Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

The Seventeenth Century

In 1693 the College of William and Mary was chartered by King William and Queen Mary, who endowed the newly-created educational institution with 20,000 acres of land. The monarchs also contributed public revenues (such as duties upon exported skins, furs tobacco, and imported liquors) toward its construction and support. The college, whose faculty was to consist of a president and six masters or professors, was to have a grammar school, a philosophical school, and a divinity school. One of the main goals in Page 17 establishing the college was to educate clergymen, who were then in short supply in the colony (Hartwell et al. 1964:69-70; Beverley 1947:265).

The main building of the College of William and Mary was constructed upon 330 acres that were purchased from Thomas Ballard on December 20, 1693, land that lay to the west of "the church now standing in Middle Plantation old fields." The property extended to Archer's Hope Swamp (at the head of College Creek) and straddled the forerunners of Richmond and Jamestown Roads. A plat that was made for Thomas Ludwell in 1678 defines the boundaries of the tract at the time it was conveyed to Thomas Ballard. In 1694 the college property's boundary stones were set out, two of which still survive (Kale 1985:20; Kornwolf 1989:35-36, 67).

Some scholars believe that the college's central building and gardens were designed in England by the Office of Public Works, with the assistance of Christopher Wren. By 1694 a grammar school was opened "in a little School-House" close to the site where the main building was to be erected. In August 1695 the first bricks were laid for what eventually became known as the Wren Building. Construction proceeded haltingly during 1696 and 1697 (Beverley 1947:265-266; Hartwell et al. 1964:69-70; Kornwolf 1989:33-37).

From the beginning, there was concern that the college being built would be properly landscaped. In May 1694 John Evelyn sent a letter to John Walker, discussing the matter. He indicated that George London, the king's gardener, had sent "an ingenious servant of his" named James Road to Virginia. Road was supposed "to make and plant the Garden, designed for the new Colledge, newly built in yr Country; & likewise enquire out, what plants, rare in this Kingdome, may be transported thither." Thus, he apparently went to Virginia with plans for the gardens designed for the new college. When Roads returned to England, he was supposed to bring American plant specimens that he collected. Scholars have noted that James Road's master, George London, was responsible for the landscape design at Hampton Court, a Tudor palace that was being improved under the direction of Sir Christopher Wren (Godson et al. I:30, 34, 75; Bourne 1970:27).

In 1697 the grammar school reportedly was "in a thriving way" and the main college building was said to be "carry'd up one Half of the design'd Quadrangle" (Hartwell et al. 1964:71). Theodorick Bland's 1699 drawing of Williamsburg and Princess Anne's and Queen Mary's Ports indicates that the Wren Building was then L-shaped. Bland's rendering indicates that only the north and east sides of the structure were complete. A student in May 1699 made reference to the college's kitchen, buttery, gardens, and woods. By midyear the Wren Building also was ready for use (Reps 1972:142, 150; Tyler 1907:129; Bullock 1961:45; Beverley 1947:97-100; Swem 1928:218).

The Eighteenth Century

Page 18

In April 1700, when Virginia's capital was shifted from Jamestown to Williamsburg, the college building was used as the colony's statehouse. In 1705, only a year after government officials had vacated the premises, the Wren Building was destroyed by fire. Efforts were made to rebuild it and by 1716 construction was complete. In 1723 the Indian school, whose student body was small, moved into the newly erected Brafferton building (Kornwolf 1989:37; Bullock 1961:45-48; Swem 1928:218). A year later, Hugh Jones wrote that the piazza of the main college building was "approached by a good Walk, and a Grand Entrance by steps, with good Courts and Gardens about it" and that there was "a good House and Apartments for the Indian Master and his Scholars, and Out-Houses and a large Pasture enclosed like a Park with about 150 acres of Land adjoining, for occasional Uses." This statement suggests strongly that the gardens were on the west side of the Wren Building, where the piazza is located. It is probable that most of the plantings were utilitarian in nature: kitchen or vegetable gardens. No references pertaining to landscape features on the east side of the Wren Building have been found predating Robert Carter's September 11, 1727, comment about a proclamation's being given "at the Capitol, in the Marketplace, [and] on the Colledge green." He said that the herald was on horseback and that "ye Gov'r & myself [were] in the first coach" (Carter, September 11, 1727). The reference to the college green suggests that there was an expanse of grass on the east side of the Wren Building (Jones 1956:66-67; Kornwolf 1989:34, 37; Bullock 1961:45-48; Swem 1928:218; Godson et al. I:75-76).

However, during Governor William Gooch's administration, some landscape improvements may have been made. A February 1729 document, quoted in an 1874 history of the college, made reference to its main building's being "adorned with a handsome garden … [laid out] all in courts, gardens, and orchards." The writer, however, failed to specify where these landscape features were (Martin 1984:41). It is probable that construction of the Brafferton and the President's House brought attention to the east side of the Wren Building and its frontage on Duke of Gloucester Street.

On July 31, 1732, William Dawson, informed the Bishop of London that:

The foundations of a common brick House for the President was laid opposite to Brafferton. It is to be finished for £650 current money by October 1733, according to the articles of agreement. These two buildings will appear at a small distance from the East front of the College, before which is a Garden planted with Ever-Greens kept in very good Order. The Hall and Chapel, joining to the west Front towards the Kitchen Garden, form two handsome wings [Tyler 1900-1901:220].

The Rev. Dawson's description sheds some light upon the types of plants that may have been present. It also tends to coincide with the image depicted on the Bodleian Plate, which suggests that on the east side of the Wren Building, Page 19 and flanked by the Brafferton and the President's House, was a formal planting of clipped shrubbery framed pathways and plots of grass. Absent were large trees.

In 1727, a set of statutes were formulated that governed the mission and management of the College of William and Mary. They were updated 1736, and again in 1758. While most of those statutes deal with the college's curriculum and the institution's hierarchy, one, which is entitled "Of the ordinary Government of the College," addresses practical matters, such as the personnel essential to maintenance and conducting day-to-day operations. Oversight was entrusted to the President and Six Masters: two professors of divinity, two professors of philosophy, the master of the Grammar School, and the master of the Indian School. Besides the need for an Usher in the Grammar School, a Bursar, and a Library-keeper, the college was to employ a janitor, a cook, a butler, workmen "for building or repairing," and a gardener. An addendum noted that "the President and Masters take Care to provide proper Quantities of Wheat and Corn, at such Seasons when they may be purchased upon the easiest Terms" so that "only one Sort of Bread may be used for the Masters and Scholars" (Goodwin 1970:Appendix II [from WMQ 16 (ser 1:241-256] 250-251, 256).

In accord with these statutes, the College of William and Mary's board of visitors commenced hiring gardeners, men who would have performed their duties with the assistance of slave labor. One of the tasks for which the college gardener was responsible would have been the production of food crops. In 1727 the Governor's Council authorized payment to Thomas Crease, who had served as palace gardener during Governor Hugh Drysdale's administration, "for his Service and labourers in assisting in putting in order the Gardens belonging to the Governor's house." Crease became the college's gardener around 1726 and held that position until at least January 1738. York County records dating to 1725 indicate that he was a gardener, a married man, and owned a half-acre lot in the city (Martin 1991:40-41).¹

An advertisement that appeared in the January 13, 1738, edition of the Virginia Gazette reveals that college gardener Thomas Crease sold seeds and plant materials. He published a notice that:

GENTLEMEN and others, may be supply'd with good Garden Pease, Beans, and several other Sorts of Garden Seeds. Also, with great Choice of Flower Roots; likewise Trees of several Sorts and Sizes, fit to plant, as Ornamentals in Gentlemen's Gardens, at very reasonable Rates [Parks, January 13, 1738].

Page 20 It is unclear whether Crease was propagating some of the plant materials he sold or obtaining all of them from outside sources. However, the seeds sold by Crease's successors at the college were imported, raising the possibility that his were, too.

Throughout much of the eighteenth century the college was supported by tax revenues, private endowments, royal warrants, and income from its dower lands. In 1747, when the colony's statehouse burned, the Virginia Assembly again convened in the Wren Building. Throughout the eighteenth century, the college played a significant role in the social and economic life of Williamsburg and the colony (Morpurgo 1976:88; Kornwolf 1989:46; Reps 1972:176; Colonial Williamsburg Foundation 1985:II:1-12).

On January 28, 1773, the Virginia Gazette, published by Alexander Purdie and John Dixon, announced the death of Mr. James Nicholson, the college gardener. The decedent had served "for many years as steward and gardener" and had performed his duties "with much satisfaction to all concerned." The author of Nicholson's obituary stated that "His Labour of almost 30 years, after much raking and scraping" had resulted in his saving a handsome sum, which he had bequeathed "to his Relations in Scotland" (Purdie and Dixon, January 28, 1773) .

The Virginia Gazette, published by Clementina Rind, also carried Nicholson's obituary. It stated that:

On Friday last departed this life, in a good old age, at William and Mary college, Mr. JAMES NICOLSON, who for upwards of twenty years discharged, with the most unshaken fidelity, the many important trusts that were reposed in him by the professors of that seminary. The warm zeal, and sincere regard, for the interest of the college, which animated all his proceedings, will ever render his memory sacred to every friend of it. The genuine humility of his soul was invariably indicated by that regularity of action, and independence of sentiment, which were the shining characteristics of his venerable conduct. By his indefatigable industry, and a moderate frugality, he was enabled to leave some mementos to friends and relations of his esteem and affection for them; and to all that knew him, the noble example of an honest man, and a good Christian [Rind, January 28, 1773).

Thus, the late James Nicholson served as the College of William and Mary's gardener for between 20 and 30 years. On February 18, 1773, Robert Nicholson, the gardener's executor, asks all creditors and debtors to the decedent's estate to notify him. He also announced that he had "for sale a Quantity of Garden seeds" (Dixon, February 18, 1773) .

Page 21

James Wilson succeeded James Nicholson as gardener at the College of William and Mary. He, like Thomas Crease in 1738, and James Nicholson's executor in 1773, advertised that he had seeds for sale. Wilson's announcement suggests that the college gardens produced a broad variety of vegetables for table use. On March 3, 1774, an announcement in the Virginia Gazette proclaimed:

Just Imported, and to be SOLD by James Wilson, Gardener at the College, the following SEEDS. which are all fresh and the best of their Kinds. PEASE: Earliest, best Charlton, Golden Hotspur, Nonpareil, Marrowfat, Green Rouncival, Spanish Moratto, and Glory of England. BEANS: Mazagon, Long Pod, Windsor, Early Hotspur, and White Blossom. Cabbage: Early Yorkshire, Early Battersea, Early Sugar Loaf, White Dutch, Red, and large Hollow. Turnip: Early Dutch, Norfolk, Early Green and Red Round. Radish: Salmon, Short Topped, White Spinach, and Black. Green and Yellow Savoy, White and Purple Broccoli, Early and Late Cauliflower, Red and White Beet, White Mustard, Round Leaf and Common Cresses, Solid Celery, London Leek, Early Carrot, Skirret, Lettuce seed of all sorts, fine Spinage Seed, Cucumber seeds of different kinds, and a great variety of other seeds too tedious to mention [Purdie and Dixon, March 3, 1774].

During this period the college continued to have a pasture, where livestock could graze. In September 1774 someone stole a horse from the college's pasture (Purdie and Dixon, September 8, 1774).

At the onset of the American Revolution, an estimated 70 students were enrolled at the College of William and Mary. During the war, classes continued to be held despite the fact that many members of both the faculty and the student body joined military units. In 1775 Colonel Patrick Henry established a military encampment on the grounds of the college, where Virginia troops assembled and trained. Historical maps suggest that much of this activity occurred on the east side of the Wren Building. Later in the war, the President's House was used as a hospital for wounded French soldiers, at which time it was destroyed by fire (Kale 1985:52, 57-59). Undoubtedly all of these activities would have taken a toll upon any landscape features that were present. A 1777 announcement about a stolen horse states that it was taken from the "college gate" (Purdie, March 14, 1777, supplement).

On May 31, 1777, Ebenezer Hazard, who visited Williamsburg, commented that the town's principal buildings were the college, the public hospital, the governor's palace, and the capitol. He said that the college was "badly contrived, and the Inside of it is shabby; it is 2½ Stories high, has Wings & dormer Windows. He added that "At each End of the East Front is a two Story brick House, one for the President, the other is for an Indian School." He noted that "At this Front of the College is a large Court Yard, ornamented with Gravel Walks, Trees cut into different Forms, & Grass." He stated that on the Page 22 west was "a Court Yard and a large Kitchen Garden" (Shelley 1954:405). Historian Peter Martin noted that the Bodleian Plate and Ebenezer Hazard's comments indicate that the acreage on the east side of the Wren Building was symmetrical and formal, a design suitable for a public building. Martin stated that the orderliness and grace this view presented was "an emblem of what the college stood for in the New World. Martin also noted that "Archaeological investigations in the 1930s proved the Bodleian Plate's depiction of the Palace gardens to be correct in outline and shape, so there is every reason to trust what it shows of the college gardens" (Godson et al. 1993:1:76; Martin 1991:41) .

Late in 1779, when the college was experiencing serious financial problems, an attempt was made to make it self-supporting. On December 18, 1779, college officials placed an advertisement in the Virginia Gazette, offering for rent the kitchen and gardens. The public notice also offered for hire the slaves who worked in the kitchen and garden (Dixon, December 18, 1779). Undoubtedly, loss of the slaves who maintained the garden would have precipitated a decline in its condition.

In 1781-1782, several French cartographers prepared maps of Williamsburg, depicting the sites at which many of the town's buildings were located. Rochambeau's senior engineer, Colonel Jean-Nicholas Desandroüins, whose signed watercolor rendering of Williamsburg was particularly sensitive, indicate that large and relatively elaborate gardens were present on the west side of the Wren Building. He indicated that the study area, defined by the Wren Building, the Brafferton, and the President's House, contained three pairs of planting beds that seemed to have been enclosed. Desandroüins arrived in Virginia in September 1781 on the eve of the Yorktown Campaign. In early October he had what he described as a "cruel accident," perhaps an injury or illness, while he was in Williamsburg. Although he was unable to participate in the siege of Yorktown, in 1782 he asked for a promotion on account of the services he had performed, which he deemed essential to the army's success. In December 1782 Desandroüins and the troops from the Bourbonnaise Regiment set sail from Boston (McCartney 1999-2000:46-47). Jean-Nicholas Desandroüins' dates of arrival and departure indicate that his detailed map of Williamsburg was prepared between September 1781 and December 1782.

Page 23

Figure 5. Detail of St. Simone Map (1781)

Figure 6. Detail of Berthier Map (1782)

The maps prepared by St. Simone (1781a) and Berthier (1781a, 1781b) confirm Desandroüins' interpretation. Other military mapmakers identified the college and indicated that its campus was occupied by the Allied Army, but they failed to portray the layout of its landscape setting (St. Simone 1781b; Chesnoy 1781; Chantavoine 1781). John Simcoe's map (1781-1782) suggests that the gardens on the east side of the Wren Building were symmetrical; however he depicted a simpler design than Desandroüins had suggested. The anonymous Frenchman who prepared a detailed map of Williamsburg in 1782 and identified some of the buildings on the campus of the College of William and Mary failed to provide information on the study area (Anonymous 1782).

After the close of the American Revolution, the College of William and Mary entered a period of decline, for its official connection with the British monarchy was severed and no support was forthcoming from the newly-organized Commonwealth of Virginia. In 1787 the college was largely divested of its public funds and real estate comprised its primary source of revenue. The size of the college's student body dwindled as Tidewater Virginia's population declined. Also, a new university was established in Charlottesville.

The Nineteenth Century

Although only 17 students were enrolled at the College of William and Mary in 1833-1834, by 1839-1840 that number had increased significantly. On February 8, 1859, a fire at the college severely damaged the Wren Building. However, it was quickly repaired and restored to use (Reps 1972:191; Swem 1928:292).

Much damage was inflicted upon the college and its campus during the Civil War. On the eve of the Battle of Williamsburg, Confederate troops reportedly used as firewood many of the wooden fences that enclosed the Page 24 college's grounds. During the Peninsular Campaign, when Williamsburg fell under the control of the Union Army, the 5th Pennsylvania Cavalry occupied the town. During that period, the Brafferton was used as the office and quarters of the military officer in command of the town, the Wren Building became a depot of commissary stores, and the President's house and Brafferton sustained considerable damage (Swem 1928:218, 292; Kale 1985:87).

A map prepared by A. A. Humphreys (1862) reveals that a primitive roadway then extended into the woods to the northwest of the college (Gilmer 1863, 1864). On September 9, 1862, a detachment of Confederate soldiers made a surprise raid upon Williamsburg, briefly routing their adversaries. Later in the day, after the Union Army regained control, some of the 5th Pennsylvania Cavalry's men (who were intoxicated) set fire to the Wren Building (Swem 1928:292).

In 1865 attempts were made to revive the College of William and Mary as an educational institution. The United States government contributed toward the reconstruction of the Wren Building, since it had been destroyed by the unauthorized actions of Federal troops. Although the structure was rebuilt upon its former site, the college faltered and then failed in its struggled to survive. By 1881 the institution was forced to close due to lack of funds. In 1888, however, the College of William and Mary again opened its doors to students, thanks largely to the efforts of Lyon G. Tyler, who succeeded in restructuring, modernizing, and expanding the college's curriculum. Enrollment grew steadily and in 1889 the college had 104 students and seven professors. In 1906 William and Mary became a state-sponsored educational institution, a transition that significantly strengthened its financial position (Swem 1928:218; Rouse 1973:101).

The earliest photographs that depict the WESTERN part of the campus date to the 1890s, and reveal that it was then devoid of buildings (Kale 1985:103). In 1904 when a topographic quadrangle sheet was prepared that included Williamsburg, the Wren Building and three other structures were shown on the campus of the college (USGS 1904). In 1919, when Dr. Julian A. C. Chandler became president of the College of William and Mary, he set about strengthening its curriculum and constructing a number of new buildings. It was likely during that period that the college's campus was expanded. During the 1920s Jefferson, Monroe, Trinkle, Rogers (Chancellor's), Barrett, Old Dominion, Phi Beta Kappa (that is, the original structure of that name) and Washington Halls were built, along with the Blow Gymnasium and the dwellings that comprise Sorority Court. During the 1930s, Marshall-Wythe, the King Infirmary (later renamed Hunt Hall) and Brown and Chandler halls were constructed. In 1935 the Sunken Garden was built, as was Cary Stadium, which was named for T. Archibald Cary (Kale 1985:122-124, 132, 148-151, 167-168; Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Architectural Vertical Files).

Page 25

It was during the mid-1930s, when the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was active throughout the United States that the men of the CCC came to the Williamsburg area where they were employed in a variety of public works projects that were under the auspices of the Emergency Conservation Work (ECW) program. The CCC and associated groups were part of a Depression-era governmental experiment that combined social welfare with conservation work, part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The CCC went out of business when the United States entered World War II. During the nine years that the CCC was in existence, an estimated 2,500,000 young men participated in its programs. Not only were numerous public works projects completed and CCC workers trained in useful skills, the families of CCC enrollees received monthly allotment checks that enabled them to sustain themselves during the Depression (Salmond 1967:1-12).

In spring 1933 CCC workers' camps were established in the Williamsburg and Yorktown areas. One of their first tasks was repairing some of the damage done in the 1932 hurricane. During the time that CCC workers were employed in the Williamsburg area, they conducted archaeological excavations at Jamestown and built what was called the Lake Matoaka State Park on the campus of the College of William and Mary. These men, who were employed under the ECW program, worked at the direction of the Department of the Interior but were under the supervision and management of the army. The CCC installation in Williamsburg was Camp Company No. 2303 (Camp EM-5) (Daily Press, December 17, 1990).

Geophysical Survey

Figure 11. Composite Geophysical Drawing

Page 38

In September of 2004, geophysicist Bruce Bevan conducted a non-invasive survey of the College Yard using ground penetrating radar and conductivity instruments (Appendix 3). This assessment was intended to determine locations of potential anomalies that might indicate relict garden features or potential fruitful areas for archaeological excavation. Bevan's report noted several unusual anomalies, including indications that the central east-west walkway of the College yard was likely wider than its current configuration. Also, radar echoes indicated some type of flat, prepared surface approximately 20 meters north of Brafferton Hall, at approximately 40 centimeters below the surface. During the 2006 field season, a one-by-one meter excavation square (458N/503E) was placed over this anomaly but no unusual surface or deposit was found.

Overall, the geophysical evidence did not characterize any regular geometric patterning of anomalies that would be consistent with the garden layout as depicted on the Bodleian plate, or any of the other historic descriptions or depictions. Furthermore, Bevan notes that the survey also failed to distinguish known archaeological trenching in the yard from the James Knight excavations in the 1930s and 1950s. This suggests that the geophysical methods may be too limited in resolution to find discrete locations of soil disturbance such as garden beds, given the possibility that more permanent garden architecture in the yard such as borders or walkways were removed or heavily disturbed. However, one anomaly located by Bevan seems to be consistent with the Civil War era earthwork ditch that was identified in 2006 (see discussion in 2006 excavation season section)

Page 39

Test Units

Figure 12. Test Unit and 2005 Block Unit locations

Three one meter by one meter test units were excavated in the College Yard in the spring of 2005. Following on the geophysical survey, the test units were excavated in an attempt to characterize the stratigraphy of the yard, obtain preliminary soil samples, and assess potential locations for the planned block excavation during the summer field school season. The testing locations were spaced widely across the yard, one close to the Wren Building in the northwestern portion of the yard (Test Unit 1), another in the southeastern area of the yard (Test Unit 2), and a third immediately south of the central walkway near the center of the yard (Test Unit 3). Students from Anthropology 150W, Approaches to Ethnobotany (Spring 2005), anthropology graduate student Nadejda Coonan, and Colonial Williamsburg Department of Archaeological Research volunteers assisted with the testing. Excavation methods were consistent with general practice of Colonial Williamsburg's standard procedures, including excavation in stratigraphic (rather than arbitrary) levels, ¼-inch screening of all deposits for artifacts, and metric standard measurements.

Methodology and Rationale for Location

Following the geophysical survey and the spring 2005 testing, it was decided that the best evidence of any relict garden features would likely be in the eastern portion of the College yard. Based on TU 1, as well as examining the distribution of known modern utilities, it appeared that the western portion of the yard, near the Wren building would be more extensively disturbed. Moreover, the archaeological evidence seen in TU 1, and presumably elsewhere in the western half of the yard, was more related to the Wren building itself, its destruction episodes and modification, as opposed to the formal garden landscape. In all probability, the traces of destruction and modification of the Wren building would obscure rather than elucidate evidence of gardening beds and parterres being sought.

A grid was established just south of the President's House for the summer 2005 block excavation. A permanent datum point ("Station 1"), was selected. This is the southwest corner of the storm drain grate immediately in front of the President's House, a feature unlikely to be altered in the near future. This point was given the arbitrary grid coordinate point of 500 Page 45 North/500 East, to eliminate the untidy practice of needing negative grid numbers depending on how the excavation would eventually expand.

The block was primarily intended to view a north-south path, and also expanded slightly east and west. The rationale for the excavation block design was to first get a linear transect across the yard between the President's House and the central walkway. All depictions of the formal garden show bilateral symmetry between the north and south halves of the yard. If any evidence for the colonial garden was found in the northern portion of the yard, there would presumably be a mirror image of the same features in the unexcavated south half of the yard, assuming the disturbance and post-depositional modifications of the yard were similar in both halves. Therefore, the north-south excavation transect was not planned to cross the central walkway, but rather expand with units east and west of the central axis.

Sampling and Excavation Procedures — 2005

Each two-meter square was excavated as a single unit, with no attempt to maintain general spatial control over the artifacts from layers other than the two-meter grid coordinates. Features were all mapped precisely to the grid using a laser theodolite/total station.

All deposits from the first half of the excavation season were screened through ¼- inch mesh. All artifacts aside from brick and oyster shell were saved and catalogued, with samples of brick and oyster retained from deposits overwhelmed by these artifact types. Once it had been established that the layers above and including the "orange clay fill" (see stratigraphic discussion below) were clearly twentieth-century, during the second half of the excavation season, those layers were no longer screened in the expansion units, resulting in a fifty-percent screened sample of the upper layers of fill. Deposits below the clay cap were all screened for all units.

Flotation samples were also taken for every unit and layer below the clay cap. A standardized 35 liter sample was taken from layers. Experience with regional samples at CWF's Department of Archaeological Research environmental archaeology labs indicates that a 35 liter sample is a good volumetric compromise between the generally macrobotanical-poor deposits in the Tidewater region and a manageable volume of soil to transport and process efficiently. Feature soils were either floated in their entirety where feasible or fifty-percent sampled in the case of excessively large features such as 16GA- 00155/00156. Flotation sampling is a high-resolution approach to deposits, recovering not only plant remains, but also all artifacts greater than 2mm in the heavy fraction component. These samples can serve as a cross-check against the data from field screening for artifact categories such as microfaunal Page 46 remains and other small materials (straight pins, beads) that may not be consistently recovered in hardware cloth screens.

Furthermore, additional small-volume analytical samples were taken from each sub-clay cap layer, and also from each feature. These samples are commonly referred to as "phyto/chems" as they generally are used for phytolith or soil chemistry analysis, although they also serve as an archive of the matrix of each deposit, that which is destroyed by the excavation process, and may also be used for additional types of characterization analysis.

Twentieth-Century Features

Stratigraphy of the Excavation Block

Six major layers of overburden fill were distinguished in the block excavations. These are primarily twentieth-century fill episodes, although they contain a great number of redeposited colonial artifacts that have been displaced from Page 50 their original context. The base of the excavation block is much less clear in terms of its temporal association. At present, it is not possible to determine whether the two very thin, and sometimes indistinguishable layers at the base of the excavation represent a remnant of a colonial deposit, or if all such deposit has been destroyed. These six deposits were largely consistent from unit-to-unit across the excavation block, with minor variations noted below.

Figure 21. Profiles of Unit 498N/508E

Subsequent Interpretation of 2005 Stratigraphy

Upon completion of additional research and interpretation of subsequent field seasons, it is clear now that the puzzling layer beneath the orange clay fill represents a disturbed historic layer that is the product of the historic "spading up" of the Wren Yard during the 1930s restoration of the historic campus (Way, 2008, this volume Appendix 1). Although predominantly containing eighteenth-century artifacts, it yields a light presence of post-nineteenth-century materials, clearly dating it later than the Colonial/Antebellum era, but at the same time it appears to retain a modicum of horizontal integrity, unlike the plowzones present regionally in the Tidewater. It appears to have been disturbed by this single event of "turning up" the College Yard soil to a spade's depth across the yard, unfortunately damaging any integrity but at the same time not completely homogenizing the deposit. Features cut into subsoil, for example, would sometimes faintly appear in this layer during excavation. This spading event was capped by the orange clay fill. The "Light Gray Mottled" and "Layer X" levels are the interface with the subsoil where the "spading up" was not as severe — the spading likely did not reach a completely uniform depth across the yard, leaving patches of more and less intact deposit just above the subsoil. Feature edges (outside the 2005 block) were still generally clearly defined only in the subsoil cuts, however.

Ambiguous and Possible Colonial Features

Page 56

Linear Features

A series of ambiguous linear subsoil stains comprise the majority of archaeological features found during the 2005 block excavation. Few of these features contained any datable artifacts, and their relationship, if any, to the colonial garden is unclear.

Page 58

Postholes

In addition to the posthole adjacent to Tree Planting Hole 1, in 494N/508E, and the twentieth-century posthole in the same grid square, one additional posthole cut into subsoil was identified (see Figure 23). Context 16GA-00147/16GA-00148 was located in the northwest ¼ of grid square 484N/510E. Because the majority of the feature appeared to be beneath the adjacent, unexcavated square 484N/508E, the feature was not excavated. Based on the visible portion, however, the post was too small to represent a structure and is most likely an isolated post or fence component of indeterminate age.

Drainage feature/brick crumb concentration

Cutting the tree planting hole in 490N/516E is what appears to be a heavily decayed drainage feature, very likely associated with the unexcavated feature 16GA-00163, in 494N/512E. No intact brick (or earthenware tile) was found in association with this feature; it survives simply as a linear concentration of brick crumb. The feature dives sharply eastward into the unexcavated east wall of 490N/516E.

This feature is interpretively perplexing; if it is indeed a drainage feature, the sharp angle at which it dives eastward makes little functional sense; projecting the slope outward would quickly place the drain well below the street grade if the feature represented some attempt to transport water from the yard. The majority of this feature, whatever it may connect to, and any better-preserved components of it, remain unexcavated.

Artifacts

The overwhelming majority of artifacts recovered from the block excavation are clearly displaced from their original context, with artifacts from multiple time periods commingled in the fills. As such, they are of very limited interpretive value in understanding the structure of the formal garden in the East Yard. The fills are undoubtedly local, likely from elsewhere in Williamsburg and the college environs.

Both domestic and architectural materials are common in the fills, as well as brief glimpses of college and colonial life over the past three centuries. Cast lead bullets and shot, faunal remains, a wide variety of common domestic ceramics, coins, a rubber shoe heel, escutcheon plates and lock mechanisms, slate pencils, as well as a great deal of architectural debris all attest to the Page 59 wide variety of activities occurring in the immediate environs. Unfortunately, they are deprived of their original context as far as is discernible from the stratigraphic interpretations in the site.

Context 16GA-00122 contained a wine bottle seal commonly linked to Royal Governor Francis Nicholson, dating to the 1690-1710 period, as well as associated fragments of the bottle to which it was attached; clearly an artifact related to a critical player in the history of the College. However, the same context also contained fragments of pearlware, dating the deposit to no earlier than 1780. Nonetheless, there is a relatively straightforward pattern to the terminus post quem dates of the fills; the overlying fills that can be associated with the restoration period and afterward (Topsoil, Brown Clay Loam, Brick Clay Loam, Orange Clay Fill); all have post-1920s TPQ dates. With one possibly intrusive exception providing a 1920 TPQ, the Dark Olive Loam layers date to no earlier than 1885. However, the Light Gray Mottled and Layer X TPQ dates are 1775 and 1650, respectively.

This leaves the as yet unresolved conundrum of how "colonial" these lower strata truly are. While we can be reasonably certain the overlying layers are maintaining consistent TPQ dates with our current interpretation, the lower strata and the features cut into them are drastically less dense in terms of artifact content. Although we have no evidence that the lower strata are post-eighteenth century, the inference is made on far fewer artifacts, increasing the possibility of sampling error.

The features fare even more poorly in terms of artifact density. Many of the features, as discussed, have virtually no artifacts to enable dating, and those that do have artifacts largely contain materials for which dating is imprecise, such as brick.

Interpretation

As has been noted throughout, the preliminary interpretation of the excavations is uncertain, insofar as asserting definitive evidence for the colonial period garden(s) having extant archaeological traces. Features such as the tree plantings have aspects that are encouraging in terms of possible relict garden features (lack of intrusive artifacts in the planting holes), yet also confusing traits (the planting holes, as well as the linear features bear no obvious relation whatsoever to the illustration on the Bodleian plate or the other depictions).

Page 60

Figure 27. Overall of 2005 Block. Pre-20th-Century Features

Page 61

One critical clue as to the in-filling processes occurring in the Wren Yard comes from an offhand remark in Prentice Duell's 1932 report on the Wren Building:

The grade of the building was raised on all sides and especially at the front by Governor Spotswood who appears to have taken charge of the rebuilding of the structure after the fire of 1705. The reason for raising the grade was unquestionably owing to the fact that water collected in front of the building and made the low entrance at times practically inaccessible; it is possible also that water actually flowed into the building. The poor drainage of this area gave all subsequent occupants of the college building, Brafferton Hall and the President's House, considerable annoyance. Spotswood raised the grade at the front of the building approximately three feet and in doing so was forced to raise the entrance of the building itself. He removed the whole central portion and built the pavilion with an entrance at the first floor level; a porch and steps were added outside of the building. A basement door was placed beneath the porch and within the basement a sewer was constructed which passed through the foundations of the rear pavilion, the erection of which was a part of the same operation. Any water that collected in front of the building or in its basement would thus have been carried away.

However, the raising of the grade around the Wren building caused the water to form two large ponds in front of Brafferton Hall and the President's House. The Botetourt statue apparently was above the water; probably the walk to the building had been raised by Spotswood.

Various attempts were made to drain these ponds throughout the subsequent history of the building, and only in recent years Dr. Chandler³ raised the grade of these areas about two feet.

Spotswood, in raising the grade of the building to such an extent, was confronted with the problem of redesigning the main entrance of the building, although his primary purpose in changing the building was a utilitarian rather than an aesthetic one. As a matter of fact, he took the design into serious account and unquestionably improved the appearance of the building; in doing so however, he completely changed its architectural character.

(Duell, 1932, emphasis and note added)

The topic of the "grade-raising" around the Wren Building has been a persistent, perplexing issue in terms of understanding the archaeological patterning of the yard. No 2005 excavation in any area of the yard, or previous archaeological testing, as far as can be discerned from the records, indicates a Page 62 consistent fill deposit three feet thick, or anywhere near such a thickness. It is possible, in fact, likely, that the grade raising has been obscured by the later restoration activities, yet how the grade was raised and where the fill originated has significant implications for understanding the preservation potential of the garden, as well as the patterning seen in the block excavation. If the eastern portion of the yard was mined for fill to move to the western portion of the yard around the Wren Building, this would explain why the President's House and Brafferton buildings drainage problems continued or worsened up through the first quarter of the twentieth century, when those low areas were in-filled. It would also accord well with the fill layer dates as well as the grayish, mottled subsoil patterning in the block excavation, which indicates standing water conditions at some point in the past.

Given this evidence, it appears likely that if "low spots" were worsened in the early eighteenth century, and deposits moved westward in the yard toward the Wren Building, there may be more potential for extant garden features to be sealed under imported deposits in the western portion of the yard as opposed to the area in front of the President's House, where the features encountered (if they do indeed relate to the colonial garden) may have been truncated by this activity.

Additional discussion with historian Martha McCartney has also centered on the historical circumstances surrounding the drafting of the Desandroüins map. The initial assumption was that at least two discrete formal layouts of the garden were designed, the one represented on the Bodleian plate, and a later eighteenth- century modification as apparently depicted on Desandroüins' map. However, Desandroüins created his map at an economic and functional low-point for the College; in the fall of 1781 it was no longer functioning as a college, but rather a hospital, and was intermittently sheltering Revolutionary War troops. As such, it seems unlikely any major formal landscaping or maintenance was occurring during this time. Indeed, different, later drafts of the Desandroüins map altogether omit the beds depicted in the east yard. It is possible Desandroüins was depicting not the formal layout of the east garden, but rather some kind of temporary alteration highly specific to the time in which the map was created, such as short-term subsistence gardens, animal pens, or encampments. Such an interpretation, though uncertain, would lend support to why the nearly contemporaneous Simcoe map depicts a garden structure much more in keeping with the Bodleian design. It is hoped that future research may shed more light on the "one garden design or two" question. Minimally, the results of the 2005 excavation indicate a single potential colonial surface rather than overlapping features cut into the subsoil.

Page 63

Additional Testing, October 2005

As one component of class research by student Brian Davis, who also used Surfer to experimentally model layer patterns between excavated units, further excavation testing was done in an attempt to clarify some of the stratigraphic issues that remained unresolved by the block excavation. Two additional 1 meter by 1 meter test units were excavated in the Wren Yard in October of 2005. One was located in the south-central portion of the yard and another south of the central walkway but proximate to the Wren Building.

Figure 28. Location of 2005 Block and Test Units

Methodology and Location Rationale

The 2006 season involved fewer field school students and a concordantly smaller overall excavated area. Considering the paucity of definitively garden-related features found in the 2005 block in front of the President's House, excavation was moved to the south side of the College Yard and closer to the Wren Building in the hopes of better preservation, as based on the 2004 Test Unit samples, which showed artifact concentrations closer to the building. A new excavation block, consistent with the numbering of the 2005 grid and datum, was established north of the Brafferton kitchen. Again, excavation units were 2 meters by 2 meters.

Page 67

Figure 32. Location of 2006 Excavation Units

Excavation and sampling procedures remained largely consistent with the 2005 protocol, although a better understanding of the stratigraphy resulted in scaling back of flotation sampling of clearly twentieth century deposits.

Twentieth Century Features, Disturbances and Incompletely Excavated Units

Of the initial three units opened, 447N/478E, 447N/482E and 447N/484E, the latter two revealed immediately upon stripping of the topsoil that there was a recent, unmarked buried utility trench in these units, running East-West, as evidenced from redeposited subsoil. Because intact deposit would be minimal — less than 50 percent of the units after removal of the recent backfill, these units were not further excavated. Instead, we expanded the grid west and north of these units.

One Unit, 449N/484E, was excavated to subsoil, but had apparently been entirely homogenized by a modern tree planting. While eighteenth- and nineteenth- century artifacts were present, including a cannonball from the earthwork (see below), there was no stratigraphic differentiation remaining from the unit. The tree planting likely destroyed a portion of the earthwork remnant.

Page 68

Pre-twentieth Century Features

2006-2007 Excavation Block Locations

For the 2007 field season, excavation continued from the known, preserved features found in 2006. In particular the marl walkways, at the time Page 75 still possibly thought to be of an eighteenth- century date, and a possible remnant of the original garden design. While they now appear to be nineteenth-century in origin, the marl walkway remnants eventually proved to be helpful in ascertaining a likely "ending date" for the existence of the Bodleian plate design garden.

The second major block was established to look for garden features within an area shown in the Bodleian Plate depiction as having a high density of features, including two rows of plantings and multiple walkways or bed transitions in a fairly small spatial area. Two additional units between Block 1 and Block 2 were excavated to look for stratigraphic continuity between the excavation areas.

Figure 40. Location Plan of 2006 and 2007 Excavation Blocks

Twentieth-century Intrusive features

Units 465N/480E and 467N/482E in Block 2 contained a series of features that were determined to be 20th century utilities. Because width of the modern trench, exposed shortly after removal of topsoil in 467N/482E left so little potential intact deposits within the excavation unit, this unit was terminated upon exposing the utility trench. The features in Unit 465N/480E however, were not immediately clearly recognized as utilities, and were excavated until the utility, a north-south oriented terra-cotta sewer or drain pipe was exposed. It is unknown if the utility was still active; it appeared to be early, possibly predating the restoration fills.

Page 76

Additionally, units 453N/476E and 455N/478E in Block 1 were found to be too disturbed by 20th century features to provide any useful information.

Page 85

November 2007 Supplemental Unit (471N/492E)

Page 86

Summary of Results

The discovery of several areas of archaeological features closely matching the Bodleian Plate design has two major implications for stewardship and future investigation of the College Yard as an archaeological resource.

The primary concern is preservation from additional damage from landscaping and utilities work in the yard. Throughout the course of the three excavation seasons, it was clear that these activities had caused significant destruction to the site of the formal garden, as well as later historically important features such as the Civil War earthwork remnant.

The "spading" of the yard during the CWF restoration of the Wren Building is the source of most of the broad-scale damage to the site. However, the presumed nature of this activity suggests that, while vertical strata are mostly absent since the spading, some horizontal integrity is likely intact. One of the key markers, present in most but not all tested areas of the yard, is the "orange clay cap" stratigraphic layer. It is still unclear when and why this clay cap was put into the Yard, although it is hinted at in the grading plans for the restoration. It does provide a clear boundary between post-1930s additions to the yard, and the more significant (although somewhat disturbed) deposits below. Any excavation work, including tree replacement and removal, that goes deeper than this layer should be subjected to archaeological excavation in advance of the work. The clay cap layer is of a variable depth and thickness, but can start as early as 20cm below the current ground surface. The clay cap layer itself is not significant, so impacts to this layer are not problematic. However, as noted, it can significantly vary in thickness from a few centimeters to 20 or 30 centimeters in some locations.

Although the 2005 excavation block did not yield garden features, in retrospect with how we now understand the stratigraphy and presence of the garden, it should not be assumed that the 2005 excavation block area is disturbed or destroyed archaeologically any more than other areas of the yard. In fact, the 2005 block may simply be located in an area of the original garden without planting holes or other recognizable features. The deposits, however, may still retain integrity in the form of microscopic or chemical evidence, and adjacent unexcavated units may still yield garden-related or other historical features. Everything below the orange clay cap would appear to be the spaded-up 1920s surface, incorporating the colonial deposits atop a thin possible remnant stratum which may yield subsurface features such as planting holes, postholes, etc.

Page 87

Laboratory Analysis and Student Projects

Another of the goals of the College Yard excavations was to allow William and Mary undergraduates to participate in the analysis and interpretation of archaeological data beyond the initial training in archaeological field methods provided for in the summer field school. To this end, a series of "Special Topics in Garden Archaeology" classes were held after each summer session during the regular terms. Students could join either having taken the field class or not, and choose a data set to work with that would further the interpretation of the project. Over the course of a semester, students would work with documents or archaeological samples, under the supervision of professional archaeologists, using the resources of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, culminating in a final paper and public presentation wherein each student contributed a chapter to their own College's history. This report cannot be considered complete without the students' efforts as a complement to the overall narrative. The final paper reports were collected in three volumes following the conclusion of each class; the post-field analysis and interpretation aspects of the project were largely student-driven. A brief overview of the contributions most germane to the archaeological interpretation follows.

Environmental/Archaeobotany

Several student projects involved looking at different classes of archaeobotanical data to help inform the interpretation of the garden. Unlike a domestic or industrial site, the goals of historic period garden archaeology are less dependent on artifact analysis than looking at the site structure itself as well as alternate forms of data in such as macro- and micro-botanical remains in conjunction with the documentary record and historic depictions (e.g., Currie 2005).

Initial student papers focused on looking at the non-garden contexts from the 2005 season and comparative research (Coyle 2005, Montalvo 2005). Following clear identification of garden features in the 2006 and 2007 field seasons, these contexts were available for archaeobotanical analysis that shed some potential light on the botanical structure of the garden. While due to the restoration period damage to the yard, the features are "thinly" preserved, without a significant amount of in-context soil present, Alex Bergman's (2007) analysis pointed to the possibility of Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) as a potential plant used for topiary plantings in the Wren garden. Scott Babinowich's (2006) analysis examined in detail the composition of the ubiquitous marl used in features throughout the Wren Yard, and as with other colonial paving in Tidewater Virginia, concluded that the local Yorktown formation marl was the source of the material used in the Wren Garden. These studies, plus initial phytolith scanning indicating that old-world Pooidae subfamily grasses contributed heavily to the silica profile of the garden features Page 88 contribute to the understanding that the Wren Garden was uniquely "Virginia", not simply an identically transplanted European formal Williamite garden style. Local plant and landscaping materials either more suited to, or more available in, this part of the New World formed the structure of the garden alongside imported materials and forms, something not apparent from simply looking at the Bodleian Plate depiction, and is a testament to what garden archaeology can bring to garden history.

Documentary Research

Features identified during the field season excavations inspired lines of thought and research for numerous students who followed lines of inquiry through the documentary record in order to shed more light on the archaeological features. From looking at the historical trends in garden history from which the Williamite Dutch-influenced style of the Wren Garden emerged, to understanding of the social and ethnic groups who would have used, seen, and experienced the garden in different ways as part of the early College community, students provided additional context and insight to the archaeological features.

The most significant piece of documentary research in terms of understanding the formation of the College Yard as an archaeological site however, proved not to be on the 18th century, but rather on the 20th. Jessica Way's (2007) report on the Colonial Williamsburg "restoration" of the Wren Building and grounds uncovered the "smoking gun" of a 1929 landscaping plan including an order to manually "spade up" the yard and amend the soil with manure. This, and the associated grading plan iterations clearly point to the time when the intact archaeological garden features were largely, but fortunately not completely, obliterated. The spading effort, while deep, was shallow enough to leave the ephemeral traces of planting holes and hedgerows that remain of the original design. Moreover, since the spading effort was a massive, but single event disturbing soils more vertically than horizontally, some traces, such as marl concentrations, remain within the disturbance to indicate where marl-paved surfaces may have existed in the original Bodleian plate design.

Mapping and Landscape Studies

Exploring new technologies available to supplement and complement excavation as non-intrusive archaeological tools, in addition to the earlier geophysical study by Bevan, Graham Callaway (2007) looked at application of LiDAR-like methods of close interval surface mapping of an excavation unit in the College yard to test whether LiDAR could predict subsurface archaeological features; the results were encouraging for more substantial features such as the bounding ditch along the central walkway.

Page 89

Ben Skolnik's (Skolnik and Archer, 2010) careful comparative work exploring the angles of orientation and planes of symmetry between the Wren Yard, associated buildings, and the establishment of the town of Williamsburg, led to one of the most remarkable inferences about the planning of the space between the two unaligned flanking buildings of the Wren building, the Brafferton and the President's house. In order to make the symmetric garden design work in an asymmetric space, it appears that, as Skolnik puts it, "the rules of symmetry were broken in order to maintain the illusion of symmetry", namely, based on these clues, that if the "original" garden uncovered in the archaeological excavations existed prior to construction of the President's House, the orientation of the garden features was likely revised and offset in order to accommodate an optical illusion of continuity between the College and the Town.

1919

When J. A. C. Chandler became president of the College of William and Mary in 1919, the Wren Building, or Main College Building as it was known at the time, was in a state of general dilapidation. The college knew that it needed to be repaired or torn down and replaced by a more modern building. This building was the fourth incarnation of the Wren Building, which had originally been built in 1695, and then burnt in 1705, 1859, and again in 1865. After every fire the College rebuilt, using the remains of the brick structure and adding different stylistic features to each building.

1923

Drainage was always a problem in the Wren Yard. Each administration took a turn at trying to alleviate the standing water problem. This blueprint from 1923 shows the low areas between the Brafferton and the President's House where standing water collected. There seem to have been two strategies that were historically used in the Wren Yard to counter the flooding: drains installed in the front of campus and general grading of the area.

1924 - 1928

W. A. R. Goodwin, professor at the College and the mastermind behind Colonial Williamsburg, advocated using drains to divert the standing water. In a letter to Chandler dated December 16, 1924, discussing a proposed wall to run around the historic campus, he suggests:

… having the front campus tiled for drainage before the wall is put up? The wall will tend to confine the water in the campus…. If a brick or flagstone walk is put down in place of the concrete walk leading up to the main building, a drain tile could be put under it about two feet deep, with a few transverse drains leading into it. Would this not take the dampness away, which keeps the grass from growing?

In his Wren Building Archaeological Report, Block 16, Building 3 from 1932, Prentice Duell describes the historic problems of drainage in the yard: Page 3

The grade of the building was raised on all sides and especially at the front by Governor Spotswood who appears to have taken charge of the rebuilding of the structure after the fire of 1705. The reason for raising the grade was unquestionably owing to the fact that water collected in front of the building and made the low entrance at times practically inaccessible; it is possible that water actually flowed into the building…. Spotswood raised the grade at the front of the building approximately 3 feet and in doing so was forced to raise the entrance of the building itself…

However the raising of the grade around the Wren Building caused the water to form two large ponds in front of Brafferton Hall and the President's House. The Botetourt Statue apparently was above the water; probably the walk to the building had been raised by Spotswood. Various attempts were made to drain these ponds throughout the subsequent history of the building, and only in recent years Dr. Chandler raised the grade of these areas about two feet. (28-9)

The two ponds mentioned by Duell match well with the 1923 blueprint which shows the low lying areas between the President's House and the Brafferton. Unfortunately Duell doesn't give a date for Chandler's grading, however the 1926 blueprint from landscape architect Charles Gillette, suggests that in addition to the low lying areas in the Wren Yard, Chandler had a large area graded behind the Wren Building. This area is marked in red pencil on the blueprint "Area To Be Graded" and consists of the courtyard to the west of the Wren Building and the area that became the sunken gardens. It is possible that Chandler graded the areas in the college triangle area in 1926, at the same time he was having the Wren courtyard and sunken gardens graded: it must have been after Goodwin's letter of 1924, and before Restoration work started on the building in 1928.

1928

In May of 1928, contractors had begun work clearing vegetation from around the walls of the Wren Building. That spring, and again in 1929, architectural staff conducted a series of excavations on the footings of the Wren Building for the Williamsburg Holding Corp., searching for archaeological evidence of the building's changes in form over time (Duell 39).

In June 1928, the college transferred the Main Building to the Williamsburg Holding Corporation. They expected to spend about $400,000 on the project (Chandler 3/27/1928), however a variety of factors including the cost of landscaping would raise this estimate significantly over the next six years. The team of Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, architects from Boston, were hired and set up a Williamsburg office to oversee the construction. Perry, Shaw & Hepburn used Arthur Shurcliff, also from Boston, as their landscape architect. W. J. Holland & Son were initially hired to handle the construction, but by July Page 4 of 1928 Todd & Brown, Inc. had taken over as contractors for the project (Trimble 7/5/1928).

While the college administration, architects and contractors were worrying about how to get rid of water from the historic campus, the landscape architect, Arthur Shurcliff was worrying about bringing it in. On September 17, 1928, he writes to Chandler:

I met Mr. Robinson as you suggested regarding water for watering plants and he said the use of 100 gallons per day, as I noted in my letter to you would be feasible.

Probably we can get water without difficulty from some of the old shallow wells near the House of Burgesses for use at Garrett House and vicinity. This will involve little carriage.

By December 8, 1928, a construction fence had gone up around the Wren Building (Photo Swem 1985.30). From the pictures, it appears to have been four or five feet high, and made of horizontal boards with a two-by-four cap on top. It was supported by four-by-fours at intervals along the length, and two-by-four props leaned down at a 45 degree angle to the ground. The fence was built just to the inside of the walkways surrounding the building on all four sides, and it was inside this fence that the ground was the most disturbed during the Restoration. There was a double gate on each side for trucks to enter, as well as pedestrian gates. The double gates were often padlocked, unless trucks were entering or exiting, and signs were posted directing visitors to the main construction office (CWF, Wren 16 N, 1/22/30).

Sheds were built inside the fence to house construction supplies and a construction office, as well as privies for the construction crew. The construction office was probably on the west side of the building, but it was moved towards the end of the Restoration. A picture exists of the office on wood skids in the center of the west courtyard on March 3, 1931. Prior to this photograph, there had been no structures directly in the courtyard. Sheds appear to have been built directly against the construction fence. Some consisted of a shed roof supported by two four by four posts, with the only wall being that of the fence. Others are a more substantive construction, with four walls. The open type of shed was visible on the south side of the building midway down the construction fence just next to a pedestrian gateway, on the west side of the building on either side of the double gates, and on the north side towards the northeast corner of the building.

A wood scaffolding was erected on all four sides of the building. Debris from various stages was piled underneath it, and excavations of the building's foundations are often visible in pictures under the scaffolding. A scaffolding tower was built on the west side with a system of pulleys. It was visible over the Page 5 roof, and stood higher than the cupola. The lower windows were protected early on by wood awnings. A chute for debris was located out of the eastern most window on the second floor of the south elevation. Bricks were stacked inside the fence along the west side. A large wood pile shows in pictures on the south side of the building.

Trucks frequently drove inside the construction fence, and cars and trucks are visible parked on the grass outside the fence on the west side of the building. However, these trucks were relatively lightweight with small tires. In general, the work on the building seems to have been done with a minimum of equipment, shovels were used instead of heavy earth moving equipment, and pulleys instead of a crane to lift the steel beams to the roof.

The west side of the building seems to have been a staging area for construction. There was the most space on this side between the building and the fence, and the courtyard added extra room. Piles of brick and concrete blocks, as well as sand or dirt, trucks, and small machinery such as a small cement mixer were all stored in the courtyard on the west side of the building.

1929

During the Restoration the implementation of new utility systems had an impact on the ground throughout the historic campus. Electrical and water lines were updated, old ones were disturbed by excavations and needed to be replaced, and new lines were run between the Wren Building and the Brafferton and the President's House. The Restoration contractors also needed electricity to run equipment, and discussed the matter with Virginia Electric and Power. On February 15, 1929, Robert Trimble writing for Todd & Brown told Chandler:

In connection with the Wren Building we have taken up with the Virginia Electric and Power Company the question of furnishing us with temporary electric power. They have advised us that to install the power line it will be necessary to locate two poles on the College property. The location of these poles is marked in yellow on the accompanying blue print.

The two poles shown on this blueprint provide evidence of a temporary disturbance to the ground to the east of the Wren Building. Shurcliff's desire for a watering system for the plants on campus was taken up by Chandler. In a meeting from July 25, 1929 about the Restoration, Chandler brings up the possible need for a watering system in place on the front of campus. Prentice Duell, an architectural historian and archaeologist, was hired by Williamsburg Holding Corp. to conduct excavations of the foundations of the Wren Building in the summers of 1929 and 1930, supplementing previous excavations undertaken by the architectural staff (Duell 39).

Page 6

In their report on the architectural history and archaeology of the Wren Building, Lawrence Kocher and Howard Dearstyne describe the ways the architects dealt with the drainage problem during the Restoration:

The ground water level was definitely established when the old well, — the water supply during the early days of the college, — and located in the northeast corner of the basement of the main building, was cleaned out. This work was done during the summer months, and the water level was established at fourteen feet below the basement floor, or approximately twenty feet below natural grade. This level rose to within one foot of the basement floor level during the spring of 1929. With this evidence, it was decided to take all precautions possible against the possibility of a higher level. An open tile drain was laid at the footing level of the wall and top of the column foundations, which drained into the main drainage system of the college yard.

The basement was excavated with slopes to an open tile drainage system. This excavation was then backfilled with coarse gravel to the elevation of the bottom of the basement paving slab. The latter was poured on a heavy building paper to prevent the seepage of the concrete into the gravel. The open tile drains of this part of the work also discharged into the main drainage system of the college grounds. (137)

Kocher and Dearstyne's mention of the drains on the college grounds agrees with the brick drain found during the 2005 to 2007 field seasons in the Wren yard by the William and Mary field schools. The drains uncovered during excavation appear to date to the Restoration period and are of a similar construction to those found typically in the Restoration work in Colonial Williamsburg.

Mr. Cann made a report to Williamsburg Restoration on excavations he directed from July 26 to August 2, 1929.

Friday, July 26, 1929, 6 men, 90 degrees. Started at 12:30 P.M. at the southwest corner of the Wrenn [sic] Building. The excavation already started here proved to be of no value. The brick here was loose brick and mortar which had been put in as filling material by Dr. Chandler when the grade was raised. I excavated an area of trench about 20 feet x 3 to 5 feet and some pavement was brought to light. At least it might have been pavement or brick floor. The brick had become so disintegrated by time that it is difficult to determine. I decided that owing to the limited space inside the fence. I had better discontinue further work here for the present. The space was needed for the contractors use.

Page 7

Cann's description of the loose brick rubble he uncovered and grading done by Chandler presumes grading done prior to the Restoration. Shurcliff describes this trench in 1931 as "running in an eastwest direction" (Shurcliff 3/12/1931). Cann appears to have been looking for evidence of outbuildings: on the 27th he excavated the area between the Wren Building and the Brafferton where there was an out-building on the Frenchman's map, and from the 29th to the 2nd he excavated on the opposite side of the yard, between the Wren Building and the President's House (Cann).

Shurcliff got into what appears to be an argument with Harold Shurtleff, who worked in the records department in Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, in March of 1931 about the location of the 1929 excavations.

At the time of the digging one of the privies erected by Messrs. Todd & Brown stood so near the spot where the excavation (described below) was made that the liquids from the privy tended to flow into the excavation. This fact may help to find the place of the excavation. (Shurcliff 3/12/1931)

This graphic description tells us not only that by 1931 the architects couldn't locate the previous excavation work, but also that some of the shed-like structures within the construction fence were outhouses. In a photograph from July 30, 1929, the excavation trench is visible, however there is no privy visible next to it.

The trenches were backfilled later in August 1929. Chandler was worried because school was about to start again in September, and the trenches had been left open. He wrote to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn asking them to fill in the holes to ensure the safety of students returning to campus (Chandler 8/17/1929).

On September 19, 1929, Shurcliff writes a detailed plan for landscaping work in the Wren Yard. His plan incorporates details about utilities, walkways, plantings, watering systems, and grading:

(b) I assume the architects will include the necessary new ntilites [sic] both above and below ground.

(c) All the work described below should be estimated to be done in a manner which would not disturb existing foundations, most of which are probably shown on the blue print of the survey. I mean for example that the item for the cultivation of the ground should include care with regard to spading so that deep spading Page 8 would not be carried out over foundations in a manner to disturb them.

(d) The obliteration of old walks would mean the removal of the entire walk structure and replacement of the same with first quality loam, unless a new walk is to be built on the old site.

(e) Tree trunks would require protection with wooden lagging to avoid injury by wagons, trucks or horses.

… (g) We should adhere as closely as possible to the present grades, and consequently no general item for grading involving outs or fills is included.

… 3. Figure the cost of the brick walks shown east of the above gates, which walks I understand are not to be included in the gift of the above donor. Those walks to be of reasonably hard brick, but not as good as those used in the Wrenn [sic] Building. Bricks laid in Portland Cement mortar on a concrete slab similar to the slab already used under the present brick walks east of the Wrenn Building, widths of walks to be as shown, intervening ground to be cultivated with two cords of well-rotted cow manure and sown with grass seed.

… 5. Allow $3000.00 for the cultivation and planting of the general district west of the Wrenn Building which is indicated as a garden.

6. Allow $2000.00 for preparation of loam and the replanting of some of the best of the plants which were removed from the Wrenn Building a year ago.

7. The cost of spading up the whole area inside the triangle and bounded on the west by the new wall, including spading in ten cords of well-rotted cow manure, 50 bags of commercial fertilizer, and sowing to grass, including the maintenance of the grass for nine months.

8. Assume an allowance of $6000.00 for moving in new trees of large, moderate and small size.

9. Assume $3000.00 for the preparation of tree pits with loam and the removal of surplus material for the above trees.

… 11. Assume for special plantings of Box near the President's house, Bufferton [sic] Hall and elsewhere, $2000.00

… 13. Some arrangement should be made for watering the grass and the Box, either by water brought in in containers or in pipes, the water, of course, to be from shallow wells or from the ponds. A supply of such water in pipes is available on the College property now, but an extension to this piece of ground might be estimated assuming that there would be needed in all four sillcocks on the Wrenn Building and six simple goose-neck hydrants elsewhere on the grounds and about evenly distributed.

(Shurtleff 9/19/1929)

Page 9

Shurcliff 's insistence that care be used when digging over previous foundations suggests a concern for the archaeological data still left in the ground. This idea of concern is reinforced when he mentions in item (g) that there will be no grading at the site. Shurcliff appears to be protecting the Wren Yard from damage by insisting on caution when disturbing the ground during landscaping procedures. However, the process of spading in compost and manure that he proposes would necessarily disturb the soil to at least the depth of a shovel over the entire garden. In this way, the top layer of Restoration era soil might appear to share features consistent with plow-zone.

While it appears that the construction fence was placed to keep all construction impact within a contained area, there are photographs showing the degree of disturbance the Restoration had outside of the construction fence. The photograph from December 3, 1929, shows the storage of construction supplies outside of the fence to the West of the building.

1930

In September of 1930 money was growing tight to finish the Wren Restoration project. The landscaping had not properly begun, and there were plans to build at least two out buildings to support the Wren Building. On September 22, 1930, William Perry wrote to Colonel Arthur Woods the following:

You will note that there remains only $11,914.35 for the restoration of the front of campus and out-buildings. I have grouped the last two under one heading instead of making separate headings as in our previous correspondence. This is because it would require more than $11,914.35 for the landscaping and if this amount were allowed there would be nothing left for outbuildings.

The solution to this problem, was that the College borrowed $72,500 from Williamsburg Holding Corp, which was to cover the cost of the landscaping around the Wren Building, Brafferton, and the President's House, construction of the outbuildings, and some interior decoration of the buildings (Geddy 11/24/1934). Of this amount, the total for the outbuildings came to $23,840.02, "walls, walks, etc." came to $47,310.28, and planting was allotted $516.11 (Gardner 10/25/1934).

Although part of the landscaping budget went towards constructing walls, a decision was made to leave the modern walls that had been built a few years before the Restoration. In order to save money, "the disposition of planting will hide them and subordinate them to the Eighteenth Century appearance of the Quadrangle" (PSH 10/1/1930)

Page 10

In December of 1930, Shurcliff was working on the general landscaping plan, including the finished grade around the Wren Building. He wrote to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn:

In response to your request for finished grade levels around the Wren Building, I understand our telephone conversation leaves this matter as follow:

• 1.The ground being very flat, the higher the grades can be kept around the building the better, otherwise we shall require catch basins in the ground, which will hurt the Colonial appearance.
• 2.I cannot, of course, decide what the finished grades should be as they will be determined by your knowledge of the ancient positions of the lowest windows, steps, etc.
• 3.We agreed that in underpinning the building you will indicate the ground grades as high as you can place them without interfering with the windows and the architectural effect.
• 4.When the underpinning is completed I will then work to the grades which you show on your drawings and will use my ingenuity to meet those grades by shaping the ground in the neighborhood.

(12/12/1930)

Shurcliff changed his tone from September of 1929, when he was positive that no grading would be needed on the site. Here he is the party responsible for grading the area around the Wren Building.

1931

The contractors and architects were making decisions about the electrical systems in the Wren Building, however the college engineer also checked the blueprint and okayed them with Chandler to be assured of the feasibility of the plans. The college engineer often found areas that needed adjustments made, and identified problems that the Restoration had caused. In January of 1931, Chandler's engineer wrote to the Williamsburg Holding Corp. asking to "install a fibre conduit encased in concrete for a service cable line from the Wren Building to Brafferton Hall" (Chorley 1/29/1931).

Restoration work was basically finished on the building in early 1931. The architects made the decision to spray gunnite on the foundations below grade to prevent moisture from seeping into the brick. The foundations were excavated, and spraying was done on February 2, 1920. Following the completion of the Restoration work, the land inside the construction fence was graded over the excavation areas, around the foundation and the archaeological trenches. Sub-grading was finished by Todd & Brown in the west courtyard by February 20, 1931 (Geddes 2/20/1931).

Page 11

Shurcliff became concerned with drainage after seeing the new grade in the west courtyard. He wrote to Todd & Brown:

Last week on seeing the subgrading you have done within the wings of the Wren Building, I was delighted. While we are waiting for final plans and decisions do you think there is any risk during a heavy rain that the water ponding in the depression you have made will do damage in the basement of the Wren Building? If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to dig a ditch from this subgraded area leading off toward the north so water can escape? (3/3/1931)

It is interesting that at this time the gunnite treatment of the foundations was complete. Shurcliff 's anxiety about water damage to the basement indicates that he may not have been informed about the gunnite treatment.

The following day, Shurcliff's assistant sent him a telegram at the Boston office, urging swift response to the drainage problem:

Immediate necessity to grade area addition to main building on all sides work to be done ahead of final approval of complete layout believe that work in this area should conform to whole scheme where possible but immediate access must be provided to building if necessary by board walks retaining existing walks and using temporary drains and catch basins where necessary (Perkins 3/4/31)

Drainage in the west courtyard was still a valid concern before the final grading had been completed, and the question of drains versus grading had not been answered in a final analysis. Both Shurcliff 's and Perkin's letters suggest that drains might have been used by the Restoration as a temporary response to the problem before final grading around the building was completed.

By the end of April 1931, grading had been completed on all sides of the building, and Todd & Brown were asked to begin seeding grass in the newly graded areas (Geddy 4/30/1931). The construction fence was removed by May 4, 1931, and an area of disturbed earth is visible along its former line.

As the Restoration continued, with the Wren Building complete except for landscaping, work began on restoring the Brafferton in 1931 and the President's House in 1935. Grading was discussed around both buildings in 1931. In May, Joseph Geddes of Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, wrote to Shurcliff:

Further to our conversation regarding the grade at the President's House with particular relation to the bulkhead door on the west side of the building, we believe that it is advisable to re-grade the Page 12 ground surface west of this building to accommodate the top riser of this bulkhead door since we discovered at the time of excavation the location of the ancient grade at this side of the building. (5/9/1931)

In July, Shurcliff wrote to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn about grading at the President's House, and also the possibility of using temporary walkways until grading was complete:

In connection with the grading operations there which will disturb all the existing brick paths, we think it will be desirable if paths are needed in the immediate future (before a general agreement is made regarding the Wren Triangle) to build the paths of gravel and if necessary lay plank walks on them. (7/16/1931)

These blueprints from 1923 (on the left) and 1924 (on the right) show the Wren Yard landscaping designed by landscape architect Charles Gillette before the Restoration landscaping work began. The curvilinear features of the brick pathways are a characteristic function of his design.

The curving path in front of the Wren Building can be seen in the lower right corner of this photograph from March 26, 1929.

Perry, Shaw & Hepburn and Arthur Shurcliff were equally interested in creating a more authentic garden design. Gillette's invention of an Art Deco inspired curving pathway system didn't fit with their idea of the historic campus, and the paths were changed back to the more historic diamond pattern evident in photographs from the nineteenth century.

In this Arthur Shurcliff blueprint from July 1931, you can see the changes in the layout of paths in the area, they have reverted to the traditional straight lines, and torn up the curvilinear paths. In many cases, such as the central pathway from Duke of Gloucester Street to the Wren Building, new brick paths were laid on top of former concrete ones, necessitating a grading change.

The statue of Lord Botetourt in the middle of the central pathway became problematic because he was resting on the old concrete. Todd & Brown added an estimate of $300.00 to lift the statue by the four inches necessary to lay the brick underneath (Bass 8/7/1931).

While the architectural aspects of the Restoration were characterized by an extreme care towards historic detail, all the parties involved in approving the landscaping drawings seem to have been guided more by personal taste than by a desire for historical accuracy. The general scheme tended towards large trees to be planted in the Wren yard (rather than small ones that would Page 13 take longer to look historic), ivy climbing the walls of the building, and small shrubs of box or crepe myrtle trees next to the building. Some planting was also planned for the west side of the building, with more flowering plants. Shurcliff delivered a list of the plants that he was going to use, along with prices for these plants.

Part of Shurcliff's landscaping plan called for a new lighting scheme in the historic campus. This required a change of where the electrical lines were located. In July of 1931 they decided to use twelve lights, this was increased to thirteen by July of 1932 when the lights were actually installed. The original work order called for lamp posts in a modern style which was estimated to cost around $600.00. However in the interests of keeping a historic appearance to the campus, the Restoration decided to use a historic looking lamp, at an extra cost of $665.00 (Geddes 10/29/1931).

The Wren Building had an official opening ceremony at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 16, 1931. Construction work on the building was officially completed, although landscaping plans were just beginning to be put into practice. Williamsburg Holding Corp. transferred the building back into the possession of the college (Geddy 9/12/1931).

While Shurcliff was responsible for designing the landscaping plans, he may have overstepped his job description while implementing them. The Restoration plans were on a tight budget, as the Depression had finally involved the state cutting back on funding to schools. Although the Williamsburg Holding Corp., funded by Rockefeller was paying for the Restoration of the buildings, the college took a loan from WHC to cover the landscaping. Harold Shurtleff, of Perry, Shaw & Hepburn wrote to Shurcliff:

The architects and the Williamsburg Holding Corporation are very strongly of the opinion that the rough grading and the laying of the walks that is now going on at the College should be immediately placed in the hands of Todd & Brown. It is obvious, of course, that the top soil grading should remain in Mr. Brouwers' hands. (9/18/1931)

The landscaping plan that Shurcliff put together was reviewed by Chandler, Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, the Williamsburg Holding Corp., and by Rockefeller himself. Shurcliff and Chandler were in agreement that Box was the proper historic planting on the grounds. Chandler forwarded a number of letters to Shurcliff and the architects from people hoping to sell Box to be planted in Colonial Williamsburg. There was discussion early on by the architects and Goodwin whether it would be correct to reconstruct the Frenchman's trees, but this seems to have fizzled quickly, as there were never any plans drawn up to this effect (Shurcliff 10/6/1931, 12/30/1931b).

Page 14

Although work on the Wren Building was completed, work was ongoing on the Brafferton. Electrical systems connected the two buildings, and as with the Wren Building's construction, many changes were made to the wiring and pipes that lay underground between the buildings. In October of 1931, Geddes wrote to the contractors:

As a result of a conference with Dr. Chandler, Mr. Kenworthy and representatives from our office this morning, we understand that the terra cotta pipe carrying the heating return from Brafferton Hall which occurs directly under the south walls of this building is to be filled in solid with concrete and a new return line installed inside of the building approximately three feet north of the inside of the south wall of this building. (10/27/1931)

Two days later, Chandler wrote to Geddes about this plan, "Confirming our conversation this morning, you may change the pipe line from Brafferton so as not to interfere with the wall" (10/29/1931).

Geddes wrote back to Chandler on November 3, 1931, about the proposed lines between the Wren Building and Brafferton:

We understand from your Mr. Willoughby that it will be satisfactory to connect the steam supply line and the hot water line to this building from Brafferton Hall in the same Ric-Wil conduit in order to avoid interference with the expansion of the steam line which now connects from the manhole south of this Kitchen Building to Brafferton Hall.

Shurcliff's landscaping plans continued to gain finished detail. The subject of installing drains was again brought up in a letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn:

As I reported to Mr. J. Geddes today, I told Mr. Chorley that the very flat slope (necessitated by the general campus level) at the west reentrant front of the Wren Building, may prove to be too flat to throw off water satisfactorily. Two or four catch basins may be needed or they may not. Their presence would be objectionable to the historical eye. We might put them in now while the ground is broken, or wait until spring to see if the probable need arrives. Mr. Chorley replied that he would certainly wait and add them later if needed. (10/30/1931)

The pathways that Shurcliff was designing in his landscaping plans were made of brick laid in sand. Page 15 He decided that the historic method of laying brick paths was not to mortar them with cement, but instead to lay wooden boards alongside the new pathways to keep the bricks in place until they had settled into the soil. He preferred the boards to be left in place until they rotted away, which he claimed was common practice. Chandler thought the system a poor one, he believed the rotting boards unsightly, and that the bricks would never permanently settle into the ground (Shurcliff 10/31/1931).

Shurcliff reported Chandler's opinions to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn in December 30, 1931:

• 1. We are wasting money all the time in the grading and loaming by little dabs here and there. The men are handling the loam too deliberately. They ought to screen it before it comes, not after all the rubbish is brought in with it.
• 2.The only good brick walk is the new one west of the new outbuilding. The edge is raised and is laid properly in cement, like those built by the College in the past. Later all the other walks will need to be rebuilt on the edges with cement.
• 3. When the wooden forms along the edges of the new paths rot, the bricks will all fall out.
• 4. Water will stand in ponds between some of the walk's because we built them high on top of the old concrete walks.

(12/20/1931a)

Chandler's remark about the loaming indicates that it was brought from offsite, as the stratigraphy of the 2005 to 2007 field schools have indicated. This also suggests that there was a great deal of "rubbish" that ended up in the Wren Yard as a result of this process. This may have implications on any artifacts found in this layer, and it would be an interesting avenue of further research to try to discover from where this soil was taken.

1932

On January 26, 1932 Chandler wrote to Geddes:

Mr. Shurcliff has changed the grades on the campus, and has made things very bad in some respects. For instance, a short time ago, on account of the grading being changed, during a hard rain one of the manholes became flooded, and the water caused a short circuit in the cable. It was necessary for a hole to be drilled through the wall to drain away the pond which had been made, and the men worked late at night patching the big cable in order to have lights. The manholes will have to be raised to avoid similar trouble in the future

Page 16

Chandler's concern about the Shurcliff's changes may have prompted the further changes made during the summer of 1932 to the grade of the Wren yard. His concerns in this letter also reveal the problems that the College was having with electrical lines after the Restoration. Grading was done in the Wren Yard itself at the end of the landscaping in 1932, evening out the areas that had historically collected standing water. In a letter to Todd & Brown on May 10, 1932, C. W. Anner writing for Perry, Shaw & Hepburn directed:

We are enclosing herewith prints of Plan L-15, on which we have numbered in red crayon the various sections which are to be seeded. We also enclose prints showing the grading in the southerly triangle east of the main building.

Section #1
Fill
Fill will be required only in the two triangular plots east of the main building, as follows: In the southerly triangle fill will be required at the east and west apexes as shown on the accompanying blue prints; in the northerly triangular plot, a very small amount of fill should be added at the west apex to fill out the hollow where the paths run close together.

Shoulders of walks
Where new walks are higher than the present ground, shoulders are to be provided which are to meet existing grade ten feet from the walk. Also, good loam and fertilizer is to be applied to a depth of one to two inches over the areas not in fill, so as to provide good soil without digging up and disturbing the tree roots.

They go on to describe the grade, fill, and seeding directions for the rest of this plan. By August 1932, a total of $2,206.00 had been spent on Grading and Seeding expenditures (K. B. 8/3/1932). The lighting of the College Triangle was also installed at this time. A blueprint contract from February 9, 1932, specifies the directions involved in the lighting:

This contract includes the furnishing and installing of new parkway cable, 18 inches below grade, with necessary creosoted wood covering, cast-iron splice boxes, lead cable from splice boxes to lighting standards, safety switch, panelboard in basement of Wren Building and necessary conduit and cable from Transformer Manhole to the south of the Wren Building to the panelboard. It also includes excavation and back-fill.

Todd & Brown was responsible for the final lighting plan, which was reviewed by Chandler. Thirteen poles were planned in the College Triangle, and work began on the placement of the light poles on July 12, 1932 (Anner 7/12/1932).

Page 17

Some impacts the construction work had on the Wren Yard were accidental. In November 1932, Chandler wrote a letter to Branch Bocock at the Williamsburg Holding Corp. complaining of damages to a wall:

I suppose you are the person to whom I should write in regard to any damage that has been done. I wish to call attention to a break in the brick wall near Brafferton, which break was caused by a Restoration truck. Possibly Mr. Trimble would know about this. I do not believe it would cost more than 50c or a dollar to reset the brick, if you take one of your workmen off his regular job and send him to the College to reset the brick. (11/25/1932)

Bocock replied to Chandler, "We have brought this matter to the attention of Todd and Brown, whose truck probably caused this damage, with the request that they give it the necessary attention" (12/1/1932).

1933 - 1934

A photograph from March 15, 1933 shows some of the impact that of both construction and landscaping had to the ground outside the construction fence. Taken from the north of the North Outbuilding, it shows car tracks and construction debris around the building.

By May 5, 1933, landscaping was finished in the Wren Yard. The grading was completed, and flowering plants, shrubs and trees planted. A series of experts were hired to oversee the care and maintenance of the landscaping. The Davey Tree Company was hired to care for the trees for five years, while the Williamsburg Holding Corp. directed gardeners to care for the plants for two years from 1931 to 1933 (Geddy 7/3/1933). In March of 1934, the maintenance for the landscaping was turned over to the College's control, and formally accepted by the Board of Visitors (Chandler 4/11/1934).

However, it may have been hard for the Williamsburg Holding Corp. to relinquish control; in July of 1934, the Williamsburg Holding Corp. was still engaged in sending letters to the College directing landscaping maintenance (Bocock 5/22/1934, 7/6/1934). A final tally was rung of the landscaping costs in November of 1934, with a total of $67,118.23 (Geddy 11/24/1934).

Conclusions

The main alterations to the ground surrounding the Wren Building that occurred during the Restoration are the result of the construction, excavations, grading, and changes in utility lines. The excavations done by Duell in 1928 directly around the foundations and the excavations of Shurcliff's assistant, Cann, looking for the Wren outbuildings, were probably seen as a definitive picture of any future excavations in the yard: as there were no major finds of Page 18 outbuildings, they felt that the protection of the ground for further study was unnecessary.

The Restoration created the need for new utility lines, both above and below ground. Posts were installed in the ground, the temporary poles to service the construction, and new lamp posts installed during the landscaping. The existing underground utility lines to the Wren Building, Brafferton, and President's House were often inadequate for future use and updated, or they were disturbed during construction work and had to be replaced.

There were many discussions about adding drains from the various parties involved in the Restoration. As far back as 1924, drains in the Wren Yard were seen as a possible solution to the flooding problems. The drains found from 2005 to 2007 appear to be of poor construction, and probably didn't work for very long. They may have been a temporary measure until final grading of the site was accomplished.

It is interesting that despite landscape architect Arthur Shurcliff's early care in his landscaping plans from September of 1929 to leave the ground relatively untouched, by the end of the project he had subscribed to general grading of the yard. Since the personal taste of the people involved in decisions about the landscaping seems to have played a major role, it seems likely that their decisions regarding overall grading of yard were guided by similar principles. Some aspects of the grading could use more research: it would be helpful to have blueprint L-15 from May 10, 1932, of the grading that went on during the landscaping to understand which areas correspond to the numbers in Anner's letter to Todd & Brown.

The implications this research has on the excavations from the last few years is that it corroborates the previous interpretation of the orange clay fill layer. This orange clay cap corresponds to the landscaping directives for grading the Yard. It does appear from the records that significant grading went on in the Wren Yard during the Restoration period; although at first the landscaping plans were guided by a concern for archaeological features, by the end, the problems with flooding and drainage lead to a wholescale approach to grading to solve these issues.

As we could see from the photographs, the Restoration construction had an impact on the ground outside of the fence, as well as thoroughly disturbing everything inside of it. Like the grading, it seems the Restoration began by adhering to sound principles of archaeological preservation with respect to the Wren Yard, but that as time went on the realities of construction blurred the issues.

Page 19

Bibliography

• Anner, C. W. letter to Todd & Brown, Inc. 5/10/1932. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, June — January 1932, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 7/12/1932. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, December — July 1932, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Archer, Steve. "Wren Yard Garden Excavations 2004-2005 Interim Report — Draft" Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2006.
• B., K. letter to V. M. Geddy 8/3/1932. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, December — July 1932, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Bass, Lucien. letter to Arthur Shurcliff 8/7/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, September — February 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, 1930 — 28, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, September — February 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October — December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, June — January 1932, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, December — July 1932, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, 1934 — 33, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Blueprint "Layout of Main Building Showing Proposed Pole Line 2/14/1929" Restoration — Lighting College Triangle 1929—1934, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary. 20
• Bocock, Branch. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 12/1/1932. Restoration — Brafferton Hall — 1931-1933, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to I. E. Harris 5/22/1934. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, 1934 — 33, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Charles Duke 7/6/1934. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, 1934 — 33, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Building and Grounds Files, Wren Building, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Cann. "Mr. Cann's Report on the Excavations on the Campus of the College." Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #1, 12/1/28 — 3/1/31, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives, 1929.
• Chandler, J. A. C. letter to James H. Dillard 3/27/1928. Restoration Finances 1927-1932, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to Arthur Shurcliff 8/17/1929. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #1, 12/1/28 — 3/1/31, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Joseph Geddes 10/29/1931. Restoration —— Brafferton Hall —— 1931-1933, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to Joseph Geddes 1/26/1932. Restoration — Landscaping, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to Branch Bocock 11/25/1932. Restoration —— Brafferton Hall —— 1931-1933, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to Kenneth Chorley 4/11/1934. Restoration 1931—1934, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Chandler, J. A. C. Files, Box 27. Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Chandler, J. A. C. Files, Box 28. Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary. 21
• Chandler, J. A. C. Files, Box 38 — Oversize. Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Chorley, Kenneth. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 1/29/1931. Restoration 1931-1934, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Dearstyne, Howard. Architectural History of the Wren Building of the College of William and Mary. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1951.
• Duell, Prentice. Wren Building Archaeological Report, Block 16, Building 3. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1994.
• Electrical Contract. "Specifications for Campus Lighting William and Mary College 2/9/1932." Restoration — Lighting College Triangle 1929-1934, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Gardner, A. B. to V. M. Geddy 10/25/1934. Block 16 # 1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping 1934-33, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Geddes, Joseph. Green Work Order No. 130 to Todd & Brown, Inc. 10/29/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October — December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Arthur Shurcliff 2/20/1931. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #1, 12/1/28 — 3/1/31, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Arthur Shurcliff 5/9/1931. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #2, 3/1/31 — 1/1/32, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Todd & Brown, Inc. 10/27/1931. Restoration — Heating and Water Systems 1929 -1932, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 11/3/1931. Restoration — Heating and Water Systems 1929 - 1932, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Geddy, V. M. letter to Philip F. Keebler 11/24/1934. Block 16 # 1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping 1934-33, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives. Page 22
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, Todd & Brown, Harold Shurtleff, Arthur Shurcliff, Arthur Perkins, W. A. R. Goodwin, and Williamsburg Holding Corp New York Office 9/12/1931. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #2, 3/1/31 — 1/1/32, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 4/30/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, September — February 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 7/3/1933. Restoration — Landscaping, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to Philip Keebler 11/24/1934. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, 1934-33, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Gillette, Charles F. —. "Incomplete Plan Suggesting Arrangement of Grounds, August 6, 1923" Blueprints. Acc. # 1988.46, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. "A Plan Showing the Proposed Arrangement of Grounds March 14, 1924" Blueprints. Acc. # 1988.46, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. "Plans Showing Walks and Grading to be done to Old Campus 1926." Blueprints. Acc. # 1983.37, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Goodwin, W. A. R. letter to JAC Chandler 12/16/1924. Goodwin, WAR 1920-1925, Box 17, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, UA 2.08, SOSS 193F, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Kocher, A. Lawrence and Howard Dearstyne. The Wren Building of the College of William and Mary Vol. II. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1951.
• Molineux, Will "The Architect of Colonial Williamsburg: William Graves Perry" CW Journal, Autumn 2004 http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Autumn04/perry.cfm 18 Nov. 2007.
• P1985.30. Picture File of Wren Building in Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary Page 23
• Parks, Edmund. "My Dream and My Hope" History of the Restoration, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2007 http://www.history.org/Foundation/general/introhis.cfm 17 Nov. 2007
• Perkins. telegram to Arthur Shurcliff 3/4/1931. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #2, 3/1/31 - 1/1/32, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Perry, Shaw & Hepburn letter to J. A. C. Chandler 10/1/1930. Block 16 #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping 1930—28, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Perry, William G. The Williamsburg Journals of William G. Perry 1927-1942. Bound Typed Manuscript, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Special Collections, 1942.
• —. letter to Arthur Woods 9/22/1930. Block 16 #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping 1930—28, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Photographs Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Visual Resources, Rockefeller Library
  Binder 16 G — Wren East Elevation
  2/20/1931 N160
  Binder 16 H — Wren Southeast Elevation
  3/26/1929 Layton
  5/4/1931Perry, Shaw & Hepburn N362
  N4781 May 1933
  Binder 16 I — Wren South Elevation v. 1
  1/14/1930 Layton construction fence
  Binder 16 K — Wren West Elevation
  6/18/1929 Layton L750
  7/30/1929 Layton L752
  3/3/1931 Perry, Shaw & Hepburn N361
  Binder 16 N — Wren Wings
  12-3-29 L71X Layton outside fence
  Box 227, Progress IV, outbuilding landscaping, N3779 3/15/33.
• Ragland, H. S. Old Foundations of Outbuildings to Wren Building, College of William and Mary (Block 16, Building 3). Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1931.
• Savedge, Catherine. The Wren Building, College of William and Mary: Preliminary Architectural Report. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1968. Page 24
• Shurcliff, Arthur A. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 9/17/1928. Restoration — Landscaping, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to Harold H. Shurtleff 3/12/1931. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #2, 3/1/31 — 1/1/32, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 12/12/1930. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #1, 12/1/28 — 3/1/31, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Todd & Brown, Inc. 3/3/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, September — February 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 7/16/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, September — February 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 10/6/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October — December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 12/30/1931a. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October — December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 12/30/1931b. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October — December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Perry, Shaw & Hepburn 10/30/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October — December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to J. A. C. Chandler 10/31/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, October - December 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. "Vicinity of Wren Building Minimum Layout" Plan L—3, 7/29/1931. Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #2, 3/1/31 — 1/1/32, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #1, 12/1/28 — 3/1/31, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives. Page 25
• Records of Arthur A. Shurcliff, Landscaping — William and Mary #2, 3/1/31 — 1/1/32, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Shurtleff, Arthur. "Meeting Notes 7/25/1929" Block 16 #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping 1930- 28, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• —. letter to Todd & Brown, Inc. 9/19/1929. Folder: Block 16 #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping 1930- 28
• Shurtleff, Harold. letter to Arthur Shurcliff 9/18/1931. Block 16, #1, 2, 3 College — Landscaping, September - February 1931, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Archives.
• Trimble, Robert, Jr. letter to JAC Chandler 7/5/1928. Restoration Finances 1927-1932, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• —. letter to JAC Chandler 2/15/1929. Restoration — Lighting College Triangle 1929-1934, Box 27, J. A. C. Chandler Files, Archives Acc. # 1982.45, Swem Library Archives, College of William and Mary.
• Waterman, Thomas. Notes on Wren Building 1929-1931. Handwritten Manuscript, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library Special Collections, 1931.

A Geophysical Survey of College Yard

This work was done on the eastern side of the College of William and Mary. The survey revealed a broad, conductive band that extends 5 m to the north and south of the central brick walk. This band may be caused by buried remnants of a broader and earlier path; it may also be caused by the application of fertilizer or other chemicals in the area. The geophysical survey detected three objects underground at unusually large depths; these objects appear to be metallic and their depths range between 1.5 and 2 m underground. The survey also revealed a distinctive flat interface that is about 2 m wide and 0.4 m underground; this flat surface is about 20 m north of Brafferton Hall. The most important findings of this survey are plotted in Figure 4.

The Site

This geophysical survey was done in College Yard, a triangular park that is at the eastern entrance to the College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Virginia. The area of work is illustrated in Figure 1.

This exploration was done in order to detect features that are now underground; this is an early step in the study of the gardens that were formerly in College Yard. In the 1930's, archaeological trenches were dug along diagonals in this area (information from Andrew Edwards, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation), but the findings of that investigation are not known.

An early drawing of College Yard is available (a copy was supplied to me by Andrew Edwards); this Bodleian plate from 1740 shows eight rows of short trees extending east-west along lines across the yard. Underground evidence of these plantings or other gardens was sought with this geophysical survey.

A grid and coordinate system were set up for this survey. The reference point (called E0 N0) was defined as the southwest corner of the President's House; bushes are less dense at this corner than at the SE corner or at Brafferton Hall. The north direction was defined as the line of the west side of the President's House; this line is a magnetic bearing of about 8.6 degrees. Since this wall of the house was shaded at the time of setting up the grid, the direction is less accurate than usual. Rectangular areas of survey were set up with the aid of an optical right angle sight and a tape measure; the closure error of a grid rectangle at point E46 S70 was 0.25 m. Some features that were visible at the surface were located during the course of the survey, and these are mapped in Figure 3. These features provide a check on the location of this work; the primary check point is the corner of the lamp post at E47.6 S68. The GPS coordinate of this property is W76° 42.52' N37° 16.25'.

Page 2

Several pipes and wires are underground in the yard; the known utility lines are plotted in Figure 2. This shows that electric wires are most dense in the western part of the yard. Several lines on the utility map are not labeled. One is a line that goes diagonal to the southwest from the President's House. Another is a line that wanders in the western end of the yard; it is possible that this is a topographic contour. In addition to these mapped utilities, one or more drain inlets are visible on the north side of the yard, and there must be pipes below these. There are no overhead electrical lines in the yard. While there are underground steam pipes on the campus, none show on the utility map in the area of survey.

The utility map (Figure 1 and Figure 2) locates the brick walkways that cross the yard; the thickness and the materials at the base of these walks are not known. This map also locates the nearby buildings and trees in the area. Figure 3 shows the few trees whose locations I approximated during this survey; there are differences between my survey and the utility map. Some trees have clearly been removed within the last few years, for memorial markers are visible where no trees now stand. One or two trees have grounding wires from lightning rods on them. A few small trees that have recently been planted have rings of bark mulch around them. There are no bushes in the area that was surveyed, and the ground surface is covered by mown grass. The surface is almost completely level; no topographic relief is visible. It is likely that there are few stones naturally in the soil and bedrock is probably at a depth of more than 10 m. The statue in Figure 2 was located from a historical map supplied by Andrew Edwards; the location of the cannon in Figure 3 is approximated.

Vehicular traffic is heavy on the adjacent roads. Many pedestrians cross the yard during the day; these are students, professors, and visitors to the Wren Building. Since it appeared that garden lineaments extend east-west, it was best to make geophysical measurements along north-south lines that extended completely across the yard. The guide rope that marked these lines of measurement caused little difficulty for pedestrians and bicyclists where it crossed the walks. Because of the density of trees, the guide rope could not be shifted sideways; instead, it needed to be picked up and replaced for most lines of traverse.

The main part of the college campus is to the west, while a shopping center and Colonial Williamsburg are to the east. There are no industries in the vicinity, and there are no high voltage power lines, radio transmitter antennas, or electrified railroads nearby.

The Survey

Two geophysical instruments were applied to this survey; these are sketched in Figure 21. Most of the field time was devoted to a survey with a ground-penetrating radar. This radar was a model SIR System-7, manufactured by Geophysical Survey Systems. A high frequency antenna was suitable for this survey; this was a model 3102 antenna which has a predominant frequency of 315 MHz. The main traverses were made going toward the north, and parallel lines progressed toward the west. Figure 7 locates the lines of profile. At the end of the survey, a traverse was made along line S53 as a check on features that were detected during the main survey. The control and recording equipment for the radar was stationed in my car, which was parked on the central walk during the survey.

The velocity of the radar pulse was estimated from the echoes of some underground objects, and the results are plotted in Figure 23. The radar echoes are mapped in Figure 6; clusters of similar echoes from similar depths are summarized in Figure 4.

The reverberation of the radar pulse on line E14 at S53 (Figure 18) shows at least two repeated echoes, and perhaps three. The apparent distance from the surface to the first, second, Page 3 and third echoes does not remain constant, but increases. This may be because the later echoes are represented only by lower radar frequencies, and the velocity of the radar pulse decreases with decreasing frequency.

Before the radar survey was started, a reconnaissance was made of the yard with a Geonics EM38 conductivity meter. This initial test found broad areas with high conductivity on the western part of the yard. This high conductivity indicated that the radar would not be able to profile very deeply into the soil in that western area, and therefore the radar survey emphasized the eastern side of the yard. After the radar survey was finished, the western part of the yard was mapped with the conductivity instrument. This mapped survey revealed that the readings of high conductivity were caused by pipes or wires that are probably more than 1 m underground, and not by conductive soil. Deep utility lines are rare, and these were not recognized as utilities during the reconnaissance.

The mapped conductivity survey was made with traverses along the same lines as those that were profiled with the radar; these lines were spaced by 4 m. Recorded measurements were made going toward the north at intervals of 0.5 m. The readings were recorded with a Metrosonics model dl-3200 data logger that was programmed to sample the voltage from the EM38 meter at intervals of 1 s; the traverse speed was set at 0.5 m/s. In order to correct for the measurement lag and averaging of the EM38 and data logger, the readings were shifted back by 1 m from the points where the values were recorded. Since the locations of the lamp wire from the radar and EM38 surveys agree, this shift was correct.

The conductivity meter was operated in its normal mode. The magnetic dipoles were vertical and the length of the instrument was aligned with the direction of traverse. Only conductivity readings were recorded. The instrument was operated within a thermal shell composed of slabs of Styrofoam that were one inch thick; this reduced changes in the readings caused by warming and cooling. The bottom of the EM38 was at a height of about 10 cm above the ground surface; the conductivity measurements and the interpreted depths have not been adjusted for this height.

The noisiness of the measurements was tested at two times and locations and the findings are plotted in Figure 24; electrical interference did not cause a significant difficulty for the survey.

The measurements of conductivity within the range of 18 and 80 mS/m are plotted in Figure 9. Since the actual range of the readings was much wider, three additional maps illustrate different spans in the amplitudes of the measurements. The most important intermediate values are mapped in Figure 10. Negative values, which indicate shallow metal, are plotted in Figure 11. High positive values, which usually mean deep metal, are plotted in Figure 12.

While shallow metallic objects are often detected at archaeological sites, deep metallic objects are rarely found. During this conductivity survey, three such deep objects were located by the EM38. The lines of measurement that cross each of these objects are plotted in Figures 14 - 16. Geophysical tests that were made at the Petersburg National Battlefield (Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology, NPS print, 1998, p. 33 and Figure B61) indicate that the depth of a compact metallic object that causes unusually high readings is about equal to the width of the anomaly at half its maximum amplitude. This interpretation has been applied to the estimation of the depths of the three objects that are marked with filled circles in Figure 4.

Many other objects were detected by the EM38 with negative readings; these objects are almost certainly metal. While their depth cannot be interpreted, these depths are probably less than 0.5 m underground.

A magnetic survey was not attempted in this yard because of the heavy trucks that pass on the nearby roads. At a distance of 10 m, these trucks would cause a magnetic gradient of at least 23 Page 4 nT/m; at a distance of 20 m, the gradient would probably be more than 2 nT/m. This geophysical survey was done on September 1 and 2, 2004. There was no rainfall during those two days, and temperatures were warm to cool.

Findings of the Geophysical Survey

The most important results of this survey are plotted in Figure 4; secondary findings are shown in Figure 5.

The clearest and most certain finding of the radar survey was a flat surface that is located in the central part of the southern yard; this is feature R1 in Figure 4, where it is marked with cross-hatching. There is a sharp change in the soil at a depth of 0.4 m at this location; Figure 18 is a radar profile that crosses this feature. The soils that are above and below at this feature cannot be determined from the radar, but the feature could be caused by a layer of clay, ash, or cinders, since these materials have electrical properties that are very different from the normal sandy soil. Little is known about the shape of the feature since it was detected on only two perpendicular lines of profile.

Several other features were detected that have planar interfaces; these are indicated in Figure 4 with diagonal hatching and the letter P. These features have flat surfaces where there is a large change in the soil with depth. Therefore, some of these features could be caused by cultivation or mulching. An illustration of a radar profile with a planar feature is shown in Figure 19; the echo at S28 is mapped in Figure 4 as planar feature P1.

Another class of feature was revealed by the radar because of a greater complexity of its echo patterns. These findings are plotted in Figure 4 with X patterns that fill the area of the features. The radar profile of Figure 17 shows this complex pattern between S50 and S40; this is part of feature C3 in Figure 4. The roots of larger trees in the yard can also cause this complex type of echo pattern; the findings of complex echoes in the vicinity of large trees have been excluded in the summary of Figure 4. The undecayed roots of large trees that have been removed can cause the same complex pattern.

The conductivity survey traced at least five underground pipes or wires; these were primarily on the western, southern, and northern sides of the yard. The spatial density of these utility lines prevented the detection of archaeological features of interest in the vicinity of the metallic pipes and wires. Fortunately, the eastern part of the yard has few buried utilities.

The survey in the eastern yard revealed a broad feature with high electrical conductivity. Figure 13 shows its width as compared to that of the central walk. The unusual conductivity could be caused by buried remnants of a broad former walk that was constructed of ash, cinders, or clay. It is possible that the materials of the path were spread to the north and south by pedestrians walking on the path. The high conductivity band could also be caused by the fertilization of plants that were once on the north and south sides of the walk. If de-icing salts have been spread on the current brick walk on icy winter days, these salts might also be the cause of the high conductivity. The radar and conductivity surveys both give hints that there may be segments of a buried pipe or wire beneath some spans of the central walk; if there is a buried utility line there, it is unlikely to be the primary cause of this geophysical pattern.

There is a suggestion on the conductivity map (Figure 10) that the readings may also be high at the northern walk; underground wires or pipes near the southern walk prevent an evaluation there.

The conductivity survey located a number of metallic objects that are at a shallow depth (less than 0.5 m), and these are indicated in Figure 5 with asterisks. In addition, three objects were very clearly detected, and these are located in Figure 4 with filled circles. These objects are probably Page 5 metallic, and they are probably deep (1.5 - 2 m underground). These types of objects are rarely detected during conductivity surveys, and none have been excavated; therefore, the interpretations of metal and the large depths are not certain. The three objects are near the middle of the yard. In principle, the stump of a metallic flagpole might cause a conductivity pattern that is similar to these; metal in a well or privy could also cause these patterns, but these features are probably unlikely in this area. The lines of measurement during the conductivity survey were 4 m apart, and this affects the findings in two ways. First, there may be additional objects like these that remain undetected between lines of measurement. Second, the objects could be as much as 1 m or so to the east or west from the points that are marked at the centers of the filled circles in Figure 4.

Figure 5 shows the paths of buried pipes or wires that were traced by this geophysical survey; many of these are not included in the utility map of Figure 2. This may be because these pipes or wires are old or abandoned. The buried wires that supply electrical power to the lamps that border the yard were readily traced with both the radar and the conductivity meter. Most of the other utility lines were detected by only one of the two instruments. The radar profile of line W6 (Figure 19) shows a flat interface at S54 and just north of the southern path. The perpendicular profile revealed that this echo actually was not caused by a flat interface, but was apparently due to a buried pipe or wire that is extended along the line of the north-south profile. This feature, U9 in Figure 5, is probably part of utility line U8. The line of utility U7, at the northwest side of Figure 5, could not be traced accurately because there are so many other objects in its vicinity. Utility line U3 may have been detected on a few radar profiles at a depth of about 52 cm. The possible utility line U10 on the east side of the yard may simply be a coincidental alignment of conductivity anomalies.

At two locations along the brick paths, the radar detected soil interfaces on the north sides of the path; these interfaces dip down toward the north. The two locations are labeled I1 and I2 in Figure 4. While the cause of these echoes is not known, they may not have any archaeological importance.

The radar found few echoes on the north side of the central walk; this finding is plotted in Figure 5. It is possible that this effect may be a result of past landscaping in the area. The typical radar echo in the yard was from a depth of about 0.6 m (Figure 20). The depths of radar echoes in different parts of the yard are plotted in Figure 8. There are two areas where clusters of echoes are shallower than normal; echoes are also generally deeper in the northern half of the yard. These effects can be due to landscaping and the thickness of fill soil; they may also just be coincidences.

The approximate orientations of the three main buildings that are on the sides of College Yard are indicated in Figure 25 along with an estimate of the changing direction of magnetic north at Williamsburg (the declination data is from the computer program USHD from the National Geophysical Data Center). The declination data do not extend back to the construction of the Wren Building (1695), but perhaps historical declination data are available for that period from early surveyors or navigators.

Conclusions

While this geophysical survey has suggested that the central path in College Yard may once have been much broader, this finding is not certain. It is possible that fertilization or de-icing salts are the cause of the broad geophysical anomaly. It is not impossible that fragments of a pipe or wire below the path might be part of the cause of the high readings.

It is most likely that three deep metallic objects have been detected near the middle of College Yard. While it is certain that three objects were detected, the interpretation of metal and large depth Page 6 is not absolutely certain. There is a good chance that other, similar objects were not detected in the yard because of the wide spacing between lines of measurement. Should it ever be desired to test these locations with excavations, it could be beneficial to accurately determine the exact locations of the objects with a small resurvey with a conductivity meter.

While there remain some geophysical uncertainties about the width of the path and the source of the apparently deep objects that cause the high conductivity anomalies, the finding of the flat surface north of Brafferton Hall is certain. If excavation should find that the depth of this surface is not 0.4 m, the actual depth will allow the other radar-estimated depths to be corrected.

Both the radar and conductivity surveys were suitable for this exploration. The geophysical data suggest that it was better that both instruments were applied with a coarse spacing between of measurements rather than the alternative of using only one instrument with a finer line spacing. In the western part of the yard, the conductivity survey detected only buried pipes and wires; any patterns from archaeological features of interest were obliterated by the strong patterns from these utility lines.

Neither geophysical survey detected any evidence of the earlier rows of trees that were once in the yard. While the surveys did provide hints of possible landscaping, no clear geometric patterns were revealed that might suggest garden plots. The geophysical surveys also did not detect the archaeological trenches of the 1930's. Excavations, like garden beds, are difficult to detect with normal geophysical procedures where these features are shallow.

The utility of geophysical exploration for the exploration of gardens would increase if detailed geophysical measurements could be made where archaeological excavations have already revealed garden features. If the geophysical characteristics of garden features are found to differ significantly from nearby non-garden soils, then economical and reliable procedures of exploring gardens may be possible.

Cultivation depth is a particularly important garden variable that might be quantified by geophysical tests. These soil interfaces may be at a depth of only 10 - 30 cm, and normal geophysical procedures are not particularly suitable for their location or study. Prior experiments have suggested that seismic refraction surveys may be able to provide this information (because of the softness of cultivated soil), but refraction measurements are slow. Soil penetrometer measurements may also be able to estimate the depth of cultivation; penetrometers are used by farmers to quantify the compaction of soils in their fields. It is possible that modern vehicular traffic on the present soil surface (such as lawn mowers) may compress the soil and make refraction and penetrometers surveys less certain.

It is possible that organic processes in the cultivated soil of a garden bed have made that cultivated soil more magnetic. The thickness of this magnetic layer (and therefore the cultivated layer) may be determined with measurements of the magnetic susceptibility of the soil in bored holes. A new procedure called magnetic susceptibility sounding may provide an alternative procedure, and no bored holes are needed.

If shallow garden beds are discovered in excavations, geophysical tests could be made on the adjacent undisturbed soil to see if a very high resolution radar antenna could detect the shallow soil interface.

Geophysical measurements could also be made on the soils that have been removed from garden beds; the magnetic and electrical properties of these soils may differ from the properties of uncultivated soils that are found at the same depth. These comparative tests may aid future geophysical surveys in detecting these garden features.

Figure 1: The vicinity of the surveyed area. The work was done in the College Yard at the east side of the College of William and Mary. The broken line rectangle shows the area that is enlarged in the following figures. This is a tracing of a utility map that was supplied by Loise Kale.

Figure 2: The area of survey. Radar and conductivity surveys were done within this area. Many pipes and wires are underground in the western part of the area, and a wire going to some lamps encircles the yard. This is an enlargement of the central part of Figure 1.

Figure 3: Surface features in the area of survey. Broken line circles indicate the trees in Figure 2. The remaining features were mapped during the geophysical survey. Small circles show the trunk diameters of some trees. Vertical line segments locate where the brick path was detected on the radar profiles.

Figure 4: The main findings of this survey. The central dotted pattern shows a conductive band that is broader than the visible brick path. Three filled circles locate objects that are at a depth of 1.5 - 2 m. The most distinctive finding of the radar was a flat surface (R1 at E18 S54) that is north of Brafferton Hall.

Figure 5: Other findings of the geophysical survey. Solid lines mark segments of several possible underground pipes or wires. Asterisks locate where a dozen shallow metallic objects were detected. There were bands on the north side of the central brick path where very few objects were detected by the radar.

Figure 6: The radar echoes. The symbols are described in Figure 22. The numbers next to the symbols list the estimated depths of the objects that cause the echoes; these numbers are in centimeters (their precision is greater than their accuracy). A total of 248 echoes are plotted here.

Figure 7: The lines of radar profile. These were spaced by 2 m on the eastern part of the area, but 4 m in the remaining area. A total of 30 lines were profiled, and the sum of their lengths was 1604 m. A single line was profiled in an east-west direction; for the remaining lines, the traverse direction was toward the north.

Figure 8: The average depth of the radar echoes. Echoes were most shallow near E45 S25 and E20 S60. Objects also appear to be generally deeper in the north half of the area as compared to the south. Echo depths greater than 1 m were not included in the averaging, which had an inverse-distance-squared weighting to a radius of 20 m.

Figure 9: The conductivity map. This was measured with the Geonics EM38 meter. Buried pipes and wires cause the large and linear patterns in the western, northern, and southern parts of the area. In the less-affected triangular area on the east, the electrical conductivity of the soil is less than 10 millisiemens per meter.

Figure 10: An amplification of the important conductivity patterns. This clarifies the smaller changes in conductivity in the eastern area and reveals the high readings that border the central path. Small-area anomalies are elongated east-west because the lines of measurement were spaced by 4 m.

Figure 11: Negative readings of conductivity. The EM38 gave values of less than zero in these areas. These "impossible" readings are caused by metallic objects that are rather shallow underground (probably less than 0.5 m). These negative readings typically form lines; these lines are caused by buried pipes or wires.

Figure 12: Unusually high conductivity. The readings in these areas are higher than is natural for the soil here. Almost all of these extreme readings (conductivity > 50 mS/m) are caused by metallic pipes or wires that are rather deep underground (perhaps greater than 1 m).

Figure 13: Average conductivity in the eastern yard. The straight line segment locates the path. The soil is unusually conductive for a distance of about 5 m to the north and south of the path. These conductive bands may be caused by ash or cinders of a former and broader path, or by fertilization in this area.

Figure 14: A conductivity profile of line E18. This shows a small area of high readings around S44 (North -44); this may be caused by a metallic object (perhaps to the east or west) that is at a depth of roughly 1.9 m. Small symbols locate the measurements, which were at intervals of 0.5 m.

Figure 15: A conductivity profile of line E22. The sharp peak at S31 is probably caused by a metallic object that is at a depth of 1.8 m. The large swings in the readings at the north and south ends of the profile are caused by metallic utility lines.

Figure 16: A conductivity profile of line E30. A third deep metallic object is revealed by the high readings at S27. This object may be at a depth of 1.5 m underground. The conductivity is low right at the path, which is at S38 -S35.6 on this line. To the north and south of the path, the conductivity is high.

Figure 17: A radar profile of line E42. This shows an area of complex stratigraphy near S50. While there is a gum tree about 5 m to the east, its roots may not be the source of this complexity. Tick marks at the top of the profile are at intervals of 2 m.

Figure 18: A radar profile of line E14. The planar echo bands on the left side (S52) of this profile are caused by a flat surface that is 2 m wide and at a depth of about 0.4 m. The change in the soil at this feature is so large that the radar pulse reverberates between the interface and the earth's surface.

Figure 19: A radar profile of line W6. Echoes at the three brick paths are marked "p". Just north of the southern path, and at S54, a planar echo may be caused by a buried pipe or wire that goes in a north—south direction.

Figure 20: The depths of the radar echoes. They were most frequently detected at a depth of about 0.65 m. The range of depths that are plotted in Figure 6 is 0.22 to 1.26 m. Most of the deepest echoes were caused by a utility line at the northwest side of the area.

Figure 21: The equipment of this survey. Both the radar and the conductivity meter were suitable for this site. A high resolution, model 3102, radar antenna profiled the soil to a depth of about 2 m. The conductivity meter measured the surface—weighted electrical conductivity of the soil to a depth of about 1.5 m.

Figure 22: The echo symbols. Extended symbols indicated broad reflectors. The symbols for irregular strata mark those echoes that vary over a width of 0.5 m or more; fine-scale complexity marks the span of smaller echoes. Circular symbols indicate compact objects, and the symbols mark the clarity of the echoes.

Figure 23: The velocity of the radar pulse. It was estimated by a geometrical analysis of the hyperbolic echoes from eight underground reflectors. An average value of 10.1 cm/ns has calibrated the depth scales on the radar profiles. This plot suggests that the velocity of the radar pulse increases with depth.

Figure 24: Electrical interference to the conductivity meter. It was high in the southwestern corner of the survey area; this is probably due to the buried electrical cables there. The noise at the end of the survey was more typical. The standard deviations of the readings are listed in the legend.

Figure 25: Changing magnetic declination. Magnetic north is currently about 10.4 degrees west of true north, but these directions were closer together in the past. The horizontal dashed lines approximate the orientations of the three main buildings in the area.

VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SOIL TESTING LABORATORY

Person Submitting: WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, ANDREW EDWARDS
P 0 BOX 1776
WILLIAMSBURG VA 23187

095
Unit: JAMES CITY

2005 Figures

478N / 510 E
West and South Walls

484N / 510 E
North and East Walls

488 N / 510 E
North and East Walls

492 N / 510 E
North and East Walls

494 N / 508 E
North and East Walls

496 N / 510 E
North and East Walls

2006 Figures

Wren Yard Garden
2006
Unit 447 N 468 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2006
Unit 447 N 474 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2006
Unit 449 N 478 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2006
Unit 458 N 503 E
Profiles

2007 Figures

Wren Yard Garden 2007
Feature Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 451 N 478 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 455 N 478 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 465 N 480 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 469 N 484 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 469 N 488 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 469 N 492 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 471 N 486 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 471 N 482 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 471 N 490 E
Profiles

Wren Yard Garden
2007
Unit 471 N 492 E
Profiles