Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Structure A1 (Figure 1)

Portions of the early building were unearthed in the southwest corner of Lot 161. A small section of an east/west foundation, 9" in thickness, was found 3'1" north of the existing main structure. This brickwork 23 was all that remained of the first building's north wall. (Plate II) The south wall had been removed during subsequent construction work, though the brick front-porch foundation survived, (Plate III), thus indicating the position of the original main doorway as well as the location of the building's southern extremity. A portion of a north/south drain (page 71), cut through by the builder's trench for the existing structure's south wall, indicated the approximate position of the east wall. If the porch was centered on the building, making the north/south walls equidistant from the stoop, the house would have measured approximately 32'6" x 20'0".

While excavating in the basement of the existing building, a part of an earlier foundation (Plate IV) was discovered protruding from beneath the present chimney footing. This brickwork (possibly a forge) partially sealed a pit (E.R. 1345J) filled with black dirt.(Figure 1) Fragments from a single wine bottle, dating c. 1730-40, were found above the pit and beside the foundation. One of the bottle pieces had the initials JG engraved on it, leaving little doubt that the wine bottle had belonged to James Geddy I. Thus, Geddy's occupation of the early building was ascertained and it would seem likely that he was responsible for the construction of the small foundation 24 within the house. However, it was impossible to determine whether Geddy's brickwork was an alteration or part of the original architectural plan.

It seems possible that part of the present Geddy House east chimney foundation may date back to the James Geddy I building and that it comprised both an interior hearth and an exterior fireplace.(Figure 1) The latter, no doubt, was used for industrial purposes since a great deal of metallic waste (E.R. 1336E) was found north and east of the chimney and the ashes and slag apparently wrapped around the east end of the building since iron waste (E.R. 1359X) was also discovered beside Duke of Gloucester Street, south of the supposed outdoor fireplace.

The early structure's north wall had been cut through by numerous modern builder's trenches. However, between two of them was found a section of a curving walkway. The path stopped against the building's partially robbed north wall, indicating the position of a north doorway. (Plate V) The projected arc of the paving (along with comparable elevations) showed that it was part of the same walk that approached the south face of a brass-founding shop (pages 38 and 60).

Structure A2

Evidence of a northerly addition, abutting the early structure was discovered approximately 3'0" east of the existing building's north wing. All that Figure 1 25 remained of the extension was most of its east wall (a single rowlock course) and the southeast and northeast corners. The other annex evidence had been destroyed when a cellar and bulkhead were built as part of later construction on the site (page 30). The addition had a north/south measurement of 12'6" and, if its west wall was on line with the conjectured west extremity of the early structure, the east/west dimension would have been approximately 16'6". The northerly wing was later altered to permit a substantial chimney or forge (measuring about 4'3" x 3'7") to be inserted into the east wall. This last change could be considered to be Period Three.

As pointed out on page 5, James Geddy I occupied Lot 161 prior to purchasing the adjoining property (Lot 162) in 1738. The deed which finalized the transaction described Lot 162 as being next to the lot where "James Geddy now dwells ..."⁷² Since Geddy was advertising his wares as early as 1737, it could be assumed that he first used the early structure on Lot 161 as a combined living area, workshop, and display room. If the building had been utilized in that way, the unused space must have been minimal, especially since, as Mr. Paul Buchanan has pointed out, the 9" foundations could only support a one and one-half story structure. Perhaps it was these crowded conditions that forced Geddy into purchasing the adjoining real estate.

It would seem probable that, after acquiring Lot 162, Geddy and his family maintained their residence on that property while continuing to use Lot 161 as the industrial area. The huge quantities of iron and brassworking waste found north and east of the existing Geddy structure, along with that discovered beside Duke of Gloucester Street, would help substantiate this theory. Additional material pertaining to the industrial aspects of Lot 161 can be found on page 83. It will suffice to note that the evidence indicates the presence of a substantial gunsmithing and brass founding operation on the site in the period beginning around 1740 and continuing for an uncertain number of years thereafter, perhaps into the 1760's.

It would seem reasonable to conclude that after 1738 the James Geddy I building served as a gun shop and working area. Both the west room, with its possible forge, and the northerly extension may have been the workshops. Strata, adjacent to the north wing, containing metalworking slag and artifacts dating c.1740, would point to this conclusion. The east room, with its fireplace, may have been Geddy's shop, although no substantiating evidence was forthcoming.

Structure B1

Dating evidence for the construction of the earlier foundations of the extant main building was not found, however, it could be conjectured that the brickwork 27 was laid prior to 1750. Anne Geddy, the widow of James Geddy, Sr., sold Lot 162 to James Taylor in 1750 and, if earlier theories were correct, the living quarters were transferred to Taylor while the industrial area was maintained by Mrs. Geddy. This transaction would make little sense if it were not for the fact that Anne had moved to James City County by 1750 (page 11). Even though she had no reason to construct a living area for herself, it seems likely that, before 1750, Anne had erected a building on Lot 161 for her sons David and William. Thus, it can be theorized that most of the existing main structure's plan and foundations were built for Mrs. Geddy around c.1750.

The principal structure had an east/west main block which measured 53'0" in length and 16'0" in width. (Figure 2) Attached to its west room was a northerly wing with dimensions of 25'3" x 16'3". The appendage initially had no basement, while the main block had a cellar whose access was through a bulkhead of which nothing survived but the interior jambs. This entrance had been built into the north foundation approximately 10'0" east of the building's north wing. The basement floor had been lowered in 1930 to facilitate its space being used for the placement of modern mechanical equipment, such as boilers, electrical panels, etc. Consequently only minimal archaeology work was undertaken in the main block's cellar in 1967, but it was determined Figure 2 28 that the main cellar was part of the original construction plan by an examination of the exterior brickwork.

The footings for the north wing extended over the basement's foundation's northwest corner at first suggesting that the cellar was of one period and the northerly appendage and the basement's upper courses were of another (Figure 3). However, an examination of the southeast corner of the same cellar and of the main building's foundation extending eastward from it, revealed an identical structural relationship to that at the northwest. Thus, there can be no doubt that the foundations of the cellar, north wing, and the east room are of the same period. As mentioned on page 27, it was deduced that Anne Geddy was responsible for the construction of these foundations and that the brickwork was laid (c.1750), prior to the sale of Lot 162.

If the above theory can be accepted, the early James Geddy I period structure had been dismantled before 1750. However, the interior fireplace, which had been situated in the east room of the earlier A1 building (see page 24) apparently was retained to provide heat for the central of the mid-eighteenth century B1 structure. The room of the fireplace was not equipped with a heat source so it could be conjectured that it was initially used for storage or a shop at least during the winter months. The room's close proximity to the brassfounding shop helps substantiate this theory. (Figure 18)

Figure 3

An examination of the house's south wall showed that the foundation for the room, adjoining the east tenement, had been underpinned. (Figure 3 and Plate VI) No doubt, this work was undertaken so that a basement could be added to that section of the building, and the presence of shell mortar would indicate that the bricks were laid in the eighteenth century. The interior of this cellar was not excavated in 1967 since its floor level had been lowered in 1953 during the reconstruction of the eastern portion of the main house. It was theorized that the basement's construction could have been part of the refurbishment activity on the site around c.1770, but substantiating evidence was not forthcoming.

Another cellar, this one crudely constructed, was found beneath the north wing of the main house (Plate VII). The basement had been dug out within the area of the building without underpinning the foundations. Thus, the north and east walls rested on a sloping bank of clay broken only at the point at which the bulkhead entrance cut through it. Although the western portion was not excavated, it was assumed that the wing's west wall was similarly supported.

Nevertheless, water seepage may have caused the foundation-supporting banks to erode. This phenomenon was surmised due to the fact that, after the cellar was in use, two courses of underpinning were added to the east wall for 30 increased support. Even so, during the 1967 digging, rain water was found draining into the basement from beneath the underpinning, as it probably did in the late eighteenth century. This defect could well have threatened the stability of the bank-perched foundations and may have caused the cellar's abandonment.

The basement's bulkhead (Plate VIII) positioned close to the north end of the east wall, (Figure 4) was filled with brown loam and purple ashes, containing datable material of the c.1800-1810 period. This fact, along with the artifacts of comparable date found in the cellar's fill (E.R. 1345B-D), would indicate that the basement was abandoned during the early part of the nineteenth century. It should be noted that this cellar's filling date seemed to coincide with that of the north bulkhead (page 32) suggesting that all of the underground facilities were of no use to the occupants of Lot 161 after c.1810.

Unfortunately, the cellar's construction date could not be pin-pointed archaeologically. However, the fact that it was abandoned in the early part of the nineteenth century would seem to suggest that the basement was being utilized during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. It could be conjectured that the cellar was built around 1770—along with other. improvements that together comprised the new construction advertised by James Geddy II in 1777.

Figure 4

In the course of his architectural examination of the west face of the north extension Mr. Buchanan determined that a doorway probably existed in it, an extremely important discovery that tended to support the probability that Mrs. Neill rented that part of the building in 1777 when she advertised as being on Palace Street. (See page 18) Unfortunately, Mr. Buchanan's study was ordered stopped before he could be certain whether the door was contemporary with the construction of the framing or had been inserted at a later date. Archaeological attempts to locate traces of steps or a stoop approaching the doorway had been thwarted by earlier restoration underpinning and by the laying of utilities beside Palace Street.

Structure B2

Sometime after c.1755, the above mentioned B1 structure was extended northward. Actually when Colonial Williamsburg acquired Lot 161, the extant north wing was accompanied by another at the east.73 The resulting U was partially filled by a closed shed or lean-to across the central north face (see Plate IX). The east wing was of nineteenth-century date and was dismantled; the lean-to was assumed to be the same and it, too, was torn down. However, extant photographs of the latter's framing have since led Mr. Buchanan to conjecture that it may have been much older. The 1967 archaeological findings helped support that theory.

The original northeast cornet (Plate X) of the lean-to was unearthed some 19'6" east of the main building's north wing and 10'0" north of that structure's north wall. A small portion of the addition's north wall was found overlaying the remains of the chimney which had cut through the east wall of the Geddy I north addition. The search for dating evidence for the lean-to's construction was impeded by the disturbance caused by the incursion of modern utilities. However, the artifacts, recovered from the small areas maintaining stratigraphy, indicated the lean-to could not have existed prior to c.1755.

The relationship of the lean-to extension to the main house's north wing could not be determined since modern underpinning destroyed any trace of a junction or abutment of the two foundations. However, it was discovered that the addition's outside wall developed in two stages. The first phase enclosed the bulkhead entrance to the main cellar enroute to its northeast corner. The east edge of the corner brickwork had been notched out for a subsequent second phase easterly extension (see page 36).

As mentioned above, the c.1750 main cellar's access was beneath the later north lean-to. Therefore, it was necessary to dismantle the original bulkhead steps and project the entrance northward as a passageway beneath the shed, at which point a new bulkhead entrance outside the lean-to was constructed (Plate XI). This feature was utilized 33 until the early part of the nineteenth century at which time it was abandoned and filled with miscellaneous rubbish including a partially used, inscribed sow of iron. After the fill (E.R. 1331F) had been inserted, a section of brickwork, representing part of the nineteenth-century underpinning for the lean-to, filled the space between the bulkhead walls. Evidence of the poorly installed nineteenth-century brickwork was also found overlapping the shed's colonial northeast corner.

It can be conjectured that the lean-to was built for use as James Geddy II's workshop. The only piece of waste silver found on the site was recovered from a stratum of washed sand and ashes (E.R. 1335J) inside the addition's walls. (Figure 4) The silver fragment, measuring less than 1" in length and about 1/8" in width, along with other small finds in the layer could have conceivably fallen through the cracks between the floorboards. The fact that in this same area parallel lines of straight pins were found would seem to add support to the conjecture. Even so, one piece of waste silver is not enough to prove that the northerly lean-to was used as James Geddy's workshop. However, a fragment of worked metal would not normally be found in or near a craftsman's home, whereas his finished pieces could very well have been.

If the lean-to had been used as Geddy's workshop, he probably would have had an annealing forge in that part of 34 the building. The fact that no evidence of a furnace was found in that area during the 1967 excavations might be used to refute the identification of the shed or lean-to as the silversmith's workshop. However, when Colonial Williamsburg acquired Lot 161, a photograph (Plate IX) of the north side of the house shows a chimney in the northerly lean-to, all evidence of which had vanished prior to the 1967 archaeological work. By the same token, it could be argued that the remains of Geddy's forge disappeared just as completely.

An article having some relevance in regard to the sizes of cutlers' and jewelers' forges was found in a magazine dated 1804. The following was part of a description of the house in London vacated by Nathaniel Bentley, Jr.:

"The second floor was a mere repository of rubbish and filth ... Adjoining this is a small antichamber, which was once his mother's favourite dressing room ... It has been since converted into a workshop, has in it the remains of a forge, workbench, tools for jewelry, smiths'-work, japanning, &c. It has shared the fate of the other rooms, lies neglected, and is nearly blocked up with filth and old iron.... "⁷⁴

Apparently, all jewelers' and suchlike forges were not of massive construction and some were even situated on an upper floor. While Bentley was a cutler and jeweler, and not a silversmith, the reference helps support the contention 35 that a silversmith's forge on the first floor need not have left any evidence in the ground.

Structure C1

Unfortunately, due to Colonial Williamsburg's thorough construction methods, no dating evidence for the original "East Room or Tenement" could be found. However, the extant documentation (see page 13) would suggest that the east end of the building was in existence when James Geddy, Jr. acquired Lot 161 in 1760. This deduction was based on the fact that Geddy leased the tenement one month after purchasing the property and the rent agreement indicated that repairs were needed prior to the tenant's occupancy. Thus, since it seems unlikely that a wing built in August would be in need of repairs by September, it must be assumed that the tenement was erected before 1760.

Structure C2

The same lease agreement that gave the terminus ante quem for the building of the east end of the house also indicated that a shed addition was to be attached to the repaired east room. The new tenants, Hugh Walker and John Goode, were given permission to erect a "Room or Shed" with measurements of 16'0" x 10'0" and it was to have an outside chimney. It can be argued that the 10' depth was dictated by the depth of the already built Geddy workshop lean-to, in which case both additions may have been part 36 of the same architectural plan. (See below for supporting evidence) The date of construction for the tenement shed could not be determined archaeologically, but it would seem probable that the appendage was standing by c.1761.

It is conjectured that sometime after the tenement shed was added, the space between that feature and the Geddy lean-to was filled. As noted previously (page 32), the original northeast corner of the lean-to had been keyed to facilitate its bonding to an easterly extension; a fact which would suggest that the entire back was planned as one and consequently its components would, no doubt, have been erected near the same time even though they were built independently. Therefore, it would seem that a certain amount of symmetry was brought to the north side of the house after James Geddy II purchased the property in 1760.

Unfortunately only a small portion of the brickwork between the tenement shed and the Geddy lean-to survived and due to the disturbance caused by the reconstruction of the east end of the extant house, it was not possible to determine the relationship between the space-filling foundation and the west wall of the tenement shed. Likewise, it was impossible to ascertain if the brickwork served as a base for another section of closed shed or whether it was a foundation for a stoop. The latter would seem more logical since it would 37 have allowed easy access to the outbuildings from the main house, the tenement shed, and the Geddy lean-to. The fact that a brick walkway (Path C, page 62) was found heading toward the space between the two northerly appendages (tenement shed and the Geddy lean-to) would seem to support the theory that a porch could have connected the closed sheds.

It should be recalled that Geddy, in the lease agreement of 1760, gave Walker and Goode "free Use of the necessary house and Well⁷⁵" on Lot 161. Consequently it would seem that an exit onto the back of the property would have been considered essential and therefore would probably have been included in the construction of the tenement shed. Since an outside chimney was centered on that addition's north wall, little space remained for a doorway, but if one had been inserted into that side of the shed, no evidence of it survived. On the other hand, if the back additions had been planned as one, a porch, with three doors opening onto it, between the tenement shed and the Geddy lean-to would have not only provided the needed access to the outbuildings, but also would have preserved the symmetry of the north side of the structure.

Structure D1 (Figure 5)

As previously mentioned, the curving path, which originated at the James Geddy I building's (A1) north door (page 24), followed a course which led toward the south entrance of another larger structure. The latter's foundations straddled Lots 161 and 162 and were probably erected by Samuel Cobbs, or at least by someone occupying both lots prior to James Geddy I's acquisition of the property. The building Figure 5 39 initially may have been a kitchen-laundry complex; however, substantiating evidence was not found.

This dependency, supported by 9" foundations, measured approximately 30'2" x 16'0" and comprised two rooms on the ground floor. Evidence of the east room, extending some 16'6" onto Lot 162, had been found during the 1953 excavations of the Norton-Cole property. Fortunately, that archaeological investigation did not disturb the strata pertinent to the DI structure's evolution. The digging inside the room stopped when an early 19th century brick floor, presumably belonging to the dairy structure shown on the 1806 insurance plat,⁷⁶ was uncovered.

The sloping subsoil made it necessary to fill areas before laying the original floor. This leveling deposit (E.R. 1385R) overlay a thin stratum of construction waste, i.e. mortar, brick flecks, etc. (Figure 6) The building's first clay floor (E.R. 1385P) overlay the graded surface.

The initial construction included the installation of a large, H-shaped chimney, whose central location enabled it to provide heat for both rooms (Figure 5). The main block of the chimney measured 9'6" x 8'0" and was constructed with orange, shell-mortared bricks averaging 8¾" x 4 3/8" x 2½" (Plate XII). The west fireplace had dimensions of 7'3" x 3'0" and its greatest heat concentration, discernible by the Figure 6 40 position of the scorched clay (Figure 5), was confined to an oval in the center measuring 2'9" x 2'8".

The fact that the brick hearth in the west room had been relaid no fewer than three times, would seem to indicate the fireplace was used extensively. However, according to Mr. Paul Buchanan, if andirons had not been used a brick hearth would not have lasted more than two or three years with normal employment. Obviously, each time the hearth level was elevated, the floor was raised. Initially, (Figure 7) the room's deck was paved with brick, but later, the flooring was made of hard-packed clay; the latter being relaid at least twice. Other than the floor level and the hearth being elevated from time to time, no major change in the west room's physical appearance or utilization could be discerned archaeologically. However, this was not the case in the east room. (see page 41)

Before discussing the alterations to the east room, it should be noted that a wooden beam had been inserted horizontally into the lower floor (Plate XIII). Its purpose probably was to prevent the original hearth's bricks from shifting. If that was the case, the timber's west edge would mark the east end of the brick hearth. The fact that brick bats, apparently laid, were found up to 1'3" east of the beam could mean either that the timber Figure 7 41 had been put in after the hearth bricks had started shifting or that the original flooring was of brick. The latter would seem more likely since the west room's first floor was of brick; (page 40) however, only that which is indicated on Figure 5 survived.

Another foundation, which apparently was part of the original construction plan, was found abutting the chimney on its north edge. The two surviving courses in the north/south wall were laid in sand rather than mortar. The purpose for such a foundation was not determined; however, it may be conjectured that it was part of a large oven, since a small section of a possibly corresponding wall was found in the west room (see Figure 5). If this interpretation is correct, there could have been no interior door connecting the two rooms.

The alterations to the east room began with the conversion of the open-hearthed fireplace to a forgelike foundation (Plate XIII). At the same time, the clay floor was relaid and this second pavement abutted the lower course of the in-filled fireplace. Small scraps of decayed brass were found pressed into this floor; a phenomenon which was also found in the building's west addition (page 44), in which brass-foundry work was proved to have been undertaken. Therefore, it could be conjectured that, prior to the sale of Lot 162 (1750), this east room was utilized as a foundry. Indeed, it would seem logical 42 that if a room being used for manufacturing purposes was sold, another would be constructed to take its place. The fact that a westerly extension, used for brass casting, was found during the 1967 excavations, suggests that the Geddy family did just that.

The new owner of Lot 162, and subsequent occupants of that property, apparently had no use for a forge. Therefore, it was partially dismantled leaving only the lower two courses of brick to serve as a hearth. This work having been accomplished, a third clay floor was laid so that the pavement would be elevated to the height of the hearth. It should be noted that a considerable amount of wear was present on the fore edges of the hearth's upper brick course (Plate XIII).

The north/south foundation, north of the chimney, (page 41) was being utilized during the existence of the forge. However, the above mentioned third clay floor sealed the brickwork's surviving courses, indicating that it was dismantled at the same time the forge was being torn down.

A thin layer of ash (E.R. 1385D) sealed the upper clay floor and overlying the cinders was found a thick stratum of destruction debris. The latter (E.R. 1385C) contained mortar, plaster, and brick fragments, along 43 with datable material indicating a deposition of c.1750-60, thereby suggesting a terminus post quem date for the demolition of the eastern part of the building. The stratum (E.R. 1321W), which indicated the destruction of the chimney, and the robber's trench for the west room's south wall (E.R. 1321S) contained datable artifacts which suggested a deposition of c. post 1750. Thus, both rooms may have been destroyed at the same time even though they were presumably not jointly owned.

Structure D2

Evidence of additions to the D1 building was found north and west of that structure. The remains of the northerly annex's northwest corner (Figure 5), west wall and sections of the north extremity were unearthed; however, datable material to indicate the construction period was not forthcoming. Brick bats were used in the foundation which extended the building's north/south dimension by 6'0".

Unfortunately, the addition's northeast corner was not located so it was not possible to determine if the extension spanned the length of the building. However, it seems possible that Well B (See Figure 18) cut through the east/west wall which, along with the disturbance caused by later construction work, could have eliminated all evidence of the northerly annex's northeast portion. It could be conjectured that the extension served as the access route between the east and west rooms, in which 44 case, it probably would have extended the length of the building.

Structure D3

As mentioned previously (page 42) a westerly addition to the DI outbuilding was located during the 1967 archaeological investigation (Figure 5). The extension's north/south dimension was 16'0" while its east/west measurement was 13'0". It was conjectured (pages 42-43) that this room was added when the eastern portion of building D1 was sold. Supporting evidence in the form of comparable elevations, helped reinforce the theory. The top of the second clay floor in the east room, which existed during the forge's utilization had an elevation of 80.88 while the bottom reading for the first floor in the west addition was 80.86. Thus, it would seem possible that the annex was erected around c.1750.

The first indication of the west extension's purpose was found while excavating in the northern portion of that room. Small droplets of brass or copper oxide were discovered on the floor and attached to the building's inner north wall. This would suggest that a crucible of molten metal had spilled against the wall and had sprayed out from it. Thus, it would seem that this part of the structure was used for founding operations. The numerous scraps of iron and brass trodden into the clay floor 45 substantiated this conjecture. However, irrefutable evidence of the annex's use as a foundry was discovered in the southeast portion of that room.

A solid brick foundation, measuring 2'6" x 2'2" was unearthed 2" north of the building's south wall (Plate XIV). Abutting the plinth to the north was a small forge with its iron grate in situ. The furnace had outside dimensions of 1'7" x 2' 4½" with an inner ash pit 10½" wide and 1' 7½" deep (Plate XV). The red bricks used in constructing the forge measured 8 3/8" x 4" x 2½" while those used in the plinth were orange and their average size was 8½" x 4" x 2½".

Wedged in the narrow space between the plinth and the shop's south wall (E.R. 1379L) was found a lead pattern for a harness buckle (Figure 5). This important find removed any doubt as to the forge's utilization. No doubt, sand casting flasks were prepared in the room and when the pattern was taken from the sand it was placed on the brick working plinth. At sometime during the remainder of the brass casting operation, the harness buckle pattern was accidentally raked off the table and, having fallen down a 2" wide crevice, was not retrieved.

As previously mentioned, the brass foundry had a dirt floor during the life of the small forge. However, the shop continued to be utilized after the furnace was dismantled, for a later brick floor was laid at the 46 elevation too high to afford access to the forge's ash pit (Plate XIV). A thin ash stratum (E.R. 1347G), beneath and predating the brick paving yielded artifacts dating c. post 1755. The furnace's ash channel bore artifacts dating in the same period, including a virtually complete wine bottle of c.1730. Thus, sometime after 1755, the forge was torn down and the brick floor laid. No indication of the shop's utilization, after the furnace's destruction, could be found. However, it appeared that a workbench or seat had stood against the west wall since the floor's reused bricks still retained scraps of mortar on their upper surfaces indicating that they had not been walked on continuously. The south end of the bench had been propped on bricks set on the floor.

It should be noted that two parallel N/S slots (Figure 5) were discovered in the north portion of the west extension. These shallow trenches, abutting the north wall and extending approximately 4'0" south of it, had cut through the shop's clay floor. The function of these slots could not be determined; however, it would seem possible that wooden beams, supporting a work bench, may have been placed in them.

The artifacts recovered from the fill indicated a deposition post c.1750. The eastern most trench (E.R. 1350F) contained iron and brassworking waste, along with a lead pattern for a sauce boat handle. The latter, the type 47 usually cast in silver, would suggest that silversmithing and brassfounding may have been undertaken at the same time on the Geddy property. Thus, the westerly addition may have been in existence while James Geddy, II, occupied Lot 161; however, it could be argued that if Samuel Galt leased a shop on the property around c.1750 the pattern could have been his.

At any rate, the brassworking shop was destroyed by c. 1770 since another building (page 52), overlaying the remains of the former's foundations, was constructed at that time. The fill, separating the bottom of the c.1770 outbuilding from the upper surface of the brassfounding shop's last brick floor, had an average thickness of 6", but inches of fill cannot indicate an accurate span of time, since a foot of dirt can be deposited by hand in a matter of a few minutes whereas the same depth could take nature several hundreds of years.

Structure E1 (Figure 8)

As stated on page 1, the 1930 archaeological endeavor exposed foundations believed to represent the remains of the early kitchen on Lot 161. The building was small, having measurements of about 12'0" x 16'0", and its walls were 9" thick. Foundations for a large, outside chimney were found at the eastern end of the building. The fireplace had dimensions of 4'6" x 10'0".

Structure E2

An addition to the kitchen was also Figure 8 48 located in 1930. The northerly extension measured 16'0" x 8'6" and presumably was a lean-to, using the kitchen's north wall as its southern extremity. It could not be determined if the kitchen complex dated as early as James Geddy I's occupation of the property; however, it was surmised that the structure was torn down around 1770 when James Geddy II erected a second kitchen outbuilding.

Structure F (Figure 8)

As mentioned on page 1, a second kitchen (if that was its purpose), had been discovered during the 1930 archaeological work and its foundations re-examined in 1966. During the latter excavation, it was found that the later kitchen's remains rested on at least ten inches of gray fill (E.R. 985A). From this stratum were recovered numerous fragments of early creamware which gave the building a terminus post quem date of circa 1770.

The surviving brickwork indicated the dependency had an east/west measurement of 30'0" and north/south walls 24'0" in length. Portions of the building's foundations had been destroyed either by the 1930 excavations or by the reconstruction of the first kitchen. However, the 1930 archaeological report indicated that all exterior walls were bonded and thus were erected at the same time.

An interior east/west wall was found about 7'2" from 49 the building's northern extremity. This partition bonded to the outbuilding's east wall but only abutted the structure's western limit. Mrs. Peachy Rogers, who remembered the building, stated that it only had "two rooms on the ground floor.⁷⁷" Thus, if Mrs. Rogers' memory was correct, it would seem that this east/west interior brickwork eventually served, not as a wall, but as support for a wooden floor.

The Frenchman's Map of 1782 (?) (Figure 9) shows only one building to the rear of the main house and its position was approximately that of the 30'0" x 24'0" structure. The dependency was believed to have been a kitchen-laundry complex.

Humphrey Harwood's ledger showed an entry made May 15, 1778, which indicated repairs were made to Geddy's kitchen, laundry, and dairy. The 1967 excavation unearthed foundations which could readily be those of the dairy (see page 52); however, no separate laundry structure was discovered. It could be conjectured that structure F served both as a kitchen and laundry through, at least, some of its existence. This type of composite structure would not be without precedents for, in Williamsburg, during the eighteenth century, many kitchens had a space for cleaning clothing. The closest example of a kitchen/laundry complex was found next door on the Norton-Cole property.

Figure 9

Structure F's large, central chimney foundation was re-studied during the minimal archaeological work in 1966. Most of the brickwork remained intact although the hearth and any dating evidence from beneath it had been dug out in 1930. Colonial strata did survive east of the H-shaped eastern hearth and, cutting into the natural subsoil, was found a dog grave (Figure 8). The burial cavity (E.R. 988C) passed beneath, and so predated the south/west cheek of the chimney. Unfortunately, no dating evidence was obtained for either the interment or for the construction of the fireplace.

During the 1930 archaeological work, a small 9" wall was found in front of the western fireplace and Mr. Ragland conjectured at that time that it was "built to hold fill to support the hearth.⁷⁸" The wooden flooring could well have required some kind of underhearth and support for the joists beside it since Mrs. Rogers recalled that the building had "wood floors, which were 'springy'.⁷⁹" It need only be said here that when the remains of the small retaining wall were re-examined in 1966, no evidence was found to refute Mr. Ragland's theory.

Structure G (Figure 8)

During the 1967 excavation, evidence of an outbuilding was found north of the first kitchen's lean-to (E2). Only two corners of the pier-supported 51 unit survived (Plate XVI), but these indicated the building had a north/south measurement of 10"4". The bricks used in the piers were rich red in color with average dimensions of 8½" x 3 7/8" x 2 7/8".

The structure's utilization could not be determined archaeologically nor could it be ascertained if it dated as early as James Geddy I's occupancy of the property. However, the fact that it was built along the same westerly line as the early kitchen (El) would suggest that the two structures were contemporaneous. A brick rubble walkway (see page 63), running east/west between the G and E structures, would support the conjecture. The path's position, south of structure G, would also suggest that access to the building may have been on its south side.

Structure H (Figure 10)

A smokehouse was discovered 8'6" west of the reconstructed kitchen and 11'6" north of the extant well. The building's central firebox was intact, but all of the exterior walls had been robbed out except for a small section of the western extremity (Plate XVII). The structure measured approximately 7'1" x 8'2 1/8" and its firebox's size was 2'3" x 2'2". The artifacts from the ashes in the firebox (E.R. 1356E) included fragments of creamware and tobacco pipe fragments, all indicating that the structure was in use after c. 1770. A brick walkway's (F) northern extremity ended near the center of the smokehouse's 52 south wall. Thus, access to the structure must have been from the south.

Structure J (Figure 11)

The remains of a small outbuilding measuring approximately 10'0" x 10'11" were unearthed about 11'10" from the main house's northeast shed addition (C2). The small building was believed to have been the dairy which Humphrey Harwood repaired in 1778 (pages 20 and 49.)

Unfortunately, the structure's builder's trenches contained no datable material; however, it could be conjectured that the dependency was erected around c.1770 when James Geddy II was making the improvements to his property. At any rate, if the theory as to the small building's utilization was correct, the brickwork had to have been laid prior to 1778.

Privy (Figure 8)

Evidence of a "necessary house", having conjectured measurements of 5'6" x 5'0", was found approximately 12'2" north of the reconstructed kitchen. The privy's pit had an east/west measurement of 3'11" and a north/south dimension of 3'0" (Plate XVIII). Its fill (E.R. 1306K and N) contained artifacts dating circa 1780, thus suggesting a terminus post quem for the privy's abandonment.

The building's southeast pier remained in situ while only brick fragments marked the northeast corner's location. No trace of the other two piers could be found. However, on Figure 10 - 18th Century Features of West Side of Lot 161 53 the assumption that the pit was near the center of the structure, the western extremity was estimated to be about 5'0" from that of the east.

A walkway (Path E), surviving as brick rubble and oyster shells (E.R. 1306L), was found curving outward from the east face of the privy and extending south-southwest. Hence, the location of the path would indicate an eastern access to the "necessary house". "It is interesting to note that the 'house of office' faced east thus providing a modicum of privacy for those found seated when the door was inadvertently opened.⁸⁰"

Outdoor Furnace (Figure 10)

What were considered to be remains of a freestanding forge was found 3'6" southeast of the reconstructed kitchen. The furnace's substantial foundations, having 13" walls except for a 4" one on the west extremity, measured approximately 5'8" x 5'6" (Plate XIX). The fact that only a half-brick width was present in the west end would indicate the smithy worked from that direction.

The forge's ash channel was approximately 2'3" x 4'0" and, as would be expected, it was filled with layers of forge-fuel remains. Unfortunately, these ash strata contained few datable artifacts but those recovered only indicated the furnace was being used after mid-eighteenth century. The artifacts recovered from the south wall builder's trench (E.R. 1322E) suggested a construction 54 date of c. post 1760; however, since that feature cut through strata of the same date, the forge could have been built much later. At any rate, it was theorized that this furnace was being used during the Revolutionary War period, at which time a great deal of industrial activity was taking place on Lot 161.

has been pointed out by Mr. William deMatteo that a silversmith would have little use for an exterior forge. An iron or brass worker, on the other hand, could have used one exclusively. However, since only iron fragments were found within the surrounding ash strata, it was conjectured that the forge was used for gunsmithing or general blacksmithing.

Well A (Figure 10)

A well shaft, some 27'2" deep and approximately 5'0" in diameter, was discovered west of the newly reconstructed kitchen and north of the unearthed smokehouse foundations. The well's position would have also been west of the earlier range of buildings with which it probably was associated. It was conjectured that, Well A was the earliest of the three examined in 1967.

In 1750 when Anne Geddy sold Lot 162, she gave James Taylor one half of the well on Lot 161 along with perpetual access to it. Obviously the water supply was clearly on Lot 161 and since Well A was the only one found that was Figure 11 - 18th Century Features of East Side of Lot 161 55 definitely on Lot 161 and was of an early enough date, Mrs. Geddy must have been referring to it.

The brick lining had been totally removed, no doubt, for use in a new well and the abandoned shaft was filled almost entirely with the clay from the new one. The artifacts recovered from the upper strata suggested that the well was not in use after c.1765. It should be noted that a fragment of a delftware bowl, found in the upper layer of Well A's infill (E.R. 1360B) (Figure 12), mended with another found at a depth of approximately 13'0" (E.R. 1340M) in a well (B) positioned on the present property line between Lots 161 and 162. Thus, both wells were being filled at the same time; however, this would not mean that both were dug contemporaneously.

Only two objects of any consequence were found in Well A's lower levels and these at a depth of approximately 24'0". Positioned along the western edge of the shaft was a wooden-handled adze and a badly decayed iron spade blade. Portions of the latter's wooden handle were also recovered and subsequently restored. Since the implements were found in an area that may have been behind the well's brick lining, it could be argued that the tools were lost by either the workman who dug the well or the man who salvaged the bricks, rather than the crew that filled the shaft.

Well B (Figure 11)

The foundations for the wellhead and the upper lining courses of Well B had been uncovered Figure 12 - Well A 56 by Mr. James Knight in 1953 and subsequently recorded on the unfinished drawing of that year's excavation discoveries.⁸¹ The surviving brickwork was positioned southeast of the reconstructed kitchen and apparently had cut through the north wall of the brassfounding building's north addition (D2).

According to the 1953 architectural drawings, the well straddled the property line between Lots 161 and 162. Thus, it would seem that, if the lot line were correctly placed, the well was constructed when the two lots were jointly owned. This phenomenon did not occur between 1750 and 1782 and since the shaft was abandoned before the latter date (see page 58), it could be argued, in the absence of any other evidence, that the well dated earlier than 1750. However, there was other evidence and it did not support such a conclusion.

A single sherd from a Chinese porcelain saucer, found behind the brick lining at a depth of 25'3" (Figure 13), mended to a fragment found in a gray, ash-flecked clay layer (E.R. 1328R) north of the well. This last stratum contained datable material indicating a deposition post 1760. It would seem reasonable to suggest that the well was dug through that layer thus causing a fragment to drop down behind the lining. If this theory can be accepted, the water supply must have been first used after 1760. The fact that fragments of a "scratch blue" saltglaze tankard Figure 13 - Well B 57 dating after c.1750-60 were found in the shaft's primary fill would support such a conjecture.

Hence, the well apparently did not straddle the property line and was constructed sometime after c.1760 on either Lot 161 or 162. It could be argued that the shaft was positioned on the former property; indeed, all of the archaeological evidence would point to that conclusion. The discarded rubbish, filling the well, included metallic slag, broken crucibles, watch glass fragments, and other items which could have been associated with the industrialized Lot 161. At least eleven ceramic fragments found in the well mended with other pieces recovered from post c.1760-70 features and/or strata on the Geddy property. These include the mend to the "scratch blue" tankard (see page 56) discovered in the well's primary fill. This many cross-mends would seem to more than suggest a relationship toward Lot 161. In addition, a mend was found between the delftware bowl [3788.E.R.1360 A-D-19B] recovered from the upper layers in Well A's fill and a stratum some 15'0" deep (E.R. 1340M) in the shaft of Well B. Therefore, it was deduced that when Well B was being filled the settlement in Well A's shaft necessitated its being topped up. Hence, if this theory is correct, both wells must have been on the same property and, since there is no question that Well A was on Lot 161, Well B must have also been on the Geddy property.

The abandonment of Well B was caused by the collapse of a portion of the north lining wall (Plate XX). The shaft was thereupon filled with trash, including datable material discarded no earlier than c. 1765. This initial deposit eventually settled and was topped up in the early 19th century. Dating for these conclusions was based on the following factors: (1) no creamware present in levels below 10'5" (Figure 13); (2) fragments of a clouded ware teapot, unlikely to have reached Williamsburg before 1760, scattered through all levels from 10'5" to 22' 5½"; (3) and pieces of "melon" teapot, decorated with glazes not invented until 1760, found in levels from 19'4" to 22' 5 1½".

The bottom of the well was reached at a depth of 29'0" below the modern grade and only eight brick courses survived intact. These were salvaged, along with the well's waterlogged wooden ring, for use in future exhibits. The shaft's primary deposit (E.R. 1340Z) consisted almost entirely of brickbats and dark brown clay; however, a cat skeleton, two musket balls, a marble, the already mentioned "scratch blue" tankard fragments, and a sherd from a small German stoneware jug were recovered from the bottom of the well. Beneath the primary fill was found a hard-packed bed of marl (E.R. 1341A).

It should be noted that, what was considered to be a barrel stand was discovered southeast of Well B. A large 59 piece of stone, measuring 1'4" x 1'3½" x 2½", had been laid in clay and numerous brickbats flanked it on three sides (Figure 11). If this stone and brick platform was associated with Well B and if previous conjectures concerning that well's ownership are correct, the present property line between Lots 161 and 162 may be at least 5'6" too far west.

Well C

The 1930-31 excavations of Lot 161 exposed the remains of a well (Figure 10), some 12'0" southwest of the kitchen-laundry complex (F1). The shaft was subsequently dug to a depth of 22 feet and it was recorded that the well "was filled with trash and earth" and "part of the bucket was found in it". Unfortunately these facts did not suggest an abandonment date, consequently, we must be content to accept the record's conclusion that the well "was filled in at some distant date.⁸²" It should be noted, however, that an examination of the exterior brickwork in the wellhead disclosed that repairs had been made to the foundation during the 19th century. Thus, the well's abandonment apparently was much later than that of the two shafts excavated in 1967.

It could be argued that Well C was built while Well A was being stripped and that that occurred after Well B's lining collapsed. At any rate, a brick dust stratum (E.R. 1355P), which predated the construction of Wellhead C, contained artifacts of the 1755-60 period. However, 60 included in the objects found in a lower layer (E.R. 1355R) was a single sherd of creamware, which, if not an intrusive fragment, would suggest that the well's construction was sometime after c.1770. Even though the date for the digging of Well C could not be pin-pointed, it was conjectured, from the factors mentioned above, that this shaft was later than either of those (A and B) excavated in 1967 and that it probably was in existence during the latter years of James Geddy II's occupation of Lot 161.

Path A

As previously mentioned (pages 24 and 38), the remains of a curving brick walkway were uncovered in 1967 and it apparently had been constructed to connect the early main house (A1) with a dependency (DI-2). Much of the path's length had been destroyed, largely by the incursion of numerous modern utilities north of the house; however, the path's western extremity and a section south of the outbuilding survived. The elevation of the bottom of the west end of the walk was 79.46 while that of a portion some 24'0" northeast of the above point, was comparable at 79.55.

The fact that the path, whose average width was 3'6", 61 was utilized as a route between the two earliest buildings found on the site would suggest that the walkway was put down shortly after the initial layout of Lot 161. The stratum of sandy gray clay (E.R. 1377J), which predated the path, contained datable artifacts which would support such a conjecture. Among these were fragments of a wine bottle, a well-preserved latten rat-tailed spoon, pieces of delftware and a Silesian wine glass stem, all of which dated c.1720-1730.

Path B

The principal north/south route from the house to the back of the property was located some 2'0" west of the reconstructed second kitchen structure. The paving was not pursued to its northern limit; however, it was conjectured that the walk may have led to the stable (?) shown on the Frenchman's Map (Figure 9). Portions of the upper brick path had been located in 1930 and subsequently recorded on the archaeological map of those excavations.

The surface of the main walkway had been either repaired or relaid no fewer than four times (Figure 14). Initially the path was of marl with an average thickness of about 2" and width of 3'0". No artifacts were found in the firmly-packed stratum; however, the layer of gray clay (E.R. 1309V), which predated the marl stratum, contained material dating c.1740. Thus, the terminus post quem for the laying of the first north/south path was around 1740. Another walkway, with artifacts dating c.1755, overlay the marl which suggested Figure 14 - N/S Section Showing Evolution of Path B

Section Figure 14

The second pavement (E.R. 1309R) was, no doubt, initially made of brick although all that survived was brick dust and occasional pieces of marl from the lower path. It would seem probable that this walkway existed throughout James Geddy II's occupation of Lot 161 since the stratum (E.R. 1309Q) which sealed the paving dated c.1840. The layer that sealed the second path was a combination of crushed shell and ashes and it served either as the third pavement or as a solid bed forth laying of the fourth walkway. The latter path was of brick and it was in existence after c.1840.

Path C

A small section of a brick walk was unearthed south of the D1-3 outbuilding. The main portion of the path apparently was extending toward that structure's west addition while a subsidiary pavement was advancing eastward, perhaps to the room adjoining the westerly extension. No doubt, the walks were connecting the main house (B) with the dependency (see page 37); however, modern utility trenches and reconstruction activity had removed all evidence of the path's southern extremity.

Unfortunately, the stratum of yellow clay (E.R. 1344L) which predated the paving contained no datable material. However, a layer of brown loam mixed with ashes and metallic slag (E.R. 1334K) abutted the path and the artifacts recovered suggested the walk was being utilized around 1750. It could be conjectured that the paving was laid at the same time 63 the post 1750 brassfoundry (D3, west addition to D1 structure) was constructed.

Path D (Figure 8)

As noted on page 51, a brick rubble walkway was found immediately south of the outbuilding (G) which suggested that the access to that structure may have been on its south side. The fact that the path was cut through by the construction of the c.1770 kitchen's (F) northwest section would seem to support the conjecture (page 51) that the pier-supported building (G) pre-dated the later kitchen (F) and possibly was contemporaneous with the early kitchen structure (El-2).

A small portion of the path's western extremity survived, and that section overlay the earliest north/south marl walkway (page 61). Thus, since the marl path was abandoned around c.1755, the brick rubble paving was laid sometime after that date. The latter contained fragments of white saltglaze and pieces of a late "scratch blue" bowl which would suggest that the walk was in use around 1765-70 or until the James Geddy II kitchen-laundry was built.

As the path neared the existing property line between Lots 161 and 162, it turned northward, presumably en route to the stable (?) shown on the Frenchman's Map detail (Figure 9). Even though much of the path was abandoned when the later kitchen (F) was built, the north/south portion continued in use and subsequently was repaired (see below).

Path E (Figure 8)

A walkway (E.R. 1307L), surviving as brick rubble and oyster shells, was found curving outward from the east face of the privy (page 53). This path was merely a relaying of the southeast portion of the above mentioned walkway and no doubt the repairs were made when the privy was built. The restored paving apparently terminated some 2'0" west of the c.1770 kitchen's northeast corner. Thus, the path's location not only indicated an eastern access to the "necessary house", but it also provided evidence for a doorway in the kitchen's north wall.

It would seem logical that the paving was abandoned around 1780 when the privy's pit was filled. However, the artifacts recovered from the walkway included a sherd of transfer printed white ware, a piece which could not date before 1820. Hence, if not an intrusive fragment, the presence of the sherd would suggest that the path continued in existence through the early part of the nineteenth century.

Path F (Figure 10)

The area north of the existing well apparently suffered considerably from erosion caused by rain shedding off the roof of the kitchen-laundry structure (F). Consequently, the brick walks and paving had been re-laid at least four times in that portion of the site. Only one path could be identified among the layers of brick and this ran north/south. The walkway's northern extremity 65 ended near the center of the smokehouse's (H) south wall (page 51). From that point, the pavement extended southward toward the extant Geddy House; however, due to modern disturbances, it was not possible to determine where, or if they met.

The north/south walkway had been relaid twice; however, the dating evidence would suggest that the life span of the path was relatively short. The initial paving was predated by a stratum of yellow sand and clay (E.R. 1355M) whose artifacts indicated a post 1770 terminus post quem date. The layer which sealed the upper brick walk contained material which suggested a deposition of c. post 1780. Hence, both paths were apparently constructed and abandoned within a ten-year span.

The first walkway was constructed almost entirely of well bricks. The fact that they showed little wear would indicate not only that the path was infrequently used but also that the upper brick paving was added for some reason other than the initial one's dilapidation. It could be conjectured that the erosion problem (page 64) contributed to the need for the repair.

Path G

The 1967 excavations produced evidence that numerous walkways had been laid between the main house's southwest portion and the Duke of Gloucester Street. The earlier paths may have been merely packed clay, however, due 66 to the difficulty in discerning a walk from a yard level when both are of clay, this theory could not be proved. At any rate, the first distinguishable paving (Figure 15) (E.R. 1367Y) was made of burnt shell and brick fragments. Artifacts recovered from the path, along with those from the stratum sealed by it, indicated that the walkway was being utilized after c.1760. Consequently, James Geddy, II may have been responsible for its existence.

Unfortunately, the yellow clay stratum (E.R. 1367T), which overlay the above mentioned path, was void of artifacts. Hence, it was not possible to determine an approximate abandonment date for the paving. However, a layer of gray clay (E.R. 1367S), which passed above the barren stratum, contained material suggesting a c.1820 deposition. Thus, the shell and brick pavement, laid around 1760, was no longer in use by 1820.

Subsequent paths were in existence during the nineteenth century. One made of burnt brick was laid after c.1820 and another thick marl walk was being used after c.1830. The most recent paving, discounting the Colonial Williamsburg brick one, was made of coal cinders sometime after c.1850.

Yard Levels

Apparently the appearance of Lot 161 during most of the eighteenth century was not as picturesque Figure 15 - Section Q R Showing Various Walkway Levels S. of Extant Main Geddy House

Section QR

Support for a portion of this last theory was found in a stratum of mixed ashes and clinker (E.R. 1327M), which layer spread over the ground northwest of the brassfounding shop (D3), and contained datable material of the period post 1750-55, including one of the most important finds recovered from the site. The object was a small cabinet or box latch, made of brass, with the maker's mark (DG) stamped on the back. The hook's presence in the industrial waste would seem to indicate that David Geddy was responsible for some of the metallic scraps and sprue discarded after c.1755. It should be noted that another brass latch, also marked DG, was recovered from the stratum (E.R. 1327L) overlaying the above mentioned metallic refuse.

All this evidence points to a substantial gunsmithing 68 and brassfounding operation, with its inevitable debris strewn about the property, from c.1740 to 1755, and possibly later. The work would appear to have ceased or to have been very considerably reduced by 1760 since the strata which were associated with James Geddy II did not contain indications of subsequent brassworking. Indeed, from the archaeological evidence, it would seem that after 1760 an attempt was made to give the property a more presentable appearance. This was achieved by laying new and repairing old walkways, constructing proper drains (page 72) and improving the yard work areas.

The first paving (E.R. 1355P), southwest of the second kitchen and east of path G (Figure 10), was in existence around c.1760—65. It survived only as brick dust, however, the initial construction was probably much more substantial. As mentioned on page 64, this area sustained considerable erosion damage and consequently the brick pavement was relaid at least four times from c.1760 to c.1780.

The section of yard, west of path G (Figure 10), apparently had never been paved with brick. However, a layer of oyster shells (E.R. 1348Z), presumably a yard level, had been spread there after c.1755-60. A later stratum of tightly-packed marl (E.R. 1355H) abutted the west edge of path G. Hence, during the walk's utilization (pages 64-65) the yard, west of it, was laid with marl.

During the existence of the marl level, the area south of the extant well was covered with brick rubble and oyster shells (E.R. 1368M). The artifacts, recovered from the latter deposit, included a fragment of delftware which crossmended with another found in a sandy wash layer (E.R. 1339H) southeast of the kitchen (F) structure. The presence of creamware in both strata would indicate a post 1770 date of deposition for each. The important crossmend suggested that when the area south of the extant well (C) was paved, the eastern portion of the property was not. However, a brick rubble spread (E.R. 1339G) sealed the sandy layer (E.R. 1339H) and thus, it would seem possible that the crossmending fragment may have been pressed into the lower level, in which case, the east and west parts of the property could have been paved contemporaneously, i.e., around 1770.

Additional paving (E.R. 1343A) was encountered near the center of Lot 161 (Figure 10), between the F kitchen and main structure. The burned orange brick overlay a stratum of brick dust, mortar and red ashes (E.R. 1343B). The latter's artifacts indicated a deposition of post c.1760-70 and thus suggested the terminus post quem for the pavement's construction. The datable fragments between the bricks indicated that the paving was not abandoned until sometime after c.1785.

The above archaeological evidence apparently indicates 70 that during the late eighteenth century, some type of paving existed between the east and west property lines and from the kitchen to some point southward. Unfortunately, due to modern utility and reconstruction disturbance, it was not possible to determine if the pavements extended to the main house; however, it could be argued that the logical southern limit was that building's northerly lean-to.

As noted on page 68, the property's appearance apparently was improved when James Geddy II acquired the land. However, the archaeological evidence would indicate that, during the Revolutionary War years, Lot 161 lapsed into something akin to the area's pre-1760 semblance. Large rubbish deposits were found immediately north of the main building's north wing (page 79), and a sizable pile of discarded iron gun parts, both civilian and military, was discovered west of the extant well (page 79). In addition to these pits, another large trash area (E.R. 13801 and K) was found crossing the west property line and extending toward Palace Street (Figure 17). The latter (page 78) contained industrial and household rubbish discarded after c. 1770. Hence, those passing the Geddy lot on Palace Street during the war years may have seen a flourishing industrial area, but not a well kept lawn or formal gardens.

Drain A (Figure 1)

The excavations, south of the 71 main building, unearthed a section of a north/south drain, which apparently was associated with the A1 structure. The bricks had been sealed by a stratum of brown sandy clay (E.R. 1359N) whose artifacts suggested a deposition after c.1740. Hence, the drain was probably abandoned before c.1750 and consequently was being utilized during James Geddy I's occupation of the property. The fact that the c.1750 main building seemingly cut through the brick-lined trough would support such a conjecture.

Drain B (Figure 16)

Another drain was discovered southwest of the outdoor forge and directly beneath a large paper mulberry tree. Unfortunately, root disturbance and subsequent construction trenches eliminated any evidence of the drain's origin. The fact that the drain had been cut through by a rubbish pit (E.R. 987M), whose artifacts dated after c.1750 would indicate the terminus ante quem for the construction of the brick gutter. It was theorized that the trough could have been associated with the outbuilding (DI) since the bricks were laid so that the water would flow north/northwest. No doubt, as the drain proceeded northward, its course changed in order to prevent the water from entering the early kitchen structure (El-2).

Drains C & D (Figure 17)

The digging in the western portion of Lot 161 revealed two brick drains which originally Figure 16. - Excavated Features South of the F1 Kitchen Outbuilding 72 may have been connected. One of them began at a point close to the extant well (C) and extended westward toward the Palace Green. Apparently, the feature was contemporary with the changes that occurred on the property after c.1770. This assumption was based primarily on the fact that the artifacts found between the bricks (E.R. 1353H) and those recovered from the stratum (E.R. 1353N), which predated the drain's construction, included creamware sherds.

The east/west drain may have emptied into another unearthed outside the west property line. The latter, extending northeast to southwest, apparently decanted its water into Palace Street. Unfortunately, the area where the drains would have joined was disturbed by relatively modern post holes; however, the elevations of both channels could suggest a connection between them. The upper surface of the east/west drain's floor had an elevation of 79.82 as compared to a 79.60 reading on the corresponding part of the northeast to southwest trough. Hence, a 2.64 inch differential (approximately one brick course) existed in the drains' floor levels.

Ordinarily, this much variance might point to a disassociation between features; however, in this case, a relationship between these channels remains a possibility. The fact that no trace of mortar could be found on the upper surface of the east/west drain's one course walls would Figure 17 - 18th Century Features uncovered outside lot 161's westerly property line along with a possibly related E/W drain 73 suggest that they were no higher originally. However, portions of the northeast to southwest drain's walls were constructed two courses high (Plate XXI). Thus, if the drains were contemporaneous, the east/west channel's floor abutted the lower wall course of the northeast to southwest trough and the former's wall abutted the upper brick's in the latter's southern edge (Figure 17 detail).

Another factor would suggest that the channels were being utilized simultaneously. Both had apparently been abandoned at the same time. The east/west drain had been filled with brown ashy loam (E.R. 1346C) whose recovered artifacts suggested a deposition of post c. 1825. The other trough was sealed by a stratum of dark brown soil (E.R. 1375C) which contained material dating after c. 1820. Hence, both drains were filled in around 1825 or later and consequently were probably used in conjunction with each other during the latter part of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth century.