Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

In the absence of Mr. Noël Hume, I have pleasure in transmitting the Interim Report on the 1965 excavations at Wetherburn's Tavern.

This has not been proofed by the author, owing to his absence.

Introduction

The following brief summary of the results of the 1965 archaeological excavations at Wetherburn's Tavern and its environs is intended to be precisely that. It is written at the request of the Department of Architecture before the vast collection of artifacts has been studied, before at least half the site has been dug, and before the historical research has been enlarged to answer he questions posed by the archaeological evidence. It is quite possible, therefore, that the tentative conclusions offered here will eventually be greatly revised — or more bluntly, they may be hopelessly wrong.

The season's excavations which began on June 21st have concentrated on the study of the tavern and its various appendages, on the kitchen, and on the buildings situated between the tavern and the building known as the Charlton House. The site had not been previously dug, but intensive occupation through the 19th and the present century did considerable damage to the colonial remains. In many areas the 18th century layers were no more than four or five inches below the existing surface and where they had escaped being dug through before, they had suffered from the ramifications of recent root systems.

Vast quantities of artifacts were retrieved from all areas of the excavations, most of them being very small pieces of ceramics, glass, and hardware, which had been spread about as yard surfaces and walkways. No major trash deposits were located, and it is supposed that these would in any case, have been located to the rear of the property. Nevertheless, the quality and variety of the finds was the equal of the artifacts from any site in Williamsburg — from the Governor's Palace downward. There is therefore no indication that Wetherburn's was any less elegant in its furnishings than was the Raleigh; on the contrary, based on the artifacts now in Colonial Williamsburg's archaeological collections, the Wetherburn finds are superior. The proportion of high quality, over - and underglaze decorated Chinese export porcelain is higher than that from any other excavated site, and there is reason to suppose that this was the visually dominant ceramic theme at the tavern. This is, to say the least, a mite surprising and leaves one wondering whether our 20th century idea of 18th century tavern furnishings may not be distorted.

Key problems of structural chronology still persist, not the least of them being a mid-18th century fire which burned hotly and extensively, but consuming we know not what. A one to two inch ^A layer of burned brick and melted artifacts was found spreading across the yard between the tavern and its kitchen, as well as extending to the west of the tavern in its first phase. Similar burned bricks were ^B found in front (to north) of the first phase tavern building though the pieces were less crushed than were those to the south. At least one heavily burned brick was used in the first period foundation construction, and a heavily sooted stretcher brick was used in the ^C south foundation towards the southeast corner, a section which is supposedly of first period construction. These pieces of evidence 2 might serve to suggest that an earlier building on the site was destroyed by fire and that the present structure was built on the same site on foundations built from re-used materials. The quantity of brick and the size of the foundations might even indicate that the supposed first period tavern was a brick rather than a frame ^build structure. All this is pure conjecture, but until another more satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, it cannot be entirely dismissed, burned artifacts indicates that the fire occurred in the 1750's, a date too late to fit happily within the presently supposed architectural chronology.

Current thinking has it that the first period (east) section of the tavern was constructed during the ownership of the property by Richard Bland (c. 1716 - 1727) or Benjamin Harrison (1728-1738). Archaeological evidence from the supposed builders' trenches gives a terminus post quem of circa 1740-45 and so does not support either of these possibilities.

D The southeasterly shed addition has no documentary dating, but as it overlies the yard spread of burned brick and domestic artifacts, it is certain that it dates no earlier than circa 1750.

E Dating for the kitchen foundation is provided by the evidence of wine bottles buried on the wall line prior to its construction and these would appear to date in the period circa 1745-55. However, as they were almost certainly buried shortly before a change of owners of the property, there is reason to believe that further archaeo-historical research can arrive at a more accurate dating.

F A smaller outbuilding (12'4" x 12'+) was found only one foot to the northeast of the kitchen and although this has not yet been fully explored it has been determined that it lies on an east/west ^G axis with an exterior chimney at the south, and that its proportions appear to be comparable to those of the kitchens at Turtle's^Tutter's Neck.

H Another outbuilding has been partially explored to the west of the kitchen and although little dating evidence has been derived from the structure itself, the fact that bottles were buried immediat[illegible] and in the lea of it would suggest that it was in existence prior to their deposition.

J Yet another outbuilding has been partially exposed beneath the extant dairy, and beyond the fact that the remains had supported a smokehouse during the last quarter of the 18th century, little information has yet been garnered from it.

The mutilated remains of two commercial (?) buildings have been found immediately east of the tavern, both overlying a brickbat yard of mi-18th century date. The most easterly ^westerly, ^K measuring 16'0 x 21'0" was apparently constructed on piers with ^L a brick-foundationed entrance and an exterior small chimney to the east, abutting against the second structure. The latter possesses ^Ma 9" (one brick) foundation of continuous construction approximately 30'0" in north/south length and of indeterminate width. A brick ^N pier within the building indicates that its plan comprised a large front room with a small room 10'0" x ? at the rear. No chimney has yet been located, but a complete exposure of the unit will be undertaken in 1966.

It has been established that the pier-built building was either free-standing or more probably was attached to the east face of the tavern, there being less than 11" between its N/S foundation piers and the east wall of the aforesaid tavern. A small pier ^O extending north^westward from the north cheek of the chimney would make the unit between 21'0" and 22'0" in east/west width (depending upon whether or not it abutted against the tavern east wall), and with its east wall line lying directly on the presumed colonial lot line between Lots 21 and 22. The chimney would, however, extend beyond the lot line, but Mr. Buchanan has noted that such infringements on neighboring properties was not uncommon in 18th century Williamsburg.

It may be significant that a quantity of colonial wig curlers were found scattered between these two small buildings, suggesting that these objects had been thrown there while the two units were standing. The possibility of a unity of property ownership (between Lots 21 and 22) cannot be ruled out, at least in the mid-18th century, for no explanation has yet been produced to explain the continuance of the brickbat yard beneath both structures.

The Tavern

The building here described as the tavern is that which was leased by Colonial Williamsburg in 1964 and which was then known as the Bull's Head Tavern. it must be understood that it was not initially constructed as a hostelry and that it did not continue to be so used after the Revolution. Nevertheless, for convenience, the term tavern will serve to distinguish between the main house and its dependencies.

The existing research report leaves distressing gaps in the history of the tavern, many of them occurring during the most critical periods of its life. Archaeological evidence suggests that in this phase (c. 1740-60) which embraces almost the entire Wetherburn occupancy a number of highly significant changes occurred to the appearance of the tavern and perhaps also to the kitchen. The architectural evidence can also support the possibility of major changes in this period; but none of these sources of information have, singly, been able to identify the extent, nature, and dates of those alterations.

It is well known that the tavern comprises two distinct sections, having grown from a central-halled building measuring 44'9" x 26'6", to a massive structure in length, this being achieved by the construction of a westerly addition measuring 32'0" x 26'6". Archaeological evidence for the construction of either unit is scant and it can only be said that the foundations of the first, or easterly section existed by circa 1745 and that the western extension had been added by 170. The dating evidence, such as it is, is derived from the filling of the builders' trench around the northeast, west and south walls of the first period structure, and from the bulkhead ^P complex belonging to the second period addition. The builders' trench raises a number of unresolved questions, not the least of them being ^Q its absence along the north wall line in the area of the original entrance. Furthermore, it does not extend to the base of the foundations, but stops six courses from the bottom, these lower courses therefore being laid against the dirt from the inside, and those above them being laid from both sides in a somewhat haphazard English bond.

There seems to be considerable variation in the appearance of the brickwork throughout the foundations and basement walls of the east or first period tavern building. This is particularly marked in the south east corner where the south wall seems to be laid very indifferently to that of the east. It should be noted also that numbered re-used bricks (some with sooted faces from use in chimney flues) are scattered throughout. Towards the west end of the south wall there are a number of clinker bricks which may either have been overfired in the clamp or have been burned in some subsequent conflagration. The west wall differs from all except one of the others (east internal chimney back) in its use of badly underfired bricks. In addition there are numerous minor variations in the appearance of the mortar which can be explained away as batch differences, but which might also be used as evidence of as yet undetermined structural changes.

Mention has already been made of a fire stratum in the yard to the rear of the first period building and as its source had not been identified, the possibility cannot be overlooked that the tavern itself burned. However, the plentiful dating evidence recovered from the burnt level leaves no doubt that it occurred in the 1750's, seemingly too late to have effected the building which now sits on the so-called first period foundations of the tavern. However, the dating evidence for those foundations (or parts of those foundations) would appear to be no earlier than 1740 and probably not before 1745. It is therefore not beyond the frontiers of possibility that the first period tavern was destroyed by fire in the early 1750's and rebuilt on the same foundation. If the first structure had been of brick that might account for the fact that the foundations are 2'0" in thickness, a width which seems excessive for a frame, story-and-a-half building.

However, the assumption that a fire destroyed the tavern in the early '50s is unsupported by any documentation; but having noted that fact, it must be remembered that the gaps in the Gazette files in the period 1740-59 amount to a wasteland of massive proportion. 5 If, as seems likely, this property was a well-frequented hostelry throughout this period, it is likely that its destruction by fire would have been reported in either the Maryland or Carolina papers. A search of those sources, though time-consuming, might be informative.

If the foundation of the present first period building date no earlier than the 1740's, we are left with the problem of what happened on the property prior to that date. There is some possibility that there was an earlier building on the eastern section of Lot 21 and that it was this which provided the spread of brick and mortar which became the yard surface extending eastward across the property line onto Lot 22. It should be noted that this spread included numerous small and hard bricks of the type often described as "English" (E.R. 1045 F; 3 5/8" x 1 ¾" x 4+") and that no examples of them have been found in the extant building.

The foundations of the existing first period structure had suffered numerous changes prior to the building of the construction of the western extension, but close dating is not yet forthcoming. During the last week of the 1965 excavations it was discovered that the ^Rnorth wall had been extensively underpinned eastward from a point 2'9" from the northwest corner. Other irregularities in the bonding were found at the east end of the building where the builders' trench terminated west of the first porch line. Similar variations in the bond and mortar application were detected in test cuts against the east foundation. These anomalies must be explained before the full story of the building can be told, and it will be necessary to examine the foundations further in 1966.

It was along the south face of the first period tavern that the most dramatic changes occurred, and although exact dates are not forthcoming, the chronology would seem to have been as follows:

Phase I:	East and west basement windows. No bulkhead.
II:	West basement window cut through to make bulkhead.
III:	East window concealed by southern extension.
IV:	Bulkhead converted into root or coal cellar, 19th century.
V:	Root cellar filled in and doorway bricked up; c. 1920?
VI:	New bulkhead cut beneath S.W. corner of exten[illegible]

Omitted from the above chronology is the cutting of the opening leading to the present east bulkhead (Phase VI), the latter feature having apparently been inserted into an ^Uopening which, purportedly, had previously been bricked up. The possibility still persists that that opening marked the position of the first bulkhead entrance into the basement. A careful examination of the arched opening at the ^Vnorth end of the building's west wall has yet to be undertaken, and 6 not until this has been done can it be determined whether or not the first bulkhead was situated in this location. The expansion of the first period builder's trench at the N.W. corner of the first period building could point to the existence of such an entrance, one which was converted into a linking doorway between the basements of the first and second period units.

As already stated, the date of construction of the second period westerly extension (Great Room?) has not been archaeologically determined, though the Wetherburn inventory of December 19, 1760, would suggest that it was in existence by that date. However, some dating information is to be derived from the stratigraphy associated with it southern bulkhead entrances. Their chronology is as follows:

It will be seen from the above that the second period basement was initially constructed on a somewhat penny-pinching scale and that it was not enlarged to tis full capacity until about 1825. This dating is derived from the fact that the bricks (complete with sooted faces) are similar to those from the in-fill of the second bulkhead. This, in turn, is dated by the presence of a transfer-printed pearl ware sherd found in the dirty yellow clay used to plug the bulkhead entrance. Dating for the construction of the second bulkhead comes from fragments of English creamware (first recorded in Williamsburg in 1769) which were found in fill overlying the dismantled first bulkhead and sealed beneath the second. Unfortunately, no dating evidence for the construction of the first bulkhead is forthcoming, though there was, in fill overlying the dismantled first bulkhead and sealed beneath the second. Unfortunately, no dating evidence for the construction of the first bulkhead is forthcoming, though there as, in fill over one of the rough-cut clay steps and below the first bulkhead foundation, a fragment of a fine Chinese porcelain bowl (with fertility mark on the base) which probably dates in the first half of the 18th century.

The porch or stoop series along the south front of the tavern are as complex as the bulkheads, and owing to their fragmentary condition are distinctly more difficult to interpret. it would seem that the first period tavern had three successive south stoops or porches directly outside the central hall doorway, each having a brick foundation, but the second being unusual in its use of well-bricks, a feature which was continued in a carefully laid walkway abutting against the stoop's west face and extending away from it in a southwesterly direction. 7 The first stoop had a north/south width of 5'3"; the second, 4'9"; and the third 6'1", this last being of heavier construction (1'1") than those preceding it. The eastern returns of the first and second stoops had been destroyed by the building of the modern east bulkhead, as also had that of the third. However, the latter had also lost its ^Swest return by the digging of the 19th century root cellar. There is not the slightest doubt as to the sequence of these porches, but their dating is still very debatable. The only evidence comes from a layer of ashes overlying the above mentioned walkway, abutting against the west face of the second stoop and cut through by the building of the west face of the second stoop and cut through by the building of the third. Seventy-four pipe stem fragments were recovered from this strat[illegible] (E.R. 1002 G) and these provided a date of 1761.98. It is believed that such dating has a tolerance of five years in either direction.

The bricks and mortar used in the third, east porch foundation are similar to those used in a more substantial foundation (two bricks in width at the base and with a 1'1" wall above) representing the base of the entrance associated with the tavern's second period extension's south doorway. It is significant, too, that both these foundations are constructed on the same exterior building line, i.e. 6'1" southward from the face of the building.

The western foundation has its east wall immediately east of the first period tavern's bulkhead and, although post dating it, there can be no doubt that the two features were in existence contemporaneously. The west return of the porch (?) foundation had almost certainly been destroyed by the building of the tavern's western addition's first bulkhead as there is no room for both to have existed together without making the west return lighter than the rest of the foundation. It is conjectured that the supposed porch foundation measured approximately 15'0" x 6'1", but neither archaeological nor architectural evidence has been found to explain the reason for its massive construction. There is cause to contend that as the feature architectural evidence has been found to explain the reason for its massive construction. There is cause to contend that as the feature appears to be of the same date as the third, eastern porch that the would have been of the same thickness unless there was a very good reason for changing it. Indeed, the west porch (?) is of heavier construction than the western tavern extension itself. Such construction could readily be explained if it had been the base for a porch chamber whose brickwork rose to second story height, and we must remember that the Wetherburn inventory does identify one of the rooms as a "PORCH CHAMBER". On the other hand, there is no architectural evidence to indicate that the necessary framing ever existed. But as the existing framing for either period of construction still remains slightly in doubt, the possibility of a porch chamber having been part of the original construction of the westerly extension cannot be entirely ruled out. But if it is unexceptable on architectural grounds, then it remains for architects to explain the reason for the weight of the foundation. Had this been a purely archaeological project and only the foundations of the tavern had survived for study, there is little doubt that the heavy porch foundation would have been linked to the porch chamber reference and that the final report would have positively (though perhaps wrongly) identified the feature in that way.

If the porch was dismantled by the opening of the first west extension bulkhead then, it is reasonable to suppose that its life was fairly short. It is clear that by the end of the 18th century it had been adapted into a smaller unit only 8'3" in width, this being achieved by chopping through the south wall and inserting 9" return walls, at whose southern corners were built small plinths to carry pillars to support the roof. One small piece of Chinese porcelain was the only artifact to be retrieved from the return walls' builders' trenches and while this had been tentatively attributed to c. 1790, it was too small to be unequivocally accepted. It is possible, therefore, that the change to the porch occurred when the first west bulkhead was constructed. It should be noted that dating evidence from the builder's trench of the first porch or porch chamber made it possible that it could have been erected as early as circa 1740 - - or at any date thereafter.

Archaeological digging inside the basements of both parts of the tavern proved singularly uninformative, the first period building having apparently been brick-paved in the 19th century, and the extension having been dug below the colonial floor level and filled with rubble and gravel in the present century. A small amount of work still remains to be undertaken beneath the southwest extension where the original (?) builders' trench has yet to be cleared. it is important that this should be done to enable a careful examination of the foundations to be made at that point. Dating evidence for this extension (as indicated in the introduction) is strong and based on the fact that its foundations overly the orange brick fire level of the south yard from which came large numbers of burnt artifacts giving a terminus post quem in the 1750's. For some reason that has not been explained, the crawl space under the extension was used in the 19th century as a repository for large quantities of domestic trash. This could have been thrown there through the first period tavern's southeast window opening, but the possibility also persists that the present bulkhead opening, but the possibility also persists that the present bulkhead opening in the south wall of the first period tavern may have existed at that time and that the refuse was deposited from that direction. Only one factor is certain, however, and that is that the trash was thrown in from the north, as it piled most thickly against the south wall — which it could not have done had it been inserted from that direction.

The Kitchen.

^Z This structure measured 39'9" x 16'3" with a "central" interior chimney measuring 11'2" x 8'4" (west earth: 8'3" x 3'3", east hearth: 8'1" x 3'1") abutting against the south wall and with a 3'3" passage to the north of it. The building had been of frame construction over a poorly built one brick (9") foundation which made use of many brickbats of different sizes and colors. The chimney, on the other hand, was well constructed and exhibited a uniformity of bricks and mortar. So different were the wall foundations from the chimney that it was long deduced that they were of different dates and it was conjectured that the original kitchen had been destroyed in the c. 1750 fire and that the new structure had been erected around the surviving original chimney 9 slight evidence of burning (scorching of the natural clay) was found both north and south of the chimney foundation but this did not seem to be sufficient to have been associated with a fire as not as that which provided the materials for the yard metalling north of the building, and which did not appear within the area of the kitchen.

The foundations for the walls were badly mutilated and had totally disappeared on the south wall line eastward from the chimney. However, the remaining three corners left no doubt as to the dimensions of the building.

Dating stems largely from groups of wine bottles found ^E buried beside and beneath the north wall foundation in spaces between post holes from a large fence predating the construction of the kitchen. The bottles are tentatively supposed to have been deposited in about 1750 and were originally filled with cherries being made into cherry brandy or simply being preserved for the winter. It is reasonable to assume that they were buried during the Virginia cherry season in late May or early June and that the property changed shortly thereafter, thus accounting for the fact that no one came back to retrieve the bottles. Further slight dating evidence for the construction of the kitchen is provided by the fact that it overlay orange brick rubble which it is supposed was the bi-product of the construction of the tavern itself.

East Outbuilding

At a point only eleven inches northeast of the N.E. corner ^F of the kitchen was found the S.W. corner of another smaller structure ^G which proved to have had a partially exterior chimney in its south wall. The building extended northward for a distance of only 12'2" and had its greatest width (as yet undetermined) in an east/west direction, probably with its entrance in the north wall opposite the chimney. It would appear, therefore, to have been of similar character to the rather larger 24' 4 ½" x 16' 7 ½" kitchen at Tutter's Neck.

Immediately to the north of the outbuilding was found a ^AA much slighter wall whose bottom course overlay its N.W. corner and extended northward for a distance of 10' 8". Associated with this wall ^BB was a much more substantially constructed chimney foundation of which only the east cheek and S.E. corner survived. It seems likely that the southern unit was dismantled when the main kitchen was built and that this even smaller building (perhaps a laundry) was erected immediately to the north of it, possibly using the foundation of the earlier unit's destruction, salvaged bricks were used to pave its interior to provide a yard surface south of the new unit.

It is important to note that the orange brick yard (c. 1750-55) ^DD abutted against the east wall of the first unit indicating that the building was standing before the yard was laid down. However, for some 10 unexplained reason the yard material did not extend to the north of it suggesting that there may have been a fenceline confining it to an area to the westward. It was determined however, that the brick and shell yard metalling which post dated the orange brick yard (after the tavern had been enlarged to the west) and which abutted against the southeast third stoop or porch foundation, extended around to the north of the first period outbuilding and lay beneath the second more northerly structure. The inference here seems to be that the south unit was rebuilt to the north at the time that the east tenement abutting against the east face of the tavern was constructed, and that the little building then served as a kitchen for the aforesaid tenement. Construction dates for both would seem to have been in the 1760's, though it is hoped that a thorough study of the artifacts will eventually provide more specific dating. The above deductions fit well into the pattern suggested by the Frenchman's Map where the unit lying between the tavern and the Charlton House protrudes 9'-" to the south of the former. While the supposed kitchen extends some 15'-" to the south, it would serve to block the cartographer's view eastward from Botetourt Street, and seeing the two buildings east of the tavern blocking the space between it and the Charlton House he might well have supposed that it was all one block when instead there was yard space between the tenement and its attendant kitchen.

West Outbuildings

Two structures have been located and it is supposed that they coincide with those shown on the Frenchman's Map. But as neither has been fully excavated, very little can yet be said of them. As indicated in the introduction, there is reason to suppose that the ^H structure immediately west of the kitchen is of comparatively early date and that the unit west of it was at some time in its life used ^V a smokehouse. Both structures will be fully explored in 1966.

The Well

One well of unusually small diameter was in existence when work began and was still open to a depth of 20'-" and in the summer had one to two feet of standing water in it. this shaft is thought to have been too small to have served so busy a tavern as Wetherburn's during the summer months and we expect that at least one more well existed on the site. In support of this contention, it may be noted that the extant shaft appears to be made of regular building bricks, while pie-shaped well bricks were used in the second east stoop foundation as well as in the walkway extending away from it. Furthermore, two larger well bricks were found in the upper construction of the east chimney. It is reasonable to suppose that the presence of these bricks on the site points to their salvage from a disused well or as having been left over after its construction.

Conclusions

It is only possible to say at this time that no safe conclusions can be arrived at until the digging has been completed and the resulting artifacts have been thoroughly studied.