study units ix-xxiii - Research - Colonial Williamsburg

Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Reports
Towar
oward a Resource
Protection Process:
James City County,
York County,
City of Poquoson,
City of Williamsbur
illiamsburg
OLUME 2: S
VOLUME
2: STUDY
UNITS
NITS
NITS IX-XXIII
Edited by Marley R. Brown III and Kathleen J. Bragdon
Third Edition
Office of Archaeological Excavation
Department of Archaeology
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
PO Box C
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
Marley R. Brown III
Principal Investigator
October 1986
Third edition issued November 2001

TOWARD A RESOURCE PROTECTION
PROCESS: JAMES CITY COUNTY,
YORK COUNTY, CITY OF POQUOSON,
AND CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG
VOLUME 2: STUDY UNITS IX-XXIII
Third Edition
November 2001
Office of Archaeological Excavation
The Department of Archaeology
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

DISCLAIMER
The activity that is the subject of this report has been financed in part with federal
funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the
contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department
of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.
i

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
The first edition of this report, completed in October 1985, was submitted to the
Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks in fulfillment of a Survey and Plan
ning Subgrant. Copies were also distributed to the planning departments of James
City County York County, the City of Poquoson, and the City oe Williamsburg, as well
as to appropriate libraries, institutions, and individuals.
Because the original report was submitted in three volumes totalling over 1200 pges, it
was felt that a reorganization was necessary before it was distributed more widely. The second
edition was published in 1986 in a smaller typeface for wider distribution.
This third edition, published in 2001, is designed for better readability and conversion
into digital formats. It has been divided into four separate volumes. Volumes 1 and 2 provide
the introduction to the project and the “study unit narratives” that describe the background and
criteria for evaluation of existing resources, along with listing of those resources as of 1985.
Volume 3 contains a complete listing of archaeological and architectural sites included in the
evaluation, as well as (now outdated) management plans for each jurisdiction. Volume 4 contains
supplementary material, including proposed archaeological and architectural coding forms,
site inventory standards, annotated bibliographies of archaeological and architectural sources,
and a variety of bibliographic essays on the historical literature.
A PDF (Portable Document Format) file is available on CD. Original text, however, has
not been modified.
The reader is referred to Resource Protection Planning Revisited: James City
County, York County, and the City of Williamsburg, a short 1991 update of this document
produced by Meredith C. Moodey (now Meredith Poole) of the Department of
Archaeological Research of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. All comprehensive
site records and notes are on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
Richmond.
iii

PROJECT MEMBERS
Project Director:
Contributing Authors:
Research Director and
Report Coordinator:
Consultants:
Project Managers:
Cartography:
Drafting:
Interns:
Other Contributors:
Marley R. Brown III
Kathleen J. Bragdon
Gregory J. Brown
Linda K. Derry
Thomas F. Higgins III
Robert R. Hunter, Jr.
Craig Lukezic
Lisa Royse
Patricia Samford
Ann Morgan Smart
Kathleen J. Bragdon
Kevin Kelly
Sam Margolin
James Whittenburg
Linda K. Derry
Andrew C. Edwards
Hannah Gibbs
Virginia Caldwell
Natalie Larson
Louisa Waller
Emerson Baker
Patricia Kandle
Chester Kulesa
Melanie Liddle
John Sprinkle, Jr.
Christine Styrna
Jeff Holland
Leslie McFaden
Cassandra Newby
David T. Roberts
Alan Strange
Kathrine Walker
J. Thomas Wren
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Volume 2)
Page
Disclaimer.................................................................................................................... i
Preface to the Third Edition....................................................................................... iii
Project Members ......................................................................................................... v
List of Plates .............................................................................................................. ix
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................ xi
List of Maps .............................................................................................................. xii
Photo Credits ............................................................................................................ xii
Section 4. Euro-American Study Units ...................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Euro-American Study Units................................................. 3
Study Unit IX: The First Chesapeake Frontier
(GREGORY J. BROWN AND LINDA K. DERRY) .................................................................. 5
Study Unit IX: Operating Plan ................................................................. 14
Study Unit X: Establishment of Colonial Society
(GREGORY J. BROWN AND LINDA K. DERRY) .............................................................................21
Study Unit X: Operating Plan................................................................... 32
Study Unit XI: Expansion and Differentiation of Colonial Society
(GREGORY J. BROWN) .......................................................................................................39
Study Unit XI: Operating Plan ................................................................. 56
Study Unit XII: The World the Slaves and Slaveholders Made
(ANN MORGAN SMART).......................................................................................................77
Study Unit XII: Operating Plan .............................................................. 126
Study Unit XIII: Years of Isolation: James City County and York
County in the Wake of the Civil War (LISA ROYSE) ................................................ 139
Study Unit XIII: Operating Plan............................................................. 159
Study Unit XIV: Revitalization of the Tidewater (LISA ROYSE)............................... 165
Study Unit XIV: Operating Plan ............................................................. 179
Study Units IX-XIV: Bibliography................................................................. 185
Section 5. Afro-American Study Units ................................................................... 205
Introduction to the Afro-American Study Units ............................................. 207
Study Unit XV: Early Slavery in the Tidewater (PATRICIA M. SAMFORD) ................. 213
Study Unit XV: Operating Plan .............................................................. 216
Study Unit XVI: Institutionalization of Slavery (PATRICIA M. SAMFORD) ................ 223
Study Unit XVI: Operating Plan ............................................................ 227
Study Unit XVII: Plantation Slavery and the Development of Slave
Communities (PATRICIA M. SAMFORD) ....................................................................... 231
Study Unit XVII: Operating Plan ........................................................... 241
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
Page
Study Unit XVIII: Final Years of Slavery and the Establishment of Free...... 247
Black Communities (PATRICIA M. SAMFORD)
Study Unit XVIII: Operating Plan .......................................................... 251
Study Unit XIX: Emancipation and Reconstruction (PATRICIA M. SAMFORD) ......... 255
Study Unit XIX: Operating Plan ............................................................ 261
Study Unit XX: Tidewater in Black and White (PATRICIA M. SAMFORD).................. 265
Study Unit XX: Operating Plan .............................................................. 268
Study Units XV-XX: Bibliography ................................................................ 273
Section 6. Thematic Study Units ............................................................................ 287
Introduction to the Thematic Study Units ...................................................... 289
Study Unit XXI: Belief Systems (KATHLEEN J. BRAGDON) ............................................ 291
Study Unit XXI: Operating Plan ............................................................ 298
Study Unit XXII: Establishment and Development of Public Welfare
Institutions (ANN MORGAN SMART) ................................................................................... 303
Study Unit XXII: Operating Plan ........................................................... 322
Study Unit XXIII: The Rise of Fort Virginia (CRAIG LUKEZIC) ................................. 329
Study Unit XXIII: Operating Plan .......................................................... 346
Study Units XXI-XXIII: Bibliography ........................................................... 355
viii

LIST OF PLATES
Plate
ix
Page
4.1 Kiskiack ................................................................................................ 42
4.2 Cross-Trenching ................................................................................... 44
4.3 Reconstruction of James Anderson Forges........................................... 47
4.4 Excavations behind the Peyton Randolph House ................................. 51
4.5 Aerial View of Carter’s Grove Plantation ............................................ 52
4.6 Late Nineteenth Century I-House ......................................................... 79
4.7 Ewell Plantation.................................................................................... 80
4.8 La Grange ............................................................................................. 82
4.9 Vaiden House ........................................................................................ 82
4.10 Allen’s Place ......................................................................................... 83
4.11 J.F. Gilmer’s Map, 1863 ....................................................................... 90
4.12 “Tending the Crops: Tobacco Fields” ................................................... 93
4.13 Sailboats Waiting to Unload Truck Farm Produce at Norfolk.............. 96
4.14 House near Toano with Agricultural Implements ............................... 100
4.15 Stemming Tobacco by Machine ......................................................... 104
4.16 Piggott’s Mill ...................................................................................... 109
4.17 Amory’s General Merchandizing Store, Poquoson ............................ 143
4.18 Norge Railroad Station ....................................................................... 144
4.19 Viking Hall, Norge ............................................................................. 148
4.20 Powder Magazine Williamsburg ........................................................ 150
4.21 Early Twentieth-Cenntury Gas Station, Norge 167
(Destroyed August 17, 1985) .............................................................. 172
4.22 Bungalow, Williafnsburg .................................................................... 173
4.23 Street Scene: Williamsburg 1913........................................................ 173
4.24 Carriage House Inn and AMOCO Station, Williamsburg .................. 174
4.25 Colonial Revival House, Williamsburg .............................................. 176
4.26 Unidentified Store in Art Deco Style, Norge ...................................... 183
4.27 Home on Hunt’s Neck Road, Poquoson ............................................. 184
5.1 Children on the Porch of the Henderson House ................................. 209
5.2 Uncle Daniel’s Cabin .......................................................................... 235
5.3 Log Cabin with Catted Chimney ........................................................ 235
5.4 Brush-Everard Kitchen ....................................................................... 237
5.5 First Baptist Church ............................................................................ 240
5.6 Freed Slaves at Yorktown during Union Occupation ......................... 251
5.7 Interior of Home of Black Family, circa 1900.................................... 259
5.8 Tenant Farm near Newport News, Virginia, circa 1901 ..................... 259
5.9 Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store................................................................ 260
5.10 Advertisement for Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store in circa 1898
Directory ............................................................................................. 260
5.11 Odd Fellow’s Lounge ......................................................................... 261
5.12 Black Fairgrounds in Williamsburg, 1928 .......................................... 262
5.13 James City County Training School ................................................... 267

LIST OF PLATES (cont’d)
Plate
Page
6.1 Hickory Neck Christian Church ......................................................... 295
6.2 Williamsburg Mennonite Church ....................................................... 297
6.3 Administrative Building, Williamsburg Public Hospital, c. 1885 ...... 304
6.4 Schoolhouse on Rte. 613 .................................................................... 313
6.5 “An Old Type of Country School Building , 1924” ........................... 314
6.6 York County Poorhouse ...................................................................... 318
6.7 Greenhouse-Repiton Office (Traditionally thought to be the
Debtor’s Prison).................................................................................. 320
6.8 Powder Magazine ............................................................................... 332
6.9 Du Chesnoy 1781, Map of Yorktown ................................................. 335
6.10 Du Perron, 1781, Pla.n Des Poster D’York et Gloster........................ 336
6.11 Abbott, 1862 campaign Maps… Yorktown to Williamsburg ............. 338
6.12 Permanent Camp Inside Yorktown ..................................................... 340
6.13 Mortar Battery and Barge on Wormley’s Creek ................................. 341
6.14 Contrabands on Plantation .................................................................. 342
6.15 Confederate Artillery at Yorktown ..................................................... 342
6.16 Mines Store Alongside Railroad Tracks at Naval Weapons
Station ................................................................................................. 343
6.17 Colonial Revival House at Naval Weapons Station ........................... 344
x

LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
4.1 Population Size of Minimum Structure Count in 1625 for
James City County North of the James River ...................................... 13
4.2 Study Unit IX: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 15
4.3 Study Unit X: Known Cultural Resources ........................................... 33
4.4 Study Unit XI: Known Cultural Resources .......................................... 58
4.5 Average Tidewater Farm Size: 1704-1815 ........................................... 86
4.6 Agriculture, James City County: 1840-1860 ........................................ 97
4.7 Agriculture: 1850 Census ..................................................................... 98
4.8 York and James City County Manufactures: 1810 ............................. 103
4.9 James City County Manufactures: 1840............................................. 105
4.10 Mutual Assurance Society Structure Types ........................................ 112
4.11 Study Unit XII: Known Cultural Resources ....................................... 116
4.12 Agricultural Statistics, 1860-1910 ...................................................... 141
4.13 Population Schedules, 1860-1985 ...................................................... 146
4.14 Manufacture 1860-1960 ..................................................................... 151
4.15 Study Unit XIII: Known Cultural Resources ..................................... 153
4.16 Agricultural Statistics 1890-1980 ....................................................... 166
4.17 Manufacture, 1860-1960 .................................................................... 169
4.18 Population Schedules, 1900-1985 ...................................................... 170
4.19 Occupations of Selected Industries and Services, 1930-1960 ............ 171
4.20 Study Unit XIV: Known Cultural Resources ..................................... 177
5.1 Study Units XV-XX: Known Afro-American Cultural Resources .... 210
5.2 Number of Blacks Imported to Virginia During the 17th Century ..... 214
5.3 Quarter Sites as Referenced on Late 18th-Century Maps .................. 236
5.4 Slaveholding Patterns in York and James City Counties, 1860.......... 247
5.5 Black Sites as Referenced on l9th-Century Maps .............................. 248
6.1 Surviving Records for Study Area Churches...................................... 292
6.2 Study Unit XXI: Known Cultural Resources ..................................... 299
6.3 Study Unit XXII: Known Cultural Resources .................................... 323
6.4 Study Unit XXIII: Known Cultural Resources................................... 347
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
4.1 Population Decline & Stabilization York County,
1790-1860 ............................................................................................. 85
4.2 Population Decline & Stabilization: James City County,
1790-1860 ............................................................................................. 85
4.3 Ratio of Sub-Groups of Population, James City County,
1790-1860 ............................................................................................. 88
4.4 Ratio of Sub-Groups of Population, York County, 1790-1860............. 88
4.5 General Trends of Population Distribution, James City County,
Land Tax Records—1815 ..................................................................... 91
4.6 General Trends of Population Distribution, York County, Land
Tax Records—1815 .............................................................................. 92
4.7 Plan of Mill from Oliver Evans’ The Young Millwright and
Miller’s Guide, 1795 ........................................................................... 107
4.8 Mutual Assurance Society, Plat, James Semple: 1801 ....................... 114
4.9 Plan of.Maddox Farm Somerset County, Maryland ........................... 136
LIST OF MAPS
Map
Page
4.1 Study Unit IX: Geographic Extent ......................................................... 6
4.2 Study Unit IX Known Resource Distribution....................................... 15
4.3 Study Unit X Geographic Extent .......................................................... 22
4.4 Study Unit X Known Resource Distribution ........................................ 33
4.5 Study Unit XI: Geographic Extent ....................................................... 40
4.6 Study Unit XI: Known Resource Distribution ..................................... 57
4.7 Study Unit XII: Geographic Extent ...................................................... 78
4.8 Revolutionary War Era Road System ................................................. 115
4.9 Study Unit XII: Known Resource Distribution .................................. 115
4.10 Civil War Era Road System ................................................................ 152
4.11 Study Unit XIII: Known Resource Distribution ................................. 152
4.12 Study Unit XIV: Known Resource Distribution ................................. 177
5.1 Study Units XV-XX Geographic Extent ............................................ 209
5.2 Study Units XV-XX Known Resource Distribution .......................... 210
6.1 Study Unit XXI: Known Resource Distribution................................. 299
6.2 Study Unit XXII: Known Resource Distribution ............................... 323
6.3 Study Unit XXIII: Known Resource Distribution .............................. 346
xii

PHOTO CREDITS
Plate(s)
Photographer/Owner
4.1-4.3, 4.5, 4.23-4.24, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
5.4-5.5, 5.9, 5.11, 5.13, 6.3,
6.6-6.9
4.13, 5.3, 5.6 Cook Collection, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
4.4 Andrew Edwards, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
4.6-4.10, 4.16-4.22, Lisa Royse, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
4.25-4.27, 6.1-6.2, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
6.4, 6.8
4.12-4.13, 5.2, 5.7 Huestis Cook, Valentine Museum, Richmond.
5.8, 5.12 Library of Congress, Washington.
6.5 From Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, edited
by Camille Wells. Vernacular Architecture Forum,
Annapolis, 1982.
6.10 Princeton University Library.
6.11 From Atlas to Accompany the Official Records o
the Union and Confederate Armies 1861-1865,
edited by G.B. Davis, L.J. Perry, and J.W. Kirkley.
Government Printing Office, Washington,
6.12-6.15 From The Image of War: The Guns of ’62, by William
C. Davis. Volume 2. Doubleday, Garden City,
New Jersey, 1982.
6.16 From 50th Anniversary. 1918-1968, The Naval
Weapons Station Story, Naval Weapons Station,
Yorktown, Virginia.
6.17 Naval Weapons Station, Yorktown, Virginia.
xiii

xiv

Section 4.
Euro-American Study Units
(Study Units IX–XIV)

INTRODUCTION TO THE EURO-AMERICAN STUDY
UNITS (STUDY UNITS IX-XIV)
Decades before 1607, when the first permanent British settlement was estab
lished, Europeans were exploring, trading, and attempting to colonize the shores
of the James and York Rivers. In the first years of British colonization, the
powerful Powhatan Confederacy was the dominant culture. Soon, however, the British
gained ascendancy and embarked on a more-or-less systematic campaign of destruction
of the local Indian population. New, mostly British immigrants soon arrived, and the
population began to grow rapidly. Expansion out of the James River Basin and into
York County and surrounding areas accompanied this growth. By the early 18th century
Euro-Americans had almost totally supplanted the Indians in the area.
During the 18th century, the presence of the colonial capital at Williamsburg (established
in 1699) brought a new influx of officials, craftsmen, shopkeepers, innkeepers,
and visitors, in many cases immigrants from the Continent or from other colonies.
After the capital was removed to Richmond in 1780, the urban centers at Williamsburg
and Yorktown became small, locally-oriented towns serving as redistributive centers
for goods and services. Small farms dotted the landscape, specializing in the production
of wheat, corn, and other grains, as well as later attempts at market gardening. In
this sense the Virginia Peninsula was representative of much of eastern Virginia at this
time. The disruptions of the Civil War had a profound social and economic effect,
interrupting a period of economic revival, and Reconstruction was slow and difficult.
By the later 19th century, however, the area was again actively agriculturally-based,
and improvements in industrial technology, transportation, and commerce were resulting
in stronger links to the nation as a whole.
The last part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th also saw an influx of new
immigrants, including Canadians, Dutch, Hungarians, Poles, Russians, Spaniards, West
Indians, Greeks, and Scandinavians (Morgan 1984). Particularly significant were Norwegians,
who established a still-thriving community at Norge in James City County.
As these immigrants arrived, new communities continued to arise as the neighboring
urban centers of Newport News and Hampton began to grow, new jobs were created,
and military installations were established. The later 20th century has seen a continuation
of these same trends, greatly augmented by the thriving tourist trade created after
the Williamsburg Restoration and the recreations of Jamestown and Yorktown by the
National Park Service.
Euro-American cultural resources are usually much more visible, and in many
cases much more easily protected, than prehistoric, Native American, or Afro-American
resources. In part this is a reflection of the role of Euro-American descendants as
members of the area’s dominant culture, for powerful and concerned citizens are able to
trace and protect their “roots.” The bias in favor of cultural resources of Euro-American
origin is also partially a function of their structural permanence. Standing buildings
and structures have sometimes been used for 200 years or more, and at least a few
are still in a good state of preservation. Many such buildings, of course, have been
rehabilitated or restored as part of the Williamsburg and Yorktown Restorations, while
3

other, vanished buildings have been painstakingly reconstructed upon their original foundations.
Most 17th-century structures and buildings are no longer standing, but this is
almost certainly due to impermanent building techniques, Virginia’s inhospitable climate,
and the expansion in the 18th century which led to relocation or destruction of
many of these resources. The archaeological sites associated with several of these buildings
and structures have been located, and retain sufficient integrity that many of the
architectural details can be reconstructed from the archaeological remains.
Like standing buildings and structures, Euro-American archaeological sites are
often fairly well preserved, particularly those of later periods. These sites have been
used to answer important historical and anthropological questions, ranging from settlement
pattern to socioeconomic status and its material correlates. Because the documentary
record is often good, these sites can be used to answer powerful, historicallyspecific
questions.
Much of the value of these sites, and of associated standing architectural properties,
relates to the quality of the documentary record. The extraordinary amount of
historical research on the 17th- and 18th-century history of the area has resulted in an
ability to identify many particular properties to one or more clearly-defined, known
occupants. Much less is known, unfortunately, about earlier or later properties, although
scattered information is available for later properties from federal records, court records,
newspapers, photograph collections, and oral histories.
The poorer classes are less apt to be documented in some types of written records.
Since these people probably also erected less substantial dwellings, which would be
less likely to be preserved, they are also clearly underrepresented in the known architectural
record. Archaeological evidence in these cases, even without good documentary
control, takes on a different sort of importance, as it is often the only way to study
these under-represented classes. In these cases more general questions may be answered,
relating to details of building construction, use patterns, ethnicity, and levels of material
possessions.
In both sorts of cases, the cultural resources, whether standing buildings or belowground
archaeological sites, are important tools for historical understanding. Like Native
American and Afro-American sites, structures, buildings, and objects, they are a
vital part of the Peninsula’s heritage, and any damage done to them is damage done to
the heritage of the area as a whole.
4

STUDY UNIT IX.
THE FIRST CHESAPEAKE FRONTIER: EXPLORATION
AND THE VIRGINIA COMPANY SETTLEMENT
(A.D. 1492–A.D. 1630)
Major Theme: The transplantation and adaptation of British cultural forms
to the Tidewater-Chesapeake.
Sub-Themes: A. Early exploration and landfalls.
B. Early interaction with Native Americans.
C. Initial permanent settlement—the founding and growth of
Jamestown.
D. Early Company settlements and outposts.
E. The Hundreds.
Significance: National
For the major European powers, the discovery of the New World promised untold wealth
and new resources. In a century or more of exploration, several nations had developed
the ability to discover and colonize. A few of these powers saw a future in the New
World: the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French, and the British.
The century after Columbus’ formal discovery of the New World was, for the Europeans,
a time of experimentation and adaptation. Their knowledge of the basic facts
of New World geography and climate were often vague, and this ignorance of potential
conditions frequently resulted in tentative, short- lived settlements. The 1585 settlement
on Roanoke Island, for example, was an ill-planned venture, destined to fail. The
period was also a time of intense rivalries as each colonizing power attempted to consolidate
its area of hegemony even while attempting to expand it. As a result, the boundaries
between European powers in the New World were vague, and intrusions into
another’s territory were common. The settlement of the Spanish Jesuit Mission in the
Chesapeake, in the late 16th century, is only one such example.
By the early 17th century, however, British interest in Virginia was sufficient that
a serious attempt at colonization could be made. The Virginia Company was established
to provide the financial backing for the enterprise, and as a reward was given the
rights to the profits accruing from the potentially lucrative venture. The first 104 settlers
arrived at Jamestown in 1607, establishing on this small island on the James River
the first permanent English settlement in the New World.
The first years of settlement were the harshest ones, with a chronic shortage of
food and a disastrous mortality rate. Typhoid, dysentery, and salt poisoning are now
blamed for much of this death rate, which rose to 30-40% of the population per year
(Earle 1979). By 1611, when Sir Thomas Dale arrived in Virginia with 300 new colonists,
only 180 people remained alive. This was the beginning of an upturn, however, as
Dale and Sir Thomas Gates instituted some needed reforms. A major new settlement
was founded upriver at Henrico, out of the disease-ridden oligohaline estuarine zone,
where Jamestown was situated. Both population and food supply began to stabilize. By
5

Map 4.1.
1616 there were six major settlement centers—Jamestown, Henrico, Bermuda Hundred,
West and Shirley Hundred, Kecoughtan, and Dale’s Gift (Morton 1960: 42-43).
This was not to last long, however, as in the summer of 1617 new Governor Samuel
Argall again concentrated settlement around Jamestown. The mortality rate once again
shot upward, with 105 to 115 of the estimated 415 people in the colony dead in that
same year (Earle 1979: 115). Again the colony was barely clinging to existence.
6

However, despite the near failure of the initial settlement, the English investors
still hoped to turn Virginia into a paying venture. Using land as a lure, a new strategy
was adopted during the 1610s. Settlement in the colony was opened to outside investment
groups. In return for providing settlers, these private companies were granted vast
tracts of land. By the end of the Company period nearly 40 of these “particular plantations”
had been authorized, 36 were in the planning stages, and 32 had actually been
seated (Hecht l981). Furthermore, Company employees were rewarded for their diligence
with small tracts of land as well. The shift to a privately owned, land-based agricultural
colony, focusing on the growing of tobacco and corn and the raising of livestock,
coincided with the discovery that Virginia-grown tobacco had a ready market in
England. Tobacco was soon to begin shaping the entire economic system of the colony.
These Company reforms fundamentally refocused the purpose of the colony. As
individual settlers began to pursue their own personal gain by their own initiative they
became increasingly conscious of the need to institute recognizable features of British
society in the New World. Virginia was to be no longer just an overseas trading post,
and the rituals and customs of British country life, brought over even with the first
settlers took on a new importance. Ethnic minorities—Italian glassblowers, French
winemakers, Dutch millwrights, and African servants—were assimilated to varying
degrees into this Anglo-Virginian culture, each making a unique contribution to the
developing society.
An equally important part of the adaptation process was the increasing immigration
of women into the colony. The first settlers were part of a military-based society
with little place for family life. As women were introduced, marriage and family life
became increasingly possible, and as women were more available to participate in both
agricultural and domestic life, a more stable type of lifeway was developed.
Success of the settlers as farmers and their progress toward a permanent
Anglo-Virginia alarmed the Indians of the Tidewater. In one massive effort they rose
against the British in 1622, killing nearly one-third of them in a surprise attack. Resolved
to stay in Virginia, the British retaliated and, in spite of the effectiveness of the
first Indian uprising, were able to stay.
Historians have used a variety of primary sources to reconstruct this period. Virginia
Company records and account books, personal correspondence, and land patents
have all been used. David B. Quinn (1977, 1984) has done the most exhaustive analysis
of early British explorers’ accounts, while Lewis and Loomie (1953) have studied the
accounts relating to the Spanish Jesuit Mission. In neither case is there a great deal of
documentation.
Early British colonization is somewhat better documented. An important source is
the compilation of Virginia Company records produced by Kingsbury (1906-1935),
while Tyler (1907a) has compiled a set of early narrative accounts by the British settlers
themselves. Many more sources, of course, have been used, including maps and charts
produced by Jamestown’s early leaders.
Archaeological investigations have been performed at Jamestown Island (47-9),
Glasshouse Point, Neck of Land, the Governor’s Land (JC41), and Martin’s Hundred
(JC115 and JC120). After much searching, it was finally decided that the first fort at
Jamestown had been eroded away (Cotter and Hudson 1957). However, several pieces
of evidence of early Company settlement have been found there. The Governor’s Land
7

excavations have been equally informative, and the most extensive excavations of all
have been at Martin’s Hundred on Carter’s Grove Plantation. Virtually no other archaeological
sites of the period have been found or systematically excavated, however,
and even the very important Spanish Jesuit Mission has never been located despite a
good deal of looking (Ben McCary, pers. comm. 1985).
SUB-THEME A: EARLY EXPLORATION AND LANDFALLS
The earliest Europeans to see the James/York Peninsula were the British, French, and
Spanish explorers of the mid- to late 16th century. The research of David Quinn and
others (Quinn 1977, 1984) has been the basis of current knowledge about these exploratory
efforts.
According to Quinn, at least ten European exploratory parties entered the Chesapeake
before 1607, including one which may have come overland from the Roanoke
Colony after 1586 (Quinn 1977). Any of these may have touched land and established
camps or ship repair stations. In addition to their permanent settlement, the Spanish
Jesuits may also have established both a temporary camp at the mouth of College or
Indian Field Creek and a signal beacon at Point Comfort (Lewis and Loomie 1953:
90-92). It is also possible that survivors of the “Lost Colony” of Roanoke made their
way northwards with the Chesapeake Indians, perhaps as far as the southern bank of the
James River, where they are rumored to have been living as late as May 1607 (Quinn
1977: 438). Less well-documented but equally significant visits were paid by French
trading vessels to the Chesapeake beginning in 1546 (Quinn 1977: 533).
These landfalls, temporary camps, trading posts, and ship-repair sites are particularly
important because so little is known about them. It is unclear what the accouterments
of early exploration parties were, what the physical form of the encampments
was likely to be, or what material goods formed the parties’ gear and supplies. Even less
is known about the structure of their crews, and of their relations with one another and
the natives with whom they came into contact. It is difficult to envision the remains
which might indicate a landfall, but such sites might be distinguished by anchors, ballast,
or ship parts inadvertently or intentionally left behind when the ship departed.
Diagnostic artifacts, such as coins, weapons, ceramics, or buttons, may also establish a
European presence in an area during this period.
There are few descriptions of the structures or camps erected by early European
visitors to the Chesapeake. Aside from these, however, there may also have been
ship-repair sites, such as that encountered by the Spanish explorer Vicente Gonzales
near Oregon Inlet in 1588 (Lewis and Loomie 1953: 188), and monuments or claimmarkers
for sponsoring monarchs (Quinn 1982: 132).
The probable locations of these resources can be envisioned more easily. Landfalls
and other evidence of early exploration will most likely be along the major navigable
rivers, and perhaps near the mouths of the smaller streams draining into these rivers.
Because of shoreline erosion, many of these sites will probably now be underwater or
along unstable tidal flats.
Camps of the early explorers may have been slightly inland, probably on dry flat
ground. Again, many such sites may have been eroded away or buried as the shorelines
advanced.
8

There are no known archaeological sites or structures in the study area which date
to this earliest period. This is probably at least partially due to two factors: the erosion
of the shoreline, and the lack of a systematic site survey in the study area. Given their
ephemeral nature, such sites are likely to be difficult to find at best. Therefore, possible
site locations should be carefully examined before development takes place. Such locations
include the mouth of College Creek, on the James River, and the mouth of Indian
Field Creek (now Field Creek), on the York River; it has been suggested that at one of
these two locations the Spanish Jesuits stopped to establish a temporary camp.
SUB-THEME B: EARLY INTERACTION WITH NATIVE
AMERICANS
The first thoughts of colonizing the Peninsula began shortly after initial exploration.
For the colonists, some contact with the local Native American population must have
taken place almost immediately. Each European colonist had to learn the rules of conduct
between himself and the Native American population. Misconceptions about the
Indians, as the Europeans called them, were commonplace. Experience gained with
natives in one part of the New World was frequently misapplied to Indians elsewhere,
often with disastrous results. (For a discussion of this contact from the Native American’s
point of view, see Study Units V and VI.)
The character of interaction between Europeans and Native Americans was conditioned
by the ultimate intent of each party. For the British colonists, eager to establish
an economic foothold in a land of bountiful natural resources, the Native Americans
were seen as potential obstacles, to be either exploited or overcome. For the Spanish,
however, there was another factor at work.
The proselytizing impulse evident in much of Spain’s colonizing efforts became,
in the late 16th century, directed toward the Native Americans of the James/York Peninsula.
To convert the Indian population, a Spanish Jesuit Mission was established. The
exact location of the permanent mission site is debated, but most scholars agree that it
was probably located along the southern bank of the York River, perhaps between the
mouths of Queens and Kings Creeks. A native of the James/York Peninsula, captured in
1560 by a Spanish raiding party and baptized as Don Luis de Velasco, led missionizing
Spanish Jesuits to that or a nearby location in 1570. A structure was built there to serve
as both lodging and church, with eight priests and the acolyte Alonso de Lara living in
one chamber of the building and the chapel occupying the other end.
The Spanish venture, like many preceding and following it, ended in violence. The
graves of the missionaries, all of whom were killed in an attack led by Don Luis in
1571, may be near the site of the mission itself. Father Juan Rogel was later told by
Alonso, who had been spared, that the slain priests were buried “in the chapel where
Mass had been said” (Lewis and Loomie 1953: 120).
Properties relating to interaction between the Europeans and Native Americans
range between those as apparently substantial as this mission, to those as impermanent
as the sites associated with landfalls. Material remains of the brief encounters between
Native Americans and European explorers, fishermen, and traders are even under ideal
conditions necessarily scattered and ephemeral. Perhaps the likeliest sites are those
Indian villages at which some evidence of European contact can be found, as revealed
9

y the presence of European-made artifacts. (For further discussion of Indian-White
interaction during this period, see Study Units V and VI.)
The probable locations of these resources are similar to those of the earliest explorers,
along the major navigable rivers and streams. The Spanish Jesuit Mission, thought
to be between Queens and Kings Creeks, has never been found, and no other properties
associated with this period have yet been located in the study area.
SUB-THEME C: INITIAL PERMANENT SETTLEMENT—THE
FOUNDING AND GROWTH OF JAMESTOWN
The Jamestown settlement, began in 1607, became the first permanent British settlement
in America. Initially populated by only 104 colonists, it became the colony’s capital
until 1699 and the primary settlement center for the entire James/York Peninsula in
the early 1600s.
The development and growth of Jamestown has been an important research topic
for historians, cultural geographers, and archaeologists. Extensive excavations have
been performed by the National Park Service since 1934, resulting in the discovery of
over 140 structures and numerous other landscape features (Cotter and Hudson 1957).
Unfortunately, few recognizable Company period features have been discovered, and
little can presently be said about specific early 17th-century structures. It should be
remembered, however, that most archaeology in Jamestown was done before the refinement
of techniques for recognizing hole-set earthfast structures, and consequently some
of Jamestown’s earliest buildings might have been missed.
Documentary evidence indicates that by 1625, just past the end of the Company
period, Jamestown had 33 homes, a church, a guard-house, three stores (or storehouses),
a merchant’s store, and the palisaded fort which enclosed the main part of the settlement.
The typical architectural forms were modelled on British vernacular houses of the
16th and early 17th centuries. The earliest buildings were apparently earthfast, hole-set
structures which leave unique but sparse archaeological traces. Many were “puncheon”
buildings, constructed on driven wooden posts; only related sets of postholes and occasionally
small root cellars would remain. A fairly intensive archaeological investigation
is needed to locate and identify these sets of postholes; surface survey or limited
subsurface testing will usually not be sufficient. Public buildings, the church and
guard-house, were probably similar in construction, if not in size.
In addition to the dwellings and public buildings were outbuildings associated
with the settlement. These included storehouses, barns, and other ancillary structures.
Like the dwellings, they were probably hole-set structures leaving few archaeological
remnants. Some of the industrial activities of the settlement—glassblowing, brickmaking,
blacksmithing, and potting—would have been performed in relatively crude kilns and
forges, and for various reasons these are more likely to be discovered archaeologically.
The location of these activities, and of the dwellings and public buildings, was
apparently the western side of Jamestown Island and the base of the isthmus around
Glasshouse Point which connected the island to the mainland. The mainland and the
island were regarded as separate settlements—Jamestown and The Island. The palisaded
fort, burned in 1608, was located on The Island and has since probably been
10

eroded away. Erosion is a continuing problem, as it is with many other early Company
period sites. Documentary evidence and underwater archaeology in the region suggest
that the James River has claimed as much as 250 feet of shoreline since 1607, much of
it around Jamestown Island. Despite National Park Service attempts at stabilization, the
remains of many early Jamestown features and structures may already have disappeared.
Some of the properties have survived, however. Among these are an early cemetery
and several industrial sites. The cemetery, discovered under and near the Ludwell
Third and Fourth Statehouse Group, contained at least 70 graves presumed to date to
before 1620. Shiner (1955) believes that there are probably another 280 undiscovered
graves in the nearby area, and perhaps another 300 have been eroded away as the shoreline
advanced. Since a building was constructed here by 1665, and known cemeteries
are usually kept sacred, Shiner suggests that the cemetery was filled up, abandoned, and
forgotten long before the 1660s.
A glassworks was located on Glasshouse Point at the edge of the isthmus connecting
Jamestown Island to the mainland. Part of an abortive attempt to set up a glassmaking
operation in the colony, it employed first Dutch and Polish and then later imported
Italian glassblowers, but each was only active for a short time. Now preserved by the
National Park Service as the Glasshouse Ruins, it consisted of four components: a working
furnace, a pot kiln, a joined annealing furnace, and a fritting furnace (Lewis 1975:
268).
The other early industrial properties were on the Island, near the James River shore.
A small brick kiln on the southeastern side of the settlement was apparently used between
1607 and 1625. Consisting of a rectangular pit with two parallel firing chambers,
it was probably used both to fire bricks and to manufacture brown clay smoking pipes
(Cotter 1958: 145). In addition, a forge used between 1610 and 1625 was found near
Pitch and Tar Swamp. An armorer apparently worked here, as evidenced by the firearms,
swords, and bullets that were found on the site (Hudson 1956: 8).
There is less evidence of domestic or public buildings in the settlement. No domestic
structures of the early period have yet been found in Jamestown or on the Island,
nor has the earliest church within the palisaded fort been located. This is most likely a
result of shoreline erosion, since a considerable effort has been expended to find the
original fort. In any event, the area is now protected within Colonial National Historical
Park.
The huge assemblage of artifacts from the Jamestown excavations has also been
used to define the range of activities in the settlement. According to Cotter (1957),
artifactual evidence from the early period suggests the presence of numerous craftsmen,
including a boatbuilder, carpenter, mason, woodcutter, sawyer, glassblower, potter,
blacksmith, ironworker, cooper, brickmaker, tilemaker, limeburner, cabinetmaker,
and metalworker.
SUB-THEME D: EARLY COMPANY SETTLEMENTS AND
OUTPOSTS
Jamestown, first settled in 1607, did not long remain the only British settlement on the
James. Peripheral settlements were soon established near the first settlement, both upstream
and downstream. Major settlements were eventually attempted upstream, but
11

these larger settlements periodically expanded and contracted, as settlement policy was
changed and economic and demographic conditions fluctuated.
When John Smith directed the colony in 1608, he dispersed settlers onto plantations
outside Jamestown. After he departed in 1609, however, the colonists again retreated
to the vicinity of Jamestown Island, ostensibly for defense. Governor Thomas
Dale was successful a few years later in dispersing the population again. New settlements
were founded upstream clear to Henrico (near modern Richmond). Subsequently,
however, the colonists resettled closer to Jamestown under a new governor.
The earliest peripheral settlements near Jamestown, however, were probably consistently
occupied. Most likely consisting of little more than a group of crude huts, they
were, like Jamestown, located on the river shore. Since it is likely that the early settlers
preferred already cleared land, thus saving themselves labor, abandoned Indian fields
were probably used whenever available.
By 1613 a few major new Company settlements were documented—Henrico in
modern Henrico County and Bermuda Hundred and Shirley Hundred in modern Charles
City County. Slightly later settlements appeared on both sides of the James. None of
these are in the study area, however, where the only settlements were apparently the
small peripheral suburbs of Jamestown and, starting in the 1610s, newly-seated private
plantations—the Hundreds.
SUB-THEME E: THE HUNDREDS
Beginning in the 1610s, the Virginia Company offered land for sale to private investors
in England. Particular plantations, often called Hundreds, were sold to be worked as
communal farms. The earliest—Smith’s Hundred, Argall’s Town, Martin’s Brandon,
and Martin’s Hundred—were established around 1617 on both sides of the James. By
1619 at least seven existed, the above four along with Flowerdew Hundred, Captain
Lawne’s Plantation, and Captain Ward’s Plantation (Morton 1960). Only two of these
lie within the study area: Argall’s Town and Martin’s Hundred.
Along with Company outposts, these settlements grew and expanded. By the very
end of the Company period surviving documentary evidence, including a list of casualties
of the Indian uprising and the 1625 James City County census, permits an evaluation
of the settlements existing at that time. Some figures differ (e.g., see Hecht 1983),
but Table 4.1 presents an estimate of the figures derived from these sources.
According to this calculation, there were some 317 people and a minimum of 52
structures in present-day James City County in 1625. The number of structures was
undoubtedly actually higher, as there were surely uncounted dwellings at Pasbehays
and The Maine. It is also possible that “houses” referred only to timber-framed structures,
and more temporary pit-houses and sod-houses went unlisted.
Evidence of two of these settlements has been found: at The Maine (JC41), 1.5
miles northwest of Jamestown, and at Martin’s Hundred (JC115 and JC120), a few
miles east. Evidence of a Company-period occupation has not be identified at Pasbehegh
(JC42), nor have such remains yet been discovered in the suspected locations of Neck
of Land and Archer’s Hope. A probable settlement model can be constructed, however,
using documentary and archaeological sources.
12

TABLE 4.1
POPULATION SIZE AND MINIMUM STRUCTURE COUNT
IN 1625 FOR JAMES CITY COUNTY NORTH OF THE JAMES RIVER 1
Settlement Population Size No. of Houses
Pasbehays (Pasbehegh) 2 30 0
Governor’s Land 41 4
The Maine 2 8 0
Jamestown 175 33
Neck of Land 3 14 2
Archer’s Hope 3 18 6
Martin’s Hundred 31 7
TOTAL 317 52
1
From Baker 1985; includes only area in modern James City County.
2
Pasbehegh and The Maine were part of the Governor’s Land settlement (Argall’s Town).
3
“Suburb” of Jamestown
Known settlements occur fairly close to the James River, and evidence from other
similar properties outside the study area suggests that within 500 feet of the shoreline is
the most sensitive zone. According to Keeler (1977), most sites were located on a hill or
bluff overlooking a waterway.
Like those at Jamestown, structures and features at these early settlements were
probably highly impermanent, and therefore difficult to identify archaeologically. Expected
architectural forms include earthfast hole-set structures, log huts, or wattle and
daub or sod houses. Early industries may be represented by crude brick kilns or forges.
Larger public buildings or communal barns may also be found.
By far the most extensive archaeological investigations of the early 17th-century
settlements in Virginia have been conducted by Ivor Noël Hume at Martin’s Hundred.
Excavating what are thought to be the remains of the principal settlement at Martin’s
Hundred, known as Wolstenholme Towne, Noël Hume (1982) uncovered the remains
of a palisaded fort, a church, and a domestic structure, as well as several burials probably
resulting from the Indian attack in 1622.
The Maine, excavated by Alain Outlaw in 1976, revealed traces of at least two
earthfast domestic structures and two similar storage buildings (Outlaw 1980). Ranging
in size from 270 to 440 square feet, they resembled structures found at Wolstenholme
Towne and probably were used for similar purposes.
A few other archaeological sites have revealed individual artifacts which can possibly
be dated to the Company period. While these do not necessarily indicate the presence
of a settlement on the site, they can suggest the presence of early 17th-century
Europeans nearby.
At the Helmet Site (JC4), about five miles east of Jamestown, Painter (1956) found
a siege helmet in one of two early 17th-century refuse pits. The helmet, at that time the
only British siege helmet found in North America, was of a type that could be dated to
the Company period, and would have been an important if possibly cumbersome part of
an early soldier-settler’s property. Another site, located somewhere on the Naval Mine
Depot in York County (exact location not given), has produced a cassabet, a similar but
13

lighter helmet dating to the same period (Noël Hume 1963: 53). Since York County was
not settled until the late 1620s, this helmet must either have been discarded after that
time or have been left by an early-period explorer or wanderer.
SUMMARY
Overall, then, this period is represented by no more than seven known properties in
James City County and one in York County, with none at all in the City of Williamsburg
or the City of Poquoson. Documentary evidence has been extensively studied by a variety
of scholars, but there is a great need for more archaeological evidence from this
period to address questions that the documentary record cannot answer. There is precious
little indication as to whether many of these sites still exist, or have been destroyed
by shoreline erosion and modern development. Clearly, however, if more active
efforts to locate and protect them are not initiated, they will not survive for long.
STUDY UNIT IX: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
National. The initial explorations of Virginia were made by British, French, Spanish,
Dutch, and Portuguese adventurers. Important, if ephemeral, contacts with Native Americans
of the region were made at various points, including some along the James and
York Rivers. The influence of only the British continued to be most strongly felt, however.
By 1607, the first permanent British settlement in North America was established
at Jamestown. Study of the process of British discovery, exploration, settlement, and
adaptation to this area furnishes important information regarding the nature of European
colonization in general, and of the New World in particular. For its importance in
the colonization process, this study unit is assigned national significance.
Summary of Property Types
There are at least eight general property types in this study unit. These are:
(1) Landfalls. These were probably distributed along the James and York River
shores. The original number is unknown; many have probably been destroyed
by erosion.
(2) Ship-repair stations. These sites were probably distributed along the James
and York River shores. The original number is unknown; many have probably
been destroyed by erosion.
(3) Temporary camps. These were probably distributed near the shoreline on dry,
flat ground. The original number is unknown; many have probably been destroyed
by erosion.
(4) The Jesuit Mission. This important site was probably located between Kings
and Queens Creeks on the York River. It has possibly been destroyed.
14

Map 4.2. Study Unit IX: Known Resource Distribution.
TABLE 4.2
STUDY UNIT IX: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC4 Helmet Site AS III 09 Trash pits Excavated
JC41 The Maine (GL-12, -13) AS III 08 Ossuary/ Exc./p.pres.
dom./cemetery
JC115 Wolstenholme Towne (Carter’s AS III 09 Fortified Excavated
Grove, Site C)
village
JC120 Carter’s Grove, Site H AS III 09 Fortified Excavated
village
47-9 Jamestown Island AS III 08 Town Protected
U-20 Archer’s Hope AS DR 09 Settlement Unknown
U-21 Argall’s Gift AS DR 09 Settlement Unknown
U-24 Glebe Land AS I 09 Ecclesiastical Unknown
YORK COUNTY:
U-104* Spanish Jesuit Mission Site AS DR Mission Unknown
* Not shown on Map 4.2.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
15

(5) Early domestic properties. These have been found in settlements along the
James River, at Jamestown, Pasbehegh, and Martin’s Hundred. Among the most
typical properties of the period, they can be used to establish characteristics of
the early British settlement.
(6) Public buildings. A few early public buildings were found in Jamestown, and
they were possibly located in peripheral settlements as well.
(7) Churches and cemeteries. The old church tower and an early cemetery have
been found in Jamestown. They were possibly located in peripheral settlements
as well.
(8) Industrial and craft-related properties, such as brick kilns and potteries.
These were located in or near settlements at Jamestown, Pasbehegh, and Martin’s
Hundred. The original number is unknown; less than ten have been located.
Early craft specialization is a particular local research interest, and these sites
have been used to define the precursors of 18th-century industrialization.
Character of Existing Data
Very little is known about the sites, structures, buildings, and objects dating to this
period, due to the lack of easily-recognizable physical remains of most property types.
Excavations at Jamestown Island have produced a good deal of data regarding the first
settlement, and work at The Maine and Martin’s Hundred has been extremely important.
Almost nothing is known about the remains of early exploring parties, however,
despite the extraordinary scholarly interest in these property types.
For all known and investigated properties, however, specific site information is
relatively good, since they have been the subjects of lengthy reports and popular articles.
Most structural remains are at least described, and artifactual remains have been
extensively analyzed. No buildings or structures of the period have been preserved,
however, and therefore the relevant data is mostly documentary. Because most of the
physical remains have been removed from their original contexts, moreover, much depends
on the quality of recording. Although field notes are generally very good, existing
site records provide only the sketchiest information. Comparison between sites is
often difficult, notwithstanding the excellent works of Cotter (1958), Lewis (1975),
Outlaw (1980), and Noël Hume (1982). Most of the lack of real, wide-ranging syntheses
is not the fault of the researchers, however, but instead is caused by the paucity of
known material remains. Much more and better survey data is clearly needed before the
period will be well understood.
Criteria for Evaluation
National Register standards specify two types of evaluative criteria: type of significance
and integrity. In this period most resources would quality under Criterion A,
association with significant events in the broad patterns of our history, or Criterion D,
potential for yielding information important to the history of the past. Integrity may be
more difficult to establish, however.
16

In view of the lack of material evidence for many property types, ideal conditions
may not be achieved at most sites. Minimal integrity requirements are that the resource
should be identifiable as a distinctive property type and that its relation to other property
types and its environment can be established. Physical integrity, while important, is
not necessary for significance, since much can be learned even from disturbed sites.
Obviously, however, a well-preserved site is more valuable than a poorly preserved one.
The relative importance of an individual resource goes beyond eligibility for the
National Register, since all Register-eligible properties are by no means equal in research
importance or public value. In this study unit, from a research point of view, the
most important resources are those representative of a general property type (e.g., a
typical early domestic property, camp, or landfall) or the unique, historically- important
but unreplicated resource such as the Spanish Mission. Public values probably would
hold all early sites and structures important, for the unique part that they played in the
nation’s past, but would judge only the Spanish Mission and the first Jamestown fort
(probably destroyed by erosion) overridingly significant.
Present Condition of Property Types
Erosion is a primary threat to most of these sites, since they were undoubtedly located
along the river shorelines. Development of unsurveyed shore properties is another major
threat, difficult to assess because of the general lack of site-specific locational information.
Several potential early explorer sites along the York River, and possibly even
the Spanish Jesuit Mission Site, lie on now-restricted military reservations. Because of
the difficulty of access to these sites, their present condition is almost impossible to
estimate.
Most identified and located properties have been excavated. One, Wolstenholme
Towne, has been made into an interpretive exhibit after excavation, complete with a
partially-reconstructed fort. The properties at Jamestown have also been opened to the
public, albeit not always upon their original locations. Two groups of properties have
already been placed on the National Register of Historic Places: the Jamestown National
Historical Site and the Governor’s Land Archaeological District. The sites and
structures in Jamestown, administered by Colonial National Historical Park, are protected
and seem safe from developmental pressure, while the properties on the Governor’s
Land are likely to be more threatened as development in James City County accelerates.
Many other sites and structures, of course, are probably eligible for the Register
once they are discovered, but at this point there is no way of determining their condition.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
Since little is known about properties dating to this period, major efforts should focus
on the identification of potentially significant resources and their eventual protection.
Much of the identification work can be done within the next one or two years, as can the
tasks of evaluating the potential of individual properties within the two currently-listed
National Register districts. Nomination of Register-eligible properties should immediately
follow discovery and determination of eligibility, while the general treatment goals
17

and objectives, which should be considered for adoption as soon as possible, are ongoing
strategies designed for continued protection of these important properties.
Identification Goals
• A systematic examination and catalogue of all 15th- and 16th-century cartographic
sources depicting the James/York Peninsula, along with an exhaustive search for
early written descriptions of the area in order to determine the locations of any
landfalls or encampments. Work along these lines is already being performed by
Martha McCartney of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks (n.d.).
• A detailed study of the effects of shoreline erosion on documented archaeological
sites, based on existing erosion studies. This would include an analysis of the probable
locations of such sites, and an evaluation of the position of these locations
relative to the current river shorelines. Such a project would be ideal for an interested
student, particularly one with concurrent interests in riverine geology or sedimentology.
• Following these studies, an intensive Phase I archaeological survey of a belt within
1000 feet of the present James River shoreline should be performed. This survey,
which should be done by a team of competent historical archaeologists capable of
recognizing early-period sites, would be aimed at identifying visible archaeological
remains for later detailed investigation. Funding for the survey may be solicited
from a combination of federal preservation funds, private granting agencies,
and individual donors.
Evaluation Goals
• A re-analysis of artifact assemblages from the early Jamestown excavations, aimed
at identifying foodways, material possessions, and possible craft specialties of the
early settlers. This will also perhaps point out diagnostic features of such sites
which can be used in on-the-ground site identification. The re-analysis may be
done by a local student, as part of a thesis project, or by professionals under a
research grant. Jamestown, such an important part of American history, would
likely be an attractive object for private funding support.
Registration Goals
• Nomination of any discovered properties dating to this period to the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion A (association with broad patterns in history)
or Criterion D (information important to the history of the past).
• Creation of a policy recognizing a sensitive “belt” within 500-1000 feet of the
James and York River shorelines. Properties to be developed within this belt are
likeliest to contain significant early archaeological sites. A document review and
Phase I identification survey, at least, should be required by local planning authorities
before development takes place.
18

Treatment Goals
• Preservation in place or, less preferably, Phase III excavation and detailed recording
of any 16th- or early 17th-century site discovered during development. Preservation
can be achieved by project redesign, easement, or some other non-financially
costly mechanism. Based on the importance of this particular group of properties,
federal preservation funds should be sought for suitable properties discovered.
• Preservation in place of registered and intact sites in the Governor’s Land Archaeological
District. As development pressure in James City County grows, planners
and cultural resource professionals should work with developers in attempting
to influence project redesign to avoid the intact historic resources.
• Continued preservation of early Jamestown properties by Colonial National Historical
Park. These resources are not currently in danger, and will not be so in the
forseeable future.
19

STUDY UNIT X.
ESTABLISHMENT OF COLONIAL SOCIETY:
DEVELOPMENT OF TIDEWATER SOCIETY AND
ECONOMY (A.D. 1630–A.D. 1689)
Major Theme: The development of a distinctive Anglo-Virginian lifestyle in
response to the conditions of the Chesapeake.
Sub-Themes: A. The origins of staple crop agriculture—tobacco and the
beginnings of the plantation system in the Chesapeake.
B. Establishment of sustained political and economic
relations with the Indians—trade and warfare.
C. Establishment of a political elite.
D. Stabilization and maturation of a native white population.
E. Development of the institution of slavery.
F. Achievement of domination over the Indians.
Significance: National
The period between 1630 and 1689 marked a time of expansion, social, political, and
economic experimentation, and stabilization. It was in this period that the distinctive
features of 18th-century colonial Virginian society were first developed, as the colony
grew and became established.
In size alone the colony grew from a handful of small settlements scattered along
the James River to one that extended to the Piedmont and which, in the older settled
areas of the Lower Tidewater, was fairly densely populated. From a population of only
some 2000-3000 in 1630, the colony grew to approximately 50,000 people by the end
of the study period (Morgan 1975). By far the greatest number of new immigrants were
indentured servants, their passage paid by a master in return for a fixed period of service.
An increasing number of black slaves were also imported, however, and it was
these slaves who were to become the major part of the labor force in the late 17th and
early 18th century.
As population grew, new areas became settled. The first settlement in York County
(then called Charles River County) was Chiskiack, founded in 1630 between Kings
Creek and Felgate’s Creek on the York River. Much of York County was settled in the
1630s, along with much of interior James City County. The Poquoson area was first
opened for settlement in 1628, while Middle Plantation (later the site of Williamsburg)
was seated in 1633. Soon almost all the study area was settled.
Political development coincided with this population increase. The early Company
period was characterized by martial law and a political elite composed almost
entirely of military leaders, but by 1630 the change to a civilian government was well
underway. Kukla (1985) suggests that between 1635 and 1646 this transition was finally
completed, and that a stable political system was in place and operating.
But progress to that point was not without its difficulties. The key obstacles to
social development in the middle two quarters of the 17th century were the harsh living
conditions in the colony. Mortality levels remained high and life expectancies low, hin-
21

Map 4.3.
dering the development of stable family units. Marriages were short, partially due to the
late marriage age of Virginia’s constant stream of new English immigrants. Most children
were orphaned before they came of age.
Additional problems were imposed by the developing economic system. Although
tobacco was readily marketable in England, prices were notoriously cyclical and resulted
in an economy characterized by periodic “booms” and “busts.” These economic
cycles varied regionally, in most cases being determined by the particular type of tobacco
that was cultivated. It is known that York County growers harvested sweet-scented
tobacco, prices for which probably fluctuated differently than those for other kinds. For
all growers, however, the tobacco economy resulted in a dependence on an unstable
price system.
The tobacco economy also resulted in the typical settlement pattern for the period,
a system of dispersed, essentially self-sufficient plantations and farms. The vast majority
were small farms, often less than 50 acres in size, but by the end of the period several
individuals were able to accumulate enormous holdings. Out of these types of individuals
would come the landed gentry which dominated the Colony in the next century.
Various social classes became established and recognized during this period, as
divisions between wealthy and poor and between powerful and powerless grew wider.
By 1689 there were at least six classes: the political elite (successors of the
councilor-commanders of the 1640s and 1650s), small planters, freedmen (indentured
servants who had completed their service, but usually remained among the poor), indentured
servants, Afro-American slaves, and Indians. The last two groups, probably to
an even greater degree than white indentured servants, were exploited as a labor supply
and kept politically powerless. (For a discussion of this process from their viewpoints,
see Study Units V, VI, XV, and XVI.) A second Indian uprising in 1644, resulting in the
deaths of 500 white settlers, did not prevent a massive depopulation of the local Native
American population by 1689 and virtual enslavement of many of those who were left.
22

The events of the 1680s suggest that a watershed was being reached. After Bacon’s
Rebellion in 1676, Indians no longer posed any serious threat to Anglo-Virginians except
on the very edges of English settlement. In the 1680s the price of tobacco finally
bottomed out, forcing many small and marginal planters to make permanent adjustments
to lower incomes. In response to a severe shortage of white indentured servants
in the last quarter of the century, established planters, somewhat reluctantly at first,
shifted to the importation of slaves. Once begun, the transformation of Virginia’s labor
force from white to black proceeded fairly rapidly.
Furthermore, the health of the Anglo-Virginian population was markedly improving.
As a major consequence, in some regions first- and second- generation Virginians
were beginning to replace the English-born in positions of political authority. As the
18th century dawned, the distance between the wealthy and the small planters was widening
considerably. Opportunities for upward advancement were lessened, and Virginia
was ever more becoming a stratified and highly ordered society.
Historical research on this study period is based on a variety of existing records.
These include the 1624 Muster, the Land Patents (records of land grants made by the
Crown to prospective colonists or their sponsors), and various compilations of laws
(e.g., Hening 1809-1823; McIlwaine 1914, 1915). York County (including the present-day
City of Poquoson) is also blessed by the survival of the York County Records: Deeds,
Orders, and Wills (York County Records n.d.), which include land transfers, wills, and
probate records, and by the Death Register for the 1660s. Poquoson, in fact, has some of
the best demographic information in the study area, as New Poquoson Parish’s Birth
and Death Registers cover the period from 1647/8 onward. Unfortunately less information
is available for James City County, whose records were removed to Richmond for
safekeeping during the Civil War and, while there, ironically, were burned.
Several secondary sources have summarized the data from these records. These
include Nugent (1929-1931) and Gregory (1935). Various factors relating to 17th-century
Chesapeake settlement have been carefully analyzed as well (Tate and Ammerman 1979),
while the York County Project, on a more specific scale, is presently interpreting the
historical data relating to York County and the surrounding areas during this period.
Architectural historians have joined with archaeologists and social historians to
produce a landmark study of the architecture of the period. This study (Carson et al. 1981)
incorporates excavated posthole patterns, documented vernacular building traditions,
and architectural principles to define a set of impermanent house forms which appear to
have been characteristic of the southern colonies during the 17th century.
They identified several main types of “earthfast” structures: puncheon buildings,
hole-set framed buildings, framed buildings on hole-set blocks, buildings raised on
cratchets, raftered houses, and turf-, earth-, and log-walled houses. The earliest buildings
appear to have been puncheon-, palisade-, or cratchet-built, but by the second half
of the century framed buildings on blocks, log houses, and hole-set buildings with interrupted
sills had become more common (Carson et al. 1981: 148-155). Noting that all
these are technically impermanent forms, they speculate that the high mortality rate and
economic conditions resulted in the builders’ decisions to construct buildings that would
not need to last more than a decade or two. More permanent forms were being built by
the well-to-do, in Jamestown and elsewhere, and by the later 17th century brick structures
were quite common. The choice of architectural form was based on circumstance
23

as well as wealth. Many well-to-do planters built only earthfast structures, such as Colonel
Thomas Pettus’ Littletown Tenement (JC33) and William Drummond’s house (JC43),
while others had constructed more substantial buildings with brick foundations by 1650
(for example, Sir William Berkeley’s Green Spring Plantation [JC9]).
Structures made of brick or with brick foundations were becoming increasingly
common by 1650, however. Many such structures were built in Jamestown between
1650 and 1690, and in fact most of Jamestown’s buildings during that period were
apparently made of brick. These brick structures are much more likely to be discovered
during normal archaeological survey, and clearly non-brick earthfast structures are less
well known by virtue of their impermanence.
Standing architecture of the 17th century is now very rare, and no more than six
17th-century structures exist in the entire Chesapeake (Carson et al. 1981). There are
no standing buildings in the study area built before 1689.
Archaeological studies of the period have focused mainly on Jamestown, but other
sites from the period have been excavated at Green Spring Plantation (JC-9), the
Governor’s Land (JC43 and JC83-106), Carter’s Grove Plantation (JC109-112),
Kingsmill (JC32-35, JC37, JC39-40, JC44-46, and JC52), Bennett Farm (YO68), and
River Creek (YO67). Digging at Jamestown between 1934 and 1958, the National Park
Service uncovered approximately 140 structures, including a church, mansions, row
houses, single houses, outbuildings, workshops, and wells, along with 96 ditches, numerous
walkways, and craft-related features such as forges, kilns, a baking oven, and a
structure used for malting and brewing beer and ale (Cotter and Hudson 1957). Cotter
(1958) identified 25 buildings as 17th-century dwellings, with another ten possible
dwellings on the basis of isolated chimney bases.
Lewis (1975) dated 38 structures to the period 1650-1690. Even in 1676, however,
Jamestown was fairly small, consisting of:
...som[e] 16 or 18 howses, most as is the Church, built of Brick, faire and large; and in them
about a dozen Families [for all the houses are not inhabited] getting their liveings by keepeing
of ordinaries, at exstreordnary rates (reprinted in Andrews 1915: 70).
The Jamestown excavations were performed by a group of talented Park Service
archaeologists, including J.C. Harrington, John Cotter, Joel Skinner, Louis Caywood,
James Knight, and J. Paul Hudson. Twenty-four of the 60 acres of the island had been
excavated by 1957, and a huge collection of artifacts were recovered.
Early archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s often was done by “open-area excavation,”
where successive strata of earth were excavated to reveal features and structures.
This became too expensive by the 1950s, however, and much of the archaeology was
then done by digging three-foot wide trenches 50’ apart, and following any archaeological
remains that were uncovered.
These techniques were effective for finding brick foundations and certain
non-structural features, but did not prove effective for identifying the posthole patterns
indicative of early hole-set buildings. Conversely, the earlier techniques were more
effective for finding posthole patterns, but at that time they were not always interpreted
as structural remains. Perhaps as a result, while the brick buildings of 17th-century
Jamestown are fairly well-located, it is unclear exactly how many hole-set dwellings
and outbuildings were existing at the same time.
24

Archaeological techniques on the other excavated sites have been somewhat more
refined, as experience has taught archaeologists that such hole-set structures do exist
and that “open-area excavation” is most effective for defining posthole patterns and
non-structural features. Kelso (1972, 1984), Outlaw (1980), Noël Hume (1982), and
Luccketti (cited in Carson et al. 1981) have since all been able to accurately date and
describe early hole-set structures dating to this period.
SUB-THEME A: THE ORIGINS OF STAPLE CROP
AGRICULTURE—TOBACCO AND THE BEGINNINGS OF THE
PLANTATION SYSTEM
It was in this period that the tobacco-based economy really exploded, as it was realized
that tobacco was the one truly marketable commodity of the colony. This is not to say
that the growing of other crops (particularly corn) and the raising of livestock were not
also important—they were—but simply that tobacco came to furnish for some the route
to prosperity and for many others the income source which enabled them to exist.
The first real jump in tobacco production took place between 1616 and 1626, when
production rose from 2000 pounds to roughly 260,000 pounds—a 13,000% increase. In
1628 about 500,000 pounds of tobacco were exported from the Colony (Gray 1933), but
by 1689 the amount had grown to an amazing 15,000,000 pounds (Bruce 1896). The
magnitude of this change is reflected both in settlement pattern and property layout.
A dispersed settlement pattern is a natural result of tobacco cultivation, and during
this period plantations are scattered throughout the study area. One of the interesting
features of this settlement pattern is the absence of towns, as most of the functions later
performed in urban centers were now concentrated on individual plantations. Although
Grim (1977) identifies several incipient service centers during this period, suggesting
that these areas were the most likely precursors of the 18th-century urban centers, clearly
they were not yet towns.
One of these incipient service centers was at the mouth of Wormley Creek on
the York River. Called Yorke Village, it was the site of the York Parish Church, a 28' ×
17' hole-set dwelling, and possibly a ferry (Smith 1978). In 1667 the First Parish Church
was replaced by a Second, which was not replaced itself until 1697 when Grace Episcopal
Church was built in newly-established Yorktown. Associated with the First Church
was the tomb of Major William Gooch, buried in 1655, and at least two other mid
17th-century burials.
The earliest nucleated settlement, at Jamestown, was still important as the colony’s
political center, but its status as an economic center was never firmly established despite
legislative attempts to control commerce through its port. Although Lewis (1975)
defined Jamestown as a “frontier town,” the main entrepot of a colonial settlement,
individual planters continued to ship their tobacco crops from their own landings and to
largely ignore the port at Jamestown. And even Jamestown’s political function was
reduced during this period, as county courts took over many of the day-to-day administrative
functions.
Instead, a typical property type of the period is the plantation, a self-sufficient or
semi-self-sufficient unit consisting of some combination of the following: a main dwelling
25

house, agricultural fields, gardens, ancillary outbuildings, slave quarters, and craft-related
features such as brick kilns, forges, or potteries. There is even some evidence, from the
Berkeley settlement in Charles City County, that public buildings were sometimes also
located on very large plantations.
A 1686 letter from Virginia planter William Fitzhugh describes a typical large
plantation:
The plantation where I now live contains one thousand acres at least, seven hundred acres of
which are a rich thicket, the remainder good heavy plantable land without any waste either
by marshes or great swamps...and upon it, there are three quarters well furnished with all
necessary houses, grounds and fencing, together with a choice crew of negroes at each
plantation...there being twenty-nine in all with stocks of cattle and hogs in each quarter.
Upon the same land is my own dwelling house...and all houses for use furnished with brick
chimneys, four good cellars, a dairy, dove cot, stable, barn, henhouse, kitchen and all other
convenienceys and all in a manner new, a large orchard of about 2500 apple trees, most
grafted, well fenced with a locust fence,...a garden a hundred foot square well paled in, a
yard wherein is most of the foresaid necessary houses pallisadoed in with locust
puncheons....[a]bout a mile and a half distant a good water grist mill (cited in Bruce 1896:
243).
Most plantations, of course, were considerably smaller, in many cases consisting
only of a farmhouse with one or more outbuildings and a few acres of fields. Plantation
houses were distinguished by a variety of architectural forms. Wealthy planters often
lived in two-unit “hall-parlor” houses, containing two rooms, a larger hall with an exterior
door and a smaller inner parlor. More elaborate three-unit dwellings were also built,
even as early as the 1620s. These three-unit dwellings, found at Jamestown (47-9),
Carter’s Grove Site A (JC116), and Flowerdew Hundred in Prince George County, were
typical of the well-off British yeoman at this time (Upton 1979). Many planters, however,
still lived in small one-room earthfast dwellings. Since most earthfast dwellings
leave little easily-seen archaeological evidence, the homes of the less wealthy, tenants
and poor landowners, are still fairly poorly understood.
The locations of 17th-century plantations are fairly predictable, as they are linked
to the particular demands of tobacco-growing. This is true throughout the Chesapeake;
Carville Earle (1975) has asserted that tobacco was the major factor in the settlement
pattern at All Hollow’s Parish in Maryland, while in his dissertation, Kevin Kelly (1972)
referred to the settlement of Surry County as “tobacco’s child.”
The primary requirements of a particular location included accessibility to transportation
and soil fertility. Transportation in the 17th century was mostly waterborne,
along the major streams and their tributaries. Since tobacco crops had to be transported
by water, it made sense that most plantations would be near streams.
According to the Augustine Hermann map of 1673 (Hermann 1673), plantations in
this period were spaced an average of 0.6 miles apart along the waterfront (Smolek and
Clark 1981). About half of the plantations in the Chesapeake were less than 500 feet
from the waterfront, and many of these were considered the best-situated holdings.
Just as important was soil type. Oral tradition has existed for centuries in England
dictating what uses were appropriate for different types of soil. To the English, the type
and size of trees growing on a plot of land foretold the kind of soil that it had. In 1608,
Captain John Smith stated: “But the best ground is knowne by the vesture it beareth, as
by the greatness of trees or abundance of woods” (cited in Tyler 1946: 83). Smith clas-
26

sified land into four types. On his “first rate” grew oak, hickory, sassafras, walnut,
cherry, black ash, elm, and beech. The occurrence of spicewood among the beech marked
the land as “second rate,” while the presence of even more spicewood along with smaller
trees made it “third rate.” Myrtle bushes meant that it was “fourth rate” land (Stilgoe
1982).
Since the best agricultural soils are located along the waterways, the two factors
undoubtedly combined to produce an idealized settlement distribution. Studies by Walsh
of early land patents in the Chesapeake suggest that the best agricultural lands, near the
rivers, were patented first (Lorena Walsh, pers. comm. 1985). By comparing existing
modern soil surveys with 17th-century tract maps, she was able to predict the occurrence
of early sites with a fairly high degree of accuracy.
Actual excavations on plantation sites have included those at the Governor’s Land,
Carter’s Grove Plantation, Kingsmill Plantations, Bennett Farm, and River Creek. At
the Governor’s Land, Outlaw (1975, 1980) was able to identify the archaeological remains
of several mid- to late 17th-century homesteads: Pasbehay Tenement (JC42),
Drummond (JC43), Sherwood-Wilkinson (JC90), Captain George Marable (JC85),
Workman-Humbler (JC101), William Ollister (JC94), Thomas Easter (JC99), and Hobson
(JC103). One of these properties, Pasbehay Tenement, was excavated in 1976, revealing
the remains of a 20.5' × 16.5' earthfast domestic building dated to 1625-1650 (Outlaw
1980). Several ancillary structures and features, which may date to the same period,
were also found. At the Drummond Site, excavated in 1977, he found a 36' × 18' dwelling
built around 1648. The other six sites were only tested, and little is known about the
subsurface extent of the actual physical remains.
In addition to the early settlement of Wolstenholme Towne, Noël Hume’s excavations
at Carter’s Grove Plantation have revealed the remains of a plantation thought to
belong to William Harwood, new governor of Martin’s Hundred after its reoccupation
in the mid-1620s. A 22' × 18' hole-set dwelling with five outbuildings was found at Site
A (JC116), along with a 19' × 17' roofed cellar used as a trash pit. Sites B and E (JC113
and JC117) also produced evidence of hole-set structures dating to the second quarter
of the 17th century (Noël Hume 1982).
At the Kingsmill Plantations, Kelso (1984) discovered an entire series of mid- to
late 17th-century properties. Two earthfast buildings, representing successive building
periods, were found at Littletown Tenement (JC35), and at least five earthfast structures
were found at nearby Kingsmill Tenement (JC39). All are dated to before 1660. Other
earthfast structures were uncovered at Kingsmill Plantation (JC37) and Pettus Plantation
(JC33), the latter dated to between 1641 and 1700. Possible slave quarters, also
earthfast, were found at Pettus Plantation and Utopia Cottage (JC32), although Kelso
rightly points out that in neither case can it be conclusively proven that blacks lived
there.
The Bennett Farm and River Creek Sites in Poquoson have been excavated by
Nicholas Luccketti (cited in Carson et al. 1981). At Bennett Farm (YO68) Luccketti
found a 34' × 20' hole-set dwelling built by a small planter, Humphrey Tompkins, in the
1640s. Two hole-set dwellings, 36' × 21' and 34.5' × 20', were found at River Creek
(YO67), and probably represented successive building phases in the late 17th century.
27

SUB-THEME B: ESTABLISHMENT OF SUSTAINED POLITICAL
AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS WITH THE INDIANS—TRADE
AND WARFARE
The local Native American population was seen as a menace at the start of the study
period, but this did not prevent economic interaction from taking place. Trade between
Indian and White continued to be important, and the Indians continued to be seen as
major suppliers of food. Although trade did occur, however, in many cases the white
leaders now simply plundered the Indians’ fields and took their crops, later to be sold to
poorer white settlers at a substantial profit.
Periodic attacks on Indian villages continued unabated, but the settlers’ fears of
another uprising led to a demand for more tangible defensive measures. As early as
1622 a plan had been proposed for a palisade to extend across the lower James/York
Peninsula, and in 1634 this palisade was finally constructed. Stretching between the
head of College Creek and Chiskiack (or Kiskiack), at the head of Queens Creek, it
spanned a length of four miles and effectively cut off the lower half of the peninsula.
According to William Shea (1983), in 1633 a garrison community was established
at Middle Plantation to maintain the planned palisade. Sitting on the divide between the
James and York River drainage basins, the location of Middle Plantation was always
considered important. By 1676, it was recognized as “the very Heart and Centre of the
country” (reprinted in Andrews 1915: 121). It was later said to have been
the greatest thorough-fair in Virginia, Nature having so contriv’d it that by Reason of two
deep unfordable Creeks, which extend themselves from James and York Rivers, and almost
meet at this Place, all Passengers in going up or down this most populous Part of the Country
must travel through this Pass, and the roads leading to it...are so good and level that
Coaches and Wagons of the greatest Burden have an easy and delightsome Passage (reprinted
in Anonymous 1930: 323-337).
Settlers willing to take up residence at Middle Plantation were promised fifty acres
of land plus relief from certain taxes (Morton 1960: 124). Noël Hume (1963: 175) states
that very little is known of the actual appearance of the settlement, and suggests that it
was merely a scattering of houses and worked fields extending along the line of the
palisade. It had become more complex by the later 1600s, as attested by the order of the
House of Burgesses in 1676 that arms and ammunition should remain there in a “public
Magazine.”
Properties associated with economic and military interaction with Native Americans
will probably be distinguished by the presence of European trade goods in Native
American assemblages, or conversely by Indian goods in European assemblages. Sites
associated with military interaction include the palisade itself and features related to the
upkeep of the palisade.
Interaction was probably area-wide, although after 1634 the Native American presence
on the lower James/York Peninsula became less and less. Sites or structures along
the palisade, of course, are particularly significant as possible locations of interaction
between white and Indian.
Few properties dealing with this theme have been examined. The 1634 palisade
has been identified in at least two places (WB4 and WB11). Several features have been
28

identified as being part of Middle Plantation, but most of these appear to be domestic
sites with little evidence of major economic or military contact with the Indians.
SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLITICAL ELITE
In 1618 martial law in the Virginia colony was officially replaced by English common
law, but the influence of the military leaders was by no means ended. As civil offices
were created, however, a unique brand of leader emerged. Kukla (1985) refers to these
leaders as “councilor-commanders” and suggests that during the 1620s they had a great
deal of power. They retained this power into the 1630s.
Between 1635 and 1646, however, the transition to a civilian political elite was
essentially completed (Kukla 1985:282). This elite was entrenched by their control of
the county court, an institution brought over from Britain and quickly established in a
uniquely Virginian hybridized form. By the early 1640s these monthly courts had largely
taken over the functions performed by the Jamestown Court during the Company period.
The courts, closer to the residents of the expanding counties, effectively permitted
the widely dispersed settlements typical of the era.
The creation of a bicameral legislature in the early 1640s fostered the new sort of
elite. The newly-formed House of Burgesses was composed mostly of wealthy planters,
but it formed an effective restraint on some of the excesses of the Colony’s Governor
and his Council. It would later be the Burgesses who were, in the 18th century, involved
in the protests against the Crown’s policies and actions.
The new political elite was different from their predecessors in one other important
way. After the 1640s or 1650s many of the elite were native-born Virginians, with
ties to Virginia that were as strong or stronger than their ties to England.
Toward the end of the study period the role of the new political elite was most
effectively demonstrated. Angered by Governor William Berkeley’s Indian policy, as
well as by certain other issues, several wealthy planters joined with Councilor Nathaniel
Bacon in a short-lived revolt. Bacon’s Rebellion was put down within a year, but the
power of the elite against even the King’s Governor was convincingly demonstrated.
Properties associated with this new political elite will most likely be large plantations.
Governor Berkeley’s home at Green Spring, William Drummond’s home, and
Colonel Thomas Pettus’ home at Littletown can all be used to study the differences
between the Governor, his Councilors, and the leading political figures of the Colony.
Since these gentlemen were usually wealthy large planters, it is likely that the sites will
be on the best agricultural land, normally near a waterfront.
Extensive excavations have taken place at Green Spring Plantation (JC9), the
Drummond Site (JC43), and Littletown (Pettus) Plantation (JC33). At Green Spring,
Caywood (1955) uncovered a “manor house,” “mansion house,” pottery kiln, greenhouse,
spring house, kitchen, possible jail, and smithery. At Pettus’ Littletown, Kelso
(1984) found a manor house, kitchen, buttery, smokehouse, well, and a possible slaves’
or servants’ quarter.
The public buildings associated with actual political action are equally important.
The early county courts during this period were held at the homes of their members, but
by 1658 York County residents had rented the house of a Captain Robert Daldrey to
serve as their permanent court. This home, probably located in Yorke Village, was used
29

until 1676, and during these years a jail, stocks, pillory, and dunking stool were authorized
(Ayres 1975).
The State Houses at Jamestown have been a focus of interest for many years. A
large row house, the Ludwell Third and Fourth Statehouse Group, was excavated by
National Park Service archaeologists (Cotter 1958). The first two State Houses, however,
have not been conclusively located, and it is likely that they have eroded away.
A few other excavated buildings in Jamestown were probably also associated, at
least tangentially, with governmental activity. These include Structures 17 and 19, possibly
inns or taverns, and Structure 112, an extremely large house at the north end of the
island which may also have served as an inn (Lewis 1975: 310).
SUB-THEME D: STABILIZATION AND MATURATION OF A
NATIVE WHITE POPULATION
The stabilization of the Colony in the second quarter of the 17th century created the
conditions in which stable marriages and family lives could develop. Children were
born in ever greater numbers, and the decreased mortality rates meant that more and
more would survive to adulthood. These native Virginians, born of European parents,
could be expected to see Virginia as their permanent home and to endeavor to mold its
institutions to their needs.
Among the first results of this process was a degradation of the quality of
Virginia-made material objects. Ivor Noël Hume has suggested that this is a natural
outgrowth of the stabilizing of the Colony. The first settlers came from Europe, with its
guild system and relatively high standards of manufacturing quality. The settlers’ children,
untrained in the regimented and effective craft shops of Europe, could hardly be
expected to produce as efficiently and would be willing to settle for poorer quality
goods. This, coupled with trans-Atlantic trade interruptions resulting from European
unrest around mid-century, caused a decline in the quality of goods utilized in the colony.
Manufacturing efficiency was soon reached, however, and the last half of the 17th century
saw an upturn the quality of goods.
Many craftsmen were practicing their trades by that time. Artifactual and documentary
evidence from Jamestown suggests that at some time the settlement contained
the following: a boatbuilder, carpenter and mason, woodcutter and sawyer, glassblower,
potter, blacksmith, ironworker, cooper, brickmaker and tilemaker, limeburner, cabinetmaker,
metalworker, collier, calker, millwright, tanner, net maker, pike maker, baker,
brewer, miller, distiller, furrier, gardener, cutler, shoemaker, tailor, cordage maker, tobacco
pipe maker, armorer, gunsmith, brazier, jeweler, basket maker, refiner, perfumer,
and glover (Cotter 1957).
Clearly the products of these craftsmen, if identifiable, could be profitably studied
to determine the extent of the Colony’s economic independence from England. As the
percentage of native-born in the population went up, it might be expected that the methods
and extent of craftsmanship would change.
The maturation process can be also be studied by comparing the material remains
on early and later 17th-century properties. Particularly interesting are those properties
with long periods of occupation, where a native European passed his property to his
Virginia-born children. One such site is Littletown (Pettus) Plantation, passed from
30

Colonel Thomas Pettus in 1669 to his son, also named Thomas. Unfortunately fairly
little is known about the younger Thomas, but an inventory taken at the time of his
death is available (Kelso 1984: 211-212). More investigations of the differences between
the possessions of Europeans and native-born Virginians would be most useful,
particularly for the small planters, the tenants, and the indentured servants.
SUB-THEME E: DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSTITUTION OF
SLAVERY
Slavery was not a particularly noticeable feature of Virginia’s society in the first half of
the 17th century, as indentured servants performed most of the functions that later would
be taken up by slaves. Small numbers of African slaves had arrived as early as 1619, but
they had little impact on the economy for many years. Morgan (1975: 297-298) argues
that it was not until the mortality rate dropped, making it probable that a worker would
survive longer than a typical servant’s indenture, that slavery became economically
advantageous. By 1660 or so, however, the wealthier planters began to see the value of
owning slaves.
The slaves who worked the tobacco crops probably lived much as their 18th-century
successors did, in communal quarters near the fields. These quarters were most likely
even more impermanent than the houses of the planters, and were probably very small.
A common feature was apparently one or more root cellars, simple pits dug beneath the
floor for food storage.
Two possible slave quarters have been excavated by Kelso (1984) at Kingsmill
Plantations. The first, at Utopia Cottage (JC32), was a 29' × 18' hole-set structure dated
between 1660 and 1710. Kelso suggests that this may have been occupied either by
tenants, indentured servants, or slaves; the faunal assemblage suggests tenants, but the
ceramic assemblage is that of the very, very poor. One possible interpretation offered by
Kelso is that both tenants and slaves lived on the property, with the slaves perhaps
occupying a smaller earthfast building found slightly north of the cottage (Kelso 1984:
104).
At Littletown (Pettus) Plantation (JC33), Kelso suggests that the slaves may have
lived either in the east wing of the manor house, or in a separate earthfast structure
found nearby (Kelso 1984: 103-104).
SUB-THEME F: ACHIEVEMENT OF DOMINATION OVER THE
INDIANS
The Indian uprising of 1622 had disastrous consequences for the young colony, as roughly
one-third of the settlers were killed. Even in 1634, when the trans-peninsula palisade
was built, the British continued to fear the Indians. A second uprising in 1644 was less
effective than the first, killing 500 settlers but mostly in the outlying areas around the
Fall Line and on the south side of the Upper James. In Surry County, tensions were not
reduced until the 1660s, however (Kelly 1979), and fears of the Indians continued even
in the areas protected by the palisade. This fear was ostensibly the reason behind Bacon’s
Rebellion in 1676.
31

In effect, however, the fate of the local Indians had been settled long before. A
massive depopulation of the area was a result of a combination of warfare and susceptibility
to introduced European diseases, to which the Indians had not been previously
exposed. By the end of the study period most of the Indians on the Peninsula had either
been eradicated, enslaved, or expelled.
Properties associated with this domination process are Indian villages of the period
and possibly some plantations, where Indians may have been used as slaves. Quarters,
probably used by black slaves or white indentured servants, may also have been
occupied by Indian slaves. An Indian presence may be discerned from Indian artifacts
in the assemblage, but to date no such sites have been positively identified in the study
area.
SUMMARY
This is one of the most important, but least understood, periods in Virginia’s history. It
has been the subject of a great deal of study by historians, architectural historians, and
archaeologists. Unfortunately, however, the known data base is relatively small. Cultural
resources therefore assume a research significance purely on the basis of their
uniqueness, and become extremely valuable to a variety of scholars.
Some 41 properties have been located in the study area, and about 20 have been
extensively excavated. Little is known about the homes of small planters, tenants, servants,
or slaves, or about the distinguishing characteristics which make their homes
different than those of the wealthier planters. Beside these, particularly important resources
include craft-related features, churches and places of assembly, and specific
agricultural features indicating farmstead layout, such as fields, ditches, and wallows.
STUDY UNIT X: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
National. By 1630, the colony of Virginia had been in existence for over twenty years,
but these were years of the greatest imaginable hardships. At times, it seemed that the
Colony would not survive. After 1630, however, stability was rapidly achieved. Along
with her newly-settled sister colony of Maryland, Virginia grew in size and complexity.
By 1689 the Chesapeake was a stable, if not homogeneous, cultural area.
The Chesapeake region was among the most important in the early history of the
American Colonies. Like New England and the northern colonies, or the colonies to the
South, the Chesapeake colonies were unique societies, developing unique institutions.
Along with the distinctive cultural institutions developing in other colonies, these were
to mold and shape pre-Revolutionary America. The period 1630-1689 is highly crucial
in the development of the Colonies, and the study area is central to the study of the
Chesapeake colonies. The study unit is therefore assigned national significance.
32

Map 4.4. Study Unit X: Known Resource Distribution.
TABLE 4.3
STUDY UNIT X: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 4 Helmet Site AS III 09 Trash pits Excavated
JC 9 Green Spring Plantation AS III 05 Plantation Excavated
JC 32 Utopia Cottage AS III 09 Domestic Exc./pres.
JC 33 Pettus Plantation AS III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 35 Littletown Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 38 Harrop Well AS III 09 Well Exc./eroded
JC 39 Kingsmill Quarter AS III 09 Domestic/ Excavated
slave quarter
JC 41 The Maine (GL-12, -13) AS III 08 Ossuary/ Exc./p.pres.
dom./cemetery
JC 42 Pasbehay Tenement (GL-12) AS III 08 /domestic Excavated
* Not shown on Map 4.4.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
33

TABLE 4.3 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT X: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 43 Drummond Site (GL-20, -21) AS III 08 Plantation Excavated
JC 49 Dow Badische Barrel Well AS III 10 Barrel well Exc./eroded
JC 54 Archer’s Hope Site AS I 09 Domestic/ Cultivated
agricultural
JC 55 Archer’s Hope Site AS I 09 /domestic/ Cultivated
agricultural
JC 85 Marable Site (GL-16, -17) AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated
JC 90 Sherwood-Wilkenson Site AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated
(GL-24)
JC 94 Ollister Site (GL-30) AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 95 William Loyd Site (GL-31) AS III 08 Domestic Destroyed
JC 96 GL-32 AS III 08 Unknown Threatened
JC 97 GL-33 AS III 08 Brick kiln Unknown
JC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 104 Tallent Site (GL-42) AS III 08 Domestic Destroyed
JC 113 Carter’s Grove, Site B AS III 10 Unknown Excavated
JC 114 Carter’s Grove, Site D AS III 10 Unknown Excavated
JC 116 Carter’s Grove, Site A AS III 10 Unknown Excavated
JC 117 Carter’s Grove, Site E AS III 09 Unknown Excavated
JC 304 None AS I 08 Unknown Cult./p.dest.
JC 353 GL-26 AS I 08 Camp/dom. Cultivated
47- 9 Jamestown Island AS III 08 Town Protected
YORK COUNTY:
YO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Eccesiastic./ Unknown
cemetery/
domestic
YO 248* None AS I 10 Domestic Unknown
CITY OF POQUOSON:
YO 67 River Creek (Roberts AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed
Landing Village)
YO 68 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed
YO 70 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic Cult./thr.
YO 78 None AS I 11 Unknown Destroyed
YO 79 None AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 83 None AS I 14 Unknown Cultivated
YO 84 Oxford Tidemill Stone AS I 14 Mill Unknown
YO 97 None AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 4 Palisade of 1634 AS I 06 Palisade Unknown
WB 11 Palisade of 1634 AS MR 06 Palisade Unknown
JC 145 None AS I 06 Domestic Lumbered
34

Summary of Property Types
Property types in the study unit include:
(1) Large plantations. These are relatively rare, but perhaps the most intensively
studied properties of the period. Green Spring Plantation, home of Governor
William Berkeley, is an excellent example of this type of resource, and is on
the National Register. Most of these properties were probably on prime agricultural
land, along a major waterway.
(2) Domestic properties and farms of the small to middling planter. This is one of
the most underrepresented property types, yet probably was the most common.
Some of the sites at Kingsmill, Martin’s Hundred, and the Governor’s Land
may fall into this group. Like the large plantations, they were probably located
along or near a navigable waterway.
(3) Tenant farms. Tenant farmers comprised an important but little understood segment
of the society. Utopia Cottage, at Kingsmill, may have been an example
of a tenant farmer’s dwelling, but few others have been investigated. These
farms were probably on the more marginal agricultural land adjoining plantations.
(4) Slave/servant domestic properties. Little is known about the lives of slaves or
servants in this period, and few of these sites and structures have been investigated.
These properties were probably fairly near the master’s dwelling or fields;
later in the study period they were apparently set farther apart spatially as class
distinctions became more rigid.
(5) Public buildings. Public buildings could be found in the emerging “service
centers”—Middle Plantation, Yorke Village, etc.—as well as Jamestown and
perhaps some of the larger plantations. Court sessions, for example, were apparently
held in private dwellings in many instances, mostly at accessible and
convenient locations.
(6) Churches and cemeteries. These properties are obviously less well known than
later, more permanently-built churches of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Non-ecclesiastical cemeteries are difficult to find, although churchyard burials
have been discovered.
(7) Commercial sites. Found mostly at the emerging service centers, these sites
were undoubtedly increasingly common at the very end of the study period.
(8) Taverns and ordinaries. These properties were probably found at major crossroads
and in the service centers. Few have yet been positively identified.
(9) Industrial properties. Increasing craft specialization on the plantations and in
the service centers resulted in an increase in the number of industrial properties.
Mills, brick kilns, potteries, and forges have all been located. By the l680s
potteries had been established at Jamestown, Green Spring Plantation, and the
Challis Site (Lewis l975); various other craft sites have been found at these
locations as well, most notably at Jamestown.
(10) Landings and wharfs. By 1635, the landings of Poquoson were important
shipping centers, and the landing near Middle Plantation soon became impor-
35

tant as well. Landings were probably located near plantations at major stations
along the navigable streams.
Character of Existing Data
Material remains from this period are very poorly understood, since few sites have been
identified and/or excavated. Excavations at Jamestown, the Governor’s Land, Martin’s
Hundred, Kingsmill, Bennett Farm, and River Creek have recovered data from about
fifty sites, but only a few have been intensively studied. Much less, for example, is
known about these sites than about sites of the Virginia Company period (1607-1624),
which has received considerably more scholarly attention. Coupled with the lack of
extensive documentary information, the period becomes one of the least known in
Virginia’s entire history.
Site by site analysis can be a frustrating exercise. Little detailed information is
available on the existing archaeological site records for most properties, and comparisons
are difficult. Since no structures survive, architectural data must come from the
excavations as well. Fortunately, architectural data is well summarized in Carson et
al. 1981. The sheer lack of volume of analyzable data, however, points up the fact that
identification of more sites is needed.
Criteria for Evaluation
National Register criteria are as hard to apply here as in the previous study unit. Although
many properties can be judged significant, particularly under Criterion A or
Criterion D, integrity varies greatly from property to property. Minimally a property
must contain sufficient archaeological or architectural remains to evaluate its relationship
to the natural landscape and to other contemporary property types.
Like the earliest Euro-American study unit, however, physical site integrity is often
not as important from a scholarly standpoint. The most significant resources, in
terms of research potential, are those sites typical of an underrepresented property type
(e.g., small plantations). Public values and community interests are probably strong for
all property types of this period, but especially for public buildings, churches and cemeteries,
and large, imposing plantations.
Present Condition of Property Types
Since these sites are often near the river shore, erosion is a significant problem. It has
already destroyed several sites (e.g., the Harrop Site except for the well). With no standing
architecture or other above-ground evidence of most sites, they are often invisible
until encountered below ground. Development is therefore a major threat, and it is difficult
to determine the extent of its damage without better information on site location.
Five properties dating to the period are already on the National Register of Historic
Places: Green Spring Plantation, Kingsmill Plantation, William Gooch Tomb and Yorke
Village, Jamestown National Historic Site, and the Governor’s Land Archaeological
District. Many more are undoubtedly eligible for nomination, although their degree of
36

integrity may be low. Most identified properties have been excavated, but these make
up only a small percentage of the number actually once in existence.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
Like the previous study unit, this period is so little known that the first priorities have to
do with resource identification. Particular locational models may aid in this task. Much
of the identification may be performed in the next one or two years, as may the evaluative
tasks dealing with the Jamestown collections. Potentially eligible properties should
immediately be nominated to the National Register, and steps taken for their preservation.
Treatment recommendations are all long-term and ongoing, aimed at maintaining
and expanding current levels of resource protection.
Identification Goals
• A comparison of early tract maps, where they exist, with existing soil survey data
to suggest possible site location. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service maps (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1985) provide important data
on the quality of agricultural land, while early tract maps show land which was
patented early. If, as Lorena Walsh (pers. comm. 1985) suggests, early patents coincide
with the best land, then the soil maps could be used to assess the probability
of early settlement on a particular parcel of land. This study would be ideal for an
interested social historian, cultural geographer, or agricultural historian, perhaps a
student at the College of William and Mary. In addition, this study, with its obvious
application to county histories, should be considered for partial funding by
local governments and/or historical societies.
• Preparation of a series of maps showing landholding patterns in those areas where
records are available, identifying the socio-economic status of the landowner or
occupant. This would allow easier evaluation of the research potential of individual
properties, and the probable remains to be encountered. This study may be
integrated with studies of settlement patterns in the area, e.g., the York County
Project, and may be performed by a professional historian or graduate student at
the College of William and Mary.
Evaluation Goals
• A re-analysis of some of the assemblages from 17th- century sites, in Jamestown
and elsewhere, with a view to establishing tighter chronological controls on individual
properties. Diagnostic features of these sites, discovered during this
re-analysis, may help in on-the-ground identification of other similar sites. Such a
study would be coordinated by supervisors of Colonial National Historical Park,
the custodians of the Jamestown collections. This would be an suitable project for
a student or avocational archaeologist, and grant support may possibly be obtainable
from private sources.
37

Registration Goals
• Nomination of suitable identified properties of the small to middling planter, tenant
farmer, or craftsman for placement on the National Register, under Criterion A
or Criterion D. No such properties have yet been identified to the level of detail
that a suitable candidate can at this time be proposed.
Treatment Goals
• Preservation or Phase III excavation and detailed recording of any preserved
17th-century archaeological site or structure discovered during development, particularly
if the resource is identified as one of the more significant sites described
above.
• Continued preservation in place of National Register properties Green Spring Plantation,
Kingsmill Plantation, William Gooch Tomb and Yorke Village, and
Jamestown National Historical Site.
• Preservation in place of registered sites in the Governor’s Land Archaeological
District. As development pressure in James City County mounts, this will require
a cooperative effort of planners, developers, and cultural resource professionals.
38

STUDY UNIT XI.
EXPANSION AND DIFFERENTIATION OF COLONIAL
SOCIETY AND ECONOMY (A.D. 1689–A.D. 1783)
Major Theme: Early urbanization and urban-rural relationships.
Sub-Themes: A. Incipient industrialization and the development of local
craft specialties.
B. Institutionalization of slavery.
C. Growth and solidification of the gentry class.
D. Establishment of the colonial capital at Williamsburg.
E. Development of a market economy.
F. Diversification of Tidewater agriculture.
Significance: National
The years following England’s Glorious Revolution saw a new spirit in the Colonies.
Virginia, in the midst of economic stagnation brought on by a “bust” in tobacco prices,
was nevertheless beginning a period of increased social stratification and economic,
political, religious, and social growth.
Changes in demographic patterns developed from the growth of population, resulting
both from natural increase and immigration. Continual expansion into new, unexplored
areas to the west was caused by the need to migrate westward to obtain sufficient
agricultural land. The landed gentry that remained, meanwhile, continued to import
slaves by the thousands.
Despite the westward expansion of Virginia settlement, the study area remained
the political center of the Colony. The capital at Jamestown was moved to a new town,
Williamsburg, in 1699. Normally a small town, with a population of no more than 1500
around 1750, Williamsburg grew enormously twice a year, during “Publick Times.”
Economic and residential centralization was also more apparent in the Lower Tidewater,
and for the first time real Virginia towns began to spring up. Yorktown was established
in 1691, and Williamsburg in 1699. By the early 1700s both were developing
rapidly.
By the beginning of the 18th century, however, the area was still dominated by the
great plantations, owned by a wealthy and powerful gentry and producing massive
amounts of tobacco. Most of the population still lived on plantations and farmsteads, as
the small planter, owning a little land and a few slaves, and the tenant farmer continued
to eke out an existence, often on marginal agricultural land.
These plantations and farmsteads were connected by a fairly well-developed system
of roads. While the earliest transportation was almost entirely waterborne, and consequently
most settlements were on the waterfronts of navigable rivers and creeks, by
the late 17th century land-based transportation and communication was at least as important.
This network of roads, many of which are still in use, is in fact a valuable
predictor of site location, since most dwellings were located along a main road or one of
its arterial branches.
39

Map 4.5.
As the Lower Tidewater became more and more urbanized around the new capital
at Williamsburg, and the nascent urban centers at Yorktown and Hampton, tremendous
changes were occurring in the lives of the rural-based planters and their households,
tenants, servants, and slaves. The growth of the urban centers, the concomitant development
of the rural farms and plantations, and the relationships between the two are keys
to understanding this period.
Historical studies of 18th-century Virginia are a long-standing tradition. The Research
Department of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the History Department
of the College of William and Mary, and the National Park Service have all produced
detailed histories of individual 18th-century properties, utilizing deeds, tax records, and
private correspondence.
Scholars involved in the York County Project have amassed a variety of colonial
records for York County, and have for several years been in the process of analyzing
these records. One result has recently been published by Peter Bergstrom and Mark
Ferguson of the Research Department of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Using
the Land Patents, Quit Rents, deeds, and other sources, they have constructed a cadastral
map for York County in 1704 (Bergstrom and Ferguson 1985). Biographies are
being compiled for every person living or having business in the county at that time,
and these biographies will be cross-indexed to facilitate research (Peter Bergstrom,
pers. comm. 1985).
Primary sources for this study period are numerous. The York County Records
(n.d.) include, among other things, land transfers, wills, and probate inventories. These
probate inventories, showing the possessions of the recently deceased, are particularly
useful records for comparison with archaeological assemblages (Beaudry 1975). Other
resources include journals, diaries, and newspapers. The Virginia Gazette, a newspaper
established in Williamsburg in 1736, furnishes valuable information about land transfers,
business affairs, and individual biographical data.
At the very end of the study period, during the Revolutionary War, French military
cartographers, including Alexandre and Charles Berthier and several others, constructed
40

detailed maps of Williamsburg, Yorktown, and the James/ York Peninsula. Probably
originally used for troop movements or as billeting plans, these maps have been used by
the Research Department of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and by Martha
McCartney of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks to identify sites extant at
this period. Particularly significant among these maps are: the unknown Frenchman’s
Map (1782) and the Desandrouins Map (1782), showing the plan of Williamsburg, and
the Berthier Map of the James/York Peninsula (1781), showing roads and individual
structures in James City and York Counties. (For a list of sites identified from the latter
map, see Table 4.4, sites marked “MR”).
Architectural studies of this period have been blessed by the presence of a fairly
large number of extant standing structures. There are 88 original buildings in
Williamsburg alone, and close to ten in Yorktown. Architecturally important plantation
houses still stand at Carter’s Grove (JC109), Pinewoods (JC232), Powhatan (JC123),
Bryan Plantation (YO7), Kiskiack (99-12), Porto Bello (YO294), Warrenton (47-27),
and Lane Farm (47-69).
The typical architectural form by the late 17th century is well described by Upton
(1982). Most planters, even the wealthy, lived in one-and-a-half- story frame dwellings,
with one or two rooms per floor. Hall and parlor houses, those with two first-floor
rooms, had a larger principal room entered from the outside (the hall) and a smaller
inner room (the parlor) entered from the hall. Other planters lived in single-unit structures,
with only one first-floor room. Most of the other houses of the period were simply
adaptations of this basic design.
The Georgian house had its beginnings in the early eighteenth century. According
to Upton (1980: 212), typically a Georgian house had a “double-pile, central-passage
plan set in a cubical mass with a repetitive, well-ordered facade.” The first Georgian
mansion in the study area was the Governor’s Palace in Williamsburg (CW-20A), built
around 1706. In general the first Georgian mansions were built by the very wealthy;
smaller hall-parlor or single-unit houses continued to be used at the same time, and
throughout the 18th century.
Deetz (1973) and Glassie (1975) have argued that the Georgian house, with its
strictly-balanced bilateral symmetry, mirrors cognitive processes in the minds of the
Georgian-period planters. Using a method of structural analysis borrowed from Glassie,
and ultimately partially derived from formal semantic analysis, Deetz (1973: 32) suggests
that many aspects of culture, including foodways, furniture decoration, settlement
layout, and gravestone design, also spring from the new scientific natural philosophy of
the period. The new Georgian mind-set, as he calls it, is therefore subject to study in
both archaeological and architectural remains.
Architectural remains are more common during this period than during the 17th
century, since a greater percentage of structures were well-built, “permanent” buildings.
By this period most dwellings were made with brick foundations. Foundations and
brick chimney bases are likely to survive archaeologically, and for this reason the general
plan of most buildings can be determined even if the framing has been destroyed.
Many buildings were made entirely of brick, and a number of these survive (see Plate
4.1). Well- built frame structures also survive in some places, and many in Williamsburg’s
Historic Area have been restored to their original appearances. Unusual buildings in-
41

Plate 4.1. Kiskiack.
clude Grace Church (99-10), built with marl walls (now covered with stucco), and Bryan
Manor (YO7), built on a foundation of bog iron.
Most of the archaeological evidence thus far recovered for this time period has
come from the excavations in and around the Historic Area of Colonial Williamsburg.
The enormous amount of archaeological work done in Williamsburg since 1928 has
involved the investigation of 145 properties and the exposure of the foundations of well
over 300 18th-century structures. (For a summary of surveyed and excavated sites to be
discussed in the following sections, see Table 4.4.)
The first excavations, in 1928, were performed by Restoration architects at the site
of the Capitol and at the Raleigh Tavern. Only the brick foundations of these structures
were recorded, and little attention was paid to stratigraphic or artifactual data. In November
1928 Fiske Kimball of the Advisory Committee of Architects insisted that “someone,
preferably an archaeologist, be hired to make a thorough record of the entire restoration.”
It was thus that in 1929 Prentice Duell, a graduate of the University of Arizona,
was hired to direct the archaeological program. Duell began excavation of the Wren
Building on the campus of the College of William and Mary, and when he left in September
the work was carried on by John Zaharov. In the meantime landscape architect
Arthur Shurtleff (later Shurcliff) was excavating with his own crew, supposedly searching
for garden remains. Reverend W.A.R. Goodwin, discovering this crew digging on
the First Theatre site in 1930, suggested that their work be halted and only the more
42

professional work of Duell and Zaharov be permitted. Duell returned in 1930 to excavate
at the Governor’s Palace. Upon Zaharov’s departure, Herbert S. Ragland was hired
to assist him.
Duell and Ragland continued the previous policy of searching mainly for brick
foundations, but they kept more detailed notes, recording some stratigraphic information
and general provenience of certain artifacts, and even screened some of the excavated
material. In the 1930 season the work at the Governor’s Palace and at the Raleigh
Tavern site was continued, along with the testing of several other sites in the Historic
Area (Duell and Ragland 1930).
Duell soon departed and Ragland became head archaeologist. After 1930 excavation
was speeded up to keep up with the reconstruction work in the Historic Area, and
Ragland resorted to new methods for rapidly finding the brickwork. A standard system
of “cross-trenching” was instituted, with shovel trenches dug across a property, usually
northeast to southwest, at roughly five-foot intervals (see Plate 4.2). When foundations
were encountered the dirt around each side was excavated to expedite mapping and
photography. Careful recording of artifact proveniences was necessarily abandoned,
and little information was recorded beyond the location and description of foundations.
Some 35 properties were excavated in this manner before Ragland departed in 1933.
Architect Singleton P. Moorehead took over excavations in the period 1933-1936.
Although the son of a famous archaeologist and a trained archaeologist himself, he still
devoted most of his attention to the location of brick foundations as quickly as possible,
and few detailed excavation notes were maintained.
In 1936 James M. Knight, Ragland’s draftsman and assistant, returned and was put
in charge. With the exception of the years 1939-1940, when Francis Duke excavated a
few properties, Knight continued to be in charge of archaeology into the late 1950s. He
was responsible for the excavation of 64 properties, including some of the most important
sites in town. Knight continued Ragland’s policy of systematic cross-trenching and
exposure of foundations, and his meticulous drawings (like those he did for Ragland)
furnished valuable data for building reconstruction. Only rarely did Knight describe
stratigraphic context or artifactual content, however, and it was not until Ivor Noël
Hume arrived in 1957 that these important data categories were first seriously considered.
Noël Hume took charge of Colonial Williamsburg’s archaeology program in 1957
and soon began a series of careful and complete excavations. With his encyclopedic
knowledge of colonial artifacts and meticulous excavation technique, his site reports
are critical data bases for the 18th-century archaeology of the study area. In the late
1950s and early 1960s he and his colleagues investigated one or two properties per
year: 1957, the Pitt-Dixon House; 1958, the George Wythe House and the Peter Scott
House; 1959, the Teterel Shop and the Coke-Garrett House; 1960, the Anthony Hay
Shop; 1961, the Post Office site; 1962, the Travis House; 1963, the George Reid House;
1964, Custis garden; 1965-1966, Wetherburn’s Tavern, the Archibald Blair House, and
Carter’s Grove; 1966-1967, the James Geddy House; 1968, the Alexander Craig House
and the Nicholas-Tyler House; and 1969, Prentis Store. In the 1970s and early 1980s
came a string of other important projects: 1972, the President’s House; 1975-1976, the
James Anderson House; 1976, Redwood Ordinary and the John Lockley House; 1977,
43

Plate 4.2. Cross-Trenching.
the Willie Baker House; 1978, the Peyton Randolph House and the Nicholas-Tyler House;
and 1971-1983, the Public Hospital.
Since 1982 two offices for archaeology have existed at Colonial Williamsburg,
one under now-Resident Archaeologist Noël Hume, and the other, the Office of Archaeological
Excavation (O.A.E.), under Marley Brown. Since 1982 the O.A.E. has
conducted six major projects: at James Anderson Forges, the 1930s Firehouse, Nicolson
House, the Peyton Randolph House, Tazewell Hall, and the Green Hill property.
Investigations at Yorktown have involved both the National Park Service and
Southside Historical Sites, Inc. Park Service archaeologists have excavated several properties,
including the Courthouse Site (99-28), Bellfield Plantation (YO64), and Archer
Cottage. Norman Barka of Southside Historical Sites, Inc. has more completely excavated
several other properties, including the Rogers Pottery Factory (YO102), the Ballard
House (YO101), the Smith House (YO100), the Nelson House (YO99), and sites affiliated
with the Yorktown Battlefield.
At least 518 sites have been identified in the study area. Many of these have been
located only through map research, however, and many more only through limited surface
survey. The few intensive surveys and site examinations that have been done in the
study area include: the York County Survey (V.R.C.A., 1979-1980); the first Governor’s
44

Land Survey (V.R.C.A., 1975); the Carter’s Grove Project (Kelso and others, 1970-1972);
the Kingsmill Project (Kelso, 1972-1983); the second Governor’s Land Survey (College
of William and Mary, 1983); the Second Street Extension Survey (Colonial
Williamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation, 1983); the Route 199 Extension
Survey (Colonial Williamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation, 1985); and the
Chickahominy River Survey (Barka and McCary, 1967-1971).
Most of these surveys identified 18th-century structures or features, but to date
relatively few sites have been thoroughly investigated. The majority of these are at the
Carter’s Grove, Littletown, and Kingsmill plantations, where extensive excavations have
taken place since the early 1970s (Noël Hume 1979; Kelso 1972, 1984). Other excavated
sites include: Green Spring Plantation (JC9), built by Sir William Berkeley but
used in the eighteenth century as well (Caywood 1955); the Drummond Site (JC43), a
plantation occupied between 1648 and 1820; Burke’s Corner (YO15), a Quaker domestic
site (Outlaw 1974); and College Landing (WB3), site of an 18th-century tobacco
inspection station.
Many military sites from the Revolutionary War era have been excavated (for a
complete description, see Study Unit XXIII). Among the most interesting are the
Yorktown shipwrecks, vessels probably scuttled in the York River by Lord Cornwallis
during the Battle of Yorktown. Underwater archaeologists have investigated several of
these merchant vessels, and at least one (YO88) has been the subject of an extensive
excavation (U.A.S., V.R.C.A. 1981).
SUB-THEME A: INCIPIENT INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL CRAFT SPECIALTIES
The beginnings of an industrialized economy were evident during this period with the
emergence of local craft specialization. While craftsmen and artisans were employed
on the large plantations, and in fact slaves were often trained to fill these roles, the
magnitude of their production was necessarily limited by the needs and resources of the
individual planter. As the urban centers in Williamsburg, Yorktown, and Hampton began
to expand, craftsmen were drawn away from the large plantations. These middle-class
craftsmen, who normally were small planters as well, began to congregate in the urban
areas as they became centers for trade and assembly. Increasing trade specialization in
the emerging cities, particularly at Williamsburg, led to the development of
occupationally-defined sectors and neighborhoods, and to the growth of unique house/
shop complexes defined by craft specialty as well as economic status.
A preliminary study of the growth of Williamsburg (Liddle and Styrna 1985), based
on research reports of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, shows the development
of commercial sectors, including industrial sites, in the town by the early 18th century.
Similar sectors are likely to have developed in Yorktown as well.
Typical early industrial sites include blacksmith’s, gunsmith’s, cooper’s,
metalworker’s, furniture maker’s, and jeweler’s shops, along with potteries, mills, and
brick kilns. Many of the actual shops were adjacent to or even within the craftperson’s
residence, and in many cases the tools of his trade were scattered throughout the property.
Potteries, mills, and forges, among other properties, also leave distinctive structural
remnants or concentrations of waste products.
45

These types of sites can be found both in the urban centers and on the plantations,
but archaeological study of the beginnings of industrialization has been conducted mainly
in the urban centers. The homes and shops of several urban craftspeople have been
reconstructed upon their original foundations, and the excavations leading to those reconstructions
have provided some valuable details about their lives.
In all, the shops of at least six craft specialists have been excavated: one blacksmith
(James Anderson Forges); one coachmaker (Elkannah Deane Forge); one silversmith
(James Geddy Shop); one jeweler and engraver (The Golden Ball); one chairmaker
(Taliaferro-Cole Shop); and two cabinetmakers (Anthony Hay Shop and Peter Scott
House). It is important to note that all of these properties housed more than one owner
in the study period, and in many cases several crafts were practiced on the same property
during the 18th century. For example, the James Geddy Site was occupied by a
gunsmith and brassfounder, an ironworker, and a silversmith and clockmaker (Noël
Hume 1970). Only through careful stratigraphic and architectural interpretation can
these complications be worked out and studied.
Early excavations, during the years 1929-1957, are less helpful in this regard since
the goal was only discovery of the brick foundations. The quantity and spatial arrangement
of non-brick features and artifacts was hardly considered, and the archaeological
evidence alone could rarely even adequately pin down the construction date for the
building. The spatial arrangement of the house/shop complex, however, was mapped,
and at least some partially-provenienced artifacts were recovered from most properties.
Beginning in 1957 more data was gathered, as Noël Hume initiated in-depth studies of
particular properties, including the Anthony Hay Shop, the James Geddy Shop, and the
James Anderson Forges.
At the Anthony Hay Shop (CW-28D), Noël Hume recovered an artifact assemblage
clearly associated with the cabinetmaking trade, along with a group of finds east
of the shop which indicated the contemporaneous presence of a small furnace the cabinetmaker
used for simple metalworking (Noël Hume 1961: 36). A goal of the excavation,
to attempt to discern Hay’s standard of living from the archaeological evidence,
was not as successfully met.
The excavations at the James Geddy Site (CW-19A&B) produced evidence of a
wide variety of crafts, as the products of gunsmiths, locksmiths, brassfounders, silversmiths,
clockmakers or repairers, and cutlers were recovered in the course of the project
(Frank 1969). Through a careful weaving of archaeological and documentary evidence,
Noël Hume was able to identify the individuals involved and to deduce the sequence of
eighteenth century craft specialization at this particular site (Noël Hume 1970).
The James Anderson Forges (CW-10A,E&G) were not built until the 1770s, but
the 1975 excavations on this property have been very valuable in analyzing later colonial
blacksmithing and related crafts. Spatial arrangements of the house/forge complex,
uses of the forges, and their importance in the Williamsburg economy were evaluated
(Foss 1977). The area where the forges are being reconstructed was recently excavated
by the Colonial Williamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation (see Plate 4.3), and
additional information about this important local industry has been obtained.
Another important local industry, William Rogers’ Pottery Factory (YO102), has
been excavated in Yorktown. Barka (1979) uncovered a 21' × 14' kiln made of brick and
marl. The factory was producing earthenwares and stonewares in the early 18th century,
46

Plate 4.3. Reconstruction of the James Anderson Forges.
and Rogers’ products have appeared in the assemblages of many local excavations,
suggesting some degree of popularity.
Leather-tanning was also becoming a trade for urban craftsmen. A large tanyard in
Williamsburg, located in the northeastern part of the town, is shown on both the
Frenchman’s Map (1782) and the Bucktrout Map (1800), although it has not been located
in excavations. Kelso (1972) also found evidence of possible tanning vats at Carter’s
Grove Plantation (JC110), suggesting that individual planters were still employing tanners
on their plantations around mid-century, and not necessarily relying on the urban
tanners.
47

Brickmaking was probably easier done near the site of construction, thus eliminating
the need for transportation of the bricks, and it is likely that this trade was not
centralized to any great degree in the urban centers. Brick clamps have been found at
many places—Burwell’s Mill (YO394 and YO395), Carter’s Grove Plantation (JC111),
the Governor’s Land (JC84, JC86, JC87, JC89, and JC99), the Coke-Garrett House
(CW-27A), and near the Wren Building on the College of William and Mary campus
(CW-16A).
Mills are extremely important industrial features in the study area. Virtually every
stream contained one or more mills, while windmills could often be found on suitable
high ground. Burwell’s Mill (YO385), a water gristmill on Kings Creek near
Williamsburg, was surveyed in 1983 (Hunter 1984). Several other water mills have
been discovered—Johnston’s Mill on Halfway Creek (JC36), Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill
on Mill Creek (JC46), Ludwell’s Mill on College Creek (WB17), Durfey’s Mill on
Grices Run () (47-87), and Skimino Mill on Skimino Creek (YO242). Many others,
however, have not yet been located. Clearly all suitable streams are sensitive locations.
The sites of two windmills—Robertson’s Windmill in Williamsburg (CW-28E) and
Yorktown Windmill (YO13)—have been identified, but the locations of other windmills
have not yet been pinpointed.
SUB-THEME B: INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SLAVERY
By the end of the 17th century, the institution of slavery in the colonies had been firmly
established. The majority of the slaves were involved in tobacco cultivation, although
numerous black craftsmen and artisans were working in the study area throughout the
18th century. Slave importation had increased dramatically during the century, so much
that by 1750 blacks composed nearly 40% of the population.
As the 18th century progressed, the social and economic distance between the
small planters and the elite planting gentry was intensified. One’s position in the social
hierarchy, not solely governed by the ownership of land, was highly dependent on the
ownership of at least some slaves (Isaac 1982). Relatively few planters held very large
numbers of slaves, these being at the very top of the hierarchy, but 75% of all families
owned at least some.
During the 18th century, the large-scale tobacco planters, requiring labor to harvest
the crops, were the primary utilizers of slaves. These slaves were housed in discrete
settlements, called quarters, usually situated away from the plantation house and
near the fields (Kelso 1984).
Aside from agricultural labor, support services were also needed, including
blacksmithing, cooperage, carpentry, shoemaking, and spinning and weaving. These
were usually provided by skilled black craftsmen working on the plantation. Personal
and household servants also made up part of the slave population, and occupied positions
such as cooks, butlers, maids, and stablemen. These workers fared better than the
field hands, and many of the household servants, at least, lived in the better-maintained
outbuildings nearer to the manor house.
In addition to providing labor for the agricultural economy, slaves were also instrumental
in the commercial development of the southern colonies, especially in tanning,
the iron industry, and the exportation of lumber (Tate 1965: 20).
48

Because slaves were utilized in so many ways, the study of the development of
slave-holding must encompass both the rural plantations and the urban centers. Most of
the archaeological work on slave settlements, however, has been focused on the large
plantations.
William Kelso, in his work at Kingsmill, has identified five possible slave quarters:
Littletown Quarter (JC35), Kingsmill Quarter (JC39), North Quarter (JC52), Bray’s
Littletown (JC34), and Hampton Key (JC44). All contained root cellars, apparently a
common feature of slave houses. The discovery of a root cellar beneath Bray’s own
house (at JC34) suggest to him that slaves may have lived there as well (Kelso 1984:104).
No positively identified slave quarters have been excavated in Williamsburg or
Yorktown, and little is known archaeologically about the material remains of urban
slaves. The household servants of the urban gentry, and the black craftsmen and artisans,
almost certainly lived either in fairly crude huts or frame structures, which would
not leave extensive brick foundations, or in some of the outbuildings also used for other
purposes. The bias toward brickwork in early Williamsburg excavations has obviously
been responsible for our current lack of knowledge about this important aspect of colonial
life. One attempt to remedy this neglect is the proposed excavation by the Colonial
Williamsburg Office of Archaeological Excavation of the Brush-Everard property
(CW-29E), intended partially to investigate the lives of the household servants of Thomas
Everard. (For a further discussion of this period from the Afro-American viewpoint,
see Study Unit XVII.)
SUB-THEME C: GROWTH AND SOLIDIFICATION OF THE
GENTRY CLASS
Even as the position of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy was being institutionalized,
the position of those at the top, the planter gentry, was undergoing a period of
consolidation. No longer unchallenged as the masters of a changing world order, they
reacted by attempting to make their hegemony seem ordained and self-evident, as part
of the natural order of things (Leone 1983). Particularly in the last half of the century,
when the effects of the Great Awakening became felt, the gentry were forced to express
through visible symbols their political and social power.
The power of the planting aristocracy in the cities was felt whether they owned
homes in the urban area, as many did, or left their plantations only when the Burgesses
met. The archaeological evidence for the growth of their social, economic, and political
power should therefore appear both in the urban center and on the rural plantations.
As the planter gentry continued to attempt to consolidate their power, they were
joined by an emerging gentry class arising in the city. Wealthy merchants could obtain
the title of gentleman, as could educated clergymen (Isaac 1982: 132). This emerging
gentry class, pressured like the planting aristocracy from below, strove like them to
establish the legitimacy of the social order.
Archaeologically and architecturally, this process is reflected in the increasing elaboration
of homes, outbuildings, and gardens. Man-made landscape features are particularly
important as reflections of ideology (Leone 1983), and the spatial arrangement of
features on a property may be used to understand some of the outward manifestations of
wealth and power.
49

The homes and estates of the gentry can be found both in the urban centers and on
the plantations. Unfortunately the early excavations of homes of the elite in Williamsburg,
by concentrating exclusively on brick foundations and other structural remnants, neglected
important man-made landscape features such as fence lines, garden remains,
and non-brick structural remains. Reconstructions of formal gardens were based mainly
on documentary research and non-local extant examples, with little archaeological input.
One exception is the excavation at the Governor’s Palace (CW-20A), where the
“Falling Gardens” constructed by Governor Spotswood in the early 18th century were
interpreted based on a set of three flights of brick steps which identified the location of
the three planting terraces (A. Noël Hume 1974).
In recent years garden remains have received more attention, and Audrey Noël
Hume (1974) has produced an analysis of physical and artifactual evidence for gardens.
Much of this evidence comes from the excavations in the Custis garden in 1964 and
1968. John Custis was a wealthy landowner himself, whose avocational interest in gardening
appears in his numerous letters. Aside from these gardens, however, no other set
of formal gardens has been systematically excavated in Williamsburg, though the excavations
since 1957 have produced some partially-interpreted data on fence lines, planting
features, and other garden remains. The recent excavations by the Colonial
Williamsburg Department of Archaeology have shown a little more evidence of garden
features, particularly at the Peyton Randolph House (CW-28B,G&H) and Tazewell Hall
(CW-44B), and more attention is now being paid to this aspect of the man-made alterations
to the colonial landscape.
Elaboration of the homes and outbuildings of the aristocracy is easier to evaluate,
since the foundations of so many of these buildings have been discovered. In addition to
the actual dwelling houses, archaeologists have discovered and identified kitchens,
smokehouses, dairies, laundries, sheds, privies, and stables. The plans of the brickwork
found on most of these properties have been prepared, and detailed architectural reconstructions
have been made. Important recent work has included that at the Peyton
Randolph House (Plate 4.4), where a combination of archaeological and architectural
research has produced a general sequence for the construction of all aspects of the landscape-
house, outbuildings, and gardens. Additional information on the lives of the gentry
has recently been collected by the Office of Archaeological Excavation at Tazewell
Hall as well.
The mansions, gardens, and holdings of the large planters outside of Williamsburg
have received a lot of attention for several years. At Carter’s Grove (Plate 4.5) Kelso
and Noël Hume have each analyzed the growth of the plantation throughout the eighteenth
century (Kelso 1972; I. Noël Hume 1974), and Kelso has similarly looked at
Bray’s Littletown and Burwell’s Kingsmill Plantations (Kelso 1984). Other excavations
have occurred on the Drummond Plantation (JC43) and Sir William Berkeley’s
Green Spring Plantation (JC9). Map research has shown that a large number of other
plantations remain to be analyzed, however, and important gaps in the record of the
rural gentry remain to be filled.
Homes and properties of small planters, craftsmen, and artisans are important comparative
models, since they reflect changes in the economic affluence and self-estimation
of these individuals as the gentry entrenched themselves. A few middle-class domestic
sites have been identified and excavated, both in Williamsburg and elsewhere, but many
50

Plate 4.4. Excavations Behind the Peyton Randolph House.
more remain to be discovered. One uniquely archaeological problem with the study of
these individuals is that many structures, particularly those of the lower middle class,
were probably less substantial and permanent that those of the elite. This demands careful
archaeological survey and excavation, as the remains of these structures are likely to
be difficult to find.
SUB-THEME D: ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COLONIAL
CAPITAL AT WILLIAMSBURG
Jamestown continued as capital of the colony for more than twenty years after it was
burned by Bacon’s rebels in 1676. By 1699, however, a new, planned capital was to be
51

Plate 4.5. Aerial View of Carter’s Grove Plantation.
established in a more convenient location. The site chosen was Middle Plantation, the
settlement begun in 1634 to maintain the trans-peninsula palisade but which had since
1695 been the site of the College of William and Mary. At the time deliberations were
taking place, it had “a church, an ordinary, several stores, two mills, a smiths shop, a
grammar school, and above all the Colledge” (reprinted in Anonymous 1930: 323-337).
Governor Francis Nicholson designed the new town, to be called Williamsburg in
honor of King William of England. Carefully planned, the new Capitol was placed on
the east end of town, opposite the College and joined to it by a great street, Duke of
Gloucester. Bruton Parish Church, originally constructed in 1683, was rebuilt, and a
powder magazine and gaol were constructed. Half-acre lots were sold, with the provision
that a suitable dwelling be constructed on them within two years. Stores, shops,
and taverns soon followed.
The establishment and growth of the capital can partially be studied through its
public buildings: the Capitol (CW-8C), the Courthouse of 1770 (CW-19C), the Public
Gaol (CW-27B), and the Powder Magazine (CW-12A&B). As centers for lawmaking,
the administration of justice, and the protection of the administrative apparatus, these
buildings were crucial to the town’s public functions. The location, cost, and elegance
of each building may provide clues to its importance in the administrative machinery,
and artifactual evidence may reveal the range of functions housed in each.
Unfortunately, however, little archaeological work was done around any of these
public buildings beyond the pervasive cross-trenching for foundations. Re-analysis of
some of the artifacts collected during the cross-trenching may help to define function a
52

little better, and clearly a comparison of their plans with public buildings in other capitals
could reveal the particularly Virginian modifications of English colonial governmental
structures.
The actual growth of Williamsburg as a town has been studied both through its
documentary research (Liddle and Styrna 1985) and through architecture. The Governor’s
Palace, home of the head of the colonial administration, was extensively excavated in
1929-1932, although once again stratigraphic units were not seriously considered. Artifacts
were collected by general provenience and excavated earth was apparently screened
through 1” and 2” mesh. No major analysis has been done on this artifact assemblage,
which, in addition to reflecting the outward manifestations of the Governor’s wealth
and power, may provide material evidence of the Governor’s administrative role.
The capital, as the center for lawmaking and the administration of justice at the
highest level, naturally became increasingly cosmopolitan. Gentlemen from all over the
Colony met here twice a year, often for long stretches at a time, and the provision of
services and diversions for these important men was a trade in itself. The first newspaper
in Virginia, the Virginia Gazette, was published in Williamsburg, and a playhouse
was established in 1716 near the Governor’s Palace. The only archaeological evidence
of both, at the Printing Office (CW-18H) and the First Theatre (CW-29G), was recovered
in the 1930s, and little was located beyond the brick foundations and a few other
features.
In addition, a thriving trade was established in lodgings, taverns, and ordinaries.
Eleven of these structures have been excavated in Williamsburg: Raleigh Tavern
(CW-17B), Wetherburn’s Tavern (CW-9N), King’s Arms Tavern (CW-9B), Christiana
Campbell’s Tavern (CW-7A), Blue Bell Tavern (CW-8E), Market Square Tavern
(CW-12A), Red Lion Inn (CW-17C&H), Brick House Tavern (CW-10B), Hartwell Perry
Ordinary (CW-13F), Burdette’s Ordinary (CW-17C), and Marot’s Ordinary (CW-9L).
The Raleigh Tavern was investigated by Duell and Ragland in 1929-1930. Along
with the Governor’s Palace, this was one of the first excavations in Williamsburg, and
the foundation was carefully measured and photographed. Artifacts were collected by
site-wide provenience and earth was apparently screened. All of the other taverns except
Wetherburn’s were excavated in the period 1931-1957, when detailed recording
was not possible and only the foundations were exposed and mapped. The Wetherburn’s
Tavern excavation was performed by Noël Hume in 1965-1966. Using both architectural
and artifactual data he was able to produce a detailed reconstruction of the history
and importance of the property (Noël Hume 1969). A re-excavation of the Marot’s
Ordinary property, in addition, has been initiated by the Colonial Williamsburg Office
of Archaeological Excavation.
The growth of the town itself may also be reflected in the spatial organization of
the city and of outlying service industries, including the ferries and wharfs at College
Landing and Capitol Landing. Transportation was important to the visiting Burgesses,
and therefore became a crucial service industry in the vicinity of the waterways. Little
work has been done in this area beyond the 1976 College Landing survey, which identified
the presence of a ferry from documentary sources with some possible archaeological
evidence (Hudgins 1977).
53

SUB-THEME E: DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKET ECONOMY
The growth of a market economy in the study area was partially the result of the development
of the urban centers and the increasing relocation of craft specialists into the
cities. As planters, servants, and slaves became more dependent on the emerging urban
industries, a centralized system of services, goods, and exchange developed. The foci of
this system were the urban craftsmen, but the planter aristocracy kept control through
their political and economic power.
Tobacco continued to be a primary cash crop, and was sent directly to England for
sale. The English “factor,” assigned by the planter to sell his crop in Europe, was consigned
the crop by the planter in exchange for credit used to buy English goods. This
system, where the large planters consigned their own crops and those of poorer neighbors
directly to a dealer in England, gave enormous power to these large planters in
relation to their neighbors. In many parts of Virginia, however, merchants from Scotland
soon established trading stores in the Colony itself, selling English goods at a high
mark-up and purchasing tobacco directly from the growers (Isaac 1982: 137). Though
not particularly important on the James/York Peninsula, where consignment remained
the rule, these merchants would become an extremely important factor in the Colony’s
economic life.
As fewer and fewer goods were made directly on the plantation, however, local
merchants became more important in providing foods, furnishings, and tools. Selling
both Colony-made and European-made goods, these merchants were able to provide an
essential service in the new urban centers.
Many of the large merchants were also part of the aristocracy, and their economic
power was strongly felt. A large proportion were middle-class tradesmen and small
planters, however, simply providing a service for the elite planting gentry as well as
their neighboring craftsmen and small planters.
Merchant sites are located mostly in the urban centers. In Williamsburg they were
clustered along Duke of Gloucester Street, the town’s main thoroughfare. The sites
themselves consist of either large or relatively small stores, often located adjacent to the
owner’s dwelling house.
The growth of the merchant trades in and around Williamsburg has been partially
studied through the excavation of the 18th century shops of six merchants, three apothecaries,
and a grocer. These have included: the John Greenhow Store (CW-13G),
Archibald Blair’s Storehouse, Prentis Store (CW-17D), the Teterel Shop (CW-18E),
Tarpley’s Store (CW-9C), Holt’s Storehouse, the Margaret Hunter Shop (CW-17F), the
Carter Apothecary Shop (Unicorn’s Horn) (CW-17A), the Pasteur-Galt Apothecary,
McKenzie Apothecary, Dr. Gilmer’s Apothecary, and Hunter’s Store (Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation n.d.). Again most of the work has been spatial in nature, mapping
the brick foundations of the structures themselves.
A burgeoning market economy also expedited the importation of English goods
and the distribution of these goods, along with locally-made American products. By the
1760s, when creamware was introduced, a virtually world-wide market was opened up
for the Staffordshire potters. As goods could be more easily obtained and exchanged,
the differences between the elite gentry, the less affluent craftsmen and planters, and the
poor, including slaves, became apparent in their access to these now-changed markets.
54

Artifactual analyses of the material remains of these different classes would be a valuable
contribution to the study of marketing, and the partially-provenienced artifacts
recovered on a wide variety of Williamsburg sites, along with those found outside of
Williamsburg, have never been analyzed in this way.
SUB-THEME F: DIVERSIFICATION OF TIDEWATER
AGRICULTURE
Although the urban centers continued to grow and expand, the rural land-holdings continued
to be the base upon which the economy depended. Tobacco, which was to shape
Virginia’s economy for 300 years, was introduced in the colonies in the early 17th century
by John Rolfe. He experimented successfully with West Indian and Venezuelan
tobacco and within a few years the colonies were exporting tobacco to a ready market in
England. Tobacco farming became the Tidewater’s main industry, one that provided
enormous wealth for its largest planters.
Beginning in the early 18th century, however, economic advantages shifted to livestock
and grains, especially wheat (Sheridan 1984: 45). The transition from single- to
multi-crop agriculture transformed colonial society and economy. Planters, instead of
becoming more specialized, had to begin to supply a wider range of goods in order to
preserve their own self-sufficiency and to maintain their self-proclaimed position at the
top of the social hierarchy.
The importance of tobacco-growing has been studied on both the large plantations,
where the crops were actually grown, and at the shipping points from which they were
transported for sale. College and Capitol Landings (WB3 and WB5), near Williamsburg,
and Great Marsh, Messick Point, and Tinkersheires Neck, in Poquoson, were important
shipping points (Hudgins 1977; Watkins 1981). By 1730 formal tobacco inspection
warehouses had been established at both Williamsburg landings, and Carter Hudgins
(1977) has provided a detailed history of the tobacco-inspection system at College Landing.
The archaeological traces of these warehouses were not found.
Tobacco inspections at College and Capitol Landings continued in full force until
1778, when the number of inspectors was reduced to one (Hudgins 1977: 19). By this
time the planters had started to diversify their crops, and tobacco no longer held such an
overriding importance.
The extensive excavations performed by Kelso and others at Carter’s Grove and
the Kingsmill Plantations, which consider landscape features as well as structural ones,
have indicated that crop diversification may be partially reflected in archaeological
remains. At Littletown Plantation (JC34) Kelso was able to define a series of ditches
dividing the land into 2.5 acre plots, and using documentary evidence from 1736-1744
he suggests that this may have represented a divided-field system used for crop rotation
(Kelso 1984: 146). Direct archaeological evidence for crop diversification may consist
only of these kind of landscape features, but more indirect evidence, including the recovery
of specialized agricultural implements, may provide some further clues.
55

SUMMARY
The period 1689-1783 is perhaps the most completely studied of all six of the
European-American study units, with the work of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
the National Park Service, and others. Some 518 archaeological and architectural
sites have been identified, and physical archaeological and architectural remains have
been found on many of these sites. Some 140 of the sites have been extensively excavated,
most by cross-trenching but several by more modern techniques.
Nevertheless, several types of sites are badly underrepresented in the sample. Homes
of the small and middling planters have been relatively little studied, and the homes and
shops of early craftspeople need to be investigated more extensively. Early mills or
potteries would be highly significant sites, as would any evidence of early lumbering,
livestock raising, or shipping. Particularly little is known about urban slave life. Studies
of the housing and work-places of urban slaves and servants would be an especially
useful means of fleshing out the history of the period.
STUDY UNIT XI: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
National. After 1689 the study area assumed a new character. The stable, well-ordered
Chesapeake society of the previous century developed further along independent lines.
As Virginia grew, its influence expanded, and the influence of Virginia’s capital grew
concurrently. The presence of Virginia’s capital city at Williamsburg made the study
area a central one in Virginia’s colonial political and social history. The importance of
Virginia, and particularly this part of Virginia, in the social, economic, and political life
of the American Colonies gives this study unit national significance.
Summary of Property Types
There are at least 16 property types in this study unit. These are:
(1) Large rural plantations. Along with urban domestic properties, this is probably
the most intensely studied type of resource in the area. Large plantations
were investigated at Carter’s Grove and Kingsmill, while large plantation houses
have been found at Bryan Plantation, Kiskiack, and Porto Bello.
(2) Plantations of the small to middling planter. One of the most underrepresented
property types, these were also among the most common, far more so than the
large gentry-owned plantations. Some of the Kingsmill sites and structures
may have been owned by small planters or tenants (Kelso l984), but few others
have been studied.
(3) Tenant farms. None of these have yet been closely studied, yet it is known
that tenant farmers were numerous in the 18th century.
56

Map 4.6. Study Unit XI: Known Resource Distribution.
(4) Free black settlements. Some 150 free blacks were identified in James City
County by 1800, while only four families, eleven persons in all, were listed as
free blacks in the 1782 Williamsburg Census (see Study Unit XVII). The exact
locations of free black settlements are unknown, and their positions in the overall
settlement pattern must be analyzed.
(5) Urban domestic properties. Certainly the most intensively studied property
type, at least in Williamsburg, these sites and structures continue to be excavated
by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation as interpretive projects are
begun. In many cases, shop complexes are associated with the dwelling, making
these sites significant in the study of craft specialization.
(6) Urban plantations. These resources are not very well understood, although a
few have been excavated in Williamsburg. Lying mostly on the outskirts of the
urban centers, they seem to share some characteristics with rural plantations
but others with urban domestic properties.
(7) Slave quarters. Very few slave quarters, either urban or rural, have been studied.
Several were identified and excavated during the Kingsmill Project, and
undoubtedly some have been excavated during the Williamsburg investigations.
As discussed in Study Unit XVII, however, urban slave quarters are probably
hard to identify without good documentary evidence. At least one
57

TABLE 4.4
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 7 Lightfoot Site AS II 05 Unknown P.preserved
JC 8 Joseph Pettit Site AS III 05 Trash pit Excavated
JC 9 Green Spring Plantation AS III 05 Plantation Excavated
JC 24 None AS I 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 32 Utopia Cottage AS III 09 Domestic Exc./pres.
JC 34 Bray Plantation SB III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 35 Littletown Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 36 Johnston’s Mill AS I 09 Mill Unknown
JC 37 Kingsmill Plantation SB III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 38 Harrop Well AS III 09 Well Exc./eroded
JC 39 Kingsmill Quarter AS III 09 Domestic/ Excavated
slave quarter
JC 40 Burwell’s Landing AS III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 43 Drummond Site (GL-20, -21) AS III 08 Plantation Excavated
JC 44 Hampton Key AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 45 Tutter’s Neck AS III 09 Domestic Excavated
JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill Unknown
JC 48 Martin’s Hundred Graveyard AS I 10 Cemetery Unknown
JC 50 Chickahominy Shipyard Wreck AS I 04 Shipwreck Threatened
JC 52 North Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 54 Archer’s Hope Site AS I 09 Domestic/ Cultivated
agricultural
JC 62 Structure Site AS I 09 Domestic Unknown
JC 63 Bland Plantation SS I 09 Plantation Threatened
JC 64 Bland Plantation SS I 09 Plantation Threatened
JC 65 Maupin House AS I 09 Domestic Unknown
JC 66 Burnt Ordinary AS I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 67 Slater Site AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
JC 68 None AS I 09 Domestic Unknown
JC 76 Aperson Site AS I 06 Domestic Cultivated
JC 77 Stone House SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 79 Lane House AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
JC 80 Walsh House SB I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 84 GL-14 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 85 Marable Site (GL-16, -17) AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated
JC 86 GL-18 AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated
JC 87 GL-19 AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated
JC 88 GL-22 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 89 GL-23 AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated
JC 90 Sherwood-Wilkenson Site AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated
(GL-24)
JC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
* Not shown on Map 4.6.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
58

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 92 GL-28 AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 94 Ollister Site (GL-30) AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 95 William Loyd Site (GL-31) AS III 08 Domestic Destroyed
JC 96 GL-32 AS III 08 Unknown Threatened
JC 98 GL-34 AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 99 Thomas Easter Site (GL-35) AS III 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 100 GL-36 AS III 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 101 Gilliam (Workman-Humbler) AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated
Site (GL-37, -37A, -37B,
-40, -40A)
JC 102 Main Church Site (GL-27, AS III 08 Ecclesiastical Cultivated
-38, -39)
JC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 104 Tallent Site (GL-42) AS III 08 Domestic Destroyed
JC 105 Hunt Site (GL-43) AS III 08 Domestic Cult./dest.
JC 106 Parkway Site (GL-44) AS I 08 Unknown Unknown
JC 107 None AS I 08 Boundary Unknown
marker
JC 108 None AS I 08 Boundary Unknown
marker
JC 109 Carter’s Grove Plantation SB III 09/ Plantation Protected
10
JC 110 Carter’s Grove Tannery () AS III 09 Tannery Excavated
JC 111 Carter’s Grove Brick Clamps AS III 09 Brick clamps Excavated
JC 112 Carter’s Grove AS III 10 Domestic Excavated
JC 123 Powhatan Farm SB I 05 Plantation Destroyed
JC 124 Hickory Neck Church SB II 02 Ecclesiastical Good
JC 138 None AS I 10 Domestic Unknown
JC 139 Poplar Grove SB I 10 Plantation Unknown
JC 157 None AS I 08 Unknown Unknown
JC 160 Governor’s Land #10 (GL-10) AS I 08 Hunting stat./ Cult./thr.
domestic
JC 165 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 166 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 167 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 168 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 169 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 170 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 171 Moody’s Wharf AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknown
commercial
JC 172 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 177 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
JC 187 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
JC 188 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 193 Six Mile (Allen’s) Ordinary AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed
JC 238 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
59

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 239 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
JC 242 None AS MR 09 Unknown Unknown
JC 244 Battery AS MR 09 Battery Unknown
JC 245 Battery AS MR 09 Battery Unknown
JC 246 None AS MR 09 Unknown Unknown
JC 247 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
JC 291 Windsor Castle SB I 02 Domestic Excellent
JC 298 GL-21 AS I 08 Cellar/surface Cult./thr.
scatter
JC 313 GL-11 AS I 08 Domestic Cult./eroded
JC 318 GL-16 AS I 08 Sawmill/ Eroded
ferry/wharf
JC 326 None AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 355 GL-28 AS I 08 Camp/dom. Cult./p.dest.
JC 356 GL-29 AS I 08 Camp/dom. Cult./p.dest.
JC 357 GL-30 AS I 08 Camp/ Cult./p.dest.
domestic
JC 358 GL-31 AS I 08 Domestic Cultivated
JC 359 Rt. 199 Ext. A-3 AS I 06 Mill dam Good
47- 4 Powhatan Creek SB I 08 Domestic Unknown
47- 7 Harris House SB I 05 Domestic Poor
47-27 Warrenton SB I 05 Domestic Good
47-43 Amblers on the James SB I 08 Domestic Unknown
47-46 Colonel George James Place SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
47-58 Drinking Spring AS I 05 Domestic Destroyed
47-87 Durfey’s Mill DS I 09 Mill Destroyed
U- 1 Challis Site AS I Industrial Unknown
U- 3 Chickahominy Church Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery Destroyed
U- 11 Merry Oaks Site AS I 02 Domestic Unknown
U- 22 Coles (Barrett’s) Ferry AS I 05 Ferry Unknown
U- 23 Crawley House Site AS DR 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 25 New Magazine Site AS I 06 Military Destroyed
U- 27 Rich Neck Plantation Site AS I 06 Plantation Unknown
U- 28 Spratley House Site AS I 09 Domestic Unknown
YORK COUNTY:
YO 7 Bryan Manor Plantation SB I 06 Plantation/ Fair
cemetery
YO 9 Julius G. Hopson House AS I 14 Unknown Cult./p.dest.
(Halfway House)
YO 12 Cornwallis Cave Shipwreck AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 13 Yorktown Windmill AS I 10 Windmill Undisturbed
YO 14 Edward Thomas Site AS I 06 Quaker Unknown
domestic
YO 15 Burkes Corner AS III 06 Quaker Excavated
domestic
YO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker Unknown
eccles.
60

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Ecc/cemetery/ Unknown
domestic
YO 21 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 24 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 28 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 30 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 31 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 32 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 33 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 34 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 38 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 41 None AS I 06 Unknown
YO 43 None AS I 06 Domestic
YO 44 None AS I 06 Domestic
YO 45 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 56 Custis Plantation AS I 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 57 House Site AS I 06 Domestic Destroyed
YO 58 “Mr. Bill” House AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 59 New Quarter Site AS I 06 Domestic Undisturbed
YO 60 Bruton Parish Poor House Site AS I 06 Poor house Undisturbed
YO 61 Piggott’s (Fenton) Mill SS I 06 Mill Poor
YO 62 Whitaker’s House AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 63 Blair’s Quarter Site AS III 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 64 Bellfield Plantation AS I 07 Plantation/ Unknown
cemetery
YO 65 Travis House Site AS I 07 Domestic Destroyed
YO 76 Drewry House AS I 11 Domestic Cultivated
YO 85 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 86 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Poor
YO 88 None AS III 10 Shipwreck Unknown
YO 89 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 91 Harwoods Mill Reservoir AS I 11 Domestic Undisturbed
Location # 1
YO 94 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 95 Old House Site AS Inf 10 Domestic Unknown
YO 98 Kirby Site AS I 14 Domestic Threatened
YO 99* Nelson House SB III 10 Domestic P.exc./rest.
YO 100* Smith House SB III 10 Domestic P.exc./rest.
YO 101* Ballard House SB III 10 Domestic/ P.exc./rest.
battery
YO 102 William Rogers Pottery AS III 10 Industrial P.excavated
Factory
YO 103 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 107 American Redoubt AS I 11 Earthworks Excavated
61

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 110 None AS I 06 Quaker ind./ Unknown
domestic
YO 112 None AS I 06 Domestic/ Unknown
commercial
YO 115 None AS I 10 Domestic Protected
YO 117 Widow Drewry House AS I 11 /domestic Cult./p.dest.
YO 118 Taylor One AS I 11 Unknown Cult./p.dest.
YO 123 Harwoods Mill 11A AS I 11 Multi- P.destroyed
component
YO 124 Harwoods Mill 11A AS I 11 Multi- P.destroyed
component
YO 126 Harwoods Mill B AS I 11 Multi- Cult./p.dest.
component
YO 144 None AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 160* None AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 162 None AS Inf 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyed
military camp
YO 179 None AS I 11 Lithic scatter P.destroyed
YO 182 None AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr.
scatter
YO 183 None AS I 11 Unknown Eroded
YO 205 Skimino Hills AS II 06 Domestic Destroyed
YO 206 None AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr.
scatter
YO 208 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 212* None AS I 10 Domestic Eroded
YO 217 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
commercial
YO 218 British Encampments AS III 10 Military Excavated
encampments
YO 219 Grand French Battery AS III 10 Battery/ Excavated
earthworks
YO 220 Mid-Second Siege Parallel AS III 10 Earthworks Excavated
YO 235 HM 1 AS I 11 Domestic Unknown
YO 238 HM 13 AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 239 HM 16 AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 241 HM 21 AS I 11 Domestic Unknown
YO 242 Skimino Mill AS Inf 06 Grist mill/ Destroyed
sawmill
YO 243* None AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 245 Colonial Yorktown Wharf AS I 10 Wharf Threatened
YO 246 Plantation Complex AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 247 St. Simone’s Warpost AS MR 06 Military post Unknown
YO 249 Courthouse Yard AS I 10 Midden Disturbed
YO 252 William Franklin House AS MR 11 Domestic Unknown
YO 253 Calthrop “Manner House” AS MR 11 Domestic Unknown
62

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 255 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 256 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 257 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 258 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Destroyed
cemetery
YO 259 None AS MR 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown
YO 260 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 261 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 262 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 264 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 265 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 266 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 268 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 269 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 270 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity AS MR 06 Commercial Unknown
YO 273 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 274 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 275 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 276 None AS MR 06 Quaker dom. Unknown
YO 277 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 280 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 282 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 284 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 285 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 286 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 287 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 288 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 289 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 290 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 291 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 292 None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 293 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 294 Porto Bello AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 295 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 296 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 297 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 298* None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 299 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 300 None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 302 None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 303 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 304 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 305 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
63

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 306 Foace’s Quarter AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 307 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 308 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 309 Custis (Waller’s) Mill AS MR 06 Grist mill Unknown
YO 312 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
YO 313 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
YO 314 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 315 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 316 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter Unknown
YO 317 None AS MR 07 Plantation Unknown
YO 318 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 319 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 320 Ringfield Plantation SB I 07 Plantation Unknown
YO 321 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 322 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter Unknown
YO 323 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 324 None AS MR 07 Domestic/ Unknown
slave quarter
YO 325 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 326 None AS MR 07 Domestic/ Unknown
slave quarter
YO 327 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 328 None AS I 06 Shell midden Unknown
YO 329 None AS I 06 /domestic Unknown
YO 330 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 331 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 332 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 333 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 334 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 335 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 336 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 337 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 338 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 339 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 340 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 341 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 342 Nelson House AS MR 10 Domestic Unknown
YO 343 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 344 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 346 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 347 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 348 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 349 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 350 Revolutionary War Battery AS MR 11 Battery Unknown
YO 351 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 352 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
64

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 353 French Hospital AS MR 10 Military Unknown
hospital
YO 354 American Hospital AS MR 10 Military Unknown
hospital
YO 355 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 356 American Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 357 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 358 American Artillery Park AS MR 10 Battery Unknown
YO 359 General Rochambeau’s AS MR 10 Military Unknown
Headquarters headquarters
YO 360 Adjuctant General’s AS MR 10 Military Unknown
Headquarters headquarters
YO 361 French Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknown
and Cemetery
cemetery
YO 362 Washington’s Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknown
and Cemetery
cemetery
YO 363 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 364 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 365 Military Camp AS MR 10 Military Unknown
encampment
YO 366 Potter Site AS MR 10 Domestic Unknown
YO 367 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 368 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 369 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 370 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 371 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 372 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 373 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 374 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 376 SSE L-1 AS II 06 Unknown Threatened
YO 377 SSE M-1 AS II 06 Unknown Threatened
YO 378 SSE P-1 AS II 06 Domestic Threatened
YO 380 Benthall Farm AS Inf 10 Domestic Cult./p.dest.
YO 384 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 385 Burwell’s Mill AS II 06 Water mill Unknown
YO 386 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 387 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 388 None AS MR 06 Battery Unknown
YO 389 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 390 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 391 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 392 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 393 Surrender Field Site AS I 10 /battlefield P.destroyed
YO 394 Burwell’s Mill Brick Kiln #1 AS II 06 Brick kiln Logged/
eroded
YO 395 Burwell’s Mill Brick Kiln #2 AS II 06 Brick kiln Logged/
eroded
65

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 397 Burwell’s Mill Industrial AS II 06 Industrial Unknown
Feature Complex
YO 401* None AS I 10 Domestic Cultivated
JC 243 None AS MR 09 Unknown Unknown
JC 299 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 300 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
99- 4* Customs House SB I 10 Storehouse/ Excellent
meetinghouse
99- 8* None AS I 10 Domestic Unknown
99- 9* None AS I 10 Domestic Unknown
99-10* Grace Episcopal Church SB I 10 Ecclesiastical Excellent
99-12 Kiskiack SB I 10 Domestic Good
99-13* Somerwell House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent
99-14 Marl Bank SB I 11 Domestic Good
99-15* Post Office SB I 10 Medical shop Excellent
99-16 Moore House SB I 11 Domestic Excellent
99-19* Session House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent
99-22* Dudley Digges House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent
99-23* Wharf Buildings SB I 10 Commercial Unknown
99-24 Virginia Farm Group SB I 11 Domestic Unknown
99-27* Thomas Pate House SB I 10 Domestic Excellent
99-28* York County Courthouse SB I 10 Public Unknown
99-34* DeNeufville Cottage SB I 10 Domestic Excellent
U- 35 Ballentine House AS I Domestic Unknown
U- 92* Presson House DB I Domestic Destroyed
CITY OF POQUOSON:
YO 10 None AS Inf 11 Unknown Cultivated
YO 69 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed
YO 70 Bennett’s Farm AS I 11 Domestic Cult./thr.
YO 77 None AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 80 None AS I 12 Unknown Unknown
YO 81 None AS I 15 Unknown Unknown
YO 97 None AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed
YO 106 Roberts Creek Site AS II 11 Domestic Cultivated
U- 61 Messick’s Point SS I 14 Landing Unknown
U- 74* Tinkersheires Neck AS Inf Landing Unknown
U- 75* Great Marsh AS Inf Landing Unknown
U- 88* Everard Robinson House SB I Domestic Unknown
U- 89* None DB I Domestic Destroyed
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ Stable
warehouses
WB 5 Capitol Landing AS I 06 Landing/ P.destroyed
(Queen Mary’s Port)
warehouses
WB 8 President’s House Yard AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
WB 9 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
66

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
WB 12 Peacock Hill #1 SB I 06 Domestic Unknown
WB 13 Adair Site AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 14 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 15 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 16 Ludwell’s Mill AS MR 06 Mill assoc. Unknown
WB 17 Ludwell’s Mill AS MR 06 Grist mill Unknown
WB 18 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
WB 19 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 20* None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 21* None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 22 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 23 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 24 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 25 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 26 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 27 SSE A-1 AS II 06 Artifact Threatened
scatter
WB 28 SSE B-1 AS II 06 Domestic Threatened
WB 30 Colonial Williamsburg AS III 06 Town Protected
Historic Area
CW-1A* Bassett Hall SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-1B* Benjamin Waller House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-1C* Powell House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-2A* James Semple House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-2B* Dana Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-2C* Moody Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-2D* Ewing House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-2E* Graves House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-2F* Lot East of Graves Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-2G* Lot East of Graves Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-2H* C hiswell-Bucktrout House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-2I* Orrell House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-2J* Dana Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-2K* Bracken-Carter House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-2L* Morris-Messick Lots DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-2N* St. John’s House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-2P* Hubard Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-3A* Allen-Byrd (Lightfoot) House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-3B* Lot West of Allen-Byrd House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-3C* Corner of Francis & England AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
Streets
CW-4A* Nicholas-Tyler House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-4C* Public Hospital DB III 06 Hospital P.exc./recon.
CW-5* Griffin House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-7A* Christiana Campbell’s Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-7B* George Jackson House & Shop SB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./rest.
industrial
67

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
CW-7B* David Morton House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-7B* Isham Goddin House & Shop DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
industrial
CW-7C* Elizabeth Carlos House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-7D* Powell-Waller House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-7F* Nicolson House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-8A* Ayscough House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-8B* Carter-Moir Lot DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-8C* Capitol DB III 06 Public P.exc./recon.
CW-8D* Lot East of Capitol AS III 06 Public P.excavated
CW-8E* Blue Bell Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-8F* Savage Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-8G* Christian Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-8H* L.W. Lane Property AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-9A* Macon Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-9B* King’s Arms Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-9C* Tarpley’s Store DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon.
CW-9E* King’s Arms Barber Shop DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon.
CW-9F* Alexander Purdie House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-9H South End of Colonial AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
&D* Lots 22 & 23
CW-9J* Nelson-Galt House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-9K* Palmer House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-9L* Marot’s Ordinary SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest.
CW-9M* John Coke Office DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-9N* Wetherburn’s Tavern SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest.
CW-9P* Charlton House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-10A, James Anderson House SB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./rest.
E&G* & Forges industrial
CW-10B* Brick House Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-10C* Mary Stith Shop DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
commercial
CW-10D* Lewis House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-10F* Dr. Barraud Lot SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-10G* Lot East of Shewmake House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-11A* Nightingale (Lightfoot) House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-11B Lot East of Masonic Lodge AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
&C*
CW-11D* Peter Hay House DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
industrial
CW-11E* George Reid House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-12A* Market Square Tavern SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest.
CW-12A Powder Magazine SB III 06 Military P.exc./rest.
&B*
CW-13A* Custis-Maupin House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-13B* Greenhow-Repiton House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-13D* Taliaferro-Cole House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
68

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
CW-13F* Greenhow-Repiton Brick Office DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
(Debtor’s Prison)
public
CW-13F* Hartwell-Perry Ordinary DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-13G* John Greenhow Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-13I* Corner of Duke of AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
Gloucester & King Streets
CW-13J* Peter Scott House AS III 06 Domestic/ P.excavated
commercial
CW-14A* Douglas Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-14B* Bryan Lot DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-14C* Blaikley-Durfey Lot DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-14D* Moir Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-14E* John Lockley House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-14G* Travis House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-15A Post Office AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
&B*
CW-16A* Wren Building SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
CW-16B* President’s House SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
CW-16C* Brafferton Hall SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
CW-17A* Craig Shop DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon.
CW-17A* Carter Shop DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon.
CW-17B* Raleigh Tavern SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest.
CW-17C* Burdette’s Ordinary DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-17C R ed Lion Inn SB III 06 Tavern P.exc./rest.
&H*
CW-17D* Prentis Store SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest.
CW-17E* Public Records Office SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest.
CW-17F* Margaret Hunter Shop SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest.
CW-17G* Alexander Craig House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-17G* Joseph Scivener Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-17H* Pierce Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-17I* Russell House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-17J* Nicolson Shop SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest.
CW-18A Ludwell-Paradise House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
&B*
CW-18C* Preentis Store SB III 06 Commercial P.exc./rest.
CW-18D* Pitt-Dixon House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-18E* Teterel Shop AS III 06 Commercial P.excavated
CW-18G* Waters-Coleman House DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-18H* Printing Office DB III 06 Commercial P.exc./recon.
CW-18I* Red Lion Inn DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
CW-19A James Geddy House SB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./rest.
&B*
industrial
CW-19C* Courthouse of 1770 SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest.
CW-19D* Chowning’s Tavern DB III 06 Tavern P.exc./recon.
(Annex Site)
CW-20A* Governor’s Palace DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
69

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
CW-21A* George Wythe House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-21B* Bruton Parish Church SB III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.exc./rest.
CW-22A* Casey Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-22B* Archibald Blair House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-22C* Minor Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-23A* Goodwin Building Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-27A* Coke-Garrett House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-27B* Public Gaol SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest.
CW-27C* Wales House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-28A* Peter Ludwell’s Tenement DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./recon.
CW-28B, Peyton Randolph House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
G&H*
CW-28C Robertson’s Windmill DS III 06 Windmill P.exc./recon.
&E*
CW-28C* Corner of Scotland & AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
England Streets
CW-28D* Anthony Hay House & Shop DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
industrial
CW-28D* Tayloe House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-28E* Peyton Randolph Property AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-28F* Ravenscroft Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-28I* Corner of Scotland & AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
England Streets
CW-29A* Levingston House AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-29C* Archibald Blair House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-29E* Brush-Everard House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-29F* Brush-Everard Dam AS III 06 Dam P.excavated
CW-29G* First Theatre Site AS III 06 Playhouse P.excavated
CW-29H* Archibald Blair Stable AS III 06 Stable P.excavated
CW-30A* Robert Carter House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-30B* Elkanah Deane House & Forge DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
industrial
CW-30C* Carter/Deane Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-34A* Corner of Scotland & AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
England Streets
CW-42* Abby Aldrich Rockefeller AS III 06 Unknown P.excavated
Folk Art Center Lot
CW-42A* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved
CW-44A* Jane Cary House DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-44B* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved
CW-44D* Galt Cottage DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-45* Powell-Hallam House DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-45* Galt Cottage DB III 06 Domestic P.excavated
CW-46A* First National Bank Lot AS III 06 Domestic P.excavated
WB 31 SSE E-2 AS II 06 Artifact Threatened
scatter
WB 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
70

TABLE 4.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
WB 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 37 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 38 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 39 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 40 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 41 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 42 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 43 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 301 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 302 None AS MR 06 Battery Unknown
JC 303 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
137- 5* Rev. Bracken House SB I 06 Domestic Restored
137-10* Providence Hall SS I 06 Domestic/ Excellent
commercial
137-36* William Timson House SB I 06 Domestic Unknown
137-38* Geddy-Baker, Inman Office SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
137-42 * Bell Mead SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
137-46 Wheatland DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
137-53* Rabon House DB I 06 Domestic Unknown
U- 38* Parks’ Paper Mill DS I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U-101* Pasteur-Galt Apothecary SB I 06 Commercial Recon.
U-102* John Crump House SB I 06 Domestic Recon.
U-103* McKenzie Apothecary SB I 06 Commercial Recon.
U-126* Miss Hallam’s School for DB DR 06 School Unknown
Females
U-127* “Negro School” DB DR 06 School Unknown
mostly-unexcavated property in Williamsburg, the Nicolson House (CW-7A),
has the potential of containing fairly intact slave quarters; most of the rest have
probably been disturbed.
(8) Public buildings. The public buildings of Williamsburg and Yorktown have
been fairly well investigated, particularly the Capitol. Few of these sites, however,
have been dug with modern techniques, and thus their archaeological
record is often spotty.
(9) Churches and cemeteries. Several churches have been investigated, notably
Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg and Hickory Neck Church in James
City County. Cemeteries and family plots are less well known, particularly
those designed for the poorer classes. Revolutionary War military cemeteries
and church graveyards have been located in several areas.
(10) Schools. Other than the College of William and Mary, intensively studied for
years, many schools for this period have not yet been located. Clearly they
existed, and by 1699 Williamsburg is said to have contained, in addition to the
College, a “grammar school” (Anonymous 1930).
71

(11) Taverns and ordinaries. Urban taverns and ordinaries have been excavated
in Williamsburg and Yorktown, but the taverns located at various crossroads
are little known.
(12) Commercial properties. These properties are known mostly from the urban
centers, and outlying commercial areas on the outskirts of these centers or in
the countryside are not very well understood.
(13) Industrial or craft-related properties. Industrial properties have been studied
both in the urban centers and in the rural areas. Mills have been identified
on several streams, but none have been intensively studied. Clearly mills were
found on almost every stream, and often in great numbers. Potteries, forges,
and workshops were found near the dwellings of both urban and rural craft
specialists. More ephemeral properties, such as crude brick kilns or brick clamps,
were often found near the site of construction activities.
(14) Landings and wharfs. These resources were often found on both the James
and York Rivers, and on their navigable tributary creeks. Particularly important
landings were in the Poquoson area, on the York River, and Capitol and
College Landings, on the outskirts of Williamsburg.
(15) Shipwrecks. At least eight Revolutionary War shipwrecks in the York River
have been surveyed, and one (YO88) is the object of a continuing intensive
underwater excavation. These ships, all merchant-class vessels, are clearly associated
with Cornwallis’ defense at Yorktown, and thus associated with a significant
event in the Revolutionary War.
(16) Earthworks, batteries, and other military sites. Sites associated with Revolutionary
War battles are found mostly near Yorktown, and many are protected
as part of Colonial National Historical Park. Several earthworks were investigated
by Southside Historical Sites, Inc. in the late 1970s.
Character of Existing Data
Certain property types in this study unit, particularly urban domestic structures, are
extremely well studied. Others, particularly rural domestic properties and farms of the
poor to middle class, are less well represented. Architectural surveys have concentrated
on the urban properties in Williamsburg and Yorktown and the well-built, preserved
plantation houses; little has been done with lower-class vernacular architecture, industrial
sites, or slave settlements. Archaeological site records and architectural survey
forms furnish little information beyond location and general site type for many properties,
and many investigations are poorly reported. Almost no site located simply from a
cartographic source has been field checked, although the few that have suggest that the
maps are quite accurate. The most important identification priorities, therefore, are field
checks of those known late 18th-century sites located from maps, and detailed recording
of any earlier 18th-century sites and structures accidentally or purposefully discovered.
72

Criteria for Evaluation
National Register standards are based on both type of significance and integrity. In this
period, a property can be eligible for the Register under any one of the four criteria for
significance: A, assocation with significant events in the broad patterns of our history;
B, assocation with the lives of persons significant in our past; C, embodiment of distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or the work of a master;
or D, potential for information important to the history of the past. Integrity means that
the resource must be sufficiently intact to answer the relevant research questions, whether
standing or not. Structural integrity is important for some categories of resources, but
certain aspects of some properties (or even the entire property in some cases) may only
be present as archaeological remains, and yet be significant nonetheless.
Evaluation of the importance of a property, from a research standpoint, is not solely
tied to its potential eligibility for the Register. The most underrepresented property types
or most unique resources are most important from a research standpoint, since they
have the most potential to contribute to historical knowledge. For these resources, integrity
requirements may not need to be so exacting as long as the resource is capable of
yielding valuable and analyzable information about the property type. This is not necessarily
incongruent with National Register standards, as most such resources probably
would fulfill (if barely) the Register’s integrity requirements. It should be realized, however,
that research importance is based more on information potential than on intactness.
Similarly, public values and community interests do not necessarily require structural
integrity. These values, though not explicitly part of National Register criteria, are
undoubtedly important in determining the importance of a specific property.
The situation is somewhat different for the well-studied, well- represented properties
of this period. Integrity must be extremely good to make an example of a
well-represented property type important, and proportionately less so for
underrepresented types. In this period aesthetic qualities and/or public values may make
a well-represented property type more significant than it would otherwise be (e.g., a
well-built plantation house or church), though this criterion has probably been overused
at the expense of small to middling farms, tenant farms, and industrial sites. While at
least one representative example of each property type should be preserved, at this
point preservation efforts should be aimed at protecting the best possible examples of
the most underrepresented properties.
Present Condition of Property Types
Development pressure is undoubtedly the most serious threat to sites and structures of
this study period. In contrast to 17th-century sites, cartographic and documentary data
make it more likely that these properties can be identified before development takes
place, even in the absence of on-the-ground survey, and therefore managed more effectively.
Many properties have never been located on the ground, however, and the condition
of any archaeological or architectural remains is unknown. This is particularly true
of resources on military installations in the area.
73

About half of the identified properties have been surveyed, and as a result of this
only a small portion have been preserved. This does not include the properties in the
Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area, most of which have been partially excavated,
rehabilitated, and preserved, or those in Colonial National Historical Park, many of
which have been restored or reconstructed. National Register properties dating to this
period include: Carter’s Grove Plantation, the Chickahominy Shipyard, Hickory Neck
Church, Kingsmill Plantation, Pinewoods, Powhatan, Stone House, Tutter’s Neck, Bruton
Parish Poorhouse, Bryan Plantation, Grace Church, Kiskiack, Porto Bello, the Yorktown
Historic District, the Yorktown Shipwrecks, Bruton Parish Church, Capitol Landing,
College Landing, the Peyton Randolph House, the James Semple House, the
Williamsburg Historic District, the Wren Building, and the George Wythe House. One
of these, Powhatan, has recently been seriously compromised despite its presence on
the Register, and an important cultural resource has thereby been lost. Many more properties,
of course, are potentially eligible for the Register but have not been nominated.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
Because this time period is relatively well studied, identification priorities are fairly
specific, and large-scale, comprehensive surveys are not needed. Evaluative tasks, as
well as identification surveys for certain property types, can be performed in the next
one or two years. After some of these evaluation tasks are completed, it should be
possible to isolate a number of National Register-eligible properties, which should be
nominated. Treatment goals may be site-specific, as those for College Landing, or general
and ongoing, for the currently-protected properties controlled by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Colonial National Historical Park, and the College of William
and Mary.
Identification Goals
• An architectural survey of all standing industrial sites and structures—mills, potteries,
forges, etc. Detailed recording of plans, methods of construction, and datable
characteristics should be included. This survey should be performed by a
trained architectural historian with knowledge of 18th-century industrial technology,
and should include recommendations for preservation of relevant examples
of each represented property type.
• Preparation of a series of maps showing landholding patterns in those areas where
records are available, identifying the socio-economic status of the occupant and
the condition or presence of the associated archaeological site. This would allow
easier evaluation of the research potential of individual properties. While a start on
this is the work of the York County Project, and specifically the 1704 cadastral
map prepared by Bergstrom and Ferguson (l985), such maps do not explicitly link
the landholdings to identified or suspected archaeological sites, reducing their effectiveness
for site-specific resource preservation.
• An evaluation of the probable present condition of known sites and structures in
James City County, York County, and the City of Poquoson, particularly those
74

identified only from the 1781 Berthier Map. This would include an archival evaluation
of present and past land-use, as well as selected field checks. Particular attention
should be paid to areas slated to come up for development by 1990, and, given
access, the condition of resources on military installations in York County. This
project can be carried out cooperatively by the College of William and Mary, the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and avocational groups such as the Archaeological
Society of Virginia. Records of conditions, including field checks, should
be added to site records housed at the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks’
Research Center for Archaeology.
Evaluation Goals
• An analysis of the number and condition of artifact assemblages from Williamsburg
excavations (1957-1982) which could be used to address research questions for
this study period. This may be done by staff at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
as part of the proposed Colonial Williamsburg Management Plan, and the list
of recommended research reports should be distributed to local students, professionals,
and avocationals.
• A continuation of Liddle and Styrna’s analysis of the 18th-century evolution of
Williamsburg settlement patterns, with additional analysis relating these patterns
to archaeological remains. Important work done at Alexandria (Cressey and
Stephens 1982) has shown the benefits of a city-site approach to material remains,
and this approach is recommended as one that will prove valuable for researchers
at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, when analysis of material remains is
integrated with the results of the York County Project.
• A re-evaluation of buildings adjacent to the Historic Area of Colonial Williamsburg
for possible individual nomination to the National Register. Possible candidates
for nomination according to architectural and associational criteria would include
Bassett Hall, the Timson House, and the Griffin House. This re-evaluation should
be performed by architectural historians affiliated with the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation as part of their proposed management plan.
Registration Goals
• Nomination of identified properties of the small to middling planter, tenant, or free
black to the National Register under Criterion A or Criterion D. No such properties
have yet been identified, but site-specific documentary research for proposed
developments or research projects such as those described above may uncover
likely candidates.
Treatment Goals
• A Phase I survey, followed by Phase III salvage of archaeological remains associated
with College Landing (WB3), and preservation of all remains not to be im-
75

pacted by the proposed Port Coves development. Where necessary, salvage excavation
should be performed to the highest professional standards, and can be undertaken
cooperatively by the Colonial Williamsburg Department of Archaeology
and the College of William and Mary Departments of Anthropology and History.
Because this particular property is now endangered, this task has the highest priority.
• Proper recording of architectural and/or archaeological details of properties slated
for development. Preservation or Phase III excavation is recommended for the
most significant sites described above; Phase I or II recording of more
well-represented, less significant sites is recommended.
• Continued preservation in place of the following National Register properties:
Carter’s Grove Plantation, Hickory Neck Church, Kingsmill Plantation, Pinewoods,
Stone House, Tutter’s Neck Site, Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site, Bryan Plantation,
Grace Church, Kiskiack, Porto Bello, Bruton Parish Church, Capitol Landing, the
Peyton Randolph House, the James Semple House, the Wren Building, and the
George Wythe House. Any rehabilitation to any structure or building should be
done in accordance with the Secretary’s standards (U.S. Department of the Interior
1983).
• Preservation of all intact shipwrecks in the York River as a future underwater archaeological
resource.
• Continued preservation and interpretation of sites in the Williamsburg and Yorktown
Historic Districts by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and Colonial National
Historical Park.
76

STUDY UNIT XII.
THE WORLD THE SLAVES AND SLAVEHOLDERS
MADE (A.D. 1783–A.D. 1865)
Major Theme: Expansion and decline of bond-labor based economy and
society.
Sub-Themes: A. Population decline and stabilization.
B. Expansion of slave-based mixed-crop economy and
improved agricultural methods.
C. Solidification of the ideals and economy of slave society.
D. Establishment of free black communities.
E. Fledgling manufactures and non-agricultural activities.
F. Williamsburg and Yorktown as local town centers.
Significance: Regional
After the Revolution the political influence of the Lower Tidewater waned as the locus
of wealth, power, and population shifted toward the Piedmont. However, despite its
diminished political status, the society and economy of the Lower Tidewater remained
viable, in large measure due to the successful new uses made of slave labor. Even those
who seemingly functioned outside of this system—free blacks and slaveless whites—
were inextricably linked to a society sharply divided on racial lines.
James City and York County and the City of Williamsburg underwent enormous
changes between the Revolution and the Civil War, suffering a decline in population
and economic well-being in the first three decades of the 19th century. With improved
agricultural methods, however, Tidewater agriculture and economy was revitalized and
by mid-century a new order had evolved. By virtue of its diversified agriculture and
decreased average farm size, the Tidewater was more similar to the Middle Atlantic or
Northern states, with the profoundly important difference of slavery.
Additionally, by the end of the 18th century the national importance of this area
had ceased. Matters of national or state exigency were decided elsewhere and only one
national leader emerged in this era, President John Tyler. Land that had once produced
the finest and most expensive orinoco and sweet-scented tobacco was now indistinguishable
from much of the country in the general production of wheat and corn.
This time period is significant in James City and York Counties and the City of
Williamsburg for several reasons. First, this peninsula’s long history can be studied as a
375-year continuum of permanent settlement, impossible in most areas of the
country. Second, this area is a microcosm of the entire Tidewater region and the problems
caused by an expanding western frontier, the decline of agricultural production
and the failure to capitalize on a changing and increasingly urbanized and mechanized
world were all encountered there. Finally, this era provides a link from the recreated
18th century past to modern-day reality, particularly as the period in which many modern
roads and agricultural techniques were developed. Many of the buildings and structures
from this era are in current use and reflect the utilization of the past in modern
daily life.
77

Map 4.7.
According to Dell Upton, two stages of growth can be seen in the number and type
of dwellings built in southeastern Virginia during the post-Revolutionary period. A “Great
Rebuilding” occurred in the wake of the war and many new houses were built, renovated,
or at least redecorated in the Federal style. In the last quarter of the 18th century
it seems that many area residents occupying post-in-the-ground structures were able to
build their first “substantial” houses. Beginning around 1825, economic upswing in the
agricultural sector enabled many to build larger houses. During the second quarter of
the 19th century the classic “I-house” developed: a central-passage, single-pile, two-story
structure (Upton 1979: 369). The beginnings of the “I-house” can be traced to the 1790s
and its construction continued until the early 20th century. Plate 4.6 illustrates a late
19th-century example of this style of dwelling.
Between the Revolution and the Civil War many styles of architecture flourished.
Examples of Federal/Adamesque, Jeffersonian or Roman Revival, Greek Revival, Egyptian
Revival, early Victorian and Italianate styles can be found in Virginia, particularly
in the expanding cities and towns of the Piedmont and Shenandoah Valley (Maddox
1985: 80-82; O’Neal 1968: 13).
In view of the region’s limited economic growth, little new construction occurred,
especially of public buildings. As a result, few classic examples of these styles remain
in the study area. Their influence can be seen, though, in various domestic and church
buildings. For instance, Ewell Plantation (JC189), built in 1845 by the president of the
College of William and Mary, has strong elements of Greek Revival architecture. Local
tradition holds that it was later the headquarters of General Sherman (see Plate 4.7).
The Geddy Farm House (White Hall) (no site number) is located northeast of
Anderson’s Corner at Route 60 and Route 168. This two-story frame farmhouse has an
interior made up of a side hall, double-pile plan. Built during the early 19th century,
with later frame wings, it is said to be a well-preserved example of Federal period
architecture in James City County.
78

Plate 4.6. Late 19th-Century “I-house.”
79

Plate 4.7. Ewell Plantation.
80

Even though the construction of substantial plantation houses and estates slowed
in the early 19th century, some large homes were built. These included Shellfield Plantation
and Riverview (JC185), the only plantation home left on the York River in James
City County. Waterview (99-6), at the end of Route 631 on the York River, although
built in 1836, belongs to the 18th-century grand era of the Tidewater. A two-and-a-half
story frame structure, it measures 60' × 24' with a central staircase and flanking chimneys.
Many modestly prosperous farmsteads and town dwellings were also built. For
instance, Jockey’s Neck Farm (47-74) is said to be “typical of those built by small
farmers in Tidewater in the first half of the 19th century” (VDHL site records). The
dwelling is described as a simple three-bay one and a half story frame house with American
bond chimney and built on a brick pier foundation. Other 19th-century farm houses
included LaGrange (47-31) (Plate 4.8), Lombardy Farm (JC290), Clover Dale (47-54),
and the Vaiden House (JC208) (Plate 4.9).
One interesting small structure is Colonel William Allen’s place, which appears to
have been built by a farmer of middling economic means (Plate 4.10). It is a
one-and-a-half story wood frame structure with a brick English basement. The west
chimney is dated “W W 1790” and laid in English bond; the east chimney is laid in
Flemish bond. It is reported, however, to have characters and features of a house type of
the mid-19th century (VDHL site form). In its current use it is attached to a mobile
home, the two serving as expanded dwelling space.
Archaeological investigations of such early 19th-century domestic structures have
been limited, both in urban and rural settings. In general, even the 19th-century components
of earlier farmsteads, plantations, and townhouses have been ignored. For instance,
the 19th-century tenant structure at Kingsmill (JC37) built on the site of the
18th-century mansion after it burned in 1844 merely receives passing mention as part of
the archaeological investigation of Kingsmill (Kelso 1984: 87).
Those that have been located archaeologically are generally known solely at the
survey level, and only the presence of temporally diagnostic artifacts among surface
scatters indicate their early 19th century occupation. Peacock Hill #1 (WB12) is an
example, given a 19th-century provenience from dated ceramic types.
One exception to this pattern is an unnamed early 19th-century structure (YO398)
located on a seasonal tributary of Queens Creek, near old Airport Road. Its inventory
form describes it as the remains of a two-story Federal house and two brick outbuildings,
and records the architectural details at some length, including chimneys, fireplaces,
entrances, and a neighboring well. From the survey form, it is unclear how much of the
structure remains above ground, even though it was thought to have been burned, and
some structural timbers are intact. Nor are there any plans, drawings, or photographs
included, beyond a locational sketch. A recommendation that architectural recording
take place was made, but it is not known whether this has taken place since 1984. There
is virtually no other information at the survey level regarding Federal-period domestic
dwellings in York County.
Because of the decidedly Colonial focus of preservation efforts in this area, few
19th-century sites are protected or recorded on more than a minimal level. In addition,
it has been mainly the larger, more impressive structures that have survived, a phenom-
81

Plate 4.8. La Grange.
Plate 4.9. Vaiden House.
82

Plate 4.10. Allen’s Place.
enon verified by Garry Wheeler Stone in a comparison of extant structures with historically
documented building types (Stone 1976).
Nevertheless, it is highly probable that systematic surveys of the area will locate
additional structures and buildings associated with middling and poor planters of the
late 18th and early 19th centuries. A “field check” of the Gilmer map will prove especially
useful as the status of many of the buildings and structures located on that map is
unknown.
SUB-THEME A: POPULATION DECLINE AND STABILIZATION
One of the most important factors of the development of York and James City Counties
in the late 18th and early 19th century was the decline and stabilization of local population
and the changing ratio of black and white residents. Population trends had effects
on, among other things, family size and structure, attitudes towards land as labor fell in
even shorter supply, the ability of the landless to obtain land and hence status, and the
tendency among farmers to neglect soil improvement. Changes in population ratios
also prompted an increasing fear among the white population of the growing number of
blacks, both free and enslaved.
The immediate post-Revolutionary era in the Tidewater was in general one of population
decline. Further opening of western territories, the lack of available land for second-
or third-generation Tidewater residents, the decreasing productivity of Tidewater
83

soils, and price fluctuations in agricultural products were all contributing factors in the
out-migration from the Tidewater.
By 1800 observers began to note with alarm the outward migration of Virginians.
A traveller wrote in 1816 for example, that “the most hardy, active, industrious children
of the elder States...who have sagacity to perceive the advantages and courage to encounter
the difficulties of so long a journey go where the land is cheap and labor repaid
with abundance (Paulding 1835: 42).” A newspaper editorial in 1832 complained of the
“constant emigration to the great West of our most substantial citizens” evidenced by
“our naked streets and untenanted houses” (Holland 1980: 269).
James City and York counties were certainly no exception to this regional trend.
Dr. Philip Barraud wrote St. George Tucker in 1796 describing the attraction of Kentucky
to Williamsburg’s inhabitants:
Otway Byrd has been with us for some days and threatens to march a colony from Williamsburg
to Kentucky. The fellow is hair-brain’d on the subject and I believe will cheat me of my
senses, too, by his Rhapsodies of that Country (Barraud: October 12, 1796).
The stream of migration to Kentucky was also on the mind of John Randolph when
he complained that Eastern Virginia had become deserted. Deer and turkey, he reported,
“are nowhere so plentiful in Kentucky as near Williamsburg” (Holland 1980: 269).
Population on the Peninsula entered a downward spiral in the decades immediately
following the Revolution. York County’s total population was in definite decline
in the early 19th-century, bottoming out in 1830 and slowly recovering. At mid-century
more than 25% fewer people lived in York county than in the final decade of the 18th
century (see Figure 4.1). A small revival in the local economy is evidenced by the 11%
increase in the total population to 1860.
James City County suffered similar drops in total population in the approximately
70 years following the Revolution. Its population also declined from that of 1790, dipping
some 42% in just 30 years, then levelling out, and increasing nearly 50% between
1850 and 1860 (see Figure 4.2).
Tidewater Virginia’s drastic depopulation becomes even more apparent when local
rates are contrasted with those for the country as a whole. Population growth nationwide
was estimated to be 145.6% from 1790 to 1800 alone (Craven 1965: 120). Tidewater
Virginia was also bypassed by the turn of the 19th century as a settling point for
new immigrants. Increasingly too, the westward emigrants from the region were young
adults, whose departure robbed the Tidewater of natural population increase. At the
same time, large landowners were increasing their holdings, further exacerbating the
economic inequalities and social distinctions already present.
Table 4.5 draws upon Tidewater Virginia land tax records from 1704, 1788, and
1815, with the early 19th-century data from York County. The table demonstrates the
decline of the middle classes, slight increase in the number of small landowners, and a
solidification and stabilization of the larger landowners through time.
Although land was relatively inexpensive during the hard times of the early 19th
century, a sizable percentage of the population did not own land. Over 40% of the taxpayers
in York County in 1815 were white and landless, yet their ownership of slaves,
livestock and goods indicates a wealth not unlike that of the landowners. For instance,
the average number of cattle per landless resident was nearly six, close to the overall
84

Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.2.
85

TABLE 4.5
AVERAGE TIDEWATER FARM SIZE
1704 - 1815
1-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499 500-599 1000+
ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES ACRES
1704 a 11.0% 25.5% 20.0% 10.0% 8.0% 16.0% 9.0%
1788 40.0 27.5 12.0 6.5 4.5 7.0 3.0
1815 b 42.0 26.2 10.1 7.3 3.8 7.3 3.1
a
b
Data from 1704-1788 was gathered from the Virginia Coastal Counties of Middlesex, Gloucester, Elizabeth
City, Princess Anne, Accomac, and Northampton (Main l954).
Data for 1815 was gathered from York County.
average. Likewise, the mean number of slaves was virtually equal to that for the whole
population, at just about two per taxpayer.
It is difficult to ascertain the role of these landless residents in the society and
economy of the area. They may have been sons of property-holding age awaiting inheritance
or had other access to land. Perhaps they were engaged in trade or manufacturing,
acted as laborers, or were tenants. Jackson Turner Main estimated that of the 57%
landless in the Tidewater in the 1780’s, 31% were laborers, 11% had access to family
land, and 15% were tenants (Main 1954: 248).
Of additional interest in the study of the population changes of York and James
City County between 1790 and 1860 is the ratio between white and black inhabitants.
Changes in these ratios are important on several levels, both economic and social. For
instance, as the number of whites decreased a heightened vulnerability was often felt by
the white residents. The black majority over whites in Virginia increased from 3004 in
1800 to 81,077 in 1830 (Jackson 1964: 37). In addition, when the number of slaves
decreased in the first quarter of the 19th century the number of free blacks became even
more menacing. Underlying the pleas to the legislature to “do something” about the free
blacks was a real fear. The results of the census of 1830, chronicling the high numbers
of free blacks in the area sparked numerous petitions from neighboring Hampton and
Norfolk for removal or colonization of free blacks (Jackson 1969: 15). After Nat Turner’s
Rebellion in nearby Southampton County, fear of the overwhelming black population
became the motivating factor for a number of restrictive laws affecting both enslaved
and free blacks.
The balance of black to white can also be seen in economic terms. The large drop
in the number of slaves in 1830 in both James City and York Counties is reflective of
both the higher prices of slaves and difficult circumstances requiring many planters to
sell their slaves. It is also indicative of changing agricultural practices and the move to
less labor intensive crops.
The rise of the percentage and number of free blacks in the population is perhaps
one of the most significant changes in the time period studied. Despite the political and
legal restrictions on free blacks, a surprising number remained in Virginia throughout
the early 19th century. In 1830 there were 47,348 free blacks in Virginia, a number
86

which increased to 58,042 by 1860. Most of these free blacks were descendants of those
freed during the Revolutionary era. Indeed, free blacks made up 12% of the black population
of Virginia and 3.6% of the total state population. There were almost as many free
blacks in Virginia in 1830 and 1860 as in all of New York and New England, and
one-eighth of all free blacks in America lived in Virginia (Jackson 1969: ix-x).
James City County’s free black population, measured at 3.5% of the total in
1790, was as high as 18% in 1860. The importance of free blacks in the county can
easily be seen when compared with the number of white males. From 1830 to 1850 the
free black population ranged from three-fourths to almost nine-tenths of white males,
and in 1860 the number of free blacks nearly equalled the number of white males (Figure
4.3).
The percentage of free blacks in York County more than doubled in the seventy
years between 1790 and 1860, increasing from 6.2% to 13.8% of the total population.
The number of free blacks in York County was not as significant in comparison to white
males as in James City County, but was at least half as large from 1830 on (Figure 4.4).
The large number of free blacks in these two counties reflects their density in the
Tidewater as a whole. Virginia free blacks were most numerous in Prince George, Sussex,
Surry, Nansemond, Southampton, Norfolk, Accomac, and Northampton Counties
(Jackson 1969: x). Many of these counties in the Tidewater were suffering from serious
failures in providing for their white population, many of whom left the region. Whether
the free blacks stayed (and increased) because of their economic inability to move on or
their success at finding profitable niches within the community, despite increasingly
acrimonious cries for their removal or legislative control, will be discussed in Sub-Theme
D.
The character of early 19th-century Tidewater population was reflected on the
landscape. The fluctuation of housing demands, for both black and white, and the decrease
in farm size are but two ways it can be seen. The proliferation of “untenanted
houses” described in 1832 in Virginia must have occurred in James City and York County
as population dropped in the early decades of the 19th century (Holland 1980: 269).
Only one house is listed as being built in the 1840 census for James City County.
Equally noticeable must have been the building growth which accompanied the
revitalization of the area around mid century. The number of white households increased
42% from 1850 to 1860 alone in James City County, from 396 to 606. York County’s
growth was less spectacular, rising from 442 to 570 white households in the same ten
years. Reports of the progress of erection of “numerous private residences” in
Williamsburg in 1855 (cited in Carson 1961: 107) reflects a nearly 30% growth of population
in James City County from 1850 to 1860. Specific building types will be discussed
in the appropriate sub-themes.
Despite the near dearth of archaeological investigation in the area in this time
period, the availability of documentary sources makes it possible to characterize site
distribution in general terms. Land tax records provide information about the number of
structures taxed, and in York County in 1820 this included 108 landed buildings, most
of them dwellings, with an average value of $255. An additional 28 buildings were built
on lots in York County. In James City County, 233 structures at an average value of
$297 were taxed.
87

Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.4.
88

Map sources provide additional information. Alexander Berthier’s untitled, unfinished
map of the countryside of 1781 and J.F. Gilmer’s map of 1863 both provide detailed
depictions of building locations and types in various parts of the counties. However,
Berthier’s map of the countryside did not extensively cover southeast of modern
Route 60. Gilmer mainly chronicled development towards Richmond and the southwest
coast.
The map sources in this time period are a major data base and provide important
information about overall development. Additionally, they aid in the identification of
property residents. For example, Gilmer’s map lists specific household residents by
name, sometimes with first names. It also gives clues to the sex and race of the inhabitants.
The map clearly depicts free black communities, such as the “Free Negro Settlement,
full of cabins and paths” located just west of Centerville and just north of mills
with specific black sites noted in their immediate vicinity. Gilmer also depicted roads,
with “bad crossings,” and “ruins,” churches, and stores (Plate 4.11). Biases and errors
withstanding, this map gives an excellent portrayal of a society’s landscape, captured at
1863, but reflecting decades of previous development and change.
The majority of these map sources were drawn in preparation for military campaigns
and in times of peace there was little need for cartographers. To attempt to understand
this area in the years between the two major conflicts, land tax records from 1815
were used to generalize trends of population distribution.
For each landholding taxed in York and James City counties, a distance and bearing
from the courthouse was noted. This was generally limited to two directions,
i.e., southwest or northeast, but occasionally three directions were utilized, such as
south-south-west. The distances seem to be quite approximate and may be related to
road distance. If distance by road was utilized rather than straight latitudinal distance,
the actual distribution of sites would no doubt collapse closer to the courthouse.
A random check of the landholdings described as bounding on major landforms,
such as rivers, creeks, and known roads show their location to be approximately correct.
Further refinement is possible to extensively check these sites and provide a statistical
evaluation of their biases and a standard measure of error.
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate settlement trends in James City County and York
County as they are reflected in these tax records. The greatest density of population in
James City County seems to have been along a northwest directional corridor from
Williamsburg, the highest concentration falling within 10 to 15 miles from Williamsburg,
with an especially large grouping 12 miles from town. This is the approximate location
of modern Toano (called the Burnt Ordinary in the 19th century). This also is in the
general area of Diascund Creek, location of the Revolutionary War shipyards.
In York County a surprising number of landholdings clustered southeast of
Yorktown, and were probably located on the rivers, many creeks, and marshes of Lower
York County and Poquoson, and allowing access to marine resources. In 1860, 105
fisheries were enumerated in the census for York County. Yet little is known of this
activity through other contemporary documents, and additional information could perhaps
be culled from estate inventories, court proceedings, or mercantile records.
Of final import is the site density in the immediate environs of Yorktown.
Rochefoucauld observed in the late 1790s that many inhabitants of Yorktown “who call
themselves lawyers and justices of the peace...have at some distance from the town
89

Plate 4.11. J. F. Gilmer’s Map, 1863.
small farms to which they every morning pay a visit” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 21). He
does not stipulate a specific distance, yet 21 land holdings were found within two miles
of Yorktown. This reflects a continuation of the more 18th-century tradition of combining
professions, i.e., merchant/planter, merchant/lawyer and a pattern of overseer supervision
of farming without direct owner residence.
Williamsburg settlement does not exhibit a similar pattern of close rural/urban
spatial relationships and dual town/farm roles. Most of the area surrounding Williamsburg
was thinly populated. This may have been a factor of its more discrete urbanism. An-
90

Figure 4.5.
other factor in the low settlement density surrounding Williamsburg may have been the
quality of the soil for agricultural uses, for in the “immediate environs of the town, the
land in general is indifferent” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 27).
SUB-THEME B: EXPANSION OF SLAVE-BASED MIXED-CROP
ECONOMY AND IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL METHODS
To begin to understand James City and York Counties in this period the study of its
agriculture is imperative. Even the local town centers and increasing manufactures were
91

Figure 4.6.
intrinsically tied to the soil and the ability of Virginia farmers to profit from that economic
base.
For over a century this area had been primarily tobacco country, but even before
the Revolution dependence on tobacco as the sole cash crop was lessening. Changes
were slow, particularly due to lowered productivity of the soils, but by the Civil War a
transformation had occurred from tobacco cultivation and corn to a true mixed crop
agricultural base. A number of farmers began to specialize in the raising of beef and
dairy cattle as well.
While tobacco continued to be raised after the Revolution, particularly the more
expensive “sweet-scented” type along the river basins, it was no longer the predominant
cash crop of the area (Joseph 1976: 39) (Plate 4.12). Instead, cultivation of wheat
and corn, and later of potatoes, accelerated. Samuel Vaughn found little tobacco grown
on his travels down the New Kent Road to Williamsburg. Instead the land was worn out
and covered with pines (Low 1951: 125). It seemed also that as tobacco prices declined,
wheat prices rose gradually. In addition, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic
Wars opened up vast new markets for American agriculture and wheat production grew
92

Plate 4.12. “Tending the Crops: Tobacco Fields.”
in earnest. Richmond grew to be one of the largest flour-milling centers in the country,
but could not keep up with the flood of Virginia wheat produced by higher prices. The
export of grain and flour from Norfolk grew exponentially even as that of tobacco
dwindled.
Duke de la Rochefoucauld described in some detail York and James City County’s
agricultural system of wheat and corn rotation during his travels in 1795, 1796, and
1797:
The soil in the vicinity of Williamsburg is tolerably well- cultivated: but here, as in other
parts of Virginia, each proprieter possesses so great an extent of land, that he cultivates but
a small portion of it. The ordinary rotation of culture here is—Indian corn—next wheat or
other grain—then three of four years in fallow, during which the crop of grass furnish the
cattle with good sustenance. After this rest of three of four years, the ground is again cultivated
in the same manner. The lands thus managed yield from eight to twelve bushels of
wheat per acre, or from twelve to fourteen bushels of Indian corn (Rochefoucauld 1797:
26-27).
Unfortunately the boom of wheat cultivation quickly collapsed with the resumption
of peace with and in Europe. Prices plummeted, the Hessian fly ravaged, and once
again “distress spread almost universely throughout Virginia in 1819 and 1820” (Craven
1965: 81). Tidewater’s wheat was of poor quality, partially due to the unsuitability
of much of Tidewater soils but farmers of the area stubbornly persisted with its planting
into the 1820s (Bruce 1932: 192).
93

Though there were periods of prosperity, the general economic spiral was downward
and travellers in the Tidewater observed “exhaustive cultivation, wasted lands,
abandoned fields, neglected stock and shifting crops” (Craven 1965: 82). In 1816 James
K. Paulding found the lands in the greater part of lower Virginia “greatly
impoverished...by being planted without its strength being sustained by manure” (Craven
1965: 84).
The redemption of Tidewater agriculture in the decades preceding the Civil War
was a slow process unassisted by foreign wars and fluctuating prices. Its inauspicious
beginning can be traced to the publication of John Taylor’s The Arator in 1813. Taylor’s
great contributions were twofold—more generally the incitement to the study of agriculture,
and specifically, the urging of improvement of soils by the addition of vegetable
manure. Yet it was not until Edmund Ruffin’s discovery of the efficiency of marl
for the neutralizing of acidic soils and the publication of his Essays of Calcareous Manures
in 1832 that the poor soils of the Tidewater were reclaimed and made more profitable.
Marl was cheap and naturally available in abundance in this area, and James City
and York County farmers were quick to seize upon Ruffin’s discovery. The 1840 Census
shows James City County farmers to be second in the state in their usage of marl. It
is estimated that the average increase of corn and oats was eight bushels an acre, of
wheat four bushels, and the increased intrinsic value of the land a full 200% (Bruce
1932).
By the third decade of the 19th century the beginnings of this new awakening were
evident. In March of 1834 the Farmer’s Register reported a movement towards better
plowing, a more widespread use of manure, and fewer incidents of eroded and gullied
hillsides. Improvement in transportation facilitated the more efficient and less costly
marketing of crops, and newly developing markets and the growing local population
provided additional outlets for Tidewater agricultural produce. For instance, Richmond
grew to be a leading exporter of flour to South America and San Francisco (Berry 1970:
387-390).
In an editorial in the Farmer’s Register in 1841, Edmund Ruffin cites the area
around Williamsburg as showing spectacular improvements from the hard times of the
1820s. Twenty years before, he claimed, “the general condition of agriculture in the
counties of York and James City were among the lowest in Virginia.” With the exception
of the rich river lands, he claimed, much of the soil in this area was poor and
exhausted, and the profits from crop production were low. Even land with plenty of
marl and within only a few miles of ship navigation could be bought for one dollar an
acre and three dollars an acre was considered a good price.
Within a few years of the local adaptation of marling practices according to Ruffin,
“almost every proprietor was marling to some extent; and most persons near Williamsburg
have now marled the greater part, of all, of their cultivated lands.” As a result of these
improvements the rates of crop production doubled or quadrupled, and the prices of
land equally rose. Yet he noted that despite the fact that the “neighborhood of
Williamsburg, and extending to more than 12 miles above, is one of the most generally
marled and thereby best improved districts of Virginia...but a few miles outside of this
gradually widening circle, marling is completely neglected.” The new agricultural pros-
94

perity was naturally reflected in the local commercial sector and Ruffin felt marling was
the catalyst for many changes (Farmer’s Register, Vol. VIII: 415-418).
With the recovery from the nationwide depression in the early forties, Tidewater
agriculture reached a new level of success, as observed by Ruffin in the counties of
James City and York. There were certainly fluctuations, but by 1860 farmers were working
less land with better results. It had become clear that impoverished lands could be
improved, and that land once abandoned could be profitable (Craven 1965: 147).
The new agriculture also produced two specialized types of agrarians: the diversified
farmer with various crops and the specialized farmer producing specific crops for
certain markets. Specializations included the market gardener and the dairy farmer.
The farmers of the Tidewater coastal and Eastern Shore counties turned actively
towards market gardening, and Norfolk became a major center for the shipping of peas,
cucumbers, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, radishes, rhubarb, asparagus, apples, peaches,
pears, and other fruits and vegetables. An 1857 notice appearing in the Norfolk City
News estimated that in 40 days in June and July produce shipped to New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and Richmond was valued $240,247.50; this produce coming to
Norfolk “on the various steamers” (Southern Planter 1857) (see Plate 4.13).
York and James City Counties did not participate in this market nearly to the extent
of the more eastern counties, and information does not exist on the 1860 census.
One indication of local participation in the market gardening economy may be the increase
in the production of Irish and sweet potatoes, growing from 200 bushels in York
County in 1850 to 26,754 ten years later, an amazing 160-fold increase, and from 8519
to 12,143 bushels in James City County.
Tobacco had also in a sense become a specialized crop and high prices in the 1850s
prompted a small return to its cultivation. While the 1850 Census shows no tobacco
grown in James City or York Counties, the 1860 return shows 2030 pounds grown in
James City County, and 71,800 pounds in York County. This was not, however, the old
form of tobacco cultivation, for the use of fertilizers and rotations made it possible to
produce the crop without debilitating the soil (Craven 1965: 155-156).
The agricultural censuses of 1840, 1850, and 1860 for James City County show
other changes in crop production as well (see Table 4.6). The production of hay significantly
increased from a mere sixty tons to 1165 tons, a nearly twenty fold increase.
Wheat production, mirroring regional trends, increased from 17,241 to 57,220 bushels,
up three and a half times in a generation. Corn, always an important crop in the Tidewater,
still increased nearly 33,000 bushels in the same time period, a 38% relative growth.
However, in these same twenty years James City County production of oats decreased
46% and the number of livestock, including horses, cows, and sheep similarly declined.
The number of horses alone dropped some 30% by 1860.
York County returned no agricultural census for 1840, but similar studies of changes
in crop production and livestock ownership can be made for 1850 and 1860 (see Table
4.7). Just as in James City County, the production of hay showed an immense growth
from none reported in 1850 to 888 tons in 1860. Wheat also showed similar increases,
nearly 39%, in the ten year period. Corn production increased only slightly however,
while the cultivation of rye decreased 41% to 15,245 bushels. Livestock ownership
remained much the same.
95

Plate 4.13. “Sailboats Waiting to Unload Truck Farm Produce at Norfolk.”
The 1850 Census presents the most detailed picture of the agricultural base of
York and James City Counties (Table 4.7). In that year, 129 farms were reported in
James City County with an average value (including improvements and implements) of
$4,459. If the number of farms is divided into all available acreage, both improved and
unimproved, James City County holdings were an average of 507 acres, while those of
York County were 129 acres. Forty-five percent of the county acreage was improved in
York County while only 33% of James City County’s land had been similarly bettered.
Emerging from these census records is a picture of an agriculturally- vital region
by the eve of the Civil War. Production of most crops increased, whether through the
reclaiming of wasted lands or improved agricultural techniques which raised crop yields.
The reliance on tobacco or any single crop such as corn had been replaced by both a
specialized agriculture aimed at a specific market, and a diverse economic base of several
crops. Diversification ameliorated the dangers of total failure due to individual
crop disasters or low prices. James City County showed the most variety, producing
small quantities of peas and beans, butter and cheese, wool, and beeswax and honey, as
well as those crops listed above. However, York County seemed to show higher crop
yields from its improved land.
96

TABLE 4.6 a
AGRICULTURE, JAMES CITY COUNTY: 1840-1860
1840 1850 1860
Horses & Mules 508 534 358
Neat cattle 2,713 2,365 1,314 b
Sheep 914 1,217 668
Swine 4,712 4,009 4,794
Poultry of all kinds, estimated value $2,000 NL NL
Wheat, bushels 17,241 25,476 57,220
Oats, bushels 34,765 22,040 c 18,573
Indian corn, bushels 86,500 102,430 119,460
Potatoes, bushels 2,904 8,519 12,143
Peas & beans, bushels NL 300 NL
Hay, tons 60 24 1,165
Wool, pounds 2,812 2,197 NL
Tobacco, pounds gathered 8,000 0 2,030
Cotton, pounds gathered 6,307 — NL
Wood, cords sold 14,110 — NL
Value of the products
of the dairy $610 NL NL
Butter & Cheese, pounds NL 17,785 NL
Beeswax & honey, pounds NL 24 NL
Value of animals, slaughtered NL $14,339 NL
Value of produce of market gardens 0 $365 NL
Value of homemade, or family goods $1,290 NL NL
a
b
c
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Agriculture
Dairy Cows and other cattle
Rye & oats, bushels
By 1857, conditions had improved in Virginia and Maryland to the point that the
American Farmer could boast, “Never have the farming communities found their labors
better compensated than through a series of years past. The consequence is a degree
of comfort, freedom from pecuniary embarrassment and of agricultural improvement
in the enriching of lands, the building of comfortable country houses, etc.” (Craven
1965: 160). Another result was the change towards a model of society quite different
from that of the lower South and perhaps more similar to that of the north, with the
distinct difference of slave labor. The governor of Virginia in the l850s characterized
Virginia agriculture to a French inquirer as no longer “the large plantation system” but
now one of “smaller horticultural and arboricultural farming” (Craven 1965: 160).
The importance of the agricultural economy in the area is certainly manifested in
the landscape. The majority of late 18th and early 19th-century structures outside of
Williamsburg were related to farming activities in some way. These not only include
farm residences, but outbuildings such as tobacco barns, granary houses, smokehouses,
cornhouses, dairies, chicken houses, stables, and other specialized loci of farm activity.
The transition from tobacco to other crops, such as wheat, altered the type of facilities
necessary for their processing and storage, and if specialized structures such as tobacco
97

TABLE 4.7 a
AGRICULTURE IN 1850
James City County York County
Farms 129 161
Acres improved 21,251 20,817
Acres unimproved 44,132 25,683
Value with improvements & implements $561,931 $717,882
Horses, asses & mules 534 590
Neat Cattle 2,365 3,641
Sheep 1,217 1,148
Swine 4,009 5,437
Wheat, bushels 25,476 27,650
Rye & oats, bushels 22,040 25,951
Indian corn, bushels 102,430 148,335
Irish & sweet potatoes, bushels 8,519 250
Peas & beans, bushels 300 10
Butter & cheese, pounds 17,785 14,113
Hay, tons 24 0
Wool, pounds 2,197 4,658
Beeswax & honey, pounds 24 0
Value of animals, slaughtered $14,339 $2,000
Value of produce of market gardens 365 0
Tobacco 0 0
a
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Agriculture
barns for sun or heat curing, with open panels for one and flues for the other were not
abandoned, their function at least changed.
Agricultural outbuildings are built in a somewhat impermanent fashion and not
subject to a great deal of maintenance. Thus, their propensity is to decay, especially in
changing agricultural systems. In addition, it has been said that they are a relatively
“pure” form of architecture; they are generally simply utilitarian buildings without surface
alterations to express “cultural statements of wealth or status” (Ridout 1982: 137).
The attitude that land and structures were disposable in the first few decades of the 19th
century may be reflected in the construction and maintenance of these agricultural buildings
as well.
The change in agriculture and land holdings may also be seen in archaeological
remains. Late 18th-century travellers consistently complained that the “cattle here are
constantly in the woods” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 23), and John Taylor specifically urged
the fencing of livestock. Additionally, beef and dairy cattle became more important as a
means of livelihood and enclosure must have increased, leaving evidence in the form of
fence lines, additional stabling, etc. Declines in the agricultural economy of the area
can also be seen artifactually “in the economic decline of a series of site occupants.”
This was observed, for example, at the Penuel Penny site in York County (Martha
McCartney, pers. comm. 1985).
98

The move to varying crops and rotation affected field size, a process documented
by Kelso at Kingsmill in the 18th century where ditches divided the fields. Again this
pattern was observed by Rouchefoucauld who found that in the Williamsburg environs
“the pieces of new cleared land are in almost every instance surrounded with ditches
well made and well sodded” (Rouchefoucauld 1797: 23). The change to market gardening
further altered the landscape, a process which may also be studied archaeologically.
Kelso was able to reconstruct specific orchard size at Monticello from individual tree
stains, and gardens were indicated by planting beds, fence lines, paths, etc. Recent excavations
at the Peyton Randolph House (CW-28B,G&H) in Williamsburg similarly
revealed planting beds.
Changes in methods of farming included increased use of subsoil plowing, utilized
in Virginia by 1845. Eroded and gullied hillsides decreased as better contour plowing
was used to prevent washing. A large number of the truly important agricultural implements
had their origins and development in this era, from reapers to fertilizer
spreaders (Craven 1965: 182). Not only might the results but also the equipment be
found archaeologically (Plate 4.14).
SUB-THEME C: SOLIDIFICATION OF THE IDEALS AND
ECONOMY OF SLAVE SOCIETY
The new order of society in York and James City Counties at mid-century differed from
the earlier periods in the way it viewed itself and its labor. Economic revival and changes
in agricultural production were factors in the changing attitudes towards slavery. As
Virginians eagerly escaped from the depressed conditions of the early 19th century
through the use of agricultural improvements, attitudes toward former practices changed.
A heightened awareness of the old order led to condemnation of tobacco growing,
the system of overseers, and the burden of too many slaves. The spread of cotton through
the Deep South increased slave prices and demand just as Tidewater Virginia farmers
were needing them a little less in their own endeavors. Many planters had been forced
to sell slaves in hard times to maintain their land holdings. The rhetoric of the new
agriculture was increasingly to streamline operations by selling slaves and to make
more efficient use of the fewer remaining. The number of slaves in James City County
dropped 40% from 1790 to 1850 and 30% in York County in the same time period.
The slaves that remained were put to work in mixed-crop agriculture, requiring
less labor and spreading that need throughout the year. Increasingly too they were hired
out to manufactories or internal improvement projects, particularly in urban areas such
as Richmond or Norfolk, or to other farmers.
Slave-owning had never fully permeated the ranks of white society and with economic
fluctuations came increased or decreased ability to purchase them. For instance,
in York County in 1815 more than half of the taxpayers did not own slaves and an
additional 11% owned only one. Less than one percent owned 20 or more with the
maximum of 60. The mean number of slaves per white male was 3.2 in the 1810 Census.
By 1860, even though circumstances had improved for many, the mean number of
slaves per white male dropped to 1.6 in York County, half of that 50 years earlier. Most
landowners had less than ten slaves, and fewer than 40% owned slaves at all.
99

Plate 4.14. House near Toano with Agricultural Implements.
The new economic importance of the small slaveless farmer, the growth of marketing
to northern cities, the influx of settlers from the middle and northern colonies,
and the reliance on less labor intensive crops requiring fewer slaves all contributed to
the formation of closer ties between Virginia and the Northern states. Ironically, the
new success of agriculture, especially on larger plantations, strengthened the ties of the
wealthy to slavery while the majority of farmers in Virginia were becoming less dependant
on it. Views on slavery among Virginians thus split clearly along economic lines,
which were in turn deeply rooted in the new agricultural system and the social order it
produced.
The solidification of the ideals and system of the slave economy insured the continuing
presence of slave structures on the landscape. York County census records in
1860 enumerate 397 slave structures, and 451 were listed in James City County. Yet,
with the exception of Hampton Key (JC44), no verified slave structures have been investigated
for this period. This is surprising when it is considered that blacks consistently
outnumbered whites in both counties for the 82 years studied. Clearly, further
archaeological investigation of slave life in the last decades before emancipation is
warranted. (See Study Unit XVIII for further discussion of site types.)
SUB-THEME D: ESTABLISHMENT OF FREE BLACK
COMMUNITIES
One consequence of the presence of blacks in the labor force of the Lower Peninsula
since the 17th century was the development of a small but ever- increasing population
of free blacks. The role of the free black in ante-bellum Virginia has often been underestimated.
In a society sharply divided on racial lines, reinforced by legal, political, and
100

economic barriers, the emergence and maintenance of a small coterie of free blacks
seems paradoxical. Yet, the presence of the free black is a direct by-product of slavery
itself and the economic system it produced.
During the Revolutionary period, Virginians were sympathetic to the doctrines of
the natural rights of man, and manumission was not uncommon. With legal freedom for
slaves came many economic opportunities. Beginning around 1790, however, mild reaction
set in and many of these earlier rights were curtailed or withdrawn.
Perhaps the most severe of the efforts to limit the increase of free negroes within
the state was a law virtually banishing all newly freed slaves within a year of their
manumission. For example, on December 3, 1812, Joseph Sport, a York County emancipated
slave of William Cary petitioned the General Assembly that he be freed without
being forced to leave the state. His request was denied (cited in Hopkins 1942: 13). This
law remained in force until 1865 and only economic opportunities and the urgent need
for labor in the state emasculated its power.
Although Virginians’ views towards slavery were relatively neutral through the
first quarter of the 19th century, Nat Turner’s slave rebellion and other factors discussed
above quickly solidified the pro-slavery forces in Virginia. The more Virginians that
became “pro-slavery”, the more opposition to free negroes seemed to emerge. The crystallizing
of public opinion against the free black seems to characterize the period of
1830 to 1860. This can clearly be seen in 1831 when citizens of York County petitioned
“for the removal of mulatto and undesirable `negro-white’ population” (cited in Hopkins
1942: 13).
These restrictive laws made the ability of those free blacks living in the Tidewater
to capitalize on the economic opportunities available to them all the more surprising.
For instance, in 1815 some 81 free blacks in York County were listed as owning property,
either personal or real, constituting approximately 12% of all those taxed. Eight of
these men owned land with a mean holding of 71.5 acres, and their holdings ranged
from 12 to 158 acres. Twenty-three slaves were owned by 81 free blacks, as well as 66
horses. Two hundred ninety-one cattle were owned by free black taxpayers with an
average of 3.59 per capita, even though 40 cattle were owned by one individual.
A number of free blacks prospered under the slave system. York County was the
home of at least one wealthy free black in 1815. William Jarvis, a free black himself,
was taxed for one free black, five adult slaves, four horses, and 40 cattle. He owned 135
acres ten miles west of the courthouse in Yorktown, and a house valued at $200. Jarvis
paid $12.61 in taxes, both on his land and personal property. The 1815 personal property
tax lists also enumerated certain household goods that were taxable, and Williams
Jarvis was charged with one silver pocket watch and one chest of drawers (of wood
other than mahogany). These goods, in combination, suggest a man of comfortable
means, even in comparison to his white contemporaries.
As Tidewater planters were reducing the size of their slave holdings, an increasing
number were forced to hire short-term skilled labor, and to take on additional field
hands during planting and harvest. Many free blacks found employment in this manner
and were able to support themselves by combining occasional day-labor with subsistence
farming, fishing, and the practice of a number of skilled professions (Genovese
1974: 401). Free blacks that owned land undoubtedly farmed it and some may have
even owned slaves to assist in that task.
101

Luther Porter Jackson asserts that free blacks were often listed in the documents in
three distinct ways: “at” somebody’s place, “on” somebody’s place, or “on his own
land” or place. The free black “at” someone’s property lived with a white family and
usually apart from his own relatives, the free negro “on” someone’s property generally
was a tenant or mechanic renting the land and residing with his family, and the free
black “on his own land” or place undoubtedly owned it and resided there with as much
freedom as law and custom allowed.
In addition to rural agricultural labor, many free blacks also practiced trades and
crafts. The high number of free blacks found in Petersburg, Norfolk, and Richmond
suggests there was abundant opportunity for skilled and unskilled black labor in urban
areas. This may hold true for Williamsburg as well. In James City and York counties,
free blacks may have been employed in the small manufactories, such as mills, tanneries,
sawmills, and fisheries.
It is difficult to postulate a distribution of free blacks or the types of sites they
would inhabit. As shown above, free blacks lived in varying economic circumstances
and with varying status within the community. When a free black was hired out without
any family members, he often lived communally and was fed, clothed and boarded, just
as any slave might be. A free black laborer may also have been boarded with white
laborers. If the freed black rented or owned land, a household unit of some kind must
have been established. A comprehensive study of available tax, census, and map data
will better pinpoint the location of free black communities and individual landholdings.
Gilmer’s map of 1863 depicts free black communities such as the one near
Centerville, as well as scattered black settlements. Alain Outlaw used this map in conjunction
with census sources to assess the potential for archaeological study of the free
black community there (Outlaw 1977). With this background, archaeological investigation
there could easily be carried out. (For further discussion of free black sites, see
Study Unit XVIII.) However, it can certainly be said here that domestic sites or commercial
properties relating to the lives of free blacks are of great importance to the
cultural heritage of the study area.
SUB-THEME E: FLEDGLING MANUFACTURES AND
NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
The characterization of this area in the late 18th and early 19th centuries as agricultural
is a valid one. Yet as early as 1810 a significant amount of produce was manufactured in
York and James City Counties (Table 4.8). ”Clothes and stuffs,” hats, shoes and boots,
and stockings, over $16,000 in value in each county, were reported. Over 42,000 yards
of cotton were either fulled or made in James City County, and 25,000 yards of flaxen
goods in York County were all produced “in family.” In James City County, nails, copper,
brass and tin valued at over $43,000 were produced in 1810, as well as cabinet ware
valued at $2000.
Tanneries were another source of income for both York and James City County.
Seventy-nine tanneries in James City County produced over $1800 in hides and York
County’s output of hides was valued at over $1900. York also produced “sadlery” valued
at $1500. More than 2500 pairs of shoes, boots, and slippers were produced in both
counties even though those of James City County were nearly twice as expensive.
102

TABLE 4.8 a
YORK AND JAMES CITY COUNTY MANUFACTURES: 1810
York County James City County
Cotton goods in families, etc.
Yards fulled 0 34,236
Mixed goods & cotton, in families, etc.
Yards made 0 8,559
Flaxen goods in families
Yards made 25,020 0
Total value of all clothes & stuffs $12,519 $12,398
Stockings-pairs 0 3,915
Looms 131 150
Hats
Wool & mixed hats 0 250
Value in dollars 0 $1,000
Naileries
Lbs. of nails 185,995 0
Value in dollars $40,696 0
Copper, brass & tin
Pounds 2,240 0
Value in dollars $1,680 0
Candles
Pounds 0 3,044
Soap
Pounds 42,900 11,425
Tanneries
Number — 79
Hides 660 903
Value in dollars $1,920 $1,806
Shoes, boots & slippers
Number 2,650 2,807
Value in dollars $5,450 $2,807
Saddlery
Value in dollars $1,472 0
Distilleries
Number 4 26
Gallons 631 5,665
Value in dollars $315 $2,832.50
Cabinet ware
Value in dollars 0 $2,000
Snuff and tobacco
Pounds 450,240 45
Wheat
Mills 0 3
Barrels of flour made 0 2,000
a
United States Treasury Department, 1814
103

York and James City County differed in their manufacturing of agricultural products.
The processing of 450,000 pounds of snuff and tobacco took place in York County
(Plate 4.15). Wheat was the major agricultural component of James City County’s agricultural
manufactures—three mills there produced flour valued at $20,000.
By 1840 the nature of area manufactures had changed. No manufacturing census
was returned for York County in that year, but James City County’s products were
somewhat different (Table 4.9). Home manufactures of cloth or clothing is no longer
specifically enumerated. Lumber yards, tanneries, and mills made up the major components
of the non-agricultural economy, as well as retail stores capitalized at $21,500.
Twenty-five men were listed on the census as employees of these manufactories. In
addition 26 were counted as “employed in trades”, five in commerce and 13 in the
navigation of “canals, lakes and rivers.”
The 1860 Census indicates that 20 years later, this number had more than tripled.
At that time, 89 men worked at 29 establishments in James City County, including
sawmills and flour mills, as well as in 11 undetermined occupations.
York County’s manufacturing in 1860 seemed to be on a much broader scale. Some
118 establishments employed 386 laborers. By far the greatest non-agricultural employer
was the fishing industry. Other industries included shipbuilding, sawmills, grist
mills, and four unnamed enterprises.
Plate 4.15. Stemming Tobacco by Machine.
104

TABLE 4.9 a
JAMES CITY COUNTY MANUFACTURES: 1840
Commerce:
Retail, dry goods, grocery & other stores 5
Capital invested $21,500
Products of the forest:
Value of lumber produced $3,500
Lumber yards 8
Capital invested $8,800
Leather, tanneries, saddlery, etc.:
Tanneries 1
Sides of sole leather tanned 50
Sides of upper leather tanned 300
Number of men employed 2
Capital invested $41,500
All other manufactories of leather, saddleries, etc. 1
Value of manufactured articles $1,200
Capital invested $300
Carriages & wagons:
Value of manufactured articles $1,200
Number of men employed 10
Capital invested
$550
Mills:
Number of grist mills 2
Number of men employed 3
Capital invested $4,000
Furniture:
Value of manufactured articles $300
Number of men employed 2
Capital invested $150
Houses:
Number of brick & stone houses built 0
Number of wooden houses built 1
Number of men employed 8
Value of constructing of buildings $600
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTED IN MANUFACTURES: $6,500
a
U. S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing, 1840.
105

Manufacturing in James City and York County never played a major role in the
early 19th-century economy, at least not to the extent that it changed the economic base
of other areas in this era of beginning industrialization. Yet, small enterprises, often
related to the processing of agricultural produce, arose to satisfy the needs of the local
population. As better transportation developed, some manufacturing was directed to an
external market as well. These aspects of early industrialization are reflected
archaeologically and architecturally in the survival of a number of structures and buildings,
and in a number of formerly existing property types.
One of the most common industrial properties dotting the area in this time period
were mills. These were water powered and in the 18th century were often found on the
larger plantations. Here they ground the grains of their own production and that of their
neighbors. As the switch to wheat and corn became more pronounced, custom mills
were built, charging a surcharge of 6 to 8% to grind the produce of local residents.
The increase of urban markets along with the demand for flour, as well as local
demand for milling, also prompted former plantation mills to switch to a broader commercial
operation. Burwell’s Mill (YO242) at Carter’s Grove passed through three owners
in less then 20 years in the early 19th century, maintaining some form of commercial
operation until it was renamed Whitaker’s Mill in 1853.
As a mill’s operation grew larger and more commercial often an industrial complex
developed with it. The structures on Burwell’s Mill lot in the early 19th century
included a 40' × 20' mill, a 24' × 16' miller’s house, a distillery, a barn, and possibly
facilities for storing corn and hogs (Hunter 1984: 6).
Large scale commercial flour mills also developed in this era. In 1795, Oliver
Evans published The Young Millwright and Miller’s Guide and two early subscribers
were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. This book was the first to make a mill
construction plan readily available to the millwright (see Figure 4.7). Evans’ book was
intended mainly to explain the automated flour mill he had developed, making use of an
interior wheel and systems of conveyor belts to carry the grain and flour through the
mill (Del Sordo 1983: 65-67).
It is unknown whether any of the four “merchant mills” Morse listed in the
Williamsburg area in 1835 were of this construction, or were continuations of the more
local traditions developed throughout the 18th century. It can be assumed that these
mills reflected some elements of the new technologies available in the first half on the
19th century. For instance, in 1855 Robert Anderson of York County petitioned to form
a joint stock company for the operation of a steam-powered mill (cited in Hopkins
1942: 16).
Although only four merchant mills in the vicinity of Williamsburg were reported
in 1835 and the 1850 Census listed only three in James City County, by 1860 the census
reports 14 mills in the area. Eleven of those were in James City County and three were
in York County.
Gilmer’s 1863 map depicts six mills and three saw mills in the area he surveyed,
and an additional three were located on the U.S Coastal Survey Map (from Mulberry
Island to Jamestown Island). These were: Bush’s Mill (JC197), on modern-day Cranston
Pond on Route 632; Whitaker’s Mill (formerly Burwell’s Mill) (YO385) on King’s
Creek; Piggot’s Mill (YO61), on Old Mill Pond, off Route 802 and on Skimino Creek;
Edwards Mill (JC293) near Diascund; Dr. Richardson’s Mill (JC228) off Ware Creek
106

Figure 4.7. Plan of Mill (from Oliver Evans, The Young Millwright and Miller’s Guide, 1795).
107

and Route 600 on Richardson’s Mill Pond; and Whitaker’s Mill, on Route 604 and
Skimino Creek at Barlow’s Pond. The U.S. Coastal Survey Map recorded Wynne’s Mill
and Works, in York County, on Beaverdam Creek off Route 664 and Blows Mill.
It is not known what percentage of these mills are extant. Piggot’s (or Fenton) Mill
is still standing, although without wheel and locks (Plate 4.16). Burwell’s Mill (Whitaker’s
Mill) has been investigated archaeologically, and is an area now slated for development.
A mill was recorded at Governor’s Land (GL-16), even though no discussion of
the site could be located.
Saw mills were also an important source of income and Civil War-era maps depict
four (one noted as “old”). Sawmills were located at least by 1863 one half mile west of
the intersection of Route 614 and Route 5; south of Route 614, near Lightfoot; near the
Yarmouth Creek drainage; and near Yorktown, off Route 634. None have been examined
archaeologically, but they can be located from these map references. Their conditions
are unknown and should be investigated.
Landings and wharves were used to transport manufactured and agricultural goods.
Even though roads improved and settlements became less river oriented, waterways
remained an important means of transportation of goods and people. With the advent of
the steamship, travelling time decreased and local residents came and went from the
Grove Wharf on James River steamboats by 1843. Indeed, the wharf was frequently
crowded with passengers and goods, and one observer commented that these travellers
were “frequently insane passengers and their attendants on the way to Eastern State
Hospital” (Powers 1984: 2). These landings and wharves date in many cases to the 18th
century and included Shipyard Landing, Hog Neck Landing, Moody’s Wharf, Kingsmill
Wharf, and Ferry Point.
Also important in this era of transportation changes and incipient industrialization
was College Landing. In 1818 the Virginia Canal Company drew up plans for a one-mile
canal from College Landing to Williamsburg. This would undoubtedly have greatly
increased activity at College Landing and had important repercussions for the city’s
economy. However, this was never carried out and little is known about the activities at
College Landing in later periods (McCartney l976).
Finally, craft activities, such as blacksmithing, continued from the 18th century.
Site YO110 is thought to be the remains of a blacksmith shop.
SUB-THEME F: WILLIAMSBURG AND YORKTOWN AS LOCAL
TOWN CENTERS
Popular wisdom holds that with the removal of the state capital to Richmond,
“Williamsburg began its gentle slumber, a nap that went relatively undisturbed by war
or peace or progress until 1926” (Morgan 1985: 151). What is less well known is that
Williamsburg’s “nap” as an urban center had begun some twenty years before, or that
the ensuing years were less than soporific.
According to James O’Mara, in the 1730s Williamsburg was undoubtedly the leading
urban center followed by Fredericksburg, Yorktown, and Norfolk. During the 1750s,
however, even as Williamsburg continued as the most important urban place, others
were growing more quickly in importance. In this time period, Yorktown had the highest
growth rate in the colony. By 1770 however, both Williamsburg and Yorktown were
108

Plate 4.16. Piggot’s Mill (YO61).
being eclipsed by growing urban centers in the James River and Rappahannock River
basins, and between 1750 and 1775 Williamsburg’s dominance had virtually ended
(O’Mara 1983: 218).
The focus of urban growth shifted from the York River basin, the predominant area
in the early 18th century, to the James River, and to a lesser extent, the Rappahanock
River areas. When Yorktown residents asserted to Rochefoucauld in 1797 that 40 years
earlier it had “been the emporium of all Virginia,” there was some truth to the matter
(Rochefoucauld 1797: 22). Its decline, as well as Williamsburg’s, was directly related
to population expansion westward and the increase of other urban places and market
centers.
This process was described by Rochefoucauld in 1797 in his commentary on
Yorktown:
York-Town carries on no trade: but the inhabitants say that forty years back is was the emporium
of all Virginia. It supplied with European commodities all the shops and stores of the
most distant towns and it was the port where the planters, who at that time sold their tobacco
directly to the English merchants, were accustomed to ship it. Before the commencement of
the revolutionary war there were still six or seven ships annually loaded there for England.
Since that period its commerce has been uniformly on the decline; and it has now dwindled
to nothing. Norfolk and Baltimore export all the produce of York-River and furnish the town
with European goods. The inhabitants, are, of course, destitute of employment (Rochefoucauld
1797: 22).
109

Although Van Beck Hall estimated that 11 Virginia cites were more urban than
Williamsburg or Yorktown in the post-Revolutionary years, they both remained local
urban centers and county seats serving the needs of James City and York County (Hall
1969: n.p.). James Paulding described the function of county seats that he observed in
1816 and echoed the processes of change affecting towns as population and transportation
patterns changed.
County seats...depend in a great degree on the expenditures of those who are brought there
by law business, and the employment given to the trademen of different kinds, by a circle of
the surrounding country, of which each town forms a sort of center. As new towns are founded
in various places, this circle of course diminishes; and as new roads are made, or obstructions
to the rivers removed, the little trade they enjoy is carried very often in another direction
(Paulding 1835: 77-78).
Thus, the decline of Williamsburg and Yorktown was intrinsically linked to marketing
activity and growth in other areas. However, this is not to say that the capital’s
move to Richmond did not deal a harsh blow to the area, and Johann Schoepf reported
that “the inhabitants of this town and all lower Virginia desire greatly that the seat of
government be brought back thither” (Schoepf 1911: 80-81). Rochefoucauld remarked
that “the removal had reduced Williamsburg to a village. Every person who was connected
with government has followed the legislature to Richmond, and the number of
inhabitants is annually decreasing at Williamsburg as it is at Yorktown” (Rochefoucauld
1797: 23-24).
Not only did those connected with government move on but so did those concerned
with trade. Schoepf visited Williamsburg in 1783 and noted that “the merchants
of the county round about were accustomed formerly to assemble there every year, to
advice [sic] about commercial affairs and matters in the furtherance of trade. This also
has come to an end” (Schoepf 1911: 81).
It is somewhat difficult to measure this exodus and depopulation. Until the official
count of 1782 population figures seem to be estimates. Tyler places the Williamsburg
population at 2000 in 1779 but the enumeration of heads of households for 1782 places
it at 1424, of which 722 were white and 702 black, living in 184 households.
What is clear, however, is that Williamsburg did not suffer any more rapid a depopulation
than York or James City County in the early decades of the 19th century. The
total population in 1820 was nearly the same as in 1790, with a 20% decrease in white
males and a corresponding 19% increase in slaves. However, James City County suffered
a 35% depopulation of white males between 1790 and 1820 and another 32% loss
of slaves.
Travellers and others in the post-Revolutionary era frequently remarked that
Williamsburg was decaying and that “everything in Williamsburg appears dull, forsaken
and melancholy—no trade, no amusements, but the infamous one of gambling—
no industry...” (cited in Carson 1961: 74). Yet even if Williamsburg could not claim the
rank of a city, as a village it performed many services and provided employment “and a
comfortable livelihood...for a few mechanicks, such as blacksmiths, chair makers, wheelwrights,
sadlers and harness makers, boot and shoemakers, and tailors” (cited in Carson
l961: 78). A dozen stores could be found there of European and West Indian goods.
Forty years later little had changed. Joseph Martin, in his New and Comprehensive
Gazetteer of Virginia of 1835, reported that Williamsburg was made up of about 200
110

houses, “some of which are fast going to decay,” but also noted signs of growth such as
the new Markethouse, and the additions to the Lunatic Hospital. He also documents 16
stores, a manufactory and 4 merchant mills in the area, 3 tanyards, and a saddler’s shop.
However,the economy was certainly not stagnant for there were “a number of mechanics,
who are generally employed”, nine attorneys and five regular physicians, and Morse
notes that many of the residents were wealthy (cited in Carson 1961: 97-99).
By the middle of the 19th century, this nascent economic prosperity had led to an
actual physical improvement in the area. An anonymous letter, dated October 1, 1855,
describes a spirit of growth and optimism:
The city of Williamsburg is prospering. Improvements of all kinds are giving to the ancient
metropolis an air of youth which emphatically predicts its future prominence among the
cities of the Old Dominion. Two Baptist Churches (one for the use of the white and the other
for the use of the colored congregations) and a Court House, are now in progress of erection,
besides numerous private residences, stores, etc... (cited in Carson 1961: 107)
This is echoed by a letter from William B. Rogers in 1859 who was equally impressed
with the changes in the area. Travelling down through James City County to
Williamsburg in his buggy, he “found all along the road proofs of prosperous and improved
agriculture.” The burned inn of Williamsburg was replaced with “a hamlet of
neat white houses,” and on all sides he saw “evidences of neatness and thrift” (cited in
Tyler 1907b: 90).
One way to study the economic decline and rebirth of Williamsburg in the
post-Revolutionary era as it is reflected in material culture is through the examination
of the records of the Mutual Assurance Society. More precise study of these records in
conjunction with other documents will reveal how many of them were actually built in
this time period, while documenting the reuse or continuous occupancy of others.
Beginning in 1796, these documents record the types, dimensions, locations, building
materials and insured values of certain Williamsburg structures and their ownership.
Table 4.10 lists the range of “types” of structures that were insured between 1796
and 1818. These do not, of course, represent every structure in Williamsburg and their
biases are obviously towards those who desired and could afford insurance. Those with
higher valued homes would be more likely to be able to afford insurance while those
owning wooden structures, of higher risk to fire, were more likely to have desired insurance.
The biases within the recording of these buildings notwithstanding, the evidence
from the Mutual Assurance Society plats and documents can be quite useful. Domestic
dwellings, outbuildings, and commercial structures were the three basic units of analysis,
and some cautious general statements can be made about the nature and distribution
of these property types.
During the first quarter of the 19th century insured dwellings in Williamsburg
were more than two-and-a-half times the size of outbuildings, with average dimensions
of 50’ length and 27’ width, for nearly 1,400 square feet of living space. They were
overwhelmingly constructed of wood, and only 16% were brick. This echoes contemporary
remarks that the “houses in general are made of wood” (cited in Carson l961:
71). The median value of these houses was $1000 with one dwelling valued at a high
$5000.
111

TABLE 4.10 a
MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY
STRUCTURE TYPES
COMMERCIAL OR
DOMESTIC STRUCTURES OUTBUILDINGS RETAIL STRUCTURES
Dwelling Storehouse Tavern
Dwelling/Storehouse Dwelling/Storehouse Taylor’s shop
Dwelling with addition Kitchen Shop
Dwelling with elbow Smokehouse Store
Elbow on Dwelling Dairy Blacksmith Shop
Wing on Dwelling Coach house Barber’s shop
Dwelling with Wing Granary house Office
An Old House (uninsured) Stable Tavern L-shaped
Small wooden house Lumber house Elbow on tavern
Shed attached to house Lumber house/office Elbow on tavern
Porch on rear of dwelling Laundry Countinghouse
Portico on house front Smokehouse connected Dwelling with shop
Dwelling with shop inside to Slavehouse inside
Entry linking to house Meathouse Addition connecting
Portico on house front Cornhouse shop to storehouse
Dwelling with shop Slavehouse Addition
Entry linking to house Meat house Addition
Addition
Cornhouse
Necessary
Laundry & Storehouse
Razed() stable
Poultryhouse
Barn
Stable/Granary
Shed attached to kitchen
Shed attached to stable
Outbuilding
Storehouse attached to
house by covered way
Shed attached to house
Shed attached to laundry
Shed attached to
dwelling/storehouse
Chickenhouse
Kitchen attached to dwelling
Entry linking kitchen to house
Addition connecting shop
to storehouse
Addition
a
Compiled from plats of the Mutual Assurance Society for Williamsburg, Virginia. Research Library, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg.
112

Outbuildings were of far less value, with a median of $100 and a mean of $141.
The most valuable outbuilding was insured at $750. Eighty-eight percent were wooden
and 500 square feet was the norm for this category of structures. Their average length
was 26’ by 18’.
Fourteen commercial structures were insured in Williamsburg between 1796 and
1818. They were mainly shops, but also included a tavern, an office and a counting
house. With such a small number of structures, any statistical results are potentially
biased, but generally indicate that these commercial or retail enterprises were larger
than outbuildings, but 44% smaller than contemporary dwellings. Nine-tenths were
wooden, with a median value of $200, and dimensions were averaged at 20' by 40'.
Further analysis could provide more refined results, especially concentrating on
variability in structures rather than descriptive averages. Comparing these data with
more complete Mutual Assurance Society documents from other urban centers such as
Fredericksburg would help validate any results as well as place Williamsburg in the
context of the development of other areas. These records are also important because the
plats usually accompanying them show exact sizes, locations, and attributes of structures.
An analysis of these records is important for several reasons. If a framework of the
universe of buildings standing in Williamsburg or other parts of the state at any one
time is established then any threatened properties can quickly be assessed for significance
based on specific measurable characteristics. Secondly, plats of these insured
properties give important clues to the spatial dynamics of house lots and the identification
of buildings as loci of specific activities. This provides the possibility for the development
of predictive models for the distribution of specific structure types (see Figure
4.8). Finally, it is a ready reference for specific sites that may be threatened, giving
details of structure sizes, attributes, and locations.
As previously mentioned, few late 18th- and early 19th-century sites have been
examined in this area. One such house built in this period and remaining in the Colonial
Williamsburg Historic Area is the St. George Tucker House (CW-29A&B). One of the
largest domestic structures in the historic area, this dwelling began with a nucleus of the
1730s Levingston House, and the first phase of the house at its current location was
completed in 1788. Later additions augmented its size and structure. The house has
continued to be occupied by only the Tucker family descendants until the present day. It
is an excellent example of modification and continuous use of structures in Williamsburg
for 250 years. Archaeological investigation has been carried out on the grounds.
Other sites investigated archaeologically include Peacock Hill #1 (WB12) and
Tazewell Hall (CW-42A and CW-44B). Tazewell Hall was also an 18th- century structure
moved from its original location, and recent excavation revealed artifacts mainly
dating from its early 19th century inhabitants.
WB28, a site discovered in Phase II survey of the proposed Second Street Extension,
is important on several levels. First, it represents both the physical aspects of craft
activity in the outskirts of town and the consumption patterns related to artisan households.
Secondly, it shows the importance of survey to locate such structures, a process
which all too often occurs only after specific plans for destruction or disturbance has
been made.
113

Figure 4.8. Mutual Assurance Society Plat, James Semple, 1801.
One of the most prominent structures built during this time period is the
Bowden-Armistead House (137-39), viewed by thousands of visitors strolling Colonial
Williamsburg’s restored area. Built by Lemuel J. Bowden, later chosen as United States
Senator by the “Restored Government of Virginia” organized at Wheeling, it stands on
the corner of Nassau and Duke of Gloucester Street. Constructed between 1830 and
1840, it is an excellent example of Greek Revival architecture.
As past scholarship has virtually ignored the history of Williamsburg and its surrounding
areas from 1782 to 1926, it is difficult to formulate an exacting picture of the
region, its buildings, structures, sites and objects. Further research is necessary to tie
together various strands of evidence concerning early 19th-century buildings, such as
the archival records of Colonial Williamsburg’s early 20th-century removal of buildings,
Mutual Assurance Society insurance plats, local correspondence, merchants’ and
carpenters’ records, and estate inventories.
SUMMARY
The years between the Revolution and Civil War were ones of decline and later revival
as population, wealth, and political power moved westward, and the Lower Tidewater
struggled to stabilize and diversify its economic base. Agriculture still remained the
114

Map 4.8. Revolutionary War Era Road System.
Map 4.9. Study Unit XII: Known Resource Distribution.
115

TABLE 4.11
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 10 Longhill Road Site AS I 05 Dom./cemetery Unknown
JC 20 Martin’s Place AS I 02 Domestic Destroyed
JC 37 Kingsmill Plantation SB III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 44 Hampton Key AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill Unknown
JC 51 None AS I 01 Interior Cult./p.dest.
exploit. camp
JC 61 Shellfield House SB I 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 69 None AS I 09 Domestic Unknown
JC 76 Aperson Site AS I 06 Domestic Cultivated
JC 78 Owens-Illinois Property AS I 02 Domestic Thr./cult.
JC 79 Lane House AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
JC 81 Wilder Site AS I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 83 GL-11 AS III 08 Brick clamp Cultivated
JC 84 GL-14 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 90 Sherwood-Wilkenson Site AS III 08 Domestic Cultivated
(GL-24)
JC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 121 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Domestic Eroded/prot.
JC 122 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Trash pit Eroded
JC 127 Longhill Road Site AS I 06 Pottery P.destroyed
scatter/dom.
JC 128 None AS I 05 Domestic Cleared
JC 129* Governor’s Land #1 (GL-1) AS I 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 135 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.
military
JC 136 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.
military
JC 138 None AS I 10 Domestic Unknown
JC 141 “Barn” AS I 05 /agricultural Unknown
JC 157 None AS I 08 Unknown Unknown
JC 162 C.L. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 163 Rodgers Site #2 AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 164 Rodgers Site #1 AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 165 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 166 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 167 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 168 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 169 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 170 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 171 Moody’s Wharf AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknown
commercial
* Not shown on Map 4.9.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
116

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 172 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 173 Mount Folly SB I 03 Domestic Destroyed
JC 174 Mrs. P. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 175 Chapman Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 176 Minor Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 177 None AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 178 Mrs. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 179 S. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 180 Garrett Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 181 Rompfield Negro Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 182 Lawson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 183 A. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 184 Archer Piggott Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 185 Riverview SB MR 03 Domestic Good
JC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
JC 187 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
JC 188 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 189 Ewell Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
JC 190 Forlan Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 192 Moss Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 193 Six Mile (Allen’s) Ordinary AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed
JC 194 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 195 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 196 Garrett Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 197 Bush’s Mill AS MR 05 Mill Unknown
JC 198 Joseph Mickitt Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 200 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 201 Shop Site AS MR 05 Industrial Unknown
JC 202 Moore House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 203 Mary Copeland House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 204 Johnson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 205 Taylor House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 206 Mrs. Warner’s House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 207 Dr. Binn’s House AS MR 05 Domestic/ Unknown
office
JC 208 Vaiden House AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 209 Bush House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 210 Gordon House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 211 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 212 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 213 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 214 U.M. Spencer House SB I 05 Domestic Poor
JC 215 Hicks House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 216 W. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 217 J. Crenshaw House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 218 John Coke House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 219 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
117

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 220 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 221 W.L. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 222 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 223 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 224 J. Nettles House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 225 George Minor House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 226 N. Browning House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 227 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 228 James River (Browning) Mills AS MR 05 Mills Unknown
JC 229 Austin House SB I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 230 K. Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 231 B. Waddill House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 232 Pinewoods (R. Warburton SB I 05 Domestic Good
House)
JC 233 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 234 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 235 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 236 Simpson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 237 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 238 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
JC 239 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
JC 240 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 241 Taylor Saw Mill AS MR 05 Sawmill Unknown
JC 248 Sallie Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 249 Oliver Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 250 None AS MR 02 Unknown Unknown
JC 251 None AS I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 252 Mitchell Mill AS MR 02 Mill Unknown
JC 253 John Richardson House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 254 Whitaker House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 255 Garrett House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 256 William Meanley House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 257 William Meanley Site AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 258 A. Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 259 E. Sorrel House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 260 None AS I 02 Domestic Poor
JC 261 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 262 Martha James House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 263 I. Branch House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 265 Marston House SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 266 None AS MR 02 Unknown Unknown
JC 267 John Timberlake House AS I 02 Domestic Poor
(MacDowell’s Place)
JC 268 Boswell House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 271 Timberlake House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 272 Ashland Farm SB I 02 Domestic Fair
JC 273 O. Hudson House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
118

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 274 Dr. Ashlock Site AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknown
office
JC 275 Jack Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 276 P. Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 277 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 278 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 279 None AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 280 Dr. Jenning’s House AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknown
office
JC 281 White Hall Tavern SB I 02 Tavern Unknown
JC 282 LaGrange SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 283 Walter Enos House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 284 Mrs. Yates House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 285 None AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 286 George Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 287 Waverly Farm SB I 02 Domestic Good
JC 288 William Bagly House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 289 Martin House SB I 02 Domestic Good
JC 290 Lombardy Farm SB I 02 Domestic Fair
JC 292 Cowles House DB I 02 Domestic Destroyed
JC 293 Edwards Mill AS MR 02 Mill Unknown
JC 294 Wenger House (Clover Dale) SB I 02 Domestic/ Fair
agricultural
JC 296 C. Slater House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 297 Boswell House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 308 GL-4 AS I 08 Lithic red. Cult./p.dest.
base camp/
JC 318 GL-16 AS I 08 Sawmill/ Eroded
ferry/wharf
JC 321 GL-19 AS I 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 326 None AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 354 GL-27 AS I 08 Domestic Cultivated
JC 355 GL-28 AS I 08 Camp/dom. Cult./p.dest.
JC 356 GL-29 AS I 08 Camp/dom. Cult./p.dest.
JC 359 Rt. 199 Ext. A-3 AS I 06 Mill dam Good
JC 361 Rt. 199 Ext. A-5 AS I 06 Domestic Disturbed
JC 368 Rt. 199 Ext. A-15 AS I 05 Domestic Threatened
JC 393* James City County (Upper AS I 02 Earthen dam Undisturbed
County) Park 3
47- 7 Harris House SB I 05 Domestic Poor
47-17 Skiff’s Creek House DB I 10 Domestic Ruins
47-22 Col. William Allen’s House SB I 05 Domestic Fair
47-37 None SB I 02 Domestic Poor
47-44 None SB I 02 Domestic Poor
47-55 None SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
47-57 Binn’s Place DB I 05 Domestic Destroyed
47-69 Lane Farm SB I 06 Domestic Poor
119

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
47-73 Vaiden House SB I 05 Domestic Excellent
47-74 Jockey’s Neck Farm SB I 09 Domestic Unknown
47-76 James River Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent
47-79 Bick House SB I 05 Domestic Excellent
U- 2 Breezeland SB I 05 Domestic Good
U- 5 Foster House SB I 05 Domestic Good
U- 7 Green Shingle Site AS I 02 Domestic Destroyed
U- 8 Henley-Hubbard House Site AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
U- 9 Hill Pleasant Site AS I 05 Domestic./ Destroyed
cemetery
U- 10 Holly Springs SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
U- 11 Merry Oaks Site AS I 02 Domestic Unknown
U- 12 Methodist Chapel Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery Destroyed
U- 13* Sunnyside Site DB I 02 Domestic Destroyed
U- 17* Warren House SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
U- 22 Coles (Barrett’s) Ferry AS I 05 Ferry Unknown
U- 26 Saw Mill Site AS I 05 Military Destroyed
U- 29 Tappahost AS I 02 Settlement Unknown
U- 31* Redwood Ordinary AS I Tavern Unknown
YORK COUNTY:
YO 14 Edward Thomas Site AS I 06 Quaker dom. Unknown
YO 15 Burkes Corner AS III 06 Quaker dom. Excavated
YO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown
YO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Ecc./cemetery/Unknown
domestic
YO 19 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 20 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 21 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 23 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 31 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 32 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 33 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 34 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 37 None AS I 06 Redoubt Unknown
YO 39 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 40 None AS I 06 Gun Unknown
emplacement
YO 42 None AS I 06 Earthwork Unknown
YO 46 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 47 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 6
YO 48* Austin Site AS Inf 06 Domestic Destroyed
YO 49 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 7
120

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 50 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 8
YO 51 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 9
YO 52 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 10
YO 53 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 11
YO 54 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 14
YO 55 Braxton House AS I 06 Domestic Good
YO 60 Bruton Parish Poor House AS I 06 Poor house Undisturbed
YO 61 Piggott’s (Fenton) Mill SS I 06 Mill Poor
YO 64 Bellfield Plantation AS I 07 Plantation/ Unknown
cemetery
YO 72 Back Creek Location # 2 AS I 11 Unknown Threatened
YO 73 Back Creek Location # 3 AS I 11 Unknown Threatened
YO 74 Back Creek Location # 4 AS I 11 Domestic Threatened
YO 75 Back Creek Location # 5 AS I 11 Domestic Threatened
YO 91 Harwoods Mill Reservoir AS I 11 Domestic Undisturbed
Location # 1
YO 95 Old House Site AS Inf 10 Domestic Unknown
YO 103 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 110 None AS I 06 Quaker ind./ Unknown
domestic
YO 118 Taylor One AS I 11 Unknown Cult./p.dest.
YO 119 None AS I 11 Multi- Cult./p.dest.
component/
domestic
YO 120 None AS I 11 Multi- Cultivated
omponent/
YO 121 None AS I 07 Unknown Protected
YO 134 Harwoods Mill O AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 135 Harwoods Mill D AS I 11 Unknown Protected
YO 136 Harwoods Mill C AS I 11 Unknown Protected
YO 138 Harwoods Mill F AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 139 Harwoods Mill B AS I 11 Unknown Cultivated
YO 141 Newport News E AS I 10 Unknown Cult./prot.
YO 143 None AS I 06 Domestic Lumbered
YO 162 None AS Inf 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyed
military camp
YO 185 None AS I 06 Unknown Threatened
YO 191 None AS I 06 Artifact Threatened
scatter
YO 192 None AS I 06 Multi- Eroded/thr.
component/
121

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 193 None AS I 06 Multi Eroded/thr.
component/
YO 194 None AS I 06 Multi- Eroded
component/
YO 195 None AS I 06 Unknown Eroded/p.dest.
YO 209 None AS I 11 Artifact Eroded/thr.
scatter
YO 212* None AS I 10 Domestic Eroded
YO 217 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
commercial
YO 221 15Y AS III 11 Domestic/ Excavated
earthworks
YO 234 None AS I 11 Artifact Unknown
scatter
YO 235 HM 1 AS I 11 Domestic Unknown
YO 236 HM 7 AS I 11 Quarry Unknown
YO 238 HM 13 AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 239 HM 16 AS I 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 242 Skimino Mill AS Inf 06 Grist mill/ Destroyed
sawmill
YO 246 Plantation Complex AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 252 William Franklin House AS MR 11 Domestic Unknown
YO 253 Calthrop “Manner House” AS MR 11 Domestic Unknown
YO 255 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 256 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 257 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 258 None AS MR 06 Dom./cem. Destroyed
YO 259 None AS MR 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown
YO 260 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 261 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 262 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 263 Evans “Cherry Hall” SB I 06 Domestic Good
YO 264 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 265 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 266 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 267 Roberson Negro Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 268 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 269 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 270 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 271 Dr. Waller’s House AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity AS MR 06 Commercial Unknown
YO 273 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 274 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 275 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 276 None AS MR 06 Quaker dom. Unknown
YO 277 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 278 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
122

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 279 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 280 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 281 Pickett House AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 282 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 283 Capitol Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 284 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 285 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 286 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 287 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 288 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 289 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 290 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 291 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 292 None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 293 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 294 Porto Bello AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 295 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 296 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 297 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 298* None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 299 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 300 None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 301* H. Powers Site AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 302 None AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
YO 303 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 304 Brassingham Landing AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 305 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 306 Foace’s Quarter AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 307 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 308 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 309 Custis (Waller’s) Mill AS MR 06 Grist mill Unknown
YO 310 James Armfield AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 312 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
YO 313 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
YO 314 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 315 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 316 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter Unknown
YO 317 None AS MR 07 Plantation Unknown
YO 318 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 319 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 320 Ringfield Plantation SB I 07 Plantation Unknown
YO 321 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 322 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter Unknown
123

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 323 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 324 None AS MR 07 Domestic/ Unknown
slave quarter
YO 325 None AS MR 07 Unknown Unknown
YO 326 None AS MR 07 Domestic/ Unknown
slave quarter
YO 327 None AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 330 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 331 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 332 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 333 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 334 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 335 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 336 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 337 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 338 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 339 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 340 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 341 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 342 Nelson House AS MR 10 Domestic Unknown
YO 343 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 344 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 346 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 347 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 348 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 349 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 351 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 352 None AS MR 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 363 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 364 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 366 Potter Site AS MR 10 Domestic Unknown
YO 369 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 370 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 371 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 372 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 373 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 374 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
YO 376 SSE L-1 AS II 06 Unknown Threatened
YO 377 SSE M-1 AS II 06 Unknown Threatened
YO 385 Burwell’s Mill AS II 06 Water mill Unknown
YO 386 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 387 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 389 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 390 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 391 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 392 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
124

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 396 Burwell’s Mill Civil War AS II 06 Earthworks Eroded
Earthwork
YO 398 None AS I 06 Domestic/ Undisturbed
commercial
YO 404* Yorktown Shipwreck AS I 10 Shipwreck Preserved
JC 59 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 4
JC 60 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 5
JC 299 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 300 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
99- 6* Waterview SB I 11 Domestic Excellent
99-11 Grafton Christian Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Unknown
99-21* Swan Tavern SB I 10 Tavern Excellent
U- 32 Bigler House SB I Domestic Unknown
U- 33 Rosedale SB I Domestic Unknown
U- 34 Thorpland SB I Domestic Unknown
U- 91* York Poor House AS MR Public Unknown
U- 95* Thomas Wesley Morton House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 96* Benjamin Hudgins House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 98* Calhier’s House DB I Domestic Destroyed
CITY OF POQUOSON:
YO 10 None AS Inf 11 Unknown Cultivated
YO 97 None AS I 11 Domestic Destroyed
YO 106 Roberts Creek Site AS II 11 Domestic Cultivated
U- 61 Messick’s Point SS I 14 Landing Unknown
U- 85* John Gibbs Wornom House and SB I Domestic Good
Outbuildings
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ Stable
warehouses
WB 7 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 9 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 10 Brafferton Cistern AS I 06 Cistern Unknown
WB 12 Peacock Hill # 1 SB I 06 Domestic Unknown
WB 27 SSE A-1 AS II 06 Artifact Threatened
scatter
WB 28 SSE B-1 AS II 06 Domestic Threatened
CW-4* Custis Kitchen SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-4C* Public Hospital DB III 06 Hospital P.exc./recon.
CW-29A St. George Tucker House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
&B*
CW-29B* St. George Tucker Kitchen SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-30* Green Hill Lot AS III 06 Cemetery P.excavated
CW-42A* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved
CW-44B* Tazewell Hall DB III 06 Domestic P.exc./moved
125

TABLE 4.11 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
WB 31 SSE E-2 AS II 06 Artifact Threatened
scatter
WB 35 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 36 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 37 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 38 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 39 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 40 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 41 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 42 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 43 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 56 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 1
JC 57 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 2
JC 58 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 3
JC 82 Skipwith House AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
JC 301 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
JC 303 None AS MR 06 Unknown Unknown
137-34* Spencer’s Hotel (Chowning’s DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
Tavern Site)
137-39* Bowden-Armistead House SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
137-42 * Bell Mead SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
137-46* Wheatland DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
137-53* Rabon House DB I 06 Domestic Unknown
137-55* None DB I 06 Cemetery Destroyed
U- 60 * The Quarter SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
U-128* Williamsburg Female School DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery AS DR 06 Cemetery Unknown
most important facet of life and agriculturally-related structures are the most common
in this time period. Of special significance is the study of small farmers, both tenant and
landowner, free blacks and slaves, and their associated material remains. Non- agricultural
sites include grist mills, sawmills, tanneries, retail shops, wharves, ferries, landings,
and fisheries. Also important are the domestic structures related to them.
STUDY UNIT XII: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
Regional. After the Revolution the political and economic influence of the Tidewater
waned as the locus of wealth, population and power shifted to the Piedmont. With the
126

loss of population, the removal of the function of colonial government, and economic
decline, few matters of national importance were resolved here. In addition, land which
once had produced the finest and most expensive orinoco and sweet-scented tobacco
was now indistinguishable from much of the country in the general production of wheat
and corn. The history of the area is mainly one of recovery from these declines and
readjustment to the new agricultural system.
Summary of Property Types
Based on a study of land tax data and historic maps (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6), distribution
of sites would reflect the burgeoning and improving roads system, and concentrations
would occur along major roads, especially the “stage road” from Williamsburg to
Richmond, and the predecessor of Route 17 leading from Yorktown to points south. In
addition, distribution maps based on the 1815 land tax records indicate that a greater
density of population developed along the northwest corridor from the city of
Williamsburg and on a southeast course from Yorktown. Lower York County was more
densely populated than upper York County.
According to the same tax sources in 1820, 108 buildings were taxed in York
County with an additional 28 buildings on lots. In James City County 233 structures
were taxed.
However, economic upswing in the second quarter of the 19th century prompted a
population increase and most likely a corresponding increase in number of structures.
The number of white households increased from 496 to 606 between 1850 and 1860 in
James City County. York County’s growth of white households was less spectacular,
rising from 442 to 570.
It is impossible at this stage to estimate the rate or survival of these structures. Out
of this original universe of documented structures, some 410 sites are reported for this
study unit. However 232 (56.6%) of these are predicted based on documentary study.
Another 107 (26%) were located through Phase I archaeological survey, 10 (2.5%) by
Phase II archaeological survey, and 15 (3.6%) by Phase III archaeological survey. Another
24 (5.8%) were surveyed architectural sites on the state inventory, while 17 (4%)
were located through informants and mainly also represent standing structures.
The outline of property types below is a summary of historically documented structures,
buildings, and features.
A. Agricultural farmstead
1. Dwellings
2. Domestic outbuildings
a. Detached kitchens
b. Smokehouses
c. Dairies
d. Springhouses
e. Icehouses
f. Well housings
g. External root cellars
h. Privies
i. Other food preparation and/or storage buildings
127

3. Agricultural outbuildings
a. Barns
b. Granaries
c. Corncribs, cornhouses
d. Stables
e. Chicken or poultry houses
f. Carriage and/or wagon houses
g. Other crop preparation and/or storage buildings
h. Slave structures
B. Urban domestic sites
1. Dwellings
2. Domestic outbuildings
3. Agricultural outbuildings
C. Industrial sites
1. Mills
a. Grist
b. Saw
2. Fisheries
3. Tanneries
4. Tobacco manufactories
5. Lumber yards
6. Naileries
7. Boatyards
8. Other
D. Craft-related sites
1. Blacksmith shops
2. Saddleries and harnessmakers
3. Tin and brass smiths
4. Other
E. Transportation-related sites
1. Landings
2. Wharves
3. Roads
4. Commercial stables
5. Commercial coach houses
6. Other
F. Commercial and retail sites
1. Retail stores
2. Professional offices
a. Doctor’s offices
b. Lawyer’s offices
3. Storage of goods
a. Warehouses
b. Lumberhouses
4. Taverns and ordinaries
128

G. Public buildings and institutions
H. Religious structures
I. Schools
Certain factors, such as the economic and cultural background of their occupants,
produce variations within these property types. The sex, race, age, ethnicity and legal
status of the owners, occupants, and/or users will affect the range of material objects,
construction methods, and use of space associated with individual sites. There may be
other material correlates of these differences as well.
These differentiating factors are important in the evaluation of significance. Certain
segments of the population are seriously under- represented in the documentary
record, and for them, the archaeological record is of increased importance. It is also
often the larger, more permanent and aesthetically pleasing buildings that are preserved.
Preservation or study of smaller agricultural complexes and those of free blacks and
tenants is thus more crucial than the study of wealthy whites. Examined from this level,
these more significant variations on property types include:
(1) Free black agricultural communities. The high percentage of free blacks
and little available information on their role in area development make their
domestic and occupational buildings, structures, sites and objects highly significant.
Certain areas of free black occupation are clearly noted on 19th-century
maps, and Centreville has been initially surveyed as a free black settlement.
(2) Slave occupational and residential sites. Even though slaves represented nearly
half of the population of York and James City Counties, few resources associated
with them have been identified or preserved. Known and examined sites
in other areas, however, provide clues to the identification and location of
slave-related properties and features within agricultural complexes, and the
ability to study area slave sites in a comparative context.
(3) Small or middling size farms. One of the most underrepresented property
types, they were increasingly the most common as large plantations failed and
as land holdings were broken down by inheritance.
(4) Tenant farms. It is difficult to predict the number of tenants in the area because
of the lack of documentary evidence. However as fresh lands to the west
opened up, absentee ownership increased, and tenancy became more common.
No known tenant farms of this time period have been examined.
Character of Existing Data
Survey of the above property types is spotty. Specific areas throughout this region such
as Kingsmill, Carter’s Grove, and Governor’s Land have been intensely studied, but
mainly to understand much earlier occupations.
Over half of the 410 known resources for this study unit are predicted based on
their inclusion on several historical maps, generally made as part of either the Revolutionary
or Civil War military activity in the area. Map-predicted sites may be tied to
contextual information such as the name, sex, or race of the occupant and further information
can be culled from the documentary records on their social and economic status.
129

However, development may have significantly impacted a large number of these sites
and their current status must be checked.
It is also important to note that not all parts of the study area were recorded on
these maps and that these sites are merely a cartographer’s interpretation of a landscape
at a certain point in time, carrying certain biases and problems of any historic record.
Verification of map-predicted sites is imperative if they are to be used in any meaningful
way beyond general patterns of historical population distribution. A methodology
for such a map verification strategy is outlined under Identification Goals.
Another remedial measure in improving the current data base would be the upgrading
of the site files curated by the Division of Historic Landmarks. From the standpoint
of resource evaluation these records do little more than document vague locations
of artifact scatters in many cases. For instance, forms are often incomplete, giving minimal
detail and generalized descriptions, such as “nineteenth century” or “whiteware
scatter.” Peacock Hill #1 is an example, given a 19th-century provenience merely from
a ground scatter of ceramic types.
Few sites in the state inventory could be nominated to the National Register, much
less assigned to a specific property type and evaluated, based on the minimal information
provided in this record. It is imperative that a process be formulated whereby future
site records entered in the state inventory provide sufficient information to make
them usable. The state form itself is not the problem, quality control in their review does
seem to be. Perhaps monitoring the site records should become a major priority in the
duties of the Division of Historic Landmarks and funding be provided for at least a
half-time position to supervise, upgrade, and curate the state archaeological and architectural
site files. In addition, as it is expected that these records will be integrated into
a computerized data base management system in the next few years, it should be a
priority that their quality be improved prior to their entry.
It is not just the Phase I survey site records that fall short of minimal standards.
Often the Phase II and Phase III archaeological surveys are merely components of surveys
for earlier structures, such as Kingsmill and Governor’s Land. For instance, the
19th-century tenant structure at Kingsmill, built on the site of the 18th-century mansion
after it burned in 1844, merely receives passing mention as part of the archaeological
investigation of Kingsmill (Kelso 1984: 87) and a nominally recorded site form.
The quality of the existing data base also varied between the four local
jurisdictions. James City County has been more extensively investigated from an architectural
viewpoint than the other municipalities. As many of the James City County
historic records were burned more field work seems to have been attempted to gain site
information. In 1977 James City County prepared an “Inventory and Description of
Historic Sites in James City County,” listing some previously uncatalogued 19th-century
houses and frequently describes their condition (James City County Planning Department
1977). The contents of this study have yet to be systematically incorporated into
the state inventory which is surprising in view of its value for augmenting the county’s
data base.
York County is blessed with a far better documentary base as most historical records
have survived. However, other than the unpublished 1980 prehistoric survey (Derry
n.d.) little systematic or intensive archaeological or architectural study has been carried
out. In addition, much of York County has been developed by military
130

installations. Almost half of the county’s land is federally-controlled and little information
has been assembled about resources located on this land.
Documentary background for York County enables far more precise evaluation of
an archaeological or architectural site. In addition, the York County Project, being undertaken
by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation’s Research Department, with funding
from the National Endowment for the Humanities, is culling and compiling the county’s
documents up to 1830. This project will provide a major source of information for evaluating
sites. By virtue of its documentation, York County is in a unique position to provide
significant information about not only specific sites but the nature of life in the
post-Revolutionary and ante-bellum period.
Eighteenth-century Williamsburg structures may be one of the most intensively
studied group of buildings in America. Yet little is known of the structures built there
after 1783. Ironically, many have been destroyed to further the “pristine” 18th-century
atmosphere. Even though they have been recovered from Williamsburg sites, 19th-century
materials have usually been slighted in favor of earlier findings.
The City of Poquoson may be the least understood of all municipalities of this time
period. Little is known of the specific structures or fabric of life in this time period even
though the economic importance of the marine environment is seen through some contemporary
documents. This special niche needs further examination to understand the
cultural heritage of this area.
Primary data sources are generally extensive in this area between 1783 and 1865.
Of special use are the federal census records which began during this period, including
population, agricultural and manufacturing enumerations. Cartographers recorded the
area in both the Revolutionary and Civil War eras, providing specific site location.
Other useful documents are land records, including tax lists, deeds, and insurance
plats; probate records, including wills, executor’s accounts, estate inventories and appraisals;
personal property tax records; descriptions of the area by citizens and travellers;
private correspondence, especially the Tucker-Barraud letters; and family papers,
such as that of the Prentis family.
Another important step in the management of cultural resources for this area is the
compilation of these types of historical evidence regarding specific areas and/or sites.
With the turn of the 19th century, significantly more documentary evidence can be found.
Especially important is the addition of federal census information at the household level,
including agricultural data and tax data on landholdings and personal property.
Given the quantity and range of information available, it would be possible to
establish the social and economic status, occupation, sex and race of occupants of many
sites. For example, the house of “Miss Betsey Greene,” as located on Gilmer’s map was
discovered during a Phase I survey. Because of historical documentation and context,
additional research can be carried out to bring together all the archaeological and historical
information on “Miss Betsey Greene”, and through her an understanding of female
heads of household in general. This approach is extremely important as it allows
the conscious selection for sites that best represent segments of the population about
which little is known.
131

Criteria for Evaluation
National Register standards are based on both areas of significance and degree of integrity.
All four areas of significance may be applicable to resources in this areas, even
though Criterion A, illustrating significanct events in the broad patterns of history, and
Criterion D, representing potential historical information should prove most relevant.
Criteria B and C may be applicable in certain cases, including dwellings of persons
important to local, state, or national history, or structures embodying a specific style or
period of construction.
Integrity is also an important dimension of most properties. The National Register
outlines seven ways in which integrity should be determined: location, setting, feeling,
association, workmanship, design and materials. For instance, a 19th-century farmhouse
that has undergone extensive modernization or lost its domestic and/or agricultural outbuildings
has less integrity than one which has been unaltered. In addition, a relatively
undisturbed agricultural complex may have less integrity if it is ringed by motels or
gasoline stations. Archaeological integrity is even more measurable—a site or feature is
of less significance if it has been disturbed.
There are several aspects to evaluating the significance of a property type. Current
resources about which little is known, or that are unique, such as free black settlements
or tenant farms, are highly significant in providing information while other resources
are significant because of their representativeness.
For instance, agricultural farmsteads are undoubtedly the most representative property
type in this study unit and as a group can illustrate broad patterns of historical
evolution in several ways. These farmsteads not only include farm residences, but outbuildings
such as tobacco barns, granary houses, smokehouses, cornhouses, dairies,
chicken houses, stables, and other specialized loci of farm activity. The transition from
tobacco to other crops, such as wheat, altered the kinds of facilities necessary for their
processing and storage, and if specialized structures such as tobacco barns for sun or
heat curing were not abandoned their function at least was different.
Archaeology can provide answers to many questions concerning agricultural change
through their manifestations in the landscape. For instance, late 18th-century travellers
complained that the “cattle here are constantly in the woods” (Rochefoucauld 1797: 23)
and John Tyler was forced to specifically urge the fencing of cattle. As beef and dairy
farming became more important enclosure must have increased as well as facilities for
their stabling and processing.
The move to varying crops and rotation changed field size, a process documented
by Kelso at Kingsmill in the 18th century where ditches dividing the fields were
archaeologically located. Again this was documented by Rochefoucauld who found
that in the Williamsburg environs “the pieces of new cleared land are in almost every
instance surrounded with ditches well made and well sodded” (Rochefoucauld 1797:
23).
The economy of this time period is certainly reflected in the agricultural landscape
as well. Area decline of population and later revitalization is seen through farm size,
amount of non-utilized or under-utilized land, and patterns of building, renovation, and
decay of structures. For example, the Penuel Penny archaeological site (YO15) demonstrates
the “economic decline of a series of site occupants” in the late 18th- and early
132

19th-century through its artifactual assemblages (Martha McCartney, pers. comm. 1985).
Other historical changes which are reflected in the agricultural landscape of the early
19th century include economic decline and revitalization based on improved agricultural
methods, the introduction of subsoil plowing, and the increase of market gardening,
seen through orchards and garden beds.
With the outlines of these historical contexts, agricultural farmsteads can be evaluated
in terms of their ability to provide information that illustrates these broad patterns
or adds to the information about these historical developments. Similar statements can
be made about all the property types represented, including the importance of free black
and slave dwellings and occupational sites, grist and lumber mills, fisheries, commercial
structures, etc. and these will be more briefly discussed below.
Present Conditions of Property Types
Property types are increasingly threatened by development, population pressure, and
negligence. Population pressures on the various localities has been intense in the past
decade with Poquoson population increasing 60% from 1970 to 1980, James City and
York County increasing approximately 30% and Williamsburg less than ten per cent.
Whereas most of York County’s development has been mainly residential in character,
with the exception of Route 17 in lower York County, Williamsburg and James City
County have witnessed significant commercial growth, particularly in the environs of
Williamsburg and the Route 60 corridor west to Toano. These last are of particular
importance in relation to the increasing settlement on road systems in the late 18th and
early 19th century, especially on the “stage road.”
Few sites have been given National Register Status from this study unit. Of these
six properties with specific late 18th and early 19th century components, all contain
much earlier occupations. They are Carter’s Grove, Governor’s Land Archaeological
District, Kingsmill, Capitol Landing, College Landing, and the Williamsburg Historic
District.
It is difficult to assess public interest in this time period beyond that i sites associated
with military activity. Yorktown is visited by thousands annually as the site of the
end of the Revolution, and Civil War activities are of interest to several local groups.
Yet few domestic sites have engendered public enthusiasm. Too often it is only
when a property is threatened by development that public outcry is heard, and such will
probably be the case with early 19th century structures. Fortunately, academic interest
in this later period has grown, as witnessed by a commitment to such structures by the
APVA and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
Previous scholarship has mainly centered on 18th-century life and culture and only
recently has interest focused on the period after the removal of the capital. The research
goals below include the gathering, synthesis, and analysis of data, producing general
historical contexts, and are appropriate topics for graduate theses or dissertations.
133

(1) Assess the spatial, economic, and cultural boundaries of the agricultural farmstead
in changing economic contexts and the evolution of varied agricultural
systems.
(2) Establish the role of the sizable black population in area society and economy
and examine identified free black sites.
(3) Explore the population distribution in relationship to roads and local “urban”
centers and the emergence of neighborhoods and rural communities.
(4) Establish the role of Williamsburg and Yorktown as 19th-century local town
centers and their relationship to their hinterlands.
(5) Assess the role of marine resources in the economic base and variability of the
watermens’ way of life. This would be an especially appropriate topic for research
in Poquoson and parts of York County.
Because this time period has been generally ignored, many efforts at identification
are necessary. As discussed earlier, over 50% of the resources for this study unit are
map-predicted. Verification of map predicted sites is the first step in the evaluation of
area resources. These preliminary steps are necessary to be able to fully evaluate the
significance of certain property types. These are not ranked in order of priority.
Identification Goals
• Map verification. Four simple steps can be carried out to verify the continued presence,
either architecturally or archaeologically, of the buildings and structures on
these maps.
(1) The original maps should be studied for blatant topographical errors or omissions
for evidence of reliability. However, studies by personnel of the Virginia
Division of Historic Landmarks indicates a high degree of cartographic precision
for these maps in general.
(2) A program must be carried out to determine those sites which have not been
impacted by development. Several predictions can be made concerning the
preservation of map-predicted sources. First, by the second quarter of the 19th
century, roads were becoming relatively more important than waterways in the
transportation of travellers and goods. New roads were created and older ones
improved. Patterns of development became quite road ordered. Many modern
roads evolved from these historic roads. However, domestic structures were
often set quite a distance back from contemporary roads and widening and
minor straightening of their modern counterparts may not have impacted them.
Development at the very immediate edge with no back-set parking lots etc. may
similarly have had little detrimental effects. Where development has been more
extensive, such as that on Route 60 west out of Williamsburg to Toano and
Route 17 in lower York County, site disturbance is more likely.
(3) A detailed current land use plan should be consulted to gain information on
areas of development. An overlay of map-predicted sites will indicate those
with little chance of surviving, and these should be discounted from the “pool”
of possible information sources (again beyond their innate value as historical
134

documents and the information they provide on other levels). A simple survey
made by inspection with a vehicle may aid in further narrowing down the list
of undisturbed sites.
(4) For those sites which may be preserved, a professional field check is recommended.
This should consist of either a general architectural survey, noting
condition and number of standing structures, or a Phase I archaeological surface
walkover and subsurface testing as required. The latter should note artifacts,
boundaries, condition and disturbances, and probable property types
represented. Once this much smaller verified list is obtained strategies for evaluation
may then be formulated.
• Survey of existing farmsteads and their components, including dwellings, outbuildings,
and landscape. Those with potential for best information retrieval, i.e. site
integrity and representativeness, should be identified. Detailed plans should be
drawn up of the spatial dimensions and boundaries of these agricultural complexes,
such as Figure 4.9, as well as building plans.
• Documentary study of the presence of free blacks, including their economic and
social status, as well as the location of their domestic and occupational sites, combining
map, census and other historical data.
• Documentary study of slave sites, combining map, census and other historical data.
Employ established models of plantation spatial segregation in an attempt to locate
archaeological or architectural remains.
• Survey of standing or archaeologically remaining mills based on map data and
locational models in relation to creeks and mill ponds. Detailed recording of plans,
methods of construction, and datable characteristics of these complexes should be
included as well as the descriptions of technological innovations. This project should
be carried out by a trained industrial historian or industrial archaeologist.
• Survey of the marine environment of Poquoson and York County to assess remains
of the fisheries and the nature of maritime communities. A thorough documentary
study and oral history of these communities to establish historical context is recommended.
• Detailed study of the Mutual Assurance Society records to determine the biases of
the material, the number and range of structures insured, and patterns revealed in
the types of structures insured. Study of these insurance plats can produce a model
of early 19th-century Williamsburg structures based on the detailed information
recorded on each insured dwelling.
• Study of historic road locations to enable more precise modeling of population and
resource distribution. This should be patterned after the study carried out by the
Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council and the School of Architecture
at the University of Virginia. In this research, primary sources such as court
orders were studied by historians, geographers, and architectural historians, followed
by survey and documentation of formal and vernacular architecture associated
with the pre-20th century road system (Pawlett and Lay 1980: iii).
135

Figure 4.9. Plan of Maddox Farm, Somerset County, Maryland.
Evaluation Goals
The single property type for which only minimal work is required to reach the evaluation
level is mills. Based on descriptive and legal documentary sources (for instance
petitions to build tide mill dams) as well as map locations, a simple survey of those
eight documented mills will determine their current status and potential for information
retrieval. At that point, a research strategy can be developed to best suit the number of
structures and type of information available.
Registration Goals
• Certain areas may be eligible for nomination to the National Register as historic
districts. Pending future investigation and evaluation, appropriate sites may be the
free black settlement just south of Centreville and certain areas of Toano.
• Nomination of Whitaker’s (Burwell’s) Mill to the National Register. Based on research
carried out by Hunter (1982), the site is eligible and should be protected. It
is part of a property-holding currently slated for development.
• For those properties already on the National Register a periodic reassessment of
their condition is highly recommended. Several National Register sites, such as
College Landing, are critically threatened by development pressures.
136

Treatment Goals
The primary goal, as discussed above, is the identification, evaluation, and selection of
an appropriate sample of the highest-ranking property types for preservation, documentation,
and/or study. Preservation of significant resources in situ, moving of the resource
and preservation, recording and study, “banking” of archaeological sites for future
study, and mitigative strategies such as redesigned development around a specific
resource, and salvage archaeology are all specific treatments.
If documentation or salvage is the only possible course of action for a resource
then several basic steps must be carried out. These include assignment to a property
type and study unit, and extensive documentation prior to loss, including photographs,
drawings, measurements, and artifactual descriptions. Any treatment of a historic building
or structure should be carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines. This information should immediately be integrated into the
site files and in no instance should any salvage or information gathering be allowed
without a commitment to the proper recording and dissemination of such knowledge.
Again, it is difficult to discuss treatment goals except in a general way given the
information available at this stage. However, this limitation should in no way be construed
to mean that resources should not be preserved until the data base is improved,
only that to effectively manage the resources and correctly evaluate their significance
many of the previous goals should be met. Below are some suggestions for appropriate
methods of treatment.
• Agricultural farmsteads: After survey, evaluation of integrity, and documentation
by an architectural historian or other trained professional it is recommended
that a sample of sites be preserved within the context of their physical setting. For
those that cannot be saved, extensive documentation, via measured drawings, photographs,
and archaeological investigation is recommended.
• An attempt should be made to properly document Whitaker’s (Burwell’s) Mill,
already slated for development. It may be possible to change the nature of the
development in such a way as to avoid the site. If not, it must be appropriately
studied prior to its destruction or loss of integrity.
137

138

STUDY UNIT XIII.
YEARS OF ISOLATION: JAMES CITY COUNTY AND
YORK COUNTY IN THE WAKE OF THE CIVIL WAR
(A.D. 1865–A.D. 1907)
Major Theme: External and internal influences on this region after the Civil
War.
Sub-Themes: A. Continuity and change in rural agriculture.
B. Transportation.
C. Establishment of immigrant communities.
D. Local historical interest and the impact of the early
preservation movement.
Significance: Regional and National
This study unit treats the years following the Civil War, a period of retrenchment for
James City and York Counties. There was a decrease in population, farming activities,
and manufacturing after the war which was not recouped until the turn of the century (see
Tables 4.12-4.14). Progress at the end of the 19th century was a result of access to larger
markets provided by the railroad and changes in farming practices. These changes attracted
and were partially a result of an influx of immigrant groups at the turn of the
century. Another factor in the modernization of this study area was the effect of the
early preservation movement, which not only preserved historical resources, but also
attracted a tourist population which necessitated improvements in transport facilities.
The end date for this study unit is 1907, the opening of the Jamestown Exposition, a
turning point for York and James City Counties.
Few architectural surveys have focused on this time period. Only 30 standing structures
have been surveyed, twelve during the course of this project. The majority of
property types associated with this time period are poorly understood, as most of the
surveyed properties have been domestic buildings. Poquoson is probably the only area
in this region which still contains large numbers of late 19th-century structures, and it
has yet to be adequately surveyed. There are also a few clusters of structures dating to
this period in Norge and Toano, and lower York County.
Table 4.15 summarizes the known sites and surveyed standing structures dating to
this period. As this table indicates, specific, detailed information about the distribution
and current condition of property types for the late 19th and early 20th centuries within
the study area is almost non-existent. Most of the 121 archaeological sites have been
map-predicted by the Virginia Research Center for Archaeology from the 1863-1864
Gilmer Maps and an 1870 Chickahominy Map. This gives an incomplete estimate of
the number of possible sites or structures, since it does not account for any sites dating
to the late 19th century, and also may include buildings in continuous use built prior to
the Civil War. Along with these biases is the local research interest in 17th- and
18th-century resources, which has precluded study of this time period. Therefore, the
probable number of archaeological sites specific to the late 19th century, cannot be
adequately established without a preliminary field survey and field testing of
139

map-predicted sites. Only 43 sites dating to the late 19th century have actually been
surveyed, and only six have been excavated.
Available primary sources for the period are numerous and include the 1860 to
1910 Censuses, land and tax records dating after 1865, maps, the Freedmen’s Bureau
records, Virginia state documents (such as the annual reports of the Department of Agriculture
and Immigration), city directories, and manuscripts (including 14 collections
at Swem Library of the College of William and Mary).
SUB-THEME A: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RURAL
AGRICULTURE
After the Civil War, while other sections of the country became increasingly industrialized,
James City and York Counties retained a strong agricultural tradition. Even with
the introduction of the railroad and influx of immigrant groups, this area was predominantly
rural. Not until the turn of the century did industries begin to appear, due mainly
to substantial population growth and an increasing military presence in the area. Thus,
the two counties remained relatively isolated from the effects of the Industrial Revolution
occurring elsewhere.
Farming itself changed quite dramatically after the Civil War. The obvious difference
was the loss of slave labor, which had previously been used by 40% to 60% of the
counties’ farmers as compared to the state average of 38% (Garnett and Edwards 1941:
30). However, a large population of freed blacks remained in the area working as paid
farm laborers. Production dropped by approximately one-half and farm size by one-third
to one-fifth (Table 4.12). The number of farms increased by 300%, almost in inverse
relation to the drop in farm size. However, after this initial alteration in the farming
landscape, the agricultural statistics show little change over the next forty years except
for a steady increase in per acre production.
Changes which did occur in farming practices in the area were mostly due to external
factors. The railroad, an efficient transportation system introduced to this area in
1881, made cash-crop farming a viable source of income once again. Irish potatoes
were the primary cash-crop in the study area until the 1920s. The Branch family in
Toano effectively exploited this new transport system by constructing its own spur of
track. An additional Branch family innovation was the establishment of a barrel factory
to construct shipping containers for potatoes, since packing in boxes was not as effective
(Jeffrey 1984: 3).
The immigrant population which came into this area around the turn of the century,
particularly the Scandinavians, focused their attention on dairy farming, using
practices brought from the Midwest. With the establishment of military bases before
and during World War I, a ready market for milk was available. Dairying continued to
be important to this region until the 1940s (Overton 1984: 10).
Mechanization of agriculture did not become widespread until well into the 20th
century. Not until 1920 did the value of farm implements and machinery increase significantly.
Even as late as 1925, there were only 39 tractors in James City County and
one in York County (Gee 1927: 188). The limited industrialization evident in the study
area for this time period was closely allied to processing grains, and included flour and
grist mills (see Plate 4.16).
140

TABLE 4.12
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 1
1860 1870 1880
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC
Numbers
Horses 358 539 298 433 451 676
Dairy Cows 636 924 497 951 755 1,090
Other Cattle 1,678 2,671 912 1,440 1,594 2,161
Sheep 668 1,271 419 708 723 340
Swine 4,794 5,670 2,485 4,626 3,416 4,237
Poultry NL 3 NL NL NL 6,802 22,452
Bushels
Corn 119,460 157,421 64,128 107,103 66,774 104,326
Oats 18,573 15,245 8,238 12,060 7,311 6,836
Wheat 57,220 38,334 10,350 3,289 9,315 15,697
Hay (Tons) 1,165 888 108 2 285 30
Potatoes 4,750 4,657 6,804 12,416 1,159 20,405
Sweet Potatoes 7,393 22,097 5,071 12,954 4,725 10,509
Peanuts NL NL — — NL NL
Farms
Number 149 323 346 912 434 906
Own NL NL NL NL 262 541
Tenant NL NL NL NL 172 365
Manager NL NL NL NL NL NL
Average Farm Acreage 512 210 121 61.5 125 55
Farm Size (Acres)
Under 10 4 7 49 333 60 263
10 - 19 3 21 99 204 67 223
20 - 49 7 89 86 141 98 218
50 - 99 6 68 63 98 63 82
100- 499 77 100 48 35 127 100
500- 999 30 26 1 1 15 14
1000+ 22 11 — 1 4 6
1
Compiled from agricultural schedules of the census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration
records.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
NL = No Listing.
Ideal domestic property types for this sub-theme are those which demonstrate these
historical trends in action. A large plantation which was broken up after the Civil War
into many small farms, or a farm which flourished because of its accessibility to the
railroad, or an immigrant farmstead which exhibited characteristics different from traditional
farms, all can contribute to an understanding of life in the area after the Civil
War.
Other important resources include community centers such as cross-road stores,
grange halls, and market-places. New communities were formed by the changing pat-
141

TABLE 4.12 (cont’d)
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 1
1890 1900 1910
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC
Numbers
Horses 580 735 735 1,255 754 1,326
Dairy Cows 936 968 614 1,168 700 1,424
Other Cattle 1,339 1,509 804 1,387 643 1,438
Sheep 797 652 740 1,049 740 681
Swine 11,626 3,005 2,550 5,546 1,491 4,148
Poultry 12,810 37,692 14,008 26,065 17,436 36,393
Bushels
Corn 76,368 95,266 89,870 126,110 120,109 160,785
Oats 21,394 9,151 2,760 2,000 3,930 2,251
Wheat 1,682 2,154 1,480 250 20 791
Hay (Tons) 975 1,064 2,024 1,160 2,136 2,080
Potatoes 2,759 24,072 28,929 32,188 217,138 111,395
Sweet Potatoes 6,180 8,562 13,567 14,122 9,110 22,748
Peanuts 11,083 4,202 10,396 14,575 2,567 5,595
Farms 370 625 573 1,139 496 1,123
Own 286 384 420 943 403 960
Tenant 84 241 148 193 86 110
Manager NL 3 NL 5 3 7 53
Average Farm Acreage 162 64 122.5 46.5 113.1 45
Farm Size (Acres)
Under 10 27 145 71 387 64 310
10 - 19 45 156 124 279 93 345
20 - 49 77 170 139 283 121 241
50 - 99 66 64 98 78 82 113
100- 499 129 72 115 123 113 105
500- 999 19 13 14 13 16 7
1000+ 7 5 12 4 7 2
1
Compiled from agricultural schedules of the census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration
records.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
NL = No Listing.
terns in farming, as a result of the multiplicity of farmsteads after the Civil War, the
introduction of the railroad, and the influx of immigrant groups. Market and retail centers
were very important for redistribution of locally-consumed produce. General stores
were also important as gathering places for farmers and fishermen. One example, Amory’s
General Merchandizing Store in Poquoson, has a long and fascinating history, but is
unfortunately soon to be torn down (Plate 4.17).
Many of the map-predicted sites listed in Table 4.16 are probably associated with
this sub-theme, although until an actual survey is done their importance cannot be determined.
There are also many turn-of-the century homes and stores, still extant, which
are important, but which have not yet been identified as significant.
142

Plate 4.17. Amory’s General Merchandising Store, Poquoson.
SUB-THEME B: TRANSPORTATION
While there was considerably more attention paid to roadways—and more use of overland
travel—during the colonial era than has often been supposed, the origins of the
present transportation system of Tidewater Virginia lie in the “Transportation Revolution”
of the 19th century. The “Revolution” included the construction of port facilities
on both the York and James Rivers and on the Chesapeake Bay, the perfection of
steam-powered water transit, the belated arrival of railroads on the Peninsula, and a
well-established overland network of roads.
Reminders of all phases of the development of the present Tidewater transportation
system survive, and in many cases have continued in use, into the 20th century.
After undergoing great destruction during the Civil War, local roads “gradually fell into
a state not only worse than that of 1860, but probably worse than that existing before the
turnpike era began in the late 18th century” (Pawlett 1977: 30). Inland roadways were
not adequately maintained as other transport methods proved more viable. Unlike other
regions of Virginia, there were no turnpikes in this area. Not until 1906, in anticipation
of the Jamestown Exposition, was a road surface paved between Williamsburg and
Jamestown (Rouse 1973: 74). By 1920, the Williamsburg- Richmond State Road was
paved. As late as 1940, more than 25% of local farms were not on paved roads, and
other means of transportation were important until well into the 20th century (Garnett
and Seymour 1933: 82).
Colonial Virginia had from the early days of settlement relied on its “natural” transportation
system of rivers and creeks. This waterborne system continued to be the quickest
and most comfortable form of travel until the advent of the railroad. Waterways were
143

used to transport farm products to Richmond and other markets until after the Second
World War. Wharfs, such as Glass House Point, Swans Point, Crays Creek, Scotland
Wharf, College Creek, and Burwell’s Landing, dotted the James River. Ferguson’s Wharf
was the longest example of its type on the James River in 1890 (True 1984; 56). In the
Poquoson district, where the fishing industry was and is still important, people were
also engaged in building canoes which had a worldwide reputation (Department of Agriculture
and Immigration of the State of Virginia 1893: 340).
Steamers travelling between Baltimore and Richmond advertised the trip along the
James River as “affording tourists an opportunity of viewing more Historical Battlefields,
Old Colonial Manors, and scenes of great interest than any other route in America”
with stops at Grove Landing, Kingsmill Wharf, Williamsburg, and Jamestown (Baltimore
Steam Packet Company 1896). Steamship travel also continued in popularity until the
mid-1920s.
The railroad altered both the landscape and commercial activities in James City
and York Counties. Financed by Collis Huntington, the railway reached Williamsburg
in 1881, just in time for Yorktown’s Centennial. One of its purposes was to provide
transport for day excursioners to the celebration. The temporary tracks laid down Duke
of Gloucester Street in Williamsburg were moved in 1882, and permanent tracks were
laid east of town.
The train connected Peninsula farmers with the Newport News and Hampton shipping
lines, providing them with an ever-widening market for their goods. Stations became
centers of commerce and industry, and around them grew residential communities.
By 1893, there were six stations in this study region: Diascund, Toano, Kelton
(later Norge), Ewell, Williamsburg, and Grove (Department of Agriculture and Immigration
of the State of Virginia 1893: 207) (Plate 4.18).
Each station attracted commercial, industrial and residential speculators. Toano, in
particular, was a center for shipping farm crops. The Branch Barrel Factory was built at
Toano to expedite shipping in 1890, employing seventy to eighty people to pack
potatoes (Jeffrey 1984: 3). The railroad changed the quality of farming from a small- to
a large-scale operation. Carl Bergh, an agent for the railroad, recruited Scandinavian
immigrants from the Midwest to farm lands around the Norge station, a community
which has outlived the depot which shaped its forming.
The coming of the railroad to the Peninsula coincided with the opening of the
Newport News Shipyard, also financed by Huntington. The yard, which opened in 1889,
attracted thousands of employees to the Peninsula and to this study area, particularly
during the two World Wars. The railroad continued to dominate the transportation scene
until World War I.
Aside from farming, industries which expanded as a result of changing technology
and improved transportation included the seafood industry, which had previously played
an important, if geographically limited, role in Tidewater economy. As a result of newly
patented canning techniques, and improved shipping capabilities, eastern Virginia in
the 1880s employed over 9000 oyster tongers alone, many of them black (Ennis 1978:
13). Several communities of watermen developed, particularly at Seaford and Poquoson,
supported both by the harvest, processing and sale of fish and shellfish, and by farming.
Dependent on the waterways both for transportation and for their livelihood, these
watermen developed a number of specialized vessels known by names such as “bugeye”
144

Plate 4.18. Norge Railroad Station.
and “kunner.” Although employment in the military and industrial fields has attracted
many former watermen and their children, small communities of commercial fishermen
still remain in Poquoson and Dare.
Transportation-related resources have been largely ignored in the study area. No
systematic survey of wharfs, railroad stations, roadways, or related sites has been done,
and as time passes many of these sites are being lost. Diascund Railroad Station was
torn down in 1971, and the railway spur which served the Branch Barrel Factory is
gone. A few historic wharfs in Poquoson are being acquired and protected by the city
government. Since many of these types of sites and structures have fallen into disuse,
they are threatened by future development as well.
The paucity of secondary literature on transportation networks in this region underlines
the need for historical research on this topic. The documentation is available,
especially on inland roadways, but has not been synthesized into a usable form. Much
of the historical information will come from oral histories and folklife studies as well,
which must precede the destruction of transportation-founded communities.
SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES
There has been a continuous stream of immigrants into this region since early colonization.
Until the late 19th century, foreign-born immigrants were predominantly from the
British Isles (Table 4.13). After that time immigrants of other nationalities migrated to
the area, attracted by the accessibility of farmland and employment opportunities on the
145

TABLE 4.13
POPULATION SCHEDULES 1
1860 1870 1880 1890
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
Total Population 5,798 4,949 4,425 7,198 5,422 7,349 5,643 7,596
Number of Households 606 3 570 3 919 1,524 1,092 1,359 4 1,088 1,484
Number of Homes 1,064 5 967 5 800 1,500 993 1,380 4 1,006 1,452
Number to a Home 5.45 5.12 5.53 4.80 5.46 5.33 5.61 5.23
Number to a Household 9.57 8.68 4.82 4.72 4.97 5.41 5.19 5.12
Foreign-Born Population 33 44 65 49 67 32 46 27
Austria NL NL NL 7 NL NL NL NL NL
Canada NL NL 1 1 NL NL — 1
Denmark NL NL NL NL NL NL — —
England NL NL 10 3 17 5 11 —
France NL NL — 4 2 — — 1
Germany NL NL 3 9 11 10 12 —
Greece NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Hungary NL NL NL NL NL NL - —
Ireland NL NL 3 26 24 2 11 3
Italy NL NL — 1 1 1 2 1
Norway NL NL NL NL — — — —
Poland NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Russia NL NL NL NL NL NL — —
Scotland NL NL 47 1 4 8 3 4
Sweden NL NL NL NL — — — —
Other NL NL 1 1 8 6 6 3
Born in Virginia NL NL 4,235 6,862 5,181 7,154 NL NL
1
Compiled from censuses.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
Only white and free black households listed.
4
Numbers are approximate; no detailed listing for Bruton District.
5
Slave dwellings included in totals.
6
NL= No Listing.
Peninsula. These new immigrant groups established a number of communities in the
area beginning in the late 19th century. Among these were the Scandinavians of Norge,
who established that settlement in the 1890s. Recruited by Carl Bergh, then land and
excursion agent for the C & O Railroad, to farm the lands along the railroad tracks,
these Scandinavians (most of whom were Norwegians), settled at Norge, Five Forks,
and the Neck-o-Land area. A Mennonite community settled at Denbigh in 1897. These
two immigrant groups brought different farming practices to the area, and their most
significant contribution was the establishment of a number of prosperous dairy farms.
Another group of immigrants, the Greeks, came into this region just prior to World War
I. Their commercial activities have become closely tied to the tourist industry around
the Historic Areas of Williamsburg and Yorktown.
A category of immigrants often overlooked are those Americans born outside the
state of Virginia. The 1870 and 1880 Censuses (Table 4.13) show that a majority of
146

TABLE 4.13 (cont’d)
POPULATION SCHEDULES 1
1900 1910 1920 1930
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
Total Population 5,732 7,482 6,338 7,757 6,138 8,046 7,657 7,615
Number of Households 1,028 1,532 1,241 1,543 1,207 1,822 1,474 1,845
Number of Homes 1,024 1,532 1,143 1,445 1,155 1,801 1,333 1,791
Number to a Home 5.60 4.90 5.55 5.37 5.31 4.47 5.74 4.25
Number to a Household 5.58 4.90 5.11 5.03 5.09 4.42 5.19 4.13
Foreign-Born Population 150 42 180 123 136 82 194 65
Austria — 1 — 18 6 3 8 2
Canada 4 7 10 2 12 5 18 1
Denmark NL 3 NL 19 16 20 6 13 6
England 17 3 17 11 10 10 28 10
France 1 — 1 — 2 — 1 1
Germany 15 13 16 13 5 4 14 3
Greece NL NL — — 3 1 16 —
Hungary — — 1 1 3 2 5 —
Ireland 9 9 9 1 8 2 4 2
Italy 1 1 2 1 8 1 17 1
Norway NL NL 73 26 29 17 14 13
Poland — — — — 1 19 7 14
Russia 4 2 23 5 10 1 26 1
Scotland 13 2 10 5 7 3 6 2
Sweden NL NL 8 5 3 3 4 2
Other 86 — 7 2 9 5 13 5
1940 1950 1960 1985
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
Total Population 8,849 8,857 13,052 11,750 18,371 21,583 38,870 38,810
Number of Households NL NL NL NL 5,256 5,724 NL NL
Number of Homes 1,865 2,259 NL NL NL NL 14,620 12,083
Number to a Home 4.75 4.20 NL NL NL NL 2.52 3.21
Number to a Household NL NL NL NL 3.50 3.77 2.80 3.15
1
Compiled from censuses.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
NL = No Listing.
4
Williamsburg is included with James City County; 1985 James City County figures are approximate.
newcomers to the Tidewater were born in the United States. In 1870 over 150 people in
the region were originally from New York, as many as the total foreign-born population.
There were also 77 people from North Carolina, 48 from Maryland, and 27 from
Pennsylvania. In 1880, there were 90 New Jersey natives, nine less than all foreign-born
residents at this time. Of the 337 people that were not born in Virginia, less than one-third
of these were foreign-born while the majority were from Northeastern states and constituted
approximately five percent of the population of the two counties. Their impact on
the Peninsula is largely unstudied, and it is not known how they were related to the
often-discussed “Northern capitalists” that followed in the wake of the Civil War.
147

As is true of other aspects of this period, little systematic research has been done
on immigrant communities. There is a great deal of local interest in foreign-born immigrants,
as many of their cultural traditions have been maintained. Such buildings as the
Williamsburg Mennonite Church and the Viking Hall in Norge (Plate 4.19) attest to the
continuation of their native customs. The labelling of modern communities and streets
with Scandinavian-sounding names, such as Norvalia, reflects a desire to retain this
heritage. For British- or American-born immigrants into this area, however, it is difficult
to distinguish any particular new contributions to the region. Thus, any attempt to
identify architectural and archaeological sites for this group would require in-depth
research into regional styles and variations.
The locations of immigrant communities are fairly well known. The majority of
Scandinavian immigrants, according to the 1900 Census, settled on the Williamsburg
and Richmond Stage Road and York River Road in the Stonehouse Magisterial District.
The Greeks moved up from the Newport News area to Yorktown and Williamsburg. The
Mennonite group originally settled in Denbigh (outside the study area), but their influence
and traditions have spread into James City and York Counties.
New communities such as Norvalia and Kristiansand have been built on farmlands
once owned by these immigrants. The impact of this small group of foreign-born immigrants
on the farming practices (i.e., dairy farming) of this region warrants a close examination
of their lifestyles and cultural traditions, before more of their original settlement
is destroyed.
Plate 4.19. Viking Hall, Norge.
148

SUB-THEME D: LOCAL HISTORICAL INTEREST AND THE
IMPACT OF THE EARLY PRESERVATION MOVEMENT
The first celebration of an historical even in the study area that received national attention
was the 250th anniversary of Jamestown in 1857. The event, including a military
encampment, was attended by 8000 people who arrived via steamboat. Then, as an
important adjunct to the Centennial celebration in Philadelphia in l876, a celebration of
the 100th anniversary of Cornwallis’ surrender was held at Yorktown in October, 1881.
This three-day event included the laying of the cornerstone for the Yorktown Victory
Monument in the presence of 20,000 people. Since this was a national affair, the C & O
Railway rushed to lay tracks down the Peninsula to transport federal and state officials
to the celebration. The tracks, which ran down the main street of Williamsburg and from
Lee Hall to Yorktown, were relocated after the celebration. In May of 1882, this railway
line became the first regular passenger line between Newport News and Richmond,
bringing the prosperous post-war Northerners through this area on their way to the
booming winter resorts further down the Peninsula.
The Centennial awakened local historical interest. Mrs. Cynthia Coleman of
Williamsburg created the Catherine Coleman Memorial Society on February 9, 1884, a
charitable organization which sold handicrafts and flowers to aid in the repair of a
Williamsburg Church and to restore monuments in the churchyard. Later Mrs. Coleman
joined forces with Miss Mary Galt of Norfolk, who was concerned over the Jamestown
ruins, to form the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA). The
first meeting of this group took place in Williamsburg on January 4, 1889. Before the
end of the century, the APVA had purchased and “restored” the Colonial Powder Magazine
in Williamsburg (Plate 4.20) and was given title to the site of the Colonial Capitol,
also in Williamsburg.
Although the organization’s activities spread beyond this study area, the major
interest of the APVA during this time was the preservation of JamestownIsland. An
annual Jamestown Day celebration was revived, and the Army Corps of Engineers under
the supervision of Colonel Samuel Yonge constructed a seawall to halt the erosion
of the island. Some of the earliest historical archaeology in this country was done at this
time. John Tyler Jr. excavated the foundations of the 17th-century church at Jamestown.
Colonel Yonge himself conducted excavations of the 17th-century foundations he discovered
while constructing the seawall. Amidst all of this planning, President Theodore
Roosevelt called for a national observance of Jamestown’s tercentennial in 1907.
The main event of the tercentenary was to be held in Hampton Roads (just outside
this study area) rather than at Jamestown itself, since Roosevelt had invited the world to
join in an “international naval, marine, and military celebration.” The APVA saw to it
that a hard-surface road was constructed from Williamsburg to Jamestown so tourists
could visit the site. Although the celebration was not at Jamestown, the military display
at Hampton Roads was paired with an exhibit illustrative of the colonial period. Many
of the major exhibition buildings were constructed in the Colonial Revival style, which
was quite popular by 1907. However, these were nostalgic recreations and little attempt
was made to discover the true nature of architecture in early Jamestown. Many of these
buildings still stand at the Hampton Roads Naval Base.
149

Plate 4.20. Powder Magazine, Williamsburg.
Following the Jamestown Exhibition at Hampton Roads, the APVA continued to
maintain Jamestown, along with several other properties in the project area, but their
main focus turned to Richmond. The APVA was one of the first large private preservation
groups to be formed and served as a model for many others nationwide.
An active member of the APVA, Lyon Tyler, son of President Tyler, helped to
re-open the College of William and Mary in 1888. Although the state’s goal in appropriating
monies for William and Mary was to create a teacher’s college, one of Tyler’s
objectives was to revive an interest in the Colonial history of Virginia. He was instrumental
in founding the William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Papers in 1892,
now the oldest Southern historical magazine still in existence.
Another significant individual in the early local preservation movement was
Reverend W.A.R. Goodwin, who was chosen rector of Bruton Parish in 1903. He began
the restoration of the Colonial church, which included a small excavation beneath the
church floor to locate graves of early parishioners and ministers. The work was completed
in time to celebrate, in 1907, the 300th anniversary of the establishment of the
Episcopal Church in America.
Resources important to this sub-theme are early examples of preserved buildings
and archaeological sites, such as Bruton Parish Church, the Powder Magazine, Jamestown
Island, Yorktown, and the Wren Building, as well as early examples of Colonial Revival
buildings, and exhibition buildings such as those surviving structures of the Jamestown
Tercentenary. Most of these sites are being preserved in their colonial state, and their
significance as early examples of preservationist efforts is often overlooked.
150

TABLE 4.14
MANUFACTURE 1
1860 1870 1880 1890
JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
No. of Industries 28 118 20 7 14 12 6 11
Fisheries — 105 NL 3 NL NL NL NL NL
Ship Building — 1 NL NL NL NL NL NL
Lumber Sawed 7 5 3 2 7 3 6 5
Flour & Meal 11 3 2 5 6 6 NL NL
Other Wood Related 1 1 3 — NL NL NL NL
Concrete Products — — NL NL NL NL NL NL
Building Industry NL NL 7 — 1 — NL NL
Other 9 5 5 — — 3 — 6
Employees 108 386 46 36 73 69 20 26
1900 1910 1920 1960
JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
No. of Industries 15 16 NL NL 13 19
Fisheries NL NL NL NL — 105 — 2
Ship Building NL NL NL NL NL NL — 1
Lumber Sawed NL NL NL NL NL NL 6 5
Flour & Meal NL NL NL NL NL NL 2 6
Other Wood Related NL NL NL NL NL NL 1 1
Concrete Products NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Building Industry NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Other NL NL NL NL NL NL 4 3
Employees 62 17 NL NL 185 20 NL NL
1
Compiled from manufacturing schedules of the censuses.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
NL = No Listing.
SUMMARY
This study unit has examined the regional isolation of the Peninsula and its retrenchment
period after the Civil War. Changes occurring at the end of the 19th century, such
as the “Transportation Revolution” and an influx of immigrants with new agricultural
and commercial interests, helped restore the economic viability of this area. The nationally
significant preservation movement was a major force in this region as well.
Very little historical research has been done for this time period. The study of sites
and structures associated with this study unit has been neglected as well. The potential
for research while there are people still living who remember this time and while buildings
of the period still stand, is immeasurable. Intense efforts in survey, oral history
recording, and historical research are needed. Specific recommendations are listed in
the following operating plan.
151

Map 4.10. Civil War Era Road System.
Map 4.11. Study Unit XIII: Known Resource Distribution.
152

TABLE 4.15
STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill Unknown
JC 61 Shellfield House SB I 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 78 Owens-Illinois Property AS I 02 Domestic Threatened/
cultivated
JC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 103 Hobson Site (GL-41) AS III 08 Domestic Unknown
JC 121 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Domestic Eroded/
protected
JC 122 York River State Park Site AS I 03 Trash pit Eroded
JC 134 Hyman Site AS I 08 Unknown Unknown
JC 138 None AS I 10 Domestic Unknown
JC 157 None AS I 08 Unknown Unknown
JC 162 C.L. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 163 Rodgers Site #2 AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 164 Rodgers Site #1 AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 171 Moody’s Wharf AS MR 03 Domestic/ Unknown
commercial
JC 174 Mrs. P. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 175 Chapman Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 176 Minor Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 178 Mrs. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 179 S. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 180 Garrett Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 181 Rompfield Negro Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 182 Lawson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 183 A. Richardson Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 184 Archer Piggott Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
JC 189 Ewell Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
JC 190 Forlan Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 192 Moss Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 193 Six Mile (Allen’s) Ordinary AS MR 05 Tavern Destroyed
JC 194 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 195 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 196 Garrett Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 197 Bush’s Mill AS MR 05 Mill Unknown
JC 198 Joseph Mickitt Site AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 200 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 201 Shop Site AS MR 05 Industrial Unknown
JC 202 Moore House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 203 Mary Copeland House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 204 Johnson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 205 Taylor House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
* Not shown on Map 4.11.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
153

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 206 Mrs. Warner’s House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 207 Dr. Binn’s House AS MR 05 Domestic/ Unknown
office
JC 208 Vaiden House AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 209 Bush House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 210 Gordon House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 211 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 212 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 213 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 214 U.M. Spencer House SB I 05 Domestic Poor
JC 215 Hicks House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 216 W. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 217 J. Crenshaw House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 218 John Coke House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 219 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 220 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 221 W.L. Spencer House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 222 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 223 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 224 J. Nettles House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 225 George Minor House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 226 N. Browning House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 227 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 228 James River (Browning) Mills AS MR 05 Mills Unknown
JC 230 K. Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 231 B. Waddill House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 232 Pinewoods (R. Warburton SB I 05 Domestic Good
House)
JC 233 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 234 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 235 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 236 Simpson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 237 None AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 240 Richardson House AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 241 Taylor Saw Mill AS MR 05 Sawmill Unknown
JC 248 Sallie Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 249 Oliver Hockaday House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 250 None AS MR 02 Unknown Unknown
JC 252 Mitchell Mill AS MR 02 Mill Unknown
JC 253 John Richardson House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 254 Whitaker House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 255 Garrett House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 256 William Meanley House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 257 William Meanley Site AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 258 A. Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 259 E. Sorrel House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 261 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
154

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 262 Martha James House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 263 I. Branch House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 265 Marston House SB I 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 266 None AS MR 02 Unknown Unknown
JC 268 Boswell House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 269 Slater House (Hockaday Place) SB I 02 Domestic Poor
JC 270 Stuart Place SB I 02 Domestic Fair
JC 271 Timberlake House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 273 O. Hudson House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 274 Dr. Ashlock Site AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknown
office
JC 275 Jack Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 276 P. Ashlock House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 277 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 278 Taylor House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 279 None AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 280 Dr. Jenning’s House AS MR 02 Domestic/ Unknown
office
JC 283 Walter Enos House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 284 Mrs. Yates House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 285 None AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 286 George Hankins House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 288 William Bagly House AS MR 02 Domestic Unknown
JC 289 Martin House SB I 02 Domestic Good
JC 293 Edwards Mill AS MR 02 Mill Unknown
JC 294 Wenger House (Clover Dale) SB I 02 Domestic/ Fair
agricultural
JC 295 Lutheran Parish House SB I 02 Ecclesiastical Good
JC 305 None AS MR 04 Unknown Unknown
JC 306 None AS MR 04 Unknown Unknown
JC 318 GL-16 AS I 08 Sawmill/ferry/ Eroded
wharf
JC 322 GL-20 AS I 08 Domestic Construction
JC 323 GL-23 AS I 08 Domestic Construction
JC 324 GL-24 AS I 08 Domestic/ Construction
agricultural
JC 325 GL-25 AS I 08 Industrial Construction
JC 326 None AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 327 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 328 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 329 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 330 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 331 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 332 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 333 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 334 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 335 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
155

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JC 336 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 337 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 338 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 339 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 340 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 341 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 342 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 343 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 344 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 345 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 346 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 347 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 348 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 349 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 350 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 351 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 352 None AS MR 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 354 GL-27 AS I 08 Domestic Cultivated
JC 361 Rt. 199 Ext. A-5 AS I 06 Domestic Disturbed
JC 371 Betsy Green House AS I 05 Domestic Logged
(Rt. 199 Ext. D-2)
JC 388 None AS I 03 Steam Undisturbed
sawmill
JC 393* James City County (Upper AS I 02 Earthen dam Undisturbed
County) Park 3
JC 394* None AS I 05 Forestry Disturbed
related
47-53 Our Savior’s Lutheran Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent
47-60 Store SB I 02 Commercial Fair
47-62 Store SB I 02 Commercial Fair
47-64 Diascund Railroad Station DB I 02 Railroad Destroyed
station
47-68 Ewell Railroad Station SB I 06 Railraod Good
station
U- 4* Felix Hotel Site AS I 02 Commercial Unknown
U- 6* Gatewood Kitchen and House AS I 02 Domestic P.destroyed
U- 8 Henley-Hubbard House Site AS I 05 Domestic Unknown
U- 13* Sunnyside Site DB I 02 Domestic Destroyed
U- 16* Toano Truck Package AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed
Company Site
U- 26 Saw Mill Site AS I 05 Military Destroyed
U- 29 Tappahost AS I 02 Settlement Unknown
U- 30 Cowlesville AS I Domestic Unknown
YORK COUNTY:
YO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown
YO 19 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
156

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
YO 20 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 21 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 23 None AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 37 None AS I 06 Redoubt Unknown
YO 39 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 40 None AS I 06 Gun Unknown
emplacement
YO 42 None AS I 06 Earthwork Unknown
YO 46 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 61 Piggott’s (Fenton) Mill SS I 06 Mill Poor
YO 73 Back Creek Location # 3 AS I 11 Unknown Threatened
YO 75 Back Creek Location # 5 AS I 11 Domestic Threatened
YO 122 Cheatham Annex F AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
YO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyed
military camp
YO 184 None AS I 11 Unknown Threatened
YO 223 17Y AS I 11 Domestic/ Excavated
YO 234 None AS I 11 Artifact Unknown
scatter
YO 240 HM 20 AS I 11 Bridge/ Unknown
roadway
YO 263 Evans “Cherry Hall” SB I 06 Domestic Good
YO 267 Roberson Negro Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 271 Dr. Waller’s House AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 272 Bigler’s Wharf Vicinity AS MR 06 Commercial Unknown
YO 278 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 279 W. Bowden Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 281 Pickett House AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 283 Capitol Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 301* H. Powers Site AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
99-46* Tue Marshes Light DS I 11 Lighthouse Replaced
99-47* York Spit Light DS I 11 Lighthouse Replaced
U- 72* Bethel Baptist Church SB I Ecclesiastical Good
U- 94* Thomas Mills House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 98* Calhier’s House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U-105* Mill Pond School DB DR School Unknown
U-106* Springfield School DB DR School Unknown
U-107* Corner Pine School DB DR School Unknown
U-108* Grafton School DB DR School Unknown
U-109* Poor House Farm School DB DR School Unknown
U-110* Seaford School DB DR School Unknown
U-111* Smithville School DB DR School Unknown
U-112* Yorktown School DB DR School Unknown
CITY OF POQUOSON:
U- 61 Messick’s Point SS I 14 Landing Unknown
U- 62 Messick Theater SB I 14 Theater Good
U- 63 Lodge Hall SB I 14 Public Good
157

TABLE 4.15 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
U- 64 Amory’s Store DB I 11 Commercial Threatened
U- 65 Amory’s Wharf SS I 14 Wharf Unknown
U- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 67 Trinity Methodist Church SB I 14 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 68 Sheffield’s Store SB I 14 Commercial Good
U- 69* Barrel Factory SB I Industrial Good
U- 70* Robert’s Landing AS I Landing Unknown
U- 71* Hunt’s Neck Landing AS I 11 Landing Unknown
U- 73* Tabernacle Methodist Church SB I Ecclesiastical Good
U- 76* Lawson House SB I Domestic Good
U- 77* Wornom House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 78* Hopkins House SB I Domestic Poor
U- 79* Major Stephen Moore House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 80* Frank Edwards Horse Stable DB I Stable Destroyed
U- 81* Solomon Evans House SB I Domestic Good
U- 82* James Smith Hopkins, Jr. SB I Domestic Good
House
U- 83* John Lemuel Moore House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 84* John Huggett House DB I Domestic Destroyed
U- 85* John Gibbs Wornom House and SB I Domestic Good
Outbuildings
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 7 None AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 12 Peacock Hill # 1 SB I 06 Domestic Unknown
WB 29 SSE E-1 AS II 06 Domestic Threatened
WB 33 SSE F-1 AS II 06 Commercial/ Threatened
industrial
WB 34 SSE H-1 AS II 06 Agricultural Threatened
137-41 * Bell Farm SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
137-44* Roberts House SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
U- 37* Dunmore’s Ice House DB I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U- 38* Parks’ Paper Mill DS I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U- 39* Mattey School DB I 06 School Destroyed
U- 40* Methodist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed
U- 41* Railroad DS I 06 Railroad Destroyed
U- 42* Williamsburg Baptist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed
U- 43* Pender’s Store DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
U- 44* The Peachy Block DB I 06 Unknown Destroyed
U- 45* Knitting Mill DB I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U- 46* Mahone’s Store DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
U- 48* Colonial Inn DB I 06 Inn Destroyed
U- 49* Neel’s House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 50* Miss Gibbie’s School DB I 06 School Destroyed
U- 51* Stuart House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 52* Phebe’s House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 53* Mrs. Will’s House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U-129* Nicholson School DB DR 06 School Unknown
158

STUDY UNIT XIII: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
National and Regional. Some aspects of this study unit have national significance while
others are of regional or local significance. The local historic preservation movement,
especially as it was represented by the APVA, was one of the first large private preservation
groups to be formed, and served as a model for many others nationwide. The
improvement in the transportation system in this study area affected regional development,
connecting the Lower Peninsula to Richmond by rail and thus paving the way for
the industrialization of the region. Finally, the continuity of rural settlement in this area
is of local significance.
Agricultural buildings tend to reflect regional stylistic trends. Their significance
lies not so much in the quality of specific examples but rather in the patterns detectable
in a number of structures and buildings.
There has been only a minimal effort to research or preserve transportation- related
structures and features or to evaluate the effects of the “transportation revolution”
on economic trends during this time period. Transportation-related resources are significant
not only because they reflect the economic renaissance of the region, but also
because of their potential as sources of information about community development and
change.
A variety of building types, such as domestic, religious or social/ cultural-related,
associated with foreign-born immigrants reflect the impact of external stylistic trends,
whether European or American, on the local vernacular style. This type of site has been
of particular interest to James City County residents.
The early preservation interest in Williamsburg and Jamestown has national implications,
because this area contains early examples of preserved sites and the APVA,
co-founded by a Williamsburg resident, was a model for other such groups. Many of the
sites pertinent to this theme have been preserved, such as the Powder Magazine. However,
further research is needed before other related property types such as the commercial
zones which developed in the wake of historic preservation efforts can be identified.
Summary of Property Types
(1) Agricultural—farmsteads (especially those examples which display regional
characteristics of the two-story I-house or the added two-story ell to an existing
one and a half story dwelling), domestic and agricultural outbuildings, etc.
(2) Domestic—urban and rural non-agricultural buildings (at this time, some Queen
Anne/Victorian style characteristics would appear, including asymmetrical
massing and gingerbread trim).
(3) Commercial—retail stores, banks, offices, etc. Mostly found in urban centers,
such as Williamsburg, Poquoson, Toano, etc. or along major transportation
routes, such as the Williamsburg-Richmond Stage Road (Route 60).
159

(4) Transportation-related—wharfs, railroad stations, bridges, taverns, etc. This
would also include any commercial development which was directly related to
transportation facilities.
(5) Social/cultural-related—meeting halls, buildings indicative of traditions retained
by immigrant groups such as the Lutheran Parish House or the Viking
Hall, historic landmarks such as the Yorktown Victory Monument, Historic
Areas such as Jamestown, Colonial Williamsburg, and Yorktown.
(6) Industrial—saw mills, grist mills, factories such as the Branch Barrel Factory,
etc.
Some communities which are important to this time period are Peacock Hill, Toano,
Norge, Five Forks, and Poquoson. A few sites can be identified which should be further
recorded and researched, including the Branch family farm and related barrel factory
and the Amory General Merchandising Store in Poquoson.
Character of the Existing Data
Table 4.15 summarizes the known sites and surveyed standing structures dating to this
period. The 1940 Census assessed existing structures by decade built, and the probable
number of domestic structures built during this period can be estimated at just over
1000. However, one must assume that between 1940 and 1985 probably 50% to 75% of
those structures have been lost, making a more realistic though unverified number of
remaining structures approximately 300. This figure does not take into account property
types other than domestic. Less than 0.05% of the domestic structures have been
surveyed. The 0.05% surveyed sample are known mainly from photographic sources
and have not been field surveyed.
The State Historic Building Files at the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks
need considerable upgrading before they are adequate for evaluating, registering, or
treating resources (see Section 1).
Criteria for Evaluation
Without a systematic, preliminary survey of both architectural and archaeological sites
which would determine the number and quality of existing resouces, an accurate evaluation
of significance for property types cannot be made. However, criteria for evaluating
sites should be based on several factors as outlined in the National Register Guidelines
and the Secretary’s Standards including: the quality of information available, the
integrity of sites (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association),
the historical significance of property types as discussed within the narrative,
the representativeness or uniqueness of a site, the significance on both a local and national
level, and architectural style.
Other criteria for measuring significance should include research potential as discussed
in the historical narrative, educational and interpretational possibilities, an estimate
of information loss if an active preservation policy is not carried out, and public
interest. Each of these is a valuable tool for determining significance, but until the number
and quality of any given property type is established, criteria standards for specific
160

esources can not be formed. For example, there were six railroad stations in this study
region, four of which no longer exist (Diascund, Toano, Williamsburg, and Grove), one
which has been converted into a residence (Ewell), and one which is in a state of disrepair
(Norge). Because one of the six stations (Ewell) is in good condition, it would not
seem to be as crucial to preserve the Norge Station. However, the Norge Station also has
a significance beyond its association with the developing transportation system of the
region. Norge Station was also central to the development of an immigrant community
in the region. Thus, although it is not a unique example of a property type, it has an
associational significance with historical themes of the region. Without an awareness of
the historical context of Norge Station, its potential for preservation would be limited.
Present Condition of Property Types
Land development in the last twenty years has been substantial and will continue in the
next 20 years. Thus, many cultural resources are endangered. Measurements of destruction
over time usually assume a 50% loss of cultural resources every 20 years. Often
those resources which remain represent a limited segment of the overall population of
an area, usually the elite, whose buildings were better built. Surviving resources sometimes
reflect a preservation bias, as in this area where many 18th-century buildings
have been preserved but very few structures dating to other periods have been so treated.
To avoid loss of information and resources, preliminary surveys of late 19th- and early
20th-century structures and buildings should be done in the next few years, so that
planners and preservationists can determine what cultural resources should be preserved.
Of the 240 structures dating to the late 19th and early 20th centuries that have been
identified by survey in the study area, 21 are in good or excellent condition, 8 are in fair
or poor condition, 53 are destroyed, and 158 are in unknown condition.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
The following is a series of steps to be taken for every cultural resource. Priorities for
preservation of any given resource will change over time as more data concerning the
property is available or as loss of information increases the significance of certain resources.
For example, Norge Railroad Station, which has been located and identified,
needs to be evaluated and recorded. Once this has been done, efforts to ensure its preservation
will proceed to the next step—registration. Once it is recognized as a state or
national landmark, it should ideally be preserved in situ. These four steps represent a
process of critical thinking which should be applied to every resource, regardless of
original judgments about its significance.
Identification Goals
A high priority for this time period and region is to identify and record resources. A
limited amount of map-predictive work has been done for this time period (see Table
4.15). However, this stresses continuous use of structures built prior to the Civil War
and does not account for buildings dating after about 1870. This time period has also
been neglected by earlier field surveys, therefore, a preliminary survey of this region is
161

ecommended to determine the quantity and quality of existing sites. Future surveys for
this time period need to concentrate on Poquoson, Five Forks, Peacock Hill, and along
Route 60 and Route 30. Thematic surveys following the sub-themes, such as a survey of
railroad terminals and related community development, would be an excellent method
for covering the large number of sites from this time period in discrete units. A sampling
approach to surveys, while possibly less expensive, would prove to be either biased or
incomplete at some future date. By choosing not to survey a resource, a determination
has been made as to its significance. Thus, a sampling approach is only useful after a
group of resources are evaluated and significance has been determined.
Several levels of survey are also recommended. First, there should be a systematic
collection of photographs dating to this period, such as those being compiled by the
Department of Architectural Research at Colonial Williamsburg, and more recently, by
the Williamsburg Local Records Association. In addition, oral history and folklore surveys,
such as that being completed for the James City County 350th Anniversary Celebration,
are recommended for all communities within the study region. These surveys
should also include an effort to locate and preserve examples of local craft specialties.
Finally, documentation of examples of late 19th- and early 20th-century buildings is
strongly urged.
Further historical and primary research is needed, including an examination of
sources such as censuses, tax and land records, the Freedmen’s Bureau records, state
agency records, maps, private papers, and photographic collections. Primary sources
which are available for research include the 1860 to 1910 Censuses, land and tax records
dating after 1865, maps (Civil War maps, the Sanborn Map Company maps of
Williamsburg, etc.), the Freedmen’s Bureau records, Virginia State Documents such as
the annual reports of the Department of Agriculture and Immigration, city directories,
and manuscripts such as those contained in the fourteen collections at Swem Library.
To overcome biases of statistical data, oral histories should be compiled which reflect
local historical perspectives.
The following are identification objectives for each property type:
• Agricultural buildings: A record of both new buildings constructed during this
time and those already existing which continued to be used.
• Agricultural buildings: A survey of immigrant farms for differences in both style
and farming practices.
• Domestic structures: A record of buildings constructed during this period. Especially
needed is a preliminary survey of Poquoson and Williamsburg (outside the
Historic District).
• Commercial and industrial buildings: A survey of stores, banks, offices, factories,
mills, and other industrial or commercial properties. Thus far, few standing
commercial structures of this period have been officially identified within the study
area.
• Transportation-related structures: A survey of water-related sites, especially
wharves and landings.
• Transportation-related structures: A record of bridge construction.
• Transportation-related structures: Identification of sites related to the canoe industry
in Poquoson.
162

• Social/cultural-related properties: A folklore survey, especially of Poquoson
watermen.
• Industrial structures: A survey of mill sites dating to the late 19th and early 20th
centuries.
• Industrial structures: A survey of early factory sites such as the Branch Barrel
Factory and the Williamsburg Knitting Mill.
Evaluation Goals
All cultural resources should be evaluated once they have been identified to determine
their significance in light of National Register criteria and the above factors. Evaluation
should assist in determining the treatment applied to a specific site.
The following are research topics which should be investigated before adequate
evaluation of properties can be carried out.
(1) The economic impact of changes in transportation systems, the influx of immigrants,
and the early preservation movement.
(2) The retention of immigrant cultural traditions and their effect on the local customs.
(3) The Civil War’s impact on society as reflected in architectural styles and changed
lifestyles.
The following evaluation objectives should be met to determine the significance
of cultural resources. They are listed by property type associated with this period.
• Agricultural buildings: Evaluate known agricultural buildings and complexes,
including the Wenger House (JC244) to determine whether any retain sufficient
site integrity or integrity of setting to merit nomination to the National Register.
• Domestic structures: Evaluate known domestic structures dating to this period to
determine whether any exhibit distinctive regional characteristics and sufficient
site integrity to merit nomination to the National Register. Candidates for such
analysis include the U.M. Spencer House (JC214), the Simpson House (JC236),
the Slater House (JC 269), Cherry Hall (YO263) and the Stuart Place (JC 270). In
addition, evaluate earlier structures in the light of any late 19th century additions
which exemplify changes in local economy and style.
• Commercial/industrial properties: Evaluate known commercial buildings such
as the Toano stores (JC47), (JC60), (JC61), (JC61), the Sheffield Store (U-68), and
the Messick Theater (U-60) for their eligibility for nomination to the National
Register. Water-related commercial buildings and structures, such as Messick’s
Point (U-61), Amory’s Wharf (U-65) should be similarly evaluated.
• Transportation-related structures: An assessment of the Norge railroad station
to determine its eligibility for nomination to the National Register.
• Social/cultural-related buildings: Viking Hall in Norge should be evaluated to
determine its eligibility for nomination to the National Register.
163

Registration Goals
The following resources should be considered for National Register nomination once
they have been identified/recorded and evaluated:
• Norge Railroad Station, Norge (Plate 4.18).
• Viking Hall, Norge (Plate 4.19).
• Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, Norge.
• Amory’s General Merchandizing Store, Poquoson (Plate 4.17).
• Lodge Hall, Poquoson.
• Emmaus Baptist Church, Poquoson.
The following resources should be considered for National Register nomination as historic
districts:
• Lower Poquoson Avenue, Poquoson.
• Messick Point, Poquoson (commercial district).
The following resources should be considered for National Register thematic nominations:
• Methodist churches in Poquoson and lower York County.
• Watermen-related resources in Poquoson.
Treatment Goals
The following treatment goals are recommended for already identified properties:
• Documentation of Amory’s Store in Poquoson before its destruction.
• Preservation of a representative example of a late 19th-century farmstead with
outbuildings in the regional style.
• Preservation of a representative example of a commercial block such as the row of
shops at Toano.
• Preservation of properties in Poquoson, such as Messick Point District.
• Preservation of a representative example of a mill such as Piggot’s Mill (Plate
4.16).
164

STUDY UNIT XIV.
REVITALIZATION OF THE TIDEWATER
(A.D. 1907–A.D. 1945)
Major Theme: Influences on this regions’ modern development.
Sub-Themes: A. The effect of population growth, the beginnings of
industrialization and the changing role of agriculture.
B. The effect of military expansion and its related industries
and services.
C. Creation of a usable past: Colonial Revival and the rise
of tourism.
Significance: National and Regional
Agriculture continued to be an economic force in James City and York Counties (Table
4.16). However, by the 1940s, with improved road systems, these two counties no longer
had a transportation edge, but rather had to compete with other agricultural centers,
resulting in a decline of their importance as suppliers of farm products. In spite of this,
truck farming played a major role in the area through the 1950s. At the present time,
agricultural lands and rural residences still encompass about 50% of the area of James
City County and about 20% of the area of York County, with soybeans and corn as the
major crops.
Early industrialization usually facilitated agricultural interests, and industries such
as grist mills, barrel factories, and other agriculturally- related enterprises were the
most common in the area. Around the turn of the century, several industries developed
near Williamsburg, including Arthur Dunmore’s Ice Factory, the Williamsburg Knitting
Mill, and the Bozarth Bros. Planing Mill. By the 1920s, local workers were turning to
nearby industry for employment, such as the West Point Pulp Mill and the Newport
News Shipyard. It was not until the 1970s, however, that industry become a major economic
force in James City and York Counties with such companies as the Badische
Corporation, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and the American Oil Company (see Table 4.17).
The establishment of military bases, beginning in World War I, brought in a variety of
related services, such as the Penniman Munitions Plant. The movement to preserve
historic sites led by organizations such as the Association for the Preservation of Virginia
Antiquities, the National Park Service, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
also had a major impact on this area. In James City and York Counties such attractions
as Busch Gardens and the Williamsburg Pottery Factory draw an increasing number of
tourists as well. All these factors have led to the rapid expansion of the study region,
with additional growth predicted in the next twenty years.
The number of known and listed resources for this time period is minimal, only 16
architectural and archaeological properties have been identified through survey (Table
4.20). Of those surveyed, none have been researched in any depth.
An accurate appraisal of the number and quality of important cultural resources
associated with this period is impossible without further field work. It was estimated in
the 1940 Census Compendium that 2963 buildings were built between 1910 and 1940.
165

TABLE 4.16
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 1
1890 1900 1910
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC
Numbers
Horses 580 735 735 1,255 754 1,326
Dairy Cows 936 968 614 1,168 700 1,424
Other Cattle 1,339 1,509 804 1,387 643 1,438
Sheep 797 652 740 1,049 740 681
Swine 11,626 3,005 2,550 5,546 1,491 4,148
Poultry 12,810 37,692 14,008 26,065 17,436 36,393
Bushels
Corn 76,368 95,266 89,870 126,110 120,109 160,785
Oats 21,394 9,151 2,760 2,000 3,930 2,251
Wheat 1,682 2,154 1,480 250 20 791
Hay (Tons) 975 1,064 2,024 1,160 2,136 2,080
Potatoes 2,759 24,072 28,929 32,188 217,138 111,395
Sweet Potatoes 6,180 8,562 13,567 14,122 9,110 22,748
Peanuts 11,083 4,202 10,396 14,575 2,567 5,595
Farms
Number 370 625 573 1,139 496 1,123
Own 286 384 420 943 403 960
Tenant 84 241 148 193 86 110
Manager NL NL 5 3 7 53
Average Farm Acreage 162 64 122.5 46.5 113.1 45.0
Farm Size (Acres)
Under 10 27 145 71 387 64 310
10 - 19 45 156 124 279 93 345
20 - 49 77 170 139 283 121 241
50 - 99 66 64 98 78 82 113
100- 499 129 72 115 123 113 105
500- 999 19 13 14 13 16 7
1000+ 7 5 12 4 7 2
1
Compiled from agricultural schedules of the Census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration
records.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
This was the era of the Colonial Revival, a nationally significant style which both influenced
the development of and was much influenced by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Between 1940 and 1985, the population has quadrupled and the number of dwelling
units has risen by over 600% (Table 4.18).
Many of the buildings and structures occupied during this period were, of course,
built previously and have been occupied continuously, sometimes as long as 200 years.
Unfortunately, these buildings have often been restored to their “original” state with no
thought for the historical significance of the changes made to them over time. These
changes, such as additions, the raising of roof lines, and modernization of interiors, can
be as informative as the original fabric. This evolving nature of a structure is a record of
the inhabitants and their needs and tastes at different times in the past. Modifications to
166

TABLE 4.16 (cont’d)
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 1
1920 1925 1930
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC
Numbers
Horses 741 1,081 674 754 NL 3 NL
Dairy Cows 1,217 1,814 1,155 934 850 700
Other Cattle 163 184 274 458 550 300
Sheep 241 388 247 221 400 500
Swine 3,416 3,439 1,358 1,205 1,400 1,000
Poultry 22,884 38,736 26,287 42,073 NL NL
Bushels
Corn 166,368 118,071 62,918 61,820 63,000 75,000
Oats 151,388 3,355 4,830 450 4,580 1,609
Wheat 9,787 2,036 1,339 1,670 4,500 3,600
Hay (Tons) 7,993 4,277 3,706 1,742 1,286 264
Potatoes 158,847 78,387 152,783 129,469 137,000 119,900
Sweet Potatoes 24,573 26,935 8,955 18,784 8,261 18,022
Peanuts 1,258 388 616 126 — —
Farms
Number 386 894 531 DU 3 415 650
Own 316 794 NL NL 349 613
Tenant 60 193 NL NL 66 58
Manager 10 4 NL NL NL NL
Average Farm Acreage 130.5 42.2 DU DU 121 52
Farm Size (Acres)
Under 10 49 213 101 230 55 129
10 - 19 70 271 100 250 80 216
20 - 49 79 245 105 210 84 182
50 - 99 73 82 77 63 74 63
100- 499 100 75 113 38 NL NL
500- 999 2 6 9 2 NL NL
1000+ 10 2 6 1 NL NL
1
Compiled from agricultural schedules of the Census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration
records.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
DU= Data Unavailable; NL= No Listing.
an older building, including indoor plumbing or central heating, suggest changes in
standards of living, convenience requirements, or privacy needs. The fact that many old
buildings are restored whereas in previous times they would have been abandoned indicates
changing cultural values. Thus, it is important to look at a building in its totality,
from its original conception to its current status.
Architectural surveys in this area have tended to concentrate on the 18th century,
and only 29 structures have been located through survey and analysis of photographic
collections (see Table 4.20). Of those 29 buildings, 26 (some of which are known only
through photographs) were identified as part of this project. Seventeen of those structures
have been destroyed, and twelve remain standing. This indicates a need to survey
20th-century buildings which are not threatened by development and thus have a chance
167

TABLE 4.16 (cont’d)
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 1
1935 1940 1980
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC
Numbers
Horses NL NL NL 4 NL 122 292
Dairy Cows NL NL 1,090 580 200 —
Other Cattle NL NL 630 520 2,200 600
Sheep NL NL 110 80 DU 4 —
Swine NL NL 1,200 900 136 —
Poultry NL NL NL NL 1,159 1,841
Bushels
Corn 100,000 94,500 91,000 75,000 355,331 14,700
Oats 1,551 470 7,050 1,649 NL —
Wheat 1,307 1,250 1,950 960 49,210 6,700
Hay (Tons) 2,650 322 2,000 654 2,285 DU
Potatoes 115,395 78,884 75,235 37,630 290 643
Sweet Potatoes 16,651 14,916 40,038 8,927 DU 3,267
Peanuts 35,000 NL 80,000 NL NL NL
Soybeans NL NL 9,300 5,800 148,541 11,000
Farms
Number 400 649 326 421 71 75
Own NL NL NL NL NL NL
Tenant NL NL NL NL NL NL
Manager NL NL NL NL NL NL
Average Farm Acreage 98.4 30.8 105 59 233 43
Farm Size (Acres)
Under 10 85 211 59 99 4 28
10 - 19 70 180 55 114 ** **
20 - 49 66 169 295 86 23 34
50 - 99 68 48 51 54 ** **
100- 499 NL NL NL NL 30 13
500- 999 NL NL NL NL 11 —
1000+ NL NL NL NL 3 —
1
Compiled from agricultural schedules of the Census and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Immigration
records.
2
Data from 1982 reports.
3
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
4
DU= Data Unavailable; NL= No Listing.
** Farm size 10-19 included in 20-49 and 50-99 in 100-499.
of being preserved. Since scholars have not expressed an interest in this time period,
many architectural resources are being lost daily. (In early August 1985, for example, a
significant early gas station on Route 60 in Norge was torn down [see Plate 4.21]).
A great deal of historical data exists for this time period. Primary resources include
the 1910 to 1960 Census records, land and tax records, city directories, maps (including
the Sanborn Map Company maps of Williamsburg, USGS quadrant maps, and postal
168

TABLE 4.17
MANUFACTURE 1
1860 1870 1880 1890
JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
No. of Industries 28 118 20 7 14 12 6 11
Fisheries — 105 NL 3 NL NL NL NL NL
Ship Building — 1 NL NL NL NL NL NL
Lumber Sawed 7 5 3 2 7 3 6 5
Flour & Meal 11 3 2 5 6 6 NL NL
Other Wood Related 1 1 3 — NL NL NL NL
Concrete Products — — NL NL NL NL NL NL
Building Industry — — 7 — 1 — NL NL
Other 9 5 5 — — 3 — 6
Employees 108 386 46 36 73 69 20 26
1900 1910 1920 1960
JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
No. of Industries 15 16 NL NL 13 9
Fisheries NL NL NL NL — 105 — 2
Ship Building NL NL NL NL NL NL — 1
Lumber Sawed NL NL NL NL NL NL 6 5
Flour & Meal NL NL NL NL NL NL 2 6
Other Wood Related NL NL NL NL NL NL 1 1
Concrete Products NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Building Industry NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL
Other NL NL NL NL NL NL 4 3
Employees 62 17 NL NL 185 20 NL NL
1
Compiled from manufacturing schedules of the Censuses.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
NL = No Listing.
route maps), state and national departmental records, photographic collections, and
manuscript collections.
SUB-THEME A: THE EFFECT OF POPULATION GROWTH, THE
BEGINNINGS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE CHANGING
ROLE OF AGRICULTURE
Agriculture continued to be an important part of this region’s economy and cultural
environment, with 50% of James City County and 20% of York County’s land area still
under plow in the early 20th century. However, by the Second World War, farming as an
occupation dropped significantly (Tables 4.16 and 4.19). Potatoes continued to be the
primary cash crop until the 1920s, when soybeans and then later corn supplanted it.
Dairy farming became increasingly important to James City County, which had the
only co-op dairy in Eastern Virginia in 1923 (Department of Agriculture and Immigra-
169

TABLE 4.18
POPULATION SCHEDULES 1
1900 1910 1920 1930
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
Total Population 5,732 7,482 6,338 7,757 6,138 8,046 7,657 7,615
Number of Households 1,028 1,532 1,241 1,543 1,207 1,822 1,474 1,845
Number of Homes 1,024 1,532 1,143 1,445 1,155 1,801 1,333 1,791
Number to a Home 5.60 4.90 5.55 5.37 5.31 4.47 5.74 4.25
Number to a Household 5.58 4.90 5.11 5.03 5.09 4.42 5.19 4.13
Foreign-Born Population 150 42 180 23 136 82 194 65
Austria — 1 — 18 6 3 8 2
Canada 4 7 10 2 12 5 18 1
Denmark NL 3 NL 19 16 20 6 13 6
England 17 3 17 11 10 10 28 10
France 1 — 1 — 2 — 1 1
Germany 15 13 16 13 5 4 14 3
Greece NL NL — — 3 1 16 —
Hungry — — 1 1 3 2 5 —
Ireland 9 9 9 1 8 2 4 2
Italy 1 1 2 1 8 1 17 1
Norway NL NL 73 26 29 17 14 3
Poland — — — — 1 19 7 14
Russia 4 2 23 5 10 1 26 1
Scotland 13 2 10 5 7 3 6 2
Sweden NL NL 8 5 3 3 4 2
Other 86 — 7 2 9 5 13 5
1940 1950 1960 1985
JCC 2 YC 2 JCC YC JCC YC JCC YC
Total Population 8,849 8,857 13,052 11,750 18,371 21,583 38,870 38,810
Number of Households NL NL NL NL 5,256 5,724 NL NL
Number of Homes 1,865 2,259 NL NL NL NL 14,620 12,083
Number to a Home 4.75 4.20 NL NL NL NL 2.52 3.21
Number to a Household NL NL NL NL 3.50 3.77 2.80 3.15
1
Compiled from census records and planning department documents.
2
JCC= James City County; YC= York County.
3
NL = No Listing.
4
Williamsburg is included with James City County; 1985 James City County figures are approximate.
tion of the State of Virginia 1923: 162). However, farms continued to be without electricity
or plumbing, and 25-35% were on unimproved roads until the Second World War
(Garnett and Seymour 1933: 82). After World War II, farms began to consolidate. By
1969, 68% of York County farms were commercially operated (York County 1983: 6).
Today, there are about one-fifth as many farms in this area as in 1940, but individual
farm production has risen dramatically (Table 4.16).
In the vicinity of Williamsburg, smaller industries have been profitable from the
colonial era to the 20th century. Until very recently, however, their size has been strictly
170

TABLE 4.19
OCCUPATIONS OF SELECTED INDUSTRIES & SERVICES 1
1930 2 1940 2 1960
JCC YC WB JCC YC WB JCC YC WB
All Industries 2556 3732 1721 1961 3233 1540 3883 6402 2410
Agriculture 1099 1041 81 445 388 10 194 103 4
Forestry & Fishing 110 872 7 38 417 2 60 298 5
Construction 88 285 239 149 258 44 272 545 43
Clothing Industry 2 3 1 3 1 1 4 92 4
Food & Allied Industries — 14 24 4 35 3 14 84 —
Transportation Equipment
(Other than Auto) NL 4 NL NL 16 293 1 54 668 4
Iron & Steel 3 184 8 4 — — 108 326 8
Saw & Planing Mills 185 116 29 91 30 5 — — —
Other Wood Industry 20 6 3 18 2 — 4 42 4
Construction and Manufacture
of Sts. 31 177 9 NL NL NL NL NL NL
Railroad Services 47 40 11 43 23 6 27 23 4
Other Transportation and
Communication Services 28 55 20 26 39 18 86 154 24
Insurance & Real Estate 1 10 17 7 29 17 23 93 33
Wholesale & Retail Trade 50 186 234 92 208 90 470 462 217
Recreation and Amusement 3 12 20 10 7 8 17 3 38
Hotels and Restaurants 5 44 46 158 63 40 246 55 195 163
Domestic & Personal Services 222 304 346 188 189 234 709 588 563
Public Services 42 266 17 70 271 52 487 1218 206
Semi-professional,
Professional, and Service 84 102 403 306 125 644 716 688 752
1
Compiled from census data on occupation.
2
Persons 10 & older in 1930; persons 14 & older in 1940.
3
JCC= James City County; YC= York County; WB= Williamsburg.
4
NL = No Listing.
5
Restaurants only for 1960.
regulated by the poor quality of the transportation system. Improvements in that system
have not only supported medium-sized industry, but the mechanization of agriculture as
well. Both the development of a modern water-rail-road-air transit system and the industrial
growth it fostered have in turn attracted labor, both unskilled and specialized,
from a variety of ethnic and racial groups. The population growth after World War I is
graphically displayed on the series of Sanborn Company Maps of Williamsburg, dated
1904, 1910, and 1921 (Sanborn Maps 1904, 1910, 1921). Another increase in population
occurred between 1940 and 1950, probably in response to the military buildup.
However, instead of returning to pre-war levels, the population continued to increase so
that at present both counties are nearing a total population of 40,000 people (Table
4.18).
The improvements in transportation throughout this time period, notably the paving
of roadways, has contributed to the overall growth in this region as the area became
171

Plate 4.21. Gas Station, Norge (Destroyed August 17, 1985).
accessible to land speculators, industries, and visitors to the historic sites. Together with
the continued impact of military installations, tourism and heavy industry have fostered
a complex of service industries along major roadways such as Route 60. All of these
developments could not have taken place without rapid expansion in all aspects of the
transportation system during the last 150 years. The rapid improvement of transportation
brought the region from a state of rural isolation and total dependence upon agriculture
to one of a balance between urban and rural adaptations, with a mixed agricultural
and industrial/commercial economy, in close contact with that of the nation and
the world.
Important property types relating to this sub-theme include residential housing
such as bungalows (Plate 4.22), co-op farms, retail stores (Plate 4.23), small manufacturers
and automobile related services (Plate 4.24). However, as Table 4.20 shows, very
little survey work has been done on properties of this study unit, nor has any
map-predictive work been done.
SUB-THEME B: THE EFFECT OF MILITARY EXPANSION AND
ITS RELATED INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES
This area’s location has always been of strategic value to the military (see also Study
Unit XXIII). During every war in which Americans have fought, the military has occu-
172

Plate 4.22. Bungalow, Williamsburg.
Plate 4.23. Street Scene: Williamsburg, 1913.
173

Plate 4.24. Carriage Inn and AMOCO Station, Williamsburg.
pied this region and affected the resources of the Tidewater. The resulting impact on the
region varied from war to war, but during this time period there has been a constant and
expanding military presence. From 1917 to 1982, the York River was the base of the
Atlantic Fleet of the United States Navy. Today, one-third of York County is occupied
by military installations, such as the Naval Weapons Station, Cheatham Annex, Camp
Peary, the U.S. Coast Guard Officers’ School, and two naval fuel facilities (York County
1983: 5). A military presence is not only reflected on its installation, however, but also
by its related services and its effect on the local landscape.
Industrial development directly linked to the military presence includes properties
such as the Penniman Gunpowder Factory (now no longer standing), owned by the
DuPont Company. Starting operations in 1916, it employed 10,000 people by 1918
when the United States entered World War I. Lower on the Peninsula, shipyards and
other private contractors produce goods for the military, hiring civilians from both James
City and York Counties.
The presence of the military has had various effects on the residential community.
Camp Peary with 100 families living on-base is a self-contained complex with a library
and fire department, and as such has little impact on the surrounding residential areas.
Local communities, such as Grove, have been the recipients of residents displaced by
the military installations. The growth of many new residential communities can be partially
attributed to the increasing numbers of military personnel moving into and retiring
in the region.
Finally, commercial enterprises found especially in the lower half of York County,
such as the military surplus stores, clusters of retail stores, and fast food services, have
174

a direct relationship to the military presence. Today, many local advertisers appeal directly
to military personnel with short-term equipment rentals and veteran-approved
financing.
Properties which would fall under this sub-theme include short-term housing, such
as barracks and mobile homes, and commercial centers clustered around military bases.
No properties of this type have been surveyed or considered for preservation.
SUB-THEME C: CREATION OF A USABLE PAST: COLONIAL
REVIVAL AND THE RISE OF TOURISM
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the colonial past was “revived” and used in a
number of ways. Nationally, the Colonial Revival style was very popular; more houses
were built using colonial models than any other source and the same style was followed
in furniture, decorative arts, painting, and literature (Plate 4.25). Throughout the United
States, patriotic associations and historical societies were founded. Numerous local celebrations
held all over the country complemented the grand Philadelphia Centennial
Exposition and commemorated various other historical events. Antique collections became
popular, and old historic landmarks were preserved. Later in the 20th century,
places where one could learn about, and even experience, the life of pre-industrial
America were set aside for motoring tourists to visit.
Although this movement was national in scope, many important aspects of the
Colonial Revival were expressed locally in the Williamsburg Restoration. More importantly,
it was in the Williamsburg area that this diverse and fragmented movement coalesced
into a professional undertaking with its own broad base of consumers. Further,
this revival of the colonial past has a major economic importance in this study area.
The early preservation movement leading to the 1907 Jamestown Exposition (discussed
in Study Unit XIII) prepared the way for future developments in Williamsburg.
Thus, in 1923, when Reverend Goodwin returned to Williamsburg as Director of Endowment
and Professor of Religious Education at the College of William and Mary,
there were precedents for taking action against the destruction of the townscape by the
automobile culture. Reverend Goodwin approached would-be benefactors about underwriting
the cost of restoring the town to its colonial appearance. John D. Rockefeller,
Jr. was enthusiastic about Goodwin’s plan to restore a complete area, freeing it from
alien or inharmonious surroundings, and in 1926 he financed the project. The resulting
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation brought together for the first time for this purpose a
sizable number of professionals in the fields of architecture, history, archaeology, landscape
architecture, and engineering.
Post-war suburbs copied Colonial Williamsburg. The architects for the Restoration
even published official house plans based on Williamsburg structures, but adapted
to modern needs in the 1937 issue of House and Garden. Hotels, supermarkets, and gas
stations all had a Williamsburg style. One of the earliest and finest examples of Colonial
Revival commercial building is Merchants Square, located just west of the Williamsburg
Historic Area.
Other tourist attractions in the area include the Williamsburg Pottery Factory, Busch
Gardens, and Water Country, USA. All of these, along with the historic sites, attract
large numbers of tourists to the Peninsula. This influx of tourists into the region creates
175

Plate 4.25. Colonial Revival House, Williamsburg.
a demand for numerous service and entertainment facilities. Therefore, it is not surprising
that Williamsburg is now ringed by hotels, restaurants, and retail stores, especially
along Route 60. These service industries in turn provide jobs, thus creating a demand
for a large pool of local workers.
Resources pertinent to this sub-theme include tourist areas, such as Colonial
Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown (part of Colonial National Historical Park);
tourist-related commercial buildings, such as hotels, restaurants, and retail stores; and
those structures associated with transportation facilities bringing tourists to this area,
such as Amtrak, bus lines, automobiles, and the Patrick Henry Airport (which, however,
is not in the study area).
SUMMARY
James City and York Counties experienced a strong revitalization period during the
20th century, as the result of a number of factors including population growth, new
industries, military expansion, and tourism. On a local level, agriculture played an important
economic role even as the area became increasingly industrialized. This area
can also claim a national and even international role as the center for naval operations
on the Atlantic Seaboard and as one of the premier centers for colonial research and
preservation.
176

Map 4.12. Study Unit XIV: Known Resource Distribution.
TABLE 4.20
STUDY UNIT XIV: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 46 Coleman’s (Powell’s) Mill AS I 09 Mill Unknown
JC 91 GL-26 AS III 08 Unknown Cultivated
JC 157 None AS I 08 Unknown Unknown
JC 294 Wenger House (Clover Dale) SB I 02 Domestic/ Fair
agricultural
JC 298 GL-21 AS I 08 Cellar/surface Cult./thr.
scatter
JC 322 GL-20 AS I 08 Domestic Construction
JC 323 GL-23 AS I 08 Domestic Construction
JC 324 GL-24 AS I 08 Domestic/ Construction
agricultural
JC 325 GL-25 AS I 08 Industrial Construction
JC 387 None AS I 03 Steam Undisturbed
sawmill
* Not shown on Map 4.12.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
177

TABLE 4.20 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIV: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
47-70 Major Barn SB I 02 Agricultural Unknown
U- 4* Felix Hotel Site AS I 02 Commercial Unknown
U- 14* Taylor’s Garage Site AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed
U- 15* Toano High School Site AS I 02 School Destroyed
U- 16* Toano Truck Package AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed
Company Site
U- 18* Wayside Inn Site AS I 02 Inn Destroyed
U- 19* Wilkinson and Geddy AS I 02 Commercial Destroyed
Store Site
YORK COUNTY:
YO 6 None AS I 10 Earthen Land fill
mounds
YO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyed
military camp
YO 234 None AS I 11 Artifact Unknown
scatter
U- 72* Bethel Baptist Church SB I Ecclesiastical Good
U-113* Cary Chapel School DB DR School Unknown
U-114* Bethel School DB DR School Unknown
U-115* Darbytown/Tabb School DB DR School Unknown
U-116* Fish Neck (Dare) School DB DR School Unknown
U-117* Oak Grove School DB DR School Unknown
U-118* Seaford (Lewisville) School DB DR School Unknown
U-119* Tampico (Hornsbyville) School DB DR School Unknown
U-120* York County Training School DB DR School Unknown
U-121* Dare-Grafton School DB DR School Unknown
U-122* Goodwin’s Neck School DB DR School Unknown
U-123* Magruder School DB DR School Unknown
U-124* Seaford School DB DR School Unknown
U-125* Yorktown School DB DR School Unknown
CITY OF POQUOSON:
U- 61 Messick’s Point SS I 14 Landing Unknown
U- 62 Messick Theater SB I 14 Theater Good
U- 63 Lodge Hall SB I 14 Public Good
U- 64 Amory’s Store DB I 11 Commercial Threatened
U- 65 Amory’s Wharf SS I 14 Wharf Unknown
U- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 67 Trinity Methodist Church SB I 14 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 68 Sheffield’s Store SB I 14 Commercial Good
U- 69* Barrel Factory SB I Industrial Good
U- 70* Robert’s Landing AS I Landing Unknown
U- 71* Hunt’s Neck Landing AS I 11 Landing Unknown
U- 73* Tabernacle Methodist Church SB I Ecclesiastical Good
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 29 SSE E-1 AS II 06 Domestic Threatened
178

TABLE 4.20 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XIV: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
WB 33 SSE F-1 AS II 06 Commercial/ Threatened
industrial
WB 34 SSE H-1 AS II 06 Agricultural Threatened
137-54* Sun Oil Service Station DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
U- 37* Dunmore’s Ice House DB I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U- 38* Parks’ Paper Mill DS I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U- 39* Mattey School DB I 06 School Destroyed
U- 40* Methodist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed
U- 41* Railroad DS I 06 Railroad Destroyed
U- 42* Williamsburg Baptist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed
U- 43* Pender’s Store DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
U- 44* The Peachy Block DB I 06 Unknown Destroyed
U- 45* Knitting Mill DB I 06 Industrial Destroyed
U- 46* Mahone’s Store DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
U- 47* Penniman Munitions Plant DB I 06 Military Destroyed
U- 48* Colonial Inn DB I 06 Inn Destroyed
U- 49* Neel’s House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 50* Miss Gibbie’s School DB I 06 School Destroyed
U- 51* Stuart House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 52* Phebe’s House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U- 53* Mrs. Will’s House DB I 06 Domestic Destroyed
U-100* Masonic Lodge SB I 06 Public Good
U-130* Williamsburg High School DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-131* Matthew Whaley School SB DR 06 School Unknown
U-132* Williamsburg Female Seminary DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-133* William and Mary Academy DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery AS DR 06 Cemetery Unknown
STUDY UNIT XIV: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of Study Unit
National and Regional. Cultural resources of this study unit are potentially of national
and regional significance. Property types associated with the military presence in the
area, as well as those which reflect the history and development of the national interest
in preservation and the Colonial Revival, are important if poorly studied cultural resources.
The period of modernization and industrialization for this region is of local significance.
Property types include domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural buildings.
Significance for any specific site cannot be determined until further research and
surveys have been done. However, there are areas of resource concentration such as
lower York County, Williamsburg, and Lightfoot, about which some information is already
available.
179

The local military buildup is of national significance as it was crucial in several
wars and the York River is the base for the Atlantic Fleet of the United States Navy.
Property types for this theme have not been adequately identified, nor has the impact of
the military on the local economy been sufficiently researched (for more information
see Study Unit XXIII).
The preservation movement was national in scope with many important aspects of
the Colonial Revival expressed locally. Further, this revival of the colonial past has
become a major employer and economic force in the study area and nationwide. Related
resources developed as a result of the tourist trade have been preserved within
certain districts such as at Yorktown, Williamsburg and Jamestown. However commercial
buildings, such as motels and gas stations, have not been surveyed or researched.
Data collection and surveys need to be conducted to determine significance of such
historic properties.
Summary of Property Types
(1) Domestic—urban and rural non-farm buildings. A wide variety of housing styles
and types were/are used during this period including bungalows, Colonial Revival
style homes, trailers, tract housing and multi-family dwellings (apartments
and townhouses).
(2) Industrial—factories, manufacturing plants, etc.
(3) Agricultural—farmsteads, domestic sites, and agricultural outbuildings,
especially those that reflect continuous use since the late 19th century.
(4) Commercial—retail stores, banks, offices, and restaurants. Commercial areas
have expanded rapidly as a result of the increased tourist trade. The highest
concentrations are along major thoroughfares such as Route 60 and Route 17.
(5) Transportation-related—gas stations, bus terminals, motels, and fast food
restaurants. The automobile has drastically changed the landscape of this region
in the last forty years, making this an important property type.
(6) Social/cultural-related—historic districts, Merchant’s Square, Busch Gardens,
cemeteries, planned communities, etc.
(7) Military-related—improved transportation systems, retail stores such as army
surplus stores, temporary housing (i.e., trailer parks), and industrial sites such
as the Penniman Munitions Plant.
Properties which have evolved over time through continuous use are especially
important to this study unit. Often buildings are restored to their “original” state with no
thought for the historical significance of the changes made to them over time. Evidence
of these changes can be as informative as the original fabric.
Character of Existing Data
The number of surveyed resources for this time period is minimal; only sixteen architectural
properties and archaeological sites have been identified (Table 4.20), though
the number of possible sites is well over 3000. Of those surveyed, none have been the
subject of any in-depth research. Considering the national significance of both the pres-
180

ervation movement and the military buildup, cultural resources relating to this time
period need to be identified and studied.
Criteria for Evaluation
Without a systematic, preliminary survey of both architecture and archaeological sites
which would determine the number and quality of existing resources, an accurate evaluation
of significance of property types can not be made. However, criteria for evaluating
sites should be based on National Register guidelines and the Secretary’s Standards,
and should include: the quality of information available, the integrity of resources (location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association), the historical
significance of property types as discussed within the narrative, the representativeness
or uniqueness of a site, the significance on both a local and national level, and architectural
style.
Other criteria for measuring significance should include research potential as determined
in the historical narrative, educational and interpretative possibilities, an estimate
of information loss to research questions if an active preservation policy is not
carried out, and public interest. Each of these is a valuable tool to determining significance,
but until the number and quality of property types is established, criteria standards
for specific resources can not be formed.
Present Condition of Property Types
Most of the known architectural resources are in good condition, although early
20th-century properties are endangered by the tremendous growth of the last ten years.
Biases in favor of earlier historical periods among scholars and preservationists has
precluded extensive research on 20th-century properties, and they are not well understood
in consequence.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
The following is a series of steps to be taken for every cultural resource. Priorities for
preservation of any given resource will change over time as more data concerning the
property is available or as loss of information increases the significance of certain resources.
Identification Goals
A high priority for this time period and region is to identify and record associated cultural
resources. Because this time period has been neglected by earlier surveys, a preliminary
survey of this region needs to be conducted to determine the quantity and
quality of existing properties. Surveys for this time period should concentrate on
Poquoson, Lightfoot, and on properties along Routes 17 and 60. Thematic surveys following
the sub-themes, such as a survey of railroad terminals and related community
development, would be an excellent method for covering the large number of property
181

types from this time period in discrete units. Several other data collection methods are
recommended, including the collection of historic and current photographs of cultural
resources, a folklore survey, and a compilation of oral histories.
The following are identification objectives suggested for each property type:
• Domestic buildings: A survey of housing by type (e.g., bungalows, Colonial Revival,
and trailers) and/or by communities.
• Industrial structures: A preliminary survey of industrial sites and structures such
as the Penniman Munitions Plant.
• Agricultural buildings: A record of farmsteads and the continued use of farm
buildings.
• Agricultural buildings: A survey of co-op farms.
• Commercial buildings: A survey of retail stores, especially those related to the
tourist industry.
• Transportation-related structures: A survey of gas stations and garages.
• Transportation-related structures: A survey of road signs and store signs designed
to attract those in automobiles.
• Social/cultural-related buildings: A survey of buildings associated with this property
type, such as movie theaters or roller rinks.
• Military-related structures: Identification of communities and resources affected
by the military growth.
• Military-related structures: A study of housing used by military personnel such
as trailer parks and the Bethel Manor housing complex.
Evaluation Goals
All cultural resources should be evaluated once they have been identified to determine
their significance in light of National Register criteria and the above mentioned factors.
Evaluation should assist in determining the treatment applied to a specific resource,
however, all properties should have been identified and recorded prior to evaluation.
For this time period, any preserved property should be in excellent physical condition
with high site integrity.
The following are research design topics which should be investigated in order to
fully evaluate the significance of sites and structures associated with the study unit:
(1) The effect of the tourist trade on local development.
(2) The changes made on the landscape as a result of the use of the automobile.
(3) The role of transportation in the changing farm economy.
(4) The development of industrialization on the Peninsula and its impact on this
region.
Specific goals include:
• Evaluation of Merchant’s Square in Williamsburg in light of its importance as an
early example of Colonial Revival commercial design to determine its eligibility
for nomination to the National Register.
• Evaluation of the Art Deco-style store in Norge (Plate 4.26) to determine its eligibility
for nomination to the National Register.
182

Plate 4.26. Art Deco-style Store, Norge.
Registration Goals
These resources should be considered for National Register nomination once they have
been properly evaluated:
• Merchants Square.
• The Art Deco-style store in Norge (Plate 4.26).
• The Williamsburg Pottery Factory.
These resources should be considered for National Register thematic nominations:
• Colonial Revival homes (such as Plate 4.25).
• Early transportation-related properties, including gas stations, motels, fast-food
restaurants, and drive-in theaters.
Treatment Goals
Treatment of resources is dependent on their significance/ranking. For this time period,
excavation of sites would not be as appropriate as architectural surveys, oral histories,
or documentary research, since many resources are still intact and numerous. Property
treatment is also dependent on the research goals to be attained and the number and
quality of sites within each property type. Until further research is done to determine
the number of buildings and archaeological sites remaining, it is difficult to establish
183

criteria for treatment. Assuming that there are still quite a few remaining resources, the
significance of the resource should be evaluated in light of its context. However, the
likelihood of finding a completely intact site in its original setting is quickly disappearing
because of rapid development.
The following are specific treatment objectives for this study unit:
• Preservation of a good example of a Colonial Revival-style home (such as that
shown in Plate 4.25).
• Preservation of an example of continuous use (such as the home on Hunt’s Neck
Road, Poquoson, shown in Plate 4.27).
• Preservation of a representative example of a retail store.
• Preservation of the Art Deco-style store in Norge (Plate 4.26).
• Preservation or a complete survey of a representative example of an early
20th-century farmstead with outbuildings in the regional style.
• Preservation of a co-op or dairy farm.
• Preservation of at least one early gas station or other transportation-related property.
• Preservation of Ewell Railroad Station as an example of continuous and adapted
use.
• Preservation of a representative example a commercial property type such as the
Williamsburg Pottery Factory.
Plate 4.27. Home on Hunt’s Neck Road, Poquoson.
184

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS IX-XIV
Abbott, Carl
1977 Norfolk in the New Century: The Jamestown Exposition and Urban
Boosterism. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85: 86-96.
Ames, W. William
1965 The Baltimore Boats: Tidewater Virginia Villages Depended on the Steamers
to Supply Their Needs. Virginia Cavalcade 15(1): 32-39.
Andrews, Charles M. (editor)
1915 Narratives of the Insurrections 1675-1690. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New
York.
Anonymous
1930 Speeches of Students of the College of William and Mary Delivered May 1,
1699. William and Mary Quarterly 10(2nd series): 323-337.
1931 The Yorktown Sesquicentennial. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
39: 97-107.
1937 Our Colonial Houses. House and Garden (November): 68-79.
Ayres, S. Edward
1975 Historical Significance of the Wormley Creek Tract Now Used as the United
States Coast Guard Reserve Training Center. Manuscript on file, Department
of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg.
Bailor, Keith M.
1967 John Taylor of Caroline: Continuity, Change, and Discontinuity in Virginia’s
Sentiments towards Slavery, 1790-1820. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 75: 290-304.
Baltimore Steam Packet Company
1896 Map of the James River Route for the Bay Line: Steamer Virginia. Baltimore
Steam Packet Company, Baltimore.
Barka, Norman F.
1979 The Archaeology of Kiln 2, Yorktown Pottery Factory, Yorktown, Virginia.
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Barraud, Philip
1796 Letter to St. George Tucker, October 12, 1796. Typescript, Research Department
Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Baker, Emerson W.
1985 Estimate of Standing Structures in James City County During the Virginia
Company Study Unit. Ms. on file, Department of Archaeology, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
185

Bean, William Gleason
1954 John Letcher and the Slavery Issue in Virginia’s Gubernatorial Contest of
1858-1859. Journal of Southern History 20: 22-49.
Beaudry, Mary
1975 A Study of York County, Virginia Inventories, 1730-1750. M.A. thesis,
Brown University. Copy on file, Department of Archaeology, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Bergstrom, Peter V., and J. Mark Ferguson
1985 Making the Map That Never Was. Colonial Williamsburg VII(2): 11-12,
21. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Berry, Thomas S.
1970 The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 78(4): 387-408.
Berthier, Louis-Alexandre
1781 Environs of Williamsburg and Yorktown Peninsula. Map on file, Research
Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Betts, Leonidas
1970 The Rise of Flour Milling in Richmond. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 78: 387-408.
Bradford, S. Sydney
1959 The Negro Ironworker in Ante Bellum Virginia. Journal of Southern History
25: 289-302.
Bratton, Mary J.
1980 Field’s Observations: The Slave Narrative of a Nineteenth Century Virginia.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 88: 75-93.
Bruce, Kathleen
1926 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part I. William and Mary Quarterly
6(2nd series): 289-302.
1927 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part II. William and Mary Quarterly
7(2nd series): 21-31.
1932 Virginia Agricultural Decline to 1860: A Fallacy. Agricultural History 6:
3-13.
Bruce, Philip Alexander
1896 Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. 2 volumes.
Macmillan and Company, New York.
Bucktrout, Benjamin
1800 Plan of the City of Williamsburg. Map on file, Research Department Library,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
186

Business Men’s Association of the City of Williamsburg
1900 Facts about Williamsburg and Vicinity. Whittet and Shepperson Printers,
Richmond, Virginia.
Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton
1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. Winterthur
Portfolio 16 (2/3): 135-196.
Carson, Jane
1961 We Were There: Descriptions of Williamsburg, 1699-1859. Manuscript on
file, Department of Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Cassell, Frank A.
1972 Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 1812. Journal of Negro
History 57: 144-155.
Caywood, Louis R.
1955 Green Spring Plantation, Archaeological Report. National Park Service,
Yorktown, Virginia.
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
1935 Williamsburg Telephone Directory. Copy on file at Swem Library, College
of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
City of Poquoson
1985 Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file, Poquoson Planning Commission,
Poquoson, Virginia.
City of Williamsburg
1981 The Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file, Williamsburg Planning Department,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
n.d. Site reports, notes, and photographs of prior excavations, filed by block and
archaeological area. Unpublished reports on file at Department of Archaeology,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Cotter, John L.
1957 Jamestown: Treasures in the Earth. Antiques LXXI(1): 44-50.
1958 Archaeological Excavations at Jamestown, Virginia. National Park Service
Research Series 4.
Cotter, John L., and J. Paul Hudson
1957 New Discoveries at Jamestown. National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Craven, Avery Odelle
1965 Soil Exhaustion as a Factor in the Agricultural History of Virginia and Maryland,
1606-1860. Peter Smith, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
187

Cressey, Pamela J., and John F. Stephens
1982 The City-Site Approach in Urban Archaeology. In Archaeology of Urban
America: The Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens,
pp. 41-61. Academic Press, New York.
Deetz, James J.F.
1973 Ceramics from Plymouth, 1620-1835: The Archaeological Evidence. In
Ceramics in America, edited by Ian M.G. Quimby, pp. 15-40. The University
of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
Department of Agriculture and Immigration of the State of Virginia
1891 Annual Report. State Printing Office, Richmond, Virginia.
1892 Annual Report. State Printing Office, Richmond, Virginia.
1893 Annual Report. State Printing Office, Richmond, Virginia.
1897 Annual Report. State Printing Office, Richmond, Virginia.
1916 The Bulletin, #60: Quarterly Report. Richmond, Virginia.
1923 A Handbook of Virginia. Davis Bottom, Richmond, Virginia.
Desandrouins Map
1782 Carte des Environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Rochambeau 57.
Map on file, Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Dew, Charles B.
1974 David Ross and the Oxford Iron Works: A Study in Industrial Slavery in the
Early Nineteenth Century South. William and Mary Quarterly 35(31):
189-224.
Division of State Planning and Community Affairs
1977 Data Summary: York County and the City of Poquoson. Copy on file, Swem
Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Duell, Prentice, and Herbert S. Ragland
1930 Archaeology Report on Excavations for Summer Season...1930. June 30 to
September 5. Unpublished report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Dunn, Richard S.
1977 A Tale of Two Plantations: Slave Life at Mesopotamia in Jamaica and Mount
Airy in Virginia, 1799-1829. William and Mary Quarterly 34(3rd series):
32-65.
Earle, Carville V.
1975 The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hollow’s Parish, Maryland
1650-1783. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
188

Earle, Carville V.
1979 Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia. In The Chesapeake
in the Seventeenth Century, edited by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman,
pp. 96-125. W.W. Norton, New York.
Eaton, Clement
1960 Slave-Hiring in the Upper South: A Step Towards Freedom. Mississippi
Valley Historical Review 26: 663-678.
Essig, James David
1980 A Very Wintry Season: Virginia Baptists and Slavery, 1785-1797. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 88: 170-185.
Faust, Drew Gilpen
1977 Evangelicalism and the Meaning of the Proslavery Argument: The Reverend
Thornton Stringfellow of Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biogaphy 85: 3-17.
Flickinger, B. F.
1936 Historical Methods Used in the Development of Colonial National Monument.
William and Mary Quarterly 16(2nd series): 352-358.
Foss, Robert
1977 Report on the 1975 Archaeological Excavations at the James Anderson
House. Unpublished report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Frank, R. Neil, Jr.
1969 The James Geddy Site, Block 19, Area B, Colonial Lot 161: Report on 1966
and 1967 Archaeological Excavations. Unpublished report on file, Office
of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Frenchman’s Map
1782 Plan de la ville et environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Map on file,
Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Frey, Sylvia R.
1983 Between Slavery and Freedom: Virginia Blacks in the American Revolution.
Journal of Southern History 49: 375-378.
Garnett, William, and Allen Edward
1941 Virginia’s Marginal Population: A Study in Rural Poverty. Work Projects
Administration and Virginia Polytechnic Institute Bulletin 335.
Garnett, William, and Aja Seymour
1933 Virginia Counties: Conditions and Trends of Social Significance. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute Bulletin 291.
189

Gee, Wilson, and John J. Corson
1927 A Statistical Study of Virginia. Institute for Research in the Social Sciences,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
1929 Rural Depopulation in Certain Tidewater and Piedmont Areas of Virginia.
Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
Genovese, Eugene D.
1974 Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made. Random House, Pantheon
Books, New York.
Glassie, Henry
1975 Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Gray, Lewis Cecil
1930 Economic Efficiency and Competitive Advantages of Slavery under the Plantation
System. Agricultural History 4: 31-47.
1933 History of Agriculture in the Southern United States To 1860. Volume I.
Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.
Greene, E. B. and Virginia D. Harrington
1966 American Population Before the Census of 1790. Peter Smith, Gloucester,
Massachusetts.
Gregory, George C.
1935 James City County and the James City Island Landowners. Privately published,
Richmond.
Grim, Ronald
1977 The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth-Century Virginia: The Emergence of
Service Centers in York County. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Hall, Van Beck
1969 A Quantitative Approach to the Social, Economic, and Political Structure of
Virginia, 1790-1810. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Southern Historical
Association, Washington, DC.
Hatch, Charles E., Jr.
1957 Jamestown, Virginia: The Townsite and Its Story. National Park Science,
Washington, DC.
Hecht, Irene
1969 The Virginia Colony, 1607-1640: A Study in Frontier Growth.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
190

Hecht, Irene
1973 The Virginia Muster of 1624/5 As a Source for Demographic History. William
and Mary Quarterly 30(3rd series): 65-92.
Hening, William Waller
1809- The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia,
1823 from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. 23 volumes.
Thomas DeSilver, Philadelphia.
Hermann, Augustine
1673 Virginia and Maryland As It Is Planted and Inhabited This Present Year
1670.... Map on file, Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Hickin, Patricia
1971 Gentle Agitator: Samuel M. Janney and the Antislavery Movement in Virginia,
1824-1851. Journal of Southern History 37: 159-190.
1965 John C. Underwood and the Anti-Slavery Movement in Virginia, 1847-1860.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 73: 156-168.
Holland, Lorraine Eva
1980 Rise and Fall of the Antebellum Virginia Aristocracy. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Irvine.
Holt, W. Stull
1972 The Slave Population on the Plantation of John C. Calhoun, Jr., Nansemond
County Virginia, 1811-1863: Selected Demographic Characteristics. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 80: 333-340.
Hopkins, Garland Evans
1942 York County Source Book. York County Historical Series #4. Manuscript on
file, York County Library.
Hudgins, Carter
1977 Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Excavations at College
Landing. Unpublished report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Hudson, J. Paul
1956 The Story of Iron at Jamestown, Virginia—Where Iron Objects Were Wrought
by Englishmen Almost 350 Years Ago. The Ironworker 20(2): 2-14.
Hughes, Sarah S.
1978 Slaves for Hire: The Allocation of Black Labor in Elizabeth City County,
Virginia, 1782-1810. William and Mary Quarterly 34(3rd series): 260-286.
Hunter, Robert
1963 Turnpike Construction in Ante-bellum Virginia. Technology and Culture 4:
177-200.
191

Hunter, Robert
1984 Preliminary Archaeological Study of the Burwell’s Mill Site, York County,
Virginia. Unpublished report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Isaac, Rhys
1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Jackson, Luther P.
1939 The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-1860. Journal
of Negro History 24: 390-439.
1969 Free Negro Labor and Property Holding in Virginia, 1830-1860. Athenium,
New York.
James City County
1815- Land and Personal Property Tax Records. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg
1820 Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1981 Land Use Element: 1981 Update to the Comprehensive Plan. Copy on file,
James City County Planning Department, James City County, Virginia.
1984 Annual Report. Copy on file, James City County Planning Department, James
City County, Virginia.
James City County Department of Planning & Development
1977 Heritage and Historic Sites: An Inventory and Description of Historic Sites
in James City County. James City County Department of Planning & Development,
James City County, Virginia.
Jeffrey, Tina
1984a The Origins of Lightfoot and Norge. Virginia Gazette, “James City County
350th Anniversary Supplement” (October 24, 1984): 14.
1984b
When Toano was a Boomtown. Virginia Gazette, “James City County 350th
Anniversary Supplement” (October 24, 1984): 3-4.
Johnston, James Hugo
1931 The Participation of White Men in Virginia Negro Insurrections. Journal of
Negro History 16: 158-167.
Joseph, Albert Peter
1976 The Protean Institution: The Geography, Economy, and Ideology of Slavery
in Post-Revolutionary Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History,
University of Maryland.
Keeler, Robert
1977 The Homelot on the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake Tidewater Frontier.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
192

Kelly, Kevin
1972 Economic and Social Development in 17th Century Surry County.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
1979 In dispers’d Country Plantations: Settlement Patterns in Seventeenth-Century
Surry County, Virginia. In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century, edited
by Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, pp. 183-205. W.W. Norton,
New York.
Kelso, William M.
1972 A Report on Exploratory Excavations at Carter’s Grove Plantation, James
City County, Virginia (June 1970- September 1971). Unpublished report on
file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
1982 Jefferson’s Garden Landscape Archaeology at Monticello. Archaeology Volume
35(4): 148-153.
1984 Kingsmill Plantations 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial
Virginia. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Kibler, J. Luther
1936 Colonial Virginia Shrines: A Complete Guide Book to Jamestown
Williamsburg and Yorktown. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia.
Kingsbury, Susan Myra (editor)
1906- The Records of the Virginia Company of London: The Court Book from the
1925 Manuscript in the Library of Congress. 4 volumes. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Klebaner, Benjamin Joseph
1955 American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for Supporting Slaves.
Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 63: 443-453.
Kukla, Jon
1985 Order and Chaos in Early America: Political and Social Stability in
Pre-Restoration Virginia. American Historical Review 90(2): 275-298.
Kulikoff, Allan
1975 Black Society and the Economics of Slavery. Maryland Historical Magazine
670: 203-210.
1978 The Origins of Afro-American Society in Tidewater Maryland and Virginia,
1700-1790. William and Mary Quarterly 35(3rd series): 226-259.
Leone, Mark
1983 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspective
in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology,
193

Representation and Power in Prehistory, edited by C. Tilley and D. Miller.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lewis, Clifford M., and Albert J. Loomie
1953 The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1572. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Lewis, Kenneth
1975 The Jamestown Frontier: An Archaeological Study of Colonization.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
Lewis, Roland L.
1974 Slavery on Chesapeake Iron Plantation Before the American Revolution.
Journal of Negro History 59: 242-254.
1978 Slave Families at Early Chesapeake Ironworks. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 86: 169-179.
1979 The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First Southern Coal Field,
1780-1865. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87: 190-202.
Liddle, Melanie, and Christine Styrna
1985 Urban Development in the Chesapeake: Land Acquisition and Settlement
Patterns in Williamsburg, 1700-1850. Manuscript on file, Office of Archaeological
Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Low, W. A.
1951 The Farmer in Post-Revolutionary Virginia, 1783-1789. Agricultural History
25: 122-127.
1953 Merchant and Planter Relations in Post-Revolutionary Virginia, 1783-1789.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 61: 308-318.
McCartney, Martha
n.d. Early Planters and Immigrants to Virginia, 1607-1632, A Synthesis of James
River Settlement. Document in preparation.
McIlwaine, H.R. (editor)
1914 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1619-1658/59. The Colonial
Press, Richmond.
1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1959/60-1693. The Colonial
Press, Richmond.
Maddex, Diane
1985 All About Old Buildings: The Whole Preservation Catalogue. The Preservation
Press, Washington, DC.
194

Main, Jackson Turner
1954 The Distribution of Property in Post-Revolutionary Virginia. Mississippi
Valley Historical Review XLI: 1954-1955.
Maury, M.F.
1877 Physical Survey of Virginia: Her Resources, Climate and Productions.
N.V. Randolph, Richmond, Virginia.
Moger, Allen W.
1951 Railroad Practices and Policies in Virginia After the Civil War. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 59: 423-457.
1958 Industrial and Urban Progress in Virginia from 1880 to 1900. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 66: 307-336.
Morgan, Edmund S.
1975 American Slavery, American Freedom. W.W. Norton, New York.
Morgan, Judith Blakely
1985 Williamsburg’s Enduring Grace. Reader’s Digest July: 148-153.
Morgan, Philip
1984 The Ethnic Heritage of James City County. In Where America Began:
1607-1984, James City County. Copy on file, Williamsburg Public Library,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Morton, Richard L.
1960 Colonial Virginia. Volume 1. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
Mueller, Walter J.
1979 Happy Birthday APVA! Discovery (Spring): 9-10.
Mutual Assurance Society
1796- Records of the Mutual Assurance Society. Copy on file, Research
1860 Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Newport News Times-Herald
1978 Peninsula Roots. Newport News Times-Herald, Newport News, Virginia.
Noël Hume, Audrey
1974 Archaeology and the Colonial Gardener. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological
Series No. 9.
Noël Hume, Ivor
1961 The Anthony Hay Site, Block 28, Area D, Colonial Lots 263 and 264: Report
on Archaeological Excavations of 1959-1960. Volume I. Unpublished
report on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
195

Noël Hume, Ivor
1963 Here Lies Virginia: An Archaeologist’s View of Colonial Life. Alfred
A. Knopf, New York.
1969 Archaeology and Wetherburn’s Tavern. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological
Series No. 3.
1970 James Geddy and Sons: Colonial Craftsmen. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological
Series No. 5.
1974 Digging for Carter’s Grove. Colonial Williamsburg Archaeological Series
No. 8.
1979 First Look at a Lost Virginia Settlement. National Geographic 155(6):
735-767.
1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Nugent, Nell M.
1929- Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants
1931 1623-1800. 3 volumes. Virginia State Library, Richmond.
O’Brien, John T.
1978 Factory, Church and Community: Blacks in Antebellum Richmond. Journal
of Southern History 44: 509-536.
O’Mara, James
1983 An Historical Geography of Urban System Development, Tidewater Virginia
in the Eighteenth Century. Geographical Monograph No. 13, York University.
O’Neal, William B.
1968 Architecture in Virginia: An Official Guide to Four Centuries of Building in
the Old Dominion. Walker, New York.
Overton, Ed
1984 Farming Grew from Fallow to Fruit. Virginia Gazette, “James City County
350th Anniversary Supplement” (October 24, 1984): 14.
Outlaw, Alain C.
1974 Excavations at Burkes Corner and Survey of the Skimino Meetinghouse
Lot, York County, Virginia. Unpublished report on file, Virginia Research
Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
1975 The 1975 Survey of the Governor’s Land Archaeological District. Unpublished
report on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown,
Virginia.
1977 Centreville: A Free Black Community Near Williamsburg, Virginia
c. 1850-1870. Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Yorktown, Virginia.
196

Outlaw, Alain C.
1980 An Interim Report, Governor’s Land Archaeological District Excavations:
The 1976 Season. Unpublished report on file, Virginia Research Center for
Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Painter, Floyd
1956 The Helmet Site. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Quarterly Bulletin
10(3): n.p.
Paulding, James K.
1835 Letters from the South by a Northern Man. Volume I, New Edition. Harper
and Brothers, New York. (Originally published 1816.)
Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason
1977 A Brief History of the Road of Virginia, 1607-1840. Virginia Highway and
Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Pawlett, Nathaniel Mason, and K. Edward Lay
1980 Early Road Location: Key to Discovering Historic Resources Virginia
Highway and Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Perry, W.G., T.M. Shaw, and A.H. Hepburn
1935 The Restoration of Williamsburg. Architectural Record (December):
356-458.
Peterson, Arthur G.
1930 Prices Received by Producers in Virginia, 1801-1928. Journal of Economic
History 2: 382-391.
1935 Flour and Grist Milling in Virginia: A Brief History. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 43: 97-108.
Pilcher, George Washington
1966 Samuel Davies and the Instruction of Negroes in Virginia. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 74: 293-300.
Powers, Lou
1984 Owners of the Grove from 1839 to 1906: A Preliminary Report on Carter’s
Grove in the Nineteenth Century. Manuscript on file, Research Department,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Preisser, Thomas M.
1975 The Virginia Decision to Use Negro Soldiers in the Civil War, 1864-1865.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83: 98-113.
Pugh, Evelyn L.
1980 Women and Slavery: Julia Gardiner Tyler and the Dutchess of Sutherland.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 88: 186-202.
197

Quinn, David B.
1977 North America from Earliest Discovery to First Settlements. Harper Colophon
Books, New York.
1984 Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies 1584-1606. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Quinn, David B., and Alison M. Quinn
1982 The First Colonists: Documents on the Planting of the First English Settlements
in North America, 1584-1590. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Rachal, William H. E.
1959a Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1831-1833. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 67: 3-29.
1959b
1959c
1959d
Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1834. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 67: 186-206.
Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1835. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 67: 332-360.
Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1836. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 67: 450-467.
1960 Early Records of the Virginia Historical Society, 1837-1838. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 68: 92-103.
Ridout, Orlando V.
1984 The Chesapeake Farm Buildings Survey. In Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture,
edited by Camille Wells. Vernacular Architecture Forum, Annapolis.
Rives, Ralph Hardee
1959 The Jamestown Celebration of 1857. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
66: 259-271.
Robson, David W.
1980 ‘An Important Question Answered’: William Graham’s Defense of Slavery
in Post-Revolutionary Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly 37(2nd series):
664-652.
Rochefoucauld, Duke de la
1799 Travels through the United States of North America...in the Years 1795, 1796,
and 1797. Volume II. London.
Rouse, Parke, Jr.
1973 Cows on the Campus: Williamsburg in Bygone Days. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Ruffin, Edward
1840 The Farmer’s Register. Volume VIII.
198

Ruffin, Edward
1857 The Southern Planter. Volume XVIII: 10.
Russel, Robert R.
1937 The Economic History of Negro Slavery in the United States. Agricultural
History 11: 308-321.
Sanborn Map Company
1904 Map of Williamsburg. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1910 Map of Williamsburg. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1921 Map of Williamsburg. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
Savitt, Todd L.
1977 Slave Life Insurance in Virginia and North Carolina. Journal of Southern
History 43: 583-600.
Schoepf, Johann David
1911 Travels in the Confederation (1783-1784) from the German of Johann David
Schoepf. Translated and edited by Alfred J. Morrison. J. Campbell Williams,
Philadelphia.
Shea, William
1983 The Virginia Militia in the Seventeenth Century. Louisiana State University
Press, Baton Rouge.
Sheldon, Marianne Buroff
1979 Black-White Relations in Richmond, Virginia, 1782-1820. Journal of Southern
History 45: 27-44.
Sheridan, Richard
1984 The Domestic Economy. In Colonial British America: Essays in the New
History of the Early Modern Era, edited by Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole,
pp. 43-85. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Shiner, Joel L.
1955 Report on Archaeological Excavations in the Area of the Statehouse Group
in the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities Grounds
(Jamestown National Historic Site) at Jamestown: Research Project No. 105.
Unpublished manuscript on file, Colonial National Historical Park, Yorktown,
Virginia.
Simpson, Craig
1975 Political Compromise and the Protection of Slavery: Henry A. Wise and the
Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850-1851. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 83: 387-405.
199

Smart, Ann Morgan
n.d. This Madness for Foreign Finery: The Consumption of Luxury Goods in
Early Nineteenth Century York and Williamsburg, Virginia. Thesis manuscript,
in preparation.
Smith, James M.
1978 Archaeology of Yorke Village and the First and Second Parish Churches,
Yorktown, Virginia. Unpublished report on file, Virginia Research Center
for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Smolek, Michael A., and Wayne Clark
1982 Observations on the Settlement Patterning of Seventeenth-Century Sites in
the Chesapeake Region. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology
Annual Meetings, Philadelphia.
Sosin, Jack M.
1965 The British Indian Department and Dunmore’s War. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 74: 34-50.
Spero, Paula A. C.
1984 A Survey and Photographic Inventory of Concrete and Masonry Arch Bridges
in Virginia. Virginia Highway and Transportation Council, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Stanard, William G.
1931 History of the Virginia Historical Society. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 39: 292-362.
Stealey, John Edward III
1974 Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry. Journal of Negro History
59: 105-131.
Stilgoe, John R.
1982 Common Landscape of America 1580-1845. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Stone, Garry Wheeler
1976 Artifacts Are Not Enough. The Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology
Papers 11: 43-63.
Stover, John F.
1955 Southern Railroad Receivership in the 1870’s. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 63: 40-52.
Tate, Thad
1965 The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. The University of Virginia
Press, Charlottesville.
Tate, Thad W., and David L. Ammerman
1979 The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century. W.W. Norton, New York.
200

Taylor, Robert T.
1957 The Jamestown Tercentennial Exposition of 1907. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 65: 217-282.
True, Ransom
1984 Up and Down the James. Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities,
Richmond, Virginia.
Turner, Charles W.
1948 The Branches of the First Bank of the United States. Journal of Economic
History 2: 66-100.
Tyler, Lyon Gardiner (editor)
1907a Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606-1625. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
1907b
Williamsburg, The Old Colonial Capital. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond,
Virginia.
Underwater Archaeological Section, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology [U.A.S.,
V.R.C.A.]
1981 Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project: A Report on Current Project
Status and on Environmental Impact Assessment. Unpublished report on
file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
United States Bureau of the Census
1790- First Through Sixteenth United States Censuses of Population.
1940 Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
1792 Ennumeration of Heads of Households. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
1840a
1840b
1850a
1850b
1860a
1860b
Sixth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1840. Agriculture. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Sixth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1840. Manufacturing.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Seventh Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1850. Agriculture.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Seventh Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1850. Manufacturing.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Eighth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1860. Agriculture.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Eighth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1860. Manufacturing.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
1906 Bulletin 44: Census of Manufacturers- 1905, Virginia and West Virginia.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
201

United States Bureau of the Census
1913 Statistics for Virginia, 1910. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
1920a
1920b
Agriculture: Number of Farms by States and Counties for 1900, 1910, and
1920. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Agriculture: Virginia, 1920 Bulletin. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
1928 Virginia: Statistics by Counties, 1925. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
1985 Soil Survey of James City and York Counties and the City of Williamsburg,
Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation
with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
United States Department of Commerce
1943 Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940: Housing. Volume II, Part 5.
General Printing Office, Washington, DC.
1958 Location of Manufacturing Plants by Industry, County, and Employment Size.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
United States Department of the Interior
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines. Draft proposal, Federal Register 48(190).
United States Treasury Department
1814 A Statement of the Arts & Manufactures of the United States of America for
the Year 1810. Designed and prepared by Tench Coxe, Esq., of Philadelphia.
A. Cornman, Philadelphia.
Upton, Dell
1979 Early Vernacular Architecture in Southeastern Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,
Brown University. Copy on file, Research Department Library, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1982 Vernacular Domestic Architecture in Eighteenth Century Virginia. Winterthur
Portfolio 17(2-3): 95-119.
Virginia Gazette, Inc.
1898 A Directory and Handbook of Williamsburg and James City County. Virginia
Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1978 Community Profiles Series. Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
1931 Annual Report: Virginia Agricultural Experimental Station, Blacksburg, Virginia:
July 1, 1927 to June 10, 1931.
202

Virginia Polytechnic Institute
1946 The Housing of Rural Folks. Rural Sociology Report, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Wall, Bennett H.
1950 Medical Care of Ebenezer Pettigrew’s Slaves. Mississippi Valley Historical
Review 37: 451-470.
Watkins, Vincent
1981 Brief History of Poquoson. Report prepared for Poquoson Seafood Festival,
Poquoson. Copy on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.
n.d.
Restoration: 1865-1941. Report prepared for Fourth Annual Poquoson Seafood
Festival. Copy on file, Poquoson Library, Poquoson, Virginia.
Wax, Darold D.
1972 Whither the Comparative History of Slavery Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 80: 85-93.
Williamsburg Garden Club
1932 A Williamsburg Scrap Book. Dietz Publishing Company, Richmond, Virginia.
York County
1815- Land and Personal Property Tax Records. Microfilm, Colonial Williamsburg
1820 Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1983 Land Use Plan. Copy on file, York County Planning Department, York
County, Virginia.
York County Records
n.d. York County Records: Deeds, Orders, and Wills. 13 volumes. Copy on file,
Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
203

204

Section 5.
Afro-American Study Units
(Study Units XV–XX)

INTRODUCTION TO THE AFRO-AMERICAN STUDY
UNITS (STUDY UNITS XV-XX)
Although historians have been studying American blacks for many years, it is
only over the past two decades that there has been a growing interest in the
archaeology of Afro-American sites. This interest has been stimulated in part
by the relative paucity of information on black life prior to the 20th century and by the
theoretical issue of the visibility of ethnicity within archaeological assemblages. Documentation
describing slave life is all too often biased, from the racist extremes of planter’s
records to slave autobiographies published as propaganda in the anti-slavery North.
These documents fail to provide an accurate representation of slave life in the antebellum
South. The lives of free blacks are even more obscure, with often only tax and
property records providing a glimpse of black life during the 19th century.
For years, historical archaeology has been used to flesh out the written historical
record, providing information about daily life not normally touched upon in documents.
To quote James Deetz: “To gain a true understanding of the story of a people, it is best
to detail a picture of their life...and then relate that to the larger world. It is in this
process that archaeology can contribute in a significant way.” (Deetz 1977: 138). The
archaeology of black sites is currently being used to supplement and clarify black history,
especially in the areas of subsistence strategies of slaves, the economic status of
free blacks, and the processes of acculturation.
Because the archaeological record is ostensibly free of racial bias, and therefore
provides an accurate look at black lifeways, the archaeology of Afro-American cultural
remains has increased dramatically over the past few years. Beginning in 1968 with
Charles Fairbanks’ excavations of slave quarters at Kingsley Plantation in Florida
(Fairbanks 1972), the archaeology of slave sites has centered mainly in coastal Georgia
(Ascher and Fairbanks 1971; Otto 1975, 1984; Singleton 1980; Moore 1981), but includes
sites in South Carolina (Wheaton et al. 1983), Virginia (Kelso 1984; Noël Hume
1974), and the Barbadoes (Handler and Lange 1978). Excavations of free black settlements
have been concentrated mainly in the northern states (Schuyler 1974; Deetz 1977;
Baker 1980; Bridges and Salwen 1980; Geismar 1982).
Developing out of this interest in Afro-American archaeology has been the search
for Afro-American survivals or patterning within the archaeological record. Recognition
of this patterning would theoretically serve as a signal for sites of black occupation.
The American importation of blacks as slaves began in the 17th century, and continued
well into the 19th century. Since these slaves had been part of very different
cultural systems than that into which they were transplanted, it is generally accepted
that some African cultural forms survived within black American culture (Garrett 1966;
Blassingame 1972; Gutman 1976). Blassingame (1972: 41) found African survivals
among antebellum slaves in the form of religious beliefs, folklore, and dance. There is
also evidence that African traits are seen in some forms of material culture, such as
basketry, wood carving, and quilts (Vlach 1978). Recent findings suggest that patterning
of Afro-American ethnicity may also exist within archaeological assemblages (Deetz
1977; Otto 1975; Baker 1980).
207

The areas where this patterning may be evident within the archaeological record
are in settlement patterns, architectural remains, and foodways. The premise behind
the search for Afro- American ethnicity in excavated material remains is that blacks
adapted European forms of material culture to serve African cultural needs (Blassingame
1972; Deetz 1977).
The spatial arrangements of domestic structures on various Afro-American sites
have shown similarity to African settlement patterns (Deetz 1977; Fairbanks 1972;
Wheaton et al.1983). Another focus has been on the proxemics of domestic structures
and the existence of Afro-American house forms (Vlach 1976, 1978; Baker 1980; Otto
1975).
Interest has also focused on subsistence patterns, a category which is well documented
through the archaeological record in the form of faunal and floral remains, ceramics,
and cooking utensils. Archaeological evidence from faunal remains, as well as
ceramic assemblages, from slave and other Afro-American sites seem to point to a heavy
reliance on semi-liquid foods (Deetz 1977; Otto 1980; Wheaton 1983). Another characteristic
often associated with Afro-American sites is the preponderance of chopped or
cleaved bone. This pattern of butchering is common where diet includes many stews or
semi-liquid foods, since control over meat portion size was somewhat limited when
butchering was done with an axe. This diet contrasts with that consisting of individual
portions of meat and vegetables, characterized by the presence in the archaeological
assemblage of sawn bone. Dietary patterns are also evident through analysis of ceramic
assemblages. Ceramic assemblages reflecting a greater dependence upon semiliquid
foods would contain a large proportion of hollow serving vessels while a diet
pattern of individual cuts of meat would be reflected in a greater proportion of plates
and flatware vessels. Baker (1980) has stated that the presence of serving bowls exceeding
40% of all tableware appears distinctive of Afro-American sites, both slave and
free.
Limited work on Afro-American history has been accomplished within the study
area through the use of archaeological resources, although the institution of slavery had
national, regional and local impact (see Table 5.1 and Maps 5.1 and 5.2). The sites that
have been excavated (Hudgins 1977; Kelso 1984; Noël Hume 1963, 1974) provide
glimpses into an archaeological record that holds great potential for the recovery of
information relating to the black history of this area. Additional work needs to be done
on the lifestyles of urban slaves, as well as plantation slaves. There has been no archaeological
investigation of any sites which were occupied by free blacks, black craftsmen
or emancipated blacks in the postbellum era. The development of a firm data base
within this area will allow for comparison with assemblages from other regions.
208

Map 5.1.
Plate 5.1. Children on the Porch of the Henderson House.
209

Map 5.2. Study Units XV-XX: Known Resource Distribution.
TABLE 5.1
STUDY UNITS XV-XX: KNOWN AFRO-AMERICAN
CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 32 Utopia Cottage AS III 09 Domestic Exc./pres.
JC 33 Pettus Plantation AS III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 34 Bray Plantation SB III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 35 Littletown Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 37 Kingsmill Plantation SB III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 39 Kingsmill Quarter AS III 09 Domestic/ Excavated
slave quarter
JC 44 Hampton Key AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
JC 45 Tutter’s Neck AS III 09 Domestic Excavated
JC 52 North Quarter AS III 09 Slave quarter Excavated
* Not shown on Map 5.2.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
210

TABLE 5.1 (cont’d)
STUDY UNITS XV-XX: KNOWN AFRO-AMERICAN
CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
JC 222 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
JC 234 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
YORK COUNTY:
YO 59 New Quarter Site AS I 06 Domestic Undisturbed
YO 63 Blair’s Quarter Site AS III 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 109 Black Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown
YO 267 Roberson Negro Site AS MR 06 Domestic Unknown
YO 306 Foace’s Quarter AS MR 06 Domestic/ Unknown
agricultural
YO 316 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter Unknown
YO 322 None AS MR 07 Slave quarter Unknown
YO 324 None AS MR 07 Domestic/ Unknown
slave quarter
YO 326 None AS MR 07 Domestic/ Unknown
slave quarter
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ Stable
warehouses
CW-4* Custis Kitchen SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
CW-14A* First Baptist Church AS III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.excavated
CW-29E* Brush-Everard House SB III 06 Domestic P.exc./rest.
U- 54* James City County Training DB I 06 School Destroyed
School
U- 55* Bruton Heights School SB I 06 School Good
U- 56* Mount Ararat SB I 06 Ecclesiastical Excellent
U- 57* Odd Fellows Lounge DB I 06 School/public Destroyed
U- 57a* B
irthright Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown
U- 58* Samuel Harris Cheap Store DB I 06 Commercial Destroyed
U- 59 Unmarked Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown
U- 60 * The Quarter SB I 06 Domestic Excellent
U-127* “Negro School” DB DR 06 School Unknown
JC 110 Carter’s Grove Tannery () AS III 09 Tannery Excavated
JC 181 Rompfield Negro Site AS MR 03 Domestic Unknown
JC 213 “Negro House” AS MR 05 Domestic Unknown
211

212

STUDY UNIT XV.
EARLY SLAVERY IN THE TIDEWATER
(A.D. 1620–A.D. 1650)
Sub-Themes: A. Transplanting of African cultures.
B. Early interaction with Whites and Indians.
C. Role of blacks in early tobacco culture economy.
Significance: National
Little more than a decade after a permanent settlement was established at Jamestown,
the first blacks arrived there, marking the beginning of a lucrative trade which was to
continue for over 200 years. These men were the first members of Afro-American society,
one which was to form an integral part in shaping Southern history. It was not until
later in the 17th century, however, that the slave labor system which formed the basis of
southern economy, became firmly established. Indications are that in the early decades
of colonization most blacks were employed as indentured laborers, supplementing the
white labor force in agricultural pursuits. The numbers of blacks in the Tidewater remained
small throughout most of the century. Specific information on 17th-century
Tidewater blacks is scarce, and details concerning their lives and the effects of the
contact between disparate cultures is unclear.
SUB-THEME A: TRANSPLANTING OF AFRICAN CULTURES
The first documented case of black presence in North America was at Jamestown in
1619, when twenty-odd black men were left there by a Dutch frigate in exchange for
supplies. Specific details concerning the backgrounds of these blacks are not known,
but it has been suggested that they were born in the Caribbean and taken from one of the
colonies there (Craven 1971). It is likely, however, that small numbers of blacks were
present in the Tidewater prior to 1619 (Morgan 1985). The importation of blacks remained
sporadic throughout the 17th century, with only the final thirty years showing
an increase. When a census of the colony was taken in 1625, a total of 23 blacks was
listed in seven localities along the James River (Quisenberry 1900). In 1628, a substantial
cargo of blacks was sold in the colony and from 1635 on, shipments of blacks
arrived regularly. Table 5.2 lists the number of blacks imported to Virginia during the
17th century. These were generally small groups, which were absorbed into the
Anglo-American population, sometimes as indentured laborers. In 1649, there were
approximately 300 blacks in the colony, compared with a white population of 15,000.
Details concerning these early black residents are uncommon, and only modest
progress has been made towards identifying their precise African and Caribbean origins.
Some studies have shown that the majority of slaves brought into the New World
colonies in the first half of the 17th century were from Angola. It is generally believed,
however, that many of the blacks arriving in the Chesapeake during this period had
previously spent some years in Spanish, Dutch, or British colonies in the Caribbean
(Deal 1982: 194). There blacks primarily served as laborers on sugar, indigo, rice, and
213

TABLE 5.2
NUMBER OF BLACKS IMPORTED TO VIRGINIA DURING THE 17TH
CENTURY a
Year Quantity Year Quantity Year Quantity
1619 21 1639 46 1677 150
1621 1 1642 7 1678 120
1622 1 1643 18 1679 245
1623 1 1649 17 1684 34
1628 100 1652 7 1685 191
1635 26 1656 30 1687 120
1636 7 1662 80 1699 349
1637 28 1665 59 1700 229
1638 30 1674 650
a
Taken from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957
(1960).
tobacco plantations. The effects of this enforced slavery, followed by transplantation to
the Chesapeake, have not been adequately examined.
Although enslavement of blacks had not yet been institutionalized, the status of
blacks during the first half of the 17th century remains unclear. It appears that in some
instances blacks served a term of indenture, after which they could become freemen and
acquire property (Tate 1965: 3). Although there is no evidence that free black communities
were established on the Peninsula in the early 17th century, at least two such
communities were founded on the Eastern Shore (Deal 1982, 1984; Breen and Innes
1980). There free blacks were able to acquire material possessions in the form of land or
other capital goods. Deal’s work, however, suggests that free blacks never enjoyed the
same legal rights as white indentured servants, seldom rising from the lowest ranks of
free society (Deal 1982: 245). It was probably much more common for blacks’ periods
of service to last indefinitely, often extended by charges of criminal offenses (Palmer
1966: 357; Tate 1965: 5). Indications are that servitude was often noncontractual and
involuntary (Deal 1982: 198), and that the status of blacks was probably lower than that
of indentured white servants.
It was not until 1630, however, that any evidence exists of legal distinctions between
black and white servants (Palmer 1966: 356). As the use of white servitude declined,
lengths of indentures for blacks increased, finally developing into legalized slavery
between 1640 and 1660. The first recorded case of life servitude for a black servant
took place in 1640 (Palmer 1966: 357).
SUB-THEME B: THE ROLE OF BLACKS IN THE EARLY
TOBACCO CULTURE ECONOMY
The tobacco economy, which was to shape much of the Tidewater’s subsequent development,
was in its infancy in the early 17th century. Tobacco, a very labor-intensive
214

crop, required work from late winter through the following fall (Isaac 1982: 26). Blacks
played an important role as laborers for this economic endeavor from the time of their
arrival in the colonies. During the early part of the 17th century, however, the pattern of
large-scale tobacco plantations manned by substantial numbers of slaves had not yet
begun. Those persons who did own slaves were likely to have had only a few. Documents
seem to suggest that black labor had come to be preferred to that of white indentured
servants as more reliable and of better quality. This may have been partially because
of the difficulties blacks would have encountered when attempting to run away
from their masters. While it was relatively easy for white servants to escape and begin a
new life elsewhere, blacks’ skin color and small numbers prevented their blending in
with the general population at this point in the 17th century (Deal 1982: 154).
SUB-THEME C: EARLY INTERACTION WITH WHITES
Blacks and whites came into regular contact throughout the colonial period, particularly
during the 17th century. Proportionally, the black population was still small in
contrast to the white population, and large slaveholdings were rare. Scattered throughout
the Tidewater in small clusters, the black population during the first half of the 17th
century was probably simply not dense enough to support the development of distinct
Afro-American cultural elements. Some blacks shared housing with their white employers,
although the Virginia Muster of 1625 suggests that more than one-third of the
households chose to quarter their servants separately (Deal 1982: 129). Even so, contact
between blacks and whites was frequent, and complex social networks were formed
as blacks interacted with whites as employers, creditors, and friends.
The quality of these relations probably varied a great deal. Breen and Innes (1980:
111) suggest that for Eastern Shore free blacks “economic status rather than racial identity
seem[ed] to have been the chief factor in determining how blacks and whites dealt
with one another.” Other sources indicate that although race relations were more flexible
than they would be later in the 17th century, discrimination on the basis of race was
common (Deal 1982). Blacks were denied rights enjoyed by white servants, and were
often punished more severely than their white comrades for identical crimes (Palmer
1966). Indications are that race relations had begun to seriously deteriorate during the
second half of the 17th century.
Although a small number of blacks lived in the Tidewater early in the 17th century,
there are no known sites specifically associated with blacks from this time period. The
burial of what was tentatively identified as a black woman was located at the 17th-century
settlement of Wolstenholme Towne (JC115) (Noël Hume 1982). This feature, contained
within a complex of seven other burials, dates prior to 1650. Although there are no
records of blacks at Wolstenholme Towne at that time, records show that there was at
least one free black family living in the Martin’s Hundred Parish by the 1660s. Most
likely, the demographic distribution of the small number of blacks in the Tidewater
during this period was centered near white settlements.
There are no standing structures associated with blacks from the first half of the
17th century. Housing in Virginia during that period was, for the most part, impermanent
in nature and the few surviving buildings are constructed of brick. Since brick
215

construction was very expensive, this type of building was rare and not available to
blacks during this period.
It seems likely that the types of sites associated with blacks from the first half of
the 17th century would consist largely of the structures where they lived and worked.
Evidence indicates that blacks working for or serving under whites would have lived
either in the home of their employer or in separate quarters located on the property.
Although several settlements in the study area dating to the first half of the 17th century
have been archaeologically examined (see Study Unit X), no substantial evidence of
black occupation has been recovered. There have also been no investigations of early
buildings known to have been associated with free blacks. The identification of these
buildings and sites is complicated by the paucity of documentary evidence from this
time period, particularly concerning blacks.
Although there seem to have been no formalized slave markets in the early 17th
century, slaves generally were sold or indentured from some central location upon their
arrival to the country. These transactions most likely took place along the waterfront, or
perhaps at public buildings in Jamestown and other settlements. Evidence of this activity
would not, in all probability, leave any traces which could be examined
archaeologically.
Although it is known that blacks lived and worked in the study area during the first
half of the 17th century, the difficulties of studying them are enormous. Documentary
sources are inadequate and biased, with blacks either not identified as to racial status, or
thought too insignificant even to record. No archaeological work to date has identified
evidence of black material culture from this era and the potential for positively locating
domestic black sites is probably minimal.
SUMMARY
This period is represented by one known possible site (JC115), located in James City
County. Overall, documentary sources concerning blacks during the first half of the
17th century are limited and biased. If a domestic structure could be identified as associated
with blacks, archaeological examination of this property would be extremely
important in shedding light on the living conditions of early Tidewater blacks. Specific
recommendations for the study of this period, and the treatment of property types are
made in the following operating plan.
STUDY UNIT XV: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
National. The first documented case of black presence in North America was at
Jamestown in 1619, with importation remaining small and sporadic throughout the 17th
century. Although it appears that slavery did not yet exist as a formalized institution, the
status of blacks during this period remains unclear. It is known that some blacks served
216

periods of indentured servitude, and played a key role in the labor force for the developing
tobacco economy.
Since Tidewater Virginia is documented as having been the first place in the mainland
colonies to receive blacks, this area offers a unique opportunity to study the early
17th-century life of blacks and their role in the development of the Virginia colony. A
number of settlements from the first half of the 17th century have been studied, both
through archaeological investigations and documentary research, but early black experience
in this area is poorly understood, both historically and archaeologically.
Summary of Property Types
There have been no buildings or archaeological sites from this time period positively
associated with blacks; however, documentary sources suggest the following as possible
property types:
(1) Domestic properties of free blacks.
(2) Domestic properties of slaves/servants.
(3) Work areas.
(4) Cemeteries.
(5) Meeting and worship areas.
Although blacks were likely to have been involved in all aspects of work in the
colonies, their living quarters would probably be the only property types where distinct
material assemblages associated with blacks could be identified. These properties would
most likely be located in association with typical 17th-century fortified settlements and
outlying households, such as that of Wolstenholme Towne. Since there are no known
standing buildings from this time period in the study unit, information on black households
would be recoverable only through archaeological investigation and documentary
research.
The scarcity of information on blacks in the early Tidewater makes any archaeological
site relating to blacks significant in terms of the National Register criteria (see
below). However, the uneven documentation concerning blacks, combined with the
small number of blacks who actually lived in the colony during the first half of the
century, make identifying properties associated with blacks extremely difficult.
Character of the Existing Data
When dealing with Afro-American cultural resources from almost any period of American
history, the same types of problems and biases will reoccur. What follows is a discussion
of problems inherent in Afro-American research which will apply to all operating
plans in Section 5.
First and foremost, tracing the history of Afro-Americans is impeded by the general
scarcity of existing data, not only from a documentary standpoint, but also for
architectural and archaeological remains. Reliance on documentation alone is dangerous,
given the controversy surrounding the position of blacks within colonial society.
Biases are often inherent in contemporary documentation, ranging from the almost complete
disregard of blacks in some forms of records, to antislavery propaganda. Popula-
217

tion figures, court records, and slave ownership counts have been used with success in
the study of colonial black history, but it is important to exercise caution when using
any document to make generalizations about the black experience.
Perhaps what is most lacking in the way of documentation for Afro- Americans are
details of daily life, not only for slaves, but for free blacks as well. Records of the labor
that slaves performed can be found in numerous planter’s diaries or journals, but reconstructing
the personal lives of slaves or free blacks, whether it be the kind of food they
ate, the types of houses in which they lived, or the size and makeup of their households,
is very difficult. Most blacks did not have the opportunity of learning to read or write
prior to the Civil War, and those that were literate did not document their daily lives.
Even after the Civil War and the establishment of schools for blacks, the scarcity of this
type of documentation continued. A number of slave narratives and reminiscences are
available which provide information on the hardships of slavery, although these documents
have many biases and inaccuracies as well.
Archaeological data may be one of the best sources of information concerning
details of black daily life. Archaeology can yield information, as well as generate questions
about subjects not treated in documentary sources, while providing an unbiased
look at the material objects which people actually used and discarded. Analysis of material
assemblages has been used with success in studies of slave quarter sites in the
Deep South, in determining such aspects of slave life as diet and quarter composition
(Otto 1984; Singleton 1980; Wheaton et al. 1983).
A problem inherent in using archaeology for the recovery of information about
Afro-American culture history is the difficulty of determining whether an archaeological
site was actually occupied by blacks. Probably the easiest type of black domestic
site to locate is the quarter, generally associated with 18th- and 19th-century plantations,
while the most difficult to identify would be those occupied by free blacks, particularly
those of the 17th century. Of course, archaeology is also limited in that many
aspects of life, such as religious belief systems, dance, music, and oral traditions, did
not leave traces within the archaeological record.
A recent trend in historical archaeology has been the search for patterns of
Afro-American ethnicity within the archaeological record. Although this research may
have potential for elucidating patterns in other regions, the economic base of the Virginia
Tidewater seems to have worked against the continuity of African-derived patterns.
Slaves were closely involved in the lives of whites, whether it was as domestics,
caretakers for children, or as agricultural laborers on the plantations and smaller farmsteads.
Daily interaction between blacks and whites was a rule. The intimacy of these
relations gives rise to a number of questions, such as: to what degree can one separate
distinct black and white components of culture How much acculturation took place
between these two groups Patterns which have been claimed as “Afro-American” by
historical archaeologists (Deetz 1977; Otto 1984) actually seem more likely to be patterns
associated with economic status rather than race. Throughout American history,
blacks have been subjected to conditions which made rising above a position of lower
socio-economic status almost impossible. Analysis of recent archaeological investigations
of poor white tenant farmers (Adams 1981; Moir 1982; Raab 1982) seems to
suggest that housing and diet patterns formerly believed to be Afro-American in origin
are actually reflections of poverty. This question needs to examined in further detail
218

through the analysis of domestic sites from a variety of socio-economic and racial categories.
Given the lack of information for most of the temporal span of the area’s black
history, any archaeological sites, buildings, or structures which could be identified as
associated with blacks would be highly significant. Steps should be taken towards the
identification, recording, registration and preservation of these resources, particularly
those dating from the 17th century. For the more recent periods, newspapers, oral histories,
and other forms of local records serve as important sources for the recovery of
information on the area’s black heritage.
This geographic area offers a unique opportunity for the study of early Tidewater
development, and several early 17th-century settlements, such as Wolstenholme Towne
(JC115) and Jamestown (47-9), have been archaeologically examined. There have been,
however, no properties from the first half of the 17th century positively associated with
blacks within the study area. The very intangibility of black presence, plus the biases of
prior archaeological research, are likely the causes for this. Biases of earlier excavations,
such as those at Jamestown, included techniques which favored the location of
buildings with brick foundations. These types of buildings, uncommon during this period,
were most likely occupied only by persons at the upper end of the socio-economic
scale, and not by blacks. Also, because of research biases within the field of archaeology
prior to the past decade, there was generally little or no interest in documenting
remains of blacks or whites from lower socio-economic classes through the use of archaeology.
Criteria for Evaluation
Four criteria are considered by the National Register for a determination of significance.
These are as follows:
A. Association with significant events in the broad patterns of our history.
B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Resources embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or the work of a master.
D. Resources yielding information important to the history of the past.
Of the four areas considered by the National Register for a determination of significance,
the most important criteria for evaluating this study unit are A and D. This
study unit is significant in understanding the beginnings of slavery in American history
and in yielding information about the early history of Afro-Americans. Since none of
the property types for this study unit are currently represented, with the exception of
one possible burial, the location of any property pertaining to blacks during the first half
of the 17th century would be significant in terms of the potential information which it
could contain.
Although integrity is an important consideration when evaluating a property, the
scarcity of 17th century properties makes this criterion not as crucial as in later time
periods. Even a disturbed archaeological site (for example, one which has been plowed)
from this period which can be associated with blacks has the potential for furnishing
extremely important information and should be thoroughly documented.
219

Present Condition of Property Types
Early 17th-century settlements were generally located on high ground along navigable
waterways. Erosion along the shorelines of these waterways, particularly of the major
rivers presents a threat to these types of archaeological sites. For example, shoreline
erosion has already claimed portions of the original sites of Jamestown and Wolstenholme
Towne. Of the known and located 17th-century settlements, the property which contained
the early settlement at Jamestown is owned by the National Park Service, and the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation owns the Martin’s Hundred/ Wolstenholme Towne
property. Both are organizations which are receptive to the interests of preserving and
documenting cultural resources. Currently, the only immediate danger for any of the
located 17th century settlements in this area is developmental pressure at Governor’s
Land. Through the efforts of the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks and the College
of William and Mary, a number of archaeological sites have been located and studied.
Continuation of this work is recommended, unless measures can be taken to slow or
halt further development in this area.
Although no 17th-century archaeological sites from these settlements have as yet
been associated with Afro-Americans, they offer perhaps some of the few opportunities
for the possible identification and recovery of the property types defined within this
study unit.
Recommendations for the type of preservation and treatment outlined for Study
Units IX and X can also be applied to this study unit.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
In light of the above, the following is a list of specific recommendations regarding
identification, evaluation, registration and treatment measures which should be taken
for property types within Study Unit XV. Any steps which can be taken towards elucidating
this early period of black history are important. Further documentary research is
suggested, as well as archaeological analysis of properties which could be related to
blacks.
Identification Goals
• Contemporary documents, such as shipping records, muster lists, and headright
lists have been used for this area in determining the numbers and possible origins
of blacks brought here in the 17th century. Additional documentary research is
recommended to broaden the scope of this data. A profile of 17th-century free
blacks on the Eastern Shore has recently been completed (Deal 1982) through the
use of court records, deeds, wills, and order books. Examination of similar York
County records may uncover detailed information concerning the 17th-century
black community. Analysis of this material may provide important clues as to the
status of blacks in this area, and the existence of free black segments within the
population, as well as locating general areas where blacks lived.
• Conduct a systematic Phase I archaeological survey in areas which have been previously
shown as likely to contain 17th-century settlements. Such a survey should
220

include walk-overs of plowed fields in an effort to locate artifact scatters connected
with settlements. In areas where surface visibility is poor, systematic shovel
testing would reveal information on site locations. Also recommended is an examination
of the area’s shorelines for artifact scatters or other features associated
with eroding archaeological sites.
Evaluation Goals
• Re-examination of the spatial configurations and house sizes of early 17th-century
settlements which have been examined archaeologically, such as Wolstenholme
Towne (JC115) and its suburbs (JC120), The Maine (Governor’s Land [JC41]),
Jamestown (47-9) and the Helmet Site (JC4). Documents and recent archaeological
research (Neiman 1980) suggest an increasing tendency throughout the 17th
century to house blacks and servants in separate dwellings. Perhaps structures and
features could be isolated as those likely to have been associated with servants/
slaves. Re-analysis of artifact assemblages from these areas could provide information
on the lives of the servant class, as well.
Registration Goals
Any site which can be associated with Afro-Americans from this time period would be
evaluated as important. This judgement of significance is made in view of the fact that
no sites for Afro-Americans have been located to date. Registration goals include:
• The nomination of any archaeological site which can be located pertaining to
17th-century black occupation for National Register Status.
Treatment Goals
• Preservation or detailed archaeological investigation of any 17th-century site threatened
by or discovered during development. Even if such a site could be preserved
intact, the potential for information which it could provide may be so great as to
predicate data recovery through archaeological investigation and analysis.
• Interpretation of 17th-century black life on Jamestown Island, particularly in view
of the Island’s role as the first place blacks were documented in the North America.
This would probably best be accomplished by visual displays within the Visitor
Center, and by signs located among the Island ruins.
• Monitoring of the Governor’s Land tract, because of continued developmental pressure
in this area. Preservation in place of any previously located archaeological
site is recommended. If this cannot be accomplished, complete documentation of
the sites through archaeological excavation and background research is urged.
221

222

STUDY UNIT XVI.
INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SLAVERY
(A.D. 1650– A.D. 1705)
Sub-Themes: A. Establishment of a native black population.
B. Establishment of plantation slavery.
C. Effects of new African people.
D. Conversion to Christianity.
Significance: National
As the 17th century progressed, laws governing the actions and lives of blacks continued
to become more restrictive, resulting in life enslavement for virtually all blacks by
the beginning of the 18th century. Slavery had become indispensable in the scheme of
Virginia’s agricultural economy, with most blacks serving as the labor force in the cultivation
of tobacco and the operation of farms.
SUB-THEME A: ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIVE BLACK
POPULATION
Blacks continued to be imported into Tidewater Virginia throughout the second half of
the 17th century. The majority of these blacks were brought from the Caribbean Islands,
the Barbadoes being the chief supplier of slaves to the mainland colonies until the 1670s
(Deal 1982: 195). After this time, slave shipments came directly from West Africa through
the Royal African Company. Until around the second decade of the 18th century, the
greatest supply of Virginia slaves came from the Guinea Coast (Killinger 1969: 63).
By 1700, there were over 16,000 blacks in the colony of Virginia, with the highest
density located in the Tidewater. Although virtually all blacks by this time were slaves,
records indicate some blacks owned property in York and James City Counties in the
second half of the 17th century (Brewer 1955). Free black communities were established
on the Eastern Shore as early as 1651 and these have been studied by Deal (1982,
1984) and Breen and Innes (1980).
Although there were few free blacks in the colony of Virginia during the 17th
century, most historians agree that those blacks suffered a serious deterioration in opportunities
and status during the last part of the century. Most free blacks did not own
property, but instead were tenant farmers on white-owned land. On the whole, significant
status differences did not exist within groups of free blacks (Deal 1982). Many free
blacks “tottered... on the brink of de facto re-enslavement” (Deal 1982: 2) as they
struggled in a society which was becoming increasingly hostile and racist. As the century
progressed, laws governing the actions and lives of all blacks continued to become
more restrictive. Various liberties were abridged or eliminated, and the manumission of
slaves became less common. From study of the legislative and court records of the
period, it is apparent that the Colony’s Assembly made no attempt to prevent the institution
of slavery and by the 1670s it was almost impossible for blacks to work their way
out of enslavement (Breen and Innes 1980).
223

Beginning with a statutory law in 1660/61 stating that life bondage was a possibility
for some blacks, a series of ordinances throughout the second half of the 17th century
lowered the status of blacks even further. This was most obvious in the laws concerning
blacks and Christianity. During much of the same century, it was held that conversion
to Christianity entitled heathen servants to their freedom. Various laws denying
this liberty were passed during the second half of the 17th century, culminating in an act
passed in 1705. This act declared that all servants imported into Virginia, with the exception
of Turks and Moors, who were not Christian in their native country, should be
retained as slaves. This effectively enslaved virtually all blacks. Later conversion to
Christianity was not recognized as grounds for freedom.
SUB-THEME B: ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTATION SLAVERY
The imposition of life enslavement for blacks was coincidental to the development of
staple crop agriculture in the Tidewater. The rich soils and long growing seasons of the
area, combined with numerous navigable waterways for the movement of crops to coastal
ports, almost predestined that the Tidewater’s economy would be based on commercial
agriculture. The plantation system which developed required several elements for success:
an abundant supply of inexpensive fertile land, a dependable source of labor, and
a staple crop. For most of the 17th century, tobacco was that staple crop, and until the
middle decades of the century, a sufficient labor force was provided by the supply of
English indentured servants to the colonies. In the early 1660s, however, a decline in
the number of indentured men immigrating from England caused a labor shortage in the
Chesapeake (Carr and Menard 1979). This decline in immigration was due to a combination
of the lowered English birth rate and increasing real wages in England. Newer
settlements in the Middle Colonies were also attracting indentured labor after 1680
(Deal 1982: 106).
As the demands for tobacco increased, a solution to the labor problem was sought
using slaves. By the end of the century, black slaves had almost completely replaced
white indentured servants. Slavery had become indispensable in the growth of the
tobacco-based economy, and the largest proportion of black slaves were assigned the
tasks of tending tobacco and other crops. In addition to working in tobacco cultivation,
slaves also labored in clearing forested land for fields, in the construction and maintenance
of houses, outbuildings, and fences, and in the tending of livestock. Slaves were
also were also trained as artisans, replacing free blacks and white indentured servants as
craftsmen (Deal 1984: 18).
As the number of blacks increased throughout the 17th century, and as racial boundaries
began to harden, the question of slave housing had to be addressed. Cary Carson’s
research suggests that early Chesapeake planters favored cross-passage house plans,
which allowed servants’ quarters to be separated from the living area of the planter and
his family. In this way, architecture served as an “instrument of segregation” (Carson
1978: 54). Even greater separation, probably becoming more common as the number of
black slaves increased in proportion to white servants, was brought about by the construction
of separate living quarters.
Details of construction and locations of slave quarters during the 17th century are
elusive since the impermanent nature of these structures has precluded their survival
224

into present times. In addition, no contemporary documentation has been located which
adequately describes slave housing. However, it is possible to locate evidence of slave
or servant quarters through archaeological investigations, and generate information in
this fashion. Fraser Neiman’s archaeological research at Clifts Plantation in the Northern
Neck of Virginia located a small slave/servant quarter dating to the last decades of
the 17th century (Neiman 1980). Although this quarter’s size and construction were
more typical of planter homes of that period, it was significant in that it was located
outside of the palisade which surrounded the main house. Here, slaves at Clifts Plantation
had not only been removed from the planter’s home, but their low status was reflected
in the manner in which the landscape had been divided. Neiman argues that this
is indicative of landscape alteration brought about to meet changing environmental,
social, and economic conditions.
SUB-THEME C: EFFECTS OF THE NEW AFRICAN PEOPLE
Later in the 17th century, the supply source for slaves shifted from the Caribbean to
Africa, due to that continent’s more abundant labor supply (Suttell 1965: 8). Although
documentary sources seem to indicate that most of these slaves were taken from the
Guinea Coast, they represented a diversity of tribal origins. The effects of this importation
of Africans to the Tidewater on the existing black population is not known.
Needless to say, blacks did not willingly accept their enforced lifetime servitude.
There is evidence of slave unrest and fear among the planters of uprisings by the late
17th century. Documents suggest that newly arrived Africans were thought to be a disruptive
influence, and were usually sold in small lots and dispersed among several
slaveholders (Mullin 1972: 15). Although this may in part have been from fear of slave
insurrections, most likely this pattern of slave dispersal was predicated by the economy
of Virginia. During the last half of the 17th century, nearly 75% of the slaves in southern
Maryland lived on farms with twenty or fewer slaves (McDaniel 1982: 38). Tidewater
Virginia, with its similar topography and economic base, probably had a similar slave
distribution. Social and cultural contact among newly arrived Africans was therefore
restricted.
This pattern of slave distribution can be contrasted with that of 18th- and
19th-century large-scale rice plantations in South Carolina. There large groups of blacks
were in close proximity, and often removed from any direct contact with whites. African
customs and traits had more of a chance to solidify and become part of these
Afro-Americans’ cultural heritage, than for the Virginia Tidewater slaves. Even today,
this patterning is still evident in the religious beliefs, language, and material culture of
black populations on the South Carolina sea islands (Vlach 1978; Herskovits 1941).
Such distinct patterning is not evident among present-day blacks in the Tidewater. Dispersal
of slaves, whether intentional or not, plus frequent contact with whites, functioned
to keep these patterns from forming.
It has been suggested, however, that even though the Africans in the Tidewater and
elsewhere spoke a variety of languages and came from different cultural backgrounds,
they developed an African cultural “grammar” which transcended these differences (Isaac
1982). This view sees the black population as coalescing into a distinct society which
was neither African nor Anglican, but a unique combination of the two.
225

SUB-THEME D: CONVERSION TO CHRISTIANITY
As the number of blacks in the colony increased, the question of their religious conversion
became more pressing. During the first decades of black residence in the colonies,
a few blacks were baptized, since some Anglo- Americans believed it was their responsibility
to familiarize blacks, as well as Indians, with the teachings of Christianity. While
many felt that this conversion would make blacks more satisfied and obedient, others
believed that this effort was wasted, arguing that blacks were uncivilized and had no
souls to save.
A number of slave insurrections between the last decades of the 17th century and
the first decades of the 18th century were thought to have been caused in part by the
issue of baptism and freedom (Jones 1961: 18). The question of whether baptism entitled
a person to freedom was debated and some planters refused baptism to their black
slaves/servants for this reason (Tate 1965: 66). In 1667, the issue was resolved in legislation
which decreed that baptism did not alter a person’s condition or bondage. With
this legislation, a path was cleared for the defense of the institution of slavery as a
means of educating and civilizing blacks.
SUMMARY
With the increasing number of blacks present in the Tidewater during the last half of the
17th century, their representation in the archaeological record would be expected to be
more complete than for the previous period. The rise of the plantation economy must
have been accompanied by provisions to accommodate the growing number of slaves.
Each plantation probably contained quarters, where the slaves lived and tended the
small garden plots occasionally allowed for their own use. Within the study area, several
such plantations have been archaeologically examined. Green Spring Plantation
(JC9), constructed in the mid-17th century, served as the manor house for Sir William
Berkeley. Archaeological excavations on the property in 1954/55 revealed an extensive
layout, including formal terraced gardens, a greenhouse, an orchard, a jail, and a smithery
(Caywood 1955). Tobacco provided the main source of income for the plantation.
The tobacco crops, plus upkeep on such an extensive plantation would have required
the labor of a number of slaves. No structures identified as slave quarters were located
during the excavations, but it is very likely that remains of these structures exist on the
property.
Slaves also lived in Jamestown during this time period, but no evidence of their
presence has been documented in the archaeological record. During the 1970s, the Virginia
Research Center for Archaeology conducted excavations at the Kingsmill Plantations.
Although work revealed evidence of 17th-century occupation at numerous
Kingsmill sites, it is unlikely that there were any slaves on the Kingmsill property prior
to 1670 (Kelso 1984: 103). Although the current evidence is conflicting, archaeology
suggests the presence of two possible late 17th-century slave quarters at the Utopia and
Pettus sites (JC32, JC33). These structures were archaeologically investigated by the
Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks,
and are described by Kelso (1984).
226

The Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks has also been conducting excavations
in Poquoson at the Bennett Farm Site (YO68) and at River Creek (YO67). Records
show that two slaves were acquired by the owner of Bennett Farm in 1690, and that
there were five slaves at River Creek during this same period. Archaeological excavations
have revealed thus far no physical evidence of blacks on either of these properties
(Nicholas Luccketti, pers. comm. 1985).
Early excavations in the Tidewater area, such as those at Green Spring and
Jamestown, were biased towards the location of structures with brick foundations. Indications
are that the majority of the population in this period lived in impermanent structures,
which would not have rested on brick foundations. It is therefore highly unlikely
that most blacks, occupying low status positions, would have been provided with quarters
having brick foundations, since impermanent log or post-in-the-ground structures
were less expensive to construct. With methodology favoring the location of brick structural
remains, the traces of many log or post structures would have been missed, thus
biasing the archaeological record against the documentation of these structures.
Another bias inherent in early archaeological excavations, such as those at
Jamestown, Green Spring or Colonial Williamsburg could be described as “the great
man syndrome.” Interest centered mainly in the excavation of home sites of American
founding fathers, with little or no attention given to slaves or lesser white planters, who
left no written record of their lives.
STUDY UNIT XVI: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
National. Blacks continued to be imported into the Tidewater throughout the second
half of the 17th century and were well on the way to forming a significant portion of the
population. It was during this period that laws governing the actions of blacks became
more restrictive, culminating at the turn of the 18th century in an act which effectively
enslaved all blacks.
Any property which can be positively identified with blacks from the second half
of the 17th century will be of national significance. Archaeological sites from this period
have the potential for providing information about black life during the development
of the institution of slavery.
Summary of Property Types
Since the population of blacks during the second half of the 17th century increased, the
likelihood of their representation in the archaeological record improves. The majority
of settlements were still clustered near the navigable water sources, but the nature of
tobacco cultivation led to a more dispersed settlement pattern during the second half of
the 17th century. Although free blacks were living in these settlements during this pe-
227

iod, documentary research in its present state does not suggest that their numbers were
large. The distribution of properties associated with blacks should be concentrated near
the few nucleated British settlements and the more typical dispersed farms/plantations,
since the majority of blacks were serving as labor for whites.
The property types which would ideally be represented from this time period are:
(1) Domestic complexes of free black tenant farmers.
a. dwellings.
b. associated outbuildings and landscape features.
(2) Domestic complexes of free black property owners.
a. dwellings.
b. associated outbuildings and landscape features.
(3) Slave quarters.
a. dwellings.
b. associated outbuildings and landscape features.
(4) Meeting and worship areas.
(5) Cemeteries.
(6) Slave markets/auction areas.
Character of Existing Data
Although the public records for James City County have largely been destroyed for the
period pre-dating the Civil War, a much more complete documentary record exists for
York County. An extensive survey of these records is currently underway through the
York County Project (Carson, Gill, and Kelly 1978) and integration of these findings
with the results of archaeological and architectural surveys would provide significant
information about the second half of the 17th century.
A great deal of documentary and archaeological work has been completed within
the study area, but little of this work has focused on the role of blacks within Tidewater
economy or society. There have been archaeological examinations of two possible slave/
servant quarter sites on the Kingsmill property (JC32, JC33). By comparing ceramic
assemblages from a slave cottage (JC32) with that of the corresponding plantation house,
Outlaw, Bogley, and Outlaw (1977) have been able to show measurable differences in
quality, quantity, and specialization of the ceramic assemblages. Current work on agricultural
farmsteads, such as the River Creek site in Poquoson (YO67), may yet reveal
evidence of slave quarters.
No standing structures from the 17th century have been positively associated with
blacks. Even though all work for this period to date has focused on what are believed to
have been slave quarters, this data base is by no means an adequate sample. More study
of this area is strongly recommended. Some property types within this study unit, specifically
meeting/worship areas and slave markets, probably left little in the way of
tangible archaeological remains and are likely to remain ephemeral.
Criteria for Evaluation
National Register standards suggest two types of criteria to be used in evaluating a
property: significance and integrity. Resources which would be of importance in this
228

study unit would be those which could provide information on the status, and the living
and working conditions of blacks as slavery became a fixed institution in the area. Of
the four criteria listed by the National Register, these resources would be covered under
Criterion A, association with significant events in the broad patterns of our history, or
Criterion D, which is the potential for yielding information important to the history of
the past. As in the previous study unit, integrity of properties plays a less vital role for
this time period, when resources as scarce, than in later eras.
Present Condition of Property Types
Due to the lack of documentary evidence, properties which have been associated with
blacks from this time period have only been identified through thorough archaeological
excavation. Given the existing data base at this time, estimating the numbers of properties
in the study area which are related to Afro-Americans is impossible. It is during this
period that blacks were moving into an important position in the labor force, and most
sites related to blacks should be found in conjunction with white properties. Although
all property types associated with blacks from this time period would be considered
significant, the ephemeral nature of some of the properties, such as worship areas and
slave markets, lessen their chances of ever being located through archaeological or
other standard means of survey. Those archaeological sites associated with blacks which
have been identified so far have been excavated, analyzed, and reported (Kelso 1973,
1974, 1976, 1977, 1984).
Shoreline erosion presents a major threat to areas favored by 17th-century settlers.
Also, given the current rate of property development in this area, chances for impact on
archaeological resources dating to this period is substantial.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
In light of the above, the following is a list of specific recommendations regarding
identification, evaluation, registration and treatment measures which should be taken
for the property types within Study Unit XVI.
Identification Goals
• Combining documentary research of primary sources, such as court records, maps
and wills, with archaeological survey in order to establish patterns of slaveholdings
and the presence and status of free blacks.
• Re-examination of state archaeological site survey forms in an effort to isolate
properties likely to contain archaeological remains of the study unit property types.
These properties would then be checked for current condition, the presence of
standing structures, and through reconnaissance or Phase I testing, the presence,
extent, and integrity of archaeological remains.
229

• Continuation of the archaeological investigation of YO70, a component of the
Bennett Farm site (YO68), in order to determine if any structural or material remains
associated with slaves can be located.
Evaluation Goals
• Re-analysis of previously examined 17th-century archaeological properties, such
as Green Spring (JC9), Governor’s Land (JC41, 42, 43, 85, 90, 94, 95, 96, and
101), Kingsmill (JC32, 33), River Creek (YO67) and Bennett Farm (YO68), with
a view towards establishing the presence and importance of blacks at these sites.
Study of spatial configurations on agricultural properties should aid in delineating
areas set aside for slave use. Artifact assemblages should also be re-examined in
an attempt to delineate patterns exclusive to Afro-Americans.
Registration Goals
• Any site from this time period which can be associated with blacks is eligible for
National Register status.
• If a site could be located or connected with an early meeting place, such as the
documented brush arbor at Green Springs, this property would be eligible for nomination
to the National Register in view of its role in the development of early slave
religious belief systems.
Treatment Goals
• Preservation and protection or detailed archaeological investigation and recording
of any site associated with blacks which is threatened by or discovered during
property development.
• If a site could be located or connected with an early meeting place, such as the
documented brush arbor at Green Springs, this property should be protected and
identified, perhaps through a highway marker, in view of its role in the development
of early slave religious belief systems.
230

STUDY UNIT XVII.
PLANTATION SLAVERY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SLAVE COMMUNITIES (A.D. 1705–A.D. 1820)
Sub-Themes: A. Stabilization of native black populations.
B. Development of plantation slave life.
C. Establishment of a distinct Afro-American culture.
D. Shift from tobacco to wheat based economy.
E. Urban black life.
F. Religious development.
Significance: National
By the mid-18th century, the black population had swelled considerably, comprising
over half of the Tidewater population. It was during this period that the black population
stabilized and a distinct Afro-American culture emerged. It is also during the 18th
century that the of black churches and schools in the area were established.
SUB-THEME A: STABILIZATION OF NATIVE BLACK
POPULATIONS
The slave population continued to grow throughout the opening decades of the 18th
century, reaching approximately 60,000 by 1730. Most of this increase was brought
about by the expanding slave trade and the direct importation of Africans into the colony.
The first half of the 18th century was marked by heavy importation of slaves and increasing
social conflict among blacks. Kulikoff (1978) argues that the disruptive influence
of slaves newly arrived from Africa kept settled slave communities from taking
root. Only after immigration declined after 1740, and native born adults began to predominate,
did “families and quarter communities... emerge throughout Tidewater”
(Kulikoff 1978: 258). At this time, internal divisions decreased within black slave communities
and a cohesive social life developed on many plantations.
After the Revolutionary War, the slave population of James City County actually
suffered a decline due to the diminished economic potential of the area (Mullin 1972).
The heaviest concentration of slaves in Virginia at that time was distributed in the Lower
Piedmont counties.
SUB-THEME B: ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTINCT
AFRO-AMERICAN CULTURE
The extent to which slave culture retained aspects of the African cultures from which it
was derived has been a matter of debate. The blacks who were sent to the Chesapeake
colonies as slaves were the products of many diverse African cultures. It is likely that
some slaves arriving together shared similar cultural and geographic traditions, which
would enhance the continuity of their customs to various degrees. The character of
these survivals, however, was strongly affected by factors beyond slave control, such as
231

the type of colonial economy, settlement patterns, slave importation, and the composition
of colonial populations. Most 18th-century slaves in the Tidewater lived on small
farms containing less than twenty bondsmen. Contact with whites was frequent and
African customs less likely to be retained. It has been suggested that blacks may have
been able to combine common cultural elements into new forms (Kulikoff 1978: 231).
These African-derived forms were merged with European cultural traits to create a unique
combination of elements borrowed from both, and commonly referred to as
Afro-American. African cultural retentions have been traced in black dance, folklore,
religion, and music (Herskovits 1941), as well as in various forms of material culture
(Vlach 1978). Although there are numerous documentary sources for the ethnic and
demographic composition of slave populations, it is difficult to define precisely the
beliefs and values associated with the developing Afro-American culture in the Tidewater.
Current research suggests that the emergence of a distinct Afro-American culture
in the Chesapeake was brought about by the development of a more stable slave family
system (Kulikoff 1974; Menard 1974). The large scale importation of slaves directly
from Africa slowed, and by the mid-18th century, a native-born black population began
to emerge (Deal 1982). A more balanced sex ratio was also achieved around 1750,
giving slaves better opportunities to find mates and develop family lives.
Accompanying the emergence of a more stable slave family was a change in slave
housing. During the 17th and early 18th centuries, slaves are typically thought to have
been housed barracks-style or in dispersed locations throughout the plantation, such as
in barns, attics, and outbuildings. With the development of family units, there was a
shift towards the use of quarters (Hayes 1974). A quarter, although sometimes described
as a single dwelling, is here defined as a group of slave houses or a small slave settlement.
Isaac (1982) suggests that during the second half of the 18th century, the size of
Virginia slave quarters or settlements increased. The quarters were a place where slaves
could congregate after a long day’s labor and be relatively free from white supervision
while they prepared their meals, nurtured children, and relaxed. It was here in the quarters
that distinctive Afro-American domestic and kinship networks developed, forming
the basis for Afro-American community life (Gutman 1976).
Research conducted by Lorena Walsh in 1983, using inventories from York and
James City Counties, revealed quarter population figures for the second half of the 18th
century. She found that a typical quarter contained a minimum of nine and a maximum
of twenty to thirty adult slaves (Minutes 1985). Individual dwellings within the quarters
typically housed nuclear families, while unmarried adult slaves often lived in small
attached additions. The nature of housing for extended families and the number of persons
occupying each structure is unknown.
This communal pattern of slave life can be contrasted with the increasingly individualized
lifestyle of 18th-century Anglo-Americans. These differences in lifestyles
should be apparent within the archaeological record. Isaac defines the landscape as
“any terrain or living space that has been subjected to the requirements of a conscious
or unconscious design” (1982: 19). The landscape, as experienced by slaves, should
also be distinct from that of Anglo-Americans. What control black Americans had over
the shaping of their environment remains to be discovered.
232

Although no objects particularly attributable to Afro-American cultures have been
located on 18th-century domestic sites in Virginia, it is possible that the so-called
“Colono-Indian ware” found on many historic sites indicates Afro-American presence.
Ivor Noël Hume (1962) argues that it was made by local Native Americans in imitation
of European ceramic styles, while others suggest that slaves were responsible for its
production (Ferguson 1980). At the very least, the presence of Colono-Indian ware on
sites which have been associated with blacks suggests interaction between the slave and
Indian populations.
SUB-THEME C: DEVELOPMENT OF PLANTATION SLAVE LIFE
Plantation sizes remained small in York County throughout the first half of the 18th
century, with only 18% of the population owning over 21 slaves for the period between
1731 and 1740 (Kulikoff 1978: 241). Increases in the size of slaveholdings began later
in the 18th century, and between 1751 and 1760, 49% of the population owned over 21
slaves. James City County compared favorably with York County, with 38% of the
population owning more than 21 slaves in 1783.
The majority of these slaves, working at agriculturally related tasks, were unskilled
field hands, although domestic house slaves and artisans played an important role on
plantations as well. Due to the dispersed nature of the Tidewater’s settlements and the
absence of towns, each plantation had to be virtually self-sufficient. Hugh Jones, in The
Present State of Virginia (1724), noted that slaves were trained to be carpenters, sawyers,
blacksmiths and coopers. Slave artisans were responsible for the bulk of skilled
labor on plantations, such as that needed for the making of shoes and the weaving of
cloth. Wills, court records, and newspaper advertisements reveal the extensive use of
skilled slave labor on colonial Virginia plantations, and document the increased resale
value of skilled bondsmen.
Slave housing on 18th century plantations can generally be divided into three main
types. Domestic servants usually lived in or near the owner’s dwelling, housed in attics,
kitchens, or other outbuildings. Field labor was housed in two types of quarters. Home
quarters were usually located less than a mile from the main house and provided accommodations
for the slaves who worked the fields adjacent to the owners’ homes. Distant
quarters were located nearby the outlying fields, depending on the extent of the plantation.
Edward Kimber, an English traveler to the Chesapeake in the 1740s described
quarters as “a Number of Huts or Hovels, built some Distance from the Mansion-House;
where the Negroes reside with their Wives and Families, and cultivate at vacant Times
the little Spots allow’d them” (Kimber 1906/07: 148). This quote sheds light not only
on the quality of slave housing, but on spatial and demographic configurations within
quarters. Although no known 18th-century slave quarters survive in the study area,
documents provide details of quarter construction and size. There seems to have been a
variety of construction styles, but all were relatively impermanent. Plates 5.2 and 5.3,
photographs dating to the 19th century, show examples of log cabins, one of the least
expensive types of structures. Log cabins are thought to have been one of the most
common types of slave housing in the 18th century. As these dwellings, were impermanently
constructed, generally with ground-laid sills, they would leave behind few traces
233

which could be discovered through archaeological methods. Even the hearths were insubstantial,
with log (Plate 5.2) or clay (Plate 5.3) probably more commonly used as
hearth material than brick or stone. The placement of quarters adjacent to fields where
archaeological evidence may have been destroyed by plowing also lessens the chances
of archaeological visibility of these types of quarters.
Framed house construction, although more expensive than log cabins, was also
used for slave quarters. More skilled work and labor would have been required in framing
and finishing this type of housing, and post-in-the-ground or brick foundations for
such structures would have been common.
Doughoregan, a plantation in Maryland, was described in an 18th-century account
as having twenty-one separate dwellings in its home quarter. Of these, eleven were log,
six were framed, three were of stone, and one of brick. This account illustrates the
variety of slave housing that could exist within a single plantation and even within
specific quarters. Descriptions of 18th-century slave dwellings in Virginia, found scattered
throughout insurance policies, letterbooks, diaries, and newspaper advertisements,
reveal just as varied a range of construction techniques (Patrick 1985).
The size of slave quarters has also been a subject of recent research. According to
some historical archaeologists (Deetz 1977; Baker 1980), architectural remains from
black sites reveal the workings of an Afro-American mindset. Instead of the standard
Anglo-American structural unit of sixteen feet, Afro-American architectural remains
are believed to have been constructed using twelve foot proxemic units. Both 18th- and
19th-century documents, as well as archaeological evidence, refute this by showing the
large range of dimensions used in Chesapeake slave quarters (Kelso 1984; Patrick 1985).
The shotgun house, with its distinctive gable end doorways, has been acknowledged
as a true Afro-American architectural form (Vlach 1976). Shotgun houses, however,
seem to be largely confined to the deeper South and it is not known when this
architectural form first appeared in Virginia. An adequate survey of standing shotgun
houses in this area has not been attempted.
Through documentation it is also possible to glimpse the landscape configurations
around the quarter. Related agricultural buildings, such as tobacco barns and granaries,
consistently appear to have been located near quarters. Communal and private gardens,
as well as orchards for the use of the slaves and perhaps pens for hogs or chickens, often
comprised part of this landscape.
Several plantation sites containing slave quarters have recently been excavated
within the study area, particularly along the James River. The various sites include the
Kingsmill plantations (Kelso 1984), Carter’s Grove (Noël Hume 1974), and Tutter’s
Neck (Noël Hume 1963). All of these 18th- century quarters contained square or rectangular
root cellars beneath them. The domestic nature of the artifact assemblages within
the fill of these features suggests the use of the overlying structures as dwellings. William
Kelso (1984) argues that the presence of these root cellars constitutes strong evidence
of slave occupation at the sites. Such root cellars have not been found on pre-slavery
sites, and it is believed that they were used for the storage of food and personal items.
These excavated quarters reflect the wide range in size and method of construction
suggested in documents describing Virginia quarters.
Besides those sites which have been examined archaeologically, there are also
numerous plantation and quarter sites which have only been located through map refer-
234

Plate 5.2. Uncle Daniel’s Cabin.
Plate 5.3. Log Cabin with Catted Chimney.
235

TABLE 5.3
QUARTER SITES AS REFERENCED ON LATE 18TH-CENTURY MAPS
Site Site No. USGS Quad Map Reference
Foace’s Quarter YO 306 Williamsburg Desandrouins
Berthier
New Quarter YO 59 Williamsburg Desandrouins
Blair Quarter YO 63 Williamsburg Desandrouins
Southall’s Quarter Hog Island Desandrouins
Possible Quarter YO 316 Clay Bank Berthier
Possible Quarter YO 322 Clay Bank Berthier
Possible Quarter YO 324 Clay Bank Berthier
Possible Quarter YO 326 Clay Bank Berthier
ences. Examples of these are Shellfield Plantation and Riverview Plantation. It is very
likely that properties denoted on maps as plantations were occupied by slaves as well,
and that quarters would be associated with them. Table 5.3 also lists quarter sites referenced
on late 18th-century maps.
Overall, a variety of types of slave houses were seen throughout the Chesapeake
during the colonial period. In general, these were small and impermanent in construction,
although more substantial quarters have been reported. It is clear from the records,
and from the limited archaeological evidence available, however, that slave housing,
like all other forms of architecture, exhibited degrees of variability in construction and
details. Although surely providing the labor that built the quarters, the amount of influence
slaves exerted on the appearance of their homes has yet to be determined.
SUB-THEME D: SHIFT FROM A TOBACCO TO A WHEAT
BASED ECONOMY
Tobacco provided the main source of economic wealth for the study area since the early
days of colonization. Depression in the tobacco economy in Virginia in the late 17th
century, combined with loss of soil productivity and the presence of merchant middlemen,
forced the Tidewater into agricultural diversification. Wheat and corn began to
edge out tobacco as the dominant crops in the beginning of the 18th century (Deal
1982). For a more complete discussion of this transition, see Study Unit XI.
SUB-THEME E: URBAN BLACK LIFE
In addition to working on plantations, slaves were also an important component of the
labor supply in urban areas as well. The two main urban centers in the study area during
the 18th century were Williamsburg and Yorktown. A definitive study of blacks in
18th-century Williamsburg has been prepared by Thad Tate (1965), but no such comprehensive
work has been completed for the Yorktown area.
236

Documentary evidence from Williamsburg suggests that slaves were housed in
various ways. Domestic servants, who made up the largest portion of the black population
of Williamsburg, often lived in their master’s home, sleeping in hallways or small
rooms. There is also evidence that they were housed in outbuildings, such as kitchens or
stables. Table 5.1 summarizes standing structures in the study area which have been
associated with slaves and blacks. There have been no known slave quarters excavated
in Williamsburg, but documentation pinpoints several likely areas. In a will dated 1765,
for example, there is mention of “old Nanny’s house” in the backyard of the Prentis
House. The sparse contents of the house described in the will suggest strongly that it
was a slave quarter. Recollections of the 19th century by ex-slave Eliza Baker testify to
the housing of slaves in the kitchen and laundry of the Coke-Garrett House, as well as in
houses behind Bassett Hall and the St. George Tucker House (Baker 1933). It is believed
that slaves may also have lived above the kitchen on the Brush-Everard property
(Plate 5.4), but no documentary evidence for this has been located. Peter Randolph’s
Virginia Gazette advertisement of October 1767 described the property he wished to
sell as containing a house, outbuildings, and a “servants house,” the dimensions of
which were the same as the kitchen. Robert Nicolson, who lived on York Street, was
known to have owned a number of slaves during the latter part of the 18th century. The
Nicolson House property has never been archaeologically examined, with the excep-
Plate 5.4. Brush-Everard Kitchen.
237

tion of a small salvage excavation around the foundations of the house, and would be a
good candidate for the study of urban slave life.
The construction techniques of those structures designated specifically for slaves
is not known. Eliza Baker’s memoirs, however, suggest that although log cabins were
plentiful in rural areas outside of Williamsburg, there was only one cabin in town during
the span of her memory (Baker 1933).
For a large part of the history of Colonial Williamsburg archaeology, the focus of
investigations was to locate, for the purposes of reconstruction, structures depicted on
the Frenchman’s Map of 1782. This mitigated against the location of structures used as
slave dwellings in two ways. First, although the accuracy of the Frenchman’s Map is
well accepted, the outbuildings where slaves were presumably living were frequently
not illustrated and hence not sought by Colonial Williamsburg’s archaeologists. In addition,
Colonial Williamsburg archaeological techniques up until 1957 usually consisted
of cross-trenching at 45 degree angles to established property lines. This technique
worked well for locating structures with brick foundations, but almost always missed
traces of more intangible archaeological features, such as quarters or outbuildings of
impermanent construction. Also, assigning sites or structures to blacks (free or slave) is
not an easy task, especially in an area such as James City County, where official records
were destroyed during the Civil War.
Associated with Williamsburg and providing important links to the outside world
were the ports of College Landing and Capitol Landing. Some of Williamsburg’s residents,
including Lady Randolph, owned quarters at College Landing during the 18th
century. Notices in the Virginia Gazette of runaway slaves sometimes stated that runaways
may have been hiding in quarters located there. Traces of black presence at College
Landing have been located through archaeological investigation when salvage work
there in 1976 revealed twenty late 18th/early 19th-century burials. All interments were
those of black individuals in wooden coffins. The type of muscular development exhibited
by these skeletons suggests that they may have been engaged in craft or artisan
activities (Hudgins 1977). This evidence would seem to indicate that there was a community
of black artisans living and working at the Landing.
Other skilled black laborers working in Williamsburg included blacksmiths, shoemakers,
tanners, and carpenters (Tate 1965: 40). Although evidence from other areas of
the South suggests that black craftsmen virtually replaced white artisans, this does not
appear to have been the case in Virginia (Tate 1965: 40). Blacks seem to have been
involved in only about a dozen skilled trades in Williamsburg, a small number when
compared with other areas of the state. Two unusual industries at which skilled blacks
were employed in Williamsburg during the 1770s were a vineyard and a linen weaving
factory (Tate 1965: 44).
Free blacks did not comprise a significant portion of the Williamsburg population
during the 18th century, with only four families, or eleven persons in all, listed in 1782
(Tate 1965: 28). James City County had a greater number of free blacks, totaling 150, or
5% of the county’s black population in 1800 (Morgan 1985: 11).
Information on where free blacks resided during the 18th century, their economic
status, and their relationships with slaves and whites is limited. The nature of the life of
free blacks in the 18th century, along with that of slaves, deserves further study, both
through documentary sources and archaeology.
238

SUB-THEME F: RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
The religious development of slaves and later, free blacks, is significant to any study of
18th- and 19th-century black history. The church served as a focus for communal activities
for slaves, as well as free blacks. Religion has played such a vital role in
Afro-American life that clear boundaries between the religious and the secular are often
hard to determine, both in the past and the present (Isaac 1982: 307).
Early religious services were sometimes held secretly by slaves in temporarily
constructed outdoor brush arbors. One such brush arbor was located at Green Spring,
and another at Raccoon Chase, on Lake Matoaka. During the 18th century, some blacks
were allowed to worship at Bruton Parish and over 1000 slaves were baptized there in
the last part of that century (Morgan 1985).
There were black preachers in Williamsburg during the 18th century as well. Gowan
Pamphlet was one such individual, preaching to a mixed congregation in the Powder
Magazine. Prior to 1832, there were no statutory prohibitions against blacks preaching
in the state of Virginia. Pamphlet and William Moses, another 18th-century black
preacher, however, were often punished for holding religious gatherings. Despite this, it
was under their leadership that the First Baptist Church of Williamsburg was organized
in 1776.
The First Baptist Church applied for membership in the Dover Baptist Association
in September of 1783, thus making it one of the oldest all-black churches in the United
States. There are indications that the group worshipped in Robert Cole’s stable, the use
of which was granted to the church in the early 19th century. Around 1828, construction
was begun on a church for the congregation, and by 1855, a large brick building had
been completed on Nassau Street (Plate 5.5). The church remained standing, with an
active congregation, until it was demolished in 1955, to make way for the restoration of
Colonial Williamsburg. The congregation is now housed in a new church on Scotland
Street. Archaeological excavations of the lot containing the First Baptist Church were
conducted by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1957. This excavation revealed
that the 19th-century church had been constructed over the foundations of an earlier
building.
Oral history sources revealed the possible presence of a cemetery on the former
First Baptist Church property, although the majority of black burials took place in the
Cedar Grove Cemetery (Kelly 1985). The 1957 excavations, however, did not reveal
any evidence of graves on the church property.
Formal education for blacks during the 18th century was almost nonexistent. Many
whites undoubtedly believed that keeping blacks ignorant would make them more subservient;
however, a few small steps were made in the way of education. This subject
has been examined thoroughly for James City County in a recent study by Philip Morgan
(Morgan 1985). Although there is evidence that some slaves were being taught in
Williamsburg by the 1740s, the first school for slaves was established in 1760. The
purpose of the Charity School was to instruct slave children in reading, writing, spelling,
and the doctrines of the Episcopal Church. It remained in operation until 1774, with
an average of thirty students a year in attendance (Stephenson 1963).
239

Plate 5.5. First Baptist Church.
Another late 18th-century school was established for free black residents of the
Hot Water Tract, located in James City County (Morgan 1985: 11). Few adult blacks
ever received a formal education during the 18th century, but there is evidence that a
small minority of slaves did learn to read and write by whatever methods they could
manage. In 1805, the State of Virginia passed a law which imposed penalties on anyone
who taught slaves to read or write. There have been no 18th-century black school sites
located or examined in the study area.
SUMMARY
Although archaeological excavations have been conducted in Williamsburg for over
fifty years, there is still good potential for the location of domestic slaves sites within
the historic district and in other areas nearby. The College Landing and Capitol Landing
Road areas have good potential for archaeological remains, and these areas were documented
to have been frequented by blacks. Plantation sites still remain to be examined.
Compiling a body of knowledge about slave quarters and material culture from the
Middle Atlantic States, such as Virginia and Maryland, would provide data for compari-
240

son with the study of slave quarters which have been excavated on the large-scale rice
and cotton plantations of the Deep South.
For the past decade, one of the foci of historical archaeology has been the identification
of patterns of ethnicity in the archaeological record (Schuyler 1980). This has
proven to be a complex problem, and opinions are divided over the visibility of
Africanisms within the archaeological record. Ethnic identification is often less than
clear-cut, with class and status considerations blurring the picture (Kelly and Kelly
1980). As Robert Schuyler argues, “cultures are adaptive systems and do not exist or
survive in historical vacuums. One of the primary contributions of Afro-American archaeology
may not be evidence for perseverance but rather evidence of human ability
to constantly alter or even totally invent new cultural patterns” (Schuyler 1980: 2).
STUDY UNIT XVII: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
Regional. Numerous social and economic changes taking place during the 18th century
had a profound effect on the Chesapeake Tidewater. The first half of the century was
marked by heavy importation of slaves directly from Africa, and by social conflict among
blacks. Only after mid-century did native born adults begin to predominate and stable
black family groups emerge. This period also witnessed the effects of a regional shift
from a tobacco to a wheat-based economy.
Summary of Property Types
The distribution of archaeological sites and architectural properties relating to blacks
would reflect their predominant status within colonial society as slaves, with the majority
of these properties associated with plantations and farms. The mid-18th century saw
the emergence of slave quarters as centers of the developing Afro-American culture. It
is impossible at this point to determine the actual number of archaeological sites of each
property type which would have been associated with blacks. Although there are numerous
standing structures, such as kitchens, which are documented as having housed
slaves, there are no surviving buildings within the study area which were known to have
been constructed as slave quarters.
The following property types would ideally be associated with this study unit:
(1) Slave quarters—house/domestic slaves and field hands.
a. dwellings—single family units, duplexes, barracks.
b. associated landscape configurations—granaries, orchards, gardens.
(2) Domestic properties of free blacks—propertied and tenant.
a. dwellings.
b. associated outbuildings.
241

(3) Outbuildings used to house slaves.
a. kitchens.
b. stables.
c. barns.
(4) Schools.
(5) Churches and cemeteries.
(6) Slave markets.
(7) Work areas.
a. fields.
b. craft areas.
c. main houses.
d. outbuildings.
Character of the Existing Data
Slave quarters have been the only property archaeologically investigated for the 18th
century in the study area, with excellent assemblages recovered from Kingsmill (JC34,
35, 37, 39, 44, and 52), Carter’s Grove (JC110) and Tutter’s Neck (JC45). Two of these
sites, JC45 and JC37, are listed on the National Register. Many 18th-century farm and
plantation properties have been located within the study area, with good potential for
slave quarters. Late 18th-century maps also depict locations of several slave quarters
(Table 5.3) and these locations need to be field checked. There have also been archaeological
investigations on a number of outbuildings in Colonial Williamsburg, including
the Brush-Everard (CW-29E), the Coke-Garrett (CW-27A), and the Custis Kitchens
(CW-4), which potentially served as slave housing in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although
these structures are not individually listed in the National Register, they are part
of a National Register district composed of the Williamsburg Restored Area. Burwell’s
Dependencies (JC37) which are standing structures believed to have once been used to
quarter slaves, have also been archaeologically examined.
Although free blacks are known to have been represented within both York and
James City Counties, documentary evidence for property locations is poor. There have
been no archaeological investigations of any properties which are known to have been
associated with free blacks.
Although archaeological investigations of the 19th-century location of the First
Baptist Church (CW-14A) were conducted in 1957, the 18th-century church has not
been located. This site is significant in that it was one of the oldest all-black churches in
the United States.
Criteria for Evaluation
Of the four areas considered by the National Register for a determination of significance,
Criteria A and D will be those most important for evaluating properties from
Study Unit XVII. To be considered for significance under Criterion A, a property must
be associated with significant events in the broad patterns of history. Criterion D is
concerned with resources yielding information important to the history of the past.
242

Integrity is also a question which needs to be considered when evaluating resources.
Integrity concerns the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as evidenced by the
survival of physical characteristics that existed in the property’s past. Even though very
little slave housing survives intact from the 18th century, important information about
quarters can be gained through archaeological resources. Although physical integrity is
important, it is not necessary for significance, since even sites which have been disturbed
can provide information to answer research questions.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
In light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,
evaluation, registration and treatment measures which should be taken for property
types within Study Unit XVII.
Identification Goals
• Field checking of map-referenced slave quarter locations, such as those depicted
on the Berthier and Desandrouins maps, for analysis of their current status and
potential for information retrieval. If these areas are currently undeveloped or appear
as if they might contain potential for archaeological remains, a Phase I survey
program to establish the presence and integrity of these sites is recommended.
• Architectural survey of existing plantations, combined with the use of historical
and map data, to delineate spatial configurations of landscape features on plantations
and farmsteads. This information would be used to form predictive models of
slave quarter locations within plantations. This model could be tested through various
phases of archaeological survey on the land holdings of documented plantations
and farmsteads.
• Combinations of historical and map data with archaeological survey in an attempt
to locate 18th-century schools and churches for blacks, such as the school which is
documented for the Hot Water Tract.
• Architectural survey of types of outbuildings where slaves may have been housed,
such as kitchens, laundries, stables, and barns. This survey would provide information
on the types of living conditions to which slaves were exposed.
• Since a large majority of buildings, roads, and other types of properties were constructed
using the labor of slaves, what can be determined from standing structures,
as a testimony to the skill and labor of blacks Research should be conducted
to determine what properties might reflect such skills. Good examples would
be buildings containing examples of artisan or craftsmens’ work, such as elaborate
wrought iron or intricate woodwork.
• Documentary research in order to locate the 18th-century school for slave children
in Williamsburg. Previous documentary research (Stephenson 1963) suggests that
the school was located at the northeast corner of Ireland and South Henry Streets
and possibly later on Capitol Landing Road. The northeast corner of Ireland and
South Henry Streets has been developed and currently is the site of the Southern
243

Bank. Sub-surface archaeological testing on this property would determine whether
any archaeological remains exist, as well as their extent and integrity.
Evaluation Goals
• Comparative analysis of the artifact assemblages from the slave quarter root cellars
at Kingsmill (JC34, 35, 39, 44, and 52), Tutter’s Neck (JC45), Brush-Everard
Kitchen (CW-29E) and Carter’s Grove (JC110). This analysis would search for
regularities or patterns within the assemblages which may serve as a “flag” for the
identification of other studied structures (past or future) associated with
Afro-Americans.
• Archaeological examination of post-contact aboriginal sites in an effort to determine
whether Colono-Indian ware was being manufactured by the area’s Native
Americans or by blacks, as some archaeologists believe (Ferguson 1980).
• Excavation of slave quarters determined through archaeological survey to retain
integrity (see recommendations in identification goals), plus re-analysis of previously
excavated properties, in an effort to determine patterns and details of quarter
composition (i.e., numbers and types of dwellings, number of persons in each dwelling,
quality of life as revealed through artifact assemblages, and landscape features
associated with quarters, such as granaries, paths, fences, and garden plots).
Delineation of spatial patterning could be used to form predictive models to guide
further testing and excavation.
• If developmental or environmental pressures threaten or impact upon black cemeteries
from this or any time period, measures should be made to preserve these
cemeteries intact. If, however, they do have to be moved, documentation and careful
archaeological excavation of the bodies, followed by complete osteological
analysis prior to reinterment, would provide important information on slave and
free black nutrition, diseases, mortality rates and life expectancy.
• Re-analysis of assemblages from excavated slave quarters in the area (JC34, 35,
37, 39, 44, 45, 52, 110, and CW-29E) plus additional archaeological investigations,
in an attempt to determine slave foodways. This would be particularly enlightening
if a property could be located where the owner kept detailed records of
food provided for the slaves. These records could be contrasted with faunal, floral,
and shellfish assemblages to determine to what degree the planter-supplied rations
were being supplemented by slave-acquired food.
• Re-analysis of specific properties/structures in Colonial Williamsburg which have
been documented as having been occupied by blacks. Particular attention should
be paid to those which were excavated after 1957, given the more exacting nature
of archaeological methods used and quality of artifact assemblages after this date.
Specific properties would include the Brush-Everard Kitchen (CW-29E), the Custis
Kitchen (CW-4B), the Coke-Garrett Kitchen (CW-27A), and that of the possible
“home of colored mammy and her husband” (CW-29E) dating to the early 19th
century (Shurtleff 1928).
244

• Re-evaluation of the 1957 excavations on the First Baptist Church property in an
effort to determine whether the 18th-century building foundation located under the
19th-century church could have possibly have served as the 18th-century First
Baptist Church. This re-evaluation would consist of careful analysis of the 1957
excavations results and further documentary research on the property, perhaps followed
by an archaeological testing program on the site. This investigation and
research should also include in its scope the property immediately to the south of
the 19th-century church, since this area has good potential for having been the
earlier location of the church.
• Continued analysis of excavated sites from Governor’s Land, more specifically
JC98, 100, 112, and 113. These sites have been shown to contain ceramic assemblages
usually associated with lower socio-economic status, and it has been suggested
that they were possibly occupied by blacks during the 18th century (Shogren
1983).
Registration Goals
• Nomination of the site of the 18th-century Charity School in view of its importance
in the history of local black education.
• If an example of a building exhibiting qualities representative of the skills of black
laborers and craftsmen can be identified, it would be eligible for nomination to the
National Register under Criterion C.
Treatment Goals
• Given the limited quantity of identified property types from this study unit, the
identification and documentation, through architectural survey and/or archaeological
investigation of any structure, building or archaeological site which can be associated
with blacks is recommended. Special attention should be given to any domestic
complex which can be associated with free blacks.
• Preservation in place of any cemeteries which can be associated with blacks from
the 18th century.
• If remains of the Charity School can be located, and are determined through testing
to have potential for data retrieval, archaeological examination of this property
is recommended. Recognition of this property as an important site in the history of
the area’s black education is recommended in several forms. From documentary
evidence, it appears that the property where the school is believed to have been
located is not owned by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, but if evidence is
found to the contrary, the site could be reconstructed and interpreted by Colonial
Williamsburg as part of its “Other Half” program on Afro-Americans. If this cannot
be accomplished, identification of the site/property through a locational placard
and guidebook references is recommended.
• Mention should be made in the printed brochure for the Bruton Parish Church that
some slaves were allowed to worship there during the 18th century.
245

246

STUDY UNIT XVIII.
FINAL YEARS OF SLAVERY AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF FREE BLACK COMMUNITIES
(A.D. 1820–A.D. 1865)
Sub-Themes: A. Final years of slavery.
B. Free black life.
C. Establishment of black churches.
D. Growth of the abolitionist movement and the Civil War.
Significance: National
When compared to previous decades, census records show that the Tidewater experienced
an overall decline in the slave population during the 19th century. Numbers of
free blacks showed a steady growth for the same time period, accompanied by a concurrent
increase in land ownership by free blacks. Although there had been a number of
slave manumissions following the Revolutionary War, the first decades of the 19th century
witnessed the emergence of a renewed pro-slavery campaign, which arose in response
to the strengthening abolitionist movement.
SUB-THEME A: FINAL YEARS OF SLAVERY
After the Revolutionary War, James City County suffered a decline in the slave population
due to the diminished economic potential of the area. After 1830, new agricultural
practices such as truck gardening and grain and fruit production made smaller demands
on slave labor. During this part of the 19th century, the practice of hiring out slaves
increased. Some were hired out to tobacco factories, coal mines, and iron manufactories
near Richmond, providing labor for these industries while relieving the overburdened
slaveholder of excess labor (Pinchbeck 1926: 58). There is also evidence that many
Virginia slaves were sold further south to large cotton plantations (Jackson 1942a: 56).
The 1860 Census Records provide the following information concerning
slaveholding patterns in York and James City Counties:
TABLE 5.4
SLAVEHOLDING PATTERNS IN YORK AND JAMES CITY COUNTIES,
1860
Location Number of Slaves
1 1-5 1-9 over 50
James City County 14% a 50% 68% 0.04%
York County 16.3% 53% 74% 2.1%
Total Number of Slaveholders:
Total Number of Slaves:
James City County: 230 James City County: 2,586
York County: 226 York County: 1,925
a
All percentages are based on total of slaveholding population only.
247

TABLE 5.5
BLACK SITES AS REFERENCED ON 19TH-CENTURY MAPS
Site Site No. USGS Quad Map Reference
Rompfield Negro Site JC 181 Gressitt Gilmer 1863/64
“Negro House” JC 213 Norge Gilmer 1863/64
“Negro House” JC 222 Norge Gilmer 1863/64
“Negro House” JC 234 Norge Gilmer 1863/64
Roberson Negro Site YO 267 Williamsburg Gilmer 1863/64
From this table, it can be seen that the majority of slaveholders in both counties
owned less than ten slaves, with over half owning five or less.
Researchers have a better opportunity to study the composition and character of
19th-century slave domestic complexes. Not only are buildings more likely to survive
into the present, but the documentary evidence for this period is much more complete.
Especially revealing are the reminiscences of former slaves, collected in the 1930s.
These narratives provide many details of daily slave life which were not recorded elsewhere.
Table 5.5 lists map references to black domestic structures and settlements within
the study area during the Civil War period.
SUB-THEME B: FREE BLACK LIFE
There were approximately 3000 free blacks in Virginia in 1783 (Hast 1969: 218), comprising
only a very small percentage of the total black population. In 1800, there were
150 free blacks in James City County, making up 5% of the black population as a whole.
Throughout the first half of the 19th century, the numbers of free blacks in the study
area continued to increase. The 1830 census records show 571 free blacks in James City
County and 627 (or 11.7% of the total black population) in York County. Free blacks
made up 12% of the total black population for the state of Virginia in 1860, although
larger concentrations of free blacks were located in the Tidewater (Jackson 1942a).
This is evidenced by the 1860 census figures for James City County, where the over
1000 free black residents composed almost one third of the black population (Morgan
1985).
As the population of free blacks increased, so too did the ownership of land by
blacks. Between 1830 and 1860, there was a five-fold increase in the ownership of
property by blacks in James City County (Jackson 1939). Tenancy of land was common
among free blacks during this period as well, sometimes resulting in later ownership by
the tenant. Although farmers made up the greatest percentage of free blacks, there were
also bricklayers, teamsters, watermen, blacksmiths, millers, and mechanics in James
City County in 1860.
On the basis of the 1850 census, Alain C. Outlaw (1977) concluded that free blacks
in James City County generally resided in their own households, in stable nuclear family
groups. Records also indicate that the majority of free blacks were farmers and laborers
in 1850, with no free blacks listed as domestic servants (Outlaw 1977). By
248

1870, the household count for blacks living in the same area had increased slightly, and
stable nuclear family groups remained the norm. The majority of blacks were still working
as farmers or laborers, but by this time, the percentage of farmers had decreased, and
22.8% of free blacks were employed as domestics (Outlaw 1977). This increase in domestic
employment was most likely a product of emancipation. With the abolishment of
slave labor, paid servants were needed to help in running white households.
Although the majority of free blacks in the study area were most likely at the lower
end of the economic scale, there is evidence that some free blacks prospered. For example,
in 1860, Williamsburg’s four free blacks had property valued at $4600, with half
of this owned by Alexander Dunlop, a blacksmith by trade (Jackson 1942a: 153).
It was during the mid-19th century that the growth of Centerville as a free black
community began. On the Gilmer Map of 1863/64, a “free Negro settlement full of
cabins and paths” is noted. Alain Outlaw’s research (1977) on this settlement showed
that of the 663 free blacks listed in James City County in 1850, at least 393 of them
lived in or near Centerville. No records exist which date the initial settlement of
Centerville by free blacks, but it is probable that it was in existence by 1850. Centerville
today is a thriving black community, located along Centerville Road near Lightfoot.
Although by 1850, most free blacks lived in James City County rather than within
Williamsburg, properties in the city are documented as having been owned and/or occupied
by free blacks. Mary Stith left her shop, currently reconstructed on Block 10, to her
slaves in 1816. On the same block, Robert Anderson let freed slave Maria Griffin and
her (their) children use some of his property from 1859 to 1875, at which time the
property was divided among Griffin’s children. A standing frame building known as
The Quarter is located on Francis Street near the Williamsburg Inn. This structure was
constructed sometime in the early 19th century on the site of an 18th-century building.
The property was owned by Dr. James Carter in the 1790s, and according to local tradition,
was occupied by a black family during the 1860s (Charles 1930). No documentary
evidence to date has been located which confirms that slaves ever actually lived in The
Quarter.
SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF BLACK CHURCHES
The church, more than any other institution, provided an escape from the harsh realities
of being black in a society where skin color was a justification for oppression. Developed
and organized by a group which had never attained an equal standing with whites
in the realms of economic, political and cultural institutions, the black church provided
an organizational hub for black life (Morris 1984). Besides its instrumental role in the
modern civil rights movement, the black church has been an important aid in fulfilling
the social, artistic and political aspirations of its members.
Even in the area of religious practice, blacks were restricted. Under a law passed in
1832, all blacks, free and slave, were prohibited from preaching (Jackson 1942a: 21),
nor could slaves attend white religious meetings without written permission from their
masters. This legislation had the desired effect of eliminating blacks from influential
leadership positions during that time period (Jackson 1942a). Clandestine religious
meetings surely continued, however.
249

During the years spanned by this study unit, there were some advances made by
blacks in the establishment of churches within this area. As discussed previously, the
congregation of the First Baptist Church completed an impressive brick church on Nassau
Street in 1855. Prior to this, the congregation had worshipped in a stable provided for
that use.
The Black Baptist Church in Williamsburg was closed for a brief period in the
1830s due to racial conflicts (Morgan 1985). By the 1840s however, it was apparently
operating under white control. There was evidence of mixing of blacks and whites in
congregations as well; for example, in the 1830s over half of the members of the Zion
Church were black.
SUB-THEME D: GROWTH OF THE ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT
AND THE CIVIL WAR
During the 19th century, objections to slavery were growing throughout the colonies,
becoming particularly strong during the 1830s. To counteract this movement, which
threatened to destroy the very core of Virginia’s economy, a campaign of pro-slavery
education and philosophy was begun. This teaching emerged under the impetus of Thomas
R. Dew at the College of William and Mary (Jackson 1942a). Dew justified slavery
on scriptural, moral and ethnological grounds and also attempted to rid the state of free
blacks. Legislative action, which would have called for the removal of all free blacks to
Liberia, failed in 1833. Hostility towards free blacks, coupled with praise for the institution
of slavery, did not end with this legislative failure. Free blacks continued to be
condemned as lazy and immoral until the Civil War.
In the early 1860s, many slaves, drawn by the lure of freedom, left their former
homes. Following emancipation, a freedmen’s camp was established at Fort Monroe,
and it is estimated that between 16,000 and 25,000 blacks had settled between Hampton
and the Williamsburg/Yorktown area by the end of the Civil War (Plate 5.6). Some of
those slaves who had stayed with their masters throughout the War were later rewarded
with farmsteads and land at Ruthville, in Charles City County. Other blacks established
their own homesteads on land abandoned by whites in the wake of Yankee occupation
and the burning of Hampton. These blacks were often forced off of this land after the
war by the return of the former owners.
As in the 18th century, slave resistance continued, mainly through schemes to obstruct
the workings of the plantation, and escape attempts. Advertisements for runaway
slaves were common in the Virginia Gazette, and fugitive slaves often traveled from
plantation to plantation through a quarter underground network. Despite this, only one
runaway in three in Virginia prior to 1775 was able to leave his home province and
begin life again as a free person (Kulikoff 1978: 254). Slave revolts were rare in the
Chesapeake colonies, but there are documented cases of conspiracies in James City
County in the early 18th century. Archaeological remains which reflect efforts to resist
slavery have not been specifically identified, but it is expected that a detailed analysis
of existing and newly discovered assemblages will provide additional information on
this aspect of Afro-American history.
250

Plate 5.6. Freed Slaves at Yorktown during Union Occupation.
SUMMARY
Archaeological potential for sites relating to 18th- and 19th-century black occupation is
very good for the study area. Documents point to a number of potential domestic sites.
Although records indicate the presence of numerous black artisans in the study area, no
sites known to have been associated with these artisans have been located. Further documentary
research, coupled with archaeological investigation is likely to yield extensive
information about the important decades preceding emancipation.
STUDY UNIT XVIII: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
Regional. After the Revolutionary War, the area suffered a decline in the slave population
due to the diminished economic potential. New agricultural practices made smaller
demands on slave labor and many slaves were hired out or sold to other areas. The
number of free blacks, however, continued to increase throughout the first half of the
19th century, with increased land ownership by this portion of the population.
Summary of Property Types
During this period, a decline in the number of properties relating to slaves should be
seen, as well as an increase in the numbers of buildings and archaeological sites associ-
251

ated with free blacks. It is also during this time period that documentation for black
settlements in this area exists. The following types of properties should be evident:
(1) Free black settlements.
(2) Isolated free black farm properties - propertied and tenant.
(3) Slave quarters.
(4) Churches and cemeteries.
(5) Freedmen’s camps.
(6) Way stations (for escaping slaves).
(7) Work areas.
Character of Existing Data
Primary data sources are quite extensive for this area during the 19th century. In particular,
available census and farm records could be used to formulate a picture of the role of
blacks during the final years of slavery and as free blacks within the Tidewater economy.
No archaeological investigations of 19th-century black domestic structures have
occurred, with what little emphasis there has been on blacks confined to the 18th century.
State site records also reflect this bias, showing the tendency of informants to
overlook archaeological sites which post-date the 18th century. The 19th century marks
the period, however, from which slave/black housing begins to survive. At the present
time there is no reliable count of the number of surviving buildings or archaeological
sites associated with blacks from this time period.
Criteria for Evaluation
According to National Register Guidelines, two types of significance are most relevant
to this study unit; Criteria A and D. To be considered under Criterion A, a property must
be associated with significant events in the broad patterns of history. Properties may be
eligible under Criterion D if they are concerned with resources yielding information
important in history or prehistory.
Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, as revealed by the
survival of physical characteristics that existed in the property’s past. The question of
integrity needs to be addressed when evaluating properties. Although little information
exists on the details of black life as revealed through architectural or archaeological
investigations, the potential for the survival of property types from this time period is
good. Therefore, site integrity must be considered when evaluating a property from this
study unit.
Present Condition of Property Types
Current rates of development in this area potentially threaten a large number of properties
relating to this study unit. In particular, outlying black communities and farmsteads
are threatened by development taking place in what were once isolated rural areas (for
example, Route 60 west of Williamsburg and along Route 17 in York County). There
252

have been no measures taken to preserve or adequately study any of these 19th century
property types from an architectural or archaeological point of view.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
In light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,
evaluation and treatment measures which should be taken for property types associated
with Study Unit XVIII.
Properties of public importance from this study unit are the First Baptist Church
and The Quarter.
Identification Goals
• Field checking of 19th-century Gilmer map reference sites in order to evaluate
their current status and potential for information recovery. Although it is unlikely
that any standing structures associated with recorded properties on this map have
not been located, any such structures should be recorded according to the Secretary
of the Interior’s standards. If these areas are currently undeveloped or appear
to contain potential for the recovery of archaeological remains, a Phase I survey
program, which would establish the presence and integrity of these sites, is recommended.
• Analysis of landholding patterns of free blacks through documentary sources to
determine locations and sizes of holdings, and quality of land owned or farmed.
Once located, a representative sample of these properties could be examined through
reconnaissance survey to determine current condition of the properties. A smaller
sample, culled from the properties having good potential for archaeological and
architectural remains pertaining to the study unit, could be further examined to
determine integrity. This examination would take the form of sub-surface archaeological
testing and documentation of above-ground buildings and structural remains.
• Further documentary research on The Quarter, in Colonial Williamsburg, to determine
if this building was constructed by free blacks in the early 19th century, and
when blacks first resided there.
• Documentary research on the Hot Water Tract in an effort to determine the size and
growth of the community over time. This documentary research could be combined
with various stages of survey, including a reconnaissance survey to document
if any standing structures or other physical components of the community
remain. Archaeological survey may also be necessary to locate the community and
assess its boundaries and integrity.
• Archaeological investigations to determine whether patterns of resistance to slavery
are evident in material remains. Certain properties could possibly be identified
as way stations through archaeological assemblages or components of the
site. Documentary research could be used to determine whether newspaper advertisements
could be used to trace patterns of flight for runaway slaves.
253

Evaluation Goals
• Architectural survey, combined with other sources of data, of the Centerville community,
in order to determine patterns and rates of growth from the mid-19th century
to the present.
• Archaeological survey to determine the current status of the Hot Water Tract, a late
18th/early 19th-century free black community, with research into documents for a
comprehensive history of the community.
• Archaeological survey or mitigation on 19th-century plantations, which would reveal
physical modifications brought about by emancipation and the development
of Southern farm tenancy.
• If and when households of 19th-century black slaves and free black tenant farmers
are examined through archaeological excavation, a comparison of a number of
factors is recommended. These include house size and construction techniques,
faunal and other foodways assemblages, landscape configurations (such as the placement
of outbuildings, fences and fields), and ceramic and other material culture
assemblages. This would reveal the differences in lifestyles between free blacks
and slaves in this area.
Registration Goals
• Nomination of Centerville and the Hot Water Tract as National Register Districts
in view of the fact that they were very early communities for free blacks in this
areas.
Treatment Goals
• The protection of Centerville and the Hot Water Tract through preservation in place.
If preservation in place is not possible, treatment measures of Phase III archaeological
excavation and detailed recording of components of the community are
recommended.
254

STUDY UNIT XIX.
EMANCIPATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
(A.D. 1865–A.D. 1915)
Sub-Themes: A. Establishment of new black communities.
B. Stores, businesses, and participation in industrialization.
C. Foundation of schools, missions, churches, etc.
Significance: National
With Emancipation, blacks had opportunities to work, live and worship where and as
they wished. The ways in which former slaves responded to this new freedom were
surely varied. Although the majority of blacks were supported by agriculture, many
others found they were, for the first time, in competition with whites for jobs. Blacks
not only faced exploitation in the job market, but also found many whites reluctant to
sell them land. The formation of the Freedmen’s Bureau and of manual and industrial
training schools helped smooth the path and create new opportunities for blacks in the
wake of the Civil War.
SUB-THEME A: ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW BLACK
COMMUNITIES
During the period following the Civil War, black communities and settlements became
more common throughout the Tidewater, although little is known about their organization
or members. According to a study done of Elizabeth City County (the present-day
location of Hampton), land acquisition by blacks did not significantly increase after the
end of the Civil War. Late in 1870, only 2.2% of Elizabeth City County blacks owned
real estate, although they comprised 66% of the population (Bonekemper 1970: 177).
This pattern of black land ownership probably obtained within the study area as well.
New black communities sprang up in Williamsburg at the end of the 19th century.
According to Williamsburg black residents, one of these communities was located along
York Street (Marie Sheppard, pers. comm. 1985). An unmarked cemetery, which served
members of this settlement, is present in a wooded area to the north of the former community.
Another black community in Williamsburg was located where the Williamsburg
Inn now stands. Older black informants remember that this settlement was reached
through Whale’s Alley, which cut across Francis Street. Perhaps connected with this
community was the Birthright Cemetery, located near the present-day Providence Hall.
Local sources remember many blacks being buried there in the opening years of the
20th century. Another unmarked cemetery was located during parking lot construction
at Bassett Hall in 1980. These 18 burials, mapped by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
archaeologists, were left unexcavated. It is not known, therefore, if these burials
also comprise a black cemetery, perhaps associated with the York Street or the Whale’s
Alley communities.
255

In the early 20th century, blacks and whites lived alongside one another in the
same neighborhoods in Williamsburg. A circa 1898 handbook of Williamsburg lists the
names, addresses, and occupations of the black and white residents of the town (Virginia
Gazette c. 1898). This directory also records the names of those individuals who
resided in various communities outside of Williamsburg, such as at Grove and Lightfoot.
The handbook is an invaluable resource for reconstructing the demographic makeup of
Williamsburg during that period.
During the first several decades of the 20th century, blacks moved out of the center
of town in the wake of newly imposed Jim Crow regulations and the restoration efforts
of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Many of these blacks moved to the “West
End”, an early 20th-century settlement on Armistead Avenue, or to the Franklin Street
area. Braxton Court, also in Williamsburg, is another area owned, built, and occupied
by blacks during the 1920s and 1930s.
Recollections by a former slave mention a “free nigguh town” located near a plantation,
either in James City or Charles City County (Perdue 1980: 53). Other predominantly
black residential areas were established at Grove, Croaker, Poplar Hall, and
Mooretown.
The Grove, located at the eastern end of James City County, was a small settlement
of farmers and fishermen established at the end of the 19th century. The formation of
Grove as a community came about when black landowners were displaced by the establishment
of the Naval Weapons Station during World War I and later by the construction
of Camp Peary. Most of the people who moved to the Grove were employed at the
Naval Weapons Station, although others worked the river and farmed (Anonymous 1976).
Grove is a very closely knit community, with a focus on families and churches. There
are four churches within the Grove community: Mt. Gilead Baptist, Little Zion Baptist,
Morning Star Baptist, and Way of the Cross. Mt. Gilead Baptist Church was organized
in York County in 1876 and was moved to Grove in 1944 (Jeffreys 1984a).
Elva G.K. Orr remembered the Magruder community, which was displaced to Grove
when Camp Peary was constructed, in an April 28, 1976 interview (Orr 1976). The
community contained a post office, as well as a black church, lodge, and cemetery.
Recent archaeological survey on the Camp Peary tract by the Colonial Williamsburg
Office of Archaeological Excavation located a black cemetery dating to the first half of
the 20th century.
SUB-THEME B: STORES, BUSINESSES AND PARTICIPATION
IN INDUSTRIALIZATION
After the close of the Civil War, former slave artisans found themselves in competition
with whites for employment. Attempts to set up apprenticeships for freed slaves failed,
since many blacks felt this was an attempt at re-enslavement (Pinchbeck 1926: 69). As
a result, blacks began to disappear from a number of the skilled trades which they had
formerly practiced almost exclusively. According to a study prepared by the Virginia
Commissioner of Labor, proportionally fewer skilled blacks were working in 1898 than
prior to the Civil War (Pinchbeck 1926: 73). By the beginning of the 20th century, the
future for black skilled workers began to improve with the establishment of industrial
256

and manual training schools. Still, wages for black labor were generally lower than
those for comparable work by whites.
By far, the majority of blacks in the study area were supported by agriculture. After
the Civil War, the government failed to set up a comprehensive land confiscation and
redistribution plan. This, coupled with the refusal of whites to sell property or extend
credit to blacks, left many former slaves without means to make a living. Throughout
the state of Virginia, the Freedmen’s Bureau was organized to protect the interests of
former slaves. This Bureau was instrumental in setting up county or district meetings to
help blacks find employment, determine wage rates, and avoid exploitation (McConnell
1910: 33). Northern agents felt sure that a system of contract labor would protect blacks
against exploitation, while helping supply agricultural products, such as wheat, cotton
and tobacco. Unhappy employees were free to seek employment elsewhere, and had the
chance to accumulate capital with which to purchase their own land through this system.
Employers were supposed to pay laborers wages, but often either did not or could
not due to the insolvency of Southern banks. Some blacks, especially directly following
the Civil War, contracted with their employers to supply them clothing, food, and shelter
only, a condition almost identical to slavery (Jones 1985).
As a result of the inadequacy of the wage labor system, sharecropping and tenant
farming became more common. As former slaves, many blacks had no capital with
which to purchase land or homes after the war. Deprived of slave labor, Tidewater planters
were also faced with the dilemma of how to plant, tend and harvest their crops. Out of
this joint need sharecropping or tenant farming arose. Although sharecropping kept
many blacks at or below the poverty level, it did allow the farmer a minimal amount of
control over his own actions and also allowed his wife a choice in how to best divide her
time between the family and the field. The Freedmen’s Bureau records provide an important
source of information on post-bellum black tenant farming for this area.
A recent study by McDaniel (1982) closely examined the lives and homes of black
tenant farmers in southern Maryland. Through the use of oral resources, photographs
and government documents, McDaniel was able to reconstruct the material culture of
late 19th- and early 20th-century tenant farmers.
McDaniel concentrated on the temporal evolution of housing and found that many
tenant farmers continued to occupy former slave quarters after the Civil War. On the
whole, tenant farmers’ homes, even those constructed after the Civil War, remained
similar in size to earlier slave quarters. Black landowners’ homes were larger, however,
perhaps a reflection of the surplus capital enjoyed by propertied individuals.
McDaniel also found that there was a change in tenant farm housing from two
room dirt-floored log buildings to four to six room frame structures with plank floors
and glass pane windows (McDaniel 1982: 136). The closer a house was located to an
urban center or network of goods distribution, the faster these types of changes occurred.
Here, blacks are seen for the first time as a society of independent consumers,
making their own choices about material possessions. Despite this emergence into the
consumer market, it is likely that the majority of blacks had little or no surplus capital to
spend as they liked. Tenant farmers’ houses were described as dark and dirty, containing
little in the way of material possessions. Given their constant mobility, many families
probably invested minimal effort in the appearance of their homes. Photographs and
documents do show that efforts were made to brighten interiors with newspapers or
257

colorful advertisements (Plate 5.7). Despite efforts such as these, many tenant farms
were dreary places, as evidenced by a photograph of a turn-of-the-century black farmstead
near Newport News, Virginia (Plate 5.8).
Beginning in the 1890s and into the 1920s, many blacks left James City County for
job opportunities in the North. Only in the 1950s did this exodus slow, due to the employment
provided by the expanding tourist industry, the College of William and Mary,
and Eastern State Hospital. Despite this exodus, there were many black-owned businesses
in Williamsburg at the turn of the century, according to black informants. These
included Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store, of which late 19th-century photographs exist
(Plate 5.9). The circa 1898 Directory of Williamsburg was probably referring to Samuel
Harris when it stated that “one of the leading merchants is a colored man” (Plate 5.10).
Other black-owned and -run businesses included the Crump Restaurant, Crutchfield
Barber Shop and Tea House, Hitchen’s Store, Skinner’s Tinner, and a meat market (Marie
Sheppard, pers. comm. 1985).
Other sources of employment for blacks at this time no doubt came from the knitting
mill and participation in the construction of the railroad in 1881. Truck farming as
an industry was made possible by the railroad construction. The circa 1898 directory
lists trucking and general farming as the principal occupations of James City County
residents, with Toano a large trucking center for “melons, sweet and Irish potatoes, peas
and other early varieties of vegetables” which were shipped to the Northern and Western
markets. A Toano barrel-making industry in the early 20th century supplied employment
for seventy to eighty persons. These barrels were used in shipping vegetables to
the Northeastern markets (Jeffreys 1984b). Employment opportunities were also supplied
by the construction of the seawall at Jamestown in 1905 (Gilley 1976: 30) and by
various sawmills throughout the area.
SUB-THEME C: FOUNDATION OF SCHOOLS, MISSION,
CHURCHES, ETC.
With such a substantial black population in the study area, a vital role was played by the
development of schools for black children. In 1884, a small two-room school for blacks
was constructed on Francis Street behind the present-day Market Square Tavern. During
the first decade of the 20th century, this two-room school was relocated to Nicholson
Street, at the Odd Fellows Lounge, a social club run by blacks (Plate 5.11). The lounge
served as the primary school facility, with government barracks housing the upper level
classes. There were 130 black students enrolled in the Williamsburg/James City County
school system that year (Anonymous 1984). There were also similar schools located
throughout James City and York Counties.
SUMMARY
To date, there have been no archaeological investigations of any of the late 19th and
early 20th century black settlements in the study area. Research has been biased towards
the identification of discrete settlements of blacks, when in reality there were
many isolated black dwellings throughout the area. Maps from the 19th century, such as
258

Plate 5.7. Interior of Home of Black Family, circa 1900.
Plate 5.8. Tenant Farm near Newport News, Virginia, circa 1901.
259

Plate 5.9. Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store.
Plate 5.10. Advertisement for Samuel Harris’ Cheap Store in circa 1898 Directory.
260

Plate 5.11. Odd Fellow’s Lounge.
the Gilmer Map, show many such structures, labeled as “Negro Houses.” Potential for
information gained through excavation of black residences and businesses is of merit,
since many of these remain untouched. However, the feasibility of using archaeology
alone as an approach to gaining this information is doubtful, since there are black residents
living in the area who grew up during this time period. Oral history and folklore
surveys on late 19th and early 20th century black history, such as that compiled by the
James City County 350th Anniversary Committee and work done by Daryl Dance (1978),
are strongly recommended to take advantage of this local knowledge.
STUDY UNIT XIX: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
Regional. With the freedom brought about at the close of the Civil War, blacks had the
opportunity to work, live and worship where and as they wished. The majority of blacks
still suffered many hardships, but new settlements and communities were established
during this period. For the first time blacks emerge as a society of independent consumers,
able to make choices concerning their material possessions.
261

Summary of Property Types
The black population of the study area actually declined after the Civil War, as more
blacks moved to the urban areas of the North. There is, however, an expansion in the
types of properties which would be associated with blacks due to the new opportunities
and potentials which were open to them. Property types which would ideally be associated
with this period are:
(1) Black communities.
(2) Tenant farms.
a. house/dwellings.
b. outbuildings and other physical components.
(3) Commercial and retail sites.
(4) Churches and cemeteries.
(5) Schools.
(6) Missions and clubs.
(7) Rural farmsteads of propertied blacks.
a. house/dwellings.
b. outbuildings and other physical components.
(8) Urban black residences—rented and owned.
Character of the Existing Data
For this time period, the primary sources are much more complete than for any previous
eras. Federal census records can provide information on a household level, allowing the
determination of family composition, occupation and socio-economic status. Records
of the Freedman’s Bureau also provide an important source of information on black
tenant farmers after the Civil War.
Many of the buildings and structures associated with this time period are still extant,
and a comprehensive architectural survey needs to be completed. No archaeological
investigations of black-related buildings or properties from the last half of the 19th
century have been undertaken.
Criteria for Evaluation
Four areas are considered by the National Register for a determination of significance.
These are as follows:
A. Association with significant events in the broad patterns of our history.
B. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. Resources embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or the work of a master.
D. Resources yielding information important to the history of the past.
Of the four areas considered by the National Register for a determination of significance,
perhaps the most important criteria for evaluating properties in this study unit
would be A and D.
262

Present Condition of Property Types
The resources for this study unit have already been dealt a severe blow by several developments
in the 20th century. The restoration of Colonial Williamsburg effectively
destroyed all 19th-century buildings, homes and businesses alike, within the 19th- and
early 20th-century core of Williamsburg. Several other black communities, such as
Magruder, were displaced by the coming of the military installations in York County.
The current physical condition of the structures associated with these displaced communities
is not known, but it is likely that most were demolished.
Increased developmental pressures within the study area currently threaten archaeological
and architectural properties associated with this study unit.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
In light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,
evaluation, registration, and treatment measures which should be taken for property
types within Study Unit XIX.
Properties of public importance from this time period are Odd Fellow’s Lounge
and the Samuel Harris Cheap Store.
Identification Goals
• Analysis of the records of the Freedmen’s Bureau in order to determine status and
treatment of black tenant farmers in this area. This analysis will likely formulate
research questions which could later be tested through a combination of documentary
sources, architectural survey, and archaeological testing.
• Use of documentary resources and architectural survey to determine the distribution
of rural agricultural sites of blacks from the period after the Civil War to the
opening years of the 20th century.
• Use of oral resources for exploration of Afro-American traits which have been
documented elsewhere, such as the decoration of graves and African influences on
foodways and music.
• The identification of the possible influence of African cultures on mortuary patterns
of black Virginians, using published ethnographic literature on cultures of
West Africa. Slight differences in traits which may be caused by individual cultural
elements would be less important than the underlying similarities of the West
African heritage.
Evaluation Goals
• Comprehensive architectural survey of rural structures throughout the study area
to answer questions about the use of slave quarters after the Civil War and spatial
configurations of late 19th-century farmsteads.
263

• Exploration of the demographic and economic characteristics of rural black families,
through census and other government records, in order to determine the extent
and effects of poverty (i.e., rates of fertility, death due to disease, life expectancy)
within the local black population during this time period.
• Analysis of the sexual division of labor within black communities and households.
This information could be garnered through oral histories and government records.
Registration Goals
• Nomination for National Register status of a well-preserved early 20th-century
tenant farm property, in view of the importance of this lifestyle for many of the
area’s blacks.
Treatment Goals
• Preservation or complete documentation (archaeological and architectural) of
19th-century black structures which are threatened by development.
264

STUDY UNIT XX.
TIDEWATER IN BLACK AND WHITE
(A.D. 1915–present)
Sub-Themes: A. Influx of blacks from other areas.
B. Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement.
C. Schools, neighborhoods and organizations.
Significance: Local
Even into the second half of the 20th century, blacks still found themselves facing inequality
in the job and housing markets, as well as in pay scales. Separate facilities for
blacks and whites, such as schools, theaters, stores, and the like were, as in many other
places, common within the study area. Despite segregation and the relative lack of
economic opportunities, local blacks remained and still remain very much aware of
their heritage. Black citizens in the Tidewater are currently involved in issues dealing
with preserving the black heritage in this area.
SUB-THEME A: INFLUX OF BLACKS FROM OTHER AREAS
A number of blacks were attracted to the study area during the first several decades of
the century by employment opportunities offered by Eastern State Hospital, The College
of William and Mary, the Naval Weapons Station and the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation. Williamsburg, in particular, began to prosper as a result of the Colonial
Williamsburg Restoration and the expansion of the College. Many blacks also worked
in the Penniman shell loading plant on the York River during World War I. Present-day
industries located within the study area, such as Anheuser-Busch and Ball Metal, create
job opportunities for blacks as well. Many blacks also arrived in the area in the wake of
military installations such as the Naval Weapons Station and Fort Eustis.
According to 1978 census figures, the population of blacks in the study area broke
down as follows: James City County had 8,400 blacks, comprising 35% of the population;
York County, 5,800; Williamsburg, 1,400; and Poquoson, 20 (Schaffer and Schwille
1978: 11).
SUB-THEME B: JIM CROW AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENT
Segregation was very evident during the middle decades of the 20th century, unlike the
mixing of the races that had earlier characterized the Williamsburg area. The Jim Crow
laws developed at the turn of the century introduced segregation in residential areas, as
well as in schools and transportation systems. Social inequality was also felt in the job
market; statistics show that in a typical Southern city in the 1950s, nearly 75% of the
black men in the labor force were employed in unskilled jobs, compared to 25% of the
white male labor force (Morris 1984). Approximately 50% of the black female labor
force were employed as domestics, compared to less than 1% of white working women.
265

Plate 5.12. Black Fairgrounds in Williamsburg, 1928.
During the 1950s, national figures show that black families earned only 54% of the
median white family income (Morris 1984).
During the Depression, Civilian Conservation Corps camps were located at Lake
Matoaka to shelter workers laboring on the construction of Matoaka Park (Belvin 1981:
29). Separate camps existed for blacks and whites. Plans drawn up in 1947 proposed a
shopping center and theater for blacks on the Bozarth Mill property and there was also
a proposal to build a USO building for blacks only during World War II. Plate 5.12
shows the black fairground located in James City County at the beginning of the century.
Despite segregation and the lack of economic opportunities, blacks remained very
much aware of their heritage. For example, January 1st was always honored in
Williamsburg as Emancipation and Proclamation Day (Larson 1978). This day was
celebrated with a band and parade, which would march from the Odd Fellows Lodge to
the west end of Duke of Gloucester Street and back.
SUB-THEME C: SCHOOLS, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND
ORGANIZATIONS
Efforts at improving education for blacks continued and strengthened in the 20th century.
In 1924, the construction of the James City County Training School was completed
(Plate 5.13). This school “marked a significant milestone in black education for
266

Plate 5.13. James City County Training School.
Williamsburg because it acted as the first melting pot for black students from many of
the neighboring small one and two-room schools scattered throughout James City
County” (Lassiter and Bowman 1985). York County also had a similar training school,
which included an auditorium, a home economics cottage, a science lab, and a vocational
agriculture shop. This school burned in 1954.
Rosenwald schools for blacks children were constructed in the 1920s in various
parts of James City County, such as Centerville, Chickahominy, Oak Grove, Mount
Pleasant, and Croaker. These schools were in use up until 1954, when the city and
county school systems merged. In 1954, all of the black county students were sent to
the Bruton Heights School. Bruton Heights School, in Williamsburg, was constructed
in the late 1930s with funding from the Federal government and John D. Rockefeller,
Jr. When the school opened its doors in 1940, it was one of the best-equipped schools in
Virginia. Bruton Heights School provided a public education for the black children of
Williamsburg and James City County and was the first school in the area to offer a
high-school diploma for blacks. Bruton Heights was also significant for its innovative
curriculum, imitated in other school systems, both black and white, throughout the country.
In 1964, the first attempts at school integration were made in the study area, and
total integration was finally mandated by the school board in 1969 (Anonymous 1984).
A number of predominantly black neighborhoods have been formed in recent years.
Carver Gardens, located east of Williamsburg, was established in the 1950s (Deigh
1978). A contest for local black school children was used to name the streets within the
neighborhood after famous blacks. Braxton Court, Highland Park, and Crispus Attucks
Place are black neighborhoods within Williamsburg city limits. Crispus Attucks Place,
the newest of these neighborhoods, was completed in 1976 (Anonymous 1980). At that
267

time, the Williamsburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority replaced old housing at
the corner of Armistead and Lafayette with sixteen single-family residences.
On the Peninsula, there are a number of local political action groups founded for
and by blacks, the most obvious being the NAACP. The Williamsburg Chapter of the
NAACP was organized at Mt. Gilead Baptist Church in 1942. Out of necessity, the
NAACP often allied itself closely with black churches in the south, since these churches
were often the only places where meetings could be held without interference from the
white community.
Black social organizations are also common, an example being Le Cercle Charmant,
a women’s club active in civic services, and the Just Us Club. Over the past decade,
several blacks have held prominent public offices in the peninsula area.
Black citizens in the Tidewater are currently involved in issues dealing with preserving
the black heritage of the area. For example, current plans to demolish Bruton
Heights School, which served as a school for black county and Bruton Heights district
students beginning in 1954, are being opposed by a citizen action committee. Through
the actions of members of the First Baptist Church, a plaque now stands on Nassau
Street marking the location of the 19th-century church. In 1976, the Grove Community
held a festival in connection with the Bicentennial. Oral histories of community members
were recorded, as well as histories of three of the community’s churches. These
were bound into a manuscript, along with a brief history of blacks in the area. The
Grove Community Action Organization was instrumental in helping get a playground
and recreation building in their community.
SUMMARY
Given the still uneven understanding of the great contributions made by the black community
to the shape of Tidewater society, a number of research strategies are recommended.
Searches of local newspapers from the beginning of the 20th century would
provide invaluable information on all aspects of recent black history, especially for
events concerning the Civil Rights movement. The gathering of oral histories and cooperation
with black political and social organizations on publicly important issues are
also recommended. Survey and preservation of communities such as Braxton Court,
and schools and churches significant in recent Afro-American history in the study area
are all also highly recommended, and crucial, as many of these resources are threatened
by current property development. Specific recommendations will be made in the operating
plan.
STUDY UNIT XX: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
Local. This study unit holds local significance in light of the still uneven understanding
of the contributions of the local black community to Tidewater society and culture. A
268

number of local properties are seen as important by the local black community and
efforts are being made to preserve these resources.
Summary of Property Types
Given the growth and change of the study area during the 20th century due to military
installations and the Williamsburg Restoration, many blacks were displaced from homes
and neighborhoods. Physical evidence of most of these neighborhoods, communities,
and businesses are now gone, and are known only through photographs and the recollections
of the persons who were once familiar with them. Archaeologically, some of
these properties may be recoverable, but in many instances subsequent development
has destroyed their potential for data recovery. New neighborhoods and communities,
some centered around churches, have developed and these have been discussed in the
narrative.
The following property types are represented in the study area:
(1) Black communities/neighborhoods.
(2) Dispersed farmsteads/rural dwellings.
(3) Commercial and retail sites.
(4) Churches and cemeteries.
(5) Schools.
(6) Clubs and missions.
Character of the Existing Data
No archaeological or architectural surveys of black-related property types from this
time period have been attempted. Potentials for the recovery of information relating to
blacks is good, however, particularly in light of oral and documentary sources. Photographs
and newspapers, as well as governmental and other official records, are excellent
sources of data. Local informants can provide information not only on aspects of
local history, but on the presence and continuation of folk traditions as well. Only
limited work has been accomplished in this area (Dance 1978; Szwed and Abrahams
1978) on black folklore.
In view of the exacting nature of archaeological investigation, recommendations
for archaeological excavations of properties from this time period are generally avoided.
Exceptions would be made in cases where a property is identified as extremely significant
and one whose information would be lost if excavations were not conducted. Given
the better quality of records from the 20th century, information from this time period
can generally be gathered through the more expedient means of documentary research.
Criteria for Evaluation
Of the four areas considered by the National Register for a determination of significance,
Criteria A and D are the two which are considered most relevant to Study Unit
XX. Criterion A is concerned with associations with significant events in the broad
patterns of history, while properties may be eligible under Criterion D if they are con-
269

cerned with resources yielding information important to history. Integrity, defined as
the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, is an important factor to consider when
evaluating property significance, particularly given the availability of property types
from this time period.
Although black cemeteries from this study unit are not eligible for National Register
status, the community values placed on these and other similar properties calls for
certain levels of action, such as identification, recording, marking, and, where possible,
preservation in place.
Present Condition of Property Types
Many of the areas containing property types significant to this study unit are currently
under developmental pressure.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
In light of the above, the following is a list of recommendations regarding identification,
evaluation, and treatment measures which should be taken for property types within
Study Unit XX.
Properties of public importance from this time period include: James City County
Training School, Bruton Heights School, Grove Community, and the Mt. Ararat Church.
Identification Goals
• Analysis of the effects of the Colonial Williamsburg restoration on specific black
neighborhoods in Williamsburg, such as Whale’s Alley, Franklin Street and York
Street communities, through the use of oral resources, Colonial Williamsburg Archives,
and data on demographic patterns.
• Identification of local folk tales, beliefs, and distinct musical styles. Since only
limited work of this sort has been accomplished in the study area (see Szwed and
Abrahams 1978 for a bibliography of local research; Dance 1978), this is an extremely
important area of investigation. The gathering of oral traditional history
will help define a balanced picture of the various influences which have shaped the
folklore and world view of local blacks. Oral resources could also be used to
reveal the local significance and importance of Emancipation Day, held in this
area on January 1st.
• Identification, location, and marking of black cemeteries which are currently unmarked
and in danger of being forgotten as older residents die. Two examples
would be the York Street community cemetery, located north of the Patrick Henry
Inn, and the Birthright Cemetery on the Providence Hall property.
• Identification of the reason there are so few blacks in the Poquoson area. Suggested
strategies for this would be an evaluation of the census and Federal records
from the Civil War period to the present to identify numbers of blacks living in the
area at regular intervals. The economic base of the Poquoson area (its swampy
270

ground and possible greater emphasis on water related incomes than on agriculture)
may be responsible for this phenomenon. Questions include: were blacks
forced out through harsh racial policies or actions during Jim Crow period Did
the political atmosphere during the annexation of York County to form Poquoson
result in exclusion of black neighborhoods Another suggested source of information
would be oral histories provided by black residents of York County.
• Analysis of the effects of Jim Crow in this area, in terms of separate service-related
facilities for blacks and whites, the extent of Ku Klux Klan activities, and research
to document a possible migration of blacks away from the area during the early
20th century.
• The development of a list of sites which are important to the local black community,
with a list of recommendations as to the preservation or documentation of
each. This should be done in cooperation with local black civic, social and political
organizations.
Evaluation Goals
• An in-depth examination of local black communities (Grove, York Street, Braxton
Court) in terms of how communities began, rate of growth, demographic composition,
kinship networks, etc. This could be accomplished through interviews with
community residents and analysis of census statistics.
• Re-analysis of previously-collected oral history data, with a view towards organizing
them into a usable, easily accessible format. An analysis of what types of
information remain to be collected as well as previously overlooked resources
needs to be completed.
• Analysis of the communities which were displaced by the Naval Weapons Station
and Camp Peary, in terms of community origins, rates of growth, occupations of
community members, boundaries, and what happened to community members after
they were displaced. This information could be gained though oral histories,
census and other official government records, newspapers, photographic resources
and personal papers.
Registration Goals
• Nomination of Bruton Heights School and the site of the James City County Training
School to the National Register in light of the outstanding public interest in
these properties.
Treatment Goals
• Preservation in place of black neighborhoods and communities such as Grove,
Centerville, Braxton Court, Highland Park and Crispus Attucks Place.
• Documentation of the few remaining houses at the end of Franklin Street, once
part of an active black community in that area. Several of these houses have been
271

demolished by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation over the past several years
and attempts to document the remains of this community should be made before
the last traces of physical remains disappear.
• Preservation in place of the Bruton Heights School.
272

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS XV-XX
Abramowitz, Jack
1950 The Negro in the Agrarian Revolt. Agricultural History 24: 89-96.
Adams, William H.
1981 Bay Springs Mill: Historical Archaeology of a Rural Mississippi Cotton
Milling Community. Resource Analysts, Bloomington, Indiana.
Anonymous
1976 Grove Festival. Manuscript on file, Williamsburg Public Library,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
1980 A Neighborhood is Transformed. Virginia Gazette, April 9.
Ascher, Robert, and Charles Fairbanks
1971 Excavation of a Slave Cabin: Georgia, U.S.A. Historical Archaeology 5:
3-17.
Baker, Eliza
1933 Memoirs of Williamsburg. Excerpts from an interview conducted by
W.A.R. Goodwin on May 4, 1933. Manuscript report, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Baker, Vernon
1980 Archaeological Visibility of Afro-American Culture: An Example from
Black Lucy’s Garden, Andover, Massachusetts. In Archaeological Perspectives
on Ethnicity in America: Afro- American and Asian American
Culture History, edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 29-37. Baywood Publishing,
Farmingdale, New York.
Belvin, Ed
1981 Growing Up in Williamsburg from the Depression to Pearl Harbor. The
Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Billings, Warren M.
1973 The Cases of Fernando and Elizabeth Key: A Note of the Status of Free
Blacks in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. William and Mary Quarterly
30(3rd series): 467-474.
Blassingame, John
1972 The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Bonekemper, Edward H. III
1970 Negro Ownership of Real Property in Hampton and Elizabeth City County
Virginia, 1860-1870. Journal of Negro History 55: 165-181.
273

Bradford, S. Sydney
1959 The Negro Ironworker in Ante Bellum Virginia. Journal of Southern
History 25: 194-206.
Bratton, Mary J.
1980 Field’s Observations: The Slave Narrative of a Nineteenth Century Virginian.
Virginia Magazine of History & Biography 88: 75-93.
Breen, T. H., and Stephen Innes
1980 “Myne Owne Ground”: Race and Freedom on Virginia’s Eastern Shore
1640-1676. Oxford University Press, New York.
Brewer, James H.
1955 Negro Property Owners in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. William and
Mary Quarterly 12(2nd series): 575-580.
Bridges, Sarah T., and Bert Salwen
1980 Weeksville: The Archaeology of a Black Urban Community. In Archaeological
Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert Schuyler,
pp. 38-47. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.
Bruce, Kathleen
1926 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part I. William and Mary Quarterly
6(2nd series): 289-302.
1927 Slave Labor in the Virginia Iron Industry, Part II. William and Mary
Quarterly 7(2nd series): 21-31.
Carr, Lois Green and Russell R. Menard
1979 Immigration and Opportunity: The Freedman in Early Colonial Maryland.
In The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century; Essays on
Anglo-American Society and Politics, edited by Thad Tate and David
Ammerman, pp. 206-242. W. W. Norton, New York.
Carson, Cary
1978 Doing History with Material Culture. In Material Culture and the Study of
American Life, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby, pp. 41-64. W. W. Norton,
New York.
Carson, Cary, Harold Gill, and Kevin Kelly
1978 Urbanization in the Tidewater South: Town and Country in York County,
Virginia, 1630-1830. Research proposal submitted to the National Endowment
for the Humanities, Washington, D.C.
Cassell, Frank A.
1972 Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 1812. Journal of Negro
History 57: 144-155.
274

Caywood, Louis
1955 Green Spring Plantation, Archaeological Report. National Park Service,
Yorktown, Virginia.
Charles, John
1930 Recollections of John S. Charles. Typescript on file at Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation Research Center, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Craven, Wesley Frank
1971 White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth Century Virginian. The University
Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Dance, Daryl Cumber
1978 Shuckin’ and Jivin’: Folklore from Contemporary Black Americans.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
Deal, Joseph Douglas III
1982 Race and Class in Colonial Virginia: Indians, Englishmen, and African on
the Eastern Shore During the 17th Century. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Rochester, New York.
1984 A Constricted World: Free Blacks on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. Paper
delivered at the 45th Conference on Early American History, “The Colonial
Experience: The 18th Century Chesapeake,” Baltimore, Maryland.
Deetz, James
1977 In Small Things Forgotten. Anchor Press, Garden City, New Jersey.
Deigh, Robb
1978 Carver Gardens: Where $7,000 Homes are Priceless Today. Virginia
Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Desandrouins
1782 Carte des Environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Rochambeau 57.
Map on file, Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Dew, Charles B.
1974 David Ross and the Oxford Iron Works: A Study in Industrial Slavery in
the Early Nineteenth-Century South. William and Mary Quarterly 31(3rd
series): 189-224.
Dunn, Richard S.
1977 A Tale of Two Plantations: Slave Life at Mesopotamia in Jamaica and
Mount Airy in Virginia, 1799-1829. William and Mary Quarterly 34 (3rd
series): 32-65.
Eaton, Clement
1960 Slave-Hiring in the Upper South: A Step Towards Freedom. Mississippi
Valley Historical Review 46: 663-678.
275

Eckenrode, H. J.
1938 Negroes in Richmond in 1864. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
46: 193-200.
Fairbanks, Charles
1972 The Kingsley Slave Cabins in Duval County, Florida, 1968. Papers of the
Conference on Historic Sites Archeology 7(2): 62-93.
Ferguson, Leland
1980 Looking for the “Afro” in Colono-Indian Pottery. In Archaeological
Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert Schuyler,
pp. 14-28. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.
Frank, R. Neil, Jr.
1967 Brush-Everard House Kitchen and Surrounding Area, Block 29, Area E,
Colonial Lots 164 and 165. Report on 1967 Archaeological Excavations.
Manuscript on file, Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Frenchman’s Map
1781 Plan de la ville et environs de Williamsburg en Virginie, 1782. Map on
file, Research Department Library, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Frey, Sylvia R.
1973 Between Slavery and Freedom: Virginia Blacks in the American Revolution.
Journal of Southern History 49: 375-378.
Garrett, Romeo B.
1966 African Survivals in American Culture. Journal of Negro History 51(4):
239-245.
Gatewood, Willard B. Jr.
1972 Virginia’s Negro Regiment in the Spanish-American War: The Sixth
Virginia Volunteers. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80:
193-209.
Gavine, Raymond
1977 Hancock, Jackson, and Young: Virginia’s Black Triumvirate, 1930-1945.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85: 470-486.
Geismar, Joan
1982 The Archaeology of Social Disintegration in Skunk Hollow: A Nineteenth
Century Rural Black Community. Academic Press, New York.
Gilley, Willard
1976 Interview conducted on April 25, 1976. Transcript in Tall Tales and True
of James City County, transcribed by Mildred Bienfait Matier.
Williamsburg-James City County Bicentennial Committee.
276

Gray, Lewis C.
1930 Economic Efficiency and Competitive Advantages of Slavery Under the
Plantation System. Agricultural History 4: 31-47.
Gutman, Herbert G.
1976 The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925. Vintage Books,
New York.
Handler, Jerome S., and Frederick Lange
1978 Plantation Slavery in Barbadoes: An Archaeological and Historical
Investigation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Hast, Adele
1969 The Legal Status of the Negro in Virginia, 1705-1765. Journal of Negro
History 14: 217-239.
Hayes, Cheryl
1974 Cultural Space and Family Living Patterns in Domestic Architecture,
Queen’s County, Maryland, 1750-1776. M.A. thesis, Georgetown University.
Herskovits, Melville
1941 The Myth of the Negro Past. Harper and Brothers, New York.
Hickin, Patricia
1965 John C. Underwood and the Anti-Slavery Movement in Virginia,
1847-1860. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 73: 156-168.
Holt, W. Stull
1972 The Slave Population on the Plantation of John C. Calhoun, Jr.,
Nansemond County Virginia, 1811-1863: Selected Demographic Characteristics.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80: 333-340.
Hudgins, Carter
1977 Historical Archaeology and Salvage Archaeological Investigations at
College Landing: An Interim Report. Manuscript report on file at the
Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Hughes, Sarah S.
1978 Slaves for Hire: The Allocation of Black Labor in Elizabeth City County,
Virginia, 1782-1810. William and Mary Quarterly 34 (3rd series):
260-286.
Isaac, Rhys
1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Jackson, Luther P.
1931 Religious Development of the Negro in Virginia from 1760-1860. Journal
of Negro History 16: 168-239.
277

Jackson, Luther P.
1939 The Virginia Free Negro Farmer and Property Owner, 1830-1860. Journal
of Negro History 24: 390-439.
1942a
1942b
Free Negro Labor and Property Holding in Virginia, 1830-1860. Atheneum,
New York (1969 edition).
Virginia Negro Soldiers & Seamen in the American Revolution. Journal of
Negro History 27: 247-287.
Jeffreys, Tina
1984a How Grove Began. James City County 350th Anniversary. Virginia Gazette,
August 24: 10.
1984b
When Toano was a Boomtown. James City County 350th Anniversary.
Virginia Gazette, August 24: 3-4.
Jones, Hugh
1956 The Present State of Virginia, from Whence is Inferred a Short View of
[1724] Maryland and North Carolina. Edited by Richard L. Morton. University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Jones, Jacqueline
1985 Labor of Love, Labor of Sorrow: Black Women, Work, and the Family
from Slavery to the Present. Basic Books, New York.
Jones, Jerome
1961 The Established Virginia Church and the Conversion of Negroes and
Indians, 1620-1760. Journal of Negro History 46: 12-23.
Jones, Robert R.
1972 James L. Kemper and the Virginia Redeemers Face the Race Question: A
Reconsideration. Journal of Southern History 38: 393-414.
Kelly, Marsha, and Roger Kelly
1980 Approaches to Ethnic Identification in Historical Archaeology. In Archaeological
Perspectives on Ethnicity in America, edited by Robert
Schuyler, pp. 133-143. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.
Kelly, Vicki
1978 Grove Community Holds its Own Between Two Famous Neighbors.
Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Kelso, William M.
1973 An Interim Report. Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1972 Season.
Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Yorktown, Virginia.
1974 An Interim Report. Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1973 Season.
Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Yorktown, Virginia.
278

Kelso, William M.
1976 An Interim Report. Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1974 Season.
Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Yorktown, Virginia.
1977 An Interim Report. Historical Archaeology at Kingsmill: The 1975 Season.
Manuscript on file, Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Yorktown, Virginia.
1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial
Virginia. Academic Press, Orlando.
Killinger, Charles L. III
1969 The Royal African Company Slave Trade to Virginia 1689-1713.
M.A. thesis, College of William and Mary, Virginia.
Kimber, Edward
1906 Observations in Several Voyages and Travels in America. William and
Mary Quarterly 15(1st series): 148.
Klebaner, Benjamin Joseph
1955 American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for Supporting
Slaves. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 63: 443-453.
Kulikoff, Allan
1974 The Beginnings of the Afro-American Family in Maryland. In Law,
Society, and Politics in Early Maryland, edited by Aubrey Land, Lois
Green Carr and Edward Papenfuse, pp. 171-196. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
1975 Black Society and the Economics of Slavery. Maryland Historical Magazine
70: 203-210.
1978 The Origins of Afro-American Society in Tidewater Maryland and Virginia,
1700-1790. William and Mary Quarterly 35(3rd series): 226-259.
1979 The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake Colonies.
Journal of Economic History 39: 275-288.
Larson, Merlin C.
1978 Williamsburg Has Always Had a Lot to Offer Folks. The Publick Observer,
March 1978.
Lassiter, Curtis, and Wayne Bowman
1985 How Black Schools Evolved. Virginia Gazette, March 6.
Lewis, Roland L.
1974 Slavery on Chesapeake Iron Plantation Before the American Revolution.
Journal of Negro History (July): 242-254.
279

Lewis, Roland L.
1978 Slave Families at Early Chesapeake Ironworks. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 86: 169-179.
Lewis, Roland L.
1979 ‘The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First Southern Coal
Field, 1780-1865. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87:
190-202.
McConnell, John P.
1910 Negroes and Their Treatment in Virginia from 1865 to 1867. B. D. Smith
and Brothers, Pulaski, Virginia.
McDaniel, George W.
1982 Hearth and Home: Preserving a People’s Culture. Temple University
Press, Philadelphia.
McGroaty, William Buckner
1941 Exploration in Mass Emancipation. William and Mary Quarterly 21 (2nd
series): 208-226.
Meier, August and Elliot Rudwick
1973 Negro Boycotts of Segregated Streetcars in Virginia, 1904-1907. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 81: 479-487.
Menard, Russell R.
1974 Maryland Slave Population. In Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland,
edited by Aubrey Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward Papenfuse,
pp. 49-53. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
1975 The Maryland Slave Population, 1658-1730: A Demographic Profile of
Blacks in Four Counties. William and Mary Quarterly 32(3rd series):
27-54.
Minutes
1985 Minutes of the Carter’s Grove Quarter Study Group, Meeting No. 4, May
9, 1985. Mansucript on file, Department of Architectural Research, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Moir, Randall (editor)
1982 Season One (1982) Mitigation of Historical Properties in the Richland/
Chambers Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas: Interim
Report. Southern Methodist University.
Moore, James T.
1975 Black Militancy in Readjuster Virginia, 1879-1883. Journal of Southern
History 41: 167-186.
280

Moore, Sue Mullins
1981 The Antebellum Barrier Island Plantation: In Search of an Archaeological
Pattern. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
Morgan, Philip
1985 Black Education in James City County, 1619-1984. Draft of unpublished
manuscript on file at Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial
Williamsburg, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Morris, Aldon D.
1984 The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing
for Change. The Free Press, New York.
Morton, Richard L.
1953 ‘Contrabands’ and Quakers in the Virginia Peninsula, 1862-1869. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 61: 419-429.
Muggleston, William F.
1978 The Freedman’s Bureau and Reconstruction in Virginia: The Dairy of
Marcus Sterling Hopkins, a Union Officer. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 86: 45-102.
Mullin, Gerald
1972 Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth Century Virginia.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Neiman, Fraser
1980 The “Manner House” Before Stratford (Discovering The Clifts Plantation),
edited by Alonzo T. Dill. A Stratford Handbook, Stratford, Virginia.
Noël Hume, Ivor
1962 An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Quarterly Bulletin, Archaeological
Society of Virginia 17(1).
1963 Here Lies Virginia. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
1974 Digging for Carter’s Grove. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg.
1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
O’Brien, John R.
1978 Factory, Church and Community: Blacks in Antebellum Richmond.
Journal of Southern History 44: 509-536.
Orr, Elva Gilley Kyger
1976 Interview conducted on April 28, 1976. Transcript in Tall Tales and True
of James City County, transcribed by Mildred Bienfait Matier.
Williamsburg-James City County Bicentennial Committee.
281

Otto, John Solomon
1975 Status Difference and the Archaeological Record: A Comparison of
Planter, Overseer, and Slave Sites from Cannon’s Point Plantation
(1794-1861), St. Simon’s Island, Georgia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Florida.
1980 Race and Class on Antebellum Plantations. In Archaeological Perspectives
on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture
History, edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 3-13. Baywood Publishing,
Farmingdale, New York.
1984 Cannon’s Point Plantation, 1794-1860: Living Conditions and Status
Patterns in the Old South. Academic Press, New York.
Outlaw, Alain C.
1977 Centerville: A Free Black Community Near Williamsburg, Virginia
c. 1850-1870. Mansucript on file at Virginia Research Center for Archaeology,
Yorktown, Virginia.
Outlaw, Merry Abbitt, Beverly A. Bogley, and Alain C. Outlaw
1977 Rich Man, Poor Man: Status Definitions in Two Seventeenth-Century
Ceramic Assemblages from Kingsmill. Manuscript on file, Virginia Research
Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Pace, David
1974 Lenoir Chambers Opposes Massive Resistance: An Editor Against
Virginia’s Democratic Organization, 1955-1959. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 82: 415-429.
Palmer, Paul
1966 Servant into Slave: The Evolution of the Legal Status of the Negro Laborer
in Colonial Virginia. South Atlantic Quarterly 65: 355-370.
Patrick, Vanessa
1985 Slave House/Quarter. Unpublished compilation of descriptions of slave
houses and quarters from various 18th century documentary sources.
Prepared for the Carter’s Grove Slave Quarters Committee, Department of
Architectural Research, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, June 1985.
Perdue, Charles L. Jr., Thomas Barden, and Robert Phillips
1980 Weevils in the Wheat: Interviews with Virginia Ex-Slaves. Indiana University
Press, Bloomington.
Pilcher, George Washington
1966 Samuel Davies and the Instruction of Negroes in Virginia. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 74: 293-300.
Pinchbeck, Raymond
1926 The Virginia Negro Artisan and Tradesman. The William Byrd Press,
Richmond.
282

Preisser, Thomas M.
1975 The Virginia Decision to Use Negro Soldiers in the Civil War, 1864-1865.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83: 98-113.
Pugh, Evelyn L.
1980 Women and Slavery: Julia Gardiner Tyler and the Dutchess of Sutherland.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 88: 186-202.
Quisenberry, A. C.
1900 Virginia Census, 1624-1625. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
7: 364-368.
Raab, Mark
1982 Settlement of the Prairie Margin: Archaeology of the Richland Creek
Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas, 1980-1981: A Research
Synopsis. Archaeology Research Program, Department of Anthropology,
Southern Methodist University.
Russel, Robert R.
1937 The Economic History of Negro Slavery in the United States. Agricultural
History 11: 308-321.
Savitt, Todd L.
1977 Slave Life Insurance in Virginia and North Carolina. Journal of Southern
History 43: 583-600.
Schaffer, Mike, and Kathy Schwille
1978 Equality Battlers Fought Quietly. Peninsula Roots. The Times Herald,
Newport News, pp. 11-12.
Schuyler, Robert L.
1974 Sandy Ground: Archaeological Sampling in a Black Community in Metropolitan
New York. Papers of the Conference on Historic Sites Archeology
7(2): 12-52.
1980 Afro-American Culture History. In Archaeological Perspectives on
Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History,
edited by Robert Schuyler, pp. 1-2. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale,
New York.
Sheldon, Marianne Buroff
1979 Black-White Relations in Richmond, Virginia, 1782-1820. Journal of
Southern History 45: 27-44.
Shogren, Sam
1983 Ceramics as an Indicator of Social Class: A Look at the Remains from the
Governor’s Land, James City County, Virginia. Manuscript on file, Office
of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
283

Shurtleff, Arthur
1928 St. George Tucker House, Existing Conditions. Map on file, Department
of Architectural Archives, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Simms, L. Moody, Jr.
1967 Philip Alexander Bruce and the Negro Problem, 1884-1930. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 75: 349-362.
Singleton, Theresa
1980 The Archaeology of Afro-American Slavery in Coastal Georgia: A Regional
Perception of Slave Household and Community Patterns.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.
Stealey, John Edward III
1974 Slavery and the Western Virginia Salt Industry. Journal of Negro History
59: 105-131.
Stephenson, Mary
n.d. Notes on the Negro School in Williamsburg, 1760-1774. Manuscript
report, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Suggs, Henry Lewis
1979 P.B. Young of the Norfolk Journal & Guide: A Booker T. Washington
Militant, 1904-1928. Journal of Negro History 64: 365-376.
Suttell, Elizabeth
1965 The British Slave Trade to Virginia, 1698-1728. M.A. thesis, College of
William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Szwed, John F. and Roger D. Abrahams
1978 Afro-American Folk Culture: An Annotated Bibliography of Materials
from North, Central and South America and the West Indies. 2 volumes.
Institute for the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.
Tate, Thad
1965 The Negro in Eighteenth Century Williamsburg. University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville.
Vaughn, Alden T.
1972 Blacks in Virginia: A Note on the First Decade. William and Mary Quarterly
29(3rd series): 469-478.
Virginia Gazette
c.1898 A Directory and Handbook of the City of Williamsburg and the County of
James City, Virginia. The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg.
Vlach, John
1976 The Shotgun House: An African Architectural Legacy, Parts I and II.
Pioneer America VIII(1 & 2): 47-70.
284

Vlach, John
1978 The Afro-American Tradition in Decorative Arts. The Cleveland Museum
of Art, Cleveland.
Wall, Bennett H.
1950 Medical Care of Ebenezer Pettigrew’s Slaves. Mississippi Valley Historical
Review 37: 29-44.
Wax, Darold D.
1971 Negro Import Duties in Colonial Virginia: A Study in British Commercial
Policy and Local Public Policy. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
79: 29-44.
1972 Whither the Comparative History of Slavery Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 80: 85-93.
Wheaton, Thomas, Amy Friedlander, and Patrick Garrow
1983 Yaughan and Curriboo Plantations: Studies in Afro-American Archaeology.
Soil Systems, Inc., Marietta, Georgia.
Williamsburg James City County School Board
1984 Pride in the Past. Special Newsletter on the Hundredth Anniversary of
Public Schools, on file, Williamsburg-James City County School Board.
Wynes, Charles E.
1964 Lewis Harvie Blair, Virginia Reformer: The Uplift of the Negro and
Southern Prosperity. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 72:
3-18.
285

286

Section 6.
Thematic Study Units
(Study Units XXI–XXIII)

INTRODUCTION TO THE THEMATIC STUDY UNITS
(STUDY UNITS XXI-XXIII)
The three thematic study units which follow are different than those previous in
concept and form, as they trace centuries-long trends in the history of the Penin
sula. From the onset of human occupation of the area, the roles of religion,
public welfare institutions, and the military were likely of some importance. Each has
contributed to the distinctive cultural environment of the Peninsula, and each has in
various ways shaped its institutions and collective lifeways.
Religion has always been to some extent a unifying force within a community, and
it is no surprise that churches are often among the community’s most valued buildings.
Churches are symbols of unity for their congregations, defining them and setting them
apart. Likewise, cemeteries reflect particular beliefs about death that are shared by
most members of a congregation, community, or society. The influence of belief systems
is reflected most clearly in these two types of properties, although even the homes,
shops, or farms of particular individuals are often at least partially shaped by their religious
convictions. The belief systems of Native Americans, on the other hand, so distinct
from those of Europeans who settled their ancestral lands, are very poorly understood,
and their material manifestations have, with the exception of burials, been unstudied.
Because churches and cemeteries are so valued, threats to known and still-used
properties are rare. Destroyed or abandoned churches, however, may be more vulnerable.
Cemeteries, in particular, are endangered since their locations are often not known.
Church graveyards are only one type of cemetery; non-churchyard cemeteries and family
plots are very common in the study area, and public concern about their treatment is
great.
Like many other property types, churches and cemeteries of the poorer classes,
and particularly blacks, are less well-known. Most long-standing congregations, however,
have compiled detailed histories, and most known ecclesiastical properties are
fairly well researched.
Public welfare institutions, like religious organizations, often come to symbolize a
community’s identity. Care of the young, the poor, the deviant, and the dispossessed
has long been seen as a community’s collective responsibility, to one degree or another,
and the way in which these individuals are cared for is unique to that community.
Although Virginia’s Native Americans clearly had care for the communal public welfare
before the arrival of Europeans, the study unit begins with the first European institutionalized
forms: schools, poorhouses, hospitals, and mental institutions.
Public welfare institutions often have long histories. Many buildings and structures,
however, have been torn down when a district was reorganized or a new building
was erected. Some have been rehabilitated, restored, or reconstructed in recent years,
but many more have been destroyed. Only a select few, such as the Wren Building of
the College of William and Mary, are still standing and in good condition.
Since these institutions often serve as a community’s focal point, there is a strong
constituency for preservation of some of these resources. Unlike ecclesiastical proper-
289

ties, however, these sites, structures, and buildings may be under extreme development
pressure. Early schools, for instance, were often moved or destroyed in the early 20th
century when one-room schools were increasingly criticized as “backward” and the
push for consolidation of schools began. Only those with very strong community support
are likely to be saved based on public concern and value alone, but a great many
more have important research potential which should not be lost.
The military shares with belief systems and public welfare institutions an influential
role in shaping the Peninsula’s history. However, with the exception of those communities
which have developed based on military life, most notably those on- or offbase
communities of military families which spring up around any large installation, it
has not really served as a community’s unifying force. Rather, military-related activity
has more often been disruptive, destroying communities and interrupting active social
trends. This is clearly reflected in the history of the area, as major watersheds seem to
appear around the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Along with the Indian uprisings
of 1622 and 1644 and Bacon’s Rebellion in 1675-1676, these were the major military
actions fought on the Peninsula, and their effects were devastating. Although normal
social and economic life returned after each upheaval, the wars left a lasting imprint
on the people and on the countryside. In the 20th century, the military presence
has left a different sort of imprint, as military bases now occupy large portions of James
City and York Counties, with proportional effects on economy, politics, and social life.
Sites and structures associated with military activity have a unique constituency.
Military historians, avocational collectors, and others are highly interested in many of
these properties, and are extremely knowledgeable about their locations and functions.
Twentieth-century military properties are less often a focus of public interest, but their
informational potential is also high. The study of the rise of “Fort Virginia” must encompass
all of these properties, and their changes through time.
290

STUDY UNIT XXI.
BELIEF SYSTEMS
Major Theme: Religion and ideology as organizing principles for Virginians.
Sub-Themes: A. Transplantation of the English established church.
B. The development of radical sects and the influence of
evangelical religions.
C. Further divisions in Protestant sects: Methodism and the
Christian Church.
D. Multi-denominationalism in the 20th century.
Significance: Regional and Local
Among the many institutions by which Virginians have sought to order their existence,
belief systems, particularly as they are expressed in organized religions, are among the
most basic. For 17th-century colonists, like the Native Americans they supplanted and
the Afro-Americans they enslaved, religion served to rationalize experience and to provide
structure for every day life.
Among white Virginians, the Anglican Church remained dominant in the 17th century,
a minor challenge from Quakerism notwithstanding, but lost considerable ground
to evangelical sects during the era of the Great Awakening. With the Anglican church
disestablished as a consequence of the American Revolution, competition for the minds
and souls of Virginians among a wide variety of Protestant sects became a primary
feature of life in the Tidewater.
Religious pluralism has continued in the 20th century as well. For non-white and
ethnic minorities throughout the nearly four hundred years of Tidewater history since
the founding of Jamestown, the church has been a symbol of distinctive identity, and a
focus for community action. Churches have provided leadership for these smaller societies,
giving their people a continuing tradition, and serving as vehicles for social change.
In sum, churches, whatever their denomination, have helped to define not only Tidewater
Virginians’ relationship to God, but their relationship to other men and to the state as
well.
Historians have tended to emphasize the commercial and political aspects of the
colonization of Virginia and have minimized the religious objectives of the settlers.
While scholars of colonial New England have exhaustively explicated Puritan thought
in all its richness, scholars of Virginia history have only recently begun to examine the
colony’s religious life. Religion in Virginia, once solely the domain of denominational
historians and antiquarians, has finally appealed to the “mainstream” historians who
have commenced in earnest an evaluation of the intellectual, spiritual, sociological, and
anthropological dimensions of the belief-systems of the first colony.
Documentary sources for Virginia religious history are rich and varied. Vestry books,
registers of births, deaths, and marriages, for periods dating from the mid-17th century
to the present, survive for many churches. Table 6.1 summarizes The Virginia State
Library holdings for the study area.
291

TABLE 6.1
SURVIVING RECORDS FOR STUDY AREA CHURCHES
Denomination Name Record Type Dates
Christian Olive Branch Records 1833-1898
Christian Grafton Minute Book 1834-1898
Episcopal Blisland Vestry Book 1721-1786
Episcopal Bruton Vestry Book 1662-1797
Register 1868-1908
Vestry Book 1889-1964
Register 1903-1957
Marriage Register 1936-1965
Episcopal Charles Register 1648-1789, 1800
Episcopal St.Peter’s Vestry Book 1685-1758
Register 1685-1731
Register 1733-1800
Methodist York-Warwick Records 1851-1879
Society of Friends Weyanoke Records 1699-1759
Records 1780-1781
Records 1781-1805
Register 1703-1826
Women’s meeting 1826-1832
Women’s meeting 1830-1834
Additional information concerning Virginia religious history can be found in a
variety of journals, letters, and published descriptions, of which the Quaker Thomas
Story’s journal (1747) and the diaries of William Byrd and Landon Carter are only a few
examples. Many churches have compiled brief histories, which are noted in the bibliography
following this section.
Archaeological research has also been conducted on a number of church properties.
Excavations at the Jamestown Church were among the first efforts in historical
archaeology in the area (Cotter 1958). Testing and exposure of foundations have been
carried out at the York Parish Church (Kandle 1984) and Bruton Parish Church. Foundations
of the Charles Parish Church are now stabilized (Mason 1939a). The Virginia
Research Center for Archaeology, under the direction of Alain Outlaw, also conducted
archaeological excavations at the site of the Skimino Friends’ Meetinghouse (Outlaw
1974). In general, these excavations were conducted to determine the location of earlier
building footings, and the materials and method of construction.
The quality of archaeological information on religious structures and sites within
the study area is uneven. Sites excavated or surveyed within the study area are summarized
in Table 6.2 and their locations illustrated in Map 6.1.
Architectural surveys of standing church structures have also been conducted in
the study area, notably by Dell Upton (1979 and elsewhere). Upton has focused his
work on analysis of church interiors, and the manner in which these reflected societal
stability and change in the 18th century, a topic also discussed at some length in Isaac
(1982).
292

SUB-THEME A: TRANSPLANTATION OF THE ENGLISH
ESTABLISHED CHURCH
Church structures, as visible foci of community life, took many forms throughout the
course of Tidewater history, and were variously located. The earliest Anglican churches
were located within each parish, which in the 17th century could be made up of a group
of adjoining plantations, a single hundred, or a city (Cocke 1964: 30). During the Company
period, James City Parish, Martin’s Hundred Parish, and Governor’s Land Parish
were established, to be followed in the later decades of the 17th century by the parishes
of Chickahominy (Wallingford), Blisland, Harrops, Middle Plantation, Chiskiack (Hampton),
York, New Poquoson (later Charles), Marston, and possibly Smythe’s Hundred
(Cocke 1964: 52-53; Mason 1939a: 524). In 1658 Middleton Parish was created by
joining Harrops and Middle Plantation parishes, and in 1674, Bruton Parish combined
Middleton and Marston parishes (Cocke 1964: 53). By 1707, Yorkhampton Parish was
created out of old York and Hampton Parishes, to which Martin’s Hundred Parish was
added in 1712 (Cocke 1964). A recent study of 17th-century settlement pattern in Tidewater
Virginia argues that “churches were generally located at sites that provided convenient
access for most of the parishioners” rather than in central locations, or near
other public centers (Grim 1977: 238)
Five major property types are relevant to this and all sub-themes within the study
unit. Most significant, of course, are (1) church structures, which survive as standing
buildings and archaeological sites for all periods of study area history. In addition to the
churches themselves, are (2) cemeteries, both church-related, and single-family plots.
Also associated with religious activities are (3) poorhouses and glebes, such as the
Bruton Parish Poorhouse, now on the National Register, and (4) parish houses. Finally,
(5) domestic sites associated with members of various religious groups may possibly
contain information about the ways in which ideological differences are expressed in
material culture.
Of the original Anglican churches, the first York Parish structure no longer survives,
although the foundations of the first church may have been visible in 1907 (Mason
1939a: 163). The second York Church, now Grace Church, is still standing. The
first Chiskiack Church was replaced by another, located on the old Williamsburg-
Yorktown highway, and was known as the Cheescake Church. It was abandoned by its
Episcopalian congregation in the early 19th century, to be occupied briefly by a
Campbellite Baptist meeting. In 1833, the Baptists were “locked-out” of the church,
and built another near the present Lebanon Church. Although the Cheescake Church
was ultimately dismantled during the Civil War (Mason 1939a: 169), its graveyard was
used in later decades as a black cemetery.
Foundations of the second Charles Parish Church in Poquoson, which was destroyed
sometime between 1800 and 1828, have been stabilized. Possible remains of
the foundations of the Marston Church survive near the head of Harings Creek (Mason
1939a:172). Bruton Parish Church, completed in 1717, is still standing, and was restored
in 1905.
In James City County, the tower of the Jamestown Church thought to have been
built in 1639 remains standing. Excavations around the tower revealed at least two sets
of foundations, and within those, two chancel pavements and two series of burials (Ma-
293

son 1939b: 5). The Main Church, located on the Williamsburg-Jamestown Road
(Ironbound Road), was destroyed sometime before 1857. Chickahominy Church, possibly
once the Williamsburg Lower Church, and located at the crossroads two miles
south of Toano, was burned in 1864. It was replaced by a frame structure of the same
name, which is still standing, and used today by a Baptist congregation (Mason 1939b).
Blisland Parish Church, possibly built as early as 1738 and now known as the Hickory
Neck Church (see Plate 6.1), is still standing as well, although the building was extensively
altered in 1825 (McCartney 1974).
SUB-THEME B: THE DEVELOPMENT OF RADICAL SECTS
AND THE INFLUENCE OF EVANGELICAL RELIGIONS
While Anglican parishes developed and changed, dissatisfaction with Established Church
doctrine led some to seek alternative modes of worship in the late 17th century. Quaker
missionaries including the renowned George Fox and George Wilson, visited Virginia
in the 1660s, and Wilson was imprisoned at Jamestown. The first Virginia meetings for
Discipline were held in 1672, although earlier informal meetings had been held in several
communities, as well as Green Spring Plantation. Thomas Story, who visited Virginia
in 1698, attended meetings at Yorktown, Poquoson, and Martin’s Hundred. Story
also attended an early meeting at the home of John Bates, later to become part of the
Skimino Particular Meeting (McCartney and Weston 1972: 7).
Until 1759, the Skimino meeting, like most Friends’ meetings in Virginia, was
held in a private home. Sometime before 1774, a separate Skimino Meetinghouse was
built, at what is now Burke’s Corner (McCartney and Weston 1972: 6). By 1817, however,
the small meeting had dispersed, abandoning the meetinghouse and adjacent burial
ground. Little is known about the whereabouts and fate of other Virginia Tidewater
meetings. The strength of the Society of Friends in Virginia declined towards the end of
the 18th century, and by the mid-19th century, most of the remaining Quaker families
had migrated west, joining meetings in Ohio and elsewhere.
Although Baptist missionaries preached in Yorktown as early as 1700, the real
influence of that sect was felt in Virginia in the last quarter of the 18th century, when
Separate Baptist converts numbered over 4000 (Semple 1894: 42, 79, 80). Challenging
the Tidewater-Planter hegemony, and rejecting the Anglican faith that sought to legitimize
that rule, the Baptist faithful sought freedom from social constraints, and greater
emotional expression (Isaac 1973, 1974, 1982). Contrasts between the style and background
of these conflicting ideologies were reflected among other things, in church
structures and interior spaces (Upton 1983, n.d.). The severe Baptist meeting houses
were visible expressions of a new leaning toward austerity and social equality (Isaac
1982).
Afro-Americans were drawn to the Baptist faith in the late 18th century as well. In
Williamsburg, the black preacher William Moses, and later Gowan Pamphlet, led congregations
made up of both freedmen and slaves. Tradition states that these early meetings
were held at Green Spring, and later at “Racoon Chase” before a more-or-less
permanent meeting site was established at the “carriage-house” in Williamsburg. The
congregation applied for membership in the Dover Association sometime before 1793,
and by 1860 had constructed a brick church on Nassau Street (Rowe 1983). There is
294

Plate 6.1. Hickory Neck Christian Church.
strong evidence that an earlier “African” church stood on the same site by 1818
(Stephenson 1959). This church, which, along with its offshoots, has continued in strength
into the 20th century, is the earliest Baptist church in Williamsburg (for a more detailed
discussion of Afro-American churches, see Study Units XV-XX). The Zion Baptist
Church, with a predominantly white congregation, was not established until the late
1820s.
Baptist congregations continued to grow and spread throughout Tidewater Virginia,
in spite of new challenges from sects such as Methodism and Campbellism. A
“mission” sent to Poquoson from the Bethel Baptist Church under J.L. Trueman, for
example, led to the establishment of the Emmaus Baptist Church there in 1866. A number
of offshoots of early black Baptist churches have developed in the Williamsburg
area, including the Little Zion and Mount Gilead Baptist Churches at Grove. These
congregations were established following displacement of black communities by the
development of area military installations.
Revolutionary War maps of the study area locate churches by Powhatan Creek,
and in Tabb, Grafton, and Yorktown. Aside from these, the Hickory Neck Church and
the Cheescake Churches also appear. Maps dating to the Civil War era show the James
River Church on Centerville Road, the Chickahominy Church, the Hickory Neck Church,
and the Olive Branch Church in Toano, a Methodist chapel in Norge, the James City
Church in Lightfoot, a Baptist church in Poquoson, the Brick Church in Grafton, the
295

Big Bethel Church, the Lebanon Church in Lee Hall, the Cheescake church on the
Williamsburg-Yorktown Highway, and the Liberty Church near Diascond Bridge.
SUB-THEME C: FURTHER DIVISIONS IN PROTESTANT
SECTS: METHODISM AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Methodism reached Tidewater Virginia along two separate routes. In 1772, Robert Williams
first preached Methodism to a congregation in Williamsburg. By 1785, the
“Williamsburg Circuit” had been established, and was made up of predominantly white
members. In 1790 there were 536 whites and 155 blacks listed as members of that
circuit (Ironmonger 1959: 13-17).
Another branch of Methodism was established in Poquoson and lower York County
in 1817, brought by immigrants from the Eastern Shore. Dissatisfaction with the established
church, and the disruptions of the Revolutionary war, led to the growth of factionalism
in the old Charles Parish, such that many members were moved to leave the
congregation in favor of Methodism. Accordingly, in 1817, the Tabernacle Methodist
Church in Poquoson was established. Tabernacle was soon followed by the Trinity
Methodist Church, the Zion Methodist Church at Crab Neck (now Seaford), and the
Providence Methodist Church in Grafton.
Early Methodist services were held at camp meetings, such as one advertised by
the Williamsburg Methodist minister Stith Mead to be held in New Kent County in
1812 (Sweet 1955). Later Methodist meetinghouses, like those of the more radical Baptists,
were plain structures, often converted barns or tobacco warehouses (Isaac 1982:
314-317).
Further divisions within Tidewater Protestant sects occurred with the arrival of the
Campbellites in the 1830s and 1840s. Among the earliest of the Campbellite or Christian
churches to be founded in the area were the Grafton Christian Church, whose members
came primarily from the Grafton Baptist Church congregation, and formed a new
church in 1832-33, and the Olive Branch Christian Church in Toano.
Zion Methodist Church was destroyed by the Union Army during the Civil War
and was rebuilt in 1866. In 1884, Trinity Church was rebuilt. Tabernacle Church was
destroyed by fire in 1884 and rebuilt. A third church building was erected by the Tabernacle
congregation in 1912. The Yorktown Methodist congregation succeeded in building
their first church, known as the Crooks Memorial Methodist Church, by 1919. Two
significant churches in this area have been destroyed by the United States government.
Shiloh Baptist Church, constructed in 1898, was dismantled by the National Park Service
in 1971 to allow the reconstruction of the Yorktown Battlefield. Big Bethel Baptist
Church, built in 1866 and renovated in 1876, was condemned and destroyed in 1926
during the construction of Langley Field.
SUB-THEME D: MULTI-DENOMINATIONALISM IN THE LATE
19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES
Other denominations reached the Tidewater with the establishment of newer immigrant
communities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A Mennonite church was estab-
296

lished in Denbigh in the 1890s, for example. Another Mennonite congregation was later
founded in Williamsburg, and is now housed in the former Lutheran Parish House (Plate
6.2). The Scandinavian founders of Norge built the Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church
there in 1904. That church, still standing today, is now known as Our Savior’s Lutheran
Church (Rowland 1978: 50).
Christian Scientism was introduced in the Williamsburg area by Elizabeth Coleman,
who had attended services in Chicago. Ms. Coleman and others established the
Williamsburg Church of Christ Scientist in 1919. The Yorkminster Presbytery was established
in 1954, and included congregations in Grafton, Yorktown, Waterview, Seaford,
and Dare.
The 1870 Census lists a total of eleven churches in James City County and thirteen
in York County. At that time, James City County had seven Baptist congregations, two
Methodist, one Episcopalian and one Christian congregation.
York County had seven Baptist churches, one Christian, one Episcopalian, and
four Methodist churches. In 1898, James City County and Williamsburg had two black
churches. Williamsburg contained, besides these two churches, a Methodist church,
two white Baptist churches, an Episcopal church, and a Presbyterian church. James
City County had an Episcopal church, a Methodist church, a Baptist church, and a
Christian church.
Today, there are over thirty churches in James City County, and twenty- one in
York County. Twelve of these have associated cemeteries, and there are at least six
other cemeteries still in use in the study area. To date, eight of these churches structures
Plate 6.2. Williamsburg Mennonite Church.
297

have been surveyed (see Table 6.1), and twenty- three discussed in published sources. In
addition, several churches have unpublished histories that are available in local libraries,
and are listed in the Bibliography following Section 6.
A great many smaller cemeteries, and especially family plots, now unused, are
scattered throughout the study area, and are daily threatened by development and in
some cases, by shore erosion. Little is known about the number and distribution of these
cemeteries, as few are mapped or catalogued.
STUDY UNIT XXI: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
The significance of church structures and cemeteries both to individual congregations,
and to regional and in some cases national history is universally acknowledged. These
buildings and plots remain among the most important visible foci of community and
local identity. In addition, standing church structures and especially church interiors are
tangible representations of past and present social order, and as such are valuable “documents”
for the social and architectural historian. Gravestones also document the lives
and deaths of generations of Virginians, as well as stylistic and societal change on a
regional level, while the structure of the graveyards themselves often provides additional
information about social ordering.
Summary of Property Types
Five property types are associated with this study unit:
(1) Church structures.
(2) Parish houses.
(3) Cemeteries.
(4) Church-related properties and poorhouses.
(5) Domestic structures, as they reflect religious or ideological differences.
Character of Existing Data
Table 6.1 summarizes surveyed structures and recorded archaeological sites within the
study area. Few late 19th and or 20th century church or parish structures have been
surveyed or recorded. Presbyterian and Methodist churches, important in this area, are
poorly known through surveys at present. Only a small percentage of the once widespread
family cemeteries have been recorded, and no systematic survey of graveyards
or cemeteries has been attempted for the study area.
298

Map 6.1. Study Unit XXI: Known Resource Distribution.
TABLE 6.2
STUDY UNIT XXI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 10 Longhill Road Site AS I 05 Domestic/ Unknown
cemetery
JC 102 Main Church Site (GL-27, AS III 08 Ecclesiastical Cultivated
-38, -39)
JC 115 Wolstenholme Towne (Carter’s AS III 09 Fortified Excavated
Grove, Site C)
village
JC 116 Carter’s Grove, Site A AS III 10 Unknown Excavated
JC 124 Hickory Neck Church SB II 02 Ecclesiastical Good
JC 264 Olive Branch Christian Church SB I 02 Ecclesiastical Good
JC 295 Lutheran Parish House SB I 02 Ecclesiastical Good
47-53 Our Savior’s Lutheran Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent
* Not shown on Map 6.1.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
299

TABLE 6.2 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XXI: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Level
No. Name Type Invest Quad Function Condition
47-76 James River Church SB I 05 Ecclesiastical Excellent
U- 3 Chickahominy Church Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery Destroyed
U- 12 Methodist Chapel Site AS I 05 Ecc./cemetery Destroyed
YORK COUNTY:
YO 7 Bryan Manor Plantation SB I 06 Plantation/ Fair
cemetery
YO 14 Edward Thomas Site AS I 06 Quaker dom. Unknown
YO 15 Burkes Corner AS III 06 Quaker dom. Excavated
YO 16 Skimino Meetinghouse AS II 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown
YO 17 Yorke Village AS III 11 Ecc./cemetery/Unknown
domestic
YO 18 Quaker Cemetery AS Inf 06 Quaker Destroyed
cemetery
YO 64 Bellfield Plantation AS I 07 Plantation/ Unknown
cemetery
YO 109 Black Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown
YO 244 None AS I 10 Cemetery Eroded
YO 258 None AS MR 06 Domestic/ Destroyed
cemetery
YO 259 None AS MR 06 Quaker ecc. Unknown
YO 377 SSE M-1 AS II 06 Unknown Threatened
99-10* Grace Episcopal Church SB I 10 Ecclesiastical Excellent
99-11 Grafton Christian Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Unknown
U- 72* Bethel Baptist Church SB I Ecclesiastical Good
CITY OF POQUOSON:
U- 66 Emmaus Baptist Church SB I 11 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 67 Trinity Methodist Church SB I 14 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 73* Tabernacle Methodist Church SB I Ecclesiastical Good
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 3 College Landing AS II 06 Landing/ Stable
warehouses
CW-14A* First Baptist Church AS III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.excavated
CW-21B* Bruton Parish Church SB III 06 Ecc./cemetery P.exc./rest.
137-55* None DB I 06 Cemetery Destroyed
U- 40* Methodist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed
U- 42* Williamsburg Baptist Church DB I 06 Ecclesiastical Destroyed
U- 56* Mount Ararat SB I 06 Ecclesiastical Excellent
U- 57a* B
irthright Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown
U- 59 Unmarked Cemetery AS I 06 Cemetery Unknown
U-134* Cedar Grove Cemetery AS DR 06 Cemetery Unknown
300

Present Condition of Property Types
Presently all standing church structures are in good or excellent condition. Cemeteries
in use are well maintained. The majority of family plots, and a large percentage of
military-related cemeteries, are not only unsurveyed but endangered by development as
well. The Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site, although on the National Register, is at present
vulnerable to nearby development activities.
Criteria for Evaluating Significance
Although churches and cemeteries are generally excluded from National Register consideration,
a number of property types associated with this study unit are significant
because of their age, condition, and local, regional and national historical importance. A
number of properties are presently on the National Register, including Bruton Parish
Church, Jamestown Church, Hickory Neck Church, Grace Church, and the Bruton Parish
Poorhouse Site.
Cemeteries and family plots, although often not significant in terms of National
Register Criteria A-D, are of great local importance. More than any other property type,
cemeteries are mentioned as significant by local residents, and many concerns are expressed
about their treatment. Thus, all cemeteries are considered significant by local
standards.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
Identification Goals
• Survey all family plots and cemeteries in the study area; record names, dates and
texts, map lay-outs, and determine their condition. This is a project that could conceivably
be carried out by local historical societies and student groups at minimal
cost.
• In survey of domestic structures, consider the religious background of the occupants
for possible future comparative research.
Evaluation Goals
• Do further documentary research on early Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist
churches in the study area to determine exact locations of former churches and
parish houses, and to evaluate their integrity and research potential.
Registration Goals
• Complete steps necessary to nominate the Emmaus Baptist Church of Poquoson to
the National Register.
• Take steps to complete a thematic nomination for early Baptist, Presbyterian, and
Methodist Churches in the area.
301

Treatment Goals
• Take steps to further protect the Bruton Parish Poorhouse site and other National
Register properties from development activities.
302

STUDY UNIT XXII.
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF
PUBLIC WELFARE INSTITUTIONS
Major Theme: The dialectic between private charity, and public social
programs.
Sub-Themes: A. Founding of major institutions of learning.
B. Struggle to provide public education.
C. Establishment of institutions for control and treatment of
the deviant and dispossessed: mental institutions,
poorhouses, prisons, etc.
D. Founding and growth of service and fraternal organizations
dedicated to charity.
Significance: National and Regional
Public welfare systems in Virginia, including education,the care of indigents, health
care, and institutions designed to curb deviant behavior, have since 1607 been a joint
effort by the state and the private sector. Over time, government, whether local, colonial,
state, imperial or federal, has assumed increasing responsibility for these endeavors,
and for regulating private contributions. The College of William and Mary, established
in 1693 and one of the oldest continuous institutions of any sort in the United
States, is a prime example both of attempts to answer public welfare needs and of the
growth of government responsibility. The College, which at times has included both a
grammar school and an Indian school, was never totally independent of government
direction or support. The trend over the history of the College has been towards greater
and greater state control until, in the 20th century, William and Mary became a state
agency.
In this regard, the College serves as a model of sorts for many other institutions
that in one way or another serve the public welfare. For example, the care of orphans in
the colonial era was a responsibility shared between church and state. By the end of the
18th century, that particular kind of child welfare had developed into a state responsibility,
although private organizations, both religious and secular, continued to contribute
volunteer time and funding.
As the oldest mental-health care institution in the region, the Williamsburg Public
Hospital straddles the line between concern for those unable to care for themselves and
the effort to control deviant behavior (see Plate 6.3). Like the College, the Public Hospital
is a clear example of popular acceptance of the idea that state intervention in public
and private welfare has become more and more necessary as the number of people
and the complexity of life have increased. While views on the treatment of the mentally
ill have fluctuated, the responsibility of the state for administering whatever is the current
treatment has gradually increased.
The definition of public welfare, and the criteria for determining who is subject to
it, have themselves undergone great change, expanding in times of crisis, while contracting
during periods of stability. During the Great Depression of the 1930s for example,
federal relief agencies such as the Public Works Administration and the Civilian
303

Plate 6.3. Administrative Building, Williamsburg Public Hospital, c. 1885.
Conservation Corps subsidized segments of the middle class that in a better economic
climate would have been able to fend for themselves. There are many “monuments” to
the broadening scope of public welfare systems in the Tidewater, ranging from county
poorhouses of the 19th century to public works constructed by the Civilian Conservation
Corps.
SUB-THEME A: FOUNDING OF MAJOR INSTITUTIONS OF
LEARNING
The need for education was one of the first concerns of colonists in the New World. As
early as 1618 the Virginia Company gave orders for establishing a university in Henrico.
Unfortunately, the Indian Massacre of 1622 halted those plans and it would be another
75 years before efforts to build the university were finalized. The Reverend James Blair
had been authorized in 1691 by the General Assembly to travel to England to present a
petition to the King and Queen to grant a charter. William and Mary granted the charter
in 1693.
By 1694 a grammar school was opened under the tutelage of Reverend Mungo
Inglis as schoolmaster. This school was held in a building apparently already in use as a
school and was open to children aged eight or older for the learning of Greek and
Latin (Tyler 1907: 129). As this school had an integral role in the primary education of
the local citizens it will be discussed at greater length in Sub-Theme B.
304

In 1695 bricks were laid for the first College of William and Mary Building, later
re-named the Wren Building. A symbiotic relationship between the College and the
colonial governing body soon materialized and the College Building became the temporary
home for the government after the capital was moved to Williamsburg from
Jamestown. The College remained the legislative headquarters until May 1704 when
the capitol building was completed.
By 1700 plans were apparently complete for the Indian School which was to be a
part of the College of William and Mary. In that year Governor Nicholson instructed his
emissaries to go to the Indian nations and “... acquaint them that this next summer the
rooms will be made ready at the College for their reception and accommodation and
that if any one Great nation will send 3 or 4 of their children thither, they shall have
good, valuable clothes, books and learning and shall be well look’d after both in health
and sickness” (Bullock 1961: 45). These children were to be taught reading, writing
and “vulgar arithmetic” at the separate Indian school, and it is believed that four or five
students were enrolled.
Only a year after the General Assembly moved to their new home in 1704, the
College Building burned, and it would be another decade before it was rebuilt. The
Indian school moved into the new Brafferton building in 1723.
Despite the new building, however, few Indian students were found. At first the
colonists considered buying the children of hostile tribes captured at war and placing
them in the school for instruction. When this proved unsuccessful, Governor Spotswood
carefully tried to orchestrate the recruitment of pupils by inserting clauses in each of the
peace treaties with various tribes, mandating the sending of Indian scholars. By the
terms of these treaties each of the Indian nations were required to send two sons of its
leaders to be educated at the Indian school and to serve as hostages for the good faith of
their nations. In 1711 Spotswood was able to report that each of the Indian nations had
contributed their “hostage” and that the Indian school seemed a success. Indeed, he
wrote to the Bishop of London that
There are now... about twenty Indian Children at the College, they have a Master to teach
them and they seem very well pleased with the change of their condition as indeed their
parents and others of their nations who come frequently to see them, express much satisfaction
with the care that is taken of them, and frequently lament their own misfortunes for not
having the like advantages in their Youth...(Bullock 1961: 45-48).
Throughout the 18th century the College prospered with funds ranging from duties
on imported spirits, taxes on exported tobacco, earnings from real estate, private funds
from the estate of Robert Boyle, gifts from the Virginia General Assembly and Royal
warrants from Queen Anne. More buildings were constructed including the chapel, the
Brafferton Building, and the President’s House, and the number of scholars increased.
About 60 students were enrolled each year in the 70 years prior to the Revolution, 10 or
15 of them on scholarship or foundation funds. On the eve of the Revolution the student
body numbered about 70.
Throughout this era the College buildings were used for more than simply educational
purposes. When the Capitol burned again in 1747 the General Assembly met
there for seven years. Samuel Levingston petitioned to hold his dancing classes at the
College until a proper building could be erected, and his dance master presided there for
several years.
305

The Revolutionary War disrupted the activities of the College for some time, even
though classes continued to meet. A number of faculty and students joined militia companies,
and others with more Loyalist inclinations fled to England. Disaster struck the
President’s House when it was accidentally burned while being used as a hospital for
wounded French soldiers.
This time of turmoil also saw a change of purpose for the College. In 1779, under
the direction of Thomas Jefferson as Governor of Virginia, it became a university. The
Grammar and Divinity schools were discontinued, and professorships of anatomy, medicine,
modern languages, law and police were introduced. Just a few years earlier the
first American intercollegiate Greek letter fraternity, Phi Beta Kappa, was established
by College students. Even though it only lasted five years, other chapters were established
at Harvard and Yale and later became widespread among Northern colleges.
The post-Revolutionary period in the history of the College of William and Mary
was generally one of decline. In 1787 the General Assembly divested the College of
many of its funds, and this, in combination with loss of royal support and the Boyle
legacy, reduced the assets of the College considerably. Only real estate remained as a
source of revenue. Although there were a record 92 students in 1817, that number quickly
declined. The harsh economic times and the rapid depopulation of the Tidewater in the
early 19th century caused a drop in attendance. In addition, Jefferson’s withdrawal of
support following his decision to establish the state university in Charlottesville severely
affected the College’s prestige and attendance. Jefferson and his supporters felt
that such an “antiquated institution” in so “unhealthy” a region could not be revived and
promoted their own plans for what is now the University of Virginia.
The early 19th century evidenced widely fluctuating enrollment at the College of
William and Mary. According to Edmund Ruffin, there were only 17 students in 1833-34,
yet by 1839-40 this number had increased eightfold (Ruffin 1841: 416). Attempts were
made to move the College to Richmond in 1824-1825, a request that was made again
after the Civil War.
The College suffered most during the Civil War era. Burned in 1859 and re-built, it
was burned again only three years later by the soldiers of the 5th Pennsylvania Cavalry.
Cannons were placed inside the ruined building and fortifications were raised against
Confederate attack as the Union Army continued to occupy the College buildings. Classes
had previously ended when the President and much of the student body had enrolled in
the Confederate Army, and it was a weary and much dispirited group that returned in the
Fall of 1865 to the ruined buildings.
Facing what appeared to be insurmountable problems, the College closed in 1881
due to lack of funds. Seven years later it was revived. Largely due to the efforts of
President Lyon G. Tyler, son of U.S. President John Tyler, a system of normal instruction
and training was added to the general college course. For the next quarter-century
tight finances limited the staff to seven professors, although student enrollment reached
104 in 1889.
It was in that year that the most important change in the 200-year history of the
College occurred. All college property was transferred to the Commonwealth of Virginia,
an action designed to increase the revenues of the College. Tyler went to great
lengths to justify this transfer. His comments provide insight into the relationship of the
306

public and private sectors in the history of the College of William and Mary. He wrote
in 1907:
This [transfer] was done without violence to any one’s feelings, and seemed to be a natural
consummation of the relations which the college has always borne to the State. In its origin
the college was a State creation, and for a hundred years the only one in Virginia.... After the
Revolution, State and college drifted apart, but in 1888, the connection was renewed; and
after drawing closer and closer together, the college was finally absorbed by the state.... The
process was very simple (Tyler 1907: 193).
The 20th-century history of the institution is one of increasingly tighter state controls
and continued growth. For instance, in 1960 the General Assembly of Virginia
altered the College’s name to “The Colleges of William and Mary”, creating an administrative
group to supervise the senior colleges at Williamsburg, Norfolk and Richmond,
as well as the junior colleges at Newport News and Petersburg. However, this was
revoked only two years later.
Several important points can be made based on this brief history of the College of
William and Mary. First, it is one of the only features of Williamsburg life that remained
constant throughout the almost three hundred years of its existence. Even after
Williamsburg ceased to be a colonial capital it remained a college town, and most of its
prominent 19th-century residents were connected with college life. Travelers commented
that Williamsburg was the height of dullness and “if it were not for the College and the
Court and the Lunatics, I don’t know what would become of it” (cited in Carson 1961: 91).
One local resident recalled the importance of the College in the life of Williamsburg
prior to the Restoration. According to Elizabeth Hayes Goddard’s memories of
Williamsburg, written in 1923, Williamsburg’s “main interest centered in the College of
William and Mary”, and “the college and its professors dominated the social life in
Williamsburg at this time” (Anonymous 1984b: n.p.). She reported that the small group
of bachelor professors and young women teachers often dined together at the College
dining hall or boarded in various local homes, and participated in week-end picnics,
fishing trips, and “Arbutus Hunts” along nearby creeks.
Not only did the College play an important role in the social life of the area, it was
a major source of local income, especially after the loss of the capital. Throughout its
history students at the College boarded with families in town, providing additional income
for local residents. As Ruffin pointed out, “the money brought by the students of
the college was almost entirely a foreign supply, and served as an important aid to the
support of the village, and its adjacent county” (Ruffin 1842). The College also supplied
employment to area residents.
In addition, the function of the College was never solely educational, at least not in
the strict modern academic sense. With the frequent fires and often cramped quarters of
the 18th century, the local governing bodies and other local citizens often met there.
The College was also the site of the first public schools for local residents, and the
institution ran model schools throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Finally, throughout its history the College wavered between governmental control
and autonomy. With the Revolution the College’s connection with the British Crown
was dissolved, as well as most of its funding, and the new state did not take the school
under its wing until the late 19th century. Of course, all the Virginia colleges founded
during the 18th and 19th century were privately funded. The one exception to this was
307

the newly established University of Virginia, to which funds originally intended for the
education of the indigent were diverted, and Hampton Institute, established by the
Freedmen’s Bureau.
Several buildings of the College of William and Mary have been investigated
archaeologically. The Wren Building was the subject of a large-scale investigation by
Duell and Ragland in 1930, aimed mainly at architectural description of the building
and its foundations prior to restoration. Brafferton Hall and the President’s House were
also partially excavated later in that decade, again prior to restoration. Testing has since
been performed on a brick drainage system in the basement of the President’s House
(Noël Hume 1972), as well as more limited excavations around the Brafferton Cistern,
in a few areas around the Wren Building, and in the yard of the President’s House.
Archaeological monitoring has been conducted during the excavation of various utility
trenches throughout the historic campus.
SUB-THEME B: THE STRUGGLE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
EDUCATION
In the 17th century children were educated at home and in publicly sponsored “workhouse”
schools, such as the public flax factory at Jamestown (Buck 1952: 10). Laws
passed in 1643 and 1646 also provided for the education of servants and slaves. Charitable
schools, sometimes called “old field” schools, were founded by private philanthropists
in colonial Virginia, as well as schools for paying students (Buck 1952: 17).
Philanthropists endowed several schools in York County in the late 17th and early 18th
centuries. Robert Leightenhouse had a private school in York Parish before 1697 when
Sir Francis Nicholson gave 1 1/2 acres for a public school. In 1711, William Stark gave
one-quarter acre for a “public scule to educate children now lying in York-Hampton
Parish in York County” (Hopkins 1942: 1).
In Poquoson Parish, later Charles Parish, the most extensive education was available,
perhaps the most widespread public education in early America. The parish shared
the educational funds provided in the will of Benjamin Sims with Elizabeth City County.
It also had Jane Culley’s school, seemingly a semi-public school under the direction of
the parish, as well as other private schools (Hopkins 1942: 7-8).
At the close of the 17th century, a grammar school was opened at the College of
William and Mary, admitting students in 1710. The importance of the Grammar School
has often been underestimated and even though the school was sometimes closed its
value to the community was significant.
In 1705 another school was known to be in operation in Williamsburg. By that year
nine-year-old Matthew Whaley had died. His mother had established a school for him
and his friends on the west side of Capitol Landing Road, called Mattey’s School. Upon
her death in England in 1742 her will stipulated that the small piece of land which held
Mattey’s Schoolhouse and a dwelling for the schoolmaster be given to Bruton Parish
for the carrying on of the school’s operation and the education of the “neediest” in the
parish. The poor were to be instructed in “reading, writing and arithmetick.” Unfortunately
legal technicalities delayed the funds in England until 1865, and it is uncertain
how this school was funded prior to that time.
308

Although Williamsburg did not have an official public parish school in the early
18th century, enquiries by the Bishop of London concerning the state of educational
facilities were answered by both Bruton Parish and York-Hampton parish. Their replies
are markedly similar, noting that “Little School(s) to teach to read and write and
arithmetick are set up, wherever there happens to be a convenient number of
scholars” (Bullock 1961: 128-129).
However, by the second half of the 18th century Williamsburg was well equipped
for the education of scholars. There were at this time schools for nearly every age, sex
and race of child. Aside from the Whaley School for the indigent, there was Miss Hallam’s
School for females, the Brafferton School for Indians, and another school for young
boys in the same building. In addition, there was the Grammar School for older boys
and at the College advanced degrees were available for young gentlemen.
In 1760 a school for blacks was established in Williamsburg, endowed by a group
of London philanthropists. Mrs. Anne Wager was the first and only teacher of that school
who was employed at an annual salary of 30 pounds sterling, a sum that included the
cost of renting a suitable house for herself and the school. Previous documentary research
(Stephenson 1963) suggests that the school was located at the northeast corner of
Ireland and South Henry Streets and possibly later on Capitol Landing Road.
In September of that year the Williamsburg Negro School was opened with 24
pupils. Nine years later Robert Nicholas reported to the benefactors that he had increased
the number of students to 30 and had asked Mrs. Wager to dismiss the dozen
white students. As that was the last mention of white pupils it can be assumed that for
the next five years only blacks were enrolled.
Although there was little problem finding black students there were difficulties in
ensuring attendance. Slaveowners were willing to send their servants to school but rarely
long enough for any benefits to be gained from an education. Additionally there were
complaints that the slaveowners all too often were sending only their house servants to
teach them manners and needlework. It seems that a large part of this education was
devoted to religion, and the merest fundamentals of reading and writing. With the death
of Mrs. Wager in 1774 the school was closed (Bullock 1961: 53-61).
Three privately run schools for boys in Williamsburg were advertised in the Virginia
Gazette in the 18th century and in 1776 a Mrs. Neill announced plans for the
opening of a girl’s school. The girls would learn “Reading, Tambour, and other kinds of
Needle Work”, as well as guitar, and would have the “best masters to teach Dancing and
Writing” (Bullock 1961: 115-117).
The 19th century was a time of increased interest in school reform and the education
of women became a matter of great concern. The Williamsburg Female Academy
was under operation at least by 1805 when it was reported in the Richmond Enquirer
that “Mr. Anderson’s institute for instruction of young ladies enjoys particular advantage
of situation.” In 1810, George Blackburn, head of the English department of the
Academy, wrote in the same newspaper:
Ten years experience in Virginia and more in other countries, has taught me that females are
as capable of acquiring that kind of learning which demands patient investigation as the
other sex (Bullock 1961: 135).
309

Insurance records from 1851 provide further information concerning the
Williamsburg Female Academy by recording the building of a new “Kitchen” and “Music
House” there. The accompanying plat locates the buildings on “the old Capitol square”
and describes the main building as “68 feet by 48 feet of Brick covered with tin and
painted [and] Warmed by two furnaces. In the Upper story there is a tank to hold about
1000 gallons of water.” Both the Kitchen and Music House were of brick covered with
wood, and each measured 18 by 22 feet.
The interest in the education of women continued into the early 20th century. The
Education Board of the Norfolk Presbytery chose Williamsburg as its location for a
Female Seminary in 1905 and the school was established in 1910 on Nassau Street
(Byrd 1968: 36). The seminary, both a day and boarding school, was open only a few
years and was most likely demolished when Matthew Whaley School was moved to
that location in 1929.
The number of private schools in Williamsburg to serve the local area is just one
indication of the continuing concern for education of Virginia’s youth. Some schools
were short lived, others were of a more sustained nature, but few details are known of
their location, curriculum, or facilities.
Some details about local schools can be gained from public census records and
other contemporary documents. Joseph Martin’s New and Comprehensive Gazetteer of
Virginia of 1835 reported “a very respectable Female Academy, and 3 other private
schools” (cited in Carson 1961: 99). Statistics regarding schools and literacy were included
in early federal census records. In the 1840 Census, James City County listed
one grammar school with 140 scholars and four primary schools with 93 scholars. this
is a surprising number. More surprising are the results of queries concerning illiteracy,
or “the number of white persons over 20 years of age who cannot read or write.” Whether
these queries included literacy among females is not known, but only 29 adults were
reported as illiterate in James City County in that year.
In the 1850 Census, however, this number was doubled, and another 108 were
reported for York County. The 1850 Census gives further information on schooling for
this area as well. In James City County 150 students were listed at colleges, academies
and private schools providing an annual income of $7045. Public schools, in the sense
that term carried at mid-century, enrolled 165 pupils. Thirty-six percent of the whites
between the ages of five and twenty were enrolled in schools, for a total of 197.
York County at mid-century had no “colleges, academies, and private schools”
listed, but 150 students were enrolled in public schools, creating an annual income of
$40. School-age whites numbered 723, of which 36% were enrolled in school. An anonymous
letter from Williamsburg in 1855 reported two female and two male academies
commencing their sessions on October 1 “under favorable auspices” (cited in Carson
1961: 107).
Virginia legislative acts of 1818 and 1846 provided for the maintenance of schools
for the poor. Since the school commissioner of York County petitioned the General
Assembly for money due York County schools in 1837, the county must have made
some formal efforts at supporting education (Hopkins 1942: 13). James City County
and Williamsburg established district free schools under laws of 1839 and 1846. Although
they were not extremely successful, their introduction paved the way for the
ideas of tax-supported free schools in later years (Virginia Academy of Science 1950:
40).
310

Major legislation providing for public schools in Virginia was enacted in 1869,
along with laws encouraging the establishment of training schools for teachers, both
black and white. The College of William and Mary was supported as one such training
school for training male public school teachers in 1881.
Local area governments began quickly to plan for meeting the new requirement,
and in December 1870 the first recorded meeting of the Williamsburg School Board
was held. One of their first tasks was conducting a local census of children aged 5-21 to
ascertain if there was justification for a local school. Satisfied that this was the case, the
Board authorized the hiring of three teachers, even though they refused to pay their
salary, maintaining that compensation was the duty of the state. In addition the board
decided that schooling for local whites would be divided by the sexes and that the
school term would run from the first day in February to the first day of July.
These early public schools met in rented rooms and from this time until 1887 both
James City and York County sent their students to the Williamsburg schools on a tuition
basis. In the first year of operation, Williamsburg employed three teachers who performed
their duties in rented rooms.
In October of 1873 the Williamsburg School Board leased the Matty Schoolhouse,
including furniture, from the College of William and Mary. This schoolhouse was the
descendant of the Matty School of the 18th century and the finally-endowed “Grammar
and Matty School” which began in the Brafferton Building in October 1867. The new
Mattey School, also called the Matthew Whaley School, was built in 1870 out of the
original endowment, and this was the building rented by the Williamsburg School
Board (Byrd 1968: 6). A one-story, four room building, it was located on the Palace
Green, near the site of the Governor’s Palace, and measured 40' × 60'.
The number of Williamsburg and surrounding area students quickly outgrew the
Mattey School and rooms were rented in various homes throughout town. The Armistead
House on Green Hill held classes for the children of the block bounded by Scotland,
Nassau, Prince George and Henry Streets.
After operating their schools in rented or leased space for 14 years, Williamsburg
finally obtained funds to construct their own schoolhouse. It was located on Francis
Street (behind the recent Market Square Tavern) and cost under $1000 to build. This
was for the instruction of black children. Unfortunately no photographs or drawings
remain of this early structure.
Attempts to purchase the Mattey School from the College were unsuccessful and
in 1898 another new school opened in Williamsburg for city and county students. This
was the Nicholson School, named for the street on which it was built. It contained four
rooms and cost nearly $4000 to build. A directory of Williamsburg in that year estimated
the average attendance to be 100 students. Also noted in the directory is Public
School No. 2, a black primary school with 75 students in a nine month term (Williamsburg
City Directory 1898:13). The directory also listed “about” nineteen schools in James
City County, eleven for white students and eight for black students.
Detailed information about early York schools is sketchy, but it is known that eight
schools were in existence before 1900. The earliest school was probably located at
Seaford, a community which had been an early center of population. The first Seaford
school was a log structure. Located on the site of the current Zion United Methodist
Church, it was replaced a two-room frame structure in 1885.
311

Other local 19th-century schools included: Mill Pond, a one-room frame school on
Glebe Land about four miles from Felgate’s Creek at Charles Corner, and closed in
1921; Springfield, on Penniman Road near Jones Point; Corner Pine School, a one-room
frame structure built in 1875 on the road to Dandy near the current Amoco Refinery;
Smithville School, located on the curve of Big Bethel Road, behind Old Bethel Baptist
Church, moved in 1924 to Darby, and demolished in 1978; Grafton School on Brick
Church Road; and Poor House Lane or Farm Road School, built circa 1890, in the
vicinity of the present-day Beechwood Drive and Lakeside Drive; and Yorktown School,
a frame structure (Morris 1983: 1-41). Unfortunately, even less is known about the
history and status of rural schools of James City County (Plate 6.4).
By 1906, public schools in Virginia, including secondary schools and colleges,
numbered over 500. Numerous schools were constructed in the early 20th century prior
to consolidation, including many schools for black students, such as the York County
Training School. A movement had begun for a school for black vocational education in
1914 and Dr. Jackson Davis, the state supervisor of Negro education took interest. In
1915 a four room frame building was constructed. An old abandoned store was converted
to a domestic science room for girls, and the adjacent lodge hall became a manual
arts building. The school was located within a 12,000 acre site purchased by the
U.S. Government in 1918 for a Naval Mine Depot; York County received $6000 compensation
for the school.
With this $6000, $1600 from the Rosenwald Fund, and $4300 raised by private
donations, entertainments and solicitations, a six room Rosenwald-type school was built,
with an auditorium, office and cloak rooms. A Home Economics cottage was added as
well as a Vocational and Agricultural Shop, and an old one-room school building was
converted into a science laboratory. This school was the site of several innovative black
education efforts, such as a 1934 course on Negro History. The structure burned in 1954
(Morris 1983: 14, 43). A similar school, known as the James City County Training
School, was constructed in Williamsburg in 1924 for Williamsburg and James City
County black students. Its usage was discontinued when Rockefeller purchased the land.
Elementary schools built by James City County in 1920 for black students were
Centerville School, a one-story frame building containing grades one through seven in
two large rooms; the Chickahominy School with five rooms, and the Croaker School
(Williamsburg-James City County School Board 1984: n.p.).
In 1907 a group of prominent men of James City County met to discuss better
schooling for their children. They dreamed of a modern school near the C & 0 Railroad
Depot in Toano, so students could commute by train from New Kent County, Charles
City County, Grove and all over James City County. With their funding, Toano School,
a two-story brick structure, opened for elementary school children in 1908. In 1911,
high-school education began. This was the only public high school for white students
between James City County and Richmond.
By the 1920s the “one room school” was coming under attack nationally as part of
the “rural improvement” wave. These old schools were viewed as remnants of the old
order and consolidation of schools was urged. Plate 6.5 is an example of “An Old Type
of Country School Building” which George Betts criticized in his 1914 book Better
Rural Schools. Already, however, consolidated schools such as York County Training
School were being built to widen the available curriculum. Increasing from this time,
312

Plate 6.4. School on Rte. 613.
313

Plate 6.5. “An Old Type of Country School Building, 1924.”
decisions concerning education were being made by the states and not the counties
(Heath 1983: 204-206).
In the decade before 1920, the State Department of Education had begun providing
plans and specifications for school buildings. In 1920 the Division of School Buildings
was officially established for this function. Between 1920 and 1946 schools became
increasingly standardized across the state as counties were required to obtain official
plans for new construction and additions. This ended the local variety evidenced in late
19th-century school buildings (McCleary 1985: 32).
A statistical abstract on Virginia education was published in 1927, using the 1920
Census and other data. It was found that York ranked 37th out of 100 counties in the
percentage of population that was illiterate, and James City County ranked 63rd. In the
1925-1926 school year 80.1% of York County’s school age population were enrolled in
school, placing it 36th in the state, while in James City County only 65.5% were enrolled.
In 1925, James City County ranked 78th statewide in the number of one room
schools, with 40 per cent of James City schools having one room. York County’s one-room
schoolhouses were a slightly greater proportion of all the schools with 42.1 percent.
James City County had the lowest number of teachers of any county in the state, but
their salaries ranked second. James City County however spent much more to educate
its children than other local counties; the per capita cost of education was nearly double
that of York County at $50.67. James City ranked first in the state for per capita expenditure
on education (Gee 1927: 149-153).
In 1928 the proposed restoration of Williamsburg was made public and the grounds
near the Palace Green on which the Williamsburg High School (built in 1921) and the
Mattey School were located were sold to Rockefeller. With the $400,000 obtained the
Matthew Whaley School was built in 1930. The first fully accredited high school for
314

lack students, Bruton Heights, was constructed in 1940 off the western side of Capitol
Landing Road. Funding for it came from federal government sources and a gift of 29
acres and $50,000 from John D. Rockefeller. The only condition of the Rockefeller gift
was that the James City Training School site on the corner of Nicholson and Botetourt
Streets be sold to Colonial Williamsburg. The new school had 17 classrooms, a gymnasium,
an auditorium, a library, a home economics cottage, and an industrial arts building.
At the time Bruton Heights was one of the best equipped school plants in Virginia.
Three-fourths of its students were from James City County, with the remainder from the
Bruton Parish district of York County.
Racial desegregation of local schools began in 1966, on a voluntary basis, but few
students took advantage of the option. In 1969 the School Board mandated integration
and reorganized the division of James Blair, Berkeley, Bruton Heights, Norge, Matthew
Whaley, and Rawls Byrd schools. There are now sixteen public elementary and secondary
schools in the study area, as well as a number of private schools, and the College of
William and Mary.
SUB-THEME C: ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTIONS FOR
CONTROL AND TREATMENT OF THE DEVIANT AND
DISPOSSESSED: MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, POORHOUSES,
AND PRISONS
Care of the Mentally Ill
Public health care, and care for the mentally ill have a long tradition on the Virginia
Peninsula. Shomer Zwelling, whose recent study of the Williamsburg Public Hospital
has uncovered many details about 18th-century health care, notes that until 1766 “the
insane in Virginia were usually lumped together with other dependent people- beggars,
vagrants, the elderly, and the handicapped, and dealt with by local officials in a haphazard
and unsystematic fashion” (Zwelling 1985: 3).
Zwelling found that while some of the ill, infirm or insane were cared for at home,
others were confined to poorhouses, and to prisons. In the 1760s, for example, at least
four mentally ill persons were imprisoned in the Williamsburg Public Gaol. The establishment
of the Public Hospital in 1766 however, made Williamsburg the site of the first
public institution devoted to the care of the mentally ill in colonial North America. The
original building was destroyed by fire in 1864, and another erected on the same site. In
1911 it was reported to care for 642 inmates, 338 males and 304 females (Tyler
1907: 244).
The hospital, now known as the Eastern State Hospital, was moved to its present
location in 1965, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has recently completed the
reconstruction of the first Public Hospital building at its original location.
Treatment of the Indigent
The care of the poor in the Virginia colony was based on a institutions and practices
which can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Originally, relief of the poor must have
315

een a private matter but successive periods of great economic hardship required governmental
intervention to prevent national distress.
In the very earliest days of colonization there were no official channels for the care
of the poor, and the indigent were either aided by their churches or cared for by local
citizens. The financial burden of subsidizing the poor began to fall increasingly on the
local vestry, with citizens receiving reimbursement for the cost of room and board for
vagrants, elderly, orphans, and infirm persons. For instance in 1658, James Whiting of
York County petitioned for and received compensation from the vestry for his trouble
and expense in looking after a “poore woman” who had died in his home after an illness
of three weeks (Hoffer 1929: 47-50).
By 1661 the Virginia government had officially assigned the care of the poor to
the local vestries of the colonial parish churches. Thus the vestries were given civil
power in the care of the local unfortunate, and the ability to make levies for their support.
At the same time, there was an attempt to force those that were able- bodied poor
persons to earn their own keep, and they were often bound out as servants. An act was
passed in 1668 to set up poorhouses to teach spinning, weaving, and other trades, but it
was later repealed and the workhouses never constructed.
As the population increased in the colonies, the care of the poor became more and
more of a burden to the local parishes. In the first half of the 18th century the colonial
government gave the vestrymen power to return vagrant poor persons to their own parish,
and, if they were unable to travel, to charge their home parish with their upkeep.
Even though as early as 1682 the King had empowered the local governments to
construct almshouses, none had been built by the mid-18th century. Increasing demands
forced several parishes to request this right, including James City County and Bruton
Parish Church in the City of Williamsburg.
Martha McCartney has done extensive research into the Bruton Parish Poorhouse
Site (YO60) as part of its National Register Nomination. According to McCartney, on
May 16, 1755 the Minister and Churchwardens of Bruton Parish Church petitioned the
House of Burgesses for permission to operate “a workhouse, where the Poor might be
more cheaply maintained and usefully employed.” They claimed that the “Charge of
providing for the Poor of the said Parish hath always been burdensome...and of late
Years hath much increased.”
The petition attributed this excessively large number of indigents to “the great
number of Idle Persons that resort to the city of Williamsburg... [and] lurk about the
Town.” It further claimed that these vagrants came to the city during various Publick
Times and stayed long enough to fulfill the Bruton Parish residence requirements. The
church officials asked that an act be passed granting them permission to set up a Poorhouse,
using a structure the parish owned near Capitol Landing.
A committee of the House was directed to formulate an act permitting all parishes
to construct such workhouses, if the so desired. This act provided many specific rules
and granted the church wardens the right to “employ all such poor persons in such work
as shall be directed by the said vestry...and to take and apply the benefit of their
labor...toward their maintenance and support.” Local sheriffs could be ordered to bring
all beggars to the nearest poorhouse where they would be put to work for no longer than
twenty days, and, once there, the local vestry had power to enforce their employ.
316

The act of 1755 enabled Bruton Parish and other parishes to formulate the policies
of poor relief, at least within the limits of the new law. The effect of this was to alter the
status of the distressed, adding a social stigma to indigence. All poorhouse inhabitants
were forced to wear a conspicuous colored badge on their sleeve, signalling their degradation
to all (McCartney 1983).
The terms of the 1755 act remained in effect until the close of the Revolutionary
War. At that time the separation of Church and State required that the official role of the
parish be terminated. The welfare of the poor was then assigned to the incorporated
towns in which they resided or to the Overseers of the Poor in various counties.
Rochefoucauld noted in 1797 that Virginia town tax rates were inconsiderable and “the
heaviest rate is for the sustenance of the poor. Each house-keeper contributes, for himself
and for each of his negroes above the age of sixteen years, half a dollar for that
purpose (Rochefoucauld 1797: 27).
Not until the early 20th century would the care of the poor come under the aegis of
the state. One reformer characterized the local poor farm under county control as a
“dumping ground of humanity’s worst, for there were no colonies for the feebleminded
then, no sanatoria for the tubercular, no schools for the blind, no hospital for the invalid,
no system of child-welfare comparable to ours. The answer to all those problems was in
the county almshouse” (Virginia State Department of Public Welfare 1926: 15).
With the change to a state system of institutionalized welfare those with many of
the above problems were weeded out. Outdoor relief, or the placing of the poor in homes
for reimbursement, replaced indoor, or almshouse relief, and a “generally improved
social life industrially, educationally and otherwise has served to reduce the almshouse
population and to change the problem in nearly all its aspects (James 1926: 16).
In 1909, however, there were still 108 county and city almshouses in the state,
ninety-six county sponsored and twelve associated with cities or towns. The state recommended
the closing of some of the smaller institutions and James City and York
Counties were among the thirty counties who did so. In 1926 York’s poorhouse was not
in use but 140 acres valued at $3,500.00 with buildings were listed and the Supervisor
of the Poor received $100 salary along with a house and farm (James 1926).
Remnants of both phases of the control of the poor remain in York County. The
Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site is located on land controlled by the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation and represents a unique resource for the study of a largely unknown segment
of colonial population and Virginia’s first attempt to institutionalize welfare for
her people. In March of 1985 logging in the environs of the site precipitated emergency
monitoring and surveying activity by the Office of Archaeological Excavation of the
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Priority was given to the accurate demarcation of
specific site boundaries to minimize damage to the resource (Alexandrowicz 1985: 7-8).
On the other hand, the York County Poorhouse, undoubtedly of the post- Revolutionary
period, represents a secular attempt to provide for the welfare of the county’s
indigent. Little is known about this building but it is recorded through photographs of
the Virginia Historic Buildings Survey, taken in the 1930s (Plate 6.6). Probably a one
room structure with side chimney and separate stairs and entrance on the second floor
side, this building may have housed men and women, or two individuals. As noted
above its use was discontinued in the early 20th century. It may have been constructed
as a result of a petition granted in 1843 for the establishment of a district poor-house for
317

Plate 6.6. York County Poorhouse.
318

York County, James City County, and Williamsburg (Hopkins 1942: 14). Unfortunately,
the standing structures were destroyed in the late 1970s (Morris 1983).
Care for Orphaned Children
Care of the other less fortunate groups such as orphan children was also of concern to
the colonists. A 1727 law dealt with the binding out for apprenticeship for three distinct
groups of children: poor orphans; children who were not being brought up properly due
to poverty, disordered lives, or neglect of the parents; and illegitimate children.
In general the statutes dealing with forced apprenticeship had four main objects:
the improvement of industry through the training of skills to workers, the reduction of
vagabonds, the improved raising of dependant children, and relief from the burden of
public support (Hoffer 1927: 96-97).
Prisons and Jails
The punishment of society’s deviant was another major concern for the colonists. By an
act passed in 1701 a brick prison was erected in Williamsburg for the use of the colony.
It was ordered to be thirty feet long and 20 feet wide. It was two stories high, with three
rooms on the first floor, the two smaller for the confinement of prisoners, and the larger
room, as well as the floor overhead for the use of the jailer and his family. A yard, 20
feet square, was enclosed by a ten foot brick wall. The prison itself was unheated, although
the jailer’s chambers probably had a chimney.
After the removal of the capital to Richmond, the jail was used by Williamsburg
and James City County. This use continued until the Civil War when much of the building
was torn down, although a portion of it was later rebuilt. This structure has twice
been investigated archaeologically by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
A debtor’s prison was ordered to be constructed in 1711, on a lot near the other
gaol. The act provided that this prison be built of brick, 32 feet by 20 feet. According to
local tradition, a brick office behind the Greenhow-Repiton House was formerly the
debtor’s prison, although there is no documentary evidence to substantiate this (Plate
6.7).
SUB-THEME D: THE FOUNDING AND GROWTH OF SERVICE
AND FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS DEDICATED TO CHARITY
EFFORT
The modern welfare system bears little resemblance to that of the first 200 years of
colonization. In the early 20th century reform became an issue for public and private
groups and state and federal governments increasingly took responsibility for the welfare
of citizens.
This change did not go unnoticed. Writing in 1929 the Commissioner of the Virginia
State Department of Public Welfare noted:
In the past quarter of a century there has been a veritable revolution in our ideas of the
functions of a state government. The old concept, that government is best which governs
319

Plate 6.7. Greenhow-Repiton Kitchen (Traditionally thought to be the Debtor’s Prison).
least, has been discarded. No longer do we think that its powers and duties are limited to
matters... of a purely material and mechanical nature but that it should be concerned primarily
with public welfare and the promotion of happiness (Virginia State Department of Welfare
1926).
Even as the federal and state governments have taken over the majority of what
were once private or local concerns, private efforts have continued and in many cases
multiplied. It is impossible to list the many service organizations in the area and even
brief synopses are beyond the scope of this report, yet several examples may prove
useful in illustrating the important role these groups have had in the care for the local
poor or needy.
The church has always felt an obligation for the needy, beginning with the parish
concern for the poor. It is impossible to estimate the role religious organizations have
played in public welfare through time, mainly because such efforts are not always formal
or publicized.
The private papers and diaries of Williamsburg residents do, however, offer glimpses
of the charitable concerns of one group. The King’s Daughters in the early 19th century
supported the town’s poor in several ways. Dr. Janet Kimbrough recalls that they paid
“Aunt Judy” to take care of old indigents. Paupers were kept at the old jail, and the
group collected old clothes for them and each brought one hot meal a week (Kimbrough,
pers. comm. 1985).
320

The diary of Mary Haldane Coleman, another Williamsburg resident, indicates
that on November 28, 1916 a group visited “the old jail, where this community houses
the coloured paupers” and were appalled by its conditions. “We found things there in
the most absurd state of mismanagement conceivable, and went to the mayor,
Dr. Henderson to ask him if there was any way of improving matters” (Manuscript,
Dr. Janet Kimbrough, private collection).
Thus the care of the poor, even though officially a responsibility of thecommunity,
often fell to local church groups and private citizens. By 1936 the charitable role of the
King’s Daughters become formalized as Williamsburg contributed $200 to the King’s
Daughters for their role in emergency poor relief and hospitalization for selected tubercular
cases in the state sanatoria (Gulick 1932: 91).
Fraternal orders have long engaged in charity work both in Virginia and elsewhere.
An Order of Freemasons was established by 1751 in Williamsburg, as shown by a notice
in the Virginia Gazette that “The ancient and loyal Society of free and accepted
Masons, made a figure some Time ago.” The notice further stressed the duty of benevolence,
these “Gentlemen of the Strictest Honor and Probity” and particulary called to
attention those “whose Act of Benevolence, perform’d to a Person (tho not their Brother)
shew’d their Inimitable Goodness and Compassion to those in Distress.”
It may be that a Masonic Lodge was established in Williamsburg as early as 1730.
It is claimed that an early 18th-century pipestem with a Masonic emblem was found in
town (Kidd 1957: x). British Masonic records do list a Yorktown order at the Swan
Tavern warranted on 1 August 1755 with 205 members. Its numbers dwindled during
the second half of the 18th century, decreasing to 119 by 1792, the last recorded date. In
1773 an order is recorded for a group called the “Williamsburg Lodge,” beginning with
457 members but also declining by 1792 to 296 members (Land 1895).
Although an early Masonic order was a social group and “in the early day it offered
the best social life of the men of the community”, it also performed works of
charity. In 1775, the death of Brother Rind, a printer for the Virginia Gazette provoked
a decision to support his children and
That the Rt Worshipful Master provide for the Education and Support of the said children,
that he do it in the most frugal and advantageous way, and that this Lodge will abide by any
agreement by him made for this purpose (Kidd 1957: 36).
The minutes continue the discussion of the support of Brother Rind’s children
until 1778. A sermon by the Reverend James Madison near Christmas 1777 further
touches on the role of the “True Mason”—raising a “lasting monument of worth upon
the basis of virtue supported by the grand pillars of Charity, Benevolence, and Friendship”
(Kidd 1957: 47-49). With the removal of the government to Richmond and the
demise of the Grand Lodge of Virginia in 1780, the membership of the Williamsburg
Lodge decreased rapidly and in 1849 only 22 members remained.
Little is known about the local Masons in the 19th century although they continued
to meet. In 1849 they rented the “old Lodge Hall,” indicating that it was built in the first
half of the century. In 1856 that building was purchased, but in the late 19th century
they met in other quarters, usually in stores or other buildings. For instance, in 1891
they met in Mahone’s Store on the southeast corner of Duke of Gloucester and Botetourt
Streets and in 1895 moved to Spencer’s Store on the southeast corner of Duke of
321

Gloucester and England Streets. In the early 20th century they attempted to reclaim and
restore the old Masonic Lodge Hall, but it was not possible. A modern reconstruction
now stands on the site of an 18th-century meeting place.
Fraternal organizations and service groups played an important role in the private
sector’s concern for the welfare of the less fortunate. The Lion’s Club, for example, was
formed in reaction to the common businessman’s club, often called booster clubs, that
met solely to promote each other’s business. A need was felt to form a group specifically
to serve the community. Lions International was formed in 1917 and a local chapter
began on April 21, l934 meeting in the Richard Bland House. Chapters now are
active in Williamsburg, York, Jamestown, and Poquoson.
Modern organizations have proliferated and a “Directory of Local Organizations
and Services” produced by the Williamsburg Area Chamber of Commerce contains
eleven pages of local clubs and organizations. Many of them have a charitable role even
if it is not their primary purpose, and most of them are local chapters of national organizations.
SUMMARY
The concern for public welfare, including education, the care of the poor and orphans,
and control of the deviant began early in the days of colonization. Based on English
precedent, these were usually joint efforts of the state and private institutions, especially
the Church. With the Revolution and the separation of Church and State, more of
this responsibility was placed with local governments, but by the early 20th century
was officially vested in state and federal welfare institutions. Certainly, however, private
citizens have played a crucial role in ameliorating the conditions of harsh or inadequate
institutional care.
The study area was representative of all these trends, but was special in its early
role in formulating policies and establishing institutions. The Williamsburg Public Hospital
was the fist mental health care facility in Virginia, and through it can be traced the
evolution of attitudes and treatment of the mentally ill. The College of William and
Mary is similarly one of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the nation. Finally,
the petition by Bruton Parish Church to establish a workhouse for the poor prompted
state legislation that affected the treatment of the poor until the 20th century.
STUDY UNIT XXII: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of the Study Unit
Certain property types within this study unit are national in significance. These include
the Williamsburg Public Hospital, the Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site, the York Poorhouse
Site, and the College of William and Mary. The 18th-century “Negro school” of
Williamsburg, if located, could also be included in this category. Other property types,
such as schools, are of local importance.
322

Map 6.2. Study Unit XXII: Known Resource Distribution.
TABLE 6.3
STUDY UNIT XXII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 124 Hickory Neck Church SB II 02 Ecclesiastical Good
U- 15* Toano High School Site AS I 02 School Destroyed
YORK COUNTY:
YO 60 Bruton Parish Poor House Site AS I 06 Poor house Undisturbed
U- 91* York Poor House AS MR Public Unknown
U-105* Mill Pond School DB DR School Unknown
U-106* Springfield School DB DR School Unknown
U-107* Corner Pine School DB DR School Unknown
U-108* Grafton School DB DR School Unknown
U-109* Poor House Farm School DB DR School Unknown
U-110* Seaford School DB DR School Unknown
* Not shown on Map 6.2.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
323

TABLE 6.3 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XXII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
U-111* Smithville School DB DR School Unknown
U-112* Yorktown School DB DR School Unknown
U-113* Cary Chapel School DB DR School Unknown
U-114* Bethel School DB DR School Unknown
U-115* Darbytown/Tabb School DB DR School Unknown
U-116* Fish Neck (Dare) School DB DR School Unknown
U-117* Oak Grove School DB DR School Unknown
U-118* Seaford (Lewisville) School DB DR School Unknown
U-119* Tampico (Hornsbyville) School DB DR School Unknown
U-120* York County Training School DB DR School Unknown
U-121* Dare-Grafton School DB DR School Unknown
U-122* Goodwin’s Neck School DB DR School Unknown
U-123* Magruder School DB DR School Unknown
U-124* Seaford School DB DR School Unknown
U-125* Yorktown School DB DR School Unknown
CITY OF POQUOSON:
U- 63 Lodge Hall SB I 14 Public Good
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 2 Wren Building Extension AS I 06 Unknown Unknown
WB 8 President’s House Yard AS I 06 Domestic Unknown
WB 10 Brafferton Cistern AS I 06 Cistern Unknown
CW-4C* Public Hospital DB III 06 Hospital P.exc./recon.
CW-13F* Greenhow-Repiton Brick Office DB III 06 Domestic/ P.exc./recon.
(Debtor’s Prison) public
CW-16A* Wren Building SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
CW-16B* President’s House SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
CW-16C* Brafferton Hall SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
CW-27B* Public Gaol SB III 06 Public P.exc./rest.
U- 39* Mattey School DB I 06 School Destroyed
U- 50* Miss Gibbie’s School DB I 06 School Destroyed
U- 54* James City County Training DB I 06 School Destroyed
School
U- 55* Bruton Heights School SB I 06 School Good
U- 57* Odd Fellows Lounge DB I 06 School/public Destroyed
U-100* Masonic Lodge SB I 06 Public Good
U-126* Miss Hallam’s School for DB DR 06 School Unknown
Females
U-127* “Negro School” DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-128* Williamsburg Female School DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-129* Nicholson School DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-130* Williamsburg High School DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-131* Matthew Whaley School SB DR 06 School Unknown
U-132* Williamsburg Female Seminary DB DR 06 School Unknown
U-133* William and Mary Academy DB DR 06 School Unknown
324

Summary of Property Types
(1) Major institutions of learning. The College of William and Mary has had a
major role in the area’s development since the 18th century.
(2) Private schools. Often located in private residences in the 18th century, special
buildings were often constructed in the 19th century. There seems to have
been a higher density of these schools within the City of Williamsburg. Sixteen
private schools have been documented prior to 1900.
(3) Public schools. At least 28 schools were scattered throughout the area prior to
1900, often found in more densely occupied areas. By the 1920s one-room
schools were increasingly being replaced by new consolidated schools.
(4) Institutions for social control. Insane asylums, poorhouses, workhouses and
prisons, as well as local residences used for these functions were found throughout
the study area.
(5) Fraternal and service organizations. Even though some larger fraternal orders
had their own meeting halls, most met in semi-public buildings and private
residences.
(6) Public works projects. Perhaps the least information has been culled for these
buildings and structures, even though a Civilian Conservation Corps camp is
known to have existed in York County.
Character of Existing Data
Research biases are strongly in favor of the institutions of higher learning, and other
early historical sites. Information on specific early schools is scattered through local
publications and oral histories of the various localities, as well as in federal and state
records.
The level of knowledge of the early public schools of York County, James City
County and Williamsburg varies. Both York and James City County/ Williamsburg (combined)
school districts have brief written histories of the schools of their area. Only
York County, however, provides information on locations of these early schools, dividing
their discussion into three classes or “generations.” As of 1983, only three pre-1900
schools remained in York County, two in use as homes and one “unused and dying.”
These early structures were often log or frame and many were moved and integrated
into other consolidated school buildings. Little is known of the early rural James City
County schools.
Private schools are well-represented in the documentary record. The number and
range or private schools from circa 1700 to 1870 represents a quite important resource.
The historical context has been developed from the documentary record but little or no
attempt has been made to determine the locations or appearances of these early buildings.
Criteria for Evaluation
National Register standards are based on both levels of significance and degree of integrity.
All four National Register criteria for significance may be applicable to re-
325

sources in this area, even though Criterion A, illustrating significant events in the broad
patterns of history, and Criterion D, representing potential historical information, are
most applicable. Criteria B and C may be applicable in certain cases, including dwellings
of persons important to local, state, or national history, or structures embodying a
specific style or period of construction, such as a one-room school building constructed
following early state guidelines. Integrity evaluates the ability of a property to answer
the research questions related to its significance. The National Register outlines seven
ways in which integrity should be determined: location, setting, feeling, association,
workmanship, design, and materials.
The RP3 process particularly provides for the assessment of local interest in specific
sites. This is an important consideration for at least one property type in this study
unit. Schools are an integral part of many memories and local citizens are anxious to
preserve these structures. For instance, Bruton Heights School, as discussed in the narrative,
has been the subject of heated debate and firm opposition has developed to its
demolition. It may even be said that it has taken on a symbolic meaning for a segment of
the community and bumper stickers proclaim “Save Bruton Heights.”
In a recent letter to the editor of the Virginia Gazette, Hattie J. Sasser criticized the
opinions of architects that urged the demolition of Bruton Heights and the building of a
new school. She wrote:
It is true that saving Bruton Heights will be preserving “Memories,” as the authors suggest.
What’s wrong with that Bruton Heights represents an important part of our modern history.
Let’s be as concerned about that as we have been about colonial history (Virginia Gazette, 8/
21/85: 4a).
She later asserts that Bruton Heights should not just be saved because it was an
important school for blacks, but because it was an important part of our local history.
Thus, even though the structure may not fit National Register criteria, it is certainly
significant to the local constituency and should be evaluated on that basis.
Present Condition of Property Types
In general, the property types can be divided into two categories: those that are not
generally threatened, such as the College of William and Mary, and those which have
little or no protection, such as one-room school buildings.
Little impact on the 18th- and 19th-century structures of the College of William
and Mary is anticipated. However, any future building on the college grounds will undoubtedly
disturb earlier features. Detailed archaeological investigation is strongly recommended
in those areas.
Graduate students from the Department of Anthropology at the College have previously
volunteered to monitor utility trenching in the area of the Wren Building. However,
there is no guarantee that future students will show a similar interest nor is there
any policy for alerting the Anthropology or History Departments in advance of such
activity. Such a policy is recommended.
The Public Hospital has been extensively excavated by the Colonial Williamsburg
Foundation and an interpretive reconstruction has been completed. Future archaeology
may be possible in any undisturbed areas.
326

The Bruton Parish Poorhouse Site is located on land controlled by the Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation. Even though it is a National Register site, it is currently
critically threatened by logging activity.
Other sites are less well known. For instance, it seems that the York County Poorhouse
was still standing until its destruction in the late 1970s, and its status as an archaeological
site is unknown. Similarly, many schools have been documented but their
exact location or status is not generally known.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
The range of property types in this study unit can be divided into several categories and
levels. One category is comprised of unique sites for each property type, such as the
Williamsburg Public Hospital, while the other group includes more generic property
types such as 19th-century or modern schools. The latter group is generally only minimally
known.
Identification Goals
• Compilation of data (number, types, and general histories of structures) on public
schools through the records of local school boards, oral history, federal and state
records, and architectural survey of those remaining structures, particularly one
room, two- to three-room graded schools, and early consolidated schools. Strong
public involvement is highly recommended and may be accomplished through local
school boards, PTAs, and other constituencies.
• Documentary study of private education to determine the nature and location of
18th- and 19th-century schools (prior to widespread state-supported public education).
The historical context is briefly sketched, but it is necessary to focus attention
on the locations of these early efforts at education and their current status.
Particular attention should be paid to the 18th-century school for blacks in
Williamsburg.
• Phase I survey to evaluate the condition of the York County Poor Farm and its
various components.
• Thorough study of Bruton Heights School and the methods possible to guarantee
its preservation.
• Field check of Civilian Conservation Corps camp on Cook Road in York County.
Evaluation Goals
Some goals for evaluation are listed below. Each of these goals are based on the historical
contexts provided in the narratives, but also seek to establish the specific meaning of
National Register criteria—such as integrity or associations—as they apply to these
property types in this study unit. The following are goals to evaluate the property types:
• Sub-surface testing of Bruton Parish Poorhouse.
• If the site is found to have integrity, excavation of any possible remains of the
18th-century black school in Williamsburg.
327

• Physical survey of York County Poor Farm to develop a model of the growth and
organization of county-supported poor relief, particularly as a comparison to the
church-supported 18th century institution. This should include sub-surface testing.
• Evaluation of York County Training School as a possible candidate for National
Register nomination. Built in 1915, it was a model vocational and educational
school for blacks, and offered a course in “Negro History” in 1934, long before the
days of heightened black consciousness.
Registration Goals
• Nomination to the National Register of the York County Poorhouse Site (pending
further investigation and evaluation). In association with this property was the
Poor House Lane School, built circa 1890, and also possibly eligible for nomination.
• A thematic nomination to the National Register (pending further evaluation) of all
private education sites and structures prior to state-supported schools begun in
1870.
Treatment Goals
The primary goal of the RP3 process, as discussed above, is the identification, evaluation,
and selection of an appropriate sample of the highest-ranking property types for
preservation, documentation, and/or study. If documentation or salvage is the only possible
course of action for a resource then several basic steps must be carried out. These
include a minimal assignment to a property type and study unit, and extensive documentation
prior to loss, including photographs, drawings, measurements, boundaries,
and artifactual descriptions. This documentation should also seek to provide information
for the goals of evaluation as listed above. Specific treatment goals include:
• Preservation of remaining extant one-room schools. If it is not possible to preserve
them in their original authentic context, re-use as domestic residences such as has
proven effective in York County may be feasible.
• Preservation of Bruton Parish Poorhouse from current threat. The Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation is strongly urged to fund and staff a thorough examination
of this important site located on property they control.
328

STUDY UNIT XXIII.
THE RISE OF “FORT VIRGINIA”
Major Theme: The continuing impact of the military presence on Tidewater
society.
Sub-Themes: A. 17th-century military activity.
B. 18th-century military activity.
C. 19th-century military activity.
D. The Civil War.
E. 20th-century military bases.
F. Military-oriented industries.
Significance: National, Regional, and Local
Perhaps no other area of the United States has been so directly affected by military
events, institutions, policies, and personalities for so long a time as the Virginia Tidewater.
The earliest settlements of the region, including the central enclave at Jamestown,
as well as outlying clusters such as Martin’s Hundred, were in their physical form and
social organization quasi-military. Indeed, 17th-century Virginia was in many senses a
military outpost. In only the first 70 years of its history, the Tidewater was the scene of
two major Indian wars and a colonial rebellion. Imperial wars, on the seas with the
Dutch in the 17th century, and on land and sea with the Spanish and French in the 18th
century, were primary forces that, while they did not produce actual fighting in the
region, did shape the nature of the colonial economy. If the “invasion” of Virginia by
17th-century Europeans led to a permanent “occupation” of the country by Englishmen,
the 18th and 19th centuries produced invasions by occupations of outside forces, both
friendly and hostile.
The Revolution brought French and British troops to the climatic battle of that
struggle, while the Civil War saw an almost immediate conquest of the Peninsula by
Union armies that persisted until the end of the conflict. Throughout the 17th, 18th,
19th, and even 20th centuries, the emphasis has been on an almost perpetual state of
readiness for war. Fortifications, bases, and equipment for every era, including reconstructed
battlefields, monumental fortifications such as the casemate at Fort Monroe,
and the “blank spot” on current road maps that is the highly restricted Camp Peary,
dominate the Tidewater landscape. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the existence of these
permanent installations has skewed the local economy, supporting heavy industry on
the Lower Peninsula as Virginia’s major contribution to the American military-industrial
complex and service industries elsewhere that are largely dependent upon the huge
military population. The military bases have also altered demographic patterns, providing
(for example) the catalyst for the creation of communities of black workers dependent
upon jobs on Army and Navy bases during the era of World War II. In short, the
character of Tidewater society and culture has been in many ways shaped by continuous
military presence.
The outcome of the military events in the Peninsula significantly affected the entire
nation. More than once, the resources of colonial powers and the United States have
been focused on this Peninsula due to its strategic importance.
329

Lying between two rivers of commerce, the Peninsula also fronts on the Chesapeake
Bay, giving it a position of maritime importance. From the 17th century up to the
present, the nearby location of major political centers drew military activity to the Peninsula.
In the 17th century, Jamestown was the political center and heart of the defensive
efforts against the Indians, Spanish, Dutch, and Nathaniel Bacon’s Rebels. During
the 18th century, Williamsburg was the colonial capital and became a place of munitions
storage during the Revolutionary War. In the Civil War, the capture of Richmond
was the major objective for the Union forces and the Peninsula quickly became a battleground
on which to achieve it. Currently, the Peninsula and Norfolk guard the waterway
to Washington D.C. and have become centers for military bases and
manufacturing. Clearly, the military activity in the study area has been and continues to
be significant on the national level.
Official state records are, not surprisingly, a major source of documentation of past
military activity. For the 17th century, several references to warfare can be found in
these sources: Hening (1809), Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts,
1652-1781 (1875), Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial VirginIa (1925), Minutes
of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia (1979), and McIlwaine
(1915). Unfortunately sources for military activity during this period are scattered and
require time and patience to use.
Government records are again the major source of documentation of warfare for
the 18th century. Aside from the references listed above, the compilation of documents
by Van Schreeven (1973) can prove valuable. Contemporary newspapers such as the
Virginia Gazette also provide additional bits of information. Many officers kept journals
during this period and these too prove to be helpful sources. After the war, it appears
that every major officer wrote his memoirs for publication. Among the best known
are by Jean Baptiste Rochambeau (1838), Charles Cornwallis (1866), and the Marquis
de Lafayette (1837).
The publication of memoirs by army commanders continued into the 19th
century. After the Civil War, the majority of the well-known commanders for both sides
published their stories, full of recriminations and speculations of altered courses of
events. The increased rate of literacy by time of the Civil War enabled the common foot
soldier to maintain a correspondence with his family, which provides additional insight
into the war. A large collection of government records is compiled in The Official Records
of the Union and Confederate Armies, 1861-1865 (1891).
Records concerning military bases on the Peninsula during the 20th century are
not readily available. The best sources of information on current bases are recent newspaper
articles and living informants.
Most traditional military historical works focus on the drama and tragedy of the
campaign and battlefield. Histories of military units and places generally serve to show
what role these components played in the overall saga of war. The principal players
seem to be the commanders and unit officers, less often the common soldier. The personalities
of the officers affect the outcome of the campaign. Often in these narratives
the mass of soldiers become mere reflections of the commander’s will and their corporate
identity joined with that of the commander’s. When we read of military activity,
groups of men are identified as “Bacon’s Rebels,” “Wayne’s Pennsylvanians,” or as
330

“Patton’s Division.” This bias is not solely the responsibility of historians, but is reflected
in the primary sources as well.
Unfortunately, documents relating the conditions of civilian life during wartime
life and social life in the military before the Civil War are scarce. This is extremely
significant when one considers the high proportion of the population that served in the
military and the possible lasting effects the service could have on them. Also ignored is
the impact of military activity on civilians. Undoubtedly, the massive destruction of
warfare altered houses, land, environment, family structure, and way of life. When one
considers the convulsions and changes a society undergoes during warfare, the lack of
historical treatment of this theme is surprising.
Also surprising is the lack of archaeological investigation of military sites, although
a few have been well researched. For the 17th century, for example, Ivor Noël
Hume excavated a Company period enclosed compound at Wolstenholme Towne (JC115)
that did not survive the Indian Massacre of 1622 (Noël Hume 1982). On this site, he
also found a cache of arms and armour; similar caches have been discovered at the
Helmet site (JC4) and at “The Maine” (JC41).
Aside from weapons and fortress-related features, it would be difficult to distinguish
the “military” from the “civilian” in the 17th century. Louis Caywood found little
at Green Spring, a long-term camp of Bacon’s rebels, for example, to denote military
activity (Caywood 1955). References occur in the primary sources to a fort in the
Yorktown area (McCartney 1985), but little else is known about it, and no likely remains
have been identified.
The 18th century is better represented archaeologically. Other than the Powder
Magazine (CW-12A&B) (Plate 6.8) and James Anderson Forges (CW-10A, E&G) at
Williamsburg, most of the archaeology of this period has been undertaken at Yorktown.
For the purpose of restoration, the National Park Service has conducted excavations at
the battlefield from the 1930s into the 1970s. Norman Barka excavated the siegeworks
of both the French and the Americans, and found very little difference between the two.
The earlier work by the National Park Service is described as having “no detailed reports”
and “questionable accuracy” (Barka 1976). Barka excavated the Grand French
Battery of the First Parallel, the Main Siege Line, American Redoubt #2, the communication
trenches, and the mid-section of the Second Parallel. He found several artifacts
that yielded information about military life during the 18th century and a distribution
pattern of artillery shell and shot. Since the accounts of contemporary journals, especially
those of the French engineers, offer little detail on the siege, Barka concluded that
it was a conventional siege for the time (Barka 1976).
Very little archaeology of any substance has been done for the period of the 19th
and 20th centuries. The National Park Service has excavated some Union siege lines at
Yorktown. A few Civil War features are said to have been excavated at Harwood’s Mill,
but no written report is available. John Sands looked for Civil War features at Yorktown
Beach but found little (Sands 1983). The Rangers at Newport News Municipal Park
may have collected military artifacts at Lee’s Mill, but again no written report has been
released to the public. Nothing of substance has been done on any later military site.
Generally, this subject has been neglected by archaeologists.
331

Plate 6.8. Powder Magazine.
SUB-THEME A: 17th-CENTURY MILITARY ACTIVITY
As suggested above, 17th-century settlements on the Peninsula were quasi-military in
form and function, and the distribution of towns and hundreds coincided with the spread
of fortified European sites into the interior. These fortifications, designed for protection
both from marauders from the sea and the Indians surrounding them, proved inadequate
to defend the English colonists against the Indian offensives of 1622 and 1644. After
that date, the influx of English settlers and a deliberate policy of genocide towards the
remaining Powhatan resulted in the establishment of an almost Indian-free zone on the
Lower Peninsula, guarded by a line of fortresses and checkpoints at Fort Royall on the
Pamunkey River, Fort Charles on the James, Fort Henry on the Appomattox, and Fort
James on the Chickahominy (McCartney 1984: 104-105). Other checkpoints were established
at Shirley Plantation further up the James, and at Chiskiack, within the study
area.
In order to combat the Indian threat, the English settlers organized themselves
into groups of militia by county of residence. According to John Smith, most Virginians
had a gun, body armour, and some sort of sword. The militia drilled every Holy-day and
weapons were carried everywhere, even to church (Shea 1981).
The English believed that an active offense was the best way to “defend” against
the Indian threat. A punitive expedition was organized at Chiskiack, to answer the April
1644 attack of the Powhatan. Each county of the Colony sent up to 50 men to Chiskiack,
under Captain William Claibourne, to fight the Pamunkey. From this location, they sailed
up the York and conducted a “feedfight,” a standard tactic which destroyed native crops
and village sites forcing them to relocate westward (Shea 1983).
332

A trans-peninsula palisade was completed in 1633 in order to keep out the Indians.
According to an early report, it had blockhouses set up at regular intervals and nearby
land granted to the garrison (Shea 1983). This defensive line was the nucleus of the
settlement at Middle Plantation.
The English Virginians also faced a threat from the Spanish and Dutch attacks
from the sea. For maritime defense during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 1660s, merchant
ships were periodically formed into convoys, as at Gloucester Point. For additional
protection, a battery was also erected at Gloucester Point, and probably a corresponding
one near Yorktown as well.
Although Spanish attack never occurred, the Dutch assaulted the Colony in 1667.
Admiral Crijnsen sailed up the James River with his small Dutch fleet, seizing a merchantman
and burning an English warship. In response, Governor Berkeley embarked
900 militiamen on nine ships in the York River, but failed to engage the Dutch (Shea
1983).
The next threat came from within. In 1676, a group of dissatisfied colonists following
Nathaniel Bacon annihilated several villages of non-hostile Appamatuck,
Chickahominy, and Pamunkey. Moving east with 800 rebellious militiamen, Nathaniel
Bacon attacked Governor Berkeley at Jamestown later that year. Berkeley’s forces failed
in their attempt to fortify the neck of land that connected the island with The Maine and
ceded to Bacon’s demands. Berkeley fled to the Eastern Shore but later returned to
occupy Jamestown in force. Bacon attacked again, this time successfully barricading
the area where the neck of land joins The Maine.
A sally party emerged from Jamestown and tried to take this position, but it was
beaten back and Berkeley fled again. Bacon reoccupied Jamestown, this time burning
it. Moving up the Peninsula to Otho Thorpe’s house at Middle Plantation, Bacon’s rebels
swore an oath of loyalty to him (Washburn 1957). The rebels concentrated their forces
at West Point and stationed 1300 men at Green Spring, where Bacon succumbed to a
fatal illness. After Bacon’s death, Berkeley stepped up waterborne attacks and captured
several of the rebels on one such attack at the Yorktown Bluffs. Eventually, Berkeley
reduced Bacon’s remaining forces this way, and the rebellion slowed to a halt (Shea
1983). At its close, most of the rebel leaders were executed at Middle Plantation or
King’s Creek House (Carson 1976).
British troops and munitions arrived after much of the fighting and were sent back
home. One hundred remained to guard the artillery and specialized gear being stored at
the Magazine at Middle Plantation. They mutinied in 1682 and these men were sent
home. The munitions were then moved to Colonel Page’s house at Middle Plantation,
then to a brick windmill at Green Spring, and finally to Jamestown (Shea 1983).
SUB-THEME B: 18th-CENTURY MILITARY ACTIVITY
For nearly a century after Bacon’s Rebellion, little military activity took place on the
Peninsula. However, the area remained in readiness and structures such as the Powder
Magazine in Williamsburg were erected (see Plate 6.8). Most of the 18th- century conflicts
flared up in border or frontier areas away from the heart of the colony. Although
the strategy for the Seven Years’ War for the Virginia territories may have been formulated
in Williamsburg, the actual fighting occurred in the western areas of the colony.
333

Pirates were brought to trial at Williamsburg, but their capture occurred in the Chesapeake
Bay or on the Atlantic Coast.
However, with the coming of the Revolution, the Peninsula became an important
strategic battleground. In 1775, John Murray, the Fourth Earl of Dunmore and Governor
of Virginia, tried to rally Loyalists at Williamsburg. He failed, leaving the area on a
British frigate. The House of Delegates successfully convinced Brigadier General Charles
Scott of the Continental Line to come to fortify Williamsburg in 1779 (Rankin 1979).
His men constructed earthworks around the town and they are said to have established
a trans-peninsula defense line, an echo of the 1633 palisade and a precursor of the 1862
Confederate Defense line.
Williamsburg was not the site of a battle in this war, but the surrounding country
was subject to British raids and skirmishes (see Plate 6.9). In 1780, Benedict Arnold
and his men attempted to land at Burwell’s Ferry but were repulsed by the militia under
Colonel Nathaniel Burwell and James Innes. From the York River, Lieutenant Colonel
Dundas and 300 British soldiers navigated the Back River in small boats, capturing a
sloop and sinking another. On land they destroyed 70 muskets and captured cattle, but
encountered the Elizabeth City Militia under Colonel William Roscow Wilson Curle at
Race Path (near Big Bethel) who drove them off toward Newport News.
In April 1781, Major General Phillips led the Queen’s Rangers, Hessians, and
Arnold’s American Legion up the James River to plunder American stores. They landed
and brushed aside the militia at Burwell’s Ferry before moving on to Ruffin’s Ferry. The
militia under Innes had already transferred their supplies to Allen’s Ordinary, in
present-day Lightfoot (Rankin 1979).
The British expedition sailed up the James River to sack the interior of Virginia.
Carting along their plunder, the main British force returned through James City County
to Williamsburg. Hessians and the Queen’s Rangers performed rear-guard duty to slow
the advance of the Continentals under Lafayette. At Diascund Bridge, the Hessians
plundered warehouses and burned Cooper’s Mill, and repaired the bridge with the scrap
lumber this generated. However, after the party crossed the bridge, they again destroyed
it. The rear guard was surprised by a forward detachment of Lafayette’s men while they
were camping at Spencer’s Ordinary, now Centreville. The Queen’s Rangers and Hessians
successfully drove off the Continentals in the battle, and barricaded the road to
Williamsburg. The British also used the Spencer House as a field hospital (Ewald 1781).
The main British Army camped at Williamsburg long enough for the local residents
to complain about the biting flies that followed the army. When the British evacuated
the Peninsula from Jamestown, they camped between the James River and Powhatan
Creek. In order to stop Lafayette’s pursuit, Cornwallis hid his army along Powhatan
Creek to surprise the Americans under General Anthony Wayne near Green Spring.
After the battle, the surviving Americans retreated to their camp at Norwell’s Mill near
Chickahominy Church in James City County (Hatch 1945).
Lafayette occupied Jamestown Island, using the Ambler House as headquarters.
The French Army under St. Simone landed at nearby Archer’s Hope Creek, establishing
a camp on the western point by the creek’s mouth. Most of the Allied Army camped at
Williamsburg. When approaching the British at Yorktown, the Allied army divided at
the Halfway House and invested in a formal siege around the town. Washington’s supplies
and heavy artillery landed at Trebell’s Landing, near Carter’s Grove. The history
334

Plate 6.9. Du Chesnoy, 1781, Map of Yorktown.
and layout of the siege has been well described by Riley (1949) and others, and need not
be repeated here. However, before the British occupied Yorktown, the militia had erected
some sort of a defense there, since Simcoe and his Queen’s Rangers are reported to have
captured several artillery pieces and burned down their barracks at Yorktown in a 1781
raid. The militia occupied the strategic points of both Yorktown and Jamestown with
rotating garrisons throughout most of the war (Riley 1949; Hatch 1942).
In a naval defense of Yorktown, the British ships Charon and Guadaloupe shelled
the French land forces on the Old Williamsburg Road approach to the town. The British
converted the Vulcan into a fireship and unsuccessfully sent it at the blockading French
fleet. Five more ships were converted into fireships and chained together in order to
impede the French fleet’s advance. A variety of British ships were then scuttled around
Yorktown (see Plate 6.10) to either discourage enemy ships from entering the harbor or
to keep them from going into enemy hands (Sands 1983).
During the Revolution, a shipyard was established by Virginia on the Chickahominy
River in a sheltered location with plentiful trees for lumber nearby. The Navy Board
purchased 119 acres for the shipyard in 1777, and it became one of the busiest in Virginia
(McCartney 1978). The Board of War was frequently occupied with the business
matters of the shipyard; when the free laborers demanded higher pay, the Board resorted
to buying slaves. The ship Thetis and the brig Jefferson were both constructed at
the Chickahominy Shipyard (Middleton 1981). But the shipyard had a short life; in
1781, the British army embarked at Barrett’s Ferry and destroyed the shipyard along
with the naval supplies at Diascund Bridge. The ship Thetis fired a few rounds at the
335

Plate 6.10. Du Perron, 1781, Plan des Poster D’York et Gloster.
336

British, but was scuttled by her crew. Ships that escaped were later trapped by the British
on the James River at Osborn’s Wharf (Ewald 1781).
SUB-THEME C: 19th-CENTURY MILITARY ACTIVITY
In 1807, the British ship HMS Leopard attacked the U.S.S. Chesapeake off the coast of
Virginia. The incident sparked war fever through the state and rioting in Hampton. Four
British ships were blockaded in the harbor of Norfolk and militia units were raised for
Governor Cabell, but the tense situation was eventually defused (Gaines 1956). A few
years earlier, the “XYZ Affair” created a national emergency in which militia units
were also drawn up (Gaines 1948).
Open conflict did occur in June of 1813 when the British Navy under Admiral Sir
John Borlase Warren invaded Hampton after being repulsed at Craney Island by the
militia. Hampton was looted in the process by French soldiers fighting with the British.
As a result, the need for improved fortifications was recognized and Fortress Monroe
was constructed in 1819 (Rouse 1968). During the War of 1812, British ships controlled
the Chesapeake and frequently raided the coast. In this conflict as others, the slave
population became restless. In 1814, Vice-Admiral Cochrane decreed that slaves could
emigrate to other British lands; therefore slaves often stole boats and escaped to British
cruisers. This led to the formation of patrols along the coast to apprehend the runaways.
In one case, a rebellion plot by slaves on a nearby plantation was foiled by an American
privateer. Aside from “underground” assistance, a number of blacks joined the British
Army and formed a Marine unit. The unexpected resistance of the slaves during the War
of 1812 meant that Virginia fought a war on two fronts, one with the British and another
with the slaves (Cassell 1972). A similar pattern occurred during Bacon’s Rebellion, the
Revolutionary War, and the Civil War.
SUB-THEME D: THE CIVIL WAR
By the end of 1861, General George McClellan of the Union Army planned to take
Richmond by marching up through the Peninsula. In preparation, the Union Army established
a fortified base at Camp Butler in Newport News. In June of 1861, the Union
Army attacked the entrenched North Carolinians at Big Bethel Church, then in lower
York County, but failed to dislodge them.
The Confederates, under General Magruder, constructed defense lines across the
Peninsula to halt or delay the Union advance. Three systems of earthworks were built
with slave labor, and were situated to maximize the protection offered from cross-cutting
streams. The first stretched from Harwood’s Mill on the Poquoson River to Young’s
Mill on Deep Creek, but left only three miles of solid ground on which the Union could
approach them (see Plate 6.11).
The second defense line anchored at refortified Yorktown, ran up Yorktown Creek
over to the headwaters of the Warwick River, following it down to the James River by
Fort Crafford on Mulberry Island. Along this waterway, dams were built in addition to
the mill dams already present to provide moat-like protection to the defenses. Two roads
extended up the Peninsula and intersected these fortifications. The first was at Lee’s
Mill and the second near Yorktown. All three of these intersections were heavily forti-
337

Plate 6.11. Abbott, 1862 Campaign Maps... Yorktown to Williamsburg.
338

fied. The third defense line connected the southeastern tributaries of College Creek
with Queens Creek. Fourteen redoubts were built on this line, and the largest, Fort
Magruder, blocked off the major road into Williamsburg and the Upper Peninsula.
The Confederates withdrew from the first line due to the lack of manpower needed
to hold it against the larger Union force. When the Union Army probed up to the second
line, they found it well-manned and fortified. The army failed to dislodge the Confederate
forces at Lee’s Mill, so McClellan settled in for a full scale siege of Yorktown. The
entrenchments of his army were neat and well-constructed (see Plate 6.12). Once
McClellan had eight mortars and other heavy artillery in place, the Confederates quietly
withdrew, their relatively bloodless stand costing McClellan a 30-day delay. When the
Federals entered Yorktown, they encountered torpedoes, the first anti-personnel mines,
left by the Confederates. At the third line which protected Williamsburg from the east,
the Confederates intended to hold back the Union advance in order to evacuate the main
army. The Federals attacked May 5, 1862, after the ground (and soldiers) were soaked
by a month-long rain. All supplies, and therefore army movement, was bogged down in
mud. For a day, the Confederate line held off vigorous but inexperienced Federal attacks,
but were forced to withdraw quickly, leaving their wounded at the College of
William and Mary and at Bruton Parish Church. The Federals transported their wounded
to Fortress Monroe and to Yorktown through Capitol Landing (Kettenburg 1980).
The strategic importance of this area can easily be seen by the reoccurring attempts
to invade and defend it. The trans-peninsula defense line was rebuilt several
times throughout the 300 years of this area’s historic occupation. It was first erected in
1633 for protection against Native Americans, and rebuilt in 1779 around Williamsburg
for defense against the British. In 1862, new attempts were made to fortify the area
when the Confederate army constructed three lines of defense against Union troops.
Many remnants of these fortifications can still be found in the area (see Table 6.5 and
Map 6.3).
The locations of certain Civil War sites can be gleaned from military maps and
documents (Plate 6.12). Big Bethel Church in Tabb was the scene of the first fighting of
the area. Most of the site is underwater today save for a few monuments and graves. In
the first defense line, several Confederate entrenchments protected Harwood’s Mill and
Mrs. Cheeseman’s House near Harpersville Road, which is just out of the study area.
Earthworks protected every main intersection along the “Old Stage Road” connecting
Harwood’s Mill and Yorktown, now replaced by Route 17. Some sort of defensive work
was placed at most strategic transportation points as well. A Confederate work was
placed on Ship’s Point on the Poquoson, another on Selby Point on the York River, and
yet another at a narrow passage on Crab Neck. The Federals found deserted barracks on
the west side of Harwood’s Mill Pond, and another south of Wormley’s Creek, which
included a fort.
The second line was fortified more heavily. A strong system of trenches can still
be seen today at the sites of Lee’s Mill and Wynn’s Mill on the headwaters of the Warwick.
The remains of Wynn’s Mill are still visible at Newport News Municipal Park. Barracks
were also a part of the Wynn’s Mill trench system. The “White” and the “Red” Redoubts
guarded Gooseley Road near Yorktown. This Confederate military complex included
log house barracks, horse stalls, and an artillery park. These defensive earthworks,
like most Civil War entrenchments, modified the surrounding landscape. It is no acci-
339

Plate 6.12. Permanent Camp Inside Yorktown.
dent that most of the countryside looks so desolate in the background of Civil War
photographs. Soldiers intentionally cut down all the vegetation around their defenses to
avoid giving an attacking enemy any cover, and they also obstructed roads and approaches
to impede any attack. As in the Revolutionary War, wood was the basic building
material for military shelter and other engineering projects. Therefore, the extensive
timber cutting by the military during the war had a profound effect on the landscape and
possibly produced soil erosion.
Yorktown was the focal point of military activity at the time of the Peninsular
Campaign. During the siege, the area around Wormley’s Creek was heavily occupied
by the Federals. Photographs survive the Civil War and yield information about the
military complexes; the battery of eight mortars stationed off Wormley’s Creek appears
in one photograph (Davis 1982). Photographs also show an entrenched battery serviced
by a barge for ammunition. The crew was living in a buried shelter to be safe of incoming
shells (see Plate 6.13). The areas west of the main body of Wormley’s Creek and
between its tributaries were the locations of the main camps of the Federal Army. The
waters of the creek were spanned by several pontoon bridges. Frequently, at a permanent
camp such as this, soldiers built log cabins for shelter, especially if they camped
for the winter. Bakeries were set up, along with the sutler’s tent and provost’s stockade,
as well as chapels. Certain regiments from Massachusetts were literate and brought a
340

Plate 6.13. Mortar Battery and Barge on Wormley’s Creek.
library with them. Freed slaves followed the Army and worked as servants (see Plate
6.14). Fort Butler at Newport News had so many slaves gathering there that a shanty
town went up on its outskirts. It is probable then that quarters for servants still survive
archaeologically at Yorktown.
Inside Yorktown, the Confederates used sandbags and cotton bales to strengthen
their walls. Cornwallis’ Cave served as a magazine. When the Union Army occupied
Yorktown, they used it as a supply depot for the rest of the war (Sands 1973). Several
photographs survive (see Plate 6.15) that show rows of artillery shells, field pieces, and
mortars on Yorktown Beach brought in by steamships to wharves (Davis 1982).
The third Civil War defense line at Williamsburg had fourteen redoubts, barracks,
and a field hospital along Quarterpath Road and Queens Creek Road. At least two redoubts
can still be seen today at Tutter’s Neck Pond and at the Fort Magruder Inn. Some
of the remains of Fort Magruder still survive at the intersection of Penniman and Queen’s
Creek Roads.
SUB-THEME E: 20th-CENTURY MILITARY BASES
Throughout the 20th century, military bases have been established and have grown to
dominate the Peninsula region. The latest series of topographical maps document the
amount of land controlled by the military. Four bases are within the study area boundaries,
and one, Fort Eustis, is just over the edge.
The demand for arms and ammunition during World War I sparked the first wave
of construction of military bases and defense plants. By 1916, the DuPont Corporation
built and operated a munitions factory by Penniman Spit. The factory drew 10,000 people
to the area, who flooded the stores of Williamsburg (Rouse 1973). Most of these workers
lived in the “city of Penniman,” a shanty town built of cardboard and other materials
341

Plate 6.14. Contrabands on Plantation.
Plate 6.15. Confederate Artillery at Yorktown.
342

near the factory site, and others commuted from Williamsburg by rail. This situation
only lasted three years, for when the war ended, so did the demand for artillery shells,
and the complex dwindled until it was eventually acquired by the U.S. Navy.
In 1918, the Navy procured 12,562 acres as the “Naval Mine Depot” (see Plate
6.16) to be devoted to the testing and storing of mines during the First World War (Clingan
1961). The costs of the initial construction totalled almost three million dollars and the
complex included a mine loading plant, ten magazines, five storage buildings for mines,
barracks, a mess building, administration buildings, a pier, a power plant, a machine
shop, and a railroad. Part of Old Williamsburg Road, or State Route 238, was closed off
in 1920 as part of the enclosure. At the same time, the administration buildings and
Officer’s Quarters at Mason Row (Plate 6.17) were constructed in the “Colonial Revival”
style (N.W.S. 1968).
In response to the need for armaments during the Second World War, activity at the
base boomed. In 1941, 340 military personnel were stationed there and 1182 civilians
(34 of whom were women) were employed at the base. By 1943, 1134 military personnel
and 2300 civilians (including 545 women) worked at the base. During the height of
activity, the base expanded and closed off a section of the Colonial Parkway for ammunition
storage. Late one night in 1942, a crew was loading torpedoes when the ammunition
in their work area exploded. All of the crew died, but the damage was contained. It
is said the explosion cracked windows in Norfolk (N.W.S. 1969).
Plate 6.16. Mines Store Alongside Railroad Tracks at Naval Weapons Station.
343

Plate 6.17. Colonial Revival House at Naval Weapons Station.
The total work force dropped to 767 in 1947, but the number climbed erratically to
a complement of 2400 in 1968, about one-sixth of which were women. In 1958 the
name of the base changed from “Naval Mine Depot” to “Naval Weapons Station” (N.W.S.
1969). During World War I, the Navy purchased 400 acres for a fuel depot by Wormley’s
Creek. This site was chosen for the Mine Warfare School in 1940, but transferred to the
Coast Guard in 1959. Presently, the Coast Guard operates eight schools at this site,
training 1100 students, including regulars, auxiliary personnel, people from other Federal
agencies, foreign military, and other branches of the Armed Forces. The Officer’s
Candidate School, the Boatswain’s Mate School, the Engineering School, Leadership
and Management School, Marine Safety School, Marine Science Technician School,
and the Marine Law Enforcement School require the services of 450 military personnel
and 80 civilians (Anonymous 1985).
Fort Eustis, which sits just outside of the study area in Warwick County, occupies
Mulberry Island and the surrounding area. It was named in 1923 and later housed convicted
“bootleggers” during Prohibition and POWs during the Second World War. Just
up the James River was Camp Wallace, used to train Coastal Artillery crews and housing
a Balloon Observation School. Today Fort Eustis is the site of the U.S. Army Transportation
Center, the U.S. Army Transportation and Aviation Logistics School, and the
7th Transportation Group. Currently posted with 9500 military personnel and 3000 civilians,
Fort Eustis is a small city with its own shopping center, restaurants, and
libraries (Anonymous 1985).
344

Over the remains of the city of Penniman, the Navy’s Cheatham Annex was constructed
in 1943 to store military hardware and supplies. Aside from acres filled with
military hardware, the Annex also operates 18 huge warehouses covering 2,500,000
square feet. The Annex stores food and supplies for the Navy around the world, including
equipment for sale to foreign countries. About half of the staff of 450 are housed
off-base, even though the base is equipped with its own power plant, sewer plant, auto
shop, theatre, and bowling alley. Although situated next to the Yorktown Naval Weapons
Station, the Annex has no official connection to it (Anonymous 1980).
Also established by the U.S. Navy during the Second World War, Camp Peary was
used as a base to train Seabees until 1944, when it became the Naval Training and
Distribution Center. Camp Peary also housed German POWs during the war. In 1951,
its name was changed to “Armed Forces Experimental Training Activity” and is now
run by the Central Intelligence Agency (Anonymous 1980). The College of William and
Mary was and still is used to train officers for the army. In the First World War, soldiers
camped on College grounds.
All of this military build-up has had its effect on the local communities. The establishment
of the Yorktown Mine Depot, the largest Navy base at the time, displaced
several communities, some of which were re-established at Grove. When Camp Peary
was constructed, the entire community of Magruder was displaced, and many again
resettled at Grove.
Generally, the military bases in the study area were founded during a time of war.
Two branches of the Armed Forces located the major bases of their support services in
this region. The U.S. Navy, approving of the deep channel and self-cleaning properties
of the York River, established its base along the river in York County. The U.S. Army
chose the area around Mulberry Island on the James River. Many of the retiring officers
from these bases remain in the Williamsburg area, thus reinforcing the military character
in the study area.
SUB-THEME F: MILITARY-ORIENTED INDUSTRIES
During the 17th century, most craft activities were so generalized that it is difficult to
define a military-oriented industry for this period. Jamestown did have at least one
gunsmith from 1620 onward. No armourer worked at Jamestown, however; most armour
was imported as outdated cast-offs from the Tower of London.
Cottage industries, such as the home manufacturing of cloth, were seen as patriotic
during the Revolution. The processing of linen was also important to the war effort.
Operated in 1776 by John Crawford, the Williamsburg Manufactory employed spinners
and weavers in factories and in their homes. The factory produced sail duck for the
Virginia Navy (Herndon 1966). Rope was another highly-desired commodity for ships
during the war. In 1776, the Public Rope Walk moved from Norfolk to Warwick County
and supplied the Chickahominy Shipyard. Another rope walk was operated at Yorktown
by William Reynolds in 1777. It is also known that ships were refitted there, so it is
likely that other naval suppliers were located at Yorktown (Herndon 1966). James Anderson
was the public armourer at Williamsburg during the first part of the Revolution. At
his forge, gunsmithing was practiced and bone buttons manufactured. Evidence of gun-
345

smithing during this time has also been found at the Anthony Hay Shop in Williamsburg
(Foss 1977).
Little is known about military-related industries for the study area during the 19th
century, but it is likely that local industries such as lumber mills or tanneries produced
goods for the military. Large-scale industry began in the Williamsburg area in 1916,
when the DuPont Munitions Factory opened at Penniman. Employing 10,000 people,
the factory manufactured artillery shells for the war. Currently ship construction for the
military is a thriving business in Newport News and employs many people in York
County.
STUDY UNIT XXIII: OPERATING PLAN
Introductory Discussion
Significance of Study Unit
National, Regional, and Local. The series of military events that occurred on the Peninsula
are significant on all levels: local, regional, national and even international. As
discussed in the narrative, the strategic importance of the Peninsula often placed it in
the midst of both invading and defending forces. Several nationally-recognized individuals
were involved in the military activity on the Peninsula, including Nathaniel
Map 6.3. Study Unit XXIII: Known Resource Distribution.
346

TABLE 6.4
STUDY UNIT XXIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
JAMES CITY COUNTY:
JC 4 Helmet Site AS III 09 Trash pits Excavated
JC 9 Green Spring Plantation AS III 05 Plantation Excavated
JC 14 Shipyard Landing AS I 05 /shipyard P.destroyed
JC 15 Shipyard Landing AS I 05 Unknown Unknown
JC 30 None AS I 09 Earthworks/ Preserved
shell midden
JC 40 Burwell’s Landing AS III 09 Plantation Excavated
JC 41 The Maine (GL-12, -13) AS III 08 Ossuary/dom./ Exc./p.pres.
cemetery
JC 50 Chickahominy Shipyard Wreck AS I 04 Shipwreck Threatened
JC 115 Wolstenholme Towne (Carter’s AS III 09 Fortified Excavated
Grove, Site C)
village
JC 126 None AS I 05 Earthworks Unknown
JC 135 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.
military
JC 136 None AS I 05 Camp/dom./ Cult./p.dest.
military
JC 186 Shellfield Plantation AS MR 06 Plantation Unknown
JC 244 Battery AS MR 09 Battery Unknown
JC 245 Battery AS MR 09 Battery Unknown
JC 247 None AS MR 10 Unknown Unknown
47- 9 Jamestown Island AS III 08 Town Protected
U- 25 New Magazine Site AS I 06 Military Destroyed
YORK COUNTY:
YO 12 Cornwallis Cave Shipwreck AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 47 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 6
YO 49 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 7
YO 50 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 8
YO 51 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 9
YO 52 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 10
YO 53 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 11
YO 54 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 14
YO 71 Back Creek Location # 1 AS I 11 Earthworks Unknown
YO 85 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 86 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Poor
* Not shown on Map 6.3.
** For explanation of codes and symbols, see Section 7 (Volume 3).
347

TABLE 6.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XXIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
YO 88 None AS III 10 Shipwreck Unknown
YO 89 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 94 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Threatened
YO 101* Ballard House SB III 10 Domestic/ P.exc./rest.
battery
YO 107 American Redoubt AS I 11 Earthworks Excavated
YO 108 None AS I 11 Earthworks Unknown
YO 116 Wynn’s Mill (Lee Mill) AS I 10 Earthworks Protected
Fortification Line
YO 169 None AS Inf 11 Unknown Unknown
YO 170 Harwoods Mill Farm AS I 11 Camp/dom./ P.destroyed
military camp
YO 218 British Encampments AS III 10 Military Excavated
encampments
YO 219 Grand French Battery AS III 10 Battery/ Excavated
earthworks
YO 220 Mid-Second Siege Parallel AS III 10 Earthworks Excavated
YO 221 15Y AS III 11 Domestic/ Excavated
earthworks
YO 222 None AS I 10 Shipwreck Unknown
YO 227 None AS I 11 Earthworks Good
YO 231 None AS I 11 Earthworks Fair to good
YO 233 None AS I 11 Earthworks Fair to good
YO 245 Colonial Yorktown Wharf AS I 10 Wharf Threatened
YO 247 St. Simone’s Warpost AS MR 06 Military post Unknown
YO 251 Yorktown Beach Site AS I 10 Beach lithic P.destroyed
site
YO 350 Revolutionary War Battery AS MR 11 Battery Unknown
YO 353 French Hospital AS MR 10 Military hosp. Unknown
YO 354 American Hospital AS MR 10 Military hosp. Unknown
YO 355 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 356 American Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 357 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 358 American Artillery Park AS MR 10 Battery Unknown
YO 359 General Rochambeau’s AS MR 10 Military h.q. Unknown
Headquarters
YO 360 Adjuctant General’s AS MR 10 Military h.q. Unknown
Headquarters
YO 361 French Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknown
and Cemetery
cemetery
YO 362 Washington’s Headquarters AS MR 10 Military h.q./ Unknown
and Cemetery
cemetery
YO 365 Military Camp AS MR 10 Military Unknown
encampment
YO 368 British Redoubt AS MR 10 Earthworks Unknown
YO 382 Von Steuben’s Headquarters AS I 10 /military Cult./p.dest.
headquarters
348

TABLE 6.4 (cont’d)
STUDY UNIT XXIII: KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES**
Site Res. Lev
No. Name Type Inv Quad Function Condition
YO 388 None AS MR 06 Battery Unknown
YO 393 Surrender Field Site AS I 10 /battlefield P.destroyed
YO 396 Burwell’s Mill Civil War AS II 06 Earthworks Eroded
Earthwork
JC 59 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 4
JC 60 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 5
99- 12 Kiskiack SB I 10 Domestic Good
CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG:
WB 4 Palisade of 1634 AS I 06 Palisade Unknown
WB 5 Capitol Landing AS I 06 Landing/ P.destroyed
(Queen Mary’s Port)
warehouses
WB 11 Palisade of 1634 AS MR 06 Palisade Unknown
CW-12A Powder Magazine SB III 06 Military P.exc./rest.
&B*
CW-16A* Wren Building SB III 06 School P.exc./rest.
JC 56 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 1
JC 57 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 2
JC 58 Confederate Williamsburg AS I 06 Earthworks Unknown
Defenses Fort 3
JC 302 None AS MR 06 Battery Unknown
U- 47* Penniman Munitions Plant DB I 06 Military Destroyed
Bacon, George Washington, Comte de Rochambeau, Lord Cornwallis, Marquis de
Lafayette, George McClellan, and George Armstrong Custer. On the local and regional
levels, the economic and social disruption of warfare, especially after the Civil War,
brought profound changes in the regional character. Even today, the military is a strong
economic force in York County.
Summary of Property Types
There are at least ten different military-related property types. These are:
(1) Battlefields. These properties are generally distinguished by broken or abandoned
equipment, ammunition, hasty field fortifications, field hospitals, and
the general’s or other major officer’s headquarters. A naval battlefield may
also include relatively isolated fragments of shell or cannonballs and perhaps a
shipwreck. One possible 17th-century battlefield is Neck of Land, while Revolutionary
War battlefields include Spencer’s Ordinary (near Centerville), Green
Spring, Race Path (location unknown), and Yorktown. Civil War battlefields
349

include those along the Williamsburg defense line, Lee’s Mill, Yorktown, and
Big Bethel.
(2) Field camps. These are temporary camps with tent shelters and improvised
facilities. Likely remains are postmolds, possible trash pits, and scatters of
artifacts. Seventeenth-century field camps include those at Green Spring,
Yorktown, and Middle Plantation. Field camps during the Revolutionary War
were at The Maine, Williamsburg, Spencer’s Ordinary, Jamestown, Yorktown,
Chickahominy Church (Norwell’s Mill), the mouth of Archer’s Hope Creek,
and Burwell’s Ferry. Many local Civil War field camps are indicated on maps
of the era.
(3) Permanent camps. These were normally built to last through a winter, as the
famous ones at Valley Forge and Morristown. Barracks, identical in style, were
made from logs into cabins sleeping six enlisted men. These barracks would be
placed in at least two rows with major roads between them. Officers’ quarters
were less crowded and more individually styled with at least two doors, chimneys,
and windows.
Other structures and activity areas would be found in or around the permanent
camp. Kitchens usually were erected and had baking ovens. An artillery
park stored the field pieces, limbers, ammunition, and repair facilities. Separate
from the camp was the hospital. These structures could hold all wounded
under one roof or in a tripartite plan. Even farther away from the camp was the
slaughter house. “Sinks” or “necessaries” were primitive privies dug at the
edge of a cliff or gully. A parade ground and color line would be found near the
soldiers’ barracks. A color line was formed by stacking muskets around standing
flags beside the parade ground.
Jamestown was the most notable permanent camp in the 17th century, while
both Williamsburg and Yorktown were also occupied during the Revolutionary
War. Permanent Civil War camps were established near Fort Magruder, in
Yorktown, and all along the Confederate defensive line.
(4) Sieges. Sieges are combinations of a battlefield and a permanent camp. Elements
of both are present in addition to sometimes elaborate fortifications.
Eighteenth-century fortifications included earthworks, which took several forms.
Gabions, earth-filled brush cylinders, and fascines, tied bunches of sticks, were
used with lumber to reinforce a trench to make a breastwork. The elaborate
earthworks, complete with their zig-zagging communication trenches, were
made by the methods prescribed by a manual of 18th-century siegecraft, written
by Sebastian le Prestre de Vabaun (Barka 1976).
A 17th-century siege could be found at Jamestown, while Yorktown was
the most notable 18th-century example. Yorktown is also a major siege area
during the Civil War.
(5) Shipyards. These are the grounds on which warships were built and maintained.
Chickahominy Shipyard was the most notable during the Revolutionary
War, while no shipyard appears to have been present in the area during the
Civil War.
350

(6) Moorings and wharves. These are the places where warships or other naval
craft were moored and supplied. They would yield piling foundations, associated
structures, and trash thrown overboard ships (Sands 1985). Jamestown
had a wharf during the 17th century, while during the Revolutionary War these
properties were located in the study area: Yorktown, Burwell’s Ferry, Trebell’s
Landing, College Landing, and Jamestown. During the Civil War, there were
moorings or wharves at Yorktown, Capitol Landing, Jamestown, and Burwell’s
Landing.
(7) Shipwrecks. These may include both pieces of the hull and its contents. The
most famous local wrecks are the Yorktown Shipwrecks, a National Register
property composed of several merchant vessels scuttled by Lord Cornwallis
during the Battle of Yorktown. There may be 17th-century shipwrecks south of
Newport News in the James River, and Revolutionary War wrecks may be
located, in addition to those at Yorktown, near the Chickahominy Shipyard.
(8) Military burials. These are scattered around places of military activity and
are found in several forms: mass graves or single graves, ordered or random,
marked or unmarked. Known war-related burials include 17th-century sites at
Jamestown and Wolstenholme Towne; Revolutionary War sites near the
Williamsburg Governor’s Palace, Yorktown, and possibly Green Spring; and
Civil War sites at Bruton Parish Church, the Williamsburg Presbyterian Church,
and Cedar Grove Cemetery. Other Civil War graves are located in front of the
Williamsburg Courthouse and around Croaker.
(9) Twentieth-century bases. These bases may take on the appearance and function
of 20th-century industrial plants and company towns. There are many exceptions,
however, and many military-related structures are mass-produced and
temporary, such as “Quonset huts.”
(10) Military-oriented manufacturing sites. These are sites where armaments or
other supplies needed by the military are produced. These sites tend to flourish
during wartime and decline during peace. No general characteristics would
distinguish these from other industrial sites, save an emphasis on security and
the military-related objects that were manufactured. Revolutionary
War-associated sites can be found at the Williamsburg Manufactory near the
Bruton Parish Poorhouse, the Chickahominy Shipyard, James Anderson Forges,
the Anthony Hay Cabinetmaker’s Shop, and in Yorktown.
Character of the Existing Data
Throughout the history of historic preservation in America battlefields and forts have
received disproportionate attention when one considers the entire universe of military
sites. To obtain the best archaeological information about the military way of life, one
should examine the places soldiers occupied for the longest period of time. Battlefields
and field camps represent such a brief period of occupation that little can be expected to
be found on these sites. An excavation of a battlefield would yield little, perhaps a
scatter of shot and gear from which positions might be identified and tactical situation
inferred. Field camps promise little more than an artifact scatter, improvised facilities
351

and maybe generalized features, but, since so little is known about them, they need to be
studied. At a permanent camp site, however, one has a greater chance of uncovering the
remains of shelters, privies, and artifacts associated with military life. A siege has perhaps
more information potential than most other property types, and therefore is very
important. Shipwrecks contain excellent context for the information they yield and rank
next to permanent camps in information potential, and several studies of shipwrecks in
the project area have been completed or are currently underway. Military-oriented manufacturing
sites probably have little to distinguish them from other industrial sites than
the nature of their product, but so little has been done with them in this area that one
cannot easily judge them.
As yet, no excavations of permanent military camps other than Barka’s investigations
at Yorktown have been conducted. No original military-related standing structures
or buildings, other than public and domestic buildings, survive in this study area with
the exception of those constructed in the 20th century. Graves, hospitals, and privies are
undoubtedly located at the site of every military engagement mentioned above, but
none have been adequately studied. No systematic survey of military graves and cemeteries
has been completed for the study area, and no survey of military-related domestic
sites has been conducted to date.
Criteria for Evaluation
Military-related resources can be significant under any one of the four National Register
criteria. The integrity of 18th- and 19th-century sites and structures is often fairly
high, since many lie outside the developed urban areas on farmland or in protected
parks. However, later military resources, dating from after the Civil War, have often
been extensively altered as parts of active military bases, and so may not contain the
same degree of integrity.
Although military property types are similar throughout the area’s history, it is
important that a sample of each type for each temporal sub-theme be preserved or recorded
thoroughly. The variations among property types through the centuries, for example,
may be very significant, but in most cases, not enough data exists to study these
variations. In most cases, therefore, one criteria for evaluating significance is the need
for more information on a specific property type. In addition, the following criteria
should also be considered: (1) the amount of information already gathered from a cultural
resource of a similar period and type; (2) the uniqueness or the availability of
resources of similar types throughout the country; (3) whether the resource exemplifies
a broad national, regional, or local trend; or (4) public support. Public values are often
particularly important, since military sites, especially those dating to the Civil War,
have attracted so many local interest groups.
Present Condition of Property Types
Fortunately, many of the high priority sites of this study unit are currently preserved by
the Colonial National Historical Park and by the Newport News Municipal Park. These
parks continue to maintain a policy of discouraging looting activities and monitoring
any new construction. At the opposite extreme are the remains of the battlefields around
352

Green Spring and Williamsburg, which are threatened by development. These two areas
may also contain other site types such as field camps. Since data concerning
military-related properties is so poor, it is difficult to provide an accurate assessment of
their condition.
Operating Plan—Goals and Priorities
Identification Goals
• Phase I archaeological testing in the vicinity of Green Spring before any new development
takes place.
Evaluation Goals
• Excavation of at least one 19th-century field camp to determine its characteristics.
• Institution of an oral history program on 20th-century military bases, such as that
currently undertaken by Carl Cannon at Fort Eustis.
• Architectural survey of early mass-produced buildings and roads on 20th-century
military bases.
Registration Goals
• Nomination to the National Register of any property discovered which falls into
the following highly-significant property types:
• Seventeenth-century battlefields.
• Seventeenth- or eighteenth-century field camps.
• Seventeenth- or eighteenth-century permanent camps.
• Sieges.
• Seventeenth-, eighteenth-, or nineteenth-century moorings and wharves.
• Seventeenth- or nineteenth-century shipwrecks.
• Seventeenth-century military-related manufactories.
Treatment Goals
• Preservation in place of the site of the Battle of Williamsburg as “green space” or
a public park.
• Preservation in place of Revolutionary War burial grounds at Williamsburg’s
Governor’s Palace and Yorktown. The Sons of the American Revolution are currently
locating other grave sites of this period, which should be preserved as well.
• Preservation in place of Civil War grave sites at Bruton Parish Churchyard and
Cedar Grove Cemetery, as well as those around other old churches and large buildings
used as hospitals during the War. The Sons of the Confederacy are actively
interested in preserving such sites.
• Preservation of the remaining Yorktown Shipwrecks as an underwater archaeological
resource.
353

• Preservation in place of at least one example of each of the highly-significant properties
described above.
354

BIBLIOGRAPHY: STUDY UNITS XXI-XXIII
Alexander, Arthur
1946 Desertion and Its Punishment in Revolutionary Virginia. William and
Mary Quarterly 3(3rd series): 383-397.
1947 A Footnote on Deserters from the Virginia Forces During the American
Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 55: 137-146.
Alexandrowicz, J. Stephen
1985 Monitoring Activities: Monthly Report on Archaeological Activities.
Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Anonymous
1959 A History of Trinity Methodist Church 1884-1959. Manuscript on file,
Poquoson Public Library, Poquoson, Virginia.
1978 A History of Providence United Methodist Church 1849-1978. Prestige
Press, Hampton, Virginia.
1980 Cheatam Annex: A Military Storage Center. Daily Press, September
14: 12.
1984a
1984b
Pages from the Past. Grafton Christian Church 150th Anniversary.
Manuscript on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.
The Williamsburg 1944 and Before Reunion. Manuscript on file, Office of
Archaeological Excavation, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
1985 Military Bases in the Peninsula. Williamsburg Magazine (March): 1-2.
n.d.a
n.d.b
n.d.c
Historical Sketch. First Church of Christ, 6120 Jamestown Road,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Manuscript on file, Church of Christ Scientist,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
A 25 Year History of the Yorktown Baptist Church. Manuscript on file,
York County Library, York County, Virginia.
A Centennial History of the Emmaus Baptist Church, Poquoson,
1878-1978. Manuscript on file, Poquoson Public Library, Poquoson,
Virginia.
Barka, Norman F.
1976 Archaeology of the Yorktown Battlefield: Yorktown, Virginia. Southside
Historical Sites, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
Barnes, Arthur G.
1976 Restoration and Reconstruction of the Yorktown Battlefield, Yorktown,
Virginia. Southside Historical Sites, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
355

Bullock, Thomas K.
1961 Schools and Schooling in Eighteenth Century Virginia. Ed.D. dissertation,
Duke University.
Buck, J.L.
1952 The Development of Public Schools in Virginia. Virginia State Board of
Education 35(1). Virginia State Library, Richmond.
Byrd, Rawls
1968 History of Public Schools in Williamsburg. Dietz Press, Richmond.
Carson, Jane
1961 We Were There: Descriptions of Williamsburg, 1699-1859. Manuscript on
file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
1976 Bacon’s Rebellion: 1676-1976. The Jamestown Foundation, Jamestown,
Virginia.
Cassell, Frank A.
1972 Slaves of the Chesapeake Bay Area and the War of 1812. Journal of Negro
History 57: 144-155.
Caywood, Louis R.
1955 Green Spring Plantation Archaeological Project. Colonial National
Historical Park, Yorktown, Virginia.
Chambers, Lenoir
1965 Notes on Life in Occupied Norfolk, 1862-1865. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 73: 131-144.
Clingan, Susan
1961 The History of the Naval Weapons Station. Naval Weapons Station Library,
Yorktown, Virginia.
Cocke, Charles F.
1964 Parish Lines Diocese of Southern Virginia. Virginia State Library Publication
14. Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
College of William and Mary
1859 A Catalogue of the College of William and Mary in Virginia: From Its
Foundation to the Present Time. College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
1983 A Chronology of the College of William and Mary. College of William and
Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Cornwallis, Charles
1866 Cornwallis, 1st Marquis, 1738-1805, Answer to Sir Henry Clinton’s
Narrative of the Campaign in North America by Earl Cornwallis. Philadelphia.
356

Cross, F. W.
1939 William and Mary College as a Hospital in 1862. William and Mary
Quarterly 19(2nd series): 181-186.
Daniel, W. Harrison
1974 The Effects of the Civil War on Southern Protestantism. Maryland Historical
Magazine 69: 44-63.
Davis, William
1982 The Guns of ‘62, 1861-1865: The Image of War. Doubleday, Garden City,
New Jersey.
Ethridge, Harrison M.
1977 Governor Patrick Henry and the Reorganization of the Virginia Militia,
1784-1786. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 85: 427-439.
Ewald, John
1979 Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal. Reprint. Yale University
Press, New Haven.
Foss, Robert
1977 Report on the 1975 Archaeological Excavations at the James Anderson
House. Manuscript on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Frey, Sylvia R.
1983 Between Slavery and Freedom: Virginia Blacks in the American Revolution.
Journal of Southern History 49: 375-378.
Gaines, Edwin M.
1956 The ‘Chesapeake Affair’: Virginians Mobilize to Defend National Honor.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 64: 131-142.
Gaines, William H., Jr.
1948 The Forgotten Army: Recruiting for a National Emergency (1799-1800).
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 56: 267-279.
Gatewood, Willard B., Jr.
1972 Virginia’s Negro Regiment in the Spanish-American War: The Sixth
Virginia Volunteers. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 80:
193-209.
Gee, Wilson, and John J. Corson
1927 A Statistical Study of Virginia. Institute of Research in the Social Sciences,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Gray, Jean M.
n.d. Battle of Lee’s Mill (Dam No. 1). Manuscript on file, Swem Memorial
Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
357

Greenwalt, Bruce S.
1970 Virginians Face Reconstruction: Correspondence from the James Dorman
Davidson Papers, 1865-1880. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
76: 47-463.
Grim, Ronald
1977 The Absence of Towns in Seventeenth Century Virginia. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Maryland.
Gulick, Luther Halsey
1932 Modern Government in a Colonial City: A Survey of the City Government
and Finances of Williamsburg, Virginia. J. Cape and H. Smith, New York.
Harrell, Isaac S.
1952 Some Neglected Phases of the Revolution in Virginia. William and Mary
Quarterly 5(2nd series): 159-170.
Hatch, Charles E., Jr.
1940 Gloucester Point in the Siege of Yorktown, 1781. William and Mary
Quarterly 20(2nd series): 265-284.
1942 Jamestown and the Revolution. William and Mary Quarterly 22(2nd
series): 30-38.
1945 The ‘Affair Near Jamestown Island’ (or ‘The Battle of Greenspring’).
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 53: 172-196.
1970 Grace Church. General Study. Manuscript on file, York County Public
Library, York County, Virginia.
Heath, Kingston
1982 A Dying Heritage: One-Room Schools of Gallatin County, Montana. In
Perspectives in Vernacular Archaeology, edited by Camille Wells. Vernacular
Architecture Forum, Annapolis.
Hening, William W. (compiler)
1809- The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia
1823 from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619. 13 vols.
Franklin Press, Richmond, Virginia.
Herndon, G. Melvin
1961 The Confederate States Naval Academy. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 69: 30-323.
1966 A War-Inspired Industry: The Manufacture of Hemp in Virginia During
the Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 74: 301-311.
Hiden, Mrs. Philip Wallace
1927 Losses of York County Citizens in the British Invasion, 1781. William and
Mary Quarterly 7(2nd series): 132-135.
358

Hoffer, Frank William
1929 Counties in Transition: A Study of County Public and Private Welfare
Administration in Virginia. Institute of Research in the Social Sciences,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Holmes, Reverend Richard
1974 Shiloh Baptist Church, 111th Anniversary 1868-1974, Yorktown, Virginia.
Manuscript on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.
Hopkins, Garland Evans
1942 York County Source Book. York County Historical Series #4.
Manuscript on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.
Ironmonger, Elizabeth H.
1959 Methodism in York County, Virginia. The Cavalier Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
1967 A History of the Zion Methodist Church of Seaford. York County, Virginia.
Manuscript on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.
Isaac, Rhys
1973 Religion and Authority: Problems of the Anglican Establishment in Virginia
in the Era of the Great Awakening of the Parson’s Cause. William
and Mary Quarterly 30: 3-36.
1974 Evangelical Revolt: The Nature of the Baptists’ Challenge to the Traditional
Order in Virginia, 1765-1775. William and Mary Quarterly 31:
343-368.
1982 The Transformation of Virginia, 1740-1790. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Jackson, Luther P.
1942 Virginia Negro Soldiers and Seamen in the American Revolution. Journal
of Negro History 27: 247-287.
James City County
1984 James City County 350th Anniversary: Supplement to the Virginia Gazette,
August 24, 1984.
Jensen, Merrill
1969 Trading with the Union: The Evolution of Confederate Policy. Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography 63: 410-426.
Johnston, Angus J., Jr.
1957 Virginia Railroads in April 1861. Journal of Southern History 13:
307-330.
Johnston, James Ambler
1952 The War Did Not End at Yorktown. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 60: 444-457.
359

Jones, T. Catesby
1941 The Iron-Clad Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 49:
297-303.
Kandle, Patricia L.
1984 Comparative Research on the First and Second York Parish Churches for
the Purpose of Reconstruction. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Kay, William Kenna
1968 Drewry’s Bluff or Fort Darling. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
77: 191-200.
Kelso, William M.
1973 Kingsmill Interim Report 1973 Field Season. Manuscript on file at the
Virginia Research Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
Kennedy, John P. (editor)
1915 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia. 4 volumes. Virginia State
Library, Richmond, Virginia.
Kettenburg, Carol A.
1980 The Battle for Williamsburg. M.A. thesis, Department of History, College
of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Kidd, George Eldridge
1957 Early Freemasonry in Williamsburg, Virginia. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Kirby-Smith, Edmund
1888 The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, 1861-1865.
Washington, DC.
Lafayette, Marquis de
1837 The Memoirs, Correspondence, and Manuscripts of Marquis de Lafayette.
Volume 3. London.
Lane, John
1895 Masonic Records 1717-1894; Being Lists of all the Lodges at Home or
Abroad. Freemason’s Hall, London.
Lewis, Roland L.
1979 ‘The Darkest Abode of Man’: Black Miners in the First Southern Coal
Field, 1780-1865. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87:
190-202.
Lightfoot, Mrs. William B.
1933 The Evacuation of Richmond. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
41: 215-222.
360

MacMaster, Richard K.
1971 News of the Yorktown Campaign: The Journal of Dr. Robert Honyman,
April 17-November 25, 1781. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
74: 387-426.
McCartney, Martha
1974 The Hickory Neck Church. Report on file, Virginia Research Center for
Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
1978 The Chickahominy Shipyard, James City County, Virginia. Excerpted
from the National Register nomination form on file at the Virginia Research
Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
1983 National Register of Historic Places Inventory, Nomination Form for
Bruton Parish Poorhouse. Manuscript on file, Virginia Division of Historic
Landmarks, Richmond.
1985a
The Suppression and Containment of Indians in Tidewater Virginia.
Journal of the Middle Atlantic Region VI. In press.
1985b Correspondence.
McCartney, Martha, and Margaret Weston
1973 The Friends of Skimino Meeting. Report on file, Virginia Research Center
for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
McCleary, Ann
1985 Augusta County Schools Selected for State’s First Thematic Nomination.
Notes on Virginia 26(Spring): 28-33.
McIlwaine, H. R. (editor)
1919a Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia. 9 volumes. Virginia State
Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1919b
Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 3 volumes.
Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1924 Minutes of the Council of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632 and 1670-1679.
Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1925 Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia. 6 volumes. Virginia
State Library, Richmond, Virginia.
1932 Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia. 2 volumes. Virginia State
Library, Richmond, Virginia.
Mason, George
1939a The Colonial Churches in James City County, Virginia. William and Mary
Quarterly 19(2nd series): 510-530.
1939b
The Colonial Churches of York County, Virginia. William and Mary
Quarterly 19(2nd series): 159-180.
361

Middleton, Arthur Pierce
1981 Ships and Shipbuilding in the Chesapeake Tributaries. In Chesapeake Bay
and the American Revolution, edited by Ernest M. Eller. Tidewater Publishers,
Centerville, Maryland.
Mooman, W. Hugh
1958 The British Leave Colonial Virginia. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 66: 147-160.
Morgan, Gwenda
1973 Virginia and the French and Indian War: A Case Study of the War’s Effect
on Imperial Relations. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 81:
23-48.
Morris, Eli Jr.
1983 Footprints: A History of York County Public Schools. Manuscript, York
County Public Library, York County, Virginia.
Naisawald, Louis Van L.
1952 Robert Howe’s Operations in Virginia, 1775-1776. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 60: 437-443.
Naval Weapons Station
1968 20th Anniversary, 1918-1968; The Naval Weapons Station Story. United
States Naval Weapon Station, Yorktown, Virginia.
Noël Hume, Ivor
1972 Excavations at the President’s House: College of William and Mary. Block
16, Area B. Manuscript on file, Office of Archaeological Excavation,
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1982 Martin’s Hundred. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Outlaw, Alain C.
1974 Excavations at Burkes Corner. Manuscript on file, Virginia Research
Center for Archaeology, Yorktown, Virginia.
1980 The 1975 Survey of the Governor’s Land Archaeology District. Manuscript
on file at Division of Historic Landmarks, Richmond, Virginia.
Palmer, William P. (editor)
1968 Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, 1652-1781,
Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond. 11 volumes. Kraus Reprint, New
York.
Preisser, Thomas M.
1975 The Virginia Decision to Use Negro Soldiers in the Civil War, 1864-1865.
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 83: 98-113.
362

Ramsdel, Charles W.
1930 Materials for Research in the Agricultural History of the Confederacy.
Agricultural History 4: 18-22.
Rankin, Hugh F.
1979 The War of the Revolution in Virginia. Virginia Independence Bicentennial
Commission, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Rease, George H. (editor)
1967 Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia. 2 volumes. Virginia State
Library, Richmond, Virginia.
Reynolds, Donald E.
1965 Ammunition Supply in Revolutionary Virginia. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 73: 56-77.
Riley, Edward M.
1948 St. George Tucker’s Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, 1781. William and
Mary Quarterly 5(3rd series): 375-395.
1949a
1949b
1949c
Yorktown During the Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 57: 22-43.
Yorktown During the Revolution, continued. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 57: 176-188.
Yorktown During the Revolution, continued. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 57: 274-285.
Robertson, James I., Jr.
1969 English View of the Civil War: A Unique Excursion to Virginia, April 2-8,
1865. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 77: 201-212.
Rochambeau, Jean Baptiste
1838 Memoirs of the Marshall Count Rochambeau, translated by
M.W.E. Wright. Reprint, 1971.
Rochefoucauld, Duke de la
1799 Travels through the United States of North America...in the Years 1795,
1796, and 1797. Volume II. London.
Rouse, Parke, Jr.
1946 Newport News in the Nation’s Wars. In Newport News 325 Years, edited
by Alexander Crosby Brown. Newport News Golden Anniversary Corporation.
On file at Swem Memorial Library, College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
1968 The British Invasion of Hampton in 1813: The Reminiscences of James
Jarvis. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 76: 318-336.
363

Rouse, Parke, Jr.
1973 Cows on the Campus: Williamsburg in Bygone Days. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Rowe, Linda
1983 Memo Concerning the Black Baptist Church of Williamsburg. Memorandum
on file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg, Virginia.
Rowland, Dan
1978 Norge Shelters Norwegians. In Peninsula Roots. Collections from the
Newport News Times Herald. Newport News, Virginia.
Ruffin, Edward
1841 The Farmer’s Register. Volume VIII.
Ryckman, W. G.
1967 Clash of Cavalry at Trevilians. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography
75: 443-458.
Sands, John O.
1983 Yorktown’s Captive Fleet. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
1985 Correspondence.
Sasser, Hattie J.
1985 Letter to the Editor. The Virginia Gazette, August 21, 1985.
Saunders, Robert L.
1977 The History of the Grafton Baptist Church, Grafton; Mark Enterprises.
Manuscript on file, York County Library, York County, Virginia.
Semple, Robert
1894 A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Virginia. Pitt and
Dickenson, Richmond.
Shea, William L.
1983 The Virginia Militia in the Seventeenth Century. Louisiana State University
Press, Baton Rouge.
Shiner, Joel L.
1955 Archaeological Explorations in the Confederate Fort Area, APVA Grounds
(Jamestown National Historic Site). Park Research Project No. 100.
Colonial National Historic Park, Yorktown, Virginia.
Shotwell, R. A.
1933 Williamsburg and William and Mary College After the Battle of
Williamsburg, May 5, l862, As Seen by a Confederate Soldier (R.A.
Shotwell). William and Mary Quarterly 13(2nd series): 26-27.
364

Smith, Elizabeth Page
n.d. The History of Bethel Baptist Church, 228 Yorktown Road, Tabb, Virginia.
Manuscript on file, Poquoson Public Library, Poquoson, Virginia.
Smith, James M.
1978 Archaeology of the Tour Area: Yorktown, Virginia. Southside Historical
Sites, Inc., Williamsburg, Virginia.
Sosin, Jack M.
1965 The British Indian Department and Dunmore’s War. Virginia Magazine of
History and Biography 74: 34-50.
Stephenson, Mary
1959 Report on Block M. Manuscript on file, Research Department, Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
1963 Notes on the Negro School in Williamsburg: 1760-1774. Manuscript on
file, Research Department, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation,
Williamsburg Virginia.
Story, Thomas
1747 The Journal of Thomas Story, 1698-1705. Isaac Thomas,
Newcastle-on-Tyne, England.
Sweet, William
1955 Virginia Methodism: A History. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond.
Tate, Thad W.
1962 The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain’s Challenge to
Virginia’s Ruling Class, 1763-1776. William and Mary Quarterly 19(3rd
series): 323-343.
Townes, A. Jane
1977 The Effect of Emancipation of Large Landholdings, Nelson and
Goochland Counties, Virginia. Journal of Southern History 45: 403-412.
Trexler, Harison A.
1950 The Davis Administration and the Richmond Press, 1861-1865. Journal of
Southern History 16: 177-195.
Turner, Charles W.
1946 The Virginia Central Railroad at War, 1861-1865. Journal of Southern
History 12: 510-533.
Tyler, Lyon G.
1907 Williamsburg, the Old Colonial Capital. Whittet and Shepperson, Richmond.
Upton, Dell
1979 Toward a Performance Theory of Vernacular Architecture. Folklore Forum
12(2): 173-196.
365

Van Schreeven, William J. (compiler)
1973 Revolutionary Virginia, the Road to Independence. Virginia Independence
Bicentennial Commission. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Vandiver, F. E.
1943 Notes on an Engagement at Green Springs. William and Mary Quarterly
23(2nd series): 160-161.
Vauban, Sebastien Leprestie de
1968 A Manual of Siegecraft and Fortification (1740). University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor.
Virginia Academy of Science
1950 The James River Basin: Past, Present, and Future. Dietz Press, Richmond.
Virginia Gazette
c.1898 A Directory and Handbook of the City of Williamsburg and the County of
James City, Virginia. The Virginia Gazette, Williamsburg.
Virginia, State Board of Public Welfare
1926 Back from “Over the Hill”: The Disappearance of the County Almshouse
in Virginia. Richmond.
Wallace, Lee A.
1969 The First Regiment of Virginia Volunteers, 1846-1848. Virginia Magazine
of History and Biography 77: 46-77.
1974 The Petersburg Volunteers, 1812-1813. Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 84: 458-485.
Washburn, Wilcomb E.
1957 The Governor and the Rebel A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Watkins, Thomas Vincent
1967 The History of Tabernacle Methodist Church, Poquoson, Virginia.
Manuscript on file, Poquoson Public Library, Poquoson, Virginia.
Wehtje, Myron F.
1970 Opposition in Virginia to the War of 1812. Virginia Magazine of History
and Biography 78: 65-86.
West, George B.
1977 When the Yankees Came. Edited by Parke Rouse Jr. Dietz Press, Richmond,
Virginia.
Wilbur, Keith C.
1969 The Picture Book of the Continental Soldier. The Stackpole Press, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
366

Williamsburg-James City County School Board
1984 Pride in the Past. Special Newsletter on the Hundredth Anniversary of
Public Schools. On file, Williamsburg-James City County School Board.
Williamsburg Lions Club
1984 The First Fifty Years, 1934-1984: A Report to the Community.
Manuscript on file, Williamsburg Regional Library, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Zwelling, Shomer
1985 Quest for a Cure: The Public Hospital in Williamsburg, Virginia. Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
367

368