Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Structure A.

As noted on pages 2 and 9, William Timson was probably responsible for erecting the dwelling, known now as the "Archibald Blair Storehouse" (Fig. 2). The foundations were first uncovered in 1930 and then again in 1946 but no archaeological report was written on either project. However, extant maps and photographs (plate III) indicate that the Figure 2 - Features and Limit of Excavation Around Previoulsy Discovered Structure A and Extant Prentis Store - oversized image 14 building measured 32'6" x 29'10" and its exterior walls, for the most part, were one and a half bricks thick. The cellar floor had been paved with bricks,laid in oyster shell mortar and, in the northeast portion of the basement, evidence of, what could have been a vaulted room was found. The extant 1946 plan ⁴¹ shows the location of an interior stairway near the northwest corner of the structure and a circular brick sump in the southeast corner. An easterly bulkhead entrance had been sealed up, presumably at the time the existing c.1740 brick structure was erected, and a new set of exterior cellar steps was installed on the south side of the building.

According to the research report on this property, the present intentions of Colonial Williamsburg include the reconstruction of the frame storehouse "on its original foundations, to as near its eighteenth-century appearance as possible, on the basis of evidence found in excavating the site, supplemented by surviving early eighteenth century precedent for a building of its approximate shape and size." ⁴² In conjunction with this plan, the Architectural Department has submitted several drawings including one showing a proposed south elevation prepared by Mr. E.L. Phillips (Fig. 3). It should be noted here tha t the 1969 archaeological activity provided important precedence for the types of windows that may have been used in this structure. This evidence is discussed fully in the architectural finds section on page 29.

Structure B.

Very little need be said about this building Figure 3 15 because, since it is one of the town's original eighteenth-century structures (plate I), its restoration relies on architectural rather than on archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, a few test holes were sunk against the north and west walls in 1969, but this exercise only proved that the areas had been disturbed previously both by the insertion of modern utility lines and by prior excavation activity. Slightly better success was had in 1959, when Messrs. Knight and Phillips found evidence of, what could have been, a bulkhead entrance near the cellar's northwest corner (Fig. 2). In addition, they discovered a small section of bri.ckwork near the building's exterior northeast corner and this was presumed to be part of the structure's northerly chimney.

As indicated on page 10, the extant brick storehouse was, erected around 1740 and, although a comparative analysis of the clays has yet to be made, there is a possibility that the contractor made the bricks from clay obtained on Lot 46. This contingency and its potential importance to future programs is explained on page 38.

Structure C.

During the 1946 Prentis Site excavations, Mr. J.M. Knight, and his crews uncovered evidence of an outbuilding approximately 35' north of the existing store. The extant plans of that year's work indicate that the structure had an east/west measurement of 15'7" and a north/south dimension of 21'6" (+ or -). The foundation remains restudied in Figure 4 - Comparison Structure C's Remains in 1946 &1969 - oversized image 16 1969 closely resemble those drawn by Mr. Knight except that the 1946 map shows both a southeast and a southwest corner (Fig. 4); features which had completely vanished by 1969. This would not seem so peculiar except for the fact that the 1946 photographs fail to show corners on the surviving brickwork (plate IV). Consequently, the plan to reconstruct a building on these footings must be re-evaluated.

The foundation that survived and was re-examined in 1969 consisted of three'short.sections of an east/west wall. The shell-mortared bricks had average dimensions of 8-¼" x 3-¾" x 2-¼" and.had been laid to form a 9" footing. A post hole (E.R. 1453F) was found to have cut through the brickwork at the western end, leaving what appeared to be a closer. It could not be determined if this feature had been dug against a closer or if the appearance of one had been created by cutting through a whole brick. Nevertheless, the 1946 photoqraphs show that same chopped brick along with a small wooden stake a few inches westward. Thus, one would assume that Mr. Knight believed the brick to be a closer and was thus prompted to estimate the position of the building's southwest corner.

Dating evidence for the structure's erection and abandonment was almost unobtainable because the soil in the area had been disturbed down to the brickwork, while the foundations were sitting on the natural subsoil. However, a large rectangular pit (E.R. 1454M) was discovered directly beneath the 17 position of the alleged southeast corner, and this feature's artifacts, as well as its location, help to date the structure. The hole began so close to the point where we lost the brick wall, it could be assumed that the feature had cut through the foundation and thereby post-dated the building's abandoment. The artifacts retrieved from the pit included no fewer than 50 wine bottle bottoms, a fragment of a baluster stem from a wine glass, pieces of German stoneware, Chinese porcelain, and creamware. However, the latest item among the assemblage was a fragment of Rouen faience which does not appear to have reached British America prior to the Revolution. The earliest documentary reference, as yet located, occurs in 1778. ⁴³ Thus, the pit must have been filled in after c.1778 and, if it cut through the abandoned building, then it could be argued that the structure was in use during the colonial period. However, this could not have been the case if one accepts the evidence that Mr. Knight insists was uncovered in his digging some twenty-three years ago.

As mentioned on the previous page, this post c.1778 hole was situated beneath the position of the building's southeast corner. Thus, if Mr. Knight found and recorded the return properly, the structure's southeast footings overlay the post c.1778 feature, meaning that the dependency could not have existed in the colonial period. It seems entirely possible that, if the above argument is valid, the building was erected soon after the pit was filled, because the extant Frenchman's map of 1781 (?) (Fig. 1) indicates that a small structure was standing in this general vicinity. However, it should be noted that the sparse evidence that remained to be studied in 1969 was not enough to determine if the east/west wall returned southward or northward. The unfortunate truth of the matter is we do not now have enough physical evidence to substantiate the positioning of the building--no matter what date it happens to be. Thus, if further reconstruction planning on this~portion of the Prentis project is undertaken, it will have to be attempted without the benefit of proper authentication.

Structure D.

The entire site was found to have been extensively disturbed by various utility and archaeological ditches. Indeed, the robbed wall lines of this dependency (Fig. 5) had been cut through by no fewer than three crosstrenches, a north/south water line, and a rather shallow channel presumed to be from the 1930 excavations. Nevertheless, the surviving evidence seemed to indicate the structure had approximate dimensions of 9'0" x 17'6", (plate V). No hints as to the. building's utilization were found in the undisturbed strata, but the recovered artifacts did provide fairly reliable evidence of its life span.

The datable material within the brick and mortar-filled robber trenches (E.R. 1485D & 14861) suggested that the building was torn down sometime after c.1782. This assumption was based on the fact that no fewer than three fragments of pearl Figure 5 - Remains of Two Outbuildings Located Near the Property's Eastern Limit - oversized image 19 were found amid the destruction rubble. In addition, pieces of creamware, German stoneware, and white saltglaze were recovered, along with many fragments of wine bottle glass. It would seem possible that the reason that this structure was not shown on the Frenchman's Map was because the building was either being demolished or was in such a ruinous state that its destruction was inevitable. However, it is just as possible that the draftsman merely inadvertently failed to show it.

No definite construction date was determinable; however, a stratum of ashes (E.R. 1486K) passed beneath the robbed wall trenches and the artifacts recovered from this layer suggested a deposition of post c.1715 - 1720. Thus, the dependency had to have been erected sometime after the ashes were generated, but it was impossible to discove.- just how much later. It should be noted here that the ash layer was apparently formed early in the site's life during some type of construction activity. This aspect and its significance is discussed on page 29.

Structure E.

The most perplexing remains of an outbuilding, located some 32'6" north of Structure D, were again studied during the 1969 project (Fig. 5). The foundations were first uncovered in 1930 and again in 1946 but, even after all three examinations, no irrefutable evidence was revealed to aid in determining the dependency's purpose. Mr. Knight, on his 1946 plan, labeled it a "dairy or small ice house" and in 1969, Mr. Paul Buchanan thought the building may have been 20 a privy. it could have served equally well as a root cellar or as a storage area for some specialized commodity offered in the Prentis store. As it now stands, the structure's purpose remains a mystery. Nevertheless, the stratigraphy surrounding the brickwork was not as badly disturbed as in other areas of the site, consequently a certain amount of additional knowledge about the structure's dating was determinable in 1969. However, before discussing this evidence, a description of the surviving foundations is in order.

The feature possessed a 4'0" x 5'7" pit that extended into the ground some 3'2". The 9" walls had been constructed of hand-made bricks with average dimensions of 8-½" x 4" x 2-5/8" and were held in place by oyster-shell mortar. The floor had been paved but no mortar was found between or beneat.h the tightly laid bricks. Apparently, the hole had been dug larger than the area to be linecl since, even though the bricks in the walls were laid from within the pit (determined on the basis of protruding mortar on the exterior), backfilled dirt was found around the outside of these footings.

The top existing course on the west wall extended a distance of 24" north and south of the central pit (plate VI). The easterly wall was probably similarly constructed but only a 1'1" extension remained on the south end,while that at the north was destro yed when a live oak was planted neat the northeast corner of the building. The upper course of bricks, including these projections, was void of mortar traces on the 21 top surface which would seem to suggest that this was as high as the brickwork was originally laid. If true, the singlecourse extensions were probably used to support a frame building-and, at the same time, keep the sill off the ground so as to minimize decay. However, it could be argued that the mortar was removed during previous archaeological endeavors or through exposure to the elements after the excavations were concluded.

As noted in the preceding paragraph, after the structure's central pit was lined, the surplus space outside the walls was back-filled. The artifacts recovered from this dirt (E.R. 1471Q, 1472Q, & 1473A) suggested a deposition of post c.1720. Such evidence might seem to indicate that the outbuilding was erected soon after Timson constructed his storehouse (Structure A). However, other factors tend to refute this theory in favor of a building date at least 15 to 20 years later.

A layer of dark brown clay filled with brick rubble (E.R. 1471P, 1475P & 1472L) passed,beneath the foundation's northerly and southerly extensions (Fig. 6). The artifacts recovered from the stratum included datable material which suggested a post c.1740 deposition. Thus, since the mortar in the upper course with its projections seemed to be the same as that used for securing the remaining brickwork, it must be assumed that the building was not erected until sometime after c.1740. A possible explanation for the misleading c.1720 date Figure 6 - E/W Section Showing the Relationship of Surviving Strata to Structure E's East Wall 22 could be that the workmen, while digging the structure's central pit, shoveled through earlier strata and subsequently redeposited that same dirt around the foundation when the brick layers completed their activity.

There is still another pecularity about the backfilling surrounding the exterior walls. A quantity of dirt had been thrown into the space between the back and the western face of the walls and this was topped with what was probably wet mortar. Above this mortar layer was found more dirt and then another stratum of mortar. This last deposit contained embedded brick fragments which appeared to have been pruposely chopped to fit a 2"-2-½" wide cavity and then laid to form a flat surface at right angles to the structure's west wall. It is not uncommon to find waste construction materials in builder's trenches but this type of debris is usually tossed into the ditches instead of being carefully laid. The way this brick and mortar had been deposited made it appear almost like a wall that had been cut through by the construction of a later building.

Structure F.

An extant 1930 map of Lot 46 indicates the position of a rather long and thin building some 8' west of the existing Prentis storehouse. ⁴⁴ The structure was labeled "Barber Shop" but it seems probable that it was the same building erected by Dr. Camm in c.1861 and used initially as a drug store. During the 1969 excavations, evidence of this 23 structure's first and second periods was uncovered north of the area where earlier digging had revealed the remains of the "Archibald Blair Storehouse" (Structure A).

A short section of, what was presumed to be, the building's original north wall was found, as was a portion of its northwest corner (Fig. 7). However, the majority of the structure's footings had been erected over the back-filled cellar in Structure A. Consequently, any surviving brickwork was probably destroyed prior to or during the previous archaeological studies of that basement. Nevertheless, the extant plans of this nineteenth-century structure indicate that it initially had exterior dimensions of approximately 37'3" x 15'6". The maps also show an addition extending northward from the original building. Parts of three different brick piers which helped support this annex were discovered in 1969 and their positions are indicated on Figures 2 and 7.

It was not possible to determine a construction date archaeologically for the "barber shop" or its addition. This was due primarily because the surviving foundations were resting on the natural subsoil so no datable material was beneath them and because the area surrounding the brickwork was greatly disturbed by various modern features. However, a portion of a brick rubble path was discovered north and west of the original structure's northwest corner in a location that was covered by the northerly extension (plate VII). This path Figure 7 - Structural Remains in the Southern Portion of Lot 46 Including the Extant Prentis Store - oversized image 24 undoubtedly was installed to service the main building so, if it can be assumed that the walkway was laid soon after the structure was erected, the date for one can serve as a conjectural date for the other.

The light brown clay layer (E.R. 1414K) which predated the paving contained material suggesting a post c.1830 deposition while the gray sand (E.R. 1414E) found between and beneath the bricks included post c.1880 artifacts. Thus, it would seem probable that the original structure was built sometime after c.1830 and, since the path was covered by the northerly annex, the latter must have been added after c.1880. However, it must be warned that this dating evidence is highly conjectural since it is based on assumptions that may or may not be valid and also because of the fact that only a minimal portion of the building's foundations were investigated.

Structure G.

As noted on pages 8 and 12, by 1861 Julia Minson occupied a dwelling near the southwest corner of the property. Although during the present study that area was almost entirely excavated (balks were retained), no traces of this building were found. However, the photographs and drawings of the. basement in Structure A, prepared in 1946,. show the remains of a later chimney, east wall, and northeast pier which undoubtedly belong to this building (Fig. 7). Therefore, it would seem possible that if these have not been destroyed, some dating evidence could be found when 25 the cellar is again dug out prior to reconstruction activity.

Structure H.

The footings for this nineteenth-century pier-supported outbuilding were first discovered in 1930 ⁴⁵ and were again studied in 1946 and 1969. The surviving brickwork was located in the western portion of the site some 78' north of Duke of Gloucester Street (Fig. 8). The structure had exterior measurements of 12'3" x 12'3" and possessed a westerly chimney whose bricks had traces of oyster-shell mortar but were held together by yellowish sandy nineteenth-century mortar.

The chimney's base had been lowered 1'8" below that of the corner piers because the workmen had to go that deep in order to lay the foundation on firm ground (plate VIII). This was due to the fact that the fireplace had been erected near the center of a long north/south trench filled in during the eighteenth century. (This feature is discussed on page 38. The chimeny's floor had been laid two courses thick and evidence of burning was found on the bricks in the upper level; however, the discoloration was also discovered on bricks projecting outside the fireplacels southern wall. Therefore, at least some of these bricks must have been salvaged from an eighteenth-century fireplace and reused here as was evidenced by the previously mentioned presence of shell mortar on the faces of many of them.

It was not possible to discover the purpose for this outbuilding but, even though the stratigraphy had been Figure 8 - Features Uncovered in the Wetern Portion of Lot 46 - oversized image 26 destroyed in the area of the corner piers, dating evidence for the chimney's (and probably the entire building's) construction was determinable. The builder's trench for the south wall of the fireplace (E.R. 1422E) survived and it was filled with mixed brown clay and artifacts which had been deposited sometime after c.1840. Thus, if the building and its chimney were erected contemporaneously, the post c.1840 date serves as the construction terminus post quem for both.

Structure J.

A total of 10 piers, belonging to a building labeled "Negro House" on an existing 1930 plan, ⁴⁶ were encountered in the eastern portion of the site (Fig. 9). These, no doubt, had been examined during previous excavations because shallow holes, filled with modern artifacts, were discovered around each of the piers. No dating evidence was found for the construction of this dwelling other than the fact that the mortar between the bricks was typical of that used in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries.

Another feature which could have had some relationship with this house was'discovered some 2'3" south of its* southernmost piers. In that area was found a more or less rectangular deposit of brick and mortar rubble (E.R. 1456P), measuring approximately 2' x 8' and orientated on an east/west line. Some of the mortar was of the eighteenth-century oyster-shell variety but most of it matched that used in the construction of the dwelling. The artifacts recovered from this debris Figure 9 - 19th and 20th Century Structure in the S/E Quater of Lot 46 - oversized image 27 indicated a deposition of post c.1825. The rubble may have been waste from the construction of the building but, since the area was so disturbed due to modern grading and prior archaeological studies, no clear connection between the debris and the house could be determined.

Structure K.

In 1930, six piers associated with a building, located near the center of the property (Fig. 10), were found and recorded on the extant map of that year's discoveries. ⁴⁷ Although that area was restudied in 1969, no traces of this brickwork was found. Thus, we must settle with what was noted on the 1930 drawing: "These Foundations 1'- 6" x 1' - 3" 2 Courses". ⁴⁸

Structure L.

No fewer than six piers, associated with a structure described in 1930 as being "Building Removed Recently Not Old," ⁴⁹ were again recovered in the northeast quarter of Lot 46 (Fig. 10). Many of the bricks were found to have traces of oyster-shell mortar attached to them but these had been salvaged from elsewhere because that which secured the brickwork was clearly of nineteenth-century vintage. Actually, a few of the piers had been repaired more recently because some of the bricks were of the common machinemade variety. No further evidence was found to help determine a closer construction date nor was it possible to discover the building's purpose.

Structure M.

The 1930 excavations revealed the position of a building in the extreme northeast corner of the site. Figure 10 - Post 18th Century Building Remains in the Northern Portion of the Site - oversized image 28 Indeed, according to the extant plans of that project, at least 7' of the structure projected beyond the Nicholson Street southern limit (Fig. 10). only one of the piers associated with this house was encountered during the present study but no attempt was made to find those which would have been outside the existing fenced area. The 1930 map labeled these foundations "Building Removed Recently Not Old" ⁵⁰ and the 1969 archaeological work provided no evidence to refute this statement.

Fencelines.

During the 1969 excavation season, hundreds of features which appeared to have been postholes were found and redug; however, a combination of archaeological and artifactual dating failed to indicate a single irrefutable fenceline. This could have been due to the extensive disturbance caused by numerous excavations or by the relatively recent grading on parts of the site but, whatever the cause, no definite evidence was discovered'to help in the placement of the inclosures which, undoubtedly, existed during much of the site's history.

Drains.

Only one feature which resembled a drain was encountered on Lot 46 and it was first uncovered by Mr. Knight's workmen in 1946. The extant map of that year's discoveries indicate that this brickwork represented the "Remains of late brick gutter drain." ⁵³ All that survived 32 by 1969 was a slightly curving line of broken bricks which seemed to be oriented along a southwest to northeast course (Fig. 4). The feature apparently cut through the east/west foundations of Structure C which obviously would mean that the drain was constructed after the building was abandoned. Thus, if the structure was not erected until sometime after c.1778 (see page 17), the drain could not possibly have been placed there earlier than the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

A southerly extension of the drain's path would have headed in the direction of Well A (Fig. 16). Therefore, it would seem possible that its purpose was to serve as a receptacle to catch spilled water and carry it away from the well area. If true, the construction date for both the channel and the water supply were probably contemporaneous. This would put the drain's date well into the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, since the feature has little or no bearing on the present plans to return the site to its appearance during the Prenti s family's occupation, nothing more need be said about it.

Walkways.

During the present study, only one section of colonial paving was found on the site, while evidence of at least three nineteenth- or early twentieth-century paths was discovered. One of the latter group apparently serviced Structure P (Fig. 7) but, since this feature has already been discussed in conjunction with that building Figure 12 - E/W Section Across South Face Areas 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, and 1405 - oversized image 33 (pp. 23-24), no further mention is necessary.

The remains of another walkway, located in the northern portion of the lot was first encountered in 1930 and subsequently re-excavated in 1946 and 1969. The main part of the paving was oriented along a north/south line near the center of the site (Fig. 10), but an east/west spur was found running in an easterly direction from it. Both segments of the path were thought to be associated with the pier-supported structures (L &M) in that area and, since the buildings should not be considered for reconstruction, the position of the paving will not be a factor in future landscape planning.

The digging, just inside the property's southerly fenceline (Fig.12 ), revealed at least two levels of paving (plate X). The uppermost layer (Fig. 12) was of marl and although the artifacts recovered from the deposit (E.R. 1404D) suggested a post c.1730 date, it must have been constructed almost a century later. The marl sealed what appeared to be the remains of a brick path which dated sometime after c.1750. The deposit's dating was deduced by the fact that the material recovered from the layer of yellow and brown sand directly beneath the rubbl6 could not have been discarded before the middle of the eighteenth century.

Colonial Grades.

Although it is not the general policy of Colonial Williamsburg to return the sites to their original eighteenth-century grade levels, a brief discussion should be made of this type of evidence. It should be noted that complete Figure 13 - N/S Section Showing the Various Grade Elevations Throughout the Site's History - oversized image Figure 14 - E/W Section Across Southern Face of Areas ER1471, ER1474, and ER1476 - oversized image 34 records are kept of the depths of features and strata in case others require this information for future research projects; however, in this report only generalizations are necessary.

Obviously, the sections presented after this page (Figs. 13 & 14), along with Figure 12, will give a much clearer picture as to the changes in the elevations of the site's surface throughout its history; however, a brief explanation is necessary to aid the reader in interpreting these drawings. Basically, the strata sloped from west to east and was fairly uniform from north to south except for what appeared to have been a natural east/west gully near the center of the property. Since some layers are found in parts of the site and not in others, the best guide to the original grades is the upper level of the natural subsoil. However, where possible, the artifactual and archaeological dating for each stratum has been indicated.

Eighteenth-Century Rubbish Pits.

The earliest trash deposit discovered on the Prentis property was encountered while excavating the area southwest of Structure E (Fig. 5). The pit (E.R. 1480G) was filled almost entirely with broken wine bottles (no fewer than 25) dating from c.1695 to 1710. Many of the necks still had wire around them but only four retained the corks held down by the brass strands. The recovery of these last mentioned specimens seem to suggest that at least some of the bottles could have been broken in 35 shipment and disposed of soon after arriving in Williamsburg. This, of course, is highly conjectural and even if true, it does not provide evidence of the owner of the discarded bottles. Only two fragments other than bottle pieces were recovered from the deposit and these included one piece of English delftware and a sherd of brown coarseware.

A colonial rubbish pit (E.R. 1408C) was found near the property's present westerly fenceline. This feature (Fig.8) was filled with ash-flecked gray clay and artifacts dating after c.1740. The discarded material included pottery sherds of delftware, German stoneware, Yorktown earthenware, and brown stoneware; however, the majority of finds were fragments of broken wine bottles along with a few pieces of bottle wire. The fact that this pit was located so close to the existing property line, coupled with the knowledge that insufficient evidence was found to determine the exact placement of a north/south fence during the colonial period, makes one question whether or not this feature belonged to the Prentis lot. Nevertheless, the archaeological discoveries were unable to resolve this query.

The two above mentioned pits are the only eighteenth century ones found which appeared to have been dug for the express purpose of removing unsightly rubbish. obviously, additional holes, containing discarded trash, were uncovered but all of them seemed to have been intended initially for other uses. To determine the difference is always a difficult 36 task but usually the features dug to dispose of rubbish will contain more artifacts than dirt. Whereas those pits dug for other intentions will be filled with soil sprinkled with artifactual remains.

Pits and Trenches of Uncertain Purpose.

In the western portion of the site, located north and east of the nineteenth-century pier-supported outbuilding (Structure H), was discovered a large rectangular pit (plate XI). The feature had an east/west measurement of 29'8" and a north/south dimension of 17'8" (Fig. 8). The digging failed to provide clues as to the pit's utilization. It was far too shallow to have been a basement (only 2'2" below the modern grade) and besides, no evidence of a building was found in the Vicinity. It has been suggested that the feature may have been dug to provide clay for brick making; however, it would seem that a smaller but deeper hole would have provided cleaner clay. Nevertheless, it is possible that the pit was established in conjunction with a brick making operation; perhaps for mixing or somehow processing the clay.

The feature's east and west ends sloped outward, while the other two sides had been cut straight. The fact that no erosion took place on these vertical edges'would seem to suggest that the pit was filled soon after it was dug. However, it could be argued that a common lean-to had been erected over the pit to protect it from the elements and no evidence of the structure survived. All of these possibilities have been 37 considered but without a hint as to the feature's utilization, a clear picture concerning its importance to the site's history is impossible.

This large but shallow cavity was filled with a layer of mixed ashes topped by a stratum of light brown clay; both of which contained artifacts which suggested a post c.1760 deposition. The finds included broken wine bottles bearing the PRENTIS seal, delftware, white saltglaze of unusual forms, brown stoneware, and a few items of cutlery. The rubbish had the appearance of being largely domestic but, since the store stocked these types of goods, it could not be positively stated that these discarded pieces were not part of the shop's debris.

Still another feature (Fig. 8), discovered in the westerly part of the site, was found and its purpose likewise has not as yet been determined. It was a long trench (at least 30'0"), oriented on a north/south course, whose width varied from 7'0" to 7'9". The initial filling consisted of rather sterile yellow clay topped by gray silty sand (plate XII). The latter presumably formed when the feature was exposed to the elements. A thick stratum of mixed ashes overlay the silt and sealing the entire feature was a layer of black loam containing oyster shells (Fig. 15). This last deposit was dumped in sometime after c.1830 but the main filling in the trench contained artifacts which suggested a post c.1740 discard date. As mentioned previously, the utilization of this Figure 15 - E/W Section Across South Face of N/S Trench of Uncertain Use - oversized image 38 feature was not determinable; however, it would seem possible that it was dug to obtain clay for making bricks. If true, the filling date would compare favorably with the construction period of Structure B.

Plans have been made to have samples of the sterile clay, found at the bottom of the trench, analyzed to determine if the extant Prentis store was built with bricks whose clay was obtained from the property. obviously, if this fact could be verified, it could be of future value to Colonial Williamsburg's ever-expanding craft program. This possibility, of course, must not be pursued until the results of the x-ray and spectographic tests are forthcoming.

The feature itself had been cut through by numerous holes and trenches, along with the chimney foundation of Structure H (see page 25). A modern north/south trench, presumed to have been dug during previous archaeological investigations, had destroyed the feature's strata along its eastern edge. In addition, near the southern end, a strange modern hole had been sunk for no apparent reason. The latter had straight sides and measured 5'6" x 3'9". The bottom was reached at a depth of 6'0" below the modern grade. Although this feature closely resembled a grave, all that was found at the bottom were shell-mortared bricks which seemed to have been tossed rather than laid in the hole.

Well A.

The remains of this water supply was found some 26'6" north/northwest of the existing Prentis store. The lining was reached at a depth of 12'7" below the modern grade, and had been constructed with brickbats laid in stretchers. Lower in the shaft (17'1" B.M.G.) whole bricks were encountered in the lining but these too were the regular building bricks, again laid as stretchers. The well's wooden ring was reached at a depth of 19'9" B.M.G. and it, along with two courses of bricks has been salvaged for possible use in future exhibits as a comparison with eighteenth-century well construction.

Although a well's wooden ring usually is found on the bottom of the shaft, this was not the case-here. The filling continued . downward and at a depth of 20'10" B.M.G. (1'l" below the ring) brick lining was again encountered., this time forming a smaller diameter and almost certainly inserted after the primary shaft had gone dry. The lower section was of similar construction to the upper, so it was decided that, since there was no chance that,the water supply was of colonial date, further excavation was unnecessary. The maximum depth reached was 24'3" below the modern grade.

The discarded rubbish within the abandoned shaft seemed to be fairly consistent datewise from the upper layers to the bottom. The artifacts recovered suggested a post c.1900 deposition and the finds, although not important to the present 40 reconstruction project on the site, will be most helpful to future archaeologists because of the tightly datable group. The most significant discoveries were intact bottles of various shapes and sizes; some of which advertised their contents and manufacturers on the outer surface. A complete listing of these bottles can be found in Appendix III.

Well B.

The remains of this water supply was first discovered in 1946 and its position recorded on the extant plan of those excavations. It was located only 3'3" north of the above.mentioned well and presumably served as the latter's replacement. The brick lining was reached at a depth of 12' 6" below the modern grade and, since the bricks were modern, the shaft was not excavated below a point some 811 below where the lining began (plate XIII). The machine-made bricks were orange in color and measured 8 ½" x 4" x 2 ½". The maker's mark "W B C" (Williamsburg Brick Company?) was stamped on the top of each one. The lining was similar in construction to Well A in that, since regular shaped bricks were used the courses were laid as stretchers around the inside of the shaft (plate XIV) .

The well had been filled with dirt and discarded rubbish deposited sometime during the first quarter of the twentieth century or shortly thereafter. As in Well A, the most significant items, recovered from the filling, were intact bottles. These are listed and described in Appendix III.