site area and (Below) Desandrouin's map overlaid with modern features of Block 31.

Some of these artifacts appeared burnt, probably because of a feature found in Unit 12 (Figure 18). This feature was a burn episode composed of three layers: a small patch of burnt clay sitting on top of coal ash and burnt soil. A small square feature, cutting sterile subsoil, was located directly underneath it. The limits of this feature were undetermined since it continued under the south and west sidewalls of the excavation unit. There was no evidence of a widespread fire, and therefore it appears that this burn episode was confined within a small area. This burn episode represents one event in time; its stratigraphy shows no evidence of continued activity. The presence of coal ash in the fill suggests that an industrial activity took place here.

An additional feature was located in Unit 19 in the Dovell Lot (Figure 19). This round feature contained brick bats and oyster shells mixed with a large quantity 26 Figure 17. Nineteenth-century activities defined by whiteware and wire nails. Figure 18. Nineteenth-century burn episode, Unit 12, Stryker Lot. of faunal remains. It was sealed by a layer dating to ca. 1850 and cut a layer dating to ca. 1830. Artifacts included wine bottle glass and architectural hardware. The extent of this feature was not determined since it continued under the north and east sidewalls of the excavation unit. Its depth was approximately 30 cm (approximately 1 foot). The function of this feature was not established.

A second activity area was located on the northwest corner of Area I encompassing Units 1 and 2. Identified by a high concentration of whiteware, this activity area was not directly associated with architectural remains. Perhaps it was used as a trash midden for the activity area just described. Although the soil layers have a mid-nineteenth-century TPQ, there is a lack of any significant mid- to late nineteenth-century material. This suggests that activities taking place here were heaviest during the early nineteenth century.

Figure 19. Mid-nineteenth-century brick and shell feature, Unit 19, Dovell Lot.

Prior to the Civil War and for years afterwards, no buildings stood on this block (Charles 1930:8). The events that caused this change are not known and it is not clear how the land was being used, if at all. Through historical documents it is clear that full-scale redevelopment of this area did not take place until the late nineteenth century, when Robert Spencer subdivided the block into small residential lots. This development coincides with the growth that took place in Williamsburg after Reconstruction.

Spencer's plan for the redevelopment of this block is still visible today. Some of the buildings built during this time period still remain as well as the alleyway. According to a Sanborn Fire Insurance map dated 1904, main dwellings were built toward the front of each property facing the main street, with support structures, such as garages or storage sheds, placed toward the back. It is apparent that lot owners on Block 31 followed this pattern. Two activity areas located toward the back of two separate lots were identified.

The first activity area was identified between Units 38 and 39 in the Parking Area South of the Alley (see Figure 17). Domestic and architectural refuse was spread over a large area including Units 35 and 41. Artifacts included German stoneware, fragments of a lamp chimney, wine bottle glass, and faunal remains. Considering the settlement patterns for the time period, the presence of a concentration of wire nails probably represents a small support structure located toward the back of a lot. The artifacts associated with it may signify trash disposal rather than domestic occupation.

A second activity area, located by a concentration of wire nails, was identified in the southwest corner of the Dovell Lot. Due to the absence of whiteware and any significant amounts of domestic refuse, coupled with its location on the back of the lot, this may represent a support structure for the 28 main dwelling house. It is probable that this structure is the garage that still exists on this lot today. There were also a number of garden features identified in the both the Stryker and Dovell Lots. Units 17, 18, 20, and 27 contained a number of square and round features. All but those found in Unit 20 coincided with existing landscaped areas.

Twentieth-Century Occupation and Activity

Various documents and maps record the twentieth-century occupation for these lots. According to the 1921 and 1933 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps there was a significant amount of development already on the properties. Almost all of the lots contained a two-story house with porches and accompanying garages and support structures behind the main house. According to the 1933 Sanborn map (Figure 20), the west corner lot in Area I was known as the John Rolfe Tavern and run as a boarding house. This map indicates that the southern half of this lot was sold and the McGregor house with accompanying support structures was built. Eventually, Colonial Williamsburg obtained the east and west lots and had the two buildings razed. The southern end of the east lot was turned into parking spaces. Both properties have remained empty.

Archaeological testing identified twentieth-century layers and features primarily associated with the destruction of these two buildings (see Figure 2). These were located in Units 2, 4, and 6. Unit 6 contained large pieces of architectural debris throughout most of the layers. Directly underneath topsoil, a clay cap sealing the destruction layer appeared. This clay cap was also identified in Units 2, 4, and 5, but only Unit 4 contained architectural debris in the layer below. Unit 4 also contained two utility trenches for sewer pipes. Another feature associated with the destruction of these buildings appeared between Units 6, 7, 9, and 10. There was a large, rectangular depression in the ground interpreted as a filled-in basement. Modern electrical utilities also appeared in this area. Unit 10 contained an irregular mix of modern fills interpreted as tip fills. The reason for this disturbance was not identified.

According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, the Stryker Lot was empty in 1921. In 1933, a two-story structure with porches and a garage was indicated. Both of these structures still exist on the property today. Units 17 and 18, located in existing landscaped areas, identified garden activity. Units 12, 14, 15, and 16 identified the depth of the existing gravel parking area and determined that it sealed intact stratigraphy. Modern electric and gas utilities were also identified but not excavated.

According to the 1921 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, a main house and a garage appeared on the Dovell Lot. Sometime after 1933, a small outbuilding used for gardening was built in the northeastern area of the backyard. All of these buildings still exist on the lot today. The yard is heavily landscaped, which was reflected in Units 21 and 27. In fact, Unit 21 was disturbed all the 29 Figure 20. 1933 Sanborn Fire Insurance map. way to subsoil, most likely due to its close proximity to a large tree. There are a few utilities in the area consisting of both active and non-active water pipes. Units 23 and 26 identified two non-active water pipes that were laid in the ground at a shallow depth. No utility trenches were associated with them. The active water pipes were avoided, and therefore the extent of their disturbance was not able to be determined.

Both the Parking Area South of the Alley and the Brooks Cottage were located on the backs of lots in the early twentieth century. Both of these areas were developed to their modern-day appearance after 1933. A thin modern clay fill sealing topsoil and intact stratigraphy was found in Units 35, 36, 37, and 38. All of these were located in the green space between parking areas. Unit 34, located in a parking area, contained gravel fill which sealed intact stratigraphy. A number of utilities, primarily located at the edges of the alley, were identified; none were encountered during excavation. However, utilities in the Brooks Cottage yard were identified in Units 29 and 30.

Research Design for Further Work

The last ten years have witnessed an explosion of new information about Williamsburg's beginning. Building on the work of John Reps (1972), Ronald Grim (1977), Kevin Kelly (1989), and Cathy Hellier (1989), historians and archaeologists have examined the development of Middle Plantation, the community that preceded Williamsburg (Metz et al. 1998; Levy 2000; McFaden et al. 1999). Starting as a collection of scattered tobacco plantations, Middle Plantation grew into a small village boasting a brick church, the College of William & Mary, several taverns, and a powder magazine. The progress of this community was suddenly disrupted in 1699, when it was selected as the home of the new capital, Williamsburg. As the new center of the colony's administration and management, Williamsburg quickly developed into Virginia's major urban center. Like other eighteenth-century planned towns, Williamsburg's layout was organized around its public institutions, including Bruton Parish Church, the College of William & Mary, the Capitol and the Governor's Palace. Lots located near these institutions were the first to sell, starting with the Capitol. Slowly, Williamsburg was completely built, expanding its original boundaries in the 1760s.

The area around Merchant's Square underwent a different type of development than the rest of the town. Most of eighteenth-century Williamsburg was purchased and built one lot at a time, creating neighborhoods that were a heterogeneous mix of social groups and professions. In contrast, the area just east of the College mostly attracted just two types of occupants. The first were wealthy professionals and government officials, who often purchased entire city blocks on which to build large "urban plantations." The second were craftsmen, who lived and for the most part plied their trades on the same property. Block 31 attracted both groups, first craftsmen and later Joseph Prentis, a lawyer and planter who purchased the entire block.

These two groups used their property in very different ways. For the wealthy, their built landscape would have looked similar to Peyton Randolph's property, only on a much larger scale. Instead of clustering their dwellings, outbuildings, work areas, and formal gardens, these individuals were able to locate their activities 31 over a much larger space. The nature of this dispersed arrangement makes finding and interpreting the structures and activity areas associated with these plantations fairly difficult. Because these urban plantations were so spread out, development plans will impact only portions of these remains. But excavation will still be important to help reveal how these gentlemen used their space as a way to communicate social standing to their peers.

The craftsmen used their property much differently. Block 31's craftsmen included Henry Cary, a contract builder and carpenter; Christopher Jackson, a surveyor; David Menetrie, a bricklayer; and James Wray, a joiner. Excavations of craft sites in other parts of Williamsburg indicates that these men probably lived and practiced their trades at the same place (in some cases even in the same structure), leaving behind the remains of both their domestic lives and their craft activities. Excavation can reveal how these men organized their space, uncover details about their particular crafts and business practices, and perhaps detail the distinctions between successful and unsuccessful enterprises.

Excavation Plan

The archaeological remains on this block are for the most part largely inaccessible. To make them accessible will require the removal of parking lots, fences, alleys, trees, and modern soil layers using large machinery. Once these obstructions are removed a more refined estimate of the cost of full excavation in the base parking area and the two ancillary areas can be developed.